Talk:Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland v. Liam Adams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earlier comments before indexing[edit]

Not sure this should have been moved without discussion, it includes mention of Gerry Sr.. PatGallacher (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The "scandal" involves the whole family - alleged abuse by two family members on at least two others, and the alleged inaction of another member reporting it to the authorities when told about it.BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happened quite a lot in the meantime, but still something lacking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gerry_Adams#Some_very_important_quotes Apart from what you call "scandal" there has also been a learning process referring to letting out truth despite of the clan's original wish for clandestinity. This is part of the political insight.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.197.92 (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Tribune[edit]

Since when is the Sunday Tribune not a reliable source? What it says should be included. Obviously, not without Sinn Féin's response also being included. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political scandal[edit]

Rockpocket - any of these citations good enough?

BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wider issues[edit]

How do we address the wider issues here? So far, the article just concentrates on the allegation against Liam Adams, but just as pertinent is the issue of Gerry Adams actions and/or inactions, and Liam Adams participation in Sinn Féin and work with youth groups. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gerry's sin of omission is the glaring omission in the article.Irvine22 (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the worst articles I have seen created at Wikipedia[edit]

This is the worst creation of an article I have seen created here, it is full of nothing but claims and assertions, its a shame to the wikipedia.The content and the title are void of similarity, its a POV coat rack worthless stub, I suggest an AFD. Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed --Snowded TALK 18:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a novel idea... how about, instead of just bitching about it, either AfD it yourself, or make it better? Rockpocket 20:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFD, well , I was wondering, what to nominate it for and would like to take some advice on that point, this article is never going to be encyclopedic. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? There are a plethora of sources. This issue has received widespread media coverage. What's obviously missing is reference to the subsequent controversy over what Gerry Adams did or didn't do in relation to the allegations, and what part Liam Adams did or didn't play in Sinn Féin after Gerry was informed of the alleged abuse. There are multiple sources, both pro- and anti-Adams. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't grounds for an AFD. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe better to call for a merge. The material is already on the Adams page and this adds nothing --Snowded TALK 07:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your eyesight is better than mine, Snowded. Nothing whatsoever about the controversy is on the Gerry Adams page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checking , it was there but was removed with a reference to the need for a merger discussion here. Its also an active discussion on the talk page. So I think my point stands, we should merge, this article is not needed --Snowded TALK 13:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you a diff for the merge discussion there? I'm not seeing it. The last discussion on the issue there was 25th Jan, over three weeks ago. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got a diff for where it was agreed there was a consensus to create a POV fork? Bet you haven't! I'll AFD this article tomorrow, with a rationale so tight the known BLP violators won't stand a chance of saving it. 2 lines of K303 13:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

What is the connection with the Adams family child abuse controversy and Iris robinson ? I notice Iris Robinson is not mentioned in this article and the other way around is not mentioned there. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No connection - they're both scandals that broke in Northern Ireland at the same time, but there's no overlap.Autarch (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

This article is looking to actually be about Liam Adams and imo should be renamed as such and turned into a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we should be cautious about crystall-ball-gazing, but it is likely that the Liam Adams case will continue to receive further publicity in the near future. I hope the content about Gerry Sr. will not disappear completely. PatGallacher (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't really see that would be a big issue, a small related comment about his Father is not a big issue. My position is just that the content that is going to grow is Liam and is growing in notability. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved – Although the article does focus mainly on Liam Adams, it is still only regarding this controversy, as the opposing !votes point out. Turning it into a biographical article at this stage would be in violation of WP:BLP1E. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adams family abuse controversy → Liam Adams — Given that Liam Adams (the Irish political figure) was arrested and then released on bail in Dublin earlier today, and that his case is likely to remain in the news in the near future, he is rising in notability, this article is becoming mainly about him, and he is becoming the primary meaning of "Liam Adams". The article should be re-named, with a hatnote pointing to the comic book character. PatGallacher (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support- This is really only about Liam. Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either that - or to "Gerry Adams family abuse controversy". The current title suggests something untoward involving Morticia and Thing. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that Addams with two "d"s?Autarch (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. It is currently mainly about Liam Adams, but a main section should be included/expanded on the wider allegations of what was or wasn't done by SF and/or Gerry Adams when they knew about the allegations. If that can still be included, then withdraw the oppose. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't retitle pages based on speculation. The article is currently still about one particular series of incidents. As it covers living persons, we have to be very careful about choosing to repurpose it as a biography. I don't think that this is the time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the article does mainly deal with Liam Adams, but events are still unfolding (albeit slowly - the case has been adjourned to April 21). The fact that Gerry Adams Snr. is mentioned is one reason for not moving, but stronger ones are that this article is more about the controversy than a biography of Liam Adams and that events are still unfolding.Autarch (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Who is the unnamed person?[edit]

This comment should be removed if it can not explain if it is actually about someone in this article, which it doesn't, who is it? Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know anything about this specific point beyond what the source says. PatGallacher (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then if it is not specific and no one can assert who it is actually talking about it needs to be removed. Bastun has removed it without even a comment here, I have an issue with this and I would prefer if it was cleared up without removing the who template. Who in the article is it talking about? Off2riorob (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. It may be that nobody knows anything more about this matter beyond what the SF spokesperson said. I am not aware of any Wikipedia guideline which says that comments like this are not encyclopedic. PatGallacher (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SF statement could relate to either Adams or the person who allegedly abused 'X', per the Sunday Tribune article. I think leaving it "an unnamed SF representative" is the obvious solution. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or better still remove it since it doesn't refer to anyone in the article, but Briege Meehan. Be sure to read the part about the Tribune basically outing the victim, since if you read the original article the information provided is more than enough to narrow it right down. How many "legendary Belfast IRA commander"s from Ardoyne have a wife who is an "elected Sinn Féin representative in the north"? I'd think there's only one answer to that one isn't there? Real ethical reporting there by the Tribune, outing abuse victims! 2 lines of K303 14:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's very relevant to the article, seeing as there are three aspects to the controversy - the allegations against Liam Adams, the allegations against Gerry Snr., and the allegations that Gerry Adams failed to act on reported abuse by several SF members. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If as is said here the identity of the person being talked about and could also possibly be someone that is not even part of the article at all, it is vague, I took it as it is framed to be Liam adams and that is unsupported, it needs to go or at the very least requires the issue that it is unknown who it is actually about. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there's some confusion - there are two situations mentioned above - one involving Liam Adams and one involving a different Sinn Féin member against whom allegations have been made.Autarch (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute[edit]

I believe this article lacks neutrality and has been worded in such a way as to discredit Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams. The article needs to be edited at scratch or deleted!--Ciaran M (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is a bit vague. Feel free to identify specific problems. PatGallacher (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its just not worthy of its own article, its the fact that it is here and not a line in some other article that makes it undue, no updates no real ongoing notability as I can see at all. Lets redirect it somewhere and add a line of content to that article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes that would most certainly be the best option. I am just going to have a check through the criteria now and see if this "article" meets that. --Ciaran M (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to wait for dscussion and consensus here for that sort of bold edit. Even Liams extradition has no updates since last june. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think bold edits from users who claim to support SF on their user page would fall under WP:COI Kernel Saunters (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are plenty of overly involved contributors in this area, but yes, there is from my experience in this partisan area going to be no benefit from attempting to do anything boldly. Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kernel Saunters fails to realise that the article remians biased and I will contest that regarless of the fact I support Sinn Féin which may I add is completely irrelevant.--Ciaran M (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People are collapsing several issues into one. First the issue was neutrality, then it's possible deletion, then it's possible merger into another article. Not in principle against merging it with a larger article, providing the bulk of the ocntent is kept, but which larger article? Gerry Adams? That would be an even bigger can of worms. I'm also not sure I understand the concept of "ongoing notability" (I understand notability) the lack of recent developments may be irrelevant. PatGallacher (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO that is where you lose the detail - there is only a sentence or two worthy of moving to G adams article, probably only one - in 2010 after a tv report about Gerry's father , Gerry made a statement that his father had been abusive. As for the content about Liam, really, I would keep it on hold as there is nowhere to put it, there is no chance of any extradition to Northern Ireland now or in the distant future. Haven't the allegations been withdrawn or dropped already? Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the allegations have been withdrawn or dropped we might have heard more about it. Do you have any sources? I was acting as devil's advocate, I entirely agree that merging the bulk of the content of this article into Gerry Adams would fail WP:UNDUE, but where else could we put it. No chance of extradition even in distant future? See WP:CRYSTAL. PatGallacher (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pat, please don't link so many internals just for me, I never click on them, devils advocate indeed, you. Whatever, keep it a bit longer if you like it, I don't mind, this article gets minimal internal viewing and when they get here they realize its not really about any controversy and they leave, as far as Liam's extradition goes, its hardly crystal, buts lets see. From my point of view, I see the partisan desire to keep articles like this as detrimental to the project, the stuff about Gerry could and should be condensed to a sentence and the stuff about Liam is actually an event waiting to happen, so as this is basically an article related to living people and personal in nature, when can be redirected and condensed easily and reduce any undue weight claims, then in regards to BLP then I fully support that. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was viewed 971 times in December, which is not that low, there are some decent articles with lower figures. How can we say what people do when they find it? PatGallacher (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The views come primarily imo from the see also link on Gerry Adams BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know? Anyway, that is irrelavant, is the route to an article relevant to its notability? PatGallacher (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On another topic how do you check the view count of an article? (talk) 22:40, 26, January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.133.142 (talk)

Why does the Wikipedia page of this article still say it lacks neutrality? Nobody has provided any examples of why it lacks neutrality on here. It seems perfectly neutral to me. 81.154.212.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Good point. There has been no further comments on this discussion for 7 weeks, I have therefore removed the flags. PatGallacher (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

Partly based on the comments above, I propose that this article be cut down and merged into Gerry Adams. I don't think there's enough content here to justify a separate article; while it might technically pass the notability guidelines, having a separate article on this 'controversy' seems to me to raise issues with undue weight and WP:BLP. Liam Adams would not be notable on his own; and a sub-article on Gerry Adams' history would probably not be acceptable either. I don't think combining the two into one article makes it any less a violation of WP:BLP. Robofish (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support that position and a merger of the applicable content. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose creates more problems than it solves. Making more than brief mention of this in Gerry Adams' article also runs into problems about undue weight and BLP. PatGallacher (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PatGallacher. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the discussion doesn't suggest that more than a comment there would be totally undue - what are you both requesting or suggesting ? Off2riorob (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm suggesting we keep the article in substantially its present form for the time being. I'm not in principle against some minor trimming, but oppose reducing it to a couple of sentences. It may need to be rewritten if there are further developments, but legal cases can sometimes drag on. PatGallacher (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the same grounds as PatGallagher.--94.7.133.142 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As long as it can be summarised in unbiased terms, this should not cause BLP issues if merged. There isn't much worthwhile information in the article, and it barely scrapes notability guidelines. —Half Price 11:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nov 2011 - move/split discussion[edit]

Hi - as the page has been moved a couple of times and as I was also looking at moving some of it - or I think it is time ot create liam his own article - not a bio but under a title regarding his extradition and trial. Laim and his trial and extradition is clearly well over the GNG now. Thoughts Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion from BLPNB[edit]

I opened a thread on the BLPNB about this. In reflection, I should have probably brought it here rather than fork. Sorry about that. I'm copying the discussion here. I've tried to put it in a box, but the markup is poor - can someone fix? We can continue the discussion underneath. Again sorry for this.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm bringing this here, because I'm uncomfortable with aspects of, but I can't quite work out what and what needs doing. Liam Adams has just been extrodited to Northern Ireland to face serious sexual charges concerning his dauhter [1]. This is being picked up as headline news by major outlets and has been an ongoing story, so as much as I personally would rather exclude it from Wikipedia, that's unlikely to wash. The article has already survived an afd.

However, Liam Adams is not of himself notable. He has no article. But it isn't quite as simple as saying BLP1E, because the reason the "incident" is notable is because his brother Gerry Adams is notable, not because the incident is particularly significant in and of itself. --Scott Mac 18:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current article has a number of problems:

  1. Why is this a "controversy" - it is simply allegations which are under investigation?
  2. The introuction does not mention Liam, but continually mentions Gerry. While it makes clear that Gerry isn't the accued, it does seem to be overly focused on someon who has not been accued of anything.
  3. "familly abuse". The only notable thing is the allegations against Liam, the other allegations about Gerry Adams, Sr, while worth mentioning on his bio, and that of Gerry Adams, and possibly cross referenced here, are not justification for making an article on the allegations against Liam into a "familly scandal" article.

I'm not sure what the proper way of handeling this is. If we can't delete the article, it needs renamed and refocused "Allegations against Lian Adams" perhaps. It still stinks though.

Warning: I have no Irish Nationalist/Unionist axe to grind, but it is possible that such issues may arrise here.--Scott Mac 13:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno - but clearly the stress on Gerry on the article may be undue. I did remove the victim's name, however. Collect (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually thinking that this is one of the rare cases where BLP1E works against fairness. If we must have an article on this, then it might be better to have either a biography of Liam, or a narrow article on Liam Adams sexual abuse allegations rather than one which tends to smear a family - particularly when the family is only notable for being the family of Gerry Adams (jnr), and no one has accussed Gerry Adams (jnr) of anything.--Scott Mac 14:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rm likely COATRACK bits and extended quote which did not add to the article. Also removed side claims unrelated directly to Adams. Collect (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THanks. I've tied the lead. Shall we move this to Adams abuse allegations? I see no controversy.--Scott Mac 15:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest: Liam Adams child abuse allegations as the "family" makes up precious little of it. Collect (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup.--Scott Mac 15:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I regard "Adams family abuse allegations" as BLP problematic. The family is only notable as the family of Gerry Adams, not in itself. There are only two allegations, one is about a deceased father and is not notable at all, except as a footnote to the background and psychology of Gerry Adams, and possible (although possible not) as background to the allegations agains Liam Adams. In short, this is an article about Liam Adams, and not about the family of Gerry Adams. Hence the title is inaccurte, and carries the danger of guilt by association.--Scott Mac 18:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree will all fo those comments - its all about Liam is notable for its own article now. I would suggest a title focussed on the extradition and trial similar to New York v. Strauss-Kahn - not sure how the legal system works in NI and who it is that actually presses charges. Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland v. Liam Adams ? - Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are only two allegations now because someone has removed some other material - namely the allegations that L Adams had still been involved in Sinn Féin after the original allegations had come to light, including campaigning/canvassing with G Adams. Two of the family have their own articles (although the link to G Adams Snr seems to also have disappeared). Also, why has Áine Tyrell's name been removed? She waived her right to anonymity. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot create an article by coatracking every allegation against any member of Gerry Adam's family into one. That violates so many policies it isn't worth considering. The only way you can put that together would be to change this into a biography of Liam Adams, but whether he'ss notable enough for that isn't clear.--Scott Mac 19:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you removed the referenced material about Adams rejoining Sinn Féin and the subsequent controversy over whether Gerry Adams knew about it? It was widely reported in the Irish media when it emerged, and is certainly relevant to this article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - what does Sinn Fein have to do with allegations of child abuse by Liam Adams? It simply does not reasonably relate to the article here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read the reference (now removed), please? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8463724.stm G. Adams got L. Adams to leave the party in '97 because of the allegations: "I got my brother Liam to leave Sinn Fein in County Louth. He later, unbeknownst to me, rejoined the party in west Belfast," Gerry Adams said. "Had I known that that was the case, I obviously would have went to get him to leave the party again." and "The Sinn Fein president, who has been under pressure to explain Liam Adam's role in the party since the allegations arose, insisted that there had been "no cover up" by either him or Sinn Fein." and "During this period he became chair of a Sinn Fein branch in the heart of his brother's west Belfast constituency and that the local organisation was unaware of any allegations against him. During the years 1998 to 2006, Liam Adams held various positions as a youth worker in a number of organisations in west Belfast." So in summary, a person against whom allegations of child abuse had been made became re-involved in Sinn Féin and youth work, and there is controversy over whether G. Adams knew about this, which he denies. The issue was raised in Stormont - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0115/1224262376399.html - and covered in the press. It is therefore directly relevant to the "Adams family abuse allegations", which concern three generations of the family - Gerry Snr. and Liam as alleged abusers, Áine Tyrell as a victim, and Gerry Jnr. as someone who knew about the allegations. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it doesn't say "Adams got L. Adams to leave the party in '97 because of the allegations". It does not say why Adams got his brother to leave in 1997. For the BBC it is a very ambiguously worded piece - it says "Liam Adams, who faces allegations that he abused his daughter, was forced from the party in County Louth in 1997" - which joins two things without indicating any causual link. Post hoc ergo propter hoc? We would need another source to clarify this.--Scott Mac 00:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on - you're hardly suggesting it's WP:OR or WP:SYN to take the quote "I got my brother Liam to leave Sinn Fein in County Louth. He later, unbeknownst to me, rejoined the party in west Belfast," Gerry Adams said. "Had I known that that was the case, I obviously would have went to get him to leave the party again." as meaning he was invited to leave by Gerry precisely because of the allegations. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the source and imo it didn't clearly support the previous content. Off2riorob (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves?[edit]

Since when can controversial moves be done without notice and/or an RM? Can the page be moved back, please? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unusual case. The problem is that it is being contended that "Adams familly abuse allegations" is not supported by the reliable sources, is not neutral title, and since it concerns living people is an implicit violation of BLP. The arternative titles "Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland v. Liam Adams" or my "Liam Adams abuse allegations" may not be the best, but they can't be argued as BLP problematic. When we've got allegations of a BLP problem, we don't leave it until we've consensus to change it, we change it and then discuss matters. We replace the BLP contested matter only if there's a positive consensus that it does, in fact, meet the policies. I don't particularly like the current title, but I suggest we leave it until we have some agreement on an alternative. We certainly should not use a BLP contested title as the default while we have that discussion.--Scott Mac 16:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Theres nothing wrong with the title, and as a suggestion it sat in the section above for the last five days without anyone offering a better title. It might be a bit of a mouthful but that is what the article is about now. I think that for the first time under this title today, the article has a specific reason to exist and is NPOV and BLP compliant. Updates are all going to be about the trial and under this title that will be totally correct. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also its not like anyone is going to look for it and not find it. We have redirects from almost every possible search term

- Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original article 'Adams family abuse controversy' addressed:

  • allegations of child abuse against Liam Adams (still present);
  • an allegation of abuse against Gerry Adams Snr (cut down, relevant sourced quote removed);
  • Liam Adams being removed from SF by his brother; and allegations that senior SF members were aware, post the allegations against Liam Adams originally coming to light, that he had rejoined another branch (sourced, yet removed).

In other words, much more than Tyrell's allegations against Liam Adams. But the original article has been pared back sufficiently to "justify" a name change. I don't think I've seen such ownership of an article outside of the Palestine-Israeli conflict before. I'm impressed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was a non-neutral hatchet job. The problem is that all of those "abuse allegations" actually relate to the only notable one - the one against Liam. The allegations against his father are not notable enough to be the topic of an article, although they might merit mention on the Father's bio. The only thing notable enough to be the topic of an article (and then only just) are the allegations against Liam. The problem with stringing them altogether in an article title is that it seems to suggest that there's a wide discusson of abuses in the Adam's familly. There's no evidence of that. And what is the "Adam's family"? It is shorthand for "the familly of Gerry Adams" - which given he's not the subject of any allegation has the clear potential to be a smear.--Scott Mac 17:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that this is now the primary topic of "Liam Adams", we now have 3 possible meanings, I suggest it should be a disambiguation. PatGallacher (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of victim[edit]

Although this is a sensitive issue, should the article omit the name of the victim, given that this is already widely known, is mentioned in several sources, and she appears to have waived anonymity? PatGallacher (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should not - she waived her right to anonymity and it's been in the public domain now for a couple of years. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_Prosecution_Service_of_Northern_Ireland_v._Liam_Adams&oldid=1205631779"