Talk:Ian Paisley

Privy Councillor

There's a line there that says about usually on members of the British Parliament are asked to be a PC, but Paisley was an MP at Westminster? So why is it worded as if this is an oddity?  — Calvin999 14:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Update required

Can’t edit protected page - London Gazette link needs to be updated to https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/59467/page/11801 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.161.132 (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed Billsmith60 (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"loyalist"

He is a traitor to Ireland so calling him a loyalist is wrong. Change it. 95.91.249.173 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

that's just a personal opinion. Many felt differently 87.115.163.241 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It’s not an opinion. A man who repeatedly sought to keep Ireland from being reunited is, by definition, a traitor to “Ireland”.

For the third time, calling editors "nauseatingly craven bootlickers/sycophants" is a blatant personal attack. You need to stop this otherwise I'll escalate it. On the substantive points, his anti-Catholicism and anti-gay campaigns are already covered in the article. Though the latter certainly wouldn't make him a "traitor to Ireland", it would put him right in tune with Irish politics at the time, since in the Republic of Ireland homosexuality remained illegal for over a decade after it was legalised in Northern Ireland. Southern politicians were just as bigoted on the issue as Paisley was. The "loyalism" referred to is clearly linked as Ulster loyalism, the whole point of which is loyalty to London, not Dublin. To fail to get that is, at best, to spectacularly miss the point and at worst to be deliberately obtuse. Regardless, there is zero chance that this article will engage in polemic attacks against its subject, so I suggest that you drop the stick. Valenciano (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I dealt to this tissue thing argument in the reply on my talk page. You’ve missed the point completely as you’re so focused on being in control and letting me know you’re capable of “escalating it”.

I didn’t advocate for changing the page to reflect the known reality of his bigotry. I advocated for not pretending in the talk section that his bigotry and despicable attitudes didn’t amount to being a traitor to Ireland. Seeing as Ireland is a land mass that should, by definition, include the republic and the occupied. Therefore, being so desperately enamored with keeping Ireland from being unified, he is (clearly and obviously) a traitor to Ireland.

Was being catholic illegal too? You don’t choose to defend that here based on its wider legality in the area. I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the argument that it was “of the times” holds no water here and very rarely does. History knows him to have been a disreputable antagonist with little else to offer beyond his bigotry, as was readily apparent at the time.

It also might surprise you to know that the world doesn’t revolve around Wikipedia editors. Those who were called (accurately) nauseatingly craven bootlickers, were the wider public who supported and still support this odious creature and his particular brand of repugnant segregation. Not milquetoast Wiki editors.

If you can ever get off that high horse and grasp the point being made here rather than spend your time pearl clutching for Wikipedia’s honor, there might be some point to all this.

Alas, I suspect not. ~2026-57812-1 (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what you’re wondering about. I never made an argument on whether Paisley’s documented anti-Catholicism made him a traitor to anything or not. You on the other hand are arguing that Paisley’s anti-homosexuality makes him a traitor to Ireland, a country where homosexuality was illegal for most of his career and whose legislation he was actually supporting. That makes no sense.

"Ulster loyalist politician Ian Paisley was a traitor to Ireland, the island he was born on, because he was anti-Catholic."

"Irish Republican politician Gerry McGuinness (fictional) was a traitor to the UK, the internationally-recognised country he was born in, because he was head of an organisation that murdered protestants."

You see how that works? Both those are completely opposite points of view. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia doesn’t take a stance on which of those is correct, if any. So, there is zero chance we will accuse either, in Wikivoice, of being a traitor to anything. That Ian Paisley was a(n Ulster) loyalist is well-attested to in multiple reliable sources and frankly I can't see how anyone can reasonably dispute it, unless they're ignorant of what an Ulster loyalist is. We have a page on it. Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources, not editors' opinions.

Actually, there really isn’t any point in this, since you fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia works, it isn’t a collection of poorly written screeds by ethno-nationalist POV warriors accusing their opponents of being “traitors”, it’s a serious encyclopedia. That you seem incapable of getting that and are unable to avoid personal attacks despite repeated advice, means that unfortunately we have to cut this here. I don’t suspect that. I know that. Valenciano (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

"Dr. Paisley" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Dr. Paisley has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 16 § Dr. Paisley until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2025

change presbyterian to reformed presbyterian Llamathegolden (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please specify where in the article this change should be made, as there are several occurrences of the word "Presbyterian". Day Creature (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)