Talk:Martin McGuinness/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

"deputy" vs "Deputy"

Of the 75 Wikipedian RfCs I've closed so far, this one is by far the oldest, it having been more than six years since the discussion first started, and the RfC part of it has languished unclosed for 72 days. I was expecting this to be a subtle and difficult close with nuanced arguments to deal with. Having read it, I believe I can safely say that it is not. There are two facets here:-

Q: What was Martin McGuinness' correct title?
A: He is the deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. The "deputy" part of this title should normally begins with a small letter.

Q: Does this make it okay to begin a sentence with a small letter?
A: No. That's stupid.

I will edit the article to reflect this very shortly. This being a controversial subject, an appeal is likely. Editors wishing to appeal this RfC close would normally be asked to discuss it with my on my talk page. In this instance I waive this requirement, as I have already considered all the arguments raised during six years of discussion; appeals should go directly to the administrator's noticeboard.—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A short time ago, I changed an office title in the infobox from "deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" to "Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland". I didn't think my edit would be controversial, because I believed and still believe that the changed version is grammatically correct. I look at the article again now and the uncapitalised version is back. So, I look at the history. I find there is an ongoing dispute over which version to use, mainly involving User:O Fenian against a variety of users. This dispute isn't going to be resolved by an edit war, so I open up this discussion to reach a consensus on which version to use. I will notify significant contributors to the article, as well as various projects. HonouraryMix (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ordinarily "deputy" is correct, but, grammatically, the first letter of a sentence or title is capitalised, therefore in the infobox I think it should be "Deputy", whereas throughout the article (where the term is not at the start of a sentence or title, it should be "deputy". Mooretwin (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It seems to be explained at First Minister and deputy First Minister#"Deputy" becomes "deputy". Unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise, I would suggest using the position accepted by the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly and use lower case "d". It is not a perfect solution as there continues to be mixed use of the title, but I suspect the Speaker's position is the closest thing we will have to an official position by an external source. Road Wizard (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for participating. The more people, the more solid any consensus will be. I concur that, for the most part, "deputy" should be used. But, as Mooretwin said, grammatically I believe the title in the infobox should be "Deputy". Perhaps then followed by a cite-note explaining that "deputy" is usually the proper word? HonouraryMix (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Far from simply being me returning this article to a correct state, it is me and other regular editors of the article reverting the incorrect drive-by edits of editors who have rarely edited this article before. It is "deputy First Minister" per the Northern Ireland Act 1998, full text here. This has also been covered here. I do not see a field containing only a title as being a "sentence", and I believe it should reflect the official title which he holds, which is "deputy First Minister". O Fenian (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The D should be a d in the infobox, as in the text. The sources make it quite clear. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the links. I knew "deputy" is the proper word, but I never knew it had caused so much dispute in the 'real-world'. Guess you learn something new everyday after all. :P After reading said links, I'm happy now with keeping "deputy", but I think a cite-note should be placed at the end explaining why it's "deputy", instead of just a link to a source, and also pointing out a consensus was reached here (if that happens) to use "deputy". What do people think? HonouraryMix (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I think a cite-note is a good idea. It's more likely to make editors think twice before making what seems like a common-sense change. Not sure what you mean by "pointing out a consensus was reached here" - we wouldn't normally do that within an article. Scolaire (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right, directing - in a cite-note - a reader to a discussion here is unconventional. Reverting changes to "Deputy" with an edit-summary which references this discussion should suffice. O Fenian, since you know better than I why it's "deputy", would you mind writing up the cite-note? HonouraryMix (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Clearly it should be a capital "D" in the infobox and at the beginning of any sentence, and a small "d" elsewhere. I note with interest on other articles the "V" in volunteer (as in member of the IRA) is capitalized in infoboxes, presumably on the basis of grammar since we have a consensus that a small "v" should be used otherwise. Consistency is a good thing. Rockpocket 22:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Not relevant to this discussion, please take your ideological battle against the use of the correct term for IRA Volunteers to the relevant page(s). O Fenian (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
What is relevant is that terms that are used as common nouns (as opposed to proper nouns) - be it "deputy", "volunteer", "incumbent" or any other - are all treated the same way when used in infoboxes. Either they should get capitalized or they should not. Asking for consistency is far from an ideological battle - that is the whole point of having a manual of style. Rockpocket 00:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
We are going to struggle if you do not even understand what a sentence is. And stop importing your unrelated battles here. The capitalisation of Volunteer would be due to all military ranks being capitalised in that field in an infobox, despite no rank being capitalised when simply describing the rank itself. Therefore we remain consistent when correctly capitalising Volunteer, as otherwise all ranks would need to be decapitalised. However this is not about a military rank, this is about a specific political title which officially begins with a lower case letter. It also appears in a completely different way in the infobox, so your argument is irrelevant. The only reason you even brought it up is to try and resurrect an argument you convincingly lost the first time round. O Fenian (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
And if you are so concerned about consistency, why are you attempting to make this article inconsistent? O Fenian (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
More importantly, do you know what a common noun is, like "deputy" for example? Much like "incumbent". Or "quarterback" in this infobox, or "actor" in this infobox. Would you care to justify why all those have a leading cap, yet "deputy" has some rule of grammar all to itself?
And if you bothered to check before throwing unsubstantiated allegations around as a gut reaction, you would find I supported the capitalization of "Volunteer" in the infobox. So how about dropping that bit of bad faith? Rockpocket 02:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. I would appear that "deputy First Minister" is ordinarily correct. However, English grammar is to capitalize the first letter of the first word of a sentence (with rare exceptions like "iPod"). The manual of style is to use sentence case in such instances. So the correct version in this instance is "Deputy First Minister".

It would appear that the OFMDFM do the same also (see headline here). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

How is "deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" a sentence? O Fenian (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not. However, we use sentence case for such elements on Wikipedia. Compare with "Incumbent", "Assumed office", "Preceded by" and "In office" in the same info box. Sentence case. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
We do? And you think that because it says Mark Durkan not mark Durkan that somehow proves you right? Or "November" and not "november"? O Fenian (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It says "Incumbent" not "incumbent". "Assumed office", not "assumed office". "Preceded by", not "preceded by". And "In office", not "in office". Sentence case. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Which still does not prove your point, as those are not field contents. If you cannot prove something, stop claiming it. Linking to a Wikipedia article several times is not a valid argument, it just means you do not have one in the first place. O Fenian (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Go and try your argument on the iPod infobox, that does not use sentence case. Probably because you just made up that it applies.. O Fenian (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Eh ... yes, it does: "Manufacturer", not "manufacturer". "Type", not "type". "Units sold", not "units sold". "Online services", not "online service". Use sentence case. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
So you missed the "iPod" at the top of the infobox and the "iTunes Store" inside the infobox? O Fenian (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rockpocket and Rannphairtí, you are both missing the point when you equate "deputy" with "incumbent". "Incumbent" never has a capital 'i', unless it it at the beginning of a sentence; "deputy", used as part of a title, is always capitalised when the rest of the title is capitalised, except in this instance. The case was deliberately changed, at considerable cost in time and money, as is stated in another article (First Minister and deputy First Minister#"Deputy" becomes "deputy"). The fact that the OFMDFM haven't changed their letterhead is also stated, so that's not an argument. This surely makes it one of the "rare exceptions", like 'iPod'. Scolaire (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent example Scolaire! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmph (talk • contribs) 09:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No, Scolaire. In English we capitalise the first letter of the first word of a sentence. Example:
  • "Sinn Féin participate in the Northern Ireland Executive. Deputy First Minister is the title held by Martin McGuinness."
Compare with:
  • "Sinn Féin participate in the Northern Ireland Executive. The title held my Martin McGuinness is deputy First Minister."
In the infobox "Incumbent", for example. takes a capital 'I' because we use sentence case for those headings (as with all other headings on Wikipedia). And no, this is not one of those rare execption like iPod:
  • Correct: "Sinn Féin participate in the Northern Ireland Executive. iPods are not allowed to be used in the Assembly Chamber."
  • Incorrect: "Sinn Féin participate in the Northern Ireland Executive. deputy First Minister is the title held by Martin McGuinness."
Use sentence case. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What a silly argument! It is quite clear that (for whatever reason) the Northern Ireland authorities have decided that it's a lowercase d. Respect that, follow the pattern, get over it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point raised by Scolaire, and agree with Snalwibma lets end this it is lower case. BigDunc 10:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I hate this attitude of "we're going to impose our version of standard English regardless of the circumstances"! I am a native speaker of English and I got honours in English in my Leaving Cert. I don't need lessons from anonymous users. And lowercase "d" is correct in this instance. And I know that I started this sentence and the previous one with "and". Scolaire (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Silly indeed. And another example of why it is so often embarrassing to be Irish on Wikipedia. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, why is your signature all in lowercase? ;-) Scolaire (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems any way of giving a one fingered salute to the English (even when under the guise of English grammar) is worth a fight. Embarrassing is the word, rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, (with a capital E). Rockpocket 18:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems somebody has a massive chip on their shoulder! I'm embarrassed for you, not us. Scolaire (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Ha! Oh yes, I'm weighed down by the terrible grammar of Irish ideologues other editors. Keeps me up at night. *Rolls eyes* Rockpocket 18:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Rock could you comment on content and not your perceived ideas of the contributors. BigDunc 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, but thanks for your equally rapid intervention when O Fenian offered his perceived ideas of my ideology. Rockpocket 18:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I remember you when you talked sense, Rockpocket. Scolaire (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
And there's no capital E in rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid. Scolaire (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I seem to remember a time when you had a reasonably accomplished grasp of English. FYI, the presence of the second comma indicates that (with a capital E) does not refer to rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid. Grammar eh? Who needs it. Rockpocket 18:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
@ Rock I wasn't online last night when O Fenian offered his perceived ideas of your ideology and I would have said the same to him now this is getting very petty and really should be brought to a close, best. BigDunc 18:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that is fine. I'm done here. In articles where any edit - no matter how trivial or mundane - turns into a partisan issue, matters that should be completely neutral get lost in the flag waving. The battle lines are drawn so quickly and widely, there is no space left for concerns over grammar. You'd think I'd have learned that by now, but it hope springs eternal, I suppose. Rockpocket 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This whole episode reminds me of this quote, “The greater part of the world's troubles are due to questions of grammar” by Michel de Montaigne. Never a truer word was spoken. BigDunc 19:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. Sentence case. That is the totality of my argument, thus proving that capitalisation is correct. That is despite the example about iPod contradicting that argument in most infoboxes about iPods that I have bothered to check. [1] knows what should be capitalised and what should not. O Fenian (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
1 doesn't know its arse from its elbow. Note the header: laughable Rockpocket 23:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The only thing laughable round here is you. If you had read the article I linked to in the very first post I made or indeed Scolaire's post that mentions it you might be able to tell your own arse from your elbow. O Fenian (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Please keep comments focused on the article, not on other editors, thanks. --Elonka 23:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not tell certain editors not to waste everyone's time replying without having read sources provided or even comments that have already been made? O Fenian (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that article, thank you O Fenian, having read it yesterday. What is laughable as the absurd claim that it represents an authoritative source, when it clearly contradicts itself. I really would appreciate it if you could respond to my comments here - just once, even - without making bad faith accusations. Rockpocket 01:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
So having read it, you ignored it? The article renders your argument pointless. O Fenian (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you have lost me, care to explain how exactly? Rockpocket 04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This continuing argument is silly. Rockpocket is in a minority of one here. Rannpháirtí conceded the small d two days ago[2] and the OP conceded it long before the others even joined![3] Let's just draw a line under this now, can we? Scolaire (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the comments of others. I'll leave a note on your talk asking you to strike your comments above in relation to me. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
By "conceded" I only meant that you said you weren't going to go on fighting it. Now can we draw a line under it? Scolaire (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. You're a gent. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree as I have stated this has turned very petty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDunc (talk • contribs) 09:24, 14 January 2010

My personal choice would be Second Minister of Northern Ireland. But since that's likely original research on my part, I'll go along with Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The title is "deputy First Minister", not "Deputy First Minister". The legislation makes that clear. However a capital D is used if the word is the first in a sentence. But if the title is being described in an infobox the lower d should be used as one is just using a title. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 MPs' Expenses Scandal Does anyone have the details of his expenses claims? I know that the 4 SF members had all claimed housing expenses that were paid to the same man in north London but I haven't got any more infoWessexboy (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

I'd like to point out that McGuinness' predecessors have "Deputy First Minister" in the infobox. They should be made consistent one way or the other. Moonboy54 (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The edit war here is ongoing despite not having been discussed for five years. Moonboy54 (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears to have been resolved (for a while). Daicaregos (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
It's been changed back and forth at least twice in the past month so I thought an RfC might be helpful. Moonboy54 (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
As per MOS:INFOBOX subtitles are with capital letters so it should be Deputy in capital. Wykx 09:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
When I approached this topic a few weeks ago, the 3 bios-in-question were inconsistent & I wasn't exactly sure what the 'hidden' advisory in the infoboxes was instructing - capitalize or don't capitalize. I assumed the former, as it was a infobox heading. Either version is fine with me, as long as all 3 bios-in-question are consistent with the usage. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't play the innocent GoodDay. You 'approached' this topic years ago (see above), were well aware of the consensus and were reminded of it here in this edit summary (before you reverted again to your preferred version against consensus) and on your own talk page two days ago. You have been disruptive. No excuses about some spurious inconsistency you yourself created. Just stop. Daicaregos (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Whatever. GoodDay (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Monarch/ appointed by

NAC:There is rough consensus for exclusion of the monarch, largely because the monarch does not appoint the Northern Irish PM and deputy PM. The field is not currently included in the infobox, so no further action is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could we please have a discussion re the inclusion of monarch in the infobox, the office is not the same as the Scottish and Welsh FMs are appointed by the queen so I see the reason for its inclusion on their respective articles however the NI FM/dFM are specially appointed by the assembly as per legislation. The reason given for the reverts is incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.219.103 (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion much better than edit warring. We are talking about a template here in which all ministers have the Monarch line. So if we change it here then we need to change it on other articles as well. So this should really be raised on a wider forum rather than a single article. ----Snowded TALK 13:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I disagree; you're not addressing the IP's point about why this case is different. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
If you or the IP want to make a case that Republican Politicians should be treated differently, then that is again a policy issue and not one that should be made on an article. There maybe a case to change the template for Northern Ireland (I'm open if there is evidence to support that) but this is not the place. One possibility is WP:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration but there are others ----Snowded TALK 14:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
You're still not addressing it, and pretending it has to do with McGuinness' politics doesn't make you look very clever. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Try not to make too many assumptions. The point is that this a policy matter not unique to this article ----Snowded TALK 14:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
(Response to IP) We should keep the British monarch within the infobox. Only when Northern Ireland becomes independent & changes to a republic, should we delete. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I still have not had a reason why the monarch should be included l, the reason given that it is in the Scottish/Welsh ones is a non starter as they different appointment methods — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.219.103 (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The British monarch appoints the deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. The appointee's personal politics is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, Elizabeth II isn't even listed as appointer in the infobox. She's listed as monarch, which also is undisputable as Elizabeth II still reigns over Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I am well aware of the fact she reigns over NI hence why she is listed in the Northern Ireland infobox, the question I asked which skill hasn't been answered is why she is listed in relation to Martin being dFM when she has no role in appointing him.82.132.219.103 (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Cause it is standard in the template for politicians, so if you want to change the template raise it as a wider issue - many articles will be affected ----Snowded TALK 18:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
no it's not it's an optional field in a temple to show a relationship the key word is optional 82.132.219.103 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
And its on the other NI Politician articles I checked. Look personally I would remove the Queen from any formal role in any part of the UK but that is not the point. You are proposing a change on a single article, when you need to get agreement to that change on all articles on Northern Ireland Politicians. I've given you the link to where that can be raised and agreed (or not) ----Snowded TALK 18:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
no I don't please show me the policy where it states this, it's an optional field for a reason 82.132.219.103 (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
So you think we should change it on this article, but leave it on other NI politician ones? We are meant to be consistent on this. I really don't see why you don't want to make your case in the proper place ----Snowded TALK 18:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry IP, but we can't make an exception for McGuiness, anymore then we could make an exception for any PQ premiers of Quebec. Or on a federal scale, Paul Keating of Australia. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
it's should be kept on articles where she appointments them NI/dFM are not one of them, and very poor comparison you have checked to justify her inclusion 82.132.219.103 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
She appoints the dFM of Northern Ireland. But again, the monarch isn't listed in the infobox as an appointer, but only as monarch. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
could you please point to the section of the Northern Ireland act that validates your assetrions ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.219.103 (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Like Snowded, I too would support removal of the monarch from all the FM & DFM bios of Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales. Just like I support removal of the monarch from all the premier bios of the Canadian provinces. In fact, I attempted these removals years ago & was reverted. You need to get a consensus for the changes you want. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP's concern isn't limited to this bio article (from what I've read), but rather concerns the infoboxes of all the Northern Ireland First Ministers & deputy First Ministers. Therefore, this Rfc should be located on a talkpage which would cover all the bios of those who've held or hold these offices. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

could some please explain why my edit of the inclusion of appointer was reveretrd? This is adding factual information 82.132.219.103 (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Why didn't you add it to the infoboxes of the other NI deputy First Ministers or all the NI First Ministers? As for why you edit was reverted? It didn't have a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Any chance of user IP Address 82.132.219.103 coming out of the shadows and cease being anonymous? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As information, I wanted to note that I rejected this pending change to Ian Paisley, which linked to this discussion. However, based on GoodDay's comment above, it does not appear this discussion has concluded or that consensus was reached yet. Please feel free to reinstate my rejection if I have misread the direction of this discussion. -- ferret (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you got that right ----Snowded TALK 18:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I had to revert some edits by an IP.78 editor. It was adding in the NI Assembly & Scottish Parliament as appointer & nominator respectively, for the corresponding FM & DFM bio infoboxes. We need a central place to discuss these proposed additions. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I got told to add it in the other articles so I did 83.54.180.237 (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
You were not told to do that, you were told a decision had to be made by the community if there were to be general changes. You're heading for a block if you carry on like this and you are using different IP addresses which is a form of sock puppetry ----Snowded TALK 07:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
so is anyone going to give a reason for not including appointed? 178.17.66.1 (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
completely unnecessary and adds nothing, but if you can make a case at a community level then fine. Argue your case at the template talk page or the NI or Ireland fora ----Snowded TALK 19:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
it add the legally correct into as to who appoints him as opposed to the inclusion of the monarch who has no connection to the role of dFM, and I do not need to do what you ask, you have failed to put forward a resonable argument against its inclusion Ouime23 (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Having the monarch section comes across as coat-trailing, and the argument that NI infoboxes must be treated just like other UK infoboxes has similar undertones. I don't feel strongly about it, but it's part of a trend I've come to notice and it's not pretty. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not wild about confirming NI to UK info box standards either, but if someone feels strongly about it then it needs to be changed as a style guide issue, not on one article. ----Snowded TALK 22:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Where? Gob Lofa (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Well I suggested WP:IECOLL early on but WP:IE or WP:NIR might be better - I would go for the latter. ----Snowded TALK 23:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
please point me to the style guide where it states we need to include the monarch ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouime23 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Pleased to see you have created an ID, pity it took semi-protection to force it and stop the edit warring. If you look at the office holder template you will see that Monarch and President are the two defaults. NI is part of the UK and the UK is a constitutional monarchy. So if you want to change then you either go to the template talk page and argue for an additional "Appointed by" label (now you have the link). You could also raise removing Monarch from NI articles there but I think you would be better going to one of the fora I listed above and raising it there. Whichever one you choose place a link to the discussion on the others. Oh and if you look at the tool bar there is a small pen icon. If you press that at the end of your edits on talk page it will insert your signature. Aside from the fact it is good practice it will also mean that your question is more likely to be taken seriously by other editors at the forum you choose. ----Snowded TALK 10:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I see you have changed your argument before you stated it was policy for the inclusion of the of the monarch when in fact this is not the case, again you have not answered my point. The monarch does "not" appoint the FM/dFM as the Northern Ireland Act makes clear this is done by the assembly you have not put forward a rational argument Ouime23 (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I've been very consistent, the place to have this discussion is not on one article but either at the template talk page or at one of the fora referenced. We do not make policy one article at a time. The Monarch is the head of state which is what is indicated in the template. The 'appointment' stuff is your concern. Take it to one place and have a discussion for all NI office holders. ----Snowded TALK 10:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Again you have not addressed my point the NI FM/dFM is not the same as other prime ministers/first minister where the monarch appoints them. I have provided info with regards to the relevant legislation. I request you provide evidence supporting the inclusion of the mornarch, the argument of 'it's on infoboxes' is a non starter as I have shown the NI FM/dFM is a unquire role please prove WP:Source that supports your argumentOuime23 (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Once more - the monarch's inclusion in the infobox is not as the appointer. The monarch's included because the monarch reigns over Northern Ireland. Therefore, I don't fully understand why you're arguing for the deletion of the monarch. GoodDay (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Ouime, your best bet is to take it up at one or more of the three forums Snowded listed above. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I will deal with monarch later the point I am raising just now is the reason for the removal of factual info with regards to the removal of appointed by 82.132.216.206 (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Appointed by is not in the template. Please remember to sign in ----Snowded TALK 16:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. Regardless of the way that he got in his position, the monarch ought to appear here, because worldwide we include the names of "higher" officeholders in politician infoboxes. Removing the Queen here would be as silly as removing George Bush from the Vice President section of the infobox from Dick Cheney. Nyttend (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment If Martin McGuinness holds a UK government position his monarch is Queen Elizabeth II. This is also true if he holds a UK passport.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I did sign my post I just forgot to log in, and appointed is in the template I am asking for your reason removing it Ouime23 (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing in the infobox that says appointed by. It merely state monarch. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
there is a an optional field to show who the person is appointed by, I added this but it was reverted I am asking the reason why as it is putting factual correct information Ouime23 (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
You didn't have a consensus to add that field. Again (for the third time) get a consensus for such changes across these article infoboxes, in the above mentioned forums. Concentrating your concerns on this 'one' article, isn't the correct place. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove, but.... I don't think that this actually adds anything to the article, except maybe giving hardline unionists a cheap laugh and a moment's validation. However, if we must have it in NI politician infoboxes, surely a less contentious term that wouldn't be found grossly offensive by Nationalists could be arrived at. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
  • Remove per Lankiveil. Adds nothing. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It isn't insulting to state a fact, which is that Martin McGuinness is a minister in a government of which Queen Elizabeth II is the monarch. This field in the infobox has obvious potential to cause controversy in Ireland related articles, but there is also an element of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. Peter Robinson (Northern Ireland politician) has the monarch field, and it would look like bias if it was removed for the Nationalist but not the Unionist politicians.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
It might be technically true, but what does it add to the article? I mean, we could add all manner of facts, if relevance is not at issue. Perhaps his shoe size and favourite song? Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
Making those decisions is why we have templates agreed by the community as a whole to provide consistency. Monarch or President are in that, shoe size and favourite song are not. ----Snowded TALK 11:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't say that the monarch appoints anyone. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Retain for all FMs & DFMs of NI, S & W or Remove for all FMs & DFMs of NI, S & W. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
that's is exactly my point the monarch does not appoint the NI FM/dFM as opposed to their Scottish and Welsh counterparts Ouime23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't say that the monarch appoints any of those officials. The infobox merely state that the monarch reigns over the areas that those officials govern. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
What's your point? Should we also add "Population", "GDP", "Longest river" and "Highest mountain" to FM/DFM infoboxes? Monarch, longest river, population and highest mountain are relevant for WP entries on states. Not for entries on politicians. And considering the lack of power enjoyed by the "monarch" of a parliamentary democracy, the relevance even on the constituent UK state's pages is tenuous. "reigns over" - lol. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
If it's agreed to delete the monarch from all these bios infoboxes? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec but the same point as GoodDay really) I think you are missing the point. Templates provide consistency over multiple wikipedia articles. That for politicians does no include the various items you list. You may or may not be right about the relevance of including the head of state in all such info boxes. But we can't make policy on one article. If you want to change it here get the template changed ----Snowded TALK 17:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the argument of consistency is a non starter. The NI FM/dFM are unite roles within the UKOuime23 (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
NI still has the Queen as Head of State which is all the information box entry is about. If you want to remove oq qualify the use of the HoS label then needs to be wider than one article----Snowded TALK 18:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a wider policy issue. It is simplistic and wrong to suggest the monarch is only, or should only be included in cases of direct appointment. The monarch is included in the infobox of Jeremy Corbyn, Malcolm Turnbull (PM of Australia), Michael Dunkley (Premier of Bermuda) Adam Giles (Chief Minister of the Northern Territory) and Jawaharlal Nehru (former Indian PM) to name a few. Let's be honest - this is POV-pushing. AusLondonder (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, User:Peter James. Virtually all heads of government/cabinet members in Commonwealth realms have the monarch included. AusLondonder (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
There's usually a closer connection - either the same country/territory (Prime Minister of Australia/Monarchy of Australia and similar, there is no Monarchy of Northern Ireland), or appointment or oath of allegiance (which Scotland has, for example, but not Northern Ireland). Peter James (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly. You're arguing the monarch should be removed from the infoboxes at bios concerning non-sovereign politicial offices. Example: First Ministers of Wales, Premiers of Quebec, Premiers of Western Australia, etc etc. Noting that we don't have the US President listed in bio infoboxes of state governors & lieutenant governors. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Possibly in some cases, but not in others - for example First Minister of Wales could have "appointed by" instead, or would "monarch" be better as the Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom) is also to successors? The US situation is different: from Governor (United States): "The governor is not subordinate to the federal authorities"; they are elected; and their Pledge of Allegiance is not to the President. Peter James (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
We must be clear, though. The status-quo for these NI bio officials infoboxes, merely list Elizabeth II as 'Monarch' & not 'Appointer'. GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems interesting to me that a problem has been created here. Let's not pretend this is about the principle. It's about republicanism. But Peter James is arguing that because no Monarchy of Northern Ireland article exists the inclusion of the monarch in the infobox is improper. Where is the Monarchy of the Northern Territory article? Let's see if other similar articles have the monarch included - none of these below individuals were appointed by the monarch:
  • Colin Barnett, Premier of Western Australia - Monarch included
  • Jay Weatherill, Premier of South Australia - Monarch included
  • Will Hodgman, Premier of Tasmania - Monarch included
  • Adam Giles, Chief Minister of the Northern Territory - Monarch included
  • Bill Shorten, Leader of the Opposition of Australia - Monarch included
  • In fact, all Australian state leaders include the monarch in the infobox.
  • Brian Gallant, Premier of New Brunswich

AusLondonder (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

If Republican politicians are to be treated differently to others then the bio for Unionist Politicians such as Nigel Dodds should then have Londonderry as their place of birth. Agreed?Dubs boy (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

A few things are obvious (i) the template is not applied consistently (ii) it doesn't make it clear that the section is Head of State and if it is required or not (iii) there are inevitably political issues in inclusion or removal of any reference to the Crown in any NI article All of that says this discussion should take place in on the template page (i) modification to the template to make use clear and (ii) there needs to be a policy for the Commonwealth Countries and possible also for the UK nations. How about we transfer the discussion there? ----Snowded TALK 05:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this is too broad an issue to be discussed in the context of a single article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Link to central discussion. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Agent J118

What about the allegations he was Agent J118? (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:50E5:76D4:95C0:A2EE (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC))

What about them? — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 08:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
There should be more mention as people believe it's why the British government kept him alive. (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:50E5:76D4:95C0:A2EE (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC))

Imbalance

In the interests of article balance there should be reference to the severe criticism of McGuinness, who many still view as an unrepentant murderer. e.g. Asked of his opinion of McGuinness's death, former Tory cabinet minister Lord Norman Tebbit, who was injured and his wife left paralysed by an IRA bomb in 1984, stated on Good Morning Britain: "The world is a sweeter and cleaner place isn't it? McGuinness was a coward and a murderer. The reason he became a man of peace was because he was desperate after he knew was going to be arrested and charged with a number of murders that he's personally committed." [1] Spectator columnist Douglas Murray called the obituaries "morally illiterate", writing: "Presently it is being made to appear as though there is something not just uncharitable but churlish in not admiring a man who spent the best years of his life torturing and killing people only then, when the possibility of achieving his goals looked further off than ever, for the same man to choose not to torture and kill people any longer. As I have pointed out many times over the years, the people to be admired in the Troubles are not the ones who butchered people and then decided to stop butchering people, but the people who never started butchering people in the first place." Murray also claimed the British government retained files on McGuinness's involvement in multiple murders, which the government of John Major had suppressed in order to pursue their negotiations with the IRA. The article might also list how many people were murdered under McGuinness's command. The Murray article lists a few. [2] 121.214.52.201 (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia's principle of having a neutral point of view will suffice regarding this issue...and others. SethWhales talk 12:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

How should McGuinness' last office be shown in the infobox. Should it be Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland or deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This was the subject of some discussion, as you know. See above. Britmax (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
In agreement, but @TedEdwards: appears to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The infobox header is effectively the beginning of a sentence, so the d should be capitalised. TedEdwards (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed with TedEdwards....the d should be capitalised as it is the beginning of the sentence. This is interesting, looking at various government websites the title can either be capitalised of not. Have a look at justice-ni.gov.uk and parliament.uk, that have the deputy in capitals, while executiveoffice-ni.gov.uk and nidirect.gov.uk both have deputy in lower case, confusing or what? Bottom line, the d should still be capitalised because it is the start of the sentence. SethWhales talk 17:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you all decide, at least be consistent. Either capitalize for all three deputy First Ministers, or don't. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Martin McGuinness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Butcher of the Bogside

Shouldn't we include the epithet "Butcher of the Bogside" somewhere in the article? This title has been referenced in many news and media outlets throughout the decades. 75.177.79.101 (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a catchy alliterative tabloid nickname, but he isn't commonly referred to in this way, so it doesn't meet WP:NCP.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not it's catchy, alliterative or popularised by tabloids or by broadsheets, I'm not sure that's completely relevant. He's been referred to as that, significantly, particularly locally - as a direct result of his past as being a leader of the IRA in Derry, and for actually having been a butcher in the city. There aren't a great number of Google hits that use the term. However, I wouldn't call the BBC, the Belfast Telegraph, the Herald or the Boston Globe "tabloids" necessarily (I'm not sure about de Volkskrant or the Irish Independent).
It seems significant enough to have been mentioned by Pierce Brosnan's Gerry Adams / Martin Mcguinness mashup in a recent film. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Ernesto Guevara is commonly known as Che Guevara (in fact, he is rarely known as anything else). Some news articles mention the "Butcher of Bogside" tag, such as this BBC article. It is not used as frequently as Che Guevara, but might be worth mentioning in the article with some context. What is the origin of the nickname? Is it because he worked as a butcher's assistant [4] in the early 1970s?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't know about 'Butcher of the Bogside', but the view of Lowry Mathers, widower of Joanne Mathers, victim of the Derry IRA's most notoriously sick, sectarian and inexcusable murder, is notable.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/martin-mcguinness-destroyed-my-family-widowers-raw-fury-over-ira-murder-35412461.html

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/martin-mcguinness-ordered-murder-of-census-worker-fresh-allegations-from-ira-supergrass-raymond-gilmour-29994313.html

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/why-did-the-ira-murder-my-wife-the-census-worker-mr-mcguinness-1-7784112

Martin McGuinness did some great and good things in the name of reconciliation -- once his notoriety made him unable to dominate republicanism in an operational role -- but he also, according to 'reliable sources' in Wikipedia terms, did some frankly appalling things, and he wasn't the bland figure that the article makes him out to be. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Transparent attempt to circumvent consensus

Elizabeth II was added to the infobox at 17:50, 18 July 2018. This is a new addition, and against the consensus at Talk:Martin McGuinness/Archive 2#Monarch/ appointed by. It is claimed there was no consensus for exlusion, but the closer stated

  • There is rough consensus for exclusion of the monarch, largely because the monarch does not appoint the Northern Irish PM and deputy PM. The field is not currently included in the infobox, so no further action is required

Since this is a new addition and [rough] consensus was previously against inclusion, it is up to the editor wishing to include it to gain consensus for inclusion. I have removed the disputed addition accordingly 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:5C12:2017:A387:9CF8 (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this and the removal of the parameter. @JLo-Watson:, the onus is on you to find consensus for adding the material. If no consensus existed that would be one thing; but the discussion did indeed close in favour exclusion, and that is the satus quo. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Nationality

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the nationality of someone born in NI is British isn't it? At the very least it's Northern Irish? It's definitely not Irish JJThunder1 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong. Please have a read of the Good Friday Agreement. It's kinda key. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Just to explain this: "Northern Ireland is part of the UK. However, under the Belfast Agreement, also known as the Good Friday Agreement, people born in Northern Ireland can choose to be British citizens, Irish citizens or both. If they choose to be both British and Irish citizens, this means they have a dual citizenship."[5] But what did Martin McGuinness choose, and is there a source for this?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand that. I could not find a source saying which McGuinness chose, however it is irrelevant. We're talking about nationality here, not citizenship, and as he was born in the UK that makes his nationality British. JJThunder1 (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It wouldn't be at all surprising if he chose Irish citizenship, but I am worried about introducing original research here. I did a web search and could not find any source explicitly stating that he held Irish citizenship. This source says that "The Home Office argues that those born in Northern Ireland are British at birth, regardless of Good Friday Agreement choices and, as a result, as dual nationals." Help on this, please.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

If it is the British government's position that everyone from Northern Ireland is automatically British, this would negate the need for inclusion at all. Template:Infobox person states the nationality field "Should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace". FDW777 (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Surely inclusion is necessary, as there is common confusion over the nationality of someone born in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, in the particular case of McGuinness, I think it is clear that his nationality is British and it should say so on this page JJThunder1 (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Under Article 12 of the Irish constitution, only Irish citizens can run for President of Ireland see this. Since McGuinness ran in the 2011 Irish presidential election, that means he had Irish citizenship. Valenciano (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Good point, so he has Irish citizenship. But once again, this is a discussion of nationality, not citizenship. As he was born in Northern Ireland, that makes him British JJThunder1 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Drop it. We're not about to get into WP:OR on every NI bio so you can make WP:POINTY edits. WP:NOTHERE. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
It's interesting that the Home Office has said that it considers a person born in Northern Ireland to have British nationality at birth, regardless of any choice they may subsequently make as a result of the Good Friday Agreement. This is based on the British Nationality Act 1981. The key point of the article here is that the Home Office does not consider that the Good Friday Agreement allows a person born in Northern Ireland to use the Good Friday Agreement to revoke their British citizenship altogether and identify as Irish citizens only. So as far as the Home Office is concerned, Martin McGuinness was always a dual British/Irish national, not an Irish citizen. Where all of this leaves the "nationality" field in the infobox is unclear. As ever with Northern Ireland, the truth is rarely pure and never simple, as the uncontroversially Irish national Oscar Wilde would have said.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean we can leave it if the general community thinks that best, but it seems kind of contrary to the aims of wikipedia to maintain false information JJThunder1 (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Separate from Northern Ireland we use self-identification to determine nationality in respect of Welsh, Scottish, English so I really don't see an issue here and I agree with Bastun -----Snowded TALK 09:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion relating to this article taking place

Please see Talk:Leader of Sinn Féin#Leader in Northern Ireland Assembly. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion now moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Proposals regarding various Sinn_Féin related articles. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Following the discussion here consensus is to change this article to remove mentions of the "Leader of Sinn Féin in the Northern Ireland Assembly" position. FDW777 (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

NYR piece

I am curious about placing this article in a source and if putting in its claims will be acceptable for the page. https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/12/10/blood-brexit-ulster-northern-ireland/ In it, the author states in the last paragraph "Where I grew up, Mid Ulster, the member of Parliament since the late 1990s was Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness, a leader of the IRA. I had dinner once seated next to a lawyer who’d worked for George Mitchell, the former American senator who negotiated the Good Friday Agreement, and she told me that McGuinness was responsible, personally, for the deaths of three hundred people. I didn’t need to be told, but it was better than being buttonholed at a friend’s wedding years ago by an American literary agent eager to tell me that he’d just signed up a countryman of mine, “a great statesman” called Gerry Adams, another alleged IRA leader." Now, should this be included?- MarvelAge91 (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It is a truly remarkable claim that Martin McGuinness was "responsible, personally" for the deaths of 300 people out of the ~1800 people killed by the IRA. I don't recall seeing this in any of the many credible books written by experienced IRA/Troubles authors on the subject. FDW777 (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Sidebar

I have again reverted the addition of this from various articles (this is a centralised discussion), see WP:ONUS. For starters it serves no real purpose, since it essentially duplicates information that is in the main infobox. Even if there is some reason as to why a second infobox is needed there is a problem since, as stated, the first minister and deputy first minister positions are a diarchy, see the BBC artice which explains it. FDW777 (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Rank ; "Hero of Ireland'

On the sidebar McGuiness is ranked as a 'Hero of Ireland' when no such title exists. It is suspected that this is a Propaganda attempt to erase his terrorist past. 203.0.239.3 (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I have removed it as it doesn't seem to be cited. Do not ascribe a motivation without hard evidence, please, and be aware of WP:BLP which applies to all pages. Unless someone is convicted of terrorism in a court of law, they should not be referred to as such here. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2023

change title from 'deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland' to 'Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland' 2A01:4B00:BA00:1800:CD7E:43A2:3BEF:B87E (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Alcohol

It only took over 12 years for this to be noticed. On September 17, 2010 the text "McGuiness is a member of the [Pioneer Total Abstinence Association of the Sacred Heart] meaning that he does drink alcohol" was added, and it hadn't changed much when I removed it today. A convenience link for the supposedly relevant part of the book was included at the time, yet it doesn't mention the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association of the Sacred Heart. What it does day is "As a teenager, he had experimented with alcohol, but renounced it to maintain his guard when he joined the IRA. Previously, he would only have drunk occasionally and in private, in the house with Bernie, whereas now he takes the odd glass of wine, usually a West Coast cooler, in company", which is epmphatically not the same thing as being a member of the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association of the Sacred Heart! Kathleen's bike (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ Gerretsen, Isabelle, "Lord Norman Tebbit says world is a 'cleaner and sweeter place' without Martin McGuinness", International Business Times, 21 March 2017
  2. ^ Murray, Douglas "The morally illiterate obituaries to Martin McGuinness are just what he would have wanted", The Spectator, March 2017; [6]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_McGuinness/Archive_2&oldid=1216879982"