Talk:Ian Paisley Jr

Assessment

Content is good, but article would need at least a few more reference citations, preferably at least one per section, for a B rating. John Carter (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree - also relies very heavily on audio broadcasts which are no longer available freely. Reference is correctly made to them, and Wikipedia says that's enough, but verification would be almost impossible unless some way was found to listen to them once more. If anyone knows of any resources offering streaming audio files for BBC Radio's "The House I Grew Up In", and which could be accessed, please post here, or provide links within the article. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Jr/Jr.

Following British usage I think he should be called 'Ian Paisley, Jr', not 'Jr.', i.e. without a full point. In British English abbreviations formed by curtailing the word (there's a technical term but I can't remember it) do traditionally have a full point whereas contractions don't. The first category includes 'Hon.' and 'Rev.' and the second 'Dr' and 'Revd'. 'Jr' is obviously 'J[unio]r' just like 'R[everen]d' so the full point is not wanted. If he were American then the full point would be appropriate as the Americans do, as I understand it, write 'Mr.', 'Dr.', etc. In more trendy British usage (which also looks more elegant) full points are being dropped altogether ('PhD' rather than 'Ph.D.', 'Rt Hon' rather than 'Rt Hon.')--Oxonian2006 (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There's also "Jnr" and "Junior", both of which are used on his website. "Ian Paisley, Jnr is also the spelling used on his profile on the DUP website. Perhaps we should go with that? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My Hart (39th edn) lists 'Jun.' I would rather follow OUP than the DUP or even Ian Paisley, fils, himself. I suppose there is no established pattern in British English as it is not so much a British thing to do. There are also pages for William Henry Perkin, Jr. and Charles Dickens, Jr. I don't know whether his personal preference should carry any weight. It's not like the spelling, pronunciation, or hyphenation of a name. It's a matter of correct typographical rendition according to the national norm. It is, of course, not very important.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

true?

lol this cannot be true = Catchphrase host Roy Walker described him on a 2005 NI Celebrity Christmas Special of the show as "the poster boy for legalised abortion". A ruccous ensued where Paisley got the living daylights beaten out of him by "Clonous Cyclone" Barry McGuigan and D:ream's lead singer who feared he might be next if he didn't back McGuigan up. Shabba3001 (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hon

I do not think the title 'Hon' is correct? Can anyone verify this? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the 'Hon', I've never seen it used before anywhere.--Theosony (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Names I don't believe it should be used, even if correct, but I could be wrong. Canterbury Tail talk 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For an MP/MLA template it should be used, but it only when it is applicable.--Theosony (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hon. is only used by Judges in the UK, not politicians, and Rt Hon by members of the privy council. And even then on Wikipedia it is not used in the opening sentence as decided upon by the appropriate Wikiproject. So no, shouldn't be there as he's not actually entitled to it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes he is entitled to it - he's the son of a life peer. See The Honourable#United Kingdom. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah fair enough, never thought of it from that angle. Canterbury Tail talk 16:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll re-add the title.--Theosony (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Political scandal

Hi everyone,

I think the first paragraph of the political scandal section was poorly sourced. In order to follow WP:BLP policy, I deleted it.

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

My change can be easily undone by clicking on the link in the history list and then selecting "undo".

I predict two sources can be found: A record of parliament for Daithí McKay's comment. A transcript or YouTube copy of Spotlight (NI). But I am not a resident of Northern Ireland, and cannot judge the reliability of such sources, and the policy emphasizes "removed immediately", I'll let someone else reinsert the material (: this time properly sourced :).

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Expenses section

I really don't see the need for the sentence on expenses, especially not as a whole section, and I have removed it. As it stood, it had a whole section alongside "Education" and "Political career". Someone would have had the highest expenses of any MPs - I don't suppose the other MPs of previous years have it mentioned on their pages, so why single out Paisley? In other words, the significance of the fact hasn't been demonstrated. StAnselm (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings StA. Take it as read, I'm looking for a politically neutral and more informative article for readers and that is all! In answer to your question, you’re probably aware that no MP expense details were published before the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009. I subsequently resolved a number of expenses section arguments, some of which the Telegraph had unfairly mentioned following poor auditing by the Fees office -and as it happens, worked briefly in Ulster in the very early 1990’s ..on an expense account.

I don’t think there is anything notable about Paisley’s expenses other than they are the highest as would be expected for Scottish and Ulster constituencies. We should say they don’t benefit him in person and are within about 5% of those of a comparable neighbouring constituency. It could go in a section called Office facilities. However it's always better to show a criticism & deal with it, than to ignore it. Comments welcome, regards JRPG (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

But it's not a criticism - that's why it had its own section. There is no hint in the BBC article that there is any wrong-doing. Now, I wasn't aware of any other expense section arguments - is there a consensus about their inclusion. I would have thought we would generally not include them, in the same way we generally do not include salaries - though they might also be in the public record. StAnselm (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Expense details of many English politicians have been included if they have attracted wp:rs attention ..as Ian Paisley jr now has. This is particularly true since the expenses scandal. In some cases e.g. Rob Marris & Kelvin Hopkins it was to say they were 'saints,' other's like Bill Wiggin and Nadhim Zahawi were criticized ..but I hope fairly. You're right to say there is no hint of wrong-doing by Ian Paisley jr ..just a clear explanation that the money is being correctly spent -on constituency needs -which the public is entitled to know. Unlike MPs' salaries, travel expenses vary according to the distance from London whilst the number of staff needed depends on the relative prosperity of the constituency. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I intend to add a couple of sentences about expenses under political career, we agree it isn't controversial ..but showing what the costs covered.

Paisley's expenses for the financial year 2012-13 were £232,000. Paisley explained that the costs covered travel and accommodation for himself and his constituency staff and none of the money benefited him.

JRPG (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine - I have no further objection. StAnselm (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2017

The following is a closed 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: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Ian Paisley Jr. → Ian Paisley Jr – I'm proposing this page be moved to Ian Paisley Jr for the sake of consistency among similar-titled articles. Per WP:TITLEVAR, this article is written in British English and so the title should conform to British English (which is to drop the dot after Jr). I previously moved the title to the proposed target, but another editor reverted the move, so I'm here to seek some consensus. st170e 14:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I reverted the WP:BOLD move, preferring a consensus. I don't have a personal preference, but there are over a dozen possible variants: Jr/Jr./Jnr/Jnr./Junior/Junr/Junr., each with or without a dot. So unless we establish consensus, the page title will be unstable.

I oppose for now because:

1. I don't see a source for the assertion that British English omits the trailing dot, and the 2009 discussion above (at #Jr.2FJr.) includes an assertion that a style guide called Hart lists 'Jun.'
2. I am wary of applying British style guides to Norniron.
3. For names of people, I'd prefer to follow common usage rather than imposing a style guide. So I's support this move if there was evidence in reliable sources that "Ian Paisley Jr" (no comma, no dot) is the WP:COMMONNAME.

Pinging Timrollpickering, both of whom took part in the 2009 discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That ping doesn't look right, so try again: @Oxonian2006 and Timrollpickering:. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

British or Irish English agree on the issue of omitting the dot. The dot following Jr is added mostly in US English. I found a few sources that did omit the dot, but since it was a stylistic issue, I chose not to include them. But here's a few: BBC, BelTel, TheJournal.ie, Evening Standard, Irish Times, Independent, RTÉ News, Irish Mirror, News Letter.

There's a plethora of sources that provide the omission of the dot. The sources are all NI/GB or Irish, and they would all show Ian Paisley Jr is the WP:COMMONNAME. st170e 14:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, it's worth mentioning that Paisley doesn't style himself as Paisley Jr anymore, rather Ian Paisley MP. This is reflected on the DUP website and the website of the House of Commons. st170e 15:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@St170e:, rather than assertions such as plethora of sources that provide the omission of the dot, it is more helpful to name (and preferably link) some of those sources.

You have provided evidence that some sources used your preferred style. That is not much help in considering what is the most common usage; we need comparative evidence showing levels of usage for the various alternatives.

Yes, Paisley himself has dropped the "Jnr". But that doesn't help us, because the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the undisambiguated Ian Paisley is undoubtedly his father. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it does help in proving the most common usage - these are major media organisations. In fact, I don't think it would be useful linking all of the hits on Google because the majority of them point to Ian Paisley Jr. I don't want to link US media organisations because they use US English -- that would be contradictory. The few articles I could find that say otherwise include Sky News which styles his name as Ian Paisley junior. I've also found Irish Echo using Ian Paisley Jr., New Statesman using Ian Paisley, Jr, Politics.co.uk using Ian Paisley Junior, The Guardian using Ian Paisley Jnr and the Christian Institute using Ian Paisley, Jr. I genuinely can't find any other UK/IRL news sources that say otherwise.

Meanwhile I've found further evidence to support the move to Ian Paisley Jr: see Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Guardian (earlier used Ian Paisley Jnr), Herald Scotland, ITV News, The Mirror and the New Statesman (which earlier used Ian Paisley, Jr).

All in all, I believe the move is warranted and further evidenced with these sources. Of the sources that use variations, the majority of the UK-based sources do not include the dot. st170e 16:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Support per reply below. as the wrong place to question this, which should be done on the MOS comma page in order to clarify Jr.-comma policy. Randy Kryn, fils (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: From WP:JR/SR: In the case of Senior/Junior, the preferred format is with "Sr." or "Jr." written after the name, without a comma. Per WP:TITLEVAR the period (full stop) after the abbreviation can be omitted when the biographical article is written in British English. I'm not quite sure what requires clarification. st170e 15:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I stand corrected, didn't know that language was there, and changed my comment to 'Support'. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Weak support. I prefer Jnr. But either is better than "Jr.". — Jon C.^ॐ 11:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support dropping full stop. If a mere British way isn't enough, multiple sources should convince you better. --George Ho (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support: there is no need for a US format to be adopted here. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 14:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support, standard in British and Irish English and used widely without the dot in the British media (Jnr is also used, appears roughly equal in prevalence; personally, I prefer "Jr" as a standard). Warofdreams talk 23:47, 19 July 2017 (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.