Talk:Ian Paisley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

African American

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)

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)

Joke

Joke doing the rounds c. 1990:

God visits President George Bush, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Ian Paisley to announce the impending end of the world. They report the news to their colleagues.

George Bush announces to his cabinet: "Friends, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that I have definite proof that God exists, because He has spoken with me, and the bad news is that the world's going to end tomorrow."

Mikhail Gorbachev announces to the CPSU Presidium: "Comrades, I have bad news and worse news. The bad news is that the God, who we have been denying for the last 70 years, exists, for He has spoken with me, and the worse news is that the world's going to end tomorrow."

Ian Paisley announces to the UUP leadership: "Friends, I have good news and better news. The good news is that I have proof that the Lord our God exists, because I have spoken with Him, and the better news is that He has told me that there will NEVER be a united Ireland!".

Arwel 00:51 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

I LOVE that joke. I HAVE to put it on my user page. It is excellent! ÉÍREman 01:35 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

Rugby

I remember seeing an interview in the Sunday Times (it may have been the "Relative Values" part of the magazine) where Ian Paisley, Jr. spoke of having members of a visiting rugby team from the Republic stay at his house, only to freeze at the doorway upon seeing Paisley's picture in the hallway, only entering when they were assured that he wasn't quite so rigid as he appeared on the news.

Jimregan 02:08 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

Disputed facts

I have reverted to reinstate factually accurate information, including:

• That Ian Paisley is a sufferer from depression - that is widely known within political circles and I had in confirmed by someone who knows Paisley well.

• That he is in poor health - those who attend the Northern Ireland Assembly, the House of Commons and the European Parliament have all seen a dramatic decline, including a notable loss of weight. But then he is quite elderly.

• That he has been spending more and more time devoted to his missions in Africa. That too is a verifiable fact. Whereas Paisley up to a few years ago was a press release a day type politician, who dominated news bulletins (except for those periods when for the health reasons mentioned in point one when he disappeared from view), in the last five years he has declined almost to invisibility for months on end, devoting his time to his work as chairman of the Stormont Agriculture Committee (where he was an excellent chairman, admired for his work by Agriculture Minister Bríd Rogers and even by Sinn Féin members, who praise his work privately). His attendance in both the European Parliament and the House of Commons has declined noticeably.

• That his son Kyle is seen as heir apparent to the moderatorship of the Free Presbyterian Church - again a fact openly spoken about within the FPC.

• That Peter Robinson is expected to move the DUP to a more mainstream middle of the road politics. Again that is a known fact within political circles. People on the Robinson wing of the party were quick of the mark after Paisley's controversial speech at the launch of the DUP assembly elections campaign to distance themselves from his comments, saying in effect "that is just Ian being Ian. Don't pay much heed to it. He is already in semi retirement and will be retired totally soon". Paisley is seen in the DUP the way Eamon de Valera was seen within Fianna Fáil in the last few years of deV's leadership, as the party's father figure who has a clear heir apparent who intends to change the image of the party as soon as the father figure retires. Robinson knows that the DUP is a niche party, with a strong support base but a limited appeal outside it. If it is to displace the Ulster Unionist Party, it has to broaden its appeal. Robinson as a minister deliberately courted the middle ground of unionism. It was he who pushed for the DUP to participate as ministers in the Executive, albeit not at Executive meetings. He and those close to him have even spoken about their willingness to work with Sinn Féin once the IRA is no more and SF is a 100% democratic party. That differs from classic DUP stances of the past under Big Ian, when the stance was not to work with the SDLP and never ever under any circumstances to work with Sinn Féin. FearÉÍREANN 19:27 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Again I must dispute with your "facts."

Your "fact" that Dr Paisley is a sufferer of depression - I have never ever seen or heard this anywhere before, except on this page. I beg to differ.

Dr Paisley has repeated stated in interviews in the last year that he is not in poor health. He has lost weight on the advice of his doctor, and says himself that he feels much better for it. If any of us can do the same amount of work he can at his age I think we will be more than happy...

You are then contradicting yourself by saying that he is spending more time devoted to African missions and proof of this is his work on Agriculture Committee. There's something wrong with your theory there...

Again your "fact" that his son Kyle will be the next moderator of the Free Presbyterian church doesn't really hold water. Kyle has never held any position of prominence within the church presbytery. And I can assure you that it is not "openly spoken about within the FPC." This is simply untrue.

You then go on about Peter Robinson intending to move the party to more middle ground politics. This seems to be something that has been dreamed up by some journalists. Peter Robinson himself has denied this fact strenuously in repeated interviews, and Dr Paisley has himself stated that there are no differences in opinion between himself and his deputy. I watched a TV program devoted entirely to this subject and the only people who agreed with the agenda of the program were outsiders and opponents of the party. The members and supporters of the party all disputed this "fact." I feel those inside the party should know more of its internal politics than those who are external, many of whom have a political agenda when trying to split up the leadership of the DUP in front of the electorate.

MLA Minister

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)

---

Just removed the remaining current references to him being an MEP, and changed the description of his age in "Nearing Retirement" from "mid '70s" to "late '70s" (78 isn't "mid" to me, anyway!). -- Arwel 10:06, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Speculation

Am I the only one who thinks Encyclopedia articles should be factual and not speculative. This stuff about who will succeed him is pointless in an article like this.

Mark V McCullagh

Removal of critical website

I removed the critical website due it being unreliable as a source. For example it describes Roberty McCartney as a "DUP barrister".

Ian Paisley and the Pope

Has he made any comments on the death of John Paul II and ascent of Benedict XVI? 21 April 2005

Yes as quoted in BBC interview linked on this page Ian Paisley's comment on the death of JP II was "We can understand how Roman Catholics feel at the death of the Pope and we would want in no way to interfere with their expression of grief and sorrow at this time" a bit of a contrast to his comment on the death of Pope John XXIII, although Paisley himself insisits his views toward the papacy in general have not changed. Maybe this should be included?

Pope's visit to EU Parliament

Does anyone else think the following reads as being a bit POV: "In a now famous address by the Pope to the Parliament, Paisley denounced him and accused him of being the Antichrist. He was ejected, with some violence, by a group of his fellow MEPs, most of them Roman Catholic." Is there any reference to show that the MEPs who intervened were Catholic? There's obviously a good chance they were, but my memory of the incident is that it was the MEPs sitting near Paisley who sought to restrain him. The second sentence above seems to imply that they intervened because of their religion, rather than their outrage at Paisley's behaviour. Even if the MEPs in question were Catholic, I don't think it's fair to non-Catholic MEPS to imply that they would not have intervened. --Ryano 11:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ian Paisley called the MEPs who intervened Le Penn's (spelling?) Henchmen i.e. some were from the French Far Right. He also stated on a tape I have somewhere that he was kicked in the incident.

OH MY GOD! This man is seen as a "complex, not all that bad" by wikipedia. Somebody just look at anybody over history that has been at the other side of the divide. Anything good said? NO! All pure UDA/blueshirt/english point of view. SICK!!!

Which just goes to show that you don't know how Wikipedia works, and the NPOV policy - the bulk of the article in its current form has been written by a republican from Dublin. -- Arwel 30 June 2005 19:47 (UTC)

Bob Jones

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)

I don't. If you like, take it out.

Lapsed Pacifist 03:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why the racial issue is even mentioned on the Ian Paisley page because if you want to mention it then you really need to be prepared to mention in every biography that someone was awarded or earned a degree from a college or university during a period in which women or non-whites or non-Anglicans were barred etc. User:biglobiglo

"At the time of the award of this degree, Bob Jones University was a segregationist, unaccredited Christian college which banned African-American students from its campus."

I'm not 100% sure about this anyhow. I know they banned inter-racial dating into the 1990s but I feel its more a Bob Jones University page item than for here.

-- See the entry on Bob Jones, Sr. Paisley accepted a degree from a university with anti-Catholic and racist teahcings and practices. BJU banned all black students until 1971 and maintained a policy banning inter-racial dating until 2000. Clearly, accepting a degree from such a place is controversial enough to merit a biographical mention -- particularly when the subject has used the title "Dr" even on the front cover of his books. --Irishtimes 20:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not right that Bob Jones University is racial. I visited the campus some years ago during the chapel time when all the students are on the way to the chapel and I saw african-american students. And they did not seem to be unhappy to be at Bob Jones University. Well, it is right, that not the majority of the students are african-americans, but I think if the university would be racial there would be no african-american student. I wonder, if the people who say that Bob Jones University is racial ever visited the campus by their own? (I´am not a student of Bob Jones University, I only visited the campus on a trip to USA).

Moira Lyons / Sheila Cloney

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)

Also the information about Sheila Kelly Cloney doesn't seem related to Paisley in any way. Is it? Zeimusu | Talk page 22:58, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I love the way everything about paislye is discribed as anti catholic, ant religion or religious institution, that is not of the catholic faith is anti-catholic. Bob Jones Uni is not anticatholic it is protestant...aaaaaahhhhhh!!!!! why do people always try to make things sound worse! be honest and independant. It isn't racist either, in fact it has always had schemes for paying the high fees of over seas students and scholarships for those that can't afford from the usa. It is a protestant university, that is Bible based, which if you read it opposes races mixing! It does not say any are better or worse, just says for purity and the prevention of the spread of disease, dont mix races!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.109.245 (talk • contribs)

Honorific to use.

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)

Where is the guideline about only using one honorific? Jkelly 20:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

"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)

In UK ecclesiatical ettiquette, it is technically incorrect to refer to a cleric as "Reverend Paisley". The term Reverend should be used in the following usages: with both names (e.g., The Reverend Ian Paisley), and with a doubling of titles (e.g., The Reverend Mr Paisly, or the Reverend Dr Paisley). In American usuage, those clerics who are "Revd Dr" typically use on the Dr honorific. To summarise: we may refer to Paisley as Dr Paisley or Mr Paisley, or even Revd Dr or Revd Mr, but never (never!) Reverend Paisley. Just being clear ;-) --Irishtimes 21:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Paisley's Title

I put Ian Paisley's "Dr" in quotation marks and the change has been reverted, apparently on account of it being "inappropriate".

My reason for making the change is that the article plainly states that his doctorate was:

a) honorary; and b) conferred by Bob Jones University, which was unaccredited at that time.

This doctorate therefore has no more meaning than any degree acquired by sending a few dollars to a degree mill. Degrees do not acquire legitimacy upon subsequent accreditation of their conferring institution, which has not in any case occurred with Bob Jones University. Consequently his doctorate is not a real doctorate. (I'll leave aside the question of whether it would be appropriate to refer to anybody as "Dr" on the strength of an honorary doctorate as it is not the most important point.)

If Ian Paisley is given a "Dr" prefix on account of a degree mill-style certification then we might as well put "Dr" in front of anybody who chooses to style themselves this way. Since he does choose to make use of this deeply dubious title I felt the best way of conveying this was to put it in quotation marks. Anyone reading the section on his doctorate would, I thought, understand the reason for the quotation marks.

If it is deemed inappropriate to put the title in quotation marks (I would like to see an explanation, but I accept there might be one -- I'm not well acquainted with Wikipedia style) then the title should be dropped, in my view. I don't see that there is any argument to be had on the question of "double honorifics": he only has a legitimate claim to one of them.

I should perhaps declare an interest, in that I have a real PhD, although I don't use the "Dr" title.

Stuarta 12:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

--- Honorary Doctorates: Any person who received an honorary doctorate from an institution is entitled to use the title Dr. That is custom and practice everywhere. Most honorary graduates (actors, politicians, etc.), never use the title. It has long been the custom of ministers of religion to use the title Dr when they have been given an hon. degree. Paisley follows that tradition. Moderators of the Church of Scotland are typically given hon doctorates from Scottish universities, and no one disputes their right to be termed "Rt Rev Dr". The actual worth of an hon degree is, of course, in proportion to the quality of the school in question. BJU is not a diploma mill; it is unaccreditied (there's a difference), though seeking accreditation. The degrees of its graduates are accepted for entry to distinguished graduate schools (including Princton, Hardvard and Yale). BJU's moral status is an open question, given its policies on race and sectarianism; but that's another thing entirely. --Irishtimes 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The bulk of this is not relevant to my post (if it was intended to answer it), as I explicitly said I was leaving aside the honorary nature of the doctorate. Nonetheless, I disagree that "Any person who received an honorary doctorate from an institution is entitled to use the title Dr" because such a description does not qualify the nature of the institution -- that is, it ignores the entire point of this discussion.

As for the rest, it has been discussed at length below. If you are making a case for Paisley being granted the title "Dr" then you are making a case, presumably, for discarding an accredited degree as the criterion for such a title. However, in suggesting a spectrum of worth "in proportion to the quality of the school" you appear to be forgetting that the title appearing on the Wikipedia page is a binary decision. You must therefore, if you wish the title to appear, suggest a new dividing line other than accreditation. Until you do this, you are not in a position to suggest reinstatement of the title.

Other questions remain, but I see no point in mentioning them in view of the above consideration.

Stuarta 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points.

• Paisley's "doctorate" may indeed be questionable. It is however universally accepted for use when referring to him. Among those who call him Dr Paisley are
  • the DUP (naturally)
  • Sinn Féin (I recently attended a Sinn Féin press conference where "Dr Paisley" was used 19 times!)
  • All the other parties without exception;
  • The Irish Government;
  • The British government;
  • All parliamentary assemblies Paisley has been a member of.
  • All sections of the Northern Ireland electorate.

As a result, to leave out a universally accepted reference would POV and is not an option. Similarly putting it in quotation would be POV and guaranteed to cause edit wars, particularly if unionists note the quotation marks and take it as slight on Paisley.

The only option is at its first reference to attach a footnote which explains that being honorary and from an unaccredited 'university' a dispute exists over whether Paisley is entitled to call himself 'doctor'. Anything more, whether removal of the reference to doctor or its putting in quotation marks would break NPOV rules by saying in effect 'this is invalid' whereas NPOV requires us to say 'this is disputed for reasons a,b and c.'

(I too hate people with honorary degrees who call themselves 'doctor'. They aren't entitled to use it.)

BTW the idea of not using double honorifics is wrong. They are used. Only yesterday UTV mentioned "the Reverend Doctor Paisley" in a religious item. Double honorifics are often avoided but can be used. It is standard in the media since the 1990s to distinguish between Ian Paisley the politican and Ian Paisley the religious figure by calling the former "Dr. Paisley" and the latter "Rev Paisley". Paisley has encouraged this by no longer wearing clerical garb when being a politican. Instead he reserves that for his work with the Free Presybyterian Church. While the Dr/Rev distinction is not always followed, much of the media now does so as part of their house styles. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we go by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). While Newspapers and Political Parties may have good reasons to use the Dr. honorific, these reasons probably do not apply to an encylopedia.

Debrette's Etiquette provides outline for correct precidence of title, and states clergey should always be titled as Reverened, and this title precides any other title in order of adress. And that in terms of honorific, it explicitly states that use of other abreviated honorific, such as 'Rev. Hon.' or 'Rev. Mr.' is incorrect.

As I said in my edit summary, legitimacy of claim to the title regardless, Rev. takes precidence and should be used consistantly in the article. As with Manual of Style guidelines, it is acceptable to mention that he is also known as Dr. Ian Paisley. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 22:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Paisley and others deliberately do not use Rev in the context of his political work. For the same reason he deliverately wears a suit and not clerical garb as a politician, having long since abandoned using clerical garb in politics. Calling him Rev as you did in your changes when referring to his politics, or saying that he is not a doctor when he says he is and he has received an honorary degree, is inherently POV. I've reverted and attached a footnote to his name explaining

• that the usage is disputed
• it is generally used in Northern Ireland
• the distinction between his use of Rev and doctor
• its appearance in the article does not a comment on the status of his degree, merely reflecting general usage in his case.

Removing Dr is simply not on in terms of NPOV (even if those of us with real PhDs may find Paisley's use of an honorary one from a joke of a university offensive). FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not Neutral Point of View to give Ian Paisley special treatment on this. By the above Wikipedia guidelines, by common english useage, and by texts on etiquete of titles and honorifics, the correct useage is Rev. Ian Paisley.

Again, even if you were to accept that the Doctorate was valid, it is still not the correct useage, as Rev. precedes all other titles in presidence, and Rev. Dr. is incorect useage. (See Debrette's Etiquette)

There is no POV here. The article did mention he was also known as Dr., and highlighted reasons it is disputed, and no aditional footnotes, putting Dr. in quotes, or other such is needed. What is needed is to follow the general guides on naming conventions.

Again, please do not revert. If you feel the naming guidelines are incorect, then gather a concensus that agrees with you, and atempt to change them. If you feel that Ian Paisley does require a special exemption, then that would be an issue we should poll for concensus on. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 01:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Poll - Correct honorific for use

Is the correct honorific for Ian Paisley, 'Rev.', 'Rev. Dr.', or other.

'Rev.' is proposed as it is in line with common english useage, the Wikipedia style guidlines (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)) and Debrette's Etiquette on proper title for clergy.

'Rev. Dr.' is proposed as it is in line with media reporting, use in press conferance, and by political parties.

Please remain cival during the poll. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 01:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Rev., *Rev. Dr. or *Other followed by an optional explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Hon., in line with sytle guidlines and normal useage. Consistant naming is less confusing to the reader. NPOV in this case would be to apply the normal guidlines and rules of normal useage without special exception. The article already mentioned that Paisley is also known as Dr. Ian Paisley. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 01:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC) Aditional - Quick Google News statistics for use of honorifics in news media. About 865 for Rev. Ian Paisley. About 89 for Dr. Ian Paisley. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 02:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Paisley is called Dr when wearing his political hat, Rev when wearing his clerical hat. That is how he is covered. He makes that distinction. So do both his supporters and opponents. So does the Northern Ireland media. So does the House of Commons. So the article has to cover that or else break NPOV. So cut this silly playacting about a topic you clearly don't understand. (BTW in case you think otherwise, I detest Paisley. The issue is simply how to write a biographical article about someone who is part politician, part cleric, and who uses different names.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What? Debrette's says 'Hon.' is the proper title for clergy? I'm afraid you've got the basic premise of your poll completely screwed up - "Hon." doesn't come into it (OK, as a Member of Parliament he's entitled to it, but I've never heard it used outside a narrowly Parliamentary context.) I actually doubt his entitlement either to "Rev." (which I think you meant) or "Dr." - dubious ordination (see my comment above) and dodgy university respectively - but in practice those two honorifics are used depending on the context, as per Jtdirl's post, and the article's usage should reflect that. Vilcxjo 02:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, fingers typing Hon. when I thought I was typing Rev. I'm not arguing that the article should inform readers that he uses, and is refered to by both titles. But that we should not only use one, and the undisputed one, for sake of readability and following normal use of english. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 02:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Neither honorific is "undisputed": the circumstances of IP's purported "ordination" (by people who were neither empowered nor authorised to do so) makes the "Rev." title, if anything, more dubious than the "Dr." title. But the fact is, they are both routinely used - and in the fraught atmosphere of Northern Ireland politics, choosing to sideline one or other title is just inviting accusations of partisanship, POV and worse. Vilcxjo 03:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

In which case the article should raise these issues, a mention in the first paragraph that he is also known as Dr. and Rev, and no honorific used in refering to him within the article except in quoteation of statements by others. We should explicitly not be concerned with the politics of the situation, accusations of partianship on political basis should be ignored and NPOV identified independantly of them.

Note, that also this is only really as big an issue as we make of it. Since in the proposed form, the honorifics would be acknowledged, and there would not be passing any judgement on their legitimacy. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 12:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest not using the honorific except for the intro of the article, where both should be mentioned. --Improv 14:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Paisley's title revisited

The argument in favour of granting Ian Paisley's claim to "Dr" seems to be that he has convinced some (but not all) news sources to do the same.

The principle must surely stand that Wikipedia should contain the truth as best it can be determined. There is no question that Paisley's doctorate is not a real one. There is no doubt or factual controversy: it simply is not a real doctorate, and he is no more entitled to have "Dr" in front of his name than anyone with a certificate bought over the Internet. Unless you grant everyone in this position a "Dr" prefix, which would eliminate the information content of such titles on Wikipedia, then there is surely bias towards Ian Paisley.

How can it be argued that we should grant people whatever titles media credulity allows them? Is Wikipedia supposed to be a reflection of the news media regardless of its accuracy? Gillian McKeith has a degree mill PhD, and styles herself "Dr Gillian McKeith" on her website. She's been introduced on TV as this. But Wikipedia doesn't follow that line. Why is Ian Paisley different? Is it down to the "fraught atmosphere of Northern Ireland politics"? How does that alter the truth?

Stuarta 14:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

All media outlets, all political parties (including Sinn Féin) and just about the entire electorate, call him Dr. All we can do is say that its validity is not accepted throughout academia. Anything else is POV. We can't say everyone in Northern Ireland, the UK and the Republic of Ireland is wrong, all Irish academic institutions who have no issue with him calling himself doctor is wrong as we are right. Cop yourself on. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"All media outlets, all political parties (including Sinn Féin) and just about the entire electorate" call the Provisional IRA the IRA. You have a point, we can't say they're all wrong. There's obviously a big POV problem on the IRA page, Jtd. Get over there and tell them to cop on.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You know there is a difference, LP. The current IRA was formed as the "Provisional IRA", the 'provisional' name being used to link to the Provisional Government of Pearse in 1916. Hence the nickname the 'Provos'. Similarly Paisley is known as 'the doc'. 'IRA' means various different things; the army of the Republic during the war of independence, the military wing of the anti-treatites, the Officials, the Provos, the Real IRA, etc. So when talking about the post 1969 IRA that isn't anyone else, the 'Provisional IRA' is the correct term, given that everyone uses the 'provos' to refer to them. The same is not the case with Paisley where one is talking about an academic honorific, not a name. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

So we should ignore "All media outlets, all political parties (including Sinn Féin) and just about the entire electorate"? Sauce for the goose, Jtd. "Doctor" also means various things, none of which apply here. Are you trying to give the "fuck you" to people who have grown-up doctorates? I can assure you that won't be tolerated.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

All political parties (even Sinn Fein in the past) use "Provisional IRA". So does all the media. And the electorate. That name has been used all the way through. In recent years, with the disappearance of the Officials and their party, people have also used IRA. The Paisley issue is totally different. Stop being obtuse and playing games as part of your ungoing IRA campaign. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You have not answered my point. Are you suggesting that we should bow to the media consensus in contravention of the truth? Under what circumstances is this the appropriate thing to do? How many newspapers must I persuade of my OBE before it'll appear in Wikipedia?

As I have said, it is not the case that "all news outlets" call him "Dr". But even if it were, it is irrelevant to a resource purporting to give people facts. Ian Paisley has never produced anything more to support his "Dr" title than an honorary unaccredited Bob Jones University doctorate. It does not matter what the electorate or political parties call him if it is wrong. Am I supposed to assume Sinn Fein's view has special relevance because they are his political opponents? How does that make them arbiters of academic claims?

As for the suggestion that we just state "its validity is not accepted throughout academia" -- this is tacit bias. The same could be said of a degree certificate I wrote in Word and printed myself, so why does Ian Paisley get a different standard applied to him? Either a doctorate has the usual meaning -- that the individual has completed a doctoral programme at an accredited institution -- or it doesn't. You are proposing an entirely different meaning for a doctorate, where one can be conferred by acclamation of the press and electorate. That meaning is not a useful one for a factual website.

Stuarta 10:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Based on the discussion, I think we can conclude there is no consensus to support giving Ian Paisley special treatment, and pseudo-recognition of his doctorate. Editing the article to reflect. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 11:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

== British? ==--Kiand 18:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

He's not a British politication. He's a United Kingdomnian one if anything other than Northern Irish. Northern Ireland isn't in Britian, its in the UK. --Kiand 23:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"United Kingdomnian" isn't a word, which is why "British" is usually used instead :) It's true that NI isn't in Britain, but its (unionist) citizens commonly describe themselves and are described as British. In fact, UK passports have the term "British Citizen" on them. In other words, "British" in today's context does not necessarily mean "from Great Britain". See Talk:British Isles (terminology) for more interesting discussion on these points. --Ryano 09:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Still doesn't make him British, which I notice User:Wallie reinstated, and which was reverted back to accuracy by an anonymous user.

No matter what, he is -not- a British politician, he's Northern Irish. --Kiand 04:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"British is an adjective that used primarily, but far from exclusively, to mean a person from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Its use can be politically charged, especially if applied to people from Ireland, and so care must be taken in doing so." Quote from the Wikipedia article British. It is rrue to say that Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland, but the word British is different to Great Britain. Dr. Paisley holds a British Passport and as such is British. Margaret Thatcher is best described as a British Politician, not an English Politician. These points have also been made by Ryano above. Wallie 07:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It is more accurate to use the phrase 'Northen Irish', as this also implies British but is a specific region. The common term used on Wikipedia to refer to the British Region is the United Kingdom or U.K. So the appropriate use is either Northen Irish politician, or United Kingdom politician Can you please stop using this article to push your POV. Especialy the 'Dr' issue which has been settled since there was a lack of consensus to give Paisley any special treatment towards use of honorifics. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 12:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

'Northern Irish' is more accurate, as well as less contentious, than 'British'. The WP article on British is quite wrong in asserting that it is the adjective relating to United Kingdom. The Paisley article is littered with references to the 'British' Government, 'British' Prime Minister etc., all of which (IMO) ought to be changed to read 'UK'. Would there be a consensus for doing so?

On the 'Dr' question, though, I dispute that it is giving Paisley any 'special treatment'. The issues are that it is (a) honorary and (b) from a dodgy university. I am removing the assertion in the article that "individuals awarded honorary doctorates are not entitled to use the pronominal 'Dr' ". This is simply not the case - as the Honorary degree article says, recipients "often choose not to use the title of 'doctor' " - there is no question of disentitlement. As to the awarding institution, unless there are absolute and agreed criteria for what is a 'real' university, we shouldn't be in the business of making such judgements. There is a world of difference between a crap university and a bogus university. I remain to be convinced that BJU is the latter rather than the former. Vilcxjo 15:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a criteria, known as 'accredition'. Which BJU lacks. --

John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 17:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

John. I think that you would say that any university south of Boston lacks "accredition". This is so elitist of you. Wallie 15:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I would support replacing 'brit*' with UK within the article for consistancy. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 17:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

'Northern Irish' isn't good English though. I've changed the phrase to read "... from Northern Ireland." --Kwekubo 15:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it so much easier to say "British". Northern Irish just doesn't flow, does it. Wallie 20:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

He is clearly a British politician as he is elected to the British Parliament. Should a man of Indian origin be elected to the British parliament despite originating from India does he then not also become a British Politician? It could also be argued that as he holds a British passport he can then be considered British despite his residence in Northern Ireland. Kiand, who has an obvious dislike to the man, is allowing his political stance to cloud his judgement.--Dave--

Its the Parliment of the United Kingdom, not the British parliment, so thats your argument right out the window. In addition, my political views are irrelevant, and my judgement is not being clouded by anything. He's just -not British-, whatever his supporters may claim. --Kiand 11:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You failed to tackle my second point, he is a British citizen as his passport states. In exactly the same way that Gerry Adams for example is an Irish citizen as he holds an Irish passport.--Dave--

Doesn't make him British, same way as an Irish passport doesn't make Adams Irish. They're both Nothern Irish. --Kiand 11:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Working on your logic, I assume you are recognising Northern Irelands existance as a country in its own right. A point that many nationalists have stauchly opposed. He cannot be a resident of a country that does not exist. The basis of their argument being that one cannot be Northern Irish as it is only a statelette or a province if you like and therefore having no national identity. Truely we have progress, if however this is not the case as I suspect and you are merely opposed to British identity in Northern Ireland, perhaps you can explain why when applying for a job in Northern Ireland, the options available for nationality are British, Irish or other (in accordance with equality legislation in the country)? Should a citizen of Northern Ireland be choosing this box marked 'other'?--Dave--

You can be a citizen of one country and not actually be 'from' it, with extreme ease. Northern Ireland isn't a country, but it is a seperate entity to Great Britain. I'm not opposed to 'British identity in Northern Ireland', I'm opposed to deluded politicians who think that either GB or Ireland even wants them. Had Gerry Adams said "Irish" on it, I'd change it to Northern Irish too. --Kiand 11:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume you have the authority to speak for both? In an ideal world Northern Ireland would govern itself and be a country in its own right but in reality this is not an option. Northern Ireland is for the foreseeable future part of the United Kingdom, however dual nationality is afforded to its residents. They can choose to be Irish or British. In normal circumstances, in order to become a British citizen a person either has to be born within its borders or have lived within for a considerable time, at present I believe this is five years. This would suggest that Ian Paisley was born in Britain which Geographically he clearly wasnt however under the dual citizenship rule and the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom which is under the jurisdiction of Queen Elizabeth and the British Parliament, he is permitted to be a British citizen, a path which he has chosen. He is therefore no more or no less a British citizen than Tony Blair, Magaret Thatcher, Elizabeth II, David Beckham etc etc... --dave--

As already noted by several people the simple solution to this disputable matter is to refer to Paisley as Northern Irish. Those who see Northern Irish as implying British, which in a leagal reading of nationality law it does, will read it that way. In adition to avoiding a POV issue, this is perfectly accurate and is more specific about the region involved. --Barberio 15:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

ahem. Northern Ireland is in Britain (Britain being used here to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), but it is not on Great Britain, which is the larger island of the British Isles. Thank you. 57.66.51.165 17:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, thats the UK. Calling it Britain is incorrect. --Kiand 18:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The front of the UK password states The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland showing the clear distinction between the two. It's actually quite straightforward. If you are born on the island of Ireland you are Irish (not Northern Irish or Southern Irish) just Irish. If you are born in Britain (England, Scotland, or Wales) you are British. You can claim British citizenship if you are entitled to it (as Paisley plainly is seeing as how he was born in Northern Ireland) and this will give you the right to call yourself a British citizen. Ian Paisley is a British citizen. He is Irish born. He is an Irishman who is a citizen of Britain. That's all there is to it. You can be a British citizen but still be Irish, English, Scottish, or Welsh. Is this not clear to people?

Some people might wonder how the front of a password says anything ):- Moriori 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We all get issued one at birth- if you can't remember it, then don't go on holiday, cos they won't let you off the ferry if you get it wrong ;-) Badgerpatrol 23:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Paisley can most certainly be called Right honorable, he has been appointed to the Queen's Privy Council

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4363746.stm

You may argue about the Dr. portion of his title, but the "Right honorable" is documented.

Special treatment with regard to Dr.

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)

Please keep this article NEUTRAL

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is flawed in several areas, taking Ulster Resistance as my example, this in its original form was not set up by Ian Paisley as a paramilitary group as described. In its original form the organisation was set up to unite the people of Ulster/Northern Ireland against a common foe in protest. An entirely peaceful aim. This is not how it is portrayed in this article, when the organisation was found to be involved in the running of guns into the country, Ian Paisley immediately distanced himself from the organisation. This article is designed by the author to lead the reader down a particular path towards a blinkered and altogether false image of Ian Paisley and his life. I agree with 'wallie' in that Kiand is proving himself to have an agenda, although not so hidden. --Dave--

Ian Paisley of Ulster is a hero & should have been made a hereditary Lord years ago!

Leave Ian Paisley alone all you people who are critical of him. Do you know him personally? Then shut up and get a life. Try getting DLA when there is a united Ireland.

DLA? Disability benifit? Considering it exists in the Republic, it would exist in a theorethically united Ireland, should we ever be forced to take Northern Ireland back. However, I'm more than willing to let the UK continue providing its multiple billions in subvention, thanks. --Kiand 18:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well you can always use your vote to make sure that Northern Ireland is not forced upon you.

There are many reasons why Ian Paisley of Ulster should have been made a hereditary Lord years ago.

Firstly, he has been telling the truth with regards to Sinn Féin/I.R.A.'s avowedly Britanniphobic policies (which are extremely racist) & Sinn Féin/I.R.A.'s campaign of Britanniphobic terrorism & mass murder for over 50 years.

Secondly, he is a very fierce defender of Ulster's (Northern Ireland's) status as a British nation loyal to the Queen & Royal Family.

& thirdly, he is the most famous & honest politician that Ulster has ever had.

- (Aidan Work 02:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC))

Someone should point out that Northern Ireland is NOT Ulster. It consists of only SIX of the NINE counties in the Provence. A part of Ulster yes, but not Ulster itself. EmpComm 01:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. Also, in spite of what the inappropriate "Joke" section above might lead you to believe, the Talk page of articles is solely for discussing ways to improve the article. Thanks. Jkelly 02:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You mean by improving it, to sling some more mud at him! You people ate pathetic. Wallie 17:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see our policy about civility, our policy about personal attacks and our guideline about assuming good faith. The way to improve the article is to present various points of view, carefully referenced (which this article is not), not to have political debates on the article's talk page with accusations about the motivations of other editors. Jkelly 17:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Conversation about HRM unrelated to improving article

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)

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)

Proposed addition cut

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)

The first bit is 100% kosher. As a Privy Councillor he today got to lay a wreath at the cenotaph alongside other party leaders and the Queen and the Prince of Wales. Only leaders who are Privy Councillors can do that. (That's why Trimble before could and he couldn't, even when he had more MPs than Trimble.) The rest is speculation and cannot be used. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

More title debate

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)

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 [1]. Does anybody know what the man himself uses on his letterheads etc.? --Ryano 13:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Remove POV text

This very POV text should be removed forthwith, as it is intended to discredit Dr Paisley, and there is no proof whatsoever that it is factual.

Re: Paisley's use of the title 'Dr.' derives from an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree awarded by Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina. Bob Jones, Jr. was a close personal friend and a co-leader with Ian Paisley in the international Fundamentalist movement. At the time of the award of this degree, Bob Jones University was a segregationist, unaccredited Christian college which banned African-American students from its campus.

1) Ian Paisley uses the title Dr. But then again, so do other people refer to him as such. The inference here is that Dr Paisley is the only one who says he is eintitled to use the term. 2) All of these conjectures are unsupported, and meant to reinforce the fact that the degree is illegitimate somehow. 3) It is also implied that Dr Paisley, the university, and the State of South Carolina are all racist.

These criticisms are at best unfair. I personally have been to South Carolina, and can mention that racism there is not as prevalent as it is in Southern Ireland, which would have to be one of the most racist places I have ever visited. The racist attitudes are bleeding all over this article. Wallie 13:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If you think the text can be improved in terms of NPOV, then please have a go. However, I do think it contains relevant information which should probably remain in some form. People do allow him the "Dr." title, but it would be misleading not to qualify this with reference to the status of the degree on which this is based. His work and friendship with Bob Jones is also relevant, both to the "Dr." issue and to his connections with Christian fundamentalism internationally. The racist policies of BJU at the time Paisley accepted the award are perhaps less relevant, but still factual.

The relative prevalence of racist attitudes between today's South Carolina and today's RoI are irrelevant, although on a personal level I would be interested to hear what racist attitudes you encountered in the RoI. --Ryano 13:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ryano. Believe me, I have tried to make this article more NPOV, but a certain person says this is "whitewashing". I think you are trying to be reasonable and fair. But the other person is not. As far as I can see, any viewpoint which will make Ian Paisley appear even worse (if that is possible) is acceptable. Any other viewpoint will immediately be reversed. I think that this attitude is called facism and I hate it. Wallie 15:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

How you can describe the quoted paragraph as POV is beyond me. It states facts which you have not disputed.

1) You have still not answered why Paisley should be granted the special favour of having his doctorate recognised when it doesn't come from an accredited university. Are you suggesting that this treatment be accorded to everybody who has a mail order doctorate? If not, why not?

2) Where are the "conjectures" in that paragraph? Are you suggesting that Bob Jones was accredited when Paisley received his honarary doctorate from them? Or that he holds a doctorate from a different institution? The type of institution from which Paisley's doctorate derives is obviously relevant to making judgements about its validity. If that suggests that the degree is "illegitimate", whatever you might mean by that, then so be it.

3) Bob Jones University was segregationist, as you presumably acknowledge. Nothing beyond that is stated or suggested, so why bring South Carolina into things?

Stuarta 15:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. People keep on going on about facts. If these were backed up by reliable references, I would certainly accept them as being fact. But these are just bald statements. There is text about the university being "unaccredited", on which people are placing heavy emphasis. I for one do not know exactly what this means, and I'm sure most readers wouldn't either. But ir doesn't sound very good. This is particular requires a reference proving it, and explaining it too. I still maintain the main purpose of this text is to present a point of view.

If people are so upset about Paisley being called a Doctor, then don't call him one. But to deliberately refer to him as such, and then later to imply that the title is bogus, and that IS what is being implied is a highly slanted view.

That why I think that this text and indeed the whole article is POV. Wallie 19:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You have not said which salient facts you dispute.

"Accredited" has a well-defined meaning which you can find from the Wikipedia page on that subject. Some criterion has to be applied to degree-granting institutions for those qualifications to have any meaning. Otherwise anybody could grant anybody a degree on strength of whatever they felt like. The US accreditation scheme seems a reasonable one, but of course you're free to suggest something else if you can make a case for it.

If you look at their website you'll see that Bob Jones is currently a candidate for accreditation -- that is, they are not currently accredited, and were not when they granted the honorary doctorate to Paisley. I can point you to media sources making plain the origin of Paisley's doctorate, but you can surely find these yourself.

It is up to the reader to decide if the facts surrounding Paisley's doctorate make it "bogus". The text does not say that. What it does do is present the facts for the reader to make up their mind. How is that "slanted"? It is not in the slightest bit relevant whether the description "doesn't sound very good" if it is accurate.

Stuarta 12:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The correct titles of Ian Paisley of Ulster

Ian Paisley's correct titles is as follows; 'The Rt. Hon. Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley,P.C.'. He qualifies for the title 'The Rt. Hon'.,as he is a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council,which also entitles him the use of the postnominal letters 'P.C.' after his name. - (Aidan Work 00:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC))

As mentioned above ("More title debate"), one uses either the prenominal or the postnominal form, but not both. Vilcxjo 01:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes in practice. But in an encyclopædia article one uses both. WP policy includes styles of members of the Privy Council to link them. The post nominal is standard usage in listing all a person's post nominals. So in such cases using Rt Hon and PC both is both normal and acceptable. User talk:Jtdirl 05:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

We don't do that with anyone else. We also don't include post-nominals associated with membership of a legislative body, mainly because they aren't permanent. And as I said in an edit summary, "The Rt Hon. Dr" is just plain incorrect. Proteus (Talk) 07:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems strange to me: we don't style Ph.D.s "Dr. Joe Bloggs Ph.D.", do we? Why should it be different in the case of Privy Councillors? --Ryano 09:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

A curious assertion, Jtd. I've just looked at the articles on Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Charles Clarke, Jack Straw, Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy, and not one of them lists the postnominal 'PC' in addition to 'The Right Honourable'. Where is the use of both 'normal'? Vilcxjo 19:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

He's of Ulster is he? Funny, I'd think he'd be highly annoyed of being connected to Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan. As would most residents of those three counties, in fact. --Kiand 01:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately, you do not speak for Dr Paisley, and neither should you. Wallie 06:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Kiand, Northern Ireland is known as Ulster to many people, especially Unionist sympathisers like myself.Besides, he is known as Ian Paisley of Ulster to distinguish him from his son, who is also called Ian Paisley. - (Aidan Work 04:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC))

Thing is, anyone who calls Northern Ireland "Ulster" is wrong, simple as that, and you know that perfectly well. Same way Northern Ireland isn't in Britian - and you know that too. --Kiand 07:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you might find Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom AND Great Britain

No, I won't. Because its not. Its part of the UK but it is not, never has been, and never will be part of Great Britain. I think you'll find you're wrong. --Kiand 20:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, anonymous editor, but he will not find that. It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain (incorporating Northern Ireland) --Ryano 20:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I must say this is the first time I've ever heard him called "Ian Paisley of Ulster", and the usual way of distinguishing between himself and his son is to call his son Ian Paisley Junior. --Ryano 09:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm amazed that the debate continues merrily along without the slightest attention paid to what was said before. It is simply false, by any conventional definition of a doctorate, to say

"Ian Paisley's correct titles is as follows; 'The Rt. Hon. Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley,P.C.'."

Ian Paisley does not have a real PhD. His PhD is worth no more than the uncountable mail-order PhDs in the world -- like, for instance, Gillian McKeith's. Therefore, if you wish Ian Paisley to have "Dr" in front of his name you must, to avoid special pleading, grant it to anybody who claims they have a doctorate. Since this would remove the value of having "Dr" titles on Wikipedia, the only logical outcome is that he cannot be accorded the title of "Dr", regardless of its combination with other titles.

It is not relevant how many people he's convinced to call him "Doctor". The title of "Dr" is granted by accredited institutions, not acclamation of the people.

Stuarta 13:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's an honorary doctorate anyway, regardless of the status of the 'university'. These are handed out by the bucketload every year to public figures of any description. He is not entitled to style himself 'Dr.'; I suspect that others who do so are merely humoring him. It is a moot point. The current edit of the article seems fine to me anyway, although I suppose the point could be made more clear. It may be difficult to do this without injecting what some might see as contentious POV however. Badgerpatrol 14:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just amended the ref to Bob Jones Univ in the light of what it says about accreditation in the Wikipedia entries concerning this university and also concerning degree mills (BJU doesn't figure on the degree mill lists cited on the latter). Re entitlement: many people choose to use their honorary degree title, and many don't, and as for whether he really earned it....well, how many knights of the realm perform acts of derring-do with lance and steed these days ? Anyhow, that's this disinterested Wikipedian's two cents - but I'd no idea I'd blundered into real troll territory here, so guys.....I'm SOOO out of here Robma 07:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Racism

Any text referring to racism should be carefully referenced and irrefutably proven. Even then the term or any synonyms suggesting it should not be used. This sort of attack is below the belt, and usually unfounded. Wallie 06:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The 'Accusation' that BJU was a segrigationalist institution is not a baseless accusation, but fact, as suported in the Bob Jones University article. --Barberio 10:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

For what it is worth, WP:CITE is explicit that other Wikipedia articles cannot be cited as sources. Regardless, the fact that Bob Jones University has segregationist policies isn't really a matter of dispute. Wallie, is this the first time you've heard of this institution? If anything, the question should be "Is the fact that Bob Jones University is segregationist relevant to Ian Paisley's being awarded an honourary degree there?" The facts that the institution is unaccredited, and that it is explicitly for fundamentalists probably are relevent to Paisley. But why mention the segregation policy and not mention, for instance, the institute's teaching Creationism, or its homophobic policies, etc. Jkelly 21:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Having information relevant to an entity in its article and refering to it elsewhere isn't "citing" it under most peoples definitions. Same way you generally link an acronym to its definition at first usage and don't explain it in the article containing the link. It is assumed anyone with any desire to know about BJU would click the link, it isn't using the article as a sole source for information. --Kiand 21:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Yes. It is the first time I personally had heard of Bob Jones University. What concerns me it that by proving the University is racist, the reader then will assume that Ian Paisley is racist too. That is, in my belief, really what the authors of this piece are trying to convey. Therefore I think it should be removed too. Wallie 21:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian Paisley of Ulster, while he holds some very strong views, he is not known for making any statements regarding people of other ethnic backgrounds. I can understand where he is coming from though. - (Aidan Work 00:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC))

BJU is notorious. Merely visting it in 2000 got GW Bush flack internationally. As to Paisley's views, his comments during a documentary make about him about the Jewish origins of the presenter who was accompanying him during the filming were tasteful and frequently offensive, though Paisley himself thought them funny. They certainly could be seen as anti-semitic. So mention of what BJU is is something that has to go in to the article. If it damages Paisley by association then that is his problem. He shouldn't have been associating with such an entity. Anyone who goes there is presumed to share its rascist, anti-semitic and anti-catholic bigotries. Merely setting foot in the place got Bush into big trouble. Some countries ban people associated with the place from visiting them. Its reputation is such that BJU is often translated as Bigoted Jackass Union. The revelation that Paisley had any association with that place, when I read it, sickened and disgusted me. I have met the man and while disagreeing with him liked him personally. But an association with BJU turns the stomach. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 20:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You show a strange way of liking him. You obviously agree with the revolting picture now in this article. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a hate forum. If anyone put up the same sort of thing for Gerry Adams, you would quickly revert it. Wallie 16:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I am seriously beginning, as others have done, to doubt your credibility as a contributor, and suspect you are engaged in a bit of trolling. You know very well that legally WP is restricted in its sources of images. The image it uses is Ian's official picture taken and approved by him for use on the Northern Ireland Assembly website. As his official Assembly image WP is able to use it. The image used in Gerry Adams is also the official Assembly portrait. WP cannot be held responsible for how well or badly someone photographs. If either Gerry or Ian were unhappy with the final version of their photograph as prepared for usage on the Assembly website they could have asked for its removal. A new one would then have been taken. The fact that they approved both pictures prior to issuing indicates that both gentlemen are fully OK with the image. People who deal with Northern Ireland never cease to be amazed by the depth of paranoia of both communities. But even by the paranoid standards of Northern Ireland, imagining that WP deliberately picked a "good" picture of Adams and a "bad" picture of Paisley is borderline psychotic. Both are official portraits from identical sources, the Northern Ireland Assembly. Both are approved by both men for usage. To imagine anything else is paranoid in the extreme. Which is why like others on this page I seriously doubt whether the arguments you make here, and your claims of neutrality (which are disproved by your edit history), are much more than trouble-making trolling. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 16:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

RESPONSE

Suffice to say that you don't like me. That is clear. It is also clear where your affiliations lie. With the republican/Southern Irish side. I tried to explain myself to you, and you ignored me. You say that I am a troll, psychotic and a trouble maker. But it is you that always calls me names, not I you. These actions reveal more to the reader about you than me.

For any fair minded persons out there, my intentions are and have always been to present a fair and positive perspective of all people, who ever they are. There is far too much negativity in the world. I cannot see how character assassination helps anyone. It just breeds hatred. When trying to do the right thing, this can attract name calling, criticism etc. from people who wish to further ferment hatred. Wallie 17:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Your wish to present a "positive" perspective of Ian Paisley conflicts with Wikipedia policy. This article needs to include criticisms of Paisley as well as praise of him. Please read WP:NPOV again. Demiurge 17:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Jtdirl, "borderline psychotic" really isn't the least inflammatory thing to say in a WP:NPOV discussion. I thought that Wallie was using the word "picture" as a methaphor for the "portrait" the article "draws", not complaining about the actual image used in the article. Wallie, if you really are complaining about the image, User:Jtdirl is correct about our needing to use the official image. If you were to take a photograph of Paisley yourself and release it under the GFDL, however, we could discuss changing it. Is there anything specific in the article right now that you feel does not conform to Wikipedia policy or standards? Jkelly 17:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. The picture/portrait is just another thing. There was a better picture earlier of him. In an encyclopedia, we should try to present a sensible picture of everyone. This one is not. President Bush or the Queen would not be depicted in this way. I am sure there a unflattering and inappropriate pictures of them too.

What I really don't like is the lop sided image present of the main characters in this issue. Ian Paisley is depicted as a rabble rouser, thrown out of reputable institutions and a person who dislikes/is disliked by nearly everyone else. On the other hand, for example, Gerry Adams is presented in the same light as Michael Collins, as some sort of heroic figure. I was living in Australia, and every time Gerry Adams spoke, he could not even be shown on the television, as he was considered so bad a terrorist. If you can believe it, an impersonator spoke his lines, and it was dubbed over by someone else's voice! There is no mention of this in the article, and if placed there, it could be removed by anyone who considered it POV.

All I am calling for is equal treatment. I do not think in an encyclopedia, that we should dwell on the negative aspects of either person, or anyone for that matter. Demiurge questions this, and says that we must obey the Wikipedia policy at all times. I would rather follow the spirit of the policy rather than the actual wording myself, as the policy itself is open to interpretation. As for the name calling, borderline psychotic, etc, this does not worry me. I would like to focus on improving the articles. Wallie 18:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: A cache problem meant that different users were seeing different images. The one being seen by jtdirl was a restrained official portrait from the Northern Ireland Assembly website. Wallie was seeing a much less respectful image that someone else had downloaded over the official portrait. The problem was discovered later on. The offensive image was deleted and the official portrait image reinstated as the jpg on the file. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 22:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV policy is not ambiguous in the slightest. Wikipedia is not in the business of whitewashing public figures, and if that's what you are setting out to do, then there is no place for you in this project.

(I have no difficulty believing your anecdote about Gerry Adams and Australian television; the same policy was in effect in the UK and Ireland at the time. Only it didn't apply just to Adams but to all Sinn Féin members. Wikipedia covers it at Censorship_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#The_Troubles) Demiurge 19:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Look. I possibly agree there is no place for me in this article as it is so POV, that it is nearly irredemable, and beyond my limited powers. I was called a fanatic, troll, and now a whitewasher. Is there no end to my crimes? I suppose you would call Jesus Christ's forgiveness of Mary Magdelen whitewashing too. Wallie 19:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you comparing yourself to Jesus Christ now? Look, it's simply not true to characterise this article as an anti-Paisley diatribe -- among the adjectives used to describe him are "affable, low-key", "passionate and brilliant", "charm and good humour". There's an entire section titled "A Complex Man". Hardly a one-dimensional caricature. Demiurge 20:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree that his relationship with BJU is an important point since it shows how he sought out validation for his religious mindset. That Bob Jones himself held racist views and that BJU had policies which would be normally considered racist is well known, however I don't believe that Paisley shares them. What is key however to point out is Bob Jones's fanatical anti-Catholicism and his and Ian Paisley's shared hatred of certain religious groups, including Catholics. Also worth noting is that Paisley's association with Bob Jones and BJU did not end upon the rewarding of his honorary degree, in fact he went on to make more than 50 visits to BJU and also was to deliver a tribute to Bob Jones's wife Fannie on campus after her death in 2000. So I think the racism note in the context of BJU is no small thing and an important point to make, but more important in the context of Ian Paisley is the shared sectarian mindset based on religious fundamentalism. Kpax 08:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not right that Bob Jones University is racial. I visited the campus some years ago during the chapel time when all the students are on the way to the chapel and I saw african-american students. And they did not seem to be unhappy to be at Bob Jones University. Well, it is right, that not the majority of the students are african-americans, but I think if the university would be racial there would be no african-american student. I wonder, if the people who say that Bob Jones University is racial ever visited the campus by their own? (I´am not a student of Bob Jones University, I only visited the campus on a trip to USA).

Famous Quotes of Ian Paisley of Ulster.

"That Romish man of sin is now in Hell." - (His reaction to the death of Pope John XXIII of Rome in 1963).

"The democratic train is now leaving the station without Sinn Féin/I.R.A.". - (Given in a speech early this year condemning the British Government's pathetic response to Sinn Féin/I.R.A.'s continuation of its campaign of genocide & Britanniphobic terrorism against Ulster's Protestant majority population.)

- (Aidan Work 00:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC))

Can someone insert the "Devil's buttermilk" quote - perhaps after Bertie Ahern's "poison" eggs?--shtove 14:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Does this article really need such a long list of quotes when there is a link to WikiQuote where people who want/need quotes can go wild? I'd suggest cutting back significantly or removing altogether and pointing straight to WikiQuotes. SpamBilly 08:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit jokey, but a few points

• he does say quite colorful things,
• he speaks on a lot of issues that are social/political
• he is 80 yrs old and loves to speak

Out of context some of the quotes do make him look foolish, which could be POVish. Maybe if the quotes were limited to specific political events eg. his "Never, Never, Never" speech during the "Ulster says No" rally. Put it to the vote. Fluffy999 01:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright?

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)

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)

I've put up the official DUP one. Jkelly 19:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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

We cannot use it. It is the copyright property of the DUP used under promotional criteria, not as fairuse or under the GFDL licence. The other image is crowncopyright and can be used legally under the conditions of crowncopyright in the absence of an unambiguously fairuse one. I used to have one of Ian I took some year ago. If I can find it I'll give it under licence but we cannot use DUP promotional material legally. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 19:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

I've deleted the slugger o'toole rewrite. Doctoring crowncopyright images, even to clean them up, is questionable legally as it was not the property of the secondary site to change and was simply allowed for usage, not change. And it certainly then can't be claimed as freeuse then by us. The original image, now re-installed, as crowncopyright has clear legal standing and so can legally be used. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 20:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Better article

The following article which Jkelly alerted me to is: [2] 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)

Text follows:

<test deleted>

Jesus. You CANNOT post someone else's page on Wikipedia. Are you DELIBERATELY trying to get Wikipedia sued? Do that again and you will be banned. NEVER do that again. People can read it on the link.[[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 20:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

Posting an entire article from someone else's website on Wikipedia is not legally permissable. I wouldn't be "on your case" if your behaviour did not warrant it. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 20:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Believe me it was not personal. I don't think you grasped just how serious what you did, albeit innocently, could have had disastrous repercussions for WP. In terms of law, in having that text here we basically stole someone else's article and reproduced it in full.

BTW were you seeing that picture of the "bellowing" Ian Paisley on the Paisley article? If so then it appears that our screens were looking at different versions. I was being shown the official portait from the Northern Ireland Assembly website. If so, then we were at cross purposes. If you were seeing that god-awful "bellowing" image you had every right to be annoyed. It was an outrageous image to have on and if I had seen it I would not merely have binned it from the article but deleted in from WP. If that was the case then I apologise for my criticism. I thought your complaint was over the official NIA portrait not that other one. I have posted a warning on the uploader of that image warning him never ever to overwrite a valid image with that sort of image again, and that if he ever does it will be seen as vandalism and he may face a block. That sort of behaviour is outrageous and was grossly unfair to the person about whom the article is about. Whether one agrees with or disagrees with Paisley, he is as entitled as everyone else to have a restrained respectful image used at the top of the page as anyone else. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 21:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

I have added in a note above explaining the problem over the image so that readers of the page will understand the problem and that people were actually, unbeknown to the them, discussing different images.[[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 22:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of Rt. Hon. & P.C.

It is correct to use both 'Rt. Hon. & 'P.C.' if you are writing to someone like Ian Paisley of Ulster or Sir Michael Hardie Boys, especially when addressing the envelope. - (Aidan Work 02:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC))

No, it's not. Proteus (Talk) 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

On what basis to you conclude that, Proteus? Please provide a reason before you make a claim like that. Wallie 16:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

On the basis that the statement is wrong. (And I've already provided a source for my claims — Debrett's Correct Form. Perhaps if certain Wikipedians would take the time to do even cursory research on an issue before spouting nonsense about it we wouldn't need to have stupid and pointless discussions about things like this over and over again.) Proteus (Talk) 17:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well then. You have a lot of work to do. There are many articles in Wikipedia about people who have the initials PC after their name, many appearing under the category "Members of the Privy Council". These do not, according to you, conform to Debrett's Correct form. Wallie 19:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Most of which do not have "Rt. Hon" in front, however - one or the other, not both. --Kiand 22:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

This shouldn't be too difficult to comprehend: you don't use both "Dr." and "Ph.D.", you don't use both "Mr." and "Esq.", you don't use both "Cllr" and "MCC" etc. etc., you use one or the other. --Ryano 23:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

O. Is that the case? The Right Honourable Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS... Wallie 05:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That's because she's a peer. Peers are Right Honourable regardless of Privy Council membership, and so those that are members have to use PC to indicate it. Proteus (Talk) 08:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. I learn something every day and am not too old to learn. I guess that Ian Paisley should be happy with the title "Right Honourable" as it sets him above most people. I note that even John Howard is not as highly ranked, and he is the current leader of a Commonwealth country! Wallie 16:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"Prime Minister" is higher ranked than "Right Honourable" in most peoples eyes, and thats something Paisley is not, and Howard is. --Kiand 01:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Howard is prime minister?

Of Australia yes. Paisley would likely be First Minister of Northern Ireland is the assembly resumed, however, which is a similar enough title. --Kiand 17:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added PC after Paisley's name. Reasoning: The title Rt Hon does not require that a person is a privy counsellor (PC). Some NI politicians (e.g., Rt Hon John Taylor) have the former (for life) without the latter, becuase of holding office in the old Stormont executive (now defunct). Similarly, Lords in the UK are Rt Hon without necessarily being PC. Paisley is both, and this merits inclusion. --Irishtimes 21:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Only peers who are Privy Counsellors have "PC", because they are the only ones with whom there can be any confusion. (And you need a better example than John Taylor if you want to persuade me of the existence of this mystical third category, since he's Right Honourable by virtue of being both a peer and a member of the Privy Council of Northern Ireland.) Proteus (Talk) 22:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This is getting odd now. Taylor was Rt Hon before being a peer. And continued to have the title after the NI privy council ceased to exist. --Irishtimes 04:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The Northern Irish Privy Council has not "ceased to exist", it's simply dormant. And yes, people with very little knowledge lecturing me about everything under the sun is getting very old, which is why I'm so irritable when yet another person turns up declaring that they know better than everyone else. Proteus (Talk) 10:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Try to remember to Assume good faith of fellow wikipedians. --Barberio 17:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

St Bartholomew's Day Massacre

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)

I believe I have seen this in the Union Theological College in Belfast as they made a large number of purchases of Paisley material circa 2002 - biglobiglo

The article is getting a bit better

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)

add note about 'Save Ulster from Sodomy'?

If anybody would care to add a note detailing his group Save Ulster from Sodomy, it would be appreciated. --moof 09:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

-- I've sketched the beginnings of that section. It needs more detail on the character of Paisley's campaing. Homophobic rhetoric, etc. --Irishtimes 21:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

In 1977, Paisley launched his "Save Ulster from Sodomy" campaign, prompted by an increasingly inclusive attitude to homosexuality in Britain and his fear that Northern Ireland's law may be changed to decriminalise homosexuality. His fears were realised in 1974,

This seems obviously anachronistic, but I don't know enough to correct it myself. Lyso 08:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Found it listed in various "Gay & Lesbian histories", so it is an issue with people out there. Added a footnote with a reference to StoneWall's timeline. Although the article is getting really big now- maybe some of his political campaigning could be split up from his social/religious campaigning/constituency work? Fluffy999 01:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Paisleyite

{{Mergefrom|Paisleyite|date=October 2006}} ...unless there's more to say about these supporters. -- Perfecto 06:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see anything worth merging. Or redirecting, in fact. --Kiand 09:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Friday Agreement Section

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)

Biased POV

Removed the line "In his spare time he is part time bigoted asshole" from the "Real Life" section. If that isn't bias, I don't know what is!

"His real life"

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)

Most of it is easily verifiable, and much of it is already referenced.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

A Complex Man

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)

Fixed. --Barberio 10:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dublin 'breeding ground for republicans'

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)

It's certainly a breeding ground for Catholics ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

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)

Right-wing populism

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)

added 1971 detail

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)

Rhonda Paisley

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)

Created Rhonda Paisley article. Fluffy999 00:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Drumcree 1 - 1995

Added some detail on this and the Victory jig. Fluffy999 15:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Tone of article

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)

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)

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)

No need to split it up, just add the verifiable material in the appropriate section. -Will Beback 02:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Pope as Anti-Christ

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)

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)

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)

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)

Good point - changed to "forcibly ejected". Vilĉjo 13:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

section entitled "Bigot" commented out

Dear all,

I have just commented out the following section:

<!-- I'm editing this entire section out, but I've left it here in a comment box if anyone can bring it up to ecyclopaedic standard. I'd be of the opinion that the rest of the article covers his bigotry in a more encyclopaedic fashion, in keeping with NPOV: ==Bigot== Ian Paisley is a sectarian bigot and agitator, a driving force for terrorism and oppression, a fomenter of jihad. He is Anti- Catholic, Anti- Semetic and pro- Apartheid. He is the Leader of the DUP, an anti-Catholic, bigoted political party. He has been seen on numerous occesions ranting about papists on television, he's convinced the Pope is the Antichrist, he has a burning hatred of all things Catholic and has done more to cause the sectarian hatred and deaths of men, women and children than any other person. He even objected to the Pope visiting N. Ireland.He was the one who started burning Catholics out of their homes in the late 1960s, he was the one leading bat-weilding mobs to attack Catholics as they fled their burning homes and he was the one that the British troops went into N. Ireland to protect the Catholics from. He was totally opposed to equality for Catholics in employment, housing and voting, he was a main player in gerrymandering (changing electoral boundaries to ensure Loyalist majorities) and he has, in the past, dismally failed to condemn shootings, bombings, assassinations, prostitution and drug-running by Protestant gangs. He is a supporter of the Marching season which makes the idea of allowing the Ku Klux Klan to march through the streets of Harlem sound sensible. Triumphalist and anti-Catholic in its creed, the Orange Order sends incendiary parades through Nationalist neighborhoods throughout Northern Ireland, often provoking rioting while marching to tunes such as "Croppy Lie Down" ("croppy" is a derogatory term for Irish Catholics) and "Kick the Pope" while waving banners and British flags. Taigs (another derogatory term for Catholics) are strictly forbidden to join (as if any wanted to) and its members suffer expulsion for attending "Papist" ceremonies. -->

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)

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)

Unusual among politicians

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)

Removal of unsourced criticism

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)