Talk:Martin McGuinness/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Birthname

Christened James Martin McGuinness per BBC.

216.194.4.227 18:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Banned users can't edit Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Noticed this!

All your points are incorrect with the exception of the Northern Ireland point. Also - you are displaying unprovioked outragous breaches of of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - please strike through those comments.--Vintagekits 01:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Provisional IRA activity and claims of Provisional IRA activity

Documented activity and claims of activity should not be lumped together in one section; the first is biography, the second speculation. I am bringing all the claims - at the Inquiry, on the TV and in the Dáil - down into a separate section. Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Bloody Sunday stuff be in that section? After all, it seems odd to have that McGuinness himself confirm he was second-in-command at the time of Bloody Sunday, then not deal with it in detail in that section? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe re-phrase the first paragraph to say simply: "He was second-in-command of the Provisional IRA in Derry in 1972, at the time of Bloody Sunday at the age of 21." That is the relevant fact. The fact that he confirmed it to the Saville Inquiry can be found in the reference. The allegations about nail-bombs etc., if they're only claims, shouldn't be in this section Scolaire (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Right Honourable

Just wondering if anyone has a reference for Martin joining the Privy Council? Or is there some other reason why he is styled The Right Honourable in the infobox? Fmph (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

McGuinness is given the title as deputy first minister.--Theosony (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a reference for that? Fmph (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Google only returns a single return for the phrase (on a quite inflammatory blog), and the straight word google results are topped by the wiki article. The honorific is reserved for members of the Privy Council, which Martin is not. Without a reference, it must be removed as per WP:BLP. I'll do it tomorrow, unless a reference is provided. Fmph (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with British intelligence

Should the article refer to McGuinness's relationship with MI5/6? It was after all crucial to the role he played in shutting down the IRA and getting Sinn Fein to work within a constitutional framework.Irvine22 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you stop with this trolling nonsense and have a read of WP:BLP. BigDunc 17:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Irvine, aren't you supposed to be barred for sockpuppetry? GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If theres sources it should be added.BritishWatcher (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That was some time ago, hes been complained about at the admins noticeboard on another matter since then and they didnt block him. Hes only using that account now. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My 'eyebrows' are perked. I'm not very forgiving of 'past' sockers. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Just as well then that your forgiveness is neither sought nor required, GoodDay. Now, I tend to agree with BritishWatcher that sourced information about McGuinness's relationship with British intelligence should be in the article. In terms of BigDunc's concern about how it can be incorporated consistent with WP:BLP perhaps we can refer to the Freddie Scappaticci article for some pointers? Irvine22 (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't trust you. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We should all place our trust in sources rather than editors, don't you think? Irvine22 (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Socking is blasphemy. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Notions of "blasphemy" are contrary to the spirit of free inquiry.Irvine22 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So, adapting language from the Scappaticci article that would mean a new section entitled "Alleged relationship with British intelligence" and the sentence "McGuinness was accused in the Irish & British media, in May 2006, as being a high-level double agent in the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), known by the codename The Fisherman." Irvine22 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no way that nonsense is being added in its current format, if at all. Those are very serious allegations, and unsuitable per WP:BLP. O Fenian (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If theres a couple of sources describing him as the Fisherman, it should be added to the article as its useful information. I thought the wording used was neutral and fine, just it does need a couple more reliable sources to back up such a claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Useful" is not a reason to include serious accusations about a high profile living person. O Fenian (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The wording is adapted from the Freddie Scappaticci article, which is an obvious pattern for want we want to do here, as Scappaticci is also alleged to have been a double agent within the IRA. Note that the Wikipedia article on him leads with those very allegations, and no one has mentionedWP:BLP as a problem over there.Irvine22 (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It was mentioned here before you added the information without consensus. Do not add controversial information about living people to articles without consensus, and do not make false claims of consensus when adding it. O Fenian (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I left plenty of time for others to comment before I made the edit.Irvine22 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc did, and you ignored him. O Fenian (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It was probably his inflammatory language. Irvine22 (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If the accusations are reliably sourced (need more than just 1 source), then i think its useful to include. I agree its a serious accusation, but if sources suggest it we can not decide just to ignore such a claim. Even if the Fisherman isnt a spy, if the claim has been made it should be mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A "serious accusation"? I dunno. If McGuinness did collaborate with MI5 to shut down the IRA, that reflects a lot of credit on him, surely? Irvine22 (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Where in any policy does it say "if BritishWatcher finds it useful" is a criteria for content inclusion? O Fenian (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are sources claiming he is the Fisherman, i fail to see why it should not be added to the article. The key here is that its sourced and the wording is neutral. The previous wording which u have removed seemed very neutral to me, my only concern is it needs more than 1 source as its a big claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's restore the neutral wording, with additional sources. Irvine22 (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If that was neutral, then I am a banana. And there is only one source, Martin Ingram himself. O Fenian (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How's that different from Freddie Scappaticci?Irvine22 (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We are dealing with this article right now. O Fenian (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, but that doesn't mean we can't look to see how an almost exactly equivalent situation has been handled elsewhere on Wikipedia. Irvine22 (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you had read the sources, you would realise that the situations are not "almost exactly equivalent". Ingram has first hand knowledge of the identity of Stakeknife (Ingram, pages 62 to 63) but his information relating to McGuinness is not first hand. Ingram obtained the document (which does not name McGuinness) from a dead drop with the help of Kevin Fulton, and the authenticity of the document itself has been called into question and not by McGuinness see The Sunday Times. O Fenian (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

But as you know allegations about McGuinness's involvement with the British security services predate the 2006 revelations by several years. Irvine22 (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"McGuinness was accused in the Irish and British media, in May 2006, as being a high-level double agent in the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), known by the codename The Fisherman" How is that not neutral? it needs expanding, but it clearly presents it just as an accusation. I agree with the need for more sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It is unattributed, and where is any rebuttal? And have you actually read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP? O Fenian (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If it had said "revealed" or "exposed" as the fisherman i could understand ur concern, but it simply mentions an accusation by the media. Ive said before it needs more reliable sources, that is the only problem i see on this issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So not only have you not read those policies seemingly, you did not even read the source in the article. Your continued participation is likely to be a waste of time unless you do. O Fenian (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

And we can always say McGuinness denied the allegations, as he did. I mean, he would, wouldn't he? Irvine22 (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:BLP before commenting further. O Fenian (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Some more sources on this and the response by "The Fisherman" might help address O Fenians concerns. Main thing for me is the need for a couple more sources for the main claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they will not. So not only have you not read the policies, or the source, you are now not reading what I say here. There is only one source - Martin Ingram. Others are repeating his allegations, and attributing those allegations directly to him. If you had read WP:BLP you might realise what the problem with that is, especially for a controversial allegation. O Fenian (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, BW. Irvine22 (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well we can always just say the person who made the claim about the Fisherman, rather than the media. Like i said before aslong as theres sources i see no problem with it being added. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That is because you still have not read WP:BLP.. O Fenian (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the point is that Ingram's claims about McGuinness, like his previous claims about Scappaticci, were considered credible enough to be widely reported in the press. And, in any case, Ingram is not the only source on McGuinness's collaboration with the security services. Irvine22 (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Try reading WP:BLP, for the eighteenth time. The original claim naming McGuinness by Ingram was only made in a tabloid newspaper, and attributed to Ingram. O Fenian (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no. There are earlier reports and sources for McGuinness's role in working with MI5 and MI6 to shut down the IRA. Irvine22 (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Irvine, these are very serious allegations you are making against a living person. Big Dunc and O'Fenian are right, you should go read WP:BLP before continuing in this vein.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

1) I'm not making the allegations, I'm pointing out that they have been out there for years and have a good amount of credibility and currency. I'm asking whether the article should refer to them. 2) The allegations, if true, reflect positively on McGuinness.Irvine22 (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

They are not going into the article as I said read WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, and cut this nonsense. BigDunc 14:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Read them, don't see anything there that would preclude the information going into the article. Irvine22 (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Will you try and understand them then maybe you can get someone to help you if you are having trouble. BigDunc 16:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could help explain why these policies would preclude inclusion of the information, in your opinion? There's nothing self-evident about them, as applied to the proposed addition to the article. Irvine22 (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(wanders in late) Well if this STimes piece is all there is, it hardly can be justified to mention it here - look at the headline. It could be mentioned in Kevin Fulton, and it's already in Martin Ingram - where the STimes piece/conclusion should clearly be mentioned too. Possible BLP issues in Martin Ingram too. Rd232 ^talk 10:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Allegations of Spying" information

Why do people keep deleting this stuff? Whether it is true or not, it was still something which was controversial and therefore relevant to McGuinness' political career. If Republicans here are going to delete everything they don't like, then how is Wikipedia ever going to work? This information has sources (I mean the newspaper reports were real, I'm not commenting on the validity of the claims).

Just because something turned out not to be true, it doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it on Wikipedia. Why not just delete the pages about the flat earth for example? Jamezcd 18:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Pma jones (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

death threats

I have recently added the recent on-going death threats to Mr Mcguinness by the IRA with a comment link from the Spectator, it was removed as vandalism why I have no idea?Twobells (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You know full well why it has been removed as vandalism. Do not add offensive commentary to articles about living people. O Fenian (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see, so anything that you don't like while factual is to be removed? I don't think so.Twobells (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC) I have removed comments made in the public domain from the news wire as an editor constantly tries to vandalise my addition.Twobells (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Several points. 1 - Your anti-Martin commentary was never sourced by any source at all. 2 - The reports of death threats were not confirmed by the PSNI. The PSNI would report the death threats to the person concerned, and on this occasion the person concerned has gone public. That is roughly what the source says, not your twisted version. 3 - Why is it significant enough for its own section, titled "Death threats", when that is plural also? 4 - Is it significant enough to go in the article at all? O Fenian (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sourced at all eh? [1] also: [2] [3] [4]

Evening Herald (Dublin, Republic of Ireland) | April 28, 2009

McGuinness cancels his holidays over death

SINN Fein's Martin McGuinness has cancelled his summer holidays in the Republic -- weeks after receiving death threats from the Real IRA.

The Derry-based politician has now scrapped his annual holiday to the Glenties area of Co Donegal, where he usually spends a week fishing each summer.

According to security sources, the 58-year-old altered his plans after increasing his personal security in recent weeks.

This follows a warning issued to him in recent weeks by the PSNI of a threat to his life.

"How do you deal with receiving death threats?":

I never let it weigh me down. I have a job to do. Overwhelmingly, the people of Ireland support the peace process. There are unionists who have tried to bring it down; there are people associated with small, unrepresentative armed groups on the republican side who are also trying to destroy it. I'm going to do everything in my power to ensure that they don't succeed."

As for 'twisted' I reported the facts that McGuiness is now targeted by the IRA, reality. I think your bias is obvious for all to see by attempting to shut down the facts.Twobells (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC) We need to enter the facts of his death threats, they are in the public domain and McGuiness has stated they are real in the public domain.Twobells (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Try reading what I said, specifically "1 - Your anti-Martin commentary was never sourced by any source at all". The commentary in question was subsequently many people were reported to say "couldn't happen to a nicer guy". Since you were blocked for edit warring to include this vandalism and it is now a year later, why return to the horse carcass with your stick now? O Fenian (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me you are once again trying to deflect the issue, the death threats are real and in the public domain and need a section, do you deny the death threats? If not then they need adding to the articleTwobells (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I said your anti-Martin commentary was unsourced, you replied with "Not sourced at all eh?". So do you want to provide a source that includes the commentary you added, or do you want to admit that you vandalised an article about a living person to mock him? When you have either provided a source or admitted your wrongdoing, this discussion can proceed. O Fenian (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am asking that evidence in the public domain be entered into the article, it isn't about entering any personal comments but laying out the facts, please stop trying to deflect the issue.Twobells (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)]

As for 'commentary' that was taken from the Spectator piece when they reported the threats if I recall correctly, and that link was only used as it was the first media platform to break the news, you have to understand I am not attempting to add commentary to the facts, but JUST the facts as published in the public domain.Twobells (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Section: Death Threats: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells (talk • contribs) 13:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps something like:

'The PSNI warned Martin McGuinness in 2009 that a threat has been made to his life. The threat was issued by dissident republicans after Mr McGuinness's commented on the murder of two British soldiers and a police officer 'as traitors to Ireland.', that's unbiased and to the point I think?Twobells (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again. There is the edit where you added the alleged Spectator reference. As anyone with eyes can see, it does not even mention Martin McGuinness. Why cannot you just admit you vandalised this article to mock Martin? As for your addition, it is a minor news story of no real significance. O Fenian (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You are doing it yet again, trying to avoid publishing the fact's, how can wanting to add the barest facts concerning real death threats by the REAL IRA by vandalism? Plus you are trying to mock people's intelligence by suggesting that a major news item from the BBC is a 'minor news'. Anyway, I am applying for a third party oversight. Please do not remove until adjudication.Twobells (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add material of disputed relevance without consensus. O Fenian (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for inclusion, and this story is entirely too minor to justify inclusion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

With the increasing number of attacks in Northern Ireland it is quite clear that the threats are an element to destabilize the NI Peace Process [[5]] and yet you suggest that the 'story' (actually factual information) is too minor?Twobells (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Martin McGuinness and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

All information placed on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced. This is especially true for biographies of living people. As there is no consensus that there are sufficient reliable sources for this information, I recommend leaving this information out unless proper sources can be found and consensus for inclusion can be established here.—Brad 03:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I am even more confused now, are you suggesting that the BBC articles [[6]] as well as the Belfast Telegraph newspaper piece [[7]] are not reliably sourced? Mr McGuiness himself makes a public statement on the death threats to both the BBC and the Independent as well as is interviewed on prime time news discussing the threats to his life. If the person coming under these threats isn't a reliable source who is?Twobells (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Video of Mr McGuiness stating clearly on the record he was threatened with death. [[8]] Surely THAT is a 'reliable source'?

Twobells (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Questionable claims

I see there have been repeated attempts to add questionable material to this article by one editor. Allow me to outline my problems with this material:

The evidence is hearsay evidence, from anonymous officers in the intelligence services (allegedly) quoting an equally anonymous informer. Such sources are deprecated in articles about living people. Not only that, but the evidence contradicts the known facts, both pre- and post-Saville.

The first shot of the day has always been widely acknowledged to be a high velocity round fired at soldiers near William Street from the Rossville Flats, a shot which hit a drainpipe. This shot is detailed in the Widgery report and countless book sources. There is a dispute detailed in Those Are Real Bullets as to whether this shot came just before or just after the soldiers opened fire hitting Johnson and Donaghy, but that is largely irrelevant. A Thompson sub-machine gun does not fire a high velocity round, and the shot is generally seen as being fired by a member of the Official IRA who was soon disarmed as he was acting against orders. This shot (and the shooting of Johnson and Donaghy) happened approximately 10 minutes prior to the rest of the shooting.

So essentially what we have is a claim by an anonymous source (but not directly from him) that Martin McGuinness fired the first shot, despite him supposedly being in possession of a weapon that could not have fired the shot, and the shot being fired by a member of the Official IRA. Could there have been another shot? Quite possibly, but it has never been documented. So this shot that McGuinness supposedly admitted to firing is contradicted by all the known facts, this is clearly an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and hearsay evidence where both the person making the claim and the people repeating his claim are anonymous clearly do not cut the mustard. Saville says it would be "unwise (and, indeed, unfair) to place much weight" on [Infliction's] account, so why should we? O Fenian (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur. This article should not be used as the Saville Inquiry Part 2 where editors hunt down all the evidence the Saville inquiry chose to ignore. There are serious blp issues involved here, as all involved editors are certainly aware. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Saville found that 1) on a balance of probabilities McGuinness was armed on Bloody Sunday and 2) the undercover agent "Infliction" exists and is "generally reliable". These findings cannot be squared with McGuinness' version of events, and accordingly Saville resolved that contradiction by stating that "The so-called period of 'missing' minutes may, by itself, be explicable on the basis of Martin McGuinness's memory playing him tricks" and "it is possible that failures of recollection explain the apparent difficulty in Martin McGuinness's account." Given who is making this indulgence, it may close the case legally but Saville's finding that McGuinness' account is "significantly inaccurate" creates a political issue, as reflected by the fact writers for the Telegraph, Daily Mail, and even the Guardian have all called attention to it. The application of WP:BLP to politicians is, or ought to be, rather different than for private citizens.Bdell555 (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Saville also found that McGuinness did nothing to provoke the soldiers into opening fire on members of the public, and that the soldiers fired first. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Wikipedia:Verifiability (regarding questionable sources and exceptional claims) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living people apply equally to anyone. O Fenian (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not attempted to remove or proposed removing the article's calling attention to the fact that Saville is "sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire." At issue is rather the article also acknowledging that the inquiry found McGuinness' account of his movements on Bloody Sunday "significantly inaccurate", or some sort of similar indication that his version of events was contradicted by sources the inquiry found to be credible.Bdell555 (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

McGuinness' account was not contradicted by Infliction, because Infliction never gave evidence to the inquiry. Infliction's credibility being established is a totally separate issue. Two anonymous MI5/6(?) officers allege Infliction allege Martin McGuinness claims he fired the first shot on Bloody Sunday, when the initial claim is an extraordinary one which is contradicted by the evidence both pre- and post-Saville. Due to Infliction not giving evidence to the inquiry Saville said it would be "unwise (and, indeed, unfair) to place much weight" on his account, so why should we? Infliction does not even have an "account" as he never gave evidence either in person or in writing, all that happened was two security service officers claimed he said something, then various other people were brought forward (who had apparently never heard him say it) to try and establish his credibility. O Fenian (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Balance

In the interests of balance, I think moving the first section further down the article should be considered. McGuinness' IRA activity is a historical episode, even if it consumed most of his life. Most other articles on people, I think, start with a short biography.. where and when born, family and background information, schools attended etc. It seems a bit out-of-style to suddenly leap into the IRA aspect so quickly after the introduction. However, his leadership role in the IRA should be mentioned briefly in the intro.

In reorganising the article, I appreciate there might be a difficulty, as the article follows the general convention of having sections in chronological order - and it already is.

I would therefore suggest a short bio, information about his parents, the area he grew up in, education etc be simply inserted as the first section. The rest of the article could therefore remain intact, with the addition of the brief mention of his status as an IRA leader in the intro. --94.6.161.213 (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

An excellent idea, why don't you crack on and do it? I should hasten to add that if you are planning to do it I'd recommend doing it *before* Monday, since that's when I'll be filing a sockpuppetry report to deal with your latest attempts to use sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny, and I seem to recall mention of a community ban last time you were caught doing just that? Have a good weekend! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the time, energy or patience, to be honest. I'll leave it to you, or to others. I'll simply point out the imbalance in the article, as I see it and leave other to decide if and how the article should be changed.

As for your claims of sockpuppeting - I haven't got the time for that either. I have never been banned from Wikipedia, nor am I attempting to hide anything from scrutiny.

Your tone suggests triumphalism though, and a personal crusade against someone. Perhaps you'd be wise to examine your own motives, instead of (as it appears from this message) trying to prevent others from editing.

I'll not return your sarcastic have a good weekend remark, but I will point out to you that the wiki has guidelines regarding the assumption of good faith and the avoidance of abuse of fellow editors.

Perhaps some other editor would be more willing to address the issue I raised with regard to the actual article. We can but hope. --94.6.161.213 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

John Simpson

Assuming that him being followed was around 1972 when the source says he was in the North, for the sake of convenience. Exactly who knew McGuinness as the "butcher of Derry"? This claim has never been published in any book or news report to the best of my knowledge, yet it comes up now in 2010? Check Google News and Google Books for yourself, this is not a widely known nickname, or even a nickname known to anyone except John Simpson seemingly. The nickname does not even make sense, since the people likely to have called him that would have used L/Derry, a name which is similarly not anywhere except a blog written by a unionist. I am almost leaning to think that the nickname is actually a joke nickname he was given at the time, since he did actually work in a butchers shop. The other people known by a "Butcher of.." name seem to be (the ones I have checked) people who are widely known as that. Since Martin McGuinness has only been described as that by one person who only revealed it 35+ years later, I believe that this highly derogatory nickname should not be in an article about a living person. O Fenian (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's good to see you taking the issue you have to the talk page at last, O Fenian.

Your point about "the people who are likely to have called him that" makes no sense, unless you think that only unionists ever thought negatively of the subject - which appears to be your implication, considering you have suggested that only people who would say "L/Derry" (presumably "Londonderry") would think up, or use, a negative nickname for the subject. With respect, I suspect you need to learn a bit more about Irish history, society and politics, as you seem to view things entirely in black and white!

The nickname was indeed given to McGuinness - not merely as a "joke", but rather as irony.

Please check out the section I created below on the same issue and let me know if you agree or disagree with any of my points. --94.15.75.35 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I was on the talk page before you, as the time stamps show clearly. I have looked at your points below, and see little worth discussing. I assume when you say the the name was given as irony it was due to him working in a butchers shop as I pointed out then, since I can think of no other possible "ironic" reason for him being given that name? O Fenian (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, who actually pressed the "Save page" button first is neither here nor there: the fact is that you were invited to discuss the issues you had - and I'm glad you eventually decided to do so, even though it was after your decision to revert the article in communion with RepublicanJacobite.

I had thought the irony was obvious. Yes - he was called the butcher of Derry because he worked in a butchers when he was younger, and because he went on to become a member of the IRA. Ironic because the nickname is ambiguous with reference to his life.

If you can't see anything worth discussing about the issue you have, then why do you have an issue at all? Perhaps if you explained it in detail, others might be able to understand it - I can't speak for you, you know! I have tried my best to understand your perspective, but I can only speak with regard to assumptions made about what you have said (and, of course, your chosen user name here).

I have, to that end, discussed everything from what I have been able to observe: there is no issue for Wikipedia with regard to libel. So I await your rationale, otherwise I would have to assume your fears have been laid to rest, and go ahead and re-introduce the edit I made.

However, I get the feeling the issue has not been resolved from your standpoint, and I feel I therefore have to wait until you have some measure of satisfaction with regard to.. what ever it is your issue with the edit is. --94.15.75.35 (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Libel is but one consideration when it comes to writing articles about living people, there are many others. Since you admit the nickname you wish to add is not actually a serious nickname but an ironic one, that also happens to be gratuitously offensive, I see no reason for it to be added to the article since there is no actual reliable source saying it is ironic and it can easily be misconstrued. I would also suggest that, given you are well aware of the 1RR restriction in place on this article, that you fully accept the consequences of breaching that restriction. O Fenian (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of points you have made: firstly that there are "many other considerations" with regard to an article about a living person - please explain any that you believe are pertinent in this particular case.

Secondly, just because a label or nickname may have a humorous element, or simply be ironic (not always humorous, by the way), it doesn't dismiss it as a measure of public opinion. The nickname was deadly serious.

Thirdly, it may be "gratuitously offensive" (one would presumably have to ask Mr McGuinness to know for sure), but again that doesn't dismiss it as being relevant to how members of the public viewed this public figure.

Fourthly, I don't think it could be easily misconstrued in a sentence which contained the words, "As a result of his activities with the Provisional IRA..."

Finally, I fail to see what my acceptance or otherwise, of Wikipedia rules and governance has to do with our discussion. Nor are there any consequences, or any breach to consider. You brought it to my attention with the template you placed on this account's talk page, and the words clearly state "one revert per editor per article per day". As I informed you already in our conversation today I think, I have only made one revert. You then chose to revert my edit again - which I would question with regard to it being within the spirit of the governing law. However, I am not interest in looking to restrict your editing ability here - and I'm sure you're not looking to restrict mine. We have dialogue going here, and I think that's what matters, isn't it? --94.15.75.35 (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, you concede that the term is ironic, even humourous, yet is at the same time deadly serious, potentially gratuitously offensive, and can be misconstrued (how could it not, given all these contradictions), all the while failing to address the fact that it is not well-sourced or widely used, and yet you do not see a BLP violation? I find all of this rather baffling. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

<reply to RJ above> I would suggest definitely ironic. Any humour perceived is really pretty much subjective. I don't believe I conceded that it can be misconstrued - quite the opposite in fact. What contradictions are you talking about? It is well-sourced, by a well-known professional journalist. While it may not be easy to find on the Internet, I wouldn't say it was widely-used, but I wouldn't say the opposite of that either. The fact is that it is, and has been, used.

I don't see any BLP violation but, as I said, we should probably bring in a neutral expert. As yet, none have appeared.

Personally, I don't find your own attitude baffling, considering your obvious political stance. Nor am I suggesting I am completely objective in this matter, though that is my intention. But it's certainly on record that the subject of the article was referred to by that nickname. All that remains, I think, is to determine if the name should be included in the article, in the interests of completeness and balance and, if it should, in what manner.

I have provided one suggestion, as a compromise (given yours and O Fenian's objections). --94.15.75.35 (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. In the absence of a source that actually says it is supposed to be ironic (and even if one was provided, I do not see why a ironic nickname verifiably used by one person would belong in the article) it is only possible to simply state the nickname without any qualifier, and in my opinion that would be wholly unacceptable in an article about a living person. O Fenian (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again - the fact that it is an ironic nickname is only something that has been discussed on this page - it doesn't enter into the stark fact as presented when I made my edit to the article itself. It has no bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of the addition I had made. So perhaps we could drop the discussion of the origin of the nickname and simply concentrate on whether or not it should be included.

Opinions, by others, of living people are acceptable and often used to add balance to articles throughout Wikipedia. --94.15.75.35 (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

<reply to O F above> The source doesn't have to discuss what we have discussed in order to be eligible for inclusion. It is obvious what the source was referring to, and the full quote was something like, "He wasn't called the 'Butcher of Derry' for nothing". The implications of the label are obvious. That it was ironic, considering the subject's former employment as a butcher's boy is irrelevant: the article doesn't need to discuss that, or verify that it is, in fact, ironic. All the article needs to do is to objectively state the fact (assuming, of course, that the mere inclusion of the fact doesn't violate BLP).

So, we actually have some common ground here - a certain amount of agreement. --94.15.75.35 (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe myself and RepublicanJacobite have made ourselves clear. The little used derogatory nickname has no place in the article, particularly as it is about a living person. O Fenian (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Cork plane crash

Further information: Flight Avia Flight 7100

McGuinness has stated that he was due to be on the aircraft that crashed in Cork today. Now, Irish politics is not my area of expertise, and while I think the info should be added to the article, I'm not sure where it would fit in. Therefore I'm leaving it up to those who do edit regularly in this area as to whether or not to include the info. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the source? --BwB (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced it is particularly significant to this article. Others may disagree though obviously.. O Fenian (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Source is McGuinness himself, reported in the Daily Mail. Mjroots (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with OF - maybe not Wiki material. --BwB (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

'British Spy' Allegations Gain Ground

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8642649/Police-investigate-new-computer-hacking-claims-linked-to-News-International.htmlTwobells (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 presidential campaign

• Main article: Irish presidential election, 2011
• On 16 September 2011 McGuinness was announced as the Sinn Féin candidate in the 2011 Irish presidential election. Speaking to Newstalk while attending the National Ploughing Championships, he criticised what he called "West Brit" elements of the media who he said were out to undermine his attempt to win the election. He later backtracked and said it was an "off-the-cuff remark" but did not define for the electorate what he had meant by "West Brit". Appearing on The Late Late Show McGuinness suggested people in Northern Ireland enlisted in the IRA as, unlike people in Dublin, "they didn’t have an embassy to burn down".

Removed from article per WP:IMPERFECT pending a neural re-write. At present it's focussing only on negative aspects of his candicacy, which isn't supposed to be done in a BLP. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

General semi-protection for candidates in the upcoming presidential election

I've proposed that all articles on candidates on the upcoming presidential election be semi protected until the 28th of October. This is owing to all of these articles coming under increasing pressure from vandals and unregistered/newly-registered editors with obvious axes to grind.

I've opened a general discussion on this at at WikiProject Ireland. --RA (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Election campaign

Now that the election is over it seems apt that we should fill out the "presidential campaign" section of the article, which seems a bit sketchy at present. I made this addition -

"In the course of the campaign, McGuinness's past role in the IRA was raised as an issue of concern by journalists, while family members of IRA victims confronted him on the campaign trail"

- sourced to this article in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/23/martin-mcguinness-slumps-polls-presidency.

This was reverted, with a request to discuss, which I am happy to do. How should we cover these notable elements of McGuinness's campaign in the article? What else should be in there? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't his name be Séamus Pacelli Máirtín Mag Aonghusa rather than Máirtín Mag Aonghusa

Shouldn't it be Séamus Pacelli Máirtín Mag Aonghusa might be wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.23.54 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

No. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Actual resignation procedure is unconfirmed

It's not quite clear that the procedure outlined in the recent edit will actually be used. The precedent of Gerry Adams' resignation last year, as described here, suggests a slightly different maneuver. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring, protectionism, gaming and threats

A couple of editors have been engaged in the type of behaviour I describe in the heading of this section.

They are, namely, User:RepublicanJacobite and User:O_Fenian.

• Revert 1 diff
• Revert 2 diff

That Martin McGuinness acquired the nickname "the Butcher of Derry" is hardly under question, although these two apparently Republican-minded editors seem to be suggesting that they've never heard of the nickname before.

One of the claims made is that the information isn't properly cited, even though the source is a journalist who has spent years as a journalist covering the Troubles for a major news corporation - and therefore can probably be described as somewhat of an expert on the subject.

Another claim seems to be that the nickname "suddenly appeared 35 years later". Thirty-five years after what? The article discusses the subject's activity from that period.

Finally, the last claim appears to be that the information shouldn't be included in an article about a living person. So - should we wait until he has passed away before we add the information?

I have asked for there to be no further reversions to the article, to avoid the possibility of circular reverting. My request has went unheeded.

As I see it, only one possible issue carries any weight - when it comes to the possibility of libel, I'd be happy enough for the sentence I added to be reworked or edited: "John Simpson says...", for example.

As the two editors who reverted the article are quite clearly sympathetic to Irish Republicanism, and the subject himself is a Republican, I would suggest there is a conflict of interest and I would welcome neutral opinions on the matter.

As an anonymous IP editor, I believe I have acted more than fairly in this matter, despite the fact that the weight is stacked in favour of these two Republican editors who are not only intent on protecting the article from showing any negative public opinion of the subject, but also appear to be using policy of this website to help protect their position. An anonymous IP editor carries no weight apparently, considering the words "edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty" appear on one of the policy templates I was presented with on my talk page. --94.15.75.35 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"I have asked for there to be no further reversions to the article", while you yourself were reverting! I have explained in the section above why this little-known nickname is highly inappropriate for an article about a living person. O Fenian (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It can clearly be seen that I reverted the article once, and once only - and that was before your own revert.

I have explained above, in this section, that this moderately well-known nickname is a reflection of public opinion - an important aspect to include about a controversial politician I think, and I'm sure precedent has been set with other articles of other politicians throughout Wikipedia.

The only reason I can see not to include reference to the nickname, so far as I can see, is to protect the website from libel action. However, although I'm not an expert on law, I can't see that the website would be liable, considering it is quoting (in the version of the article as of my last edit) from a journalist. All other considerations are, I think, irrelevant.

With that said, I would therefore welcome input from unbiased legal expert, and we can continue discussion about it after their input.

Are there any lawyers on Wikipedia?

We have been posting at the same times, O Fenian, so I will take a break and possibly come back tomorrow to see if there are any more thoughts on the matter. --94.15.75.35 (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest discussing it in the section above. And if you insist on making false assertions like claiming a 35+ year old nickname that has only been verifiably used by one person in those last 35+ years is "moderately well-known" then the discussion will go nowhere fast. O Fenian (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made no false assertions. I could accuse you of making false assertions, but I'll not go down that road. Please stick to the subject, which is I believe the idea that Wikipedia would see legal action if we include the nickname. If you feel I have not understood the issue clearly, please explain it further so we can quickly isolate the issue you (and your compatriot) have with the edit I introduced, and we can resolve it. --94.15.75.35 (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are so concerned about the measures taken to prevent registered users using IP sockpuppets, you could always stop using IP sockpuppets and sign into your account Setanta747. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I never expressed any concern about sockpuppets, RepublicanJacobite. I think you're confusing me with 2 Lines of K. I humbly suggest that my comments on this talk page and my edits to this or to other articles are not about me. They are about the articles. --94.15.75.35 (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The little-known nick name is known the world over.88.110.113.134 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Shaking hands with Queen Elizabeth II

Shouldn't this article mention how he shaked hands with Elizabeth II when she came to Eire on June 27 2012? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually her visit was to Northern Ireland and I agree the article should mention this historic handshake that received international media attention.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Category request

Please remove Category:Candidates for President of Ireland and replace it with Category:Candidates for the Irish presidential election, 2011.

Done. And I'm going to see if the semi protection for this article can be removed. Valenciano (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Northstead

The 'Steward or Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead' is an office which has nowadays only a notional existence as a device used to enable Members of Parliament to vacate their seats. It carries no duties, marks no honour, and brings with it neither privileges nor salary. It is not even clear whether anyone appointed to it actually holds the office for more than a split second. Moreover it is never quoted as a postnominal honour. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. As nothing more than an obscure parliamentary bodge, it is of no lasting significance here, and merits no mention in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Informers

An excerpt from the IRA's Green Book, which are potential IRA volunteers are required to have read.

General Order No. 5 Part 5 - "No Volunteer should succumb to approaches or overtures, blackmail or bribery attempts, made by the enemy and should report such approaches as soon as possible. Volunteers who engage in loose talk shall be dismissed. Volunteers found guilty of treason face the death penalty"

The exchange, according to the source

• McGuinness - [All members of the IRA] are totally and absolutely aware of what the penalty for doing this [informing] is
• Taylor - Death?
• McGuinness - Death, certainly

So he's not endorsing anything, he's saying that all IRA volunteers are aware of the penalty for informing is. And so they are, because it's right there in the Green Book. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You say it's a "botched edit", yet you make no effort to present it differently or otherwise qualify it. I note that the rationale I've been given for simply suppressing this material keeps changing. Now the objection is that it's "out of context." I suppose bringing it "in context" would require repeating for the reader all of the IRA's various grievances and supposed rationales for violence... after all, the reader has to appreciate the "big picture" here, no? Endorsing the penalty for informing and endorsing the Green Book's penalty for informing strikes me as amounting to the same thing, with the only difference being the latter involves some supplementary original research about what Wikipedia should say on this point. What if McGuinness were asked whether he thought the children of Northern Ireland's historical law enforcement were "fair game" for IRA gunmen and he replied "certainly." According to your reasoning, if that's what the "Green Book" said, then McGuinness' reply would be a "non-issue". Really? I would think most people would find it revealing that he declined to distance himself from such a view when given an opportunity to do so. What's notable and what isn't is not, in fact, just whatever you, or I, say it is. Wikipedia has a guideline here and it's whether "the issue" has been noted by secondary sources. In this case, I've cited two major sources, the Telegraph and the Guardian, that found McGuinness' remarks on this matter notable and I might add that there are others.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

He's not expressing his own opinion here, or endorsing anything, so why would he "distance himself from such a view," as you put it? He is simply reiterating what the Green Book says, which is something every Volunteer would know. It is a non-issue. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 13:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Not only did he not tell the questioner that the Green Book was an external constraint on - or even relevant to - his opinion, he did not refer to the Green Book at all in his reply. If, with no small indulgence, we accept your original research that construes the exchange between Taylor and McGuinness is being about something other than what it is on its face (which is what McGuinness has to say), what if evidence emerged that McGuinness had personally executed an informant? That would be a "non-issue" in your view because he has no moral or intellectual capacity to dissent from what the Green Book calls for? Where are your sources for your claim that this is a "non-issue"? As I've suggested, there are several sources to the contrary (ie that DO make an issue of McGuinness' response). If it's a "non-issue" why make an issue out of including this phrase? These few additional words would make the article too long?--Brian Dell (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

He didn't state his opinion, he stated an established fact. There's not even context as to what particular incident he's being asked about. I have a rough idea what it may have been, but that isn't even mentioned in the article and it would require plenty of research. Martin McGuinness stating an established fact really is a non-issue. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

So if someone tells you that you deserve to die and you reply that in your opinion you do not deserve to die, you just concede the argument if the other party says "what I just told you is not my 'opinion' but a statement of 'established fact'"? May I suggest that you need not concede the argument because the other party is begging the question, which is to say, whether it is an "established fact" or not that you deserve to die is precisely the question about which there are differing "opinions"? You seem to think that the penalty for being an informant is as much an "established fact" as the penalty for jumping out of an airplane without a parachute. If McGuinness had been asked what he thought the penalty was for jumping out of an airplane without a parachute and replied "death, certainly" I would concede the argument here: endorsing the law of gravity doesn't raise anyone's eyebrows. But he most certainly was not asked this, or any "established fact" question of this sort. On the spectrum between what one believes and no one else believes and what everyone believes you reference the Green Book in order to suggest that what McGuinness' believes here is closer to a universally held belief like a belief in gravity. Aside from the original research involved in adding the belief of the author(s) of the Green Book to McGuinness' belief, you are still very far short of the universality of belief that would render McGuinness' belief a "non-issue." In any case you can argue semantics and metaphysics all you want but the fact is that if secondary sources like the Telegraph and the Guardian find this matter to be an "issue" then it's an issue as far as Wikipedia is concerned; whether it ought to be an issue is not Wikipedia's concern; significance is determined by reference to secondary sources. If you think there is an issue with how McGuinness' remark is presented you could change the presentation instead of deleting any reference to the remark. In the same vein, if you think it is necessary to add "context" no one that I am aware of is stopping you from adding such context.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There's currently no consensus for inclusion (and I'm obviously against it), and that the claim McGuinness endorsed the execution of informers is a clear BLP violation.--Domer48_'fenian' 23:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Far from there being consensus for inclusion, you have been opposed by three different editors, and yet you continue. McGuinness reiterated an established fact, he did not state an opinion. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - no real basis for inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If you've got Bastun and Domer agreeing on something, that's an excellent indication you're in the wrong. Your comment about "the author(s) of the Green Book" either betrays your lack of knowledge, or shows you are being deliberately obtuse. The IRA were the authors of the Green Book, it's the IRA's training manual. There's more details about it here, and there's a full text available of it if you bother to look. You may also be interested to read what the Spectator says about the IRA, the Green Book and informers, namely "There is no more richly loathed figure in IRA circles than the ‘tout’, and the penalty is made explicit in the IRA’s Green Book, to which recruits swear allegiance: ‘Volunteers found guilty of treason will face the death penalty.’". So as before, McGuinness was stating a fact, that IRA volunteers are away the penalty for informing is the death penalty. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I also agree it should not be included as it would IMO be a violation of BLP. I believe he was merely stating a fact; nothing more should be read into it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How can it be both an innocuous statement of fact ("merely") AND "a violation of BLP"? If someone says Brian Dell described the sky as blue how does it make any sense for someone else to say that comment of mine should not be repeated because to do so would be a BLP violation? Again, if secondary sources find the statement notable we are obligated to follow those sources, not substitute our own opinions about notability.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

re "simply reiterating what the Green Book says" I "bother[ed] to look" at what McGuinness has actually said about the Green Book and he says it never existed!--Brian Dell (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

McGuinness did not say “it never existed”. He said "When I was in the IRA there was no such book, I don't know when it came into existence", implying he was aware of its existence after he left the IRA, in “the early 1970s”. Nevertheless, I recommend you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Daicaregos (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian, which is generally considered a reliable source, interpreted the remarks as meaning that in 2003 McGuinness "denied ever reading the 'green book'." Meanwhile the supposed justification for suppressing what McGuinness had to say about informants is that McGuinness was just quoting said book (such that we are supposed to entertain as a reasonable possibility the prospect that he actually disagrees with what the book prescribes). There is accordingly not only no evidence to support the argument for exclusion, there is evidence that actively contradicts the argument. Nevertheless, I advise you to consult the Wikipedia principle that this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, a principle that does not encourage attempts to intimidate other editors into "backing slowly away" from a content issue.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

30 years

Nice example of why Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia) shouldn't bother with events less than 30 years old. History will not be in a position to say anything definitive about people like McGuinness until various papers are released by governments. 18:49, 31 July 2005

Quite. 9 (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Guerrilla

I think "IRA guerrilla" is preferable to "IRA vounteer" or "IRA terrorist". It is descriptive, fairly neutral, and the Provisionals also call themselves "guerrillas". "Volunteer" sounds less violent, more sympathetic and almost like "activist". Which is why the IRA call themselves it Kingal86 22:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "Volunteer" is being misinterpreted in this circumstance.

The word itself does not impute morality to Provo provocations, but is simply a descriptive term used to reflect the organizational structure and hierarchy of the IRA.

McGuinness could have very well been a guerilla-or a terrorist, for that matter-while still maintaining his status as a "volunteer."

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the modern neutral, politically correct term is "insurgent".

Your obviously not from Northern Ireland then whoever left the unsigned post above. i don't understand why Wikipedia hasn't adopted the term Paramilitary like every other media in Ireland--81.96.125.232 (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm ex-British Army and the term 'guerilla' is insulting to them. If anything, 'paramilitary' please. 9 (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Martin McGuinness' birth place

For goodness sake could we please agree on the way we are going to write the name of Derry/Londonderry when referring to where the man was born. It has now been taken out altogether but is quite a necessary piece of information to include. I personally think that Derry is more suitable considering it is an article concerning a nationalist politician but if someone wants to include both I have no problem with that. It is very annoying to see an incomplete article like this just because people cannot seem to agree. --Spark13579 04:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• The compromise reached some time ago on Talk:Derry was to refer to the city as "Derry" and the county as "Londonderry". Demiurge 11:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• I understand that the BBC's policy when broadcasting reports concerning Derry/Londonderry is to call it Londonderry at the beginning of the report and thereafter refer to it as Derry.

Let's agree that 'Derry-Londonderry' is how it's called now? 9 (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Politics

Why is there no mention of Martin McGuinness's politics, in terms of his broadly left-wing beliefs, instead of just speculation about his IRA past?

Because he manifestly and evidently is a personally responsible for the ceasing to be of many people. Of anyone else you are allowed to say that that sort of behaviour qualifies them as a murderer, but this curly headed cherub is some sort of saint, apparently.88.110.113.134 (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, having been a British soldier in NI, what he did is irrelevant here. 9 (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Paratroopers?

I've learnt that members of the Parachute Regiment don't much like the term "paratroopers" - and I can't find a good reference to justify "paratrooper" for "member of the Parachute Regiment".

Why disliked? Consider the definition of paramilitary (taken from the Oxford English Dictionary):

"Designating, of, or relating to a force or unit whose function and organization are analogous or ancillary to those of a professional military force, but which is not regarded as having professional or legitimate status."

Thus, "paratroopers" could be taken to imply that professional soldiers of the Parachute Regiment of the British Army are merely "analagous to or ancilliary" to a professional military force. Regardless of whatever the buggers did on Bloody Sunday, they are plainly a core part of a professional military force, not ancillary to such.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Active service

McGuinness seems not to have denied IRA membership. Does anyone have any idea of how much active service he saw?

Active service????

Mr. McGuinness has, in the past, stated that he was "Proud to be a member of the Provisional IRA"{sic} not sure when/where he said that but will try to find out. Im not sure if he was ever on the council or executive but he has been to almost every army general convention since 1970, excluding the ones held while he was imprisoned. He did have a "substantial" role in the #1 Derry Brigade, probably at least a battalion commandant. 195.7.34.195 13:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC) K.B.

I've just added his verbatim declaration of membership from Dublin's Special Criminal Court in 1973. El Gringo 17:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Ed Moloney, he's been commander of the Derry Brigade, commander of Northern command, a member of the Army Council, and Chief of Staff from 1977(?) until 1982. 83.109.69.226 (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Provisional IRA by Patrick Bishop and Eamonn Mallie (Heinemann 1987, pbk Corgi 1988), says on p.187, referring to Operation Demetrius, the internment round-up of summer 1971, 'In Derry they were less fortunate. The arrests removed nearly every active Provisional in the city, including Sean Keenan and Phil O'Donnell, leaving only three or four members. The control of the organisation, such as it was, passed to a little-known middle-aged republican named Griffin, but after a fortnight MacStiofain intervened and gave the command to Martin McGuinness.' On p.311, 'In the autumn of 1976 the Army Council gave its approval for a new organisation in the North and Northern Command duly held its first meeting in November 1976. The creation of Northern Command constructed a semi-autonomous tier between Dublin and the North. It had its own officer commanding, Martin McGuinness; an adjutant, director of operations, intelligence officer and quartermaster, just like the brigade and battalion staffs.' On p.315, 'By 1977 McGuinness had joined the Army Council and after the recapture of Twomey -- as the pre-eminent military man -- he became chief-of-staff. On his release from prison Gerry Adams was also elected to the Council and succeeded McGuinness as its head in 1979.' A little confusingly, though, on p.337 the authors refer to the aftermath of the La Mon House Hotel bombing in February 1978, carried out by three Ballymurphy volunteers answering to Adams: 'The La Mon attack was more than just a setback for Adams' political plans. Shortly afterwards he was one of those picked up in a wave of arrests that followed the killings and charged with membership of the IRA. After his temporary disappearance (the charges against him were dropped) Martin McGuinness took over as chief-of-staff.' The article is misleading as it stands, since it fails to account for McGuinness's personal prestige in the republican movement. He and Adams were only able to bring the movement into the 'peace process' because of their strong IRA credentials. 146.199.101.19 (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Hugo Barnacle