Talk:Democratic Unionist Party/Archive 1

Archive 1

Existence of spy ring in Stormont

On Friday [16th December 2005], the Northern Ireland Office said it "completely rejected any allegation that the police operation in October 2002 was for any reason other than to prevent paramilitary intelligence gathering".

It said "the fact remains that a huge number of stolen documents were recovered by the police".

Police sources earlier reiterated that the "Stormontgate" affair began because "a paramilitary organisation was involved in the systematic gathering of information and targeting or individuals". [1]

So there are still allegations of a republican spy ring operating in Stormont, and you cannot state as fact that MI5 were behind it. Demiurge 13:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Demiurge, guess whose house the documents were found in? For a bonus point, that person has since admitted working for...?

Lapsed Pacifist 03:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the correct name of the UK's Olympic team?

Is the UK's Olympic team "Great Britain" or "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?

see Cfd discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Great_Britain_at_the_Olympics_to_Category:Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_at_the_Olympics --Mais oui! 22:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Loyalist paramilitary links section = PoV pushing

This section is implies an extreme amont of PoV to this article. 382 out of 1033 words in the main article body (36.98%) are devoted to this topic. If one compares this to the Sinn Fein article - a party who are undeniably linked to the IRA - where 132 words out of 5431 words in article body (2.43%) are devoted to rebublican paramilitary links. Hmmm... something is just a BIT out of line here! Jonto 14:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say that shows that a need to expand the entire article to the same level of detail as the Sinn Féin article, not to remove content from it. Is there any specific part of the "loyalist paramilitaries" section you object to? (I disagree with your assessment of the Sinn Féin article by the way -- I count 573 words devoted to links or sympathies between SF and the IRA.) Demiurge 14:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's worth keeping given that the DUP spends much of it's time advocating peace and democratic means and denying links with paramilitaries. Clearly this is not the case, given the party's base vote which is drawn to a significant extent from the communities where loyalist paramilitaries enjoy popular support. The incident where William McCrea (now South Antrim MP) appeared on a podium with Billy Wright in the mid-1990s is an example of the kind of tenacious but extant relationship the DUP has with paramilitarism. There is no need to spend a lot of time commenting on the same subject in the case of Sinn Fein since the party has a consistent stance on the paramilitarism and the IRA - although clearly the involvement of SF members in terrorism should certainly be clearly documented. - Comrade Stalin

OK - I might be able to push the word count to 514 (9.46%). It depends upon how you interpret the paragraphs. However, in the Sinn Fein article you must read through the entire article and distill the information. In this article there is an entirely separate and distinct subsection. Having a heading of "Links with loyalist paramilitaries" implies a PoV in itself, and as a first step propose the heading to be removed. Perhaps this also suggests the need for a separate section on paramilitary links in the Sinn Fein article??

This sentence is also extremely PoV:

"While the DUP refuse to engage with Sinn Féin on the basis that they are associated with the IRA, it has never had a problem in dealing with any of the small loyalist parties directly associated with paramilitary groups, often helping elect their representatives to public office"

• That definitely needs to be properly cited, yes. I've marked it with the {{fact}} template for the moment, it should be removed if nobody can find a specific incident where the DUP helped one of the loyalist-paramilitary-linked parties get elected. Demiurge 11:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Theoretically, the DUP and the loyalists compete for votes so it is factually wrong to say that they assist loyalists in this respect.

I don't object to much of the other text in itself. However, I feel that the "undue weight" policy is being ignored. Perhaps the same points could be made, but with reduced detail? Also, how relevant is one quote about the DUP fom Mitchell Reiss, compared to thousands upon thousands of quotes from thousands of quotes about the DUP other sources?

The article also mentions the "Antrim PRO" and "Gary Blair". Is this the same person? I think it might be. A source is needed here, and if it does turn out to be the same person then it should be mentioned in one place and not two.

Jonto

• From Google, it seems they are the same person, I'm trying to find a source that isn't An Phoblacht or some random weblog though. I think the Mitchell Reiss quote should stay; as the official US envoy to NI, his opinion carries a lot of weight.Demiurge 11:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• In the interests of balance, I've added a Mitchell Reiss quote to the Sinn Féin article condemning SF's links to IRA. Demiurge 11:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Improvement Of Ideology Terms

--WilliamNorman 04:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it a tad silly to have both "right-wing" and "conservative"? Just simple "Conservative", would seem to do the job. That being said, only the presence of the word "populist" in the description of the ideology serves to separate the description from that of the UUP's. Perphaps something like putting "hardline" before unionist, or even using "Loyalist" would be better, but that brings up concerns about NPOV. Any other suggestions?

My suggestions would be "sectarian bigots". And theres no point in denying this, becasue thats essentially what they are. (Derry Boi 10:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC))

!!

The DUP, at this minute, is not the biggest party in Westminister. The UUP is one up. The DUP is the largest party in Ulster,yet it is the 4th largest party in the United Kingdom. - (Aidan Work 05:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)) They have 9/10 seats at westminster that were won by any unionist party. 82.163.39.200 15:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Protestant political parties

would anyone object if I classified this article in the Category:Protestant political parties? -- C mon 07:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC) i wouldnt that what it is The debate earlier in the page sums this one up - The DUP has had members who have been Roman Catholics and there is evidence to suggest that some (albeit very small) support is from Roman Catholics. The Party has no rules to prevent support from, or membership from those who are Roman Catholics therefore there is no justification to describe the DUP as a 'Protestant' political party.

Roman Catholics

I would like to see evidence that it has no Roman Catholic members.

That's kind of a common sense thing. Carolynparrishfan 20:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

that is rubbish. I'm from NI. There was never a single catholic in it. 82.163.39.200 15:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC) You can't be certain that there are absolutely none The DUP do not allow catholics to join the party but they want htem to vote for them

As Chairman of the Democratic Unionist Party's Student Association at Queens I can vouch that in the past there have been Catholic members of our association, furthermore there is absolutly nothing in the party rules to say that Roman Catholics or indeed members of any other religion could not join the party. Quarkstorm 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Consistently devolutionist"

The article claims the DUP is "The only unionist party which has been consistently devolutionist throughout its history". I'm pretty sure the party was founded in October 1971 but Paisley was an "integrationist" in 1972. Taking this into account, is the claim that the DUP has been "consistently devolutionist" true?--Johnbull 19:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for Paisley being an integrationalist in 1972? He opposed the closure of Stormont in the 70's. Quarkstorm 13:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read it here: "Paisley's approach at this stage [1972] was to advocate stern security policies...but instead of calling for the return of Stormont he became an integrationist, one of those rare Unionists who believed a new Stormont would tend to separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. It was an interesting theory but at the time there were few Unionist takers for it, and eventually Paisley would quietly abandon it and return to more familiar ground."--David McKittrick and David McVea, Making Sense of The Troubles (Penguin, 2001), pp. 89-90.--Johnbull 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. He opposed the closure of Stormont before 1972 and by the late 70's. I think he was advocating devolving security to a reconstituted Stormont. I don't think integrationalism was ever a serious policy. The only person who has been consistently integrationalist is Bob McCartney. Quarkstorm 16:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Political links?

User: Political Dweeb here wants to give an explanation. I am responsible for creating the paragraphs on the Democratic Unionist Party's link with the British Ulster Alliance.

This is so a person from the BUA, DUP or anyone else can come onto this discussion page and clarify for me if they were aware of the link between the BUA and the DUP because of "the South Down DUP band" which according to Sinn Fein MLA Philip Mcguigan was "listed to appear alongside an organisation called the British Ulster Alliance at a loyalist parade in the Whitewell area of North Belfast”.

Since the BUA says it is not neo Nazi and doesn't support the Neo nazi Combat 18 while the Sinn Fein MLA says the BUA is neo Nazi I want people to come onto this discussion page to clarify these accusations as to whether or not the BUA is supportative or against neo-Nazism. Political Dweeb (talk)

The only evidence for the allegations seem to come from a Sinn Féin MLA... The DUP and SF have been claiming the other has connections to extremists for a long time now, so...pinch? Salt? BUA's response would be worth citing though, wherever it is. -- The Great Gavini 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

DUP spokespersons

Anyone know the source for the list of DUP spokespersons at Westminster? Plus I've added a separate list for the Assembly - feel free to fill in the blanks as it needs completing.--Gecko177 (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Full Manifesto

My site has a full copy of the DUP manifesto. They're almost all contained within PDF files on the DUP website. Declaring my interest: I own the site so shouldn't add the link myself. DUP Full Manifesto Jdfjurn (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Mervyn Storey and opposition to teaching evolution

Could someone add a bit about the comments made by Mervyn Storey last August about teaching creationism in science classrooms?

I would write this myself, but I don't consider myself a good writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.117.104 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia

FYI: I have restored the Homophobia category. The DUP is notably anti-homosexual, as cited by the article itself. Vexorg (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The user User:Sumbuddi talk appears to be edit warring and has cited the following as rationale for removing the category "no really, this not an appropriate category for Northern Ireland's main political party" - Being a main political party doesn't give anyone an impunity from a wikipedia category. Vexorg (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reported the user User:Sumbuddi for edit warring. Vexorg (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The user User:Sumbuddi is continuing the edit war - his/her personal comments are offensive and unhelpful "you are the one who has been banned four times in the last three months for edit warring. I suggest you take your own advice." - Just becuase I have been previously infracted for edit warring does not give the other edit warrior an advantage. I given proper rationale for the addition of the category and used the talk page. The user User:Sumbuddi has not bothered to talk about this and is clearly not editing in good faith. Vexorg (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

note to admin: I have reverted this user's last 'edit without rationale'. I shall revert no more until the dispute is resolved. Vexorg (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The user User:Sumbuddi has added the comment "I have explained why you are wrong, there is nothing more to say" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Edit_warring_on_Democratic_Unionist_Party_.28Result:_.29 - Please note that this user has explained nothing and has given no rationale for the removal of the category. Vexorg (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As a political party they are not defined by homophobia, and this is not an appropriate category for them, any more than it is for the Catholic Church. I do suggest you chill out on the edit warring however, you are exceptionally aggressive. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop making false claims, I am not being aggressive whatsoever. The DUP are notably anti-homosexual as is proven in the article itself. You on the other hand have no other ammunition apart from personal comments and really, using my banning history speaks volumes about the weight of your arguments. Which frankly hold no weight. I have reverted your edit warring because there is proper rationale for the category. You started the edit warring with no rationale and no comment in the talk page until I reported you. I won't be continuing an edit war. I have gone through the proper channels. And please stop the personal hyperbole. Vexorg (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia is not an appropriate category for this article, but there's nothing to stop you creating a new category "Homophobic political parties" and then listing it as a sub category under "Homophobia". --WebHamster 00:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

While a "Homophobic political parties" subcategory is a decent idea, I still disagree that this article is not appropriate for inclusion in the homophobia category. Vexorg (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that you are edit warring and have a remarkable history of it is in fact relevant. Would it really be so hard to chill out on insisting that your addition is correct and instead of wasting people's time on AN/I, just leave a civil comment for me on my Talk to discuss the issue? Even 'See Talk' as an edit summary would have been more constructive. It really wouldn't have been hard. There's an aggressive and time-wasting way to resolve disputes and a constructive one. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's considered bad etiquette to use an editor's previous blocks against them in this manner. Blocks are never to be considered punitive, and you are using them as a hammer to win your argument. That's a no-no. BTW I refactored your comment as its positioning lost the chronological flow. --WebHamster 00:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote it before yours was there but there was an edit conflict - in terms of flow your comment was absent when I wrote mine. Anyway, I'm not trying to beat people over the head with their past behaviour, but when Vexorg kicked off with accusations of edit warring and reports against me on AN/I, his own behaviour became rather pertinent. Eventually slapping a warning template on my talk page along with 'I've reported you for edit warring' is not a pathway to constructive debate.Sumbuddi (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have much weight to talk about 'constructive debate' You entered into an edit war with NO intention of constructive debate. You made 3 reverts without commenting in thsi talk page whatsoever. It was only after I reported you, you realised that you'd better say something. You then tried to start an argument on the Edit war notice board, which I avoided responding to. Vexorg (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop being so patronising. If anyone is not chilled it yourself. Look at your personal comments. I made no personal comments against you. You were the one who steamed in and reverted by initial edit with no rationale whatsoever for doing so. I then reverted and created this talk section to discuss that matter. YOU were the one who started the edit war without any discussion of it. You ONLY started discussing the subject after I reported you for edit warring. I do not think you are in any position to lecture anyone on Wikipedia procedure. Yes I have been banned for edit warring in the past and I have learnt from that, and that's why I went through the proper channels this time. All you did was steam into an edit war without any intention of dialog. Vexorg (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that you haven't learned, because you were party to this edit war, which as I've mentioned takes two people. Had you taken the time to send me a polite message (rather than the 'I've reported you' you eventually managed) instead of your revert of 23:56, six minutes after mine, in which you accused me of edit warring, we would all have not wasted the last hour.

Anyway, that will be my last Wikipedia edit for a while, this stuff is all so tedious and school-boy debating society, such a terrible waste of time. Good luck to you all. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

After your first revert I started this very talk section and put 'see talk' in the history. You completely ignored it for your next 2 reverts. It was clear you were not intending to discuss this and were only edit warring. That's why I eventually reported you. You are in no position to bleat about other people not communicating. Vexorg (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia 2

split for ease of editing

WebHamster what is your rationale for removing the category. The article clearly shows a party agenda of anti-homosexuality from the top down. Vexorg (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Because if it were the Democratic Homophobia Party then it would be appropriate. It's not what the party is about, regardless of the apparent weight given to the issue in the article. Homophobia is not an official part of their manifesto and I'm not convinced that the whole party is homophobic anyway, just certain key members. I don't think a generic categorisation of "homophobia" is appropriate for a generic political party like this. As I stated above though, I do feel that the argument is stronger if the category was narrowed. --WebHamster 08:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree. I don't think a party or organisation's views have to be primary in order for it to be worthy of a category. I think it has to be notable. There are no doubt homophobes in all parties and of course all parties don't warrant being included in this category, but it's a notable and significant part of the DUP. Anyway I'm not going to bust a gut over it and will pursue a narrower category as per your suggestion; 'Homophobic Politial Parties' - I believe it's of encyclopaedic interest to list those parties which have a significant support of prejudice against homosexuality. Vexorg (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately other editors don't share that idea. I created the category and after a rather quick discussion it was speedily deleted. All I can suggest is that you create an RFC on this to get a much wider range of voices. You never know, you may gain the consensus you need. --WebHamster 09:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

European Elections

The lead-paragraphs (and possibly later in the article) need to be update the reflect the status after the last EU elections - i.e. the fact that the 'Progressive Union Voice' or whatever it is called doesn't have a seat any more, and the DUP does once again. I would do it, but I'm not really up on the situation. --Neil (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The lede doesn't say that TUV has a seat: it just says DUP's (then) MEP left and formed TUV, which is correct. Mooretwin (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah - Good point. However maybe a tweak to the grammar is neccessary? I understand that it was 'the DUPs sole member of parliament' at the time, but it still reads like he remains the sole DUP member of the parliament. --Neil (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Work away. Mooretwin (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

2010 UK General Election

So judging by the article the DUP wasn't involved in the 2010 UK general election at all or nobody cares enough about the party to update the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.168.76 (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DUP and homosexuality

I'm merging bits of this section to each respective MLA's own article, unless anyone can justify its creation, since:

• Wikipedia doesn't have sections in other parties' articles about controversial remarks by individual (2?) members, simply because they are on the same subject (cf. Sinn Féin/paramilitaries, Tories/racism, etc. etc.)
• it's just repeated information from individual MLAs'/MPs' articles (though all give more detail there)
• the Katrina thing has ostensibly nothing to do with homosexuality
• incidents are not in any chronological order
• "recently" (...one year, two years time?) and "gay people" ("homosexuals" would suffice, surely?) would need to be changed.

-- The Great Gavini 21:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be of the view that it makes more sense to have this discussed on the respective MLA's pages. The alternative would be to open party pages up to long discussions on every controversial statement made by every party member. If thats the consensus in a few days I would go ahead and delete the section. Quarkstorm (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I should point out that there are controversial remarks by 3 individuals, Iris Robinson, Ian Paisley Jr and Maurice Mills. Secondly, the Katrina comments had everything to do with homosexuality as Maurice Mills made direct reference to the Katrina disaster being a consequence of homosexuality. DUP councillor Arthur Templeton was suspended from the DUP and sacked as an independent member of Newtownabbey's District Policing Partnership after being found guilty of harassing a gay colleague and was ordered to pay £4,000 in damages. . Furthermore, the DUP attempted to block the Equality Act. If anyone needs anymore evidence of the DUPs standpoint on homosexuality, simple go to Google and type in 'DUP + Homophobia'. I would like to see the section (DUP and Homosexualtiy) kept though I would suggest that the content could be amended to say that several of the DUP councillors have been outspoken on this topic. The individual comments can be moved to the MLAs pages. Though there isn't one for Maurice Mills, so maybe one could be created for him? I strongly feel this section should stay. --Ednabelfast (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Maurice Mills bit has been fixed. I'm merging the Iris Robinson and Ian Paisley Jr remarks, as per above. Mills is a councillor though, so there's no way a separate article can be created. Given his low profile, the comments could either be i) removed for lack of real notability or ii) just put in a separate Controversy section (surely DUP-related controversy must extend outside homosexuality thing - the internal factions, any paramilitary related things, etc.) Any suggestions? -- The Great Gavini 15:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

These links prove it is more than just a couple of outspoken members here and here and as one states the DUP's near pathological obsession with all things gay shows it's a party-wide thing. BigDunc^Talk 14:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really - the latter relates to Ian Paisley Jr.'s comments already mentioned in the article, plus views of unrelated parties (UUP and the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster). The former link might be useful under the rather sparse Policies section of this article (though surely it can be sourced outside of "Pink News"?). Incidentally, the creationism thing does not really warrant a separate section and would do well under the Policies section too. -- The Great Gavini 15:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the removal of content you just did Greatgavini. BigDunc^Talk 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ednabelfast supported the merge of this redundant information, and Quarkstorm believes it should be discussed on the individual MLA articles, not here, implying a merge. What exactly do you claim has no backing? -- The Great Gavini 15:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, those comments were made before sources showing homophobic bigotry is endemic within the DUP were provided. Secondly Quarkstorm said If thats the consensus in a few days, not whitewash the article now. BigDunc^Talk 15:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologise - I did not see the latter part of what Quarkstorm had written. But "homophobic bigotry is endemic within the DUP"? That (in a NPOV state) is for sources to decide - the article's not supposed to be a Guardian op ed. As for the "whitewash[ed]", see Republican Party (United States) (or, to a lesser extent, the Australian Liberals, maybe the Canadian Conservative Party of Canada, or even our own Tories) for a real example of supposed "whitewashing". A party with a platform against homosexual marriage, with a history of controversial comments from members from federal to local level, yet not alluded to (except in the individuals' articles). Yet I move two passages to Iris Robinson and Ian Paisley, Jr., but must be reverted as it is somehow at odds with BigDunc's "endemic" "homophobic bigotry" theory. -- The Great Gavini 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Are we at least all in agreement that the DUP & Homosexuality section can stay? --Ednabelfast (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, unless you can find other articles with "[political party] and homosexuality" with a record of comments of members at local/council level. Additionally, we'd presumably need "DUP and the Roman Catholic Church", "DUP and the Free Presbyterian Church", "DUP and paramilitaries", "DUP and neo-nazism", "DUP and racism", "DUP and the Orange Order" and any other sections that could include any other comments by otherwise-unknown councillors that might be "offensive" to anyone. It's just not something done in these articles. Better just have a general Controversy section, putting grievances under that, though not many mainstream political parties even have that either. -- The Great Gavini 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I take your points on board Great Gavini though this is such a hot topic for the DUP that I feel it should be kept. It's not just Iris Robinson, Maurice Mills & Ian Paisely Jr. It's also about comments and actions by Jeffrey Donaldson, Edwin Poots and Arthur Templeton. Three of those involved are MPs. Some of the others are MLAs. I might add in their actions as well to this section. Anyone object? --Ednabelfast (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a "hot topic" for many parties (especially the G.O.P., for example) but that still does not make the article a soapbox for a list of criticisms of the party. Looking at the G.O.P. article, and those of similar parties, there is not a single article that has a "x and homosexuality" section. None. Nor is it likely that any other article will. -- The Great Gavini 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Show me another political party with a track record of homophobic bigotry as bad as the DUP's, and I will agree they should have a section too. We have two sources that specifically deal with the DUP's record with regard to this in addition to the many disgraceful comments by DUP members, one source The Great Gavini has not even read properly. The section may need some tweaking and expanding, but it should stay. Domer48 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Some have cited the G.O.P. as having a track record of what you call "homophobic bigotry", though you are very unlikely to get a "Republican Party and homosexuality" section - it just does not warrant a section. But "two sources"? One is from a news site of a homosexual organisation, the other is an opinion piece of a left-leaning paper. Yes, they are relatively acceptable sources, but no matter how "disgraceful" etc. Domer48, BigDunc, etc. feel it is, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for analysing political parties' psyches - it is not something that is done. Yes, it is possible to include a note like The DUP has been criticised for comments offensive to homosexuals among its members, from MPs {source}, through MLAs {source} to councillors {sources}, and reporting these comments in each MP's and MLA's respective articles, but even this is unusual in these types of articles (though I would support it). Sinn Féin, for instance, has something like 3 lines on its links with the IRA (!), summed up by a Danny Morrison quote. -- The Great Gavini 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There are ample BBCNews sources for most of these since pinknews is unacceptable for the great gavini. I've previously provided links to BBCNews for Ian and Iris and Maurice (this is from a protestant website) in the article. I've found one for Arthur Templeton here and Jeffrey Donaldson here And here's the Belfast Tele website for evidence of Edwin Poots' opinion on homosexuality here. I think we can safely say that our sources are reputable. --Ednabelfast (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start expanding the section, as before there was an element of synthesis of various one-off incidents to present a particular view about the DUP and homosexuality. By including what sources have said about the party as a whole rather than individual members, that's not the case any more. More to follow. BigDunc^Talk 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the section is valid, and by the same standards I don't suppose anyone will object to me adding comments allegedly supporting murder and violence on the Sinn Fein article? Hachimanchu (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

File:PeterRobinsonCropped.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PeterRobinsonCropped.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:PeterRobinsonCropped.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Protestant political parties

I've included the DUP in the category protestant political parties, because it is included in Paul Freston (2004) Protestant Political Parties Aldershot (Ashgate), pp.47-51. He calls the party the "[b]y far the most important example of a Protestant party in the UK". He cites three reasons: 1) its founders included presbyterian clergymen, like Paisley, 2) it is fiercly anti-catholic on basis of protestant theological views 3) the DUP has its electoral base in evangelical protestantism. I believe these are valid reasons for inclusion. C mon 10:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No doubt. Could you make a reference to it in the introduction, wherein the (apt) source that you provide could be cited? Then, it would be clear to all readers and editors that the categorisation is justified. Bastin 12:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Its founders included presbyterian clergy - could also apply to the Ulster Unionist Party which although founded as a 'Council' - was founded by people, including Clergy.
• I'm not sure how you can claim that the DUP has any 'theological' views - it may well take a view on issues such as or abortion, but quite often these views correlate very closely with Roman Catholic teaching and theology. There are no "anti-Catholic" policies espoused by the party and there are no anti-Catholic rules in the Party.
• The DUP's base is the unionist community in Northern Ireland which does closely correlate to the Protestant community. However, its base is much wider than just Evangelical Protestants as any comparison of census figures showing the number of Evangelical Protestants in Northern Ireland and electoral results of the DUP will attest to. For example, its often cited that the DUP's draws much of its suport from the Free Presbyterian Church - that church however has only 12,000 members yet the DUP draws nearly 250,000 votes. It is clear that the DUP attracts support from Evangelical Protestants, and the wider Protestant Community in Northern Ireland, as well as unionists who would not define themselves in terms of religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.134 (talk) 14:25, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

What may have been true in 2004 is not true now. Priest: Catholics support the DUP , Do more Northern Ireland Catholics now support the Union? . DUP's Peter Robinson plans appeal to Catholic voters . Plenty of Fermanagh Catholics are unionist, says DUP woman . DUP leader appeals for Catholic support . A priest on the podium as Robinson prepares DUP troops for election battleI may be a devout Catholic but I will vote for DUP, says ex-SDLP mayor . --Flexdream (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Political position

In the infobox it says right wing, I seem to remember a quote (from the foundation of the DUP?) something along the line that it was to be right wing on constitutional issues, and left wing on social issues. Is this the case? and if so should the infobox be altered to reflect this? 86.12.249.63 09:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Given Jeffrey Donaldson's comments about anti-homophobic laws on Question Time last night and the DUP's more general position on matters like abortion, and so forth (despite what may be thought by the evangelical Christians who picketted their conference in protest at the DUP not doing enough to stop civil partnerships!) I seriously doubt many would consider the party as "left wing on social issues". What is clearer is that the DUP has an interventionist approach, though political discourse in Northern Ireland is rarely dominated by debates about such matters. Timrollpickering 11:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest centre-right as opposed to right-wing. As it says on the tin, they support the democratic process (well at least they did until they entered into power-sharing with a minor vote party). Anyway the implication of 'right wing' is far right, or fascist, which much as many republicans would like to think is simply not true, especially when you look at some of the parties that category includes! 109.155.132.251 (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to simply drop this line from the infobox. I think it doesn't properly encapsulate DUP policies and is misleading.--Flexdream (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Does nobody else find this bizarre?

Despite all political parties in existence having some controversies, there isn't usually a section like this on a Wikipedia page. Eg, UK Conservatives, UK Labour, Sinn Fein etc, do not have a similar section despite having plenty of controversy themselves?.

It just seems rather out of place to me, and seems as if a group of people with an agenda against the DUP created this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.88 (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

'Controversy' sections are always created by critics of whatever party or person the article concerns. They are fundamentally opposed to Wikipedia's core policy of NPOV, per the advice on Article structure.

It should be integrated into relevant sections on 'History' and 'Ideology', into which all the 'Controversies' in this article fall neatly. I will now divide it up, but it's obviously not enough to guarantee NPOV, as undue weight is still attached to these parts of the party's ideology and history. That must be resolved. Bastin 18:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what it was like before but it still seems POV to list just 3 items under ideology and views, especially as I can't be the only person to think 'creationism' is unimportant. Shouldn't a full range of policies be listed, either that or none of them?--Flexdream (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

None of the other main NI parties have any mention of their views on homosexuality. It's given undue weight here and I think should be removed. Ditto creationism. I do think the section on the Belfast Agreement is significant and should remain. What do others think?--Flexdream (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The section 'Ideology and views' remains highly selective and unbalanced. To be NPOV and in line with undue weight it should either summarise equally all the policies at http://www.mydup.com/policies or none of them. Until some editor does that I've removed the section.--Flexdream (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC) (the text on the Belfast Agreement has been retained and incorporated in the history section) --Flexdream (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Expansion

Can there be another section added to this article about unsubstantiated rumors that DUP is moving toward getting the British out of Ireland and ending Nanny Ireland? - Teetotaler 22 July, 2014

Not if it's unsubstantiated rumours.--Flexdream (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

title

Shouldn't this article be called Democratic Unionist Party (Northern Ireland)? Abcmaxx (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that would only be necessary if there was confusion with another Democratic Unionist Party. I'm not aware of this being a problem.--Flexdream (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Flexdream Democratic Unionist Party (Sudan)?

Were you really confused or did you have to search to find that? --Flexdream (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The Sudanese DUP gets about four times as many votes; looks like Abc has a point. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I would safely say that the DUP enjoys far more notability and infamy than the Sudanese party. Anyways there is no need for a change considering the article starts off with a disambiguation note which directs others to the DUP disambiguation page. No problem here other than the ones Gob is inventing. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Revert

Having had a series of four edits reverted by Mabuska, I'm bringing the matter to the talk page for discussion. The edits were as follows:

1. Removing the post-nominal letters from the infobox in accordance with MOS:POSTNOM. (I should also note that, strangely, Arlene Foster's post-nominal letters linked to an article about the office to which they relate, whereas Lord Murrow and Nigel Dodds' link to their biography.)
2. Un-bolding the initialism in the infobox. I see no justification for why that one field would be in bold, nor do I see justification for why the formatting of the initialism in this article should deviate from the infobox default. Why is this a unique case?
3. I fixed my own typo in the previous edit. (Whoops!)
4. I replaced the words "Official website" in the infobox, which linked to the party's website, with {{official URL}} as the URL itself is typically shown in infoboxes and it is redundant to use the word website twice. I also used {{official website}} in the external links section so as to conform with the standard formatting.

Mabuska wrote the following in his or her edit summary: "also this is the mos used for the other parties so why should DUP be different". To what part of the MOS are you referring? And, again I ask, what concerns do you have with each of these edits? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to vindicate your restoring of the challenged edit by stating "Unexplained revert. If you have specific concerns, I am happy to discuss." - then at least provide an edit-summary that provides your vindication, for example "Removing post-nominal letters from the infobox per MOS:POSTNOM" instead of just "Removing post-nominal letters from the infobox". Also please follow the incredibly well accepted and followed Wikipedia guidelines of WP:BRD where if you make an edit (being bold) that gets reverted you should take to discussion for WP:CONSENSUS rather than edit-warring over it by reinserting on a whim regardless of the greater community's views on your edit.

I will accept that this edit is actually OK and am willing to agree to it. Initially it looked like a blanking out of the party's URL.

However in regards to "what part of the MOS", there are different MOS's throughout Wikipedia and each project area is different and whilst many are written in stone, some are founded in consistency. In this case the MOS I am basing my view on is consistency. For example:

1. Your edit in regards to the bolding is inconsistent with Ulster Unionist Party and Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. The only other NI political party with abbreviation is Social Democratic and Labour Party, which is in your favour.
2. Your edit in regards to post-nominal letters is inconsistent with Ulster Unionist Party, Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, Social Democratic and Labour Party, Sinn Féin, Green Party in Northern Ireland, and Traditional Unionist Voice. Other smaller NI parties have no elected representatives in their "top team" to compare with. Even the two main parties south of the border use post-nominal letters: Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Then again in regards to other UK parties: Scottish Conservative Party, Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru all use post-noms.

If you want to change article then you'll need to change all of these ones as well and for that you'd need to take the matter to the relevant WikiProjects to seek consensus. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to vindicate your restoring of the challenged edit by stating "Unexplained revert. If you have specific concerns, I am happy to discuss." - then at least provide an edit-summary that provides your vindication, for example "Removing post-nominal letters from the infobox per MOS:POSTNOM" instead of just "Removing post-nominal letters from the infobox". Also please follow the incredibly well accepted and followed Wikipedia guidelines of WP:BRD where if you make an edit (being bold) that gets reverted you should take to discussion for WP:CONSENSUS rather than edit-warring over it by reinserting on a whim regardless of the greater community's views on your edit.
— User:Mabuska 22:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Not every edit summary explicitly cites which guideline mandates the edit – I have no doubt that you follow the same practice. With respect to the essay WP:BRD which you cited (and which I trust you read before citing), it explicitly says the following:

In the edit summary of your revert, briefly explain why you reverted and (possibly with a link to WP:BRD) encourage the bold editor to start a discussion on the article talk page if he or she wants to learn more about why you reverted. Alternatively, start a discussion yourself on the article talk page about the issue. People feel more cooperative if you let them know that you're willing to listen to their case for the change. Otherwise, a revert can seem brusque.
— Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

As you can see, the BRD cycle was broken before I even had the chance to revert.

I will accept that this edit is actually OK and am willing to agree to it. Initially it looked like a blanking out of the party's URL.
— User:Mabuska 22:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I would have hoped that you would have looked at the impact of each of the edits rather than blanketly reverting without an edit summary – and I would have hoped that when you realized your mistake, you would have taken it upon yourself to correct it. Regardless, I have since reinstated that change myself.

However in regards to "what part of the MOS", there are different MOS's throughout Wikipedia and each project area is different and whilst many are written in stone, some are founded in consistency. In this case the MOS I am basing my view on is consistency.
— User:Mabuska 22:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

MOS is an initialism that stands for Manual of Style. A manual is not simply a construct you discern – it is a literal document. There are not "different MOS's throughout Wikipedia". There is one: Wikipedia:Manual of Style. While some standards in particular subject areas can be determined by a local consensus, they do not, as a general rule, override the codification of what you describe as "the greater community's views" (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). (To clarify, naturally there are exceptions to guidelines such as the MOS, but no evidence has been provided that this is an exceptional circumstance with respect to any MOS violations.)

Your edit in regards to the bolding is inconsistent with Ulster Unionist Party and Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. The only other NI political party with abbreviation is Social Democratic and Labour Party, which is in your favour.
— User:Mabuska 22:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

If one in four articles do not have it in bold, that would imply that there is not a current standard. But more to the point, why are we looking solely at Northern Irish parties? Why not the United Kingdom more generally, or all political parties irrespective of country? I see no reason why Northern Irish parties need be an exception. And as {{Infobox political party}} already displays the text from some fields in bold by default (eg, name, native_name), that tells us that the decision was made not to display the text from other fields in bold by default (eg, abbreviation). If we're going to deviate from that standard, the question has to be asked: why is Northern Ireland an exception to the rule? If the answer is that we believe that the abbreviation should be in bold in political party infoboxes generally – or if there is no reason that would not apply equally to articles about political parties in other countries – then that is a discussion for Template talk:Infobox political party (perhaps with consultation from WikiProject Politics).

Your edit in regards to post-nominal letters is inconsistent with Ulster Unionist Party, Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, Social Democratic and Labour Party, Sinn Féin, Green Party in Northern Ireland, and Traditional Unionist Voice. Other smaller NI parties have no elected representatives in their "top team" to compare with. Even the two main parties south of the border use post-nominal letters: Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Then again in regards to other UK parties: Scottish Conservative Party, Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru all use post-noms.
— User:Mabuska 22:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You fail to mention the UK parties that do not, eg, every non–Northern Irish party with the exception of the nationalist party in each of Scotland and Wales. But it's a moot point as what is done in Northern Irish or United Kingdom articles does not trump "the greater community's views" as described in MOS:POSTNOM unless there is an exceptional circumstance. Other stuff exists. (Again, see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.) If one disagrees with the MOS, that is a matter for WT:MOSBIO. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Quite a few articles on Wikipedia ignore general guidelines if there is local Wikiproject consensus or passive agreement through the stability and length of the edits/styles. As stated if you want to change this article and leave it inconsistent with the other NI political party articles then by all means go to the appropriate WikiProject and seek local consensus or maybe just be consistent and alter all the articles. I will not object to your edits if the articles are consistent with each other Mabuska ^(talk) 12:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mabuska: How do you reconcile that view with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Simple. Seeing as the style used has been used unquestioned for a while on NI political party articles it can be assumed there is local consensus as noone made an issue out of it until your edit. I am the only one who made a defence of it and noone else seems to care, and to be honest I don't really either. As already said go on ahead and make the change as long as you are consistent and do all the rest so there is some consistency, thus discussion over. If someone else reverts you then maybe local consensus does need sought. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be having serious trouble understanding WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which reads in part:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
— Wikipedia:Consensus

That is to say that, barring exceptional circumstances, local consensus need not be sought to bring an article into compliance with the MOS. Unless it is proven that it is an exceptional circumstance, the presence or absence of a local consensus is irrelevant as it cannot override a consensus of the broader community. But anyway, there still being no objection to the changes, I will restore them. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091210232136/http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sei/documents/wp51.pdf to http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sei/documents/wp51.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/article2428174.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2017

please change the number of seats the DUP holds in the Northern Ireland assembly from 38 to 28 after the election on march 2nd 2017

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2017/mar/03/northern-ireland-assembly-election-latest-results 86.139.211.69 (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Mind the cached versions

The cached version of this page (the one visible to logged-out users) was stuck referring to the DUP as a "pro catholic bashing" party and other related non-NPOV. I've purged it but keep an eye out. -Fennec 12:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits relating to dinosaurs, religion, homosexuality and abortion.

Edits were made to the 'Policy' section with regards to these topics. I believe that these may, at least in part, be non-genuine and unfounded.

JoeyofScotia (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC) JoeyofScotia (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work based on what editors "believe" as that is a form of bias. You either need to challenge claims or find sources to support/contradict them; since a political party is an entitiy not a person BLP policy won't apply either, per WP:BLPGROUP, just the standard policies regarding providing sources for all claims. If claims go against your personal beliefs than it's probably best not to edit it, as that could be considered a WP:Conflict of Interest, but you could tag it and remove it if it remains unsourced. I won't be editing the article itself, as editing political articles doesn't appeal to me, but I'm simply advising that if your own political ideals conflict with what is being reported, step aside and let others cite it, that way you don't risk falling foul, regardless of your good faith. Given the outcome of the GE2017 this article is likely to attract a lot of unwanted attention, undue and controversial claims will crop up and mount up over time. If you remove them based on your beliefs them it becomes a minefield. Best to stand clear and call admins to keep an eye on it. Be careful, this article has a 1RR warning. In the meantime, here's a source regarding how some DUP members may feel about homosexuality and AIDS: Independent: Why is the DUP so controversial? The party's stances on abortion, gay marriage and climate change explained. Regards — Marcus^(talk) 16:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Lack of info about policies

An article about a political party that has no section on policies! Nurg (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed! I thought exactly the same thing when I came to this article to find out more about this party in the aftermath of UK General Election 2017. --ToniSant (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Me too, started one but don't know much about them. The sources listed under the ideology heading in the info box offers more material to pad this out with but I've got to get back to work :) 79.78.176.9 (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed a line about them being opposed to homosexuality and abortion, but only because the linked source mentioned neither. I've just started searching, and it does seem to be accurate that they oppose abortion. Saying they "oppose homosexuality" is less clear - they do oppose gay marriage, but the leader of the party has also said that gays are welcome in the party, and they do not appear to currently be in favor of outlawing homosexuality. (This is a position that they have held historically, I believe.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

exactly why has 'centre right' been added in the wake of the election? their policies havent changed - so it seems to just be an attempt to sanitise a party who are clearly on the right, not the centre DrassupTrollsbane (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The Internet knows this article, due to the vandalism that has occurred!

I would like to warn that people have found the trouble that this page has undergone amusing. Leo1pard (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Most seats?

What was intended in changing the lede text of the article from largest party to has the most seats? Doesn't the former seem to be clearer to any reader? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Serious editing has been going on

(1) Most of the content of this talk page has been removed (2) Entire sections of the DUP's history have been deleted, apparently because they cast the party in an unfavourable light. The information on the DUP's connections with paramilitaries are topical as well as encyclopaedic - I'll reinstate them if nobody disagrees .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.95.141 (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I didn't do it, but the edits seem fair and balanced to me. 193.63.174.254 (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The above unsigned notice was only added to this archive in 2024, so the IP had no easily visible indication that they were replying to an old comment. Graham87 (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone needs to edit to remove the mural photograph. It's a fake - photoshopped. the original mural is here: https://twitter.com/brianwhelanhack/status/873183918492725248121.79.248.30 (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Who is Jakatbroughshane ? - seems very keen to remove sourced paragraph on links to UDA/UVF. Roy Bateman (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Page is locked and contains fake image; edit required

Someone needs to edit this page to remove the mural photograph. It's a fake - photoshopped. the original mural is here: https://twitter.com/brianwhelanhack/status/873183918492725248 121.79.248.30 (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Page should be locked full stop and all edits requested dicussed here first and foremost with reliable and verifiable sourcing required per Wikipedia policy. The UK election result has made this page a focus for false news and allegations found in left-wing media that has little clue of what it is on about and no doubt a concerted attempt is being made whether by lefties, Corbynites, republicans, Russians ;-), or whoever to try to use this page to make Theresa May's position more untenable after aligning herself with the DUP. Whilst it often is used as such, Wikipedia is not meant to be a propaganda machine. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Outright and deliberate high-profile political vandalism which resulted in absolutely no action being taken, as yet...I wonder why?! This whole site has been losing the plot for quite some time! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Highly contentious use of term 'far-right' to describe DUP's political stance

I was shocked to see the highly contentious and left-leaning Daily Dot article used as an authoritative source for describing the DUP as 'far-right'. The term 'far-right' is generally applied to political groupings with a strongly statist, anti-democratic and often virulently anti-immigrant stance. The DUP, which operates within the democratic political mainstream in Northern Ireland, cannot possibly be described (other than by people with a strongly left-wing agenda) as being 'far-right'. Please remove the reference to 'far-right' and replace it with a less contentious term such as 'right-of-centre' or 'conservative unionist'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesPaterson (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur and as a working class party... Mabuska ^(talk) 14:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't loyalist 12th July bonfires attended by prominent DUP members include effigies of Catholics, nationalists, and prominent immigrants? Though I suppose they're not official DUP events? (One can also be working class and far right, btw). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You might find an effigy or two in Belfast but usually of Gerry Adams or someone similar, yet it is rare to find effigies on bonfires over here and Belfast is well Belfast, a joke to everywhere else. Republican electoral posters and Irish flags are the norm but you don't need to be far-right for that, the parallel republican bonfires burn unionist electoral posters and loyal flags, are they far-right? Would be ironic as they always leant towards Marxism and the far-left.

Surely if the DUP are far-right there is reliable sourcing that states they are or rather still are considering the past 15 or more years with the Chuckle Brothers. Couldn't imagine the BNP sharing power and laughing with an African immigrant. If anything the DUP can be classified as belonging to the Christian-right as it is their religion that defines their general views on homosexuality, abortion etc. Devout Catholics must also be far-right then too I suppose? Anna Lo may be an immigrant but that is not why her poster was burnt, maybe because she is outspoken on her support for Irish unification and works heavily in the loyalist Village area of South Belfast were such views are anathema? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The term is reliably sourced and belongs in the article. It is widely considered by reliable sources as such. I'm editing this article from the perspective of British national politics as it relates to its participation in the formation of a government for the whole of the UK rather than how it is perceived locally in Northern Ireland, in very hard-right small rural communities (I have no interest in Irish politics), and from that perspective it is regarded by reliable sources as a far-right, homophobic, racist, climate change-denying extremist party "backed by terrorists" as The Independent puts it, and as "crackpots" as other British newspapers describe it, and most sources and commentators express shock that the Conservative Party would cooperate with such a party. It or its hard-right views are certainly not considered mainstream in a UK context. --Tataral (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The terrorism argument is a red herring and shows your lack of understanding of politics here. Considering SF is accepted as the political wing of the IRA then surely Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist supporter considering his friendship with SF. Loyalist paramilitary groups can be classified as the unionist far-right but considering their electoral candidates such as the PUP flop at elections and the only viable unionist candidates in this election who could contend against SF were the DUP and UUP then obviously they are going to give them their support. And what was the DUP and UUPs response? That's right a denouncement not acceptance of their support. And yes the DUP for many years especially at the start flirted with paramilitarism however at the end of the day Big Ian was simply using them for his own ends leaving them high and dry more than once, yet that was long before the great turnaround of the Chuckle Bros. Similarly are the Israeli Defense Forces and Irish Garda Siochana terrorist organisations considering they where founded from ones and the bulk of their early membersip were terrorists? No. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur. The page as it currently stands does not reflect the position of their policies or actions in the context of UK politics. If the British National Party are described as "far right" on wikipedia, without dispute (which they are) then the DUP certainly should be as well. Ride the Hurricane (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources are needed not personal opinion and the over-blown/exaggerated claims of leftist media outlets like the Independent. Mainstream UK media hasn't got a single iota of understanding of NI politics and it clearly shows. And I don't even vote, support or like the DUP.

If you want to argue that they are far-right in terms of maihstream UK political context you would also need reliable sourcing putting it into proper context not sticking it straight into the lede as if it is undisputed and in all contexts. Surely there are more brains on this site who know how to deal with such situations such as a paragraph at the end of the lede or a criticism sectio where allegations and claims of so called far-right can be explained in this mainstream UK context being stated here. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Having suggested that I see the end of the second paragraph in the lede already states that the DUPs opponents see them as far-right, though with no sourcing as to which opponents. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

That sentence cited specific sources for each claim, which were then removed by an editor and turned into a more vague sentence. --Tataral (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

If a more indepth statement is in the body of the article detailing it then it is not needed to be such in the lede as the lede is to summarise the article. If it isn't then it needs restored or put in the body. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Politics are more or less completely different from UK (GB (E.W.S.)) Politics...NI Political parties are run on "sectarian" lines, for a start! Anyone who suggests otherwise is basically "playing silly buggers" (trying to cause mischief) here! The DUP would have been considered "Far Right" if they were an active political party (or also politically active) in England, Wales or Scotland, but they are not (and never were), are they?! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

When a party is racist, homophobic, ethnic nationalist, has links to terrorism and promotes a far-right version of ultra conservatism, it's far-right, regardless of whether it's in Northern Ireland or in England. Being in Northern Ireland doesn't mean you get a free pass from normal standards regardless of what you do, although it seems some people in Northern Ireland feel they are entitled (although it's not clear why) to such special treatment. This sort of argument, "I'm racist and homophobic and ethnic nationalist, but I'm not far-right since all people in Northern Ireland are racist, homophobic etc." is frankly absurd. This party is even more extreme than the British National Party, which by contrast doesn't have such strong links to terrorism. --Tataral (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the term "far-right" or "far-left" (which some have also incorrectly tried to push on the Provisional Sinn Féin article) are particularly relevant in a north of Ireland context, unless we are talking about explicit fascists and communists. It also has to be taken into account that English society (which is who we are really talking about when we are talking about "UK standards") is extremely liberal and their cultural "standards" are quite different to other countries. For instance, both Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are institutionally opposed to abortion on demand, despite yelps and howls from the UN, the hysterical English press and attempted subversion by CIA change agents; a position that in England would be considered extremist. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wow! I'm saving that diff! ROFL! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Although London society is relatively liberal and generally comparable to other western European urban societies, I don't consider English society overall to be "extremely" liberal. By western European standards, English society, especially outside London and some other cities, is fairly conservative, and large segments of the (especially rural and older) population are characterized by a form of really old chauvinism and "delusions of grandeur" (as Nick Clegg called it) abandoned by other western European countries a long, long time ago. So when the English press and English commentators unanimously consider something to be far-right, we can be certain that it is in fact far-right by all reasonable standards. After all, by continental western European standards, the people now in charge of the Conservative Party would themselves be considered far-right. --Tataral (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Tataral you have Irish unionist and nationalist editors here agreeing that the DUP are not far-right in the sense you and others with little understanding of NI assume. That says something about your argument. Your English commentators are also left-wing sensationalist media, which of course are going to over react and demonise anything further right than their own nose. At least Sky News and the liberal BBC have more brains and simply call the DUP "socially conservative", which is a more accurate term for them. Is the Vatican a far-right facist state considering it is actively anti-LBGT and anti-abortion, ironically the same as the DUP? Should we add it to the first sentence of the lede of that article? Good luck. Unless you put up reliable academic sources that back your view rather than the ragtag media then the issue is over as far as I can see. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

As I said, this political party is active in UK politics, by taking part in elections to the House of Commons and the formation of a government for the UK, so how it's perceived in a UK perspective is more relevant than how it's perceived locally in a tiny area, Northern Ireland, where people claim it's "normal" and "mainstream" to be racist, homophobic, ethnic nationalist and have links to terrorism. I vehemently reject the idea that we should ignore normal UK and European standards simply because someone is from Northern Ireland, and the views of this party are not at all "normal" or "mainstream" in the UK, and in the political context in which it participates at the national UK level. --Tataral (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with a lot of the points Tataral has been making here, and am not claiming that the party should be labelled as "far-right", but it is interesting to note that Jonathan Bartley (co-leader of the British Green Party) recently described the party as such in the Huffington Post. I'd keep an eye on this one, as I can imagine some British politicians, and possibly some in the media – rightly or wrongly – describing the party as such for as long as May is beholden to them. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should not be putting this in the article as of yet, IMO. You need to have a number of reliable sources calling the DUP "far-right", not just personal conjecture. GringisMan (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

There is already voices in NI itself hitting out in the local press about this demonising of the DUP via over-exaggeration and outright lies. On a party that is now subject to intense scrutiny and discussion throughout the UK, Wikipedia needs to ensure that it does not become a propaganda weapon by anti-Tories and the such, and so something like this needs proper citation from something better than select press/media commentators.

Indeed it was pointed out in one paper that it is rich to deride the DUP for its gay marriage stance considering in its second and third readings in parliament, a majority of Conservative MPs voted against it (see Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which makes interesting reading). It was also pointed out that during Gordon Brown's premiership he held discussions with the DUP with the prospect of forming a majority. They are that far right even Labour courted them and the DUP haven't changed much in that short time. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

DUP's political stance

I checked the DUP page today and it went from "Right-wing" to "Centre-right to Right-wing". Did the DUP become more moderate without its old voter base? ColumbusOH!6 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Editors here must bear in mind that the Guardian is a Tory/UUP/DUP-hostile left-wing (although self-described as Centre-Left) newspaper with pro-Irish Republican (and also even pro-British Republican) sympathies. The paper is about as biased as far as the DUP are concerned as you can possibly get. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to call the DUP Christian right, because I think that clarifies a range of its positions... why was it removed? VelvetCommuter (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Already for the cause of the source selection. Citing a Christian site does not truly necessarily qualifies for WP:RS, not even to mention the particular circumstances in NIE. --Joobo (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

They believe the Pope is the literal antichrist, how on earth are they "center-right?" Zellfire999 (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The DUP have never said the Pope is the anti-Christ, the party founder Ian Paisley (now deceased) who is a firebrand Calvinist preacher stated it, even if abusing his seat in the European parliament to launch his famous tirade against the Pope. I have never heard the 2 party leaders since him utter anything similar. Just because he said it and some of the party agree with him does not mean it ismparty policy. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Anti-homosexuality trumps racism and imperialism?

I realise that the (English) public spotlight is now on the DUP and so the largely insignificant things that outrage them are now been emphasised in the article, but it seems bizarre to place front and center in the introduction the DUP's opposition to homosexuality and abortion as if that is their main political platform.

These two positions held by the DUP are, after all, also held by most of the rest of the world outside of Western Europe and North America. Saudi Arabia under the Saudi Royal Family actually executes homosexuals as a matter of basic legal routine, but that isn't highlighted in the introduction of those two Wikipedia article. The rest of Ireland is also opposed to casually throwing babies in the waste disposal.... sorry, abortion, which English society considers some kind of holy and sacred right. And despite recent attempts at a pro-abortion "colour revolution", that isn't going to change in Ireland any time soon.

No, the primary political platform of the DUP and the biggest controversy surrounding it, is rearguard imperialism and colonial self-justification, with all that entails. That is what should be emphasised in the introduction of the article, along with its deeply ingrained strains of anti-Irish racism, denigration of the native populations' culture and links to loyalist paramilitaries (not just "Ulster Resistance" way back when). I don't know about you, but I think the fact that DUP Member of Parliament, Sammy Wilson has in the past described a UDA proposal to ethnically cleanse the native Irish population from areas of the north as a "valuable return to reality", is slightly more alarming than the fact that they aren't draping themselves in a rainbow flag. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• These two positions held by the DUP are, after all, also held by most of the rest of the world outside of Western Europe and North America. Not the point - they aren't held by any other party who holds seats at the UK Parliament, so therefore they are bound to be the subject of intense scrutiny, as indeed they already have been, as a quick Google News will show (I'm surprised their misogynistic outlook hasn't been mentioned, probably because they have a woman as leader). Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

That should definitely be more prominent in the article. Btw I think you are taking Sammy Wilsons quote out of context.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I also agree it should be more prominent within the article. I personally think we should only talk about mentioning in lead once this aspect has been fleshed out within the article, so to speak, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. GringisMan (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You prefer the solution in the Republic, CS, where we apparently section pregnant, raped teenagers in order to prevent them from accessing legal abortion services? Good to know. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please please, don't make the talkpage into a forum on personal views on abortion and LGBT rights. But I do agree that the focus on LGBT and abortion rights is a very recentist view due to the focus on this in the mainland British press.

I do think there should be more on the DUP's current links/views on to paramilitary groups, with the Guardian article Claíomh Solais referenced as a good starting point, and I would personally put that under its own section in the "policies and views" section. Sammy Wilson's comments, which are already mentioned in the article, should be put under there too. GringisMan (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

While I don't object to emphasizing the anti-Irish views etc., I think it would also be totally appropriate to use a single sentence in the lead to mention its opposition to abortion and homosexuality. Its views on abortion and homosexuality are very much at odds with mainstream opinion in the UK. What Black Kite said above, that these views "aren't held by any other party who holds seats at the UK Parliament," is precisely the point. Whether their views are considered "normal" in Ireland is not the point as long as this party is active in UK politics, and as long as reliable sources highlight these views. If you can't stand the heat of the UK press and the UK Parliament, don't stand for election to the UK Parliament. --Tataral (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes lets ignore that most Tories voted against same sex marriage in 2013 and that the most recent Lib Dem leader to stand down did so because he found it hard to reconcile his partys position on such topics with his faith and that the RC church in the UK shares the DUPs views on these topics. Yes the UK mainstream is entirely 100 per cent pro same-sex marriage and abortion etc. A sentence is suffice yes but don't try to pretend NI is totally at odds with GB when that is not the case. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Paramilitaries

It has been claimed "No credible sources claim third force was a paramilitary organisation", while adding two sources (obviously credible, since they were added by the same editor. Page 199 of the book cited reads "The men on the Antrim hillside became the nucleus of a paramilitary formation 'The Third Force' which would play a role in what the DUP called 'The Carson Trail'". The Belfast Telegraph starts right out of the gate saying "Ian Paisley flirted on the fringes of paramilitarism for a significant section of his political career, culminating in the formation of his infamous 'Third Force' – supplementing the legal forces of the Army and then RUC", so I fail to see how this contradicts the idea that Third Force was paramilitary. I have restored the existing wording, since it is quite obviously referenced. FDW777 (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I see this has been ignored, while claiming "the references included do not describe these organisations as paramilities. Indeed no credible sources can be found to claim this". As made clear the book reference quite clearly states just that on page 199 (page 78 is of no apparent relevance to the DUP or the 'Third Force' that was actually formed in 1981), as does the other book reference I have added. I suggest Cbowsie stops edit warring based on his false claims that the references don't describe them as "paramilities" [sic], when in fact they do just that.. FDW777 (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

What's more, though not as easily citable, one whole episode of the recent BBC Spotlight "The Troubles" series was about DUP's association with the UDA, about as transparently thin as Sinn Féin's 'distance' from the Provisional IRA. --Red King (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. There's many references such as this, this and this which all detail the DUP's paramilitary connections. While they don't mention Third Force there are many books that do, and as I have stated above the two books currently cited clearly and unambiguously call Third Force paramilitary. FDW777 (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe (although I cannot say for sure since Cbowsie won't discuss their edit) I understand the supposed relevance of the Belfast Telegraph reference now. The argument appears to be as the men on the Antrim hillside didn't have any guns with them, and the firearms certificates weren't actually real, that Third Force weren't paramilitary. Even ignoring that just because they weren't in possession of guns at that minute in time doesn't mean they had no guns, I'm not aware it is a requirement to actually be in possession of arms to be a paramilitary organisation especially when reliable references describe them as paramilitary. Did the Provisional IRA cease to be a paramilitary organisation when they decommissioned their arms? How were Paisley and co planning "to do the job of exterminating the IRA" without arms? Those questions are largely irrelevant anyway, since reliable references describe Third Force as paramilitary so there's no point making up a definition and claiming Third Force don't meet that definition. FDW777 (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Glad to this being discussed, rather than reverting edits without leaving a reason for doing so. Perhaps next time you could tag me so that I am aware of the discussion, but thanks for leaving a comment on my own talk page to make me aware.

Some credible points have already been made, some not so much. Firstly, let’s calm down the dramatizing, reverting one edit that hasn't included a rationale is not an edit war. Secondly, having a different opinion does not mean another editor is making false claims. Regarding the book I referenced in that you quote page 199, (although the actual book is 201) is a classic example of reading a few pages of a book. I referenced the book like many other books on the topic, for two reasons, the first is that as the very quote you have quoted somewhat alludes, the book does NOT describe Third Force as a paramilitary group. Their formation on the hillside is described as parliamentary like, they are not described as a "loyalist parliamentary group" and hence with my original comment, I can assure you, you will not find any credible sources describing Third Force as a parliamentary group, even if that were Paisley's intention (as the third ref is alluding to), but he never said 'paramilitary' and it certainly didn't materialise as one. TF was a movement of ‘street politics’, in the form of ‘populist activism’ and accumulated with men standing on a hillside waving gun certificates for an effective defensive look even though they were actually parliamentary papers (as the BT article illustrates, however even this article is a slight exaggeration but that is to be expected by a newspaper.) If you have actually done any scholarly research or Third Force at least beyond Wikipedia you would find that the incompetence, immaturity, length and methods of TF that reportedly never so much touched a weapon in its few weeks of existence and the few days it held rallies, being described as a parliamentary group laughable. Likewise, if you knew the extent of all the rallies not just by those of Paisley throughout the Troubles and the dozens of unionist and loyalist groupings that lasted between a day and a decade which the DUP had some involvement in during a dialectically political period for unionism before 1985, you would realise how insignificant Third Force is. So, to then have Third Force included (and described wrongly) in the DUPs introduction at the top of its third paragraph is ridiculous and serves no informative purpose other than to obscure reality and imply something that it isn't. Third Force is of significance for one day during a 30year conflict and the DUPs 50yr history. It has no tangible achievement during the Troubles or more importantly to the DUP, even its harm and effects are nearly null according to any books I've read. But because of its insignificance, there is very little written about it. Hence why it is in a sentence on page 199 of a book entirely devoted to Ulster unionism. Really, a credible editor would not include TF in the intro of the DUP, unless it is an editor's intention is to smear the DUP. If it is included in the intro, despite how severely lacking it is in significance to the page subject itself (against Wiki convention), it should at least be described as the vast majority of historians and scholars describe it nothing more than 'populist activism'. To suggest it is a parliamentary organisation because the old men's formation on a hill one day was para-(resembling)-military, shows a concerning scale of naivety. Cbowsie (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The page from Unionism and Orangeism in Northern Ireland Since 1945 is 199 on Google Books as the link provided to you says clearly, whether your physical copy is a different edition is largely irrelevant and changes nothing. The quote is "The men on the Antrim hillside became the nucleus of a paramilitary formation 'The Third Force' which would play a role in what the DUP called 'The Carson Trail'". I don't see how that conforms with your claims that "the book does NOT describe Third Force as a paramilitary group" or "Their formation on the hillside is described as parliamentary like". I specifically chose not to use references that describe the man as standing in paramilitary formation or wearing paramilitary uniforms. "The men on the Antrim hillside became the nucleus of a paramilitary formation 'The Third Force'" uses the term paramilitary formation in relation to the organisation 'Third Force', not in relation to how the men were standing. The sentence makes no sense if "paramilitary formation" refers to the men standing in ranks, since what did they become the nucleus of? This is made even more clear if the passage is quoted in full, it begins on the previous page and reads "On 5 February 1981 he addressed a meeting of 500 loyalists drawn up in paramilitary formation on a hillside in North Antrim. As they waved firearms certificates in the air Paisley proclaimed 'This is a small token of the men who are placed to devastate any attempt by Margaret Thatcher and Charles Haughey to destroy the Union.' The men on the Antrim hillside became the nucleus of a paramilitary formation the 'Third Force' which would play a role in what the DUP called 'The Carson Trail." Yes, the first use of "paramilitary formation" does refer to how the men are standing, but the second quite clearly does not.

You then repeat your claim that "I can assure you, you will not find any credible sources describing Third Force as a parliamentary group". This is despite me directing you here and adding an additional reference here to the book Crimes of Loyalty: A History of the UDA. On both diffs the quote is provided, "Dr Ian Paisley, who had been close to Bradford, called for tax and rent strikes by Loyalists and announced the formation of a new paramilitary body for which he claimed he was helping to recruit. Because it was to supplement the RUC and UDR, he called it the 'Third Force'" Are you suggesting that is not a credible reference? FDW777 (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your claims about the insignificance of Third Force to the DUP, I refer you to Unionist Politics and the Politics of Unionism since the Anglo-Irish Agreement by Feargal Cochrane, page 261 reads "[Ivan] Foster went on to say that the DUP had found so much fault with the Dublin communique they had mounted the Carson trail rallies and formed the Third Force in order to prevent the Thatcher-Haughey plans being implemented". In addition there is Paisley: Religion and Politics in Northern Ireland by Steve Bruce page 227 reads "In 1981, after the British and Irish governments had signalled a new closeness in their relationship, Paisley launched the largest of his 'third forces' (the police and the army being the first and second forces). The initiative was heavily backed by DUP members". I did do my research you see. FDW777 (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You are clutching at straws. Repeating yourself and then quoting pages that don't support your very own argument is not doing your research even if it's on Google. I responded to the other reference you cited, it suggests what paisley may have intended, not what third force was or became. It was not a parliamentary group and again the books you quote do not describe it as significant to the DUP as the wiki intro suggests. Do you think I won't be aware what these books say. It appears that rather than discussing a compromise that will reflect the nature of TF perhaps later in the article more, you will just continue to defend a blanket statement "the DUP has links with loyalist paramilitary groups like TF" regardless of what I present to otherwise be the case and when know at least now you've done a bit of research is not an accurate description. Please give us credible scholars that describe TF as a paramilitary group. Don't quote one or two sentences that uses the word paramilitary and then give us your interpretation of what you want it to mean. You know your argument is weak and you are obviously just going to keep defending your position rather than put the quality of the article before your ego to win an argument. It's a shame when such editors exist. Cbowsie (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I am repeating what references say, rather than being in denial about what they say. You have two sources that describe Third Force as paramilitary, one of them provided by you! Third Force are already covered later on in the article, which is why they are also in the lead as it summarises the article. Given the DUP were instrumental in the formation of two paramilitary organisations, I fail to see how simply leaving one of them out of the lead entirely is accurate or neutral. FDW777 (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You are saying one thing and then quoting another that backs my own point. It's appearance on the day was paramilitary they are not saying it is a recognised paramilitary group. No scholar would be that naive and simplistic. If you are ok with "the DUP has links with paramilitary groups such as... Third Force" given the research you have now done on and which you quote yourself, then editorial standards are very low and perhaps sinister.Cbowsie (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not. I recommend you learn about nouns and adjectives and how they work, then perhaps you won't keep thinking an adjective applies to a noun at the other end of a sentence. There are two very reliable references cited in the article that clearly and unambiguously refer to Third Force as paramilitary. They aren't simply talking about men standing in paramilitary ranks or wearing paramilitary uniforms, no matter how much you'd prefer it if they were. FDW777 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Peter Robinson (cropped, March 2013).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Colour for the DUP

On Wikipedia, infoboxes and maps use the salmon colour (     ) for the DUP, but from their website and literature, it seems like the navy blue colour (     ) is the primary colour. Should this be changed? --RaviC (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Dont we normally take colour from the party logo? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we do - the salmon colour isn't actually present in the DUP logo whilst the navy blue colour is. --RaviC (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Not that any party should have a monopoly on blue, but we've already got UUP, Conservatives and Brexit Party. Do we really need more blue parties in the same tables? FDW777 (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Arlene Foster DUP MLA.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Political Position

On it's political position, I would argue that the DUP should be classified as "right-wing" instead of "centre-right to right-wing." The politics of the DUP (socially at least) seem to be closer to that of UKIP (a party classified as "right to far right), rather than the Conservatives (which are classified as "centre-right). Also, on all of the citations for the centre-right aspect, instead of being explicitly called "centre-right," the DUP is described as "right of centre." On one of the citations, it also calls the party "right-wing."~~Dylan109~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan109 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I support this.

--Jay (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with this. If the DUP are centre-right to right-wing then the Conservatives are centre to centre-right.

--Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to change this if that's okay then.Dylan109 (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

An IP user just proposed removing the "centre-right" label again; I've approved the change. Last time, when Dylan109 made the edit, Cbowsie reverted it, with the summary Please refrain from deleting references in order to support your view of a politcal party. A more nuanced debate in the talk page is required. I've taken a look at the sourcing on the centre-right label, and I don't think it's sufficient.

Two of the sources use the term "right of centre". Business Insider says "very much right of centre" and BBC says "right of centre on many issues". Not sure either of those mean the same thing as an overall position of "centre-right".

The last source cited is a table entry in a book from 2007, which is a long enough time I don't think it's reliable for a party's current views.

The only other clearly-reliable source I can find with some googling is CNBC, which says centre-right to right wing - but that's only one source, and an American one at that, so I wouldn't trust it over other sources for British politics. It's also the exact same wording as our infobox, both then and now, so I'm a little suspicious of citogenesis. Gaelan 💬✏️ 08:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Those are reasonable arguments, so I've removed centre-right. Valenciano (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm afraid your opinion on credible sources i.e. “Not sure either of those mean the same thing as an overall position of "centre-right" does not justify removing credible sources with repeated claims. Especially when by your own confession you're “not sure”. It is not much different to how other authors have come to 'far-right' as an overall position simply because of a select few social issues. In fact, the sources that are claiming right-wing have a far more ideological framework underpinning their writing than the sources (ie Ofcom regulated) which state centre-right have, so if anything caution should be given to the former’s sources. Quantity of citations is also not a reason to remove other sources that give another analysis. References don't have to be either-or. Both referenced positions/analysis can coexist especially as this talk page shows, if there is a debate about the political position, include the main credible references. Cbowsie (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cbowsie: I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but if you're arguing about the reliability of the sources, that wasn't my point. No source, no matter how reliable, can be used to justify claims it doesn't make. I was trying to figure out whether "the DUP…is right of centre on many issues" means the same thing as the claim we're making using it as a citation for, which is "the DUP's political position is centre-right". Unless the answer there is an obvious "yes", we can't use it as a source for that claim; to do so would be OR.

That being said, I'm not very well-versed in the terminology here, so what isn't obvious to me may be obvious to other editors. I'll leave centre-right in for now, and see if anyone else shows up with thoughts. Gaelan 💬✏️ 07:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:AGE MATTERS I also consider the 2007 book unacceptable, if they truly are centre-right it should be simple enough to cite more recent references. FDW777 (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Donaldson not leader yet

"The party’s electoral college is expected to confirm the decision on Saturday, with the party’s executive ratifying it next week". So, as usual, let's not be in any rush to update. FDW777 (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

yup, the BBC says the same thing: DUP leadership: Sir Jeffrey Donaldson is only candidate. — An Macanese 14:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)