Talk:Ian Paisley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sean Lemass[edit]

I removed the following a former IRA member during the Anglo-Irish war from the description of Sean Lemass.

  1. It was 40 years earlier and was totally irrelevant to his role as Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland. O'Neill didn't meet Lemass because Lemass was once in the IRA (forty years earlier), he met him because he was prime minister;
  2. Almost the entire political elite of the Republic in the era 1920s-1960s had some association with the IRA in the 1920s. That sort of line in the content is as pointless as calling Pope John Paul II a former priest.
  3. Lemass's links with the IRA in the 1920s are covered in his page which is linked to the line.

The user who put it in under a marginally different wording has been doing this for ages, adding in his 'chip on his shoulder' comments that are totally irrelevant in the context where he puts them in, he using facts in contexts that POV something. FearÉIREANN 13:28, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It may have been three years ago, but you were wrong to make that edit. The fact that Lemass was once an IRA man explains why Paisley was angry with O'Neil. Thus it is relevant to include it in an article about Iain Paisley and his actions. Without his side of the story, it would be impossible to have a fully balanced view on the merits of his actions.

Paisley was angry with O'Neill because Lemass was Taoiseach of The Free State which Paisley saw as an illegal country!

I will restore the point unless anyone has any better objections.

Quality control 04:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ian Paisley may and probably has already retired from the European Parliament, I refer you to the BBC article:

He has, but at the time of the original post (2003!!) he had not. --Kiand 18:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

MEP, MP, MLA[edit]

I know the naming issue has been discussed before, but I'm just asking about the suffixes relating the political seats he holds. They are informative about who is he and what he does, not simply honorifics. "MEP MP MLA" was removed from the first line of the article a few minutes ago. See the change here [1]

It's true that he's not an MEP any more(the DUP candidate was Jim Allister), but he's definitely an MP (for North Antrim) and MLA (North Antrim too?) still. I think the suffixes should go back in. What do others think?

Weregerbil's edit comment was WP:MOS seems to suggest being stingy with honorifics. The MOS refers refers to honorific prefixes like Rt Hon. These are suffixes and I don't think they are called honorifics. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 12:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't include post-nominals denoting membership of legislative bodies. Proteus (Talk) 12:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Just checked Tony Blair. I was surprised at that. Thanks. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 12:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ian Paisley on the Popes[edit]

Was he (or IP Jr) approached by the "rentaquote mob" journalists for his comments on the transition from John Paul II to Benedict XVI - or is it that the general UK media do not report on him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) on 17:31, 18 September 2006

On Pope John Paul II's death he said "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 sorrow and grief at this time." [2].
Are the BBC "rentaquote mob" journalists ? :-) Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 21:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I notice on that page that the BBC has captioned his photograph "Ian Paisley sympathised with Catholics over the Pope", but actually he did nothing of the sort. "We would want in no way to interfere with their expression of sorrow and grief at this time" is in fact a terribly ambiguous statement -- does it mean "we sympathize with their grief and respect their right to express it", or does it mean "we're positively reveling in their grief and don't want to do anything to reduce it"? —Angr 22:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Come on Angr, you're being awfully cynical aren't you? Personally, I believe that if you take these comments at face value they amount to cautious sympathy. You of course are entitled to your opinion, but don't try to read too much into what he says. Love him or loathe him (he can be blunt at times) he is honest. Always, though, he says what he means and he means what he says. - Paddyman1989 16:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
You're joking right Paddyman, that psycho Paisley is nothing but a bag of anti-catholic hate. 15:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to the "Anti-catholic hate" point, lets just clarify. Ian Paisley does not hate Roman Catholics. He does however despise the RC Church. Paddyman1989 12:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You yourself must be joking or have no idea who the man is! You pick at someone who has every right to their opinion and who speaks the absolute truth, I can provide literally hundreds of comments made by the STRONGLY ANTI ROMAN CATHOLIC Paisley i.e. "MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" (The words of Dr Clive Gillis repeated by Paisley)Referring to not only the RC Church but it's members, and if one is going to include all the good about the man in context of his Pro-Protestant beliefs and involvement, then there is certainly room for mention of his total disdain for the Roman Catholic Church as he was and is quite public in his tabloidesque if not outright fabrication found in article after article after article in his infamous website! The words "Vatican sleaze" "Vatican sodomites" and description of an art historian Professor Massimo Lacchei as a sodomite, are just a paltry few of the lovely comments to be found in the Paisley owned website. All of which is for the benefit of nothing but sensationalism and anti-Roman Catholic rhetoric. One certainly cannot have an accurate biography of this man without mention of not only his VERY public disdain for the Roman Catholic Church itself, but again, also it's members! And despite your quite silly claim separating his hatred of the Church from it's people, he has not made such an attempt himself. It would appear you are quite biased and in no way taking a neutral approach to this. I myself am very Anti-Catholic but reading much of Paisley's musings I find his style and the style of his authors to be more akin to tabloids such as the American rags like The Star, The National Enquirer etc as he, and they quote rumors like they are undeniable facts as long as they in someway are anti-Vatican in nature.
It´s also worth indicating that he said: "We need to learn that everyone on earth no matter what position he holds or the claims he makes or the support he has must come to death and eternity..." We know what he was getting at there.

We do, yes. He was getting at the fact that everyone will die, himself included. Please note that he did not say "This person will go to hell" - he merely stated that all will die. Polititians and world leaders are not excepted. Paddyman1989 12:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You as well seem quite bent on defending the man even going so far as to assume the previous writer inferred Paisley was referring to the person(s) going to hell! Where do you get off man? You are defending a man who would not welcome your type of defense by any stretch! Are you arguing for arguments sake or are you so uncomfortable with the thought of Paisley being an anti-Roman Catholic that you defend him where no defence is called for?! Have you ever visited the mans website? take a random reading and come back and tell us the man is Roman Catholic friendly...
Paisley is also supposed to have heckled the Pope (John Paul II), when the Pope addressed the European Parliament some years ago. That behaviour is not the mark of someone tolerant of Roman Catholicism.

Richard Dawkins for first minister.

How is the preceding comment relevant to this discussion?Paddyman1989 17:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In demand[edit]

I removed the line "in demand" from the phrase "in demand lecturer" as it is a POV Template:Steve 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Rentaquote mob journalists - 'slightly useful negative term'

And anything on Benedict's recent remarks? (The correct answer from the Muslim side would have been to list out some of the Islamic achievements at the time the remark originated - buildings, science, Omar Khayam, Ibn Battitu (sp - the traveller) etc

Belfast Agreement[edit]

In the section entitled "Belfast Agreement" there is a whole chunk of text about Denis Donaldson and allegations of spying. I fail to see what this has got to do with the life of Ian Paisley. I think even the DUP only gets one mention and none at all for its leader. Would this be better placed somewhere else?

Longest serving[edit]

Is he the longest-serving party leader in history?

I doubt it. Fidel Castro is probably there at the moment. If you mean in the UK, I think 'Screaming Lord Sutch' claimed a leadership of the same order of years but that was based on backdating the Monster Raving Loony Party (founded 1983) to his 1960s contests. Sam Blacketer 00:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Auto Peer Review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid using contractions like: weren't.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 07:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Third Force[edit]

Could someone look at the above article, I am not familiar with the subject, but it seems ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC).


Quote: " the old Ulster Protestant Association had done after partition in 1920, often by organising assassination missions into Catholic areas of Belfast..." Does this mean that Paisley was organsing assassinatin missions? Personally, I doubt it, but the sentence is ambiguous. Do the assassination missions relate to the meetings of the UPA in the 20s or the later meetings associated with Paisley, or both? Rob Burbidge 10:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a clarifyme tag; I'm not used to Wikipedia in all its glory so please excuse if that's the wrong thing in this context. Rob Burbidge 11:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


I found this in the list: My Father and Mother have 2 penis' (apostrophe as written). Is this for real, or vandalism? Notreallydavid 10:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism, I've removed it. A lot of the entries in the Bibliography seem a bit dodgy, probably needs checking. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll look in the British Library Catalogue tonight and tag anything not in there (and add ISBNs) Weggie 10:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Olive Oil[edit]

In 1987 the European Parliament were debating the need to reduce agricultural subsidies, just to appease the Americans in World Trade Organization. Olive oil was being discussed. The northern Europeans wanted to end the subsidies, even though they resented the Americans. The Southern Europeans wanted to keep the subsidies, even though they wanted to appease the Americans. Mary Banotti, an Irish MEP made a novel proposal since olive oil is good for your heart, it should be a heath subsidy rather than an agriculture subsidy. This satisfied most northerners and the southerners were positively ecstatic. However, Mary had opened her speech in the Irish language and then continued Italian. Apparently the reverend doctor was of the opinion that she was speaking in Irish, which wasn’t an official language of the EU at the time. He shouted and roared, demanding that she be silenced. He ignored calls to resume his seat and use Headphones. Then he started to walk towards her. Some Spanish and Greek MEPs gallantly but foolishly stood in his path. He cast them aside. It took a small army of Police to restrain big Ian and evict him from the chamber.

Is this true?, if it is it deserves to be put in the trivia section.

Can anyone verify this statement?Paddyman1989 17:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

St Andrews Agreement[edit]

I've removed the following uncited statement from the above-named section:

Paisley's apparent openness to sharing power with Sinn Féin resulted in vocal opposition among both members of the DUP and of his church.

It had been marked with some kind of "citation needed" tag. In general, such tags should probably be avoided on uncited statements related to current events, and in any case they seriously degrade the readability of the text. It is better to remove an incited statement to the talk page (as I do here) until a citation is found. --Tony Sidaway 03:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Founding of the Free Presbyterian Church[edit]

Removed these two:

Paisley claimed that this was because many within the Presbyterian Church hierarchy rejected the preaching of the Gospel. Presbyterians have tended to argue it was blocked because he was not a member of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (the largest Protestant denomination in Northern Ireland) and in contravention of their code.

Again they had both been tagged. They can be restored if supported by reliable sources. --Tony Sidaway 03:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also removed two uncited statements from "Membership of Loyal Orders".
There are still nearly 30 "citation needed" tags in the article.
This isn't good enough. Editors should take note of Wikipedia policy, which is that an uncited statement may be removed.
It is especially important in biographical articles that only verifiable statements should be included.--Tony Sidaway 03:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

'Ulster Says No'[edit]

In the description of the reaction to the Anglo-Irish agreement, I've removed the following unreferenced statement:

Alleged policemen, who wore masks to hide their identities, told a television interviewer they would refuse to enforce any aspect of the Agreement.

This does sound significant, but I don't think it'll be easy to find a citation for it. It's likely to hang around uncited for ages so after a brief attempt to find a supporting reference I'm removing it here for the time being. --Tony Sidaway 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Resistance[edit]

I don't think there's any doubt that Paisley addressed the founding meeting of the Ulster Resistance in 1986. Contemporary online sources for this event are lacking, however. Would it be in order to reference the entry at until a more suitable reference is found for this event? --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

On reflection I've decided to remove the whole section to this page for now. The DUP leadership's involvement in the formation of Ulster Resistance and the subsequent debacle of the arrests in Paris is a very important, perhaps pivotal event in the history of the troubles and Ian Paisley's career. However it's in need of solid references, and because it's beyond the reach of online sources I'll have to toddle down to the British Library and get some solid ones from the newspaper archives and history books.

A Loyalist organisation was formed on 10 November 1986 by Paisley, Peter Robinson and Ivan Foster. The initial aim of Ulster Resistance was to bring an end to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Following a rally in the Ulster Hall in Belfast, other rallies were held in towns across Northern Ireland. The group was organised in nine 'battalions' across Northern Ireland and members wore a red beret. In November 1988 there was an arms find in County Armagh and the subsequent arrest of a former DUP election candidate brought accusations of links between DUP politicians and armed paramilitary groups. Paisley at this time appealed to the majority to cease any violent struggle. The DUP claimed that party links with the organisation had ended in 1987. Three members of Ulster Resistance were arrested in April 1989 in Paris along with a South African diplomat and an American arms dealer. It is alleged by some nationalist groups that the weapons imported from the Lebanon were divided between the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) and Ulster Resistance.

So I'm pulling it for now. --Tony Sidaway 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Logo as image for lead?[edit]

After this edit, I got a couple of notes about it. I don't know that the license question is very interesting in this case, and if someone would like to write a Wikipedia:Fair use rationale for the logo for this article, that's fine, but I do think that it is an odd editorial choice to substitute a party logo for a picture of the person. Using a logo as the focal image for the lead of a biography seems to suggest that Wikipedia is making a subtle, but complicated statement about the relationship between people and groups. Before we start adding these things everywhere, I think that we might want to spend a little time teasing out just what we're saying when we do it. "This is this person's political affiliation" is substantially a different visual statement than "This is this person's face." Will we do this with sports team logos for athletes? Company logos for businessmen? Maybe we are already, and I've missed it so far. There's something different going on when we say "This person belongs to this political party" and when we say "We identify this person by their party logo." There's also a selfish concern here; we tend to get free images donated when people realise that we are missing one. If it become's Wikipedia's house style to fill up the space with a logo instead, we lose that opportunity. Jkelly 23:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Kelly - look at a British ballot paper if you want to see the relationship between the logo and the person. The logo is a defined representation of the politicians political affiliation. The situation is very different to other countries, notably the US where under a two party system you get fairly obvious choices of canididates. Also, in general terms, the trouble is that it is virtually impossible to get a photo onto Wiki for a living person. Everytime I've tried using freely available images these are deleted with little explanation. I am perfectly willing to source these etc. Could you give me a heads up on the best way to do this or where and under what circumstances these can be sourced. I'm finding this deletion attitude with little explanation very unhelpful and it's dispiriting that no-one will help. Weggie 10:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
What deletion attitue look at the Licensing on the image it is {{logo}} which makes it fair use and cannot be used as placeholders for every member of that party who do not have images. --Barry O'Brien entretien 13:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be an odd sort of party logo that couldn't be used on the party leader's Wikipedia article. But I do think we need a good free image of Ian Paisley. --Tony Sidaway 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the DUP press office could help with this? Weggie 11:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively there seem to be two or three pictures on flickr showing Paisley at demonstrations. Perhaps the owners of these pictures would consider releasing them under a free license. --Tony Sidaway 15:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Surely it would be 'fair use' to take a photo from an official site on the web. (the flicker idea is a good one) but I would like to see photos for all the biogs I've worked on (UUP/SDLP/DUP/Alliance) Weggie 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Foundation policy is that no Wikimedia project can use fair use pictures where a free one is available. The free alternative hasn't yet been exhausted. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Things have changed quite a lot recently, and I think it's time the opener caught up. This is my effort:

Ian Richard Kyle Paisley (born: 6 April 1926) styled The Revd and Rt Hon. Ian Paisley MP MLA, also known as Dr Ian Paisley, is a senior politician and church leader in Northern Ireland. As the leader of the largest party in the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, he is due to take up office as the First Minister of Northern Ireland on May 8, 2007.
He is a founding member of and current Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster while also Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). Paisley has been Member of Parliament for the constituency of North Antrim since 1970, and is also a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly for the same constituency.

The interior should also contain something about the recent changes. I suggest a reference to Paisley and McGuinness asking for the keys to Stormont Castle. See "DUP and Sinn Féin ask Hain for keys to Stormont", The Guardian, April 2, 2007.

--Tony Sidaway 11:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As there seemed to be no objection to that, I've gone ahead and changed the opener as suggested. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Legalisation of Homosexuality[edit]

In reference to Paisley's campaigning for the legalisation of homosexuality at the beginning of the article, I assume this is a joke posted by someone with too much time on their hands. Should be removed, no? I won't do it until someone confirms this.

Sinn Fein and the PIRA[edit]

User:Alison: If you feel that it's just "pov" to link them together like that then you may want to edit the lead of the Sinn Fein article and the mention of the connection in the PIRA article. If you're set on keeping it like this, would the citations given in Sinn Fein#Links to the IRA be sufficient? Bnynms 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The importance of removing unsourced or poorly sourced statements[edit]

I beg all contributors to this article to please adhere to the Biographies of living persons policy and remove unsourced or poorly sourced statements at once.

Do not just tag unsourced statements in biographies of living people. Remove them at once. --Tony Sidaway 13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


I have removed the honorific from the intro but used the wrong link in my edit summary. Sorry. Correct link is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes. MurphiaMan 12:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Status as Moderator[edit]

As he is stepping down from the above office, could someone knowing more about the subject add a comment. Jackiespeel 16:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


should he be categorised "Anti-Catholic"? Category:Anti-Catholicism --w_tanoto (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Very much so! Denunciation of Pope John Paul II by Ian Paisley, to name but one. One Night In Hackney303 00:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Revd and Rt Hon. in the infobox[edit]

should this be there as, i believe, it isnt an official title? --neonwhite user page talk 23:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is official. If he is ordained, he's reverend. If he's a member of the Privy Council, he's Rt Hon. Computerjoe's talk 19:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed someone has changed this to 'The Rt Hon and Revd', but this is inconsistent with other religio-political styles, where the ecclesiastical title always appears first. Is there a source for this unconventional style? Yorkshire Phoenix United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland God's own county 12:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I know this is not the place for it - but it is hard not to observe the irony of calling this guy the "reverend" or "right honorable" anything. Damn terrorist, I hope he ends up having to suck Gerry Adam's c*** in hell for eternity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Denunciation merge[edit]

Hi, does anyone object to merging Denunciation of Pope John Paul II by Ian Paisley into this article? It seems like a very minor issue and not worth its own page (especially considering that it is short and lacking on details).- J Logan t: 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. The 'denunciation' article is hardly worthy of a separate article here - Alison 00:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society[edit]

Ian Paisley became a Fellow of a Geographical Society. This sounds academic, but membership is open to the public. This was in the 1950's, when the younger generation could go on to further education, denied to those born in 1926. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


British, Northern Irish or Irish? I think British or Northern Irish, the latter may be more NPOV. Computerjoe's talk 19:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Former as there is no northern Irish nationality (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that British is probably the word, overall, but it depends what you need to describe. People from Scotland are British but sometimes call themselves Scottish/Scots, and the same goes for England=English, Wales=Welsh, Northern Ireland=Northern Irish. To confuse things, I think technically even Ian Paisley is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland! Jonathan3000 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Paisley is _eligible_ for Republic of Ireland citizenship, this is not the same as saying he is a citizen which he is not. It is possible to be both British and Irish in the same sense it is possible to be British and English, British and Scottish, etc. It is also possible to be Irish but not British. AFAIK most Unionists identify themselves as "Irish" _as well_ as "British", but this is by no means the same as being a citizen of the Republic. Blorg (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Have _added_ his nationality _as_ _British_. JonChappleTalk 15:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Heckling pope[edit]

"Some reports claimed that other MEPs assisted in expelling him from the chamber [13], and that Paisley was booed and struck by other MEPs, who also hurled objects at him, leading to his hospitalisation[14][15]. The elderly Otto von Habsburg helped to wrestle Paisley out of the room. It has been reported that Paisley brought several posters with him and when a poster was snatched away, he immediately re-commenced with a new poster[15]"

Why does this bit keep saying "some reports claimed" and "it has been reported", when footage of the incident exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jh39 (talkcontribs) 19:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Note on recent edit, in in re Northern Ireland Friends of Israel[edit]

Hi all, I just wanted to drop a note about a recent edit I made, especially considering I removed sourced content from the lead. Paisley's hand in creating the Northern Ireland Friends of Israel (which seems to be a terrific organisation) is a bit tenuous considering it was an all-party effort. While it may warrant mention as evidence of Paisley's "softening up," for lack of a better phrase, in his later career, it has little, if any bearing on his overall career and legacy as a Northern politician. oceeConas tá tú? 03:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


Seems highly biased to me. It barely deals with Paisley's role in the Troubles at all, seeming to portray him as just a politician rather than someone who tried to wreck various political initiatives to end the Troubles, whipped up anti-Catholic sentiment, was a member of Ulster Resistance and had close connections to the UPV and so on. Tagged accordingly. 2 lines of K303 15:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - it doesn't give any hint of his views or actions, even though some of them are mentioned much further down.Autarch (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't even really deal with his introduction into big league politics, when he challenged for PM. His activites prior to 2005 definitely need covering in more detail in the lead than just him being an MP and leader of the DUP during that time period. 2 lines of K303 15:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I added a couple of sourced mentions of his more troubling behaviour in the past, but the lead does need more about his pre-2005 past alright.Autarch (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it'd be better with a total re-write. Rather than just say "he's had links with these groups" or "he's anti-Catholic" it'd be better if we expanded the lead and but things in some sort of chronological order. For example we can start with when he first came to prominence, his "Romish man of sin" speech and his protest against flags being flown at half-mast due to the death of the Pope. Then deal with the UPV and anti-civil rights protests, then challenging O'Neill, the forming of the DUP and so on. How does that sound? Obviously if it is I'll be happy to prepare a draft for here? 2 lines of K303 15:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan.Autarch (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


I deleted this categorization, and someone reverted my edit. The category page says

This category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for expressions of homophobia, opposition to homophobia, or involvement in controversy about homophobia. It is not intended for groups or individuals who have made homophobic remarks and related actions but are not widely known for stances that entail homophobia.

Now, I would have thought Paisley is in the second group - he's not chiefly known for his homophobia, and the Save Ulster from Sodomy campaign was more than 30 years ago. Having the campaign article in the category is enough. StAnselm (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  • For a second source, Jon Ronson in his book, Them: Adventures with Extremists, also clearly alluded to Ian's homophobia when he traveled around Africa on one of Paisley's missions. It's relatively recent, and Big Ian still maintains his position to this day. In 2005, he met with the ASA in relation to a homophobic advert taken out by the Sandown Presbyterian Church which labeled gay people 'perverts', etc, etc. In 2007, his son was called out by Martin McGuinness for his homophobic comments in an interview with Hot Press magazine. Etc etc ... - Alison 06:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
But the point is - making comments does not place a person under Category:Homophobia as it's defined above. It seems well sourced, and it's obviously more recent than the Save Ulster from Sodomy campaign - but the Category placement has nothing to do with whether he still maintains the position. I think we need to go to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard on this one, but I'll wait a bit and see if a consensus develops. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like it's moot anyways. Guess that settles that :) - Alison 03:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


I have noticed that on a lot of the pages related to northern ireland that alot of the information is very biased and this page is different, so i think that it would be very important that this gets changed, as it does not give a good description of northern ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur that there is quite a bit of bias in this article. The point that lead me to log on has to do with Paisley's doctorate from Pioneer Theological Seminary. The seminary is called "outlawed" with a reference to an anti-creationist (pro-science) group in the UK. The proper term, I think, would be "unaccredited," as the paragraph goes on to point out about the subsequent honorary doctorate from then unaccredited Bob Jones University. Lack of "recognition" of an organization does not mean it is "outlawed," which indicates legal action against such an organization. Since the paragraph is on the prominent minister's doctorate, it would be good to indicate if the first doctorate was actually "earned" via a thesis. --JHenryMartin (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
A quick google shows the "outlawed" terminology is common (suggesting that this odd wording has been copied from a single source for this obscure topic). The citation can be read as saying that the college is unacredited, but I'm wary of falling foul of WP:OR as that might go beyond what the author meant. What "outlawed" means is anybodys' guess - are degree mills prosecuted under fraud legislation in the USA?Autarch (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Big NPOV Problems with "Doctor Paisley" Section[edit]

I don't have editing permission to correct this -- someone ought to do so immediately as it's pretty libelous.

Regarding this current section:

Doctor Paisley

Paisley's use of the title 'Dr' derived initially from a 1954 qualification from the (outlawed)[6] American Pioneer Theological Seminary in Rockville, Illinois. Later this was somewhat legitimised by an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree awarded by Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian college in Greenville, South Carolina that was unaccredited at the time. Bob Jones, Jr. was a close personal friend and, with Paisley, a leader in evangelical Christianity. Paisley continues to maintain a friendly relationship with the institution and has often spoken at the University's annual Bible Conference.


The word "outlawed" is referenced to a highly-partisan Web site that also calls the school "outlawed", with no further reference.

It is essentially impossible for a U.S. religious school to be "outlawed" and operating at the same time. If it did something actually illegal (e.g. selling drugs) it would be shut down. If it was closed due to some malfeasance after granting the degree to Paisley, the article would have to say "the American Pioneer Theological Seminary in Rockville, Illinois, which was later shut down in YEAR due to [explain]".

It may not have been an "accredited" educational institution. But accredation in the U.S. is done by private organizations and doesn't really have any legal status -- it mostly a matter of prestige.

But it's not safe to even say the school was "unaccredited" without proper research, as there are (at least today, if I'm not mistaken) "alternative" accrediting organizations that do accredit low-academic-standard religious schools. You then would have to phrase very carefully that it's not accredited by one of the "leading" accrediting organizations or something.

I can't find any info on the school other than the millions of libelous copies of the Wikipedia statement in this Paisley article : ) It may well be long closed.

I do want the article to describe the school as not being on par with Harvard -- but very carefully and neutrally.


The article then continues "Later this was somewhat legitimised by an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree ..."

I hope I don't need to point out that this is giving the value-judgement of the Wikipedia editor. Needs to be neutral like:

"He did also subsequently receive a second honorary Doctor of Divinity degree awarded by Bob Jones University in YEAR, a fundamentalist Christian college in Greenville, South Carolina which was unaccredited at the time".

But again -- was Bob Jones University actually "unaccredited" or just not accredited by one of the "respectable" accrediting organizations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it he received his 'doctorate' from a school accredited by a body not empowered/accredited as an accrediting agency. It is sort of like (though obviously this is an exaggeration) if I were to declare myself a school and award you a doctorate and someone said I couldn't legitmately do so because I wasn't accredited so someone else declared themselves an accrediting agency, said I was accredited and you started calling yourself 'Dr'. Obviously accreditation for it to mean anything has to be done by legitimate accrediting bodies for it to 'count', so depending on the meaning of the word it is both false and true to say 'Dr Ian Paisley received his doctorate from an unaccredited school'. The situation is even more complicated by the fact that Bob Jones University is (arguably) a University which though not properly accredited at the time of giving him his honorary doctorate (and thus, arguably, entitlement to use the address 'Dr') probably could have been accredited had its founder not had ideological objections to accreditation and which subsequently became an accredited institution (and one imagines would, in principle, renew the honorary doctorate). DACrowe10 (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Are we sure that either degree is "honorary"? As I understand it, persons with mere honorary doctorates are not entitled to call themselves "Dr". I'll have to look it up, but I always understood that Paisley submitted a thesis to get his doctorate (accredited or otherwise). Mooretwin (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The practice varies from region to region. In my province in Canada, it appears that anyone can call themselves "Doctor". In Ontario in Canada, only chiropractors, dentists, medical doctors, optometrists, psychologists, and registered Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioners and acupuncturists can use the title professionally.Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.
I have no idea what rules apply in Northern Ireland. Mooretwin, do you know?--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It's quite common for Protestant clergy in a lot of countries to call themselves "Dr" on the basis of honorary degrees and/or degrees from unaccredited institutions - other examples in politics include Paisley's DUP colleague William McCrea who has an honorary Doctor of Divinity from Marietta Bible College, or the Australian Gordon Moyes who has a DD from the California Graduate School of Theology. The situation is complicated because a lot of religious institutions have historically had ideological objections to any form of government accreditation, arguing that the government has no role in determining what is and isn't the right teaching.
Some countries rigorously protect the use of the title "Dr" by law, but others don't and leave it to the institutions and field concerned. I'm not aware of any law in the UK that Paisley could have broken on this. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Anti-homosexuality activist"... A profession?[edit]

I have decided to remove this from the 'profession' section.

In spite of the fact that he has been vehemently opposed to homosexuality in public, it was by no means his main occupation.

Anyone disagree? Denzell393 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree and also removed a similar edit today. Bjmullan (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Elevated to the peerage[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Per The Guardian, Paisley has been named as a member of the House of Lords. Please update the article accordingly. Thank you. (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Bjmullan (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Section on honorary doctorate[edit]

I removed it completely for now because I believe that the way it was presented was WP:OR and WP:SYN. It was also completely unsourced, although looking around a bit does suggest that it is possible to source the basic facts, which are that he has an honorary doctorate, and that he does like to use the title Dr. This should be presented here exactly as it is presented in the sources, of course, rather than our insinuating that something is wrong with it. (If reliable sources make that insinuation, then of course we can and perhaps should report on that.)

The BBC profile on him simply puts it this way: "His doctorate is an honorary one, bestowed by the Bob Jones University, in South Carolina but he likes to use the title." That is sufficient for us, unless there are other sources (not random websites, not editorial columnists, but actual sources) which make stronger claims on this point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Have a book written by two professors making such connections:

Timothy Larsen is professor of Theology at Wheaton College and David William Bebbington is David W. Bebbington. If an Oxford University Press book by a lecturer in Theology is more to one's taste, there's this:

And here's another history professor (this one from the University of Manitoba):

The connection between Paisley and Jones is, quite literally, in the history books. Uncle G (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  • How do you propose handling this in the article? My objection was, and is, against uncited original synthesis.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't put it in a separate section entitled "Doctorate". But then that's because I prefer chronological order and context in biographies, rather than every detail warranting its own section heading. Call me fussy. ☺ There's a section on Paisley's early political career, and from what the sources say his trips to the U.S. and his association with Jones (several sources explicitly call it friendship) are part of that. There are historical sources coming out of our ears that say that Jones Jr travelled to Northern Ireland to award an honorary degree to Paisley. Andrew J. Wilson says it in practically those very words, in doi:10.1353/eir.2005.0033. James Greer, researcher at Queens University of Belfast says this:

I would say that the linkage here is undisputed in the scholarly sources. Harriet A. Harris, lecturer in Theology at the University of Exeter says this:

Clifford Smyth says this:

There are plenty of sources that document this association in some detail. Heck, even Paisley has commented on it. Here's a 40-year-old quote from the New York Times (that several sources partially quote themselves):

It's rather missing the point to look, as below, for an agenda. Everyone agrees that Jones and Paisley and BJU were associated. Paisley was proud of it. Uncle G (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  • That Paisley has an honorary doctorate from Bob Jones Uni, and tends to use it, is factual and verifiable. However, I'm not sure that it is very significant or deserves much more than a mention. Saying "Paisley's doctorate is honorary and was awarded in 1966 by Bob Jones University, of which he is a trustee" is probably all it merits. I'm not that impressed by UncleG's quotations actually:
  1. The Bebbington book looks like an ignorant hatchet job. "marginalized religions groups compensating for their lack of cultural capital by brandishing honorary academic". I mean, please? Paisley's Presbyterians are hardly a "marginalised religious group" in a Northern Ireland context. He was elected first minister for crying out loud. This doesn't look like notable objective commentary on Paisley, but twisting the evidence to promote some pseudo-sociological thesis.
  2. Mitchel narrates a degree was awarded, and that Paisley was a trustee. Factual enough, but that's all there is. Some unspecified "close links".
  3. The Carroll book, is trying to make connections between Ulster and the US. Fair do, but Paisley no doubt met many US leaders (Northern Irish leaders on all sides have courted US support for decades). Other than the fact that a degree was conferred and the two men met, there' not a lot there. And remember the book is wanting to explore US-NI links, and this is probably prone to over stressing their significance.--Scott Mac 21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced stuff[edit]

A few years ago I went through this article and removed some unsourced statements tagged with "citation needed" template and whatnot. When I come back I find yet more of these tags. This is one of the best documented human beings on planet earth, so it won't do to just stick up a silly tag. We must follow the BLP on Wikipedia and particularly here, so no more just writing any old crap into the article. Write from reliable sources, verify and cite. We don't make this stuff up. Prove it. --TS 23:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In general[edit]

If you discover something that doesn't appear to be sourced in any way from cited material, don't stick a silly bloody tag on the statement. Remove it. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. --TS 23:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Usage of hall[edit]

Paisley's new denomination is called Presbyterian. It has been suggested that this is so because a hall he wanted to use was for Presbyterian use only. Paisley actually has a Baptist background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Religious Views" / "His website also praises Slobodan Milošević"[edit]

In respect of the citation of the of the "European Institute of Protestant Studies",( the article reads

"His website also praises Slobodan Milošević, who it claims was fighting a Vatican plot to destroy the Serbian Orthodox Church, and that "all Milosevic did was to lead the Serbs in their attempt to safeguard 1500 years of their heritage with the horrors and injustices of their World War II genocide ever before them".[20]"

I am uncomfortable about the weight given to this reference and think it would be best removed or reworded. Firstly, the article on EIPS carries a byline of "Doctor Clive Gillis" and is at best one remove from Ian Paisley. There is no evidence that Paisley explicitly endorses the article, although it's reasonable to infer that he does not radically disagree with it. Secondly, the main focus of the article is a criticism of the Catholic Church and references Milošević only incidentally. Thirdly, as I read it, Milošević is not actively praised in the article, but is presented as someone who became the figurehead and consequent scapegoat for Serbia's actions in former Yugoslavia. Fourthly, although criticising the Catholic Church is certainly a religious viewpoint, defending Milošević isn't religious but political.

As it stands, the sentence could be taken to infer that EP is/was somehow an active supporter of SM which I think is an inference too far. I will not make the edit, as I know that EP is a controversial figure in many circles and have no desire to start an edit war.

Rob Burbidge (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it definitely has to go. It's a primary source that isn't even by him. StAnselm (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Defender or Demagogue?"[edit]

This section seems to out of place. The citations do not use the loaded word "demagogue". The rhetorical title can be answered in two ways, both of which would surely be NPOV. Do the events described have any especial relevance to the article, for there is no point in exhaustively listing every thing Paisley has ever done in a long and controversial career. Rob Burbidge (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


I have removed this section on the grounds that NPOV and doesn't deserve prominence at that point in the article. The facts are not in dispute, but the editorialisation. Rob Burbidge (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

City Hall preaching[edit]

I think it would be a good idea to mention his weekly public preaching in front of Belfast City Hall on Friday afternoons under his religious career. (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC) opinions please (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC) ?Cbowsie (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Not dead yet?[edit]

I thought he was rotting away somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: No move. The consensus is that just Ian Paisley is the WP:COMMONNAME. Cúchullain t/c 19:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian PaisleyIan Paisley, Baron Bannside – Ian Paisley's legal name changed when he became a Life Peer. Other notable peers such Lady Thatcher, Lord Woolf and Lord Hanningfield are listed in the format 'Birth Name, Baron Title' so it would make sense to follow the same convention here. References for the peerage are almost certainly already in the arcticle. The Parson's Cat (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose WP:OFFICIALNAME - we do not use official names because they are official. WP:UCN, common name is not with "Baron Bannside"; WP:PRECISE - overly long title for aristocratic puffery on Wikipedia, adds nothing for precision, just makes it longer. We do not use postnominal letters or Dr. etc, this is nothing different, since it's a life peerage. -- (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    • WP:NCPEER surely takes precedence. Paisley is commonly known by both his birth name and his peerage. He was appointed as a peer in 2010, well before his retirement in 2012. This has nothing to do with 'aristocratic puffery'. The Parson's Cat (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
      • NCPEER is a guideline, PRECISE is policy. Per WP:POLICY, policies take priority over guidelines. -- (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
        • WP:MOSAT - which invokes the guidelines such as WP:NCPEER - is also policy. - part of the same one was WP:PRECISE I don't feel that there is a conflict here. In any case, there aims at least one other notable Ian Paisley - he's the son of this one, so Ian Paisley by itself is not adequately precise. (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
          • The guideline is still a guideline, not policy. The MOSAT section even says that the guideline does not override the policy. MOSAT does not elevate guidelines to policy level, otherwise they'd be called policies. -- (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • So she is - not what I remember. I stand corrected on that one. Thanks. It seems an exception rather than the rule, though. The Parson's Cat (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and also per the exception to WP:NCPEER. Even now, three years after his peerage was awarded, he still meets Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names, e.g. at [3], [4], [5], [6].  — Amakuru (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Prefix Title[edit]

Ian Paisley is

The Rev and Right Hon Lord Bannside

not 'The Rev and Right Hon The Lord Bannside'. The prefix 'The' is sometimes used for Life Peers, but it's an abbreviation of 'The Right Hon'.

In Lord Bannside's case, he is a Privy Councillor, so the Right Hon can never be abbreviated.

Referernce: p. 8 of A. & C. Black (2002). Titles and Forms of Address, 21st ed. London: A. & C. Black.

The Parson's Cat (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Paisley dies[edit]

The BBC reports that Rev. Ian Paisley has died. [7] (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Four photos, but all from 2007/8. Can anyone find something earlier? Davidships (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

nationalist SDLP[edit]

I don't know anything about the SDLP but it's called three times nationalistic in a short subsection, which is rather propaganda than information.Xx236 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The SDLP advocates Irish unification and so is correctly described as a nationalist party. However, is has not supported the use of violence to achieve change. LynwoodF (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Military service during WW II?[edit]

As Paisley was born in April 1926, he was probably eligible for British military service during WW II which ended in May 1945 in Europe and September 1945 in Asia. Did British conscription extend to Northern Ireland during WW II? Did he serve in the forces?--TGC55 (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No, conscription was never introduced in Northern Ireland and Paisley didn't serve (his older brother did though). Here is a link to an article in the Guardian that could be used as a ref if you want to add something about it to the article. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox - Religion[edit]

As currently stated the Infobox entry for Religion is incorrect. "Free Presbyterian" is a denomination, not a religion. denomination is a well defined term: "A recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church" I added a clear properly sourced interview statement to the article in which Paisley clearly said "I am a Christian), and I changed Infobox religion to Christian. That has been reverted, and the referenced source removed, on the basis that the entry for Margaret Thatcher is also wrong! Is no one else interested in accuracy? FF-UK (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe use of that term, in a wikipedia info box, means something other than what one finds in the Oxford Dictionary? Have you read the current discussion at Template talk:Infobox person? How many examples can you find where that parameter says "Christian"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The fact that the error is widespread is a reflection on the widespread ignorance among WP editors, not a justification for perpetuating the error. Try looking at the WP articles on Religion, Religious denomination, and Major religious groups. you will not find anything amongst those to support the error. Anyway, it is sources that matter, why did you remove the referenced source? FF-UK (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The fact that Paisley declared himself a Christian is not surprising and is not in dispute. But you just threw that fact in, on its own, at the end of that section and it appeared to be a complete non-sequitur. Most people would understand that belonging to a Christian church denomination, qualifies a person to be a Christian, by definition. And I'm sure many more sources could be found that support the fact that Paisley was a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. But again, if you have a problem with how the info-box parameter "religion" is used, you should seek clarification at Template talk:Infobox person. Maybe you can convince everyone else that they are wrong and you are right. But there are differences of opinion over there. Why not ask your question at the right place instead of edit warring here? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
As I said to FF-UK over there, "This is an idiosyncratic view about the (ill-defined) difference between denomination and religion -- it is certainly not a consensus of human beings generally, and I doubt it is a consensus of Wikipedia editors." And the case of a notable Unionist is a particularly bone-headed place to be pushing this position. Hopefully FF-UK will give up without requiring a massive waste of energy from everyone else. --JBL (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
For the purposes of wikipedia, the Pope is a Catholic, allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"Religion" is notoriously difficult to define. The Wikipedia definition is "an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence." The Oxford English dictionary "A particular system of faith and worship" (in the context of believing in a God). By either of these definitions, including either "Christianity" or "Free Presbytarian" is absolutely fine as a religion. I say leave it to the editors interested in the page to decide the best term to include in the box, rather than editors parachuting in from afar with no real interest in the Ian Paisley article other than as a way to make a point about the Religion field in the info box (which is far better done on the Template Talk page...) Atshal (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)