Talk:Ian Paisley/Archive 1

message: From the article: "banned African-American students from its campus"
This is unclear - does this mean that only American citizens of Afro-Caribbean ethnicity were banned? I thought that all people of Afro-Caribbean ethnicity were banned, regardless of citizenship? For instance, British Afro-Caribbean peoples were also banned from attending.
This phrase needs clarification.
Andrew Oakley 15:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, although similar questions probably arise in respect of the term "Afro-Caribbean".  It would be best to phrase this in the same way as the prohibition itself was phrased, if that's available.  Failing that, is there any problem with saying it "banned black students from its campus"? --Ryano 15:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: African American

message: This sentence is in section 4.  I can't get it to make sense.  anybody know what did happen in the Stormont Executive?
(Paisley, like the leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour Party and Sinn Féin chose not to become a minister) but while serving as ministers refused to sit in at meetings of the Executive Committee (cabinet) in protest at Sinn Fein's participation.   garryq 18:17, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  MLA Minister 

message: The already long discussion of the badness of Bob Jones University has now been supplemented by Lapsed Pacifist, who provides an even lengthier discussion of how Bob Jones is not so bad any more.  The latter part seems to me to be clearly irrelevant to the subject of Paisley, but I don't want to revert just yet.  Could Lapsed Pacifist explain why he feels a discussion of Bob Jones University's recent actions is appropriate to an article about Ian Paisley? john k 02:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Jones 

message: I can't verify the Moira Lyons story after a brief internet search. Zeimusu | Talk page 
:In a quick search, the only news source I found was Le Nouvel Observatuer link to Google cache of article.  The relevant paragraph is:
::C’est en 1956 que Ian Paisley se fait remarquer avec « l’affaire Maura Lyons ». Cette catholique de 15 ans « sauvée » (c’est-à-dire convertie) rejoint l’Eglise de Ian Paisley. Qui la fait « disparaître ». Car, mineure, elle est recherchée par la police. Deux ans après cet épisode qui fait scandale, le révérend s’illustre encore en organisant un tour d’Ulster pour un prêtre catholique espagnol converti au protestantisme qui se livre à des simulacres de messe (2). Ian Paisley a le sens de la provocation mais aussi du spectacle. Longtemps, il a cherché à se faire emprisonner. « C’est le seul moyen, aurait-il un jour confié, d’arriver quelque part en Irlande du Nord. » En 1962, Paisley se rend à Rome pour jouer les trouble-fête lors du concile œcuménique de Vatican II. Il se fait brièvement arrêter par les carabiniers et revient à Belfast en héros. Des exploits relatés dans un film sobrement intitulé : « Dans les mains de la gestapo du pape »…
:This isn't far from what the article has.  The sentence "Qui la fait disparaitre" is a little unclear -- was it Paisley or his church that made her disappear?  I'd suggest getting rid of all those bolded unreliable websites, and perhaps substituting this link, but it is both in French, and rather brief. Jkelly 19:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just copyedited the Cloney paragraph.  It is not at all clear to me that this has anything to do with Paisley -- "Some view his actions in light of..."?  Did someone weirdly merge a stub article on the boycott with this article?  It should probably be taken out and put in Fethard-on-Sea Boycott.  Jkelly 19:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, going through the page history, this whole Cloney business is an attempt to "balance" or contextualize the Lyons affair, but through revisions the connection between the two has been lost.  My opinion remains that the Cloney material is out-of-place.  If we can find some reliable source who compares the two incidents (right now, a Google search on "maura lyons" "iam paisley" and "cloney" only returns WP mirrors), then we should quote that source and link to the (to-be-created) page regarding the Fethard-on-Sea Boycott.  Jkelly 20:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  I added the information on the boycott to Fethard-on-Sea.  It turns out that the boycott happened in 1957, a year after the Maura Lyons affair, and so cannot possibly have been Paisley's motivation for it.  I'm going to cut it.  Jkelly 21:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moira Lyons / Sheila Cloney 

message: When giving an honorific, only one honorific must be used.  We have to chose one for this, so in the intrests of the most balenced POV, we have to use the least disputed title. Since Ian Paisley's claim on a Doctorate is significantly disputed, but his claim to Reverend is not, then we must consistantly use Rev. as his honorific. Please do not use the Dr. honorific, as this will confuse the reader. --John R. Barberio  talk, contribs  18:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the guideline about only using one honorific?  Jkelly 20:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Er... It's common and standard use of english? We do not use multiple honorifics. Someone who is both a Reverand and a Judge would be refered to as Rev. Suchsuch or Hon. Suchsuch depending on circumstances, but never as Rev. Hon. Suchsuch. --John R. Barberio  talk, contribs  22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Revd Dr So-and-so" is a perfectly standard style, I come across it routinely in my work. Besides, I would regard "the Revd" as a much more dubious honorific for IP than "Dr", since (as the article relates) none of the people who purportedly "ordained" him were actually empowered or authorised to do so. Bob Jones University may not exactly be Harvard, but its degrees are no more questionable than those of hundreds of similar institutions. Vilcxjo 00:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorific to use. 

message: A little clarification over what I have meant by 'no concencus on giving special treatment'.
With any general person being given a Wikipedia article, they should only be directly refered to by legitimate honorifics by normal use.
Lets propose a hypothetical person, Bob. Bob has recieved an honorary doctorate in Applied Spagetimonsterisim from the SubGenius College of California, an unacredited institution. Now, normal use would not consider Dr. Bob a legitimate honorific.
So, with Ian Paisley, we have to consider that normal behavour ignoring all else would not consider it a legitimate honorific. This is because it is a honorary doctorate from an unaccredited institution. So to directly refer to Ian Paisley with the Dr. honorific, we have to gain concensus on special circumstances that should warrent it.
The only ones so far proposed are 'Lots of people in The Media do it', and 'For political reasons, political groups recognise the honorific'. There has been no concensus to support these two proposals, so there is no concensus to support giving special treatment.
--John R. Barberio  talk, contribs  17:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Special treatment with regard to Dr.

message: The article is heavily weighted against Dr Paisley. Compare it with the article for Pope John Paul and you will see what I mean. I cannot see why some Wikipedias seem to want to do a character assassination of some people. If this is in the spirit of Wikipedia, I sure hope someone will change it. Wallie 20:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The spirit of the Wikipedia is not to let articles be totally whitewashed, which is what you're attempting to do here. This is not the DUPedia, removing information that you see as biased which is entirely true is just not done. --Kiand 20:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you excuse me, I think you have an agenda, Kiand. You use words like "entirely true" which could possibly alert others to your own very personal bias on the subject. Wallie 21:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone has an agenda here, its you - you've been attempting to whitewash this article completely. Theres nothing untrue in this article, only stuff which inflames DUP supporters. And before anyone even thinks of suggesting it, I'm not a supporter of any party which is or pretends to be nationalist, and really don't care about Northern Ireland's status. However, its clear that those attempting to whitewash this article do support one particular side. --Kiand 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we have the underlying agenda out of your own mouth. To provide "stuff which inflames DUP supporters". Freudian slips are revealing. Wallie 07:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No, the stuff that inflames DUP supporters is truths that you can't handle. My only "agenda" is to prevent anyone attempting to whitewash. --Kiand 08:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please keep this article NEUTRAL

message: Her Majesty doesn't think him pretty loyal. Her detestation of him is well known in political circles. She recently snubbed him as a privy councillor and brought David Trimble and John Hume to a Buckingham Palace state banquet. In addition Paisley will never be made a hereditary peer; they don't make politicians hereditary peers any more. He can't get a life peerage without losing his House of Commons seat, and that is something he is not ready to give up, because a leader these days cannot in practice operate from the Lords. As long as he is still DUP leader (and he is expected to retire after the next British general election at the latest) he has to stay in the Commons, which means no peerage of any sort for him. And the Palace has not forgiven him for comments made about the late Queen Mother. So they have made it clear that he will get a KBE over the Queen's dead body! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gimme a break! "Her detestation of him is well known in political circles." Just how POV is that. And I see you are an Admin. What hope is there left for us mere plebs. Talk about trying to stir things up! Our Queen is a true lady and does not detest anyone. No doubt you'll saviour the fact that Dr Paisley will not be Lord Paisley. But I doubt you'll ever be made a Lord either, or I for that matter. O well. I shall just have to come to terms with that sad fact. Wallie 16:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversation about HRM unrelated to improving article

message: :This is the addition:
::late 2005,Ian Paisley was appointed to Her Majesty's Privy Council, which entitles him to use the title 'The Rt. Hon.' before his name, & use of the postnominal letters 'PC'. However, his wife is set to be made a life peeress. Some people in both Northern Ireland & in the British Commonwealth have called for Ian Paisley to be made a Lord for his services. 
:Can we get a reference for this?  If so, it probably belongs in the article.  Jkelly 03:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added an inline link to the BBC article on his appointment to the original mention of the appointment in the article and cut the new section that was created for it.  Frankly, I'm not sure that it was worth the bother, since this article doesn't really reference as it now stands.  Jkelly 04:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed addition cut

message: Quick note. Ian Paisley should *not* be refered to with the Post-nominal letters of PC and Right Honourable at the same time. These are redundant to each other, and only one should be used. (PC is also currently inappropriatly Wikilinked to a disambiguation page) --John R. Barberio  talk, contribs  12:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as I understand it this is equivalent to styling somebody "Dr Joe Bloggs Ph.D.".  By the way, we're still not using all of the titles available to him: he's also an MEP and Grand Master of a loyal order.  We could go as far as to style him The Right Honourable Worshipful Grandmaster Reverend Doctor Ian Richard Kyle Paisley, MP MEP MLA .  Does anybody know what the man himself uses on his letterheads etc.? --Ryano 13:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could go that far -- however, we'd be wrong because he has no legitimate claim to being titled "Doctor".  Stuarta 13:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  To answer my own question, I just got something from the DUP in connection with my work and they have put him down as Rt Hon Dr Paisley MP. --Ryano 11:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Err, no. Please note that he's not currently an MEP, he stood down at the 2004 elections. Here's the Parliament's official list of all current UK MEPs. -- Arwel (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're absolutely right of course, I copied that from an obviously out-of-date source.  Still, the point is that he has a lot of titles, and there's no particular reason why we have to use them all. --Ryano 01:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More title debate

message: The picture used here has a Copyright alert on it. What does this mean? Can Wikipedia use it? In addition, the picture is referenced by a non existant link to what is presumably an official site. Wallie 18:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are owed an apology.  The image was altered by User:Kpax.  The correct image to use is the one here.  Jkelly 18:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put up the official DUP one.  Jkelly 19:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I was not trying to trap anyone. I only just noticed it myself, and immediately put up this section, as I was unsure of what was going on and the various policies. Wallie 19:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: PS: I have just seen it! Very nice. Nice smile too! Wallie 19:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: User:Jtdirl, I'd appreciate it if you'd slow down a second and take a look at the image you just reverted to.  Yesterday User:Kpax over-wrote the original image from http://www.ni-assembly.gov.uk/members/biogs/ipaisley.htm with one from sluggerotoole.com.  If you have reason to believe that blog's image is under Crown Copyright, please explain it to us, and include that information on the image description page.  Crown copyright is perhaps better than "fair use" of the DUP one, but the DUP one under fair use as a publicity photo for use in the media is much better than an unsourced image from a blog labelled as "Crown copyright".  I'm not going to revert, but please clear up the confusion for us.  Jkelly 19:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright?

message: The following article which Jkelly alerted me to is:  The article is reasonably fair and points out both the good and the bad. Now have a look at the main WP article and compare it. The latter looks like some characature presented by a junior school. I think that the present article is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Wallie 20:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not. I did reference it. I was not aware that this was incorrect, as I did reference it and it was on a talk page as an example. I am also aware you are on my case. Wallie 20:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The article was copied to a talk page and referenced. I was unaware that this was not legally permissable, as I am not a lawyer. Now that you have mentioned it, I would of course not risk Wikipedia in any way. However, I have no doubt that you would not react in this way to anyone else other than me, and you would be delighted to find an excuse to ban me. Wallie 21:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyright violations are highly serious, and any self-respecting admin would react to them in the manner which was done here - getting sued for copyright could destroy the Wikimedia Foundation. --Kiand 21:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not believe this to be a copyright violation at the time as it was referenced. Any other person would be told nicely about this and not stomped upon. I suspect I will be soon getting additional advice from the last of the trio. Wallie 21:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: OK and thanks. As I have mentioned earlier, I am not and have never been a Unionist/Loyalist supporter. I just want a fair presentation of everyone. Whether we agree or disagree with Paisley personally, the resultant article should look exactly the same. Wallie 21:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Better article

message: I recall reading in the God Save Ulster book that IP wrote a pamphlet on the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre - can anyone reference it, and what's it like?--shtove 14:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Bartholomew's Day Massacre 

message: The article seems to not be as POV as when I first saw it. So there's hope yet. As was mentioned by someone else, things usually improve (right themselves) over time.  Wallie 20:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is getting a bit better 

message: 
...unless there's more to say about these supporters. -- Perfecto 06:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see anything worth merging. Or redirecting, in fact. --Kiand 09:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paisleyite 

message: This section is unreadable.  Its a massive wall of text that desparately needs to be broken into paragraphs.
attention is drawn to Wikipedia:How to structure the content especially the part that says 'Each paragraph should convey only one main idea. Connect them together by paragraph leaders (e.g. "Because of this unexpected result, ...") as much as possible.'--Xorkl000 06:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Friday Agreement Section 

message: This whole lengthy section, added by an anon, is wall-to-wall POV (with no attempt even to disguise the fact), with not a single reference to support its many assertions. Virtually anything of any value in it is already elsewhere in the article – in the unlikely event of there being anything else worth preserving, it can be stitched in to the article proper. The only reason I'm even troubling the talk page is that another user reverted an earlier blanking of the section – possibly because they simply assumed the blanking was vandalism rather than a valid edit. Whatever, it needs to go. Vilcxjo 15:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section heavily duplicates existing material, just adding its own massive slant to stuff already present in proper NPOV terms. The very title, "His real life", is a mockery – implying what? that the carefully written and properly referenced stuff elsewhere in the article is "unreal"? This is exactly the sort of writing which undermines the whole credibility of WP. If you think some of the material is both verifiable and worth preserving, then how about making this a better article by incorporating it (with proper referencing) into the rest of the article? Don't just restore in its entirety a crap section which (quite apart from its slant) ignores the existence of the rest of the article. Vilcxjo 17:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "His real life" 

message: Repeating what I said about the Good Friday Agreement Section earlier (which has now been improved greatly - good job by the way).
This section is tough reading.  Its a wall of text that needs to be broken into paragraphs.
attention is drawn to Wikipedia:How to structure the content especially the part that says 'Each paragraph should convey only one main idea. Connect them together by paragraph leaders (e.g. "Because of this unexpected result, ...") as much as possible.'--Xorkl000 04:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --Barberio 10:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ian Paisley#A Complex Man|A Complex Man]] 

message: Can anybody confirm with details if Paisley really did describe Dublin as a 'breeding ground for republicans'? El Gringo 22:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly a breeding ground for Catholics ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dublin 'breeding ground for republicans'

message: I have deleted the words 'with many moderates viewing him as the principle [sic] stumbling block to peace' from the opening paragraph. Since it is attributed to 'many moderates' it is not necessarily POV (although it perhaps suggests that his being a 'stumbling block' is a reasonable conclusion to draw); but putting it in such a prominent position awards too much attention to one side of the argument. It is not straightforwardly verifiable, in any case (opinion polls?), and certainly not verified. Oliverkroll 22:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph

message: It´s hard to imagine a more reaccionary right-wing populist then Ian Paisley. I supose he as some admirers, like the wikipedian, who think this categorization for him is "silly" (sic). I guess he thinks it´s also silly for people like Jean Marie Le Pen an Joerg Haider too. User:Mistico
:If you want to call him a "reactionary demagogue", I would hardly disagree, though the description would be far too POV to go into an article. But "reactionary" does not mean "right-wing", nor is "demagogy" the same as "populism". Try reading the articles on Right-wing politics and Populism – applying either term to Paisley is a nonsense, or strains the definitions so much as to make them useless. Funny how trying to keep an article accurate counts as making me an "admirer" of the man. (It's highly questionable whether such a category can ever be NPOV, anyway. I feel a CfD coming on ...) Vilĉjo 16:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Right-wing populism

message: Its about his failed iniative with the SDLP in 1971- put it in the "no surrender" section because it seemed to fit the timeline. if it belongs somewhere else please move it. Thanks. Fluffy999 00:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: added 1971 detail

message: Rhonda probably deserves her own page.  That would remove at least a couple of paragraphs from this article. Fluffy999 23:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Created Rhonda Paisley article. Fluffy999 00:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rhonda Paisley

message: Added some detail on this and the Victory jig. Fluffy999 15:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drumcree 1 - 1995

message: It's clear from the slightly sneering tone of the article that the author doesn't like Paisley very much. Though I understand how hard it is to appear unbiased (one way or the other). Jonathan3 00:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theres been significantly more than one author for each and every section. The article as it stands right now isn't unbiased, but  is a mix of bias in both directions and is probably the best that can be acheived for such a contraversial figure. --Kiand 01:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to split the article up?  He is controversial but there are a lot of things he has done which are not appearing, specifically his involvement in politics but also his charity and ecumenical work. Fluffy999 01:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to split it up, just add the verifiable material in the appropriate section. -Will Beback 02:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it might get to big, its around 99k now. there really is a wealth of stuff on his politics alone that hasnt been touched on yet. will give it a go, thanks Fluffy999 02:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of article 

message: When Paisley denounced the Pope as anti-Christ. Which Pope? (I'm guessing John Paul II. When? V. Joe 18:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those details are given in the "Political Life" section. But for clarity I have repeated them in the "Quotes" section. (Also I think "shouted" is a more encyclopaedic term than "yelled"). Vilĉjo 20:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Off topic, I think I would cheerfully pay good money to witness that occasion. This is why I am not contributing directly to this article :} V. Joe 13:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can remember, RTÉ Reeling In The Years for whatever year it was has the clip, which I'm surprised isn't available online (most of their shows are), but they may put the video online if you ask them. As a side note, captioning the link to the video of him being ejected by the police from Stormont as "assaulted" is somewhat POV - as he was removed by the police, not some random attackers; and it wasn't only him either. --Kiand 12:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - changed to "forcibly ejected". Vilĉjo 13:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope as Anti-Christ 

message: Dear all,
I have just commented out the following section:

Please note that the section is NOT DELETED, but merely commented out.  I think this clearly falls under POV and unencyclopaedic reasons for inclusion, and besides, name-calling doesn't explain his ideas the way the rest of the article does (ie we should allow people to come to their own conclusions on bigotry etc, based on truthful reporting).  If it's uncontested, I'll delete the section in a week.  -- (James McNally)  (talkpage)  17:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering it was added today barely hours before you commented it out, I'm sure nobody will complain of a removal. --Kiand 17:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  section entitled '''"Bigot"''' commented out 

message: I removed the following statement from the article:
"Unusually among politicians, he combines two roles, one religious, one secular."
The statement is a matter of opinion and cannot be definitively substantiated as being "unusual". It is already made clear that he has both a secular and religious role by the article, and the statement is an unnecessary redundancy that is clearly an issue of POV.
--Falkan 00:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual among politicians 

message: There is some unsourced criticism in this article, which claims that Paisley had connections with terrorist organisations.  I don't know whether this is true or not, but I know that it is currently unsourced (other Wikipedia articles don't count).  In particular much of the "Ian Paisley says 'Ulster says no'" section is critical and unsourced.
Having just re-read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced criticism I am taking action.  Note that this removal of information is an exception to the three-revert rule. Greenshed 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of unsourced criticism