Talk:Traditional Unionist Voice

Ideology section

Hello, Helper201.

I have a remark about your recent edit of the Ideology section of this article. It was an edit of the paragraph relating to Economic policy . The new version of the paragraph begins with the sentence: "The TUV advocates an economically liberal, low taxation economy, with as much freedom of choice to small businesses as possible."

The previous version of this sentence was: "The TUV advocates an economically liberal, low taxation economy, with as much freedom of choice to the individual and small businesses as possible."

The description of the edit is: "Inconsistent with their abortion and same-sex marriage positions".

Looking at the source cited as support for this paragraph on their Economic policy, a manifesto produced by the Traditional Unionist Voice party for the 2010 UK General Election, it seems to me that there is indeed some material dedicated to small and medium-sized businesses in it but that more of the content in that manifesto relates to lowering taxes on the individual. For example, the sentence "TUV believes that the role of government should be to ensure that hard working people retain as much of their income as possible." They wanted to increase the income level at which income tax begins to be levied, cut taxes on fuel and on property sales, that sort of thing. I suppose it might be termed Economic liberalism. Reading through their other election manifestos, the bit about Economic policy seems much the same each time. Is it fair to the reader to omit that large element of their overall Economic policy?

As I understand it, your contention is that since they have a socially conservative standpoint on certain moral issues, the use of the phrase "with as much freedom of choice to the individual" within a paragraph devoted to Economic policy is misleading. I'd agree with that sentiment if the phrase had been used, for example, in a paragraph about Assisted Dying but here it's used surely in the context of their thinking on economics. So, I'd have been inclined to leave it as was.

I've a second question. I note that, as part of a recent edit which added a paragraph on Assisted Dying to the list of the TUV party's ideologies you also re-titled this section of the article to "Ideology and votes of elected representatives" from "Ideology". What was the thinking behind the change to the title of the section? BrownBowler (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi BrownBowler. I think we can expand upon the economic section without reference to "freedom to the individual". I take your point this was in the economic section. I think the issue is a lot of right-wing parties tend to frame issues around "freedom" and small government with terms like "freedom to the individual" when they can often hold contradictory views on issues like marriage, abortion, assisted dying, euthanasia, immigration, censorship etc. I think using terms like "freedom to the individual" is also weighted and loaded and not really neutral language. We could expand upon the section by adding in elements like reduction of taxes on property sales like you highlighted. I think we should preferably look for more recent information than their 2010 manifesto though and preferable from third-party sources.

The thinking behind changing the title to "Ideology and votes of elected representatives" ties into what I mentioned above. A lot of info on the page is old and adding in the votes of elected representatives is a good way to expand the scope of the section with more recent positions related to the party. I have tried to look for more recent ideological positions for the party but the scope of what I found was very limited with vague wording i.e. "we should improve x" or "make x run better". Nothing really noting much of an actual ideology. Helper201 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Helper201, since there are two separate topics up for discussion, how about taking the one about the Economic policy first?

Yes, I agree with you, the phrase "freedom of choice to the individual" is trite, maybe even Loaded language and possibly doesn't advance the reader's knowledge much about the TUV party's ideas on economics. If you can find secondary or tertiary sources which would help to explain their thinking about the economy then that would be useful. So far, I can only find primary sources such as manifestos. Also, the phrase "freedom of choice to the individual" doesn't, in fact, appear in any of their manifestos, and the closest to it is "we believe in the principles of economic freedom". Maybe Hansard records of speeches in the Northern Ireland Assembly or in the House of Commons would yield material?

The thing I find about their manifestos is that the content regarding economics is always the same; I've reviewed them all, since the first one in 2009. The ideological standpoint in them is, I suppose, one of economic liberalism or fiscal conservatism, represented repeatedly by phrases such as:

"we are pro-business",

"we prefer a low-taxation economy with optimum business freedom"

"incentivise work so that staying on benefits is never more attractive than getting a job"

"the government should live within its financial means"

"taxpayers should expect prudent use of their money by government"

"the role of government should be to ensure that hard-working people retain as much of their

income as possible"

The only novelty in recent years has been the inclusion of their preference that Northern Ireland "retain economic alignment with Great Britain", as opposed to trade realignment towards the Republic of Ireland.

In terms of actual policies to achieve those ideological ends, they want to increase the amount of money individuals can earn before income tax is levied, reduce fuel taxes and cut residential stamp duty. They want a reduction in corporation tax levels and say they want to help small amd medium-sized businesses by extending the bands within which no corporation tax or VAT are levied.

Obviously, in terms or readability, not all of that can go into a single paragraph on Economic Policy and it's not our job to repeat their manifesto, so it would be a case of boiling it all down to a couple of sentences, preferably retaining their own wording in order to avoid the charge of WP:OR.

Maybe you and I could each have a go at producing 3 or 4 lines to sum up their economic ideology and policies, then we could compare and take it from there. What do you think? BrownBowler (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi BrownBowler. Thanks for that. That all sounds reasonable and sound to me. I'd be okay with that but it would be better if we could base our entry on third-party sources rather than the party's manifestos. I'll have another look for some third-party sources if I get the time after finishing up other editing to catch up on. All the best. Helper201 (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, Helper201.

I've had a go at creating that revised paragraph about their economic policy. Here it is.

"The TUV describes itself as a pro-business (1) party. It advocates a low-tax economy (2) in which individuals keep as much of their income as possible (3) and is often critical of what it calls "Stormont squander" (4) of tax revenues. It opposes both the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Windsor Framework which, it says, realign the economy of Northern Ireland away from Great Britain and towards the Republic of Ireland. (5)"

And the enumerated sources are:

(1) https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/tuv/tuv_2014-05-07_eu-man.pdf#page=10

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/tuv/tuv0609man.pdf#page=8

(2) https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/tuv/tuv_2023-05-09_lge-man.pdf#page=9

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/tuv/tuv_2019-04-24_lg-man.pdf#page=10

(3) https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/tuv/tuv_2019-04-24_lg-man.pdf#page=10

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/tuv/tuv_2015-04-22_ge_man.pdf#page=13

(4) https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/tuv/tuv_2022-04-12_nia-man.pdf#page=16

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/tuv/tuv_2017-02-16_nia-man.pdf#page=5

(5) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx27195rg0wo

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/tuv/tuv_2024-07-04_ge_man.pdf#page=8

I've tried to give the reader just the basic ideas of the TUV party's economic thinking. The sources cited are almost exclusively election manifestos published by the party and held on the CAIN website, so they are indeed Primary sources but I've made an effort to reproduce their content in a straightforward, decriptive manner without attempting any judgement or evaluation of the merits of what they think and also without any loaded language. I have also made an effort to cite some of the more recent manifestos although, as I've said before, the content in them is very similar from one election to the next.

You mentioned that you would like to see mention of specific policies. Yes, a line or two mentioning a couple of specific policies could help to give readers an even clearer picture of this party's character. I'd be doubtful of the value of including a long list of policies though because this is an encyclopedia and ought, preferably, to be interesting and stimulating to read. The TUV is a small, not very significant party in Northern Ireland and if the reader really wants to go into deeper detail, the cited sources are provided for that.

Have you had any luck in finding Third Party/Independent sources devoted to the TUV party's thinking on economics? BrownBowler (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi BrownBowler, thanks for that. I disagree with quite a bit of that. "Pro-business" is very much right-wing framing. It makes anyone who disagree sound unreasonable because they are, in the view of said wording, "anti-business". "A low-tax economy" is probably okay, just a bit vague. "In which individuals keep as much of their income as possible" sounds promotional to me. The rest of the paragraph seems fine. Apologies, I have been very busy in my personal life, s haven't had the time to look for sources on top of my other work here. Helper201 (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Helper201, well, you seem to agree, at least, with the last sentence of my proposed edit (the sentence about their claim that there is trade re-alignment to the Republic of Ireland.) Have we got a consensus to add that sentence to the end of the existing paragraph about their Economic policy?

As regards the objections you have to the rest of the edit, please take a look at the end of this reply where I respond to each of your objections in turn. First though, I'd like to explain the method used to write this proposed edit.

The edit is worded especially with attention to Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of Primary Sources as citations for the content of articles. You are an experienced and very prolific editor (nearly 100,000 edits to your name), so you will know that balanced Secondary Sources which are also Third Party Sources are the ideal proofs for any Wikipedia edit. I haven't been able to find sources of that type which deal with the economic ideology of the TUV party; I've searched on the usual BBC and newspaper online resources but, so far, with no success. For a political party, its economic policy is fundamental to its ideology. So, something about its ideas on the economy is expected. Therefore, I've fallen back on Primary sources, i.e. election manifestos published by the TUV party. Wikipedia does permit the use of Primary Sources to build article content but use of them is not discretionary, there are stipulations and there is even a Wikipedia Policy regarding their use.

Here are some of the Wikipedia guidelines I've found (and tried to follow) regarding the use of Primary Sources to build article content.

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD

"Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation."

WP:PRIMARYCARE

"Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to Wikipedia articles, but only in the form of straightforward descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does. "

WP:PRIMARYCARE

"An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person"

WP:PRIMARYCARE

"An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products"

WP:SOURCETYPES

"When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves",

WP:PSTS

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."

WP:PSTS

"Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages."

Finally, here is a Wikipedia Policy relating to use of Primary sources:

WP:PSTS

Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary

source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."

The three phrases to which you object are lifted word-for-word from TUV party election manifestos published throughout the period 2009-2024. I believe that my use of them conforms to Wikipedia's requirements regarding use of Primary Source material in edits. My reason for selecting those three particular phrases was that they are of an ideological nature and they are predominant in the election manifestos. In addition, I have deliberately chosen to use impartial phraseology such as "The TUV describes itself as a pro-business party" rather than, for instance, "The TUV is a pro-business party". I am not asserting anything about them, I am reproducing what they say about themselves.

Perhaps you are indisposed to having this discussion at the moment. I don't want to be importunate but it would be of interest to myself, and possibly to others who may be following this discussion, if you could take a look at the material in their manifestos regarding economics and propose 3 or 4 lines with your version of it.

Here are my responses to each of your individual objections.

1. "Pro-business" is very much right-wing framing. It makes anyone who disagree sound unreasonable because they are, in the view of said wording, "anti-business": pro-business is a term in common usage, easily referenced via an online search, (see here for example). Its meaning corresponds with themes which recur in the election manifestos of this political party, e.g. lowering taxes levied on companies, reducing "red tape" and simplifying the tax system. It's a phrase which they use to describe themselves and which isn't the sole preserve of right-wing parties (see here for example). I selected the phrase "pro-business" from their manifestos because it seemed to me to be a succinct expression of their ideology. You say that "It makes anyone who disagree sound unreasonable because they are, in the view of said wording, "anti-business". My first reaction to that objection is this question: what does "any one who disagree (sic)" mean? Does it mean anyone who disagrees with being pro-business or does it mean anyone who disagrees with the use of the term pro-business in a manifesto? This is an article about the TUV party and is a section about their ideology. It isn't an article about the relative merits of policies held by different parties - that would be a different article. As it happens, I can't think of any party which describes itself as "anti-business" (anti-capitalist, yes) and, if the TUV party describes itself as pro-business whereas other parties do not describe themselves thus, then yes, possibly the TUV is more business-centred in its economic ideology than they are. If Wikipedia was to disallow phrases such as "pro-business" in articles about political parties solely because other political parties don't describe themselves thus, then maybe, for example, content such as "pro-immigration" should be deleted from the article about the Green Party of England and Wales on the premiss that since the article on the Labour Party and that on the Liberal Democrats don't use that term then it could be inferred that those two parties are "anti-immigration".

2. A "low-tax economy" is probably okay, just a bit vague: you made the following suggestion at the beginning of this discussion "We could expand upon the section by adding in elements like reduction of taxes on property sales". That suggestion would seem to me to resolve any issue regarding vagueness. For example, one of the policies in their 2024 manifesto was to raise the income tax start point to £20k per annum, so adding that example may eliminate any vagueness.

3. "In which individuals keep as much of their income as possible" sounds promotional to me: well, it is something they repeat in almost every manifesto and I have no ties with the TUV - promotional refers to promotion of something one has ties to, especially financial ties. I can't be accused of WP:ADVOCACY either because my edit is expressed in disinterested and impartial language, viz. "It advocates a low-tax economy (2) in which individuals keep as much of their income as possible (3)". I've repeated what they say about themselves, making no judgement on that. Sources are provided for the readers to confirm for themselves that I've not distorted nor misrepresented anything they say. There is no advocacy nor promotion in the edit. Their policies on personal taxation would seem to confirm that this is an ideological aim of theirs. BrownBowler (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

BrownBowler, "Have we got a consensus to add that sentence to the end of the existing paragraph about their Economic policy?" Yes.

Just because a term is in common usage has no bearing on whether or not it is framed language (as is "red tape"). I meant anyone who disagrees with whatever policy is framed as "pro-business" makes them appear, by implication of the framing, to be "anti-business" or at least not "pro-business". I'm not going to budge on this one, its very much framed language of the political right and we can do better than just regurgitate such language.

Yes, adding "reduction of taxes on property sales" helps resolve the low tax issue. For example, we could say something like, "The TUV support a low-tax economy, such as via its support for a reduction of taxes on property sales".

I've found these sources we can use:

• 1 - The Independent - TUV’s General Election manifesto at a glance (2024) (this looks particularly good regarding economic policies, as well as other areas)
• NI elects source - gives very much of the same information as The Independent source but may be used as a backup.
• - BBC - NI election 2022: TUV says opposing Protocol must be top priority - may be of some use in non-economic sections of this Wikipedia page.

I think The Independent source is good enough for what we need with the addition of what we have agreed above. Helper201 (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Helper201, I'll add the line about their Northern Ireland Protocol/Windsor Framework opposition at the end of the article's currently published paragraph about Economic policy.

I don't want to make any assumptions, is there now agreement that the phrases "It advocates a low-tax economy in which individuals keep as much of their income as possible" are acceptable but would be improved by mention of policies which exemplify those ideological aims? If so, do you want to suggest a couple of their policies for inclusion?

I don't have access to The Independent article. Does it contain anything to do with their ideological thinking on economic matters? If so, would you transcribe those parts here, please? The second source is very slow-loading on my connection and is a transcription of some of the economic policies in their election manifesto for the 2024 Westminster Election, there's nothing about the ideological aims behind the policies. The third source, about their manifesto launch for the 2022 Local Assembly election, focuses on their opposition to the Northern Ireland Protocol's so-called "Sea Border", there's nothing else in it which has direct relation to their economic thinking.

I'm beginning to think that we'd be best seeking Dispute Resolution regarding the "pro-business" phrase. I haven't been through that process previously and I wonder whether there would be many takers to act as arbiter in a dispute pertaining to the subject of Northern Irish politics. BrownBowler (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

BrownBowler, I think we can use The Independent source to do better than "It advocates a low-tax economy in which individuals keep as much of their income as possible". While The Independent source is policy focused like the other link, policies are indicitive of ideology. We can source policies a lot better. For example, we could add the following from The Independent source:

"The TUV says it agrees with Reform UK's policies on migration"

"The TUV want to freeze on non-essential immigration; leaving the European Convention on Human Rights; and raising employer National Insurance rates for foreign workers to 20%"

"It wants to raise the threshold for paying basic income tax to £20,000 and cut corporation tax from 25% to 15% over three years"

The TUV states it will “stand up, unashamedly, for traditional family values”

It is oppoed to abortion "and the dilution of marriage and gender identity as determined at birth"

The TUV opposes euthanasia

Try access the link to The Independent source via the Wayback Machine. That shgould enable you to access it. Helper201 (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Helper201, the subject under discussion is the wording of the Ideology section's paragraph on Economics. We can discuss the immigration, family values and euthanasia stuff another time, if you want.

I asked in my last post whether you felt that the phrases "It advocates a low-tax economy in which individuals keep as much of their income as possible" were acceptable. It seems that you don't agree that they are acceptable, for which you give the following reasoning "policies are indicitive of ideology. We can source policies a lot better".

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Ideology as a "manner of thinking characteristic of a class or individual, ideas at the basis of some economic or political theory or system". It defines policy as a "plan of action to be adopted by government, party, person etc". It's clear which is the root and which is the branch. A single ideological principle can give rise to many policies.

Both you and I have failed to find Secondary or Tertiary Sources which devote space to the ideological basis of the TUV party's thinking on Economics. Despite the fact that there are self-published, Primary Sources available to us which relate, in their own words, the TUV party's ideological thinking on the subject of the economy and that Primary Sources are perfectly acceptable citation sources for articles, you prefer not to use them. Instead, you prefer that we selectively list policies from an article in The Independent which does no more than transcribe a list of policies from those self same Primary Sources; the reader is then obliged to infer the ideological viewpoint of the TUV party from a selectively transcribed list of policies. That doesn't make sense to me, you are putting the cart before the horse. In one of your previous edits to this article, you cited a Primary Source see here. Why the aversion to use of Primary Sources in this instance when you've used one in another?

In summary. If you can show some Secondary or Tertiary Sources which tell us something about the TUV party's ideological position on the economy then please do so. If you can't, then let's use the Primary Sources available. If we can't agree, let's go to Dispute Resolution on the matter. BrownBowler (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. How about we use these source to detail the TUV's ecomomical ideology:

• https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/unionist-parties-come-together-to-reject-the-northern-ireland-protocol-3398717
• https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/jim-allister-those-who-sought-to-mislead-you-over-the-irish-sea-border-now-want-your-vote-the-tuv-in-contrast-has-been-consistent-about-the-frontier-4658195

Helper201 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Helper201, are you agreeable to the publication of the following new wording for the paragraph on the economy in the Ideology section of this article?

"The TUV describes itself as a pro-business party. It advocates a low-tax economy in which individuals keep as much of their income as possible and is often critical of what it calls "Stormont squander" of tax revenues. It opposes both the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Windsor Framework which, it says, realign the economy of Northern Ireland away from Great Britain and towards the Republic of Ireland." .

I'm conscious that we didn't reach consensus on sentence one and that you are resolute in your opinion that the term "pro-business" is not acceptable whereas I think it is. Would you like to take up the offer of having that disagreement arbitrated through the Dispute Resolution process?

The two new sources that you provide above are each concerned exclusively with the Northern Ireland Protocol/Windsor Framework. Are they intended for use as citations in support of sentence three of the new edit or were you proposing them for some other purpose? BrownBowler (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

BrownBowler, I am resolutely opposed to using the term "pro-business". The rest is okay but I think we could use more neutral worded content instead from the sources I gave. The TUV's economic policies are based around trade between NI and the UK, as outlined in the sources I gave. Helper201 (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, I'm fine talking through edits here, it just seems someone has seen our talk page discussion and decided to add stuff from The Independent article. Helper201 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

We could use the News Letter sources above to say something like, "The Traditional Unionist Voice places strong emphasis on the economic trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. It criticises what it sees as the European Union's interference in economic matters between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom and the European Court of Justice, due to it having a lack of "local political representation" according to the party." I'd be okay with compromising and adding this together with your proposed sentences, minus the "pro-business" line. Ideally, I think we could just use the third-party sources I've given to provide enough on economics but I'm willing to compromise to most of your current proposal. Helper201 (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to believe you Helper201. Wikipedia don't seem to, though. They've posted a sockpuppetry warning on your User Talk Page . Will you be deleting that as rapidly as you deleted the question I posed to you there, asking whether you were the real editor behind the Temporary Account ~2026-11445-55 who posted 12 edits to this article on 20/2/2026? The content of those edits matches very closely what you proposed earlier in this discussion (see your edits above on 10/2/2026 and 15/2/2026 ) and the style of editing closely ressembled your own very distinctive style: a large number of hastily made, short edits with little attention paid to either the coherence of an article or to achieving a balance of opinion. Wikipedia deprecates the practice of blanking User Talk Pages, they even go so far as to say that " IF YOUR ONLY EDITS TO TALK PAGES ARE PERIODICALLY BLANKING YOUR OWN THEN THIS PROJECT IS NOT FOR YOU." BrownBowler (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

BrownBowler, apologies as I've been busy and away for a bit. I have not deleted the warning on my user page. I think I've found what caused this issue. Alas, I cannot provide any hard evidence as proof. If what caused this is what I highly expect it to have been then it won't happen again. I'm afraid I can't publicly go into further details, for my own health and safety. Note, I have reverted all the edits by the temporary account on this page, as I sense you object to them. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with the edits themselves, as they seem to be following proposals from here, which anyone can see.

We can try and make the edits better and address any issues you have with them. To be clear, the editing style of this temporary account had many differences to my own. For example, to name some; the edits were all from a mobile device, you'll see all mine are not. Second, the edits used section by section editing, seen by the "→" arrow and faint text in the edits by this account, whereas I do not. Thirdly, they call The Independent source "<*ref name="The Independent, 2024"/*>", I called it <*ref name="Young"*> (the stars are only so this formats in a visible way). Fourthly, I make a point to always leave an edit summary, none were left by this temporary account. Also, I have not blanked my user talk page, it has plenty on it with archives stretching back years. I also do not only edit talk pages to periodically blank my own. I make plenty of contributions to talk pages. As far as I recall I have always acted in a civil and polite manner towards you, even when frustrated. I would kindly ask if you could please do the same and we could refocus on constructively improving the content of this page.

We can do this by readdressing our last discussion before the issue with the temporary user. What do you think of my above proposal of marrying the sourced information from the News Letter sources on the TUV's economic policies on UK-NI trade - as the party seems to place significance upon it - with your proposal minus the pro-business element?

We can also talk about the edits themselves from the temporary user. I think it would be better to separate this in our discussions entirely, either via indentation or a new talk page section on this latter point virus the economic ideology information above. Note, I'm specifically talking about the content of the edits themselves. I would greatly appreciate it if in your response we could focus on the issues pertaining to this page and its improvement. All the best. Helper201 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Helper201. You say you removed the Sockpuppet edits because: "I sense you object to them." I do indeed object to Sockpuppetry. You removed these 11 Sockpuppet edits only after I'd removed the one on the first line of the article where the Sockpuppet had added "right-wing" to the existing description which was "unionist". You and I have previously had a discussion about how that first line should describe the nature of this political party (see here). Also, I don't accept that the Sockpuppet edit style had "many differences" to your own edit style. True, the Sockpuppet edits were indeed made on a mobile but, if the edits were made "section by section", then it was possibly because of that fact alone. You say that the Sockpuppet edits had no edit description but, in fact, a couple of them do. You say you "make a point to always leave an edit description", mostly you do but it's always very brief and sometimes limited to "Expanded" or "Expanded the scope of a section". You mention something about having used "<*ref name="Young"*>" for the cited source - where exactly have you done that? You say you've "always acted in a civil and polite manner" here. My view is that you have been stonewalling throughout this discussion and repeatedly disregarding both my questions about your obections to my proposed edit and also my arguments in favour of it. The most blatent examples of that are in your response "Ok, fair enough" (see your response above on 15 February) and "I'm not going to budge on this one" (see your response above on 10 February). You say you "have not blanked my user talk page". Yes you have. You operate a "clear desk policy" there. ARCHIVING on the User Talk Page makes a User's history of disputes less visible and what's more, in this instance you DIDN'T ARCHIVE, you DELETED my question asking whether you were Temporary Account ~2026-11445-55. So, if you were not the Sockpuppet, then you can defend yourself against my claims and Wikipedia Admin's swift reaction to them here.

At the end of your response, you propose continuing our discussion by "marrying the sourced information from the News Letter sources on the TUV's economic policies on UK-NI trade - as the party seems to place significance upon it - with your proposal minus the pro-business element". You seem to have forgotten that in your response on the 10 February, you accepted my proposal to add to the paragraph in question a line regarding the TUV party's opposition to the Northern Ireland Protocol and to the Windsor Framework and to trade realignment away from GB and towards the Republic of Ireland. Their opposition to those things is an important part of their economic ideology but it is far from the basis of it. In Wikipedia, we are always supposed to assume Good Faith on the part of other editors but I see no evidence of it in your contribution to this discussion. This discussion was supposed to be the first part of a two part discussion on your recent changes to the Ideology section of this article. I'm going to move on to the second part. BrownBowler (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe my last response to have been more than accommodating and polite towards you. You can see the <Young> within the editing section of this page. I don't see any good reason to politely engage with only you on his matter given your hostile responses. I will look to start a Wikipedia:Third opinion or another way of mediation and/or further input over the matters regarding edits on this page. I have no time or will to engage someone engaging in hostilities. Helper201 (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Political position and ideology

BrownBowler it’s important we note the party's political position and ideology in the lead beyond simply "unionist". The party clearly speaks to more issues than simply unionism and its common practice to note a party's political position in the lead. Simply calling the party only unionist in the lead is misrepresentative, making it seem like this is their only ideology. Mentioning the party is right-wing and conservative in the lead only serves as a benefit to readers, without any disadvantage. It serves no benefit to omit this information. Helper201 (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Helper201.

My first thought about your change was that it was accurate but that "unionist" should take precedence over "right-wing, conservative". The people who created the TUV felt that the DUP weren't being unionist enough and so broke away to form their own small party. They don't appear to have spokespeople on the various key issues such as Economy, Health and environment, but largely content themselves with statements about the union and opposition to Sinn Féin in government. They didn't set up a party to pursue right wing or conservative politics but the occasional press releases or statements from them in response to progressive political initiatives would mark them out as conservatively minded. Have you been able to find any reliable sources which explicity describe the TUV as "right wing, conservative and unionist"? Or even "right-wing and conservative"? If not, then the change may be original research or editorialising.

I can understand the convention of following a classic political taxonomy beginning with the left or right category and then perhaps a liberal-right or a conservative-right category but in Northern Ireland there's that extra dimension of nationalist or unionist and for almost all of the main parties their identification as one or the other is absolute and unconditional: and for their voters it is the principal determinant of their voting preference. I'd find it a bit misleading therefore if articles on NI political parties began by telling me a party was right or left wing before telling me whether they were nationalist or unionist.

For the sake of comparison, I checked the articles on Sinn Féin ("Irish republican and democratic socialist" ), the DUP ("unionist, loyalist, British nationalist and national conservative"), the Alliance party ("liberal and centrist"), the UUP ("unionist") and the SDLP ("social democratic and irish nationalist"). So, it's a mixed bag, with no uniform taxonomy. What I would say is that, if you propose to classify the TUV as "right-wing, conservative and unionist" then perhaps it would be correct to standardise the classifications of the other parties along the same lines - so Sinn Féin would become "democratic socialist and Irish Republican" and the UUP would perhaps become "right wing, liberal and unionist" or "right-wing, conservative and unionist" or even "centrist, liberal and unionist".

Another problem in dealing with the case of the TUV is that the number of secondary sources is much fewer than for other parties. Media outside of Northern Ireland only seemed to notice them after they gained some electoral support following the creation of the Northern Ireland Protocol, and still usually accorded them a just sentence or two, describing them as "hardline unionist" and as an electoral threat to the DUP. Even secondary sources within Northern Ireland seem to pay them scant attention, with the exception of the Belfast News Letter. So, in order to find out what the TUV's views are on things like the economy or health or the environment it's necessary to fall back on what they say about themselves - e.g. [https://tuv.org.uk/about-tuv/ the "About TUV" tab on their website] which talks only about rejecting the Belfast Agreement, terrorists in government and DUP concessions - nothing at all giving an idea of their position on the left/right political spectrum.

As to their election manifestos, they are usually about 40 pages long of which the first 25 or so pages are almost entirely about constitutional issues and their antipathy to Stormont - there's very little that could be called right-wing and only in a few sections such as Education or "moral matters" is there anything particularly conservative.

In short, I agree with you, the TUV is indeed a socially conservative party but I'm not sure that it can be called exclusively right-wing - NI unionist parties tend to have a substantial appetite for public spending. Therefore, I'd be more inclined to let the article head describe them simply as "unionist" and so leave the classifications on right/left or conservative/progressive to the Ideology section. Maybe, if they get more MPs and MLAs in future and therefore more analytical attention from academics and political commentators, it will become more appropriate to make the change you suggest. BrownBowler (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

BrownBowler the ideology and position claims being made a separate points, hence the commas between them with a citation for each individual claim. We don't need a whole sentence to be copied over exactly from a source i.e. "right-wing, conservative etc" when each are separate and separated by commas and individually cited. Also, it doesn't matter what other pages say, per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Plenty of sources call it right-wing: 1, 2, 3, 4 and both national conservatism and social conservatism are cited in the infobox, which are both variants of conservatism. There's even a source from The Economist which calls the TUV "ultra-conservative". Helper201 (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Helper201, essentially, your response makes 3 points, so I'll reply to them, one by one.

" the ideology and position claims being made a separate points, hence the commas between them with a citation for each individual claim. We don't need a whole sentence to be copied over exactly from a source i.e. "right-wing, conservative etc" when each are separate and separated by commas and individually cited."

You're talking here about the fact that the edit consisted of taking individual items from the Infobox, conjoining them and putting them into the opening sentence of the article lead. The opening sentence is the most important part of any article and is also usually determinant of what is shown in a Google search list for the article. So, the change is not trivial and my question is: does the new phrase "right-wing, conservative and unionist" really give appropriate emphasis to the different characteristics of this party? I'm not disputing that all of these terms have been applied to them but I don't think you'll find a single source which uses all three terms to describe them, and especially not in this order. If you take a look at the guidelines for writing an article lead section, an opening paragraph and, in particular, an opening sentence (WP:lead, MOS:begin , MOS:first) you'll find the sentence "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead". You'll also find some guidelines there about "Relative Emphasis" ( MOS:leadrel ). My contention is that this edit gives undue weight to the terms "right-wing" and "conservative" but not enough weight to "unionist". I also contend that "unionist" is the single most notable defining characteristic of this party (it could be said to be their be-all and end-all) and that "right-wing" and "conservative" are of secondary importance in understanding the nature of the party.

Your second point was: "Also, it doesn't matter what other pages say per WP:OTHERSTUFF."

That was in reference to the summary I gave of the opening line in articles on the other Northern Ireland political parties. Now, [[WP:OTHERSTUFF] does indeed confirm what you say but, strictly speaking, it relates to the topic of articles-for-deletion and not to the topic of article edits. WP:OTHERCONTENT relates to the latter and is less clear-cut on the validity of argument based on what other pages say. In any case, I gave this summary in order to show that, in most cases, any unionist/nationalist partisanship comes first in descriptions. That fact, in itself, points to an exceptionalism which is particular to Northern Ireland politics and ought to be reflected by our edits.

Your third point was: "Plenty of sources call it right-wing: (sources 1,2,3,4 given) and both national conservatism and social conservatism are cited in the infobox, which are both variants of conservatism. There's even a source from The Economist which calls the TUV ""ultra-conservative""."

The Reliable sources guidelines WP:RSCONTEXT say that: "information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable;editors should cite topics focussed on the subject at hand where possible".

None of the four sources you cite are "focused on the topic at hand". They all mention, in passing, that they consider the TUV to be "right-wing". One of them, www.spectrejournal.com ( "a new Marxist journal that understands anti-oppression struggles as constitutive of class struggle. Pro-Black, pro-queer, and resolutely internationalist." ) even calls them "fringe right- wing" . Another of these sources is a sociological, academic paper with 1273 views and a single cross-reference by another author. Are you positive your edit respects the Neutral Point of View guidelines (WP:NPOV, particularly WP:BALANCE)?

I don't have access to the Economist article you mention but it seems to be about Belfast Gay Pride. I've no doubt that The Economist might describe the TUV's atitude to Queer politics (in as much as they express any attitude to it at all) as "ultraconservative" . Let's bear in mind though that Wikipedia is used not only by anglophone liberals but also by millions, if not billions, of people from different cultures who may be confounded by the Economist's view. BrownBowler (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

BrownBowler I'd be willing to compromise with spreading this info out across the lead. Do you have any suggestions on a compromise regarding how we can move forward? Specifically, a proposition of a lead you would support. Helper201 (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Helper201, yes, discussion and compromise are the best way to reach consensus on an edit - WP:CON. What are your thoughts on the points I made above? BrownBowler (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

BrownBowler how about we change the opening paragraph to something like: "The Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) is a conservative and unionist political party in Northern Ireland. In common with all other Northern Irish unionist parties, the TUV's political programme has as its sine qua non the preservation of Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom." I think we can omit out the - "A founding precept of the party is that "nothing which is morally wrong can be politically right", as I don't see why such a thing is prioritised in the opening line. We could look to fit the political position somewhere in the ideology section perhaps (unless you can see a way of introducing it in the lead somewhere). I'd rather work on constructing a route forward rather than my going over views of what you've stated i.e. making progress on a route forward. If you could make suggestions about info, I'm sure we can make some progress quite quickly. Helper201 (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Helper201, are you sure that this approach "I'd rather work on constructing a route forward rather than my going over views of what you've stated" is in the spirit of the Wikipedia "Bold-Revert-Discuss" WP:BRDD guidelines on how to conduct Talk Page discussions?

The points I raised ask whether your proposed edit satisfies Wikipedia guidelines on Verifiability WP:PROVEIT/MOS:PMC, Balance WP:BALANCE/WP:NOR and Due Weight WP:UNDUE. I don't believe it does but I'm happy to listen to an explanation of why you think otherwise. BrownBowler (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

BrownBowler what are your thoughts on the proposal I made above? I think this satisfies spreading the info out as you suggested. If not please propose a new way we could go about this. Sorry but this is the best way for us to make progress in my opinion. Helper201 (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Helper201, my response to the new version of the edit is the same as before: stick to what the verifiable sources say. Most verifiable sources say simply "unionist", very few reliable sources say explicitly "x and unionist" or "x and y and unionist". If your argument is : "but they are right-wing and they are conservative" (which is what your argument does seem to me to be) and that therefore "readers have a right to know", then please take a look at the Wikipedia essay on Advocacy: The public needs to know this!.

As I said at the beginning of this exchange, it's not easy to find verifiable sources which devote much space to the TUV, they're mostly just mentioned in passing. But here's one of the few sources I've found that attempts some analysis of the party: Irish Times, Northern Ireland Assembly election 2022, Jim Allister. There's nothing in the article about anything other than "unionism".

And here's the transcript of an interview conducted by the Northern Ireland Assembly Education Service with the TUV leader Jim Allister about the party. To the question "What does your party stand for?" The answer is simply "unionism", nothing else. Interview with TUV leader by Northern Ireland Assembly Education Service.

As an encyclopedia, it's not up to Wikipedia to fill any gap in the available analysis of the TUV, and we oughtn't to editorialise. BrownBowler (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Summary of disagreements for Third Opinion

A number of edits were made here by a temporary account on this page recently (see the page's edit history). The account was reported by BrownBowler and I have received a warning due to it being linked to my account. I have reverted these edits. However, BrownBowler and myself have reached an impasse regarding what is wrong with the edits themselves and if they can be adapted or improved in any way to re-add them now the issue to do with the temporary account has been resolved. The only objection I can see regarding the content of the edits is BrownBowler's objection to including the party's political position in the same line as the party's ideology in the lead. I don't think this is an issue but we could place it in another sentence, though I think it should be stated in the lead. Please see the temporary account edits on 20 February for info on them. I'm not clear on how we could improve them for re-addition, as the content of the other edits seem okay to me. Helper201 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Here is the source used those edits - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/northern-ireland-protocol-northern-ireland-ben-habib-irish-irish-sea-b2566657.html Helper201 (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

 RESPONSE TO THIRD OPINION REQUEST

---

Thank you for the summary, @Helper201. BrownBowler, anything else to add? MWFwiki (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, give me 30 minutes please to compose an explanation of my perspective on this impasse. BrownBowler (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

MWFwiki, the edit from Helper201 above is, in my view, a mischaracterisation of what "the problem" is in the discussion between us which was held in the "Ideology Section" on the Talk Page for this article.

We began by discussing an edit that Helper201 had made to the Economic Policies paragraph in the Ideology section of the article see here. I then proposed an alternative wording for the whole paragraph and the discussion which followed was pretty fruitless.

I believe that throughout that discusssion, Helper201 did not respond to questions nor give replies to my arguments, instead Helper201 ignored them and kept insisting "we can do better". My edit "BrownBowler (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2026" was a final attempt to get reasoning from Helper201 regarding their objections to my proposed edit. As can be seen, Helper201's response was "Ok, fair enough", along with a couple of sources which Helper201 claimed could be used to "detail the TUV's ecomomical ideology" but which contained only material regarding a single aspect of their economic ideology, and we had already achieved consensus on that aspect earlier in our discussion - see Helper201's edit " Helper201 (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2026" which begins by saying "Have we got a consensus to add that sentence to the end of the existing paragraph about their Economic policy?" Yes.".

Commencing from Helper201's edit dated "Helper201 (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2026", Helper201 changed the subject of the discussion and started talking about a lot of other edits, unrelated to the Economic Policies paragraph. Helper201 says that these edits can be sourced from an article in the Independent. After my edit on "BrownBowler (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2026", Helper201 went quiet for a couple of days, then on 20th February the contentious Sockpuppet edits by Temporary Account ~2026-11445-55 appeared in the article, causing me to firstly ask Helper201 on their User Talk page whether they were ~2026-11445-55 - Helper201 didn't give a reply to my question but deleted it from their User Talk Page and instead posted 3 new edits in continuation of our discussion on the article Talk Page, one of which said:

"Also, I'm fine talking through edits here, it just seems someone has seen our talk page discussion and decided to add stuff from The Independent article. Helper201 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2026 ".

I then asked Wikipedia admin to open a Sockpuppet investigation see here which resulted in Helper201 receiving a Sockpuppet Warning on their User Talk page. At that point, I gave up trying to build consensus with Helper201. The edit I posted to our discussion on "BrownBowler (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2026" explains what I think. You can see Helper201's reply to it on "Helper201 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2026", at the end of which they simply carry on with the same idea of using the Independent article to help in "improving the content of the page".

My edit on "18:17, 24 February 2026" expresses my exasperation with Helper201's behaviour. They simply refused to engage in consensus-building discussion about my proposed re-wording of the Economic Policies paragraph, preferring to go off on the tangent which is this Independent article and the variety of edits they want to source from it.

Helper201 has also accused me of launching a personal attack on them see here.

I appreciate that this is all rather convoluted but my contention is that the problem is one of failing to engage in consensual discussion, changing the subject to stonewall the discussion, and I'm also annoyed by the Sockpuppet incident which seems to Helper201 to be of little importance. BrownBowler (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

You've been asked by several editors to focus on content. As an editor on the noticeboard said, "you seem keener on weaponising Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes—here and at the 3O—than on addressing the issues at hand". I already made it known about the warning. This third opinion request was for The Independent information because I thought it was too much to summarise all our discussions over economic ideology on top of that, which could take place in another third opinion section or via some other mediation. Also, I do a lot of edits on this platform, there have often been times of late I can't take that much time to contribute to lengthy discussions here when I have a large backlog and busy real life. I made compromises and proposals for marrying the content of both of us regarding economic ideology but we are focusing on the information from The Independent, of which you have not said anything to do with the actual content from that source. Messages to the third party are supposed to be brief and again, focus on content. Helper201 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

 THIRD OPINION

---

@BrownBowler and @Helper201; Frankly, I don't see an issue with mentioning the political position in the lead or even in the first sentence. How the party describes themselves is of little consequence. I have no doubt that there are politicians/political parties that don't want to be labeled as "left-wing", "right-wing", "conspiracy theorists", etc etc yet Wikipedia does it anyways, because we merely repeat what RSs say. We (currently) have four sources which utilize "right-wing". The assertion that the articles need to be purely about the party's political stance in order to "count" per WP:RSCONTEXT is something which I outright reject, particularly when we have multiple sources confirming it; We would rarely be able to define all but the largest political parties' stances if we held to this standard. Now, if, as a compromise, we were willing to soften it slightly, perhaps by appending the first sentence with "[...] and is generally considered to be right-wing[...]" ...then that would be fine with me. But if Helper201 insists on "[...]right-wing, unionist[...]" ...I don't see the grounds to stop them. I feel they have met the burden of WP:ONUS.

I believe Helper201 was acting in good-faith and was not purposely socking on this article, so I did not factor this behavior into my decision one way or another. Helper201 is welcome to claim rough consensus for the time being. BrownBowler is welcome to continue down the WP:DR path if they wish to further dispute this. Thank you both for your patience and for your relative respect towards one another.

EDIT TO ADD: —For further consideration; We have this source describing the TUV as "ultra-conservative". I'm assuming there are similar descriptions within sourcing. Not sure it matters one way or another, just felt that it may be useful. — MWFwiki (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do this MWFwiki.

I note that you've confined your response to two issues. The first being Helper201's remark in their Third Opinion Request that "The only objection I can see regarding the content of the edits is BrownBowler's objection to including the party's political position in the same line as the party's ideology in the lead.". And the second being the matter of the Sockpuppetry.

I'll leave the Sockpuppet question aside, since I can't prove that this was Helper201 and Wikipedia administrators believe I should just leave it be.

You've made no reference, in your reply, to my remarks above regarding the development of the discussion between Helper201 and myself. Perhaps that's because my remarks are seen as ad hominem, and I have indeed been told by Wikipedia Adminstrators that I should concentrate on WP:FOC. But, the subject of the discussion beteen Helper201 and myself was the Economic Ideology of the TUV party, and that is what it ought to have been confined to in order to achieve consensus. After that, as I said myself in response to Helper201, I was happy to debate the other matters.

As to the question of whether "right wing ,unionist" is appropriate in the opening sentence, I take your point that "We would rarely be able to define all but the largest political parties' stances" if reliance on that exact phrasing by sources was mandatory. However, in the context of Northern Ireland, the defining characteristic of most poilitical parties is whether they are either Unionist or Irish Nationalist/Irish Republican. Isn't there a Wikipedia guideline about Emphasis? Therefore, my reckoning is that the term "unionist" ought to take precedence of any other qualification (such as "right-wing"). By the way, what are the four sources which say "right wing"?

The last point you make, regarding the description of the TUV party as "ultra-conservative" comes from an article in the "universitytimes.ie". The full quote is: "ultra-conservative Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) is the most extreme and smallest of the three main unionist parties with strong links to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK".

It seems to be labelling unionist parties as "extreme" - after all, if the TUV party is "the most extreme", then the others, by inference, would be less extreme but still, to some degree, extreme. Which is, to my mind, tendentious. BrownBowler (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and response MWFwiki. What are your thoughts on the other claims that were added to the article using The Independent citation on 20 February? Helper201 (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

BrownBowler; You are correct, I confined my opinion to what I believed was the primary dispute. I now see I was misreading some of the requests. Can you provide either a diff or simply provide in text with your reply to this what you would like the ideology section to read as? Helper201, you'd like it to remain as-is? Otherwise, please provide an diff or your preferred text with sources.

Incidentally, I do also question this removal from the lead. It is well-cited and I believe imparts important substance to the article. Perhaps Helper201 can explain the removal better... I, personally, do not find it UNDUE, but I am open to hearing why it shouldn't be included in the lead.

Please — both of you — note I have greatly shortened the lead by adding a "history" section; The lead was far too long.

I maintain that "right-wing" is appropriate for the lead, as long as Helper201 can provide at least 2-3 RSs which explicitly call the TUV as-such, which I believe they did. The idea that "Unionist" is the most-defining feature of a political party in NI may very well be true, but it smacks of OR. Again; Don't doubt its veracity. We just need a source to clarify that and then likely an RfC somewhere (possibly over at the most-relevant Project) asking if Unionism/Unification(-ism?)/Republicanism/NI nationalism are the most defining traits of these parties and should be weighed heavier than other characteristics. Again, as a compromise, I'm willing to list "Unionism" first, before "right-wing".

I didn't add the Univeristy Times piece because I want to call the TUV "extremists" or what have you. Just as an example that clearly the "conservative" label is utilized, at least occasionally.

I understand your concerns with Helper201's de facto sock-puppeting. It is my understanding that Helper201 was simply logged-out and did not realize it while making these edits. Personally, I find that slightly suspect at first, but upon further review, I am inclined to believe it, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt. Apart from the sock warning, a single two-week block in a decade-plus of editing does not convince me that this editor is acting in bad-faith. We must assume good faith. It is a fundamental tenant of Wikipedia. Amy further misbehavior on Helper's part will be dealt with appropriately. However, for the time being, since their sanctions have nothing to do with editing this article or Talk page nor engaging with you, it really has little to do with the matter at-hand. To be absolutely clear: You were right to be concerned and did the right thing in reporting them. They deserved to receive a warning. That said, they also deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt, as I said, and in my opinion. I do disagree with Helper's initial characterization (over at ANI) of your statements as a "personal attack." However, repeatedly bringing-up the block and the warning if they do not have have something to do with the topic at-hand directly could most certainly be construed as a "personal attack," so you are aware; I know you are a relatively new editor but you are experienced enough to know better, at this point, admins will assume. Also, just an FYI, in reading your comments over at ANI, please remember that ANI is almost exclusively concerned with behavior, not (generally) content. If I were you, I would simply apologize to Helper, and state that you understand when the block/warning should/shouldn't be brought-up in future. I would hope that Helper would, in-turn, accept the apology, apologize themselves for perceived socking and officially state that they withdraw their ANI complaint. But that's just my opinion.

I understand editing disagreements can become heated, especially when one is passionate about the topic/subject. I have been in several disagreements. However, let's all remember that we are all here to build a better encyclopedia for humanity, and that the person on the other end is truly another person, same as you. I don't direct this at either of you specifically, it's just something that is good to hear, occasionally.

I am assuming we will be able to sort-out all of the matters at-hand without escalating things any further. — MWFwiki (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply MWFwiki. The removal from the lead about the opinion poll was because it was undue weight. There have been dozens if not more opinion polls including the TUV since its creation 18 years ago. To highlight a single poll within the lead of an article is, from my experience, virtually unheard of within political party pages on Wikipedia. I wasn't sure where else it could go. I'd be okay with placing it in the history section thinking about it again now. Sorry but I'm still very unclear about your thoughts on the one-line question I asked you above this. Could you clarify your thoughts on that please? Helper201 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

MWFwiki, I'm content to resume discussion with Helper201 about the content of the Ideology section with you arbitrating. I'm also content to apologise to Helper201 for raising the matter of the Sockpuppet on the Talk page about another article (the article on La France Insoumise political party). Where would you like me to make that apology, Helper201? Here? My User Talk page? Your User Talk page? Or on the LFI Talk page?

MWFwiki, I'll try to get a diff together showing my preferred modifications to the Ideology section of this article. Give me a few days, please. I don't think there's much to change but I'd like to get it right first-time.

As to the question of whether this party is right-wing and Unionist or Unionist and right-wing or just Unionist, I'll ponder it again. You say that some RSs have been provided to support the right-wing thesis: does one of them say "on the right of Unionism" or somesuch? That's really akin to saying "hardline", it's not a description of their Ideology beyond their position on the spectrum of Unionism. I don't aim to be a nuisance but could Helper201 refresh my memory about which RSs describe them as "right-wing"?

As to the paragraph on an opinion poll removed by Helper201 for reason of Undue Weight. I agree with Helper201. It's a single opinion poll from October 2025 and subsequent opinion polls have seen the TUV party support ebb a bit. It shouldn't have been placed in the Header section but maybe its author (McGonagle, I think) ought to be asked for their view. My view is that it would be better to have a separate page called something like "Opinion polling for NI Assembly Election 2027" and keep the opinion poll stuff there. That's what's done for other countries. BrownBowler (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I would just discuss it with Helper201 on the relevant ANI page.

Okay, thank you for getting your preferred diff.

I don't think the sources need to say "right-wing and Unionist." It's not synthesis to source each descriptive term. There were sources listed above describing the TUV as "right-wing." I'm not sure how many sources will describe the "Traditional Unionist Voice" as "Unionist." I'm sure they exist somewhere but it's a bit redundant... it's in the name. Especially local sources will likely assume that people understand what that means. But I cede that is my opinion. Again, I'd be happy to list "Unionist" first or list "right-wing" softly, such as "generally described as 'right-wing'" or similar.

If both of you feel that the polling is not necessary in the lead, that's fine.

P.S. Helper201 there were many edits made on 20 February. Since you mention The Independent I believe I know what you're referring to. I think that addition is fine. — MWFwiki (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi MWFwiki. To be clear I am referring to all the edits on that date. I haven't seen anything setting out what is opposed in the content of those edits aside from the not having right-wing in the lead being opposed by BrownBowler. Helper201 (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

MWFwiki and Helper201, I've now made the requested apology on the ANI page. Anyone who considers it to be inadequate will no doubt let me know.

I'll try and produce the diff for the Ideology section tomorrow and I'm getting together an answer on the "right-wing" issue. BrownBowler (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

MWFwiki and Helper201, here is the DIFF containing my suggestions for modification of the current Ideology section.

DIFF for Talk Page discussion on Ideology section. BrownBowler (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, I'll review all this tonight.  — MWFwiki (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't have too many concerns with this diff. There are some minor things I would change, some copy-editing, but I don't mind it. Helper201, not to make you repeat yourself, but could you clarify/specify your objections to the proffered diff?

One of my issues is that I would likely mention "right-wing" early in the ideology section since it is mentioned in the lead.  — MWFwiki (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I object to pretty much all of it. It flat out removes lots of cited content without good reason. To remove this cited information is of no benefit to the reader. Helper201 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll explain my motive for reverting the title of this section to "Ideology".

All political parties have an Ideology, the ideas at the base of their thinking. Ideology tends to be stable and unchanging.

If we can sum up the ideology of this party concisely and accurately, without either advocacy or axe-grinding, then we're providing the reader with something useful.

Policies, on the other hand, are a sort of plan of action to achieve ideological ends. Parties, even small ones, have hundreds of policies which tend to change with time. Any party with a presence in the House of Commons, the Northern Ireland Assembly and in local councils will participate in thousands of votes in those chambers, most of which will be votes on bills or proposals brought forward by other parties. If we were to rely on the record of voting of elected representatives in order to provide a reader with a summary of the Ideology of a party then we'd have an extremely long article.

When a party drafts its own bill or proposed legislation to be voted on and when we have suitable sources which analyse that, then yes that could be relevant in a section on Ideology. However, votes by any party for or against legislation proposed by other parties, especially when the party is mentioned only in passing by the cited sources, seems to me to be an inconclusive manner in which to seek to arrive at or to present the ideology of a party.

At present, there are 2 edits in the Ideology section which rely upon cited sources which are reports of votes by various elected representatives. One edit refers to a vote on a Climate Change bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the other edit refers to a vote on an Assisted Dying bill in the House of Commons. My diff proposes removal of both of these sources because they mention the TUV party only in passing. Another User FDW777 has previously revoked the edit on Assisted Dying (see here) arguing, I think, on the same lines that I do. There wasn't any actual discussion of the matter at that point. The Assisted Dying edit was re-instated and the title of the section simultaneously changed to its present longer form. BrownBowler (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Cited information you want removed is consistent with the party's long-term ideology. The party has consistently been against abortion and euthanasia; these aren't just passing policy positions but stances the party has held for many years. I don't see anything wrong with citing the party's vote on the climate change bill. While their actual name is only mentioned once their opposition, along with other parties, is a core part of the article, not just some aside. Helper201 (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Helper201, as a general principle, from what I understand of the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS guideline, editors are asked to cite sources which are related to the subject at hand.

On the subject of the ideological position of the TUV party regarding Climate Change, the cited source of your edit is admittedly related to a vote in the NI Assembly on Climate Change and it does include the information that the Traditional Unionist Voice voted against the proposed amendment, i.e. against a Net Zero emissions target by 2050. However, the source gives no information as to why they voted the way they did: the source is reliable for information on how parties voted on this legislation but gives no information on the TUV's reasons for voting "NO". Also, the source tells me that in voting "NO" to the proposed 100% emissions reduction legislation they were, de facto, voting "YES" to an 82 % emissions reduction target by 2050; your edit doesn't mention that. If, as a casual reader, I saw this edit, I might suppose that the TUV party opposes reduction in methane and carbon emissions.

As to the "Euthanasia and assisted dying" paragraph, my proposed DIFF retains your cited source and adds another source which gives more information on the TUV party's ideological opposition to Assisted Dying. I also propose removal of the phrase "party leader and the party's only MP in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom" because it is repetition of information given previously in the article. Your edit tells me that the TUV voted, on this occasion, against legalisation of Assisted Dying but doesn't tell me why they opposed it. My proposed edit attempts to rectify that omission.

Finally, if the article was to contain many edits of a type such as "they voted for this, they voted for that" then it could start to read like a disjointed series of footnotes rather than a coherent, readable encyclopedia article. It may also become very long, since political parties vote on hundreds of Bills and amendments each year. BrownBowler (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no requirement to state why thy voted the way they did. If you can find a reliable third-party source that states this by all means feel free to let us know.

Your line, "Also, the source tells me that in voting "NO" to the proposed 100% emissions reduction legislation they were, de facto, voting "YES" to an 82 % emissions reduction target by 2050; your edit doesn't mention that." is WP:SYNTH. Your diff wants to remove "The party opposes euthanasia, abortion, and what it calls "the dilution of marriage".". I don't see any good reason for that. What you want to add is Allister's opinion, not a vote by him as a representative of the party, nor an ideological viewpoint of the party. While I don't think it’s fantastic I'd be up for compromising on this, but not the removal of the prior quotation I mentioned that you want to remove. You also want to remove "The TUV has campaigned for Reform UK candidates due to their shared opposition to the Northern Ireland Protocol.", which I also disagree with.

Lastly as for this, "Finally, if the article was to contain many edits of a type such as "they voted for this, they voted for that" then it could start to read like a disjointed series of footnotes rather than a coherent, readable encyclopedia article. It may also become very long, since political parties vote on hundreds of Bills and amendments each year.", it’s a strawman argument. The article does not include a lot of these, nor would it be feasible that it would get overloaded with these. Reliable third-party sources do not regularly cover lots of votes or bills, especially not of small parties like the TUV. I included mainstream reliable third-party sources that do cover some notable ones. Helper201 (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Helper201, you asked for a reliable third party source which tells us why the TUV's Jim Allister voted against the Climate Change Northern Ireland Bill in February 2022.

Here is a summary from BBC News of a contribution from Mr Allister during the debates on the Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly - BBC report of debate, see contribution at time 18:14 . And here is a report from a Northern Irish farming newspaper on the same debate - Farming Life report on Mr Allister's reasons for opposing The Bill. His reasons included the adverse impact The Bill would have on farming and agri-food industries in Northern Ireland, that The Bill ignored the UK Climate Change Committee’s advice which recognised the relative importance of agriculture in Northern Ireland, that there was a need to feed a growing population and that local meat and dairy requirements would simply be imported from regions where emissions are higher, and animal welfare standards lower, than in Northern Ireland.

You say also that "There is no requirement to state why thy voted the way they did". Do you mean that it's not required by Wikipedia policies and guidelines or that it's not required in a section entitled "Ideology and Votes of elected Representatives"? My DIFF proposes reverting the title of the section to how it stood until December 2025 - "Ideology". In any paragraph about their thinking on matters related to Climate Change, If we're to tell the reader that the TUV voted against a Net Zero Bill, then the reader might wonder why they did that (in fact, they didn't vote against all parts of the Bill and a revised Bill which was slightly more to the TUV's taste was passed a month later and became law - see here.)

Yes, my DIFF proposes removal of the line: "The party opposes euthanasia, abortion, and what it calls "the dilution of marriage"[25][26]" because its content replicates what is to be found in the "Euthanasia and assisted dying", "Abortion law" and "Same-sex marriage" paragraphs below it. Also, the cited source [25] opens at page 1 of the 2022 Traditional Unionist Voice election manifesto - I think we're meant to position on the relevant page of the document as that's more user-friendly.

Yes, my DIFF proposes removal of "The TUV has campaigned for Reform UK candidates due to their shared opposition to the Northern Ireland Protocol.[42]" This report dates to early February 2024. A group of TUV members went to Wellingborough in Northamptonshire, England to canvas on a Friday and Saturday for Ben Habib who was Reform UK's candidate in a by-election there. Mr Habib was notable for sharing many speaking platforms with TUV leader Jim Allister during their campaign against The Northern Ireland Protocol. So, in fact, these TUV members canvassed on two days for a single Reform UK candidate who then left Reform UK, 9 months later. This didn't seem to me to be of enduring notability. I'm not totally against its inclusion, it was newsworthy but is it of long-term significance?

Which part of my DIFF are you referring to, specifically, when you say "What you want to add is Allister's opinion, not a vote by him as a representative of the party, nor an ideological viewpoint of the party".?

You've dismissed, as a strawman argument, my concern that a section headed "Ideology and Votes of Elected Representatives" might invite a large number of "they voted for this, they voted for that" style edits. You say that the article "does not include a lot of these" but I said that it might do, in future, not that it already did. My reply on 12 March, above, expresses my reasons for opposition to the change to the title of the Section. As to whether Reliable Third Party Sources cover lots of votes or bills, especially not of small parties, I don't know whether they do or not but I'd rather that any mention of such a vote was complemented by a modicum of explanation relating it to their ideological position. BrownBowler (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I'm fine with us adding on why Allister opposed the climate change bill but original sourced material that it was voted against should still remain. Not a removal of one and replacement of the other or some sort of WP:SYNTH mashup. "There is no requirement to state why they voted the way they did". I meant by Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

I still disagree with removing, "The party opposes euthanasia, abortion, and what it calls "the dilution of marriage"[25][26]". Yes, this information is expanded upon below this but this in the initial summary section before the relevant subsections. These are consistent positions of the party over the years and help to summarise the party's ideological standings. I'm fine with trying to cite on the relevant page/pages of their manifesto, that's a good idea.

That sounds reasonable regarding the Reform candidates.

Well, I guess we're still at an impasse regarding your last point, especially since its based of if's/might's without solid evidence for why these could come to fruition. Helper201 (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Helper201, agreed. No-one can be sure whether editors will add many more of the "they voted for/against" one-liners but we do know that the current version contains two of them, added by yourself in December along with a change of the Section title. You've already explained your reason for changing the title to accommodate this type of information

, see your response on 16 January: you wanted to include "more recent ideological positions for the party". Unfortunately, a single-liner saying they voted against Assisted Dying or against a Net Zero bill isn't definitive of ideology because, while it tells a reader whether the TUV is for or against something, it doesn't actually explain why; so a reader is left to surmise the "why" for themself. NB WP:WIKIVOICE says "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information..... .". Also note MOS:PARA, "Single-sentence paragraphs can inhibit the flow of the text". For me, these "they voted for/against" one-liners aren't a good way to explain ideology and the title "Ideology and Votes of Elected Representatives" obviously invites the addition of more of them. I've nothing against mentioning how the TUV vote on an important issue so long as it's well-sourced and it is supplemented by a well-sourced explanation of why.

As to my proposed removal of "The party opposes euthanasia, abortion, and what it calls `the dilution of marriage`[25][26]", you say that these are consistent positions of the party over the years (that's true, apart from Assisted Dying. I can't find anything about Assisted Dying or euthanasia from them prior to 2022) and that "this in the initial summary section before the relevant subsections". But there is no "initial summary section". And I can't find any guideline telling me that individual sections should begin with a summary. The lead paragraph is a sort of summary and the Infobox is a sort of summary but the individual sections aren't required to have summaries, so far as I understand it, and this one doesn't. This Ideology section consists of an initial paragraph about the very particular matter of their position on Northern Irish Unionism. Following that, the phrase "Its policies on matters beyond the Northern Ireland constitutional question..." turns attention to the more universal aspects of political ideology, i.e. not specific to Northern Ireland (save for the final, fairly complicated, paragraph on Power Sharing). There is a bit of analysis, which could be thought of as a sort of summary, viz. "...right-wing and socially conservative, and they emphasise a strong attachment to "traditional family values", and you've appended your line to that. But your line's content is repeated practically verbatim in the subsequent, relevant paragraphs, viz. "the TUV opposes euthanasia", "The TUV opposed the introduction of the Abortion Regulations (2020)", "The TUV reaffirmed its opposition to abortion in its 2024 manifesto", "opposes any re-definition of marriage". For me, the line that I propose to remove is straightforward repetition of the detail in the relevant paragraphs, not summary. So, we read the exact same things twice within the space of a few paragraphs.

Perhaps it's time to ask our mediator to give an opinion on these matters. Would you agree to us doing that? BrownBowler (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

To be clear I regard the paragraphs under "Ideology and votes of elected representatives" that aren't under subsections to be a summary. We could either move one-liners to there, expand upon the sections that are one-liners, or merge subsections, e.g. "Education and human rights". Having their stance on assisted dying since at least 2022 meets the definition of years. I'm fine with having a mediator go over this. It was to my understanding that was already occurring. Helper201 (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Helper201, I've nothing more to add. Let's see if we can get MWFwiki to come back and take a look at what we've been discussing since they last posted here on 8th March. Then, maybe we can wrap this up. BrownBowler (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm here, sorry folks. I'll review everything in a couple hours. Courtesy-tagging @Helper201.  — MWFwiki (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

ARBITRARY BREAK FOR FORMATTING

Helper201 and BrownBowler; I think I was misunderstood and I didn't word myself properly when I previously said that I didn't take issue with a certain diff. I meant that I didn't see what was wrong with the content which was removed. Sourced content should be included as long as the sources are reliable, we are not taking the sources statements out-of-context, and they are not being given undue weight. Since it seems that Helper201 is in-favor of re-adding content and BrownBowler is in-favor of keeping certain content off the page, I would request this:

Helper201, please re-add the content you wish to, and we will copy-edit and otherwise discuss it from there. It doesn't mean it will be permanently re-added to the article, it's just easier this way. As far as the title of the section... let's settle that question once we settle the content dispute. — MWFwiki (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, MWFwiki. I'm confused. What is it that you are asking Helper201 to re-add to the article? The present state of the Ideology section in the article is the version preferred by Helper201. My DIFF versus that version is the one you seemed to be referring to on 8th March,when you wrote: "I don't have too many concerns with this diff. There are some minor things I would change, some copy-editing, but I don't mind it.". It now sounds like you actually preferred Helper201's version to mine.

Since 8th March, Helper201 and myself have spent 3 weeks discussing the merits/demerits of my DIFF. I think, to be fair to both of us, we ought to re-run that discussion with you as a protagonist this time. I don't mind if it's 2 versus 1, you're here to offer your opinion, as I understand it. And it ought to be the quality of the arguments and of the finished product which determine the outcome. Anyone disagree to re-running the discussion, point by point, from the beginning of the DIFF? (that would be my removal of "It maintains a firmly right-wing unionist ideology." BrownBowler (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

That's fair enough, I may have had the diffs confused; Regarding: "It maintains a firmly right-wing unionist ideology." -- I actually think this should be removed. It's not what the source says, and is OR-ish. It's also simply not encyclopedic in its prose. The source, per RSN, is, at-best, questionable (I personally don't see anything wrong with it, but there has never been consensus regarding politics.co.uk's reliability, so it probably shouldn't be utilized for contentious statments). I think describing them as "right-wing" in the lead is more than enough... we don't need to beat a dead horse.  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

MWFwiki, the source describes the TUV party as being "to the right of the unionist cause". The word "right" isn't being used there in the sense of right-wing/left-wing but rather as a way of rendering the party's own description of itself as having formed to "occupy the traditional unionist ground" which they believed had been abandoned by the other two unionist parties. So, at the very least, the internal link to right-wing, is misplaced.

I find this sentence pithy, not really flowing naturally from the preceding sentence, giving the article a disjointed feel. Let's wait for Helper201's thoughts. BrownBowler (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

To quote the source "The party sits firmly to the right of the Unionist cause". It then goes on to reference the DUP and the UUP. It definetly sounds like "right" is being used in regards to a left-right political position dynamic to me. It was my impression that "It maintains a firmly right-wing unionist ideology" is just a reworded way of expressing the prior quote. We could either quote the source directly or just simply replace it with a statement that the party is right-wing (as in political position, i.e. right-wing politics), using one of the four citations for right-wing cited in the infobox. How that should flow I'm all ears. Helper201 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree with BrownBowler on this one... it's a stretch to claim that is what the source is saying. I mean... I think it is what they're saying, actually, I just can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt; VNT and all that. The source states that they are "to the right of Union[ists...]". You can be "to the right of" Stalin and still be a leftist, no?

Yes, direct attribution is an option, but in this case I would be wary, given the (mildly) suspect reliability of the source. Discussions concerning the source-in-question have universally ended in "no consensus" and I really and truly do not have a strong opinion about it (the source). In such a case, the ONUS remains on you, Helper201, to justify inclusion. Perhaps a broader RfC would resolve this. If you have an alternative option or source I'm open to both.  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

MWFwiki, for context the other two unionist parties are the Democratic Unionist Party, who are right-wing, and the Ulster Unionist Party, who are centre-right.

Sorry I'm not clear here. I said in my response above we could use any of the other four sources for right-wing in the infobox instead. I didn't say we have to use politcs.co.uk. I don't see any reasoning against that. Helper201 (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes! I apologize, you are right, in that regard. I was too-focused on the politics.co.uk source. I would say choose two of the sources you feel are the "best" and semi-directly attribute. "[...]usually described as 'right-wing'[sources]" — However, we must avoid arguments such as "for context the other two unionist parties are the Democratic Unionist Party, who are right-wing, and the Ulster Unionist Party, who are centre-right" — this is personal analysis and thus OR (the idea that since the TUV is to the right of these parties they are X or Y, to be clear), and plus, WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and all that. — MWFwiki (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Helper201, I have a few remarks on your posts from 3rd April and 7th April.

You say that the re-wording of the Politics.co.uk source's phrase: "sits firmly to the right of the Unionist cause" to the form: "It maintains a firmly right-wing unionist ideology" was: "just a reworded way of expressing the prior quote". Aren't editors supposed to stick closely to the wording of the source? Why did you see a need to re-word the source's phrase?

The Ideology section already contained the following sentence: "Its policies on matters beyond the Northern Ireland constitutional question can be described as right-wing and socially conservative". You added: "It maintains a firmly right-wing unionist ideology" just four sentences above the former sentence. If I was a reader, I'd ask myself why this article repeats itself. Was it added for emphasis?

In support of your thesis that the "right" in "to the right of the Unionist cause", was intended by the writer to mean "right-wing", you mention that the Politics.co.uk article "then goes on to reference the DUP and the UUP. It definetly sounds like the ""right"" is being used in regards to a left-right political dynamic to me". The Politics.co.uk article says the following: "The party sits firmly to the right of the Unionist cause - an area once occupied by the DUP until the collapse of the Ulster Unionists under David Trimble in 2003 when the DUP became the largest party in Northern Ireland". I don't agree that this mention of the DUP and the UUP supports your thesis; it seems to me to confirm my own interpretation that the phrase "to the right of the Unionist cause" is referring to Unionist orthodoxy, or what the TUV themselves call "Traditional Unionism". In 2003, the DUP leapfrogged the UUP to become the party with most seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That watershed was widely attributed to the unionist electorate's disenchantment with the UUP's perceived concessions to Irish Nationalists, see here. Then, in 2007, the DUP performed an ideological volte-face and formed a governing Executive with Sinn Fein, precipitating the formation of the TUV party. These events, and the reference to them by the article, were solely concerned with the Sui generis subject of Northern Irish Unionism (about which party was the "genuine" Unionist party), and nothing to do with a more general right-wing/left-wing political dichotomy.

As regards the four references in the Infobox which denote the TUV as "right-wing". One citation is from the London Times, it's behind a paywall, so I can't read it. What does it say, precisely, about the TUV? Please give the whole sentence.

Another citation is from the Derry Journal: it doesn't describe the TUV as "right-wing".

Another citation is from an article in the British Journalism Review, written by Roy Greenslade, reportedly an avowed supporter of the Provisional IRA bombing campaign and a former regular contributor to the Irish Republican, Sinn-Fein-affiliated paper An Phoblacht. I understand that biased sources can be considered to be Reliable in Wikipedia but there is still a requirement for overall Balance and Neutral Point of view in any article, particularly when it's of a WP:BLP type.

The fourth citation is an academic paper by a lecturer called Chris O Raleigh , from 2023. It has 4 citations, 2 of which are citations by Chris O Raleigh in their other academic papers: each of the other 2 citations devote no more than a couple of words to mention of his paper. It's notable that, throughout their paper, Chris O Raleigh uses terms such as "the North of Ireland", "northern state" and "the statelet" in place of "Northern Ireland": so, again, it's written from an Irish Republican perspective. We need some sources from other perspectives in order to give Balance and a Neutral Point of View. BrownBowler (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

We should reword information from article's other than when giving direct quotes to avoid copyright violations. I can't find the exact Wikipedia guideline at the moment but that is pretty self-explanatory.

I honestly can't recall. If it already gives the position earlier on then yes, it’s probably unnecessary to repeat this.

I didn't add The Times source and cannot access it either.

You're right about the Derry Journal source; I will remove it.

I don't think the description of a political party as right-wing would fall under BLP guidelines.

I don't know, the last paragraph their seems a bit nit-picky to me, especially when we lack sources on the party in general. Helper201 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Helper201, it may be that the advice about copyright violations which you remember is this, see here. It says that "With the exceptions of short quotations from copyrighted text, and text copied from a free source without a copyright, text from other sources may not be copied into Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation and constitutes plagiarism.". So, editors should generally summarise source material in their own words, you are right.

Remember too, the WP:NOR guideline WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE which says "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication". WP:NOR guidelines say also that " if one uses it out of context, or to state or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, one is engaging in original research" and " Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided". Also see Quoting_out_of_context: "The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context per se (as all quotes are), but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words".

In addition, you acknowledge that when you added the edit "It maintains a firmly right-wing unionist ideology" you didn't notice the existing description of the TUV as being "right-wing and socially conservative", just 4 sentences further on in the article.

In conclusion, "It maintains a firmly right-wing unionist ideology" adds nothing to the Ideology section which wasn't already there, so it could be seen as redundant. And, given that the cited source actually says "The party sits firmly to the right of the Unionist cause - an area once occupied by the DUP until the collapse of the Ulster Unionists under David Trimble in 2003 when the DUP became the largest party in Northern Ireland", it doesn't explicitly say "right-wing", so making such an interpretation could be seen as infringing WP:NOR . And, the further context of the full quote from the source could be seen as confirmation that its author was possibly referring to an orthodox form of unionism rather than to "right-wing" in its more universally encountered sense. So, do we think that "It maintains a firmly right-wing unionist ideology" should remain in the Ideology Section or not?

Thanks for removing the Derry Journal citation from the Infobox's political-position field. As regards the Greenslade and O'Raleigh sources, I do have some reservations about them but not because they describe the TUV party as right-wing - that isn't contentious.

I see them as poor-quality sources which don't respect either Reliability or NPOV guidelines and which aren't truly Independent sources because they have a strong conflict of interest regarding Northern Irish Unionism. If you'd like me to explain more about that, I will. BrownBowler (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Replying to myself. Perhaps the others have lost interest in this discussion. I'll revoke the "It maintains a firmly right-wing unionist ideology" edit for the reasons given above. If anyone disagrees, we can continue discussing it but please observe WP:BRD BrownBowler (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

BrownBowler, I reverse my agreement for "The TUV has campaigned for Reform UK candidates due to their shared opposition to the Northern Ireland Protocol." to be removed. As I stated, per Wikipedia:Notability, notability does not apply to content within articles. Therefore, there are no good grounds to remove this from the middle of the page. Helper201 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, Helper201. You say “I reverse my agreement” , i.e. you’ve changed your mind, about a consensus you gave in March to my proposal to remove a line from the article.

Well, there’s no guideline saying we can’t change our minds, though I don't recall seeing anyone withdraw consensus before. You give the reason “WP:N does not apply to content within articles” for your about-turn. Indeed it doesn’t. Who suggested it did? Not me.

I doubt anyone else is still interested in this discussion but, just in case there is someone else reading this and they’re wondering what your change of mind is about, I’ll repeat what I wrote in our discussion on the 20 March:

“Yes, my DIFF proposes removal of "The TUV has campaigned for Reform UK candidates due to their shared opposition to the Northern Ireland Protocol.[42]" This report dates to early February 2024. A group of TUV members went to Wellingborough in Northamptonshire, England to canvas on a Friday and Saturday for Ben Habib who was Reform UK's candidate in a by-election there. Mr Habib was notable for sharing many speaking platforms with TUV leader Jim Allister during their campaign against The Northern Ireland Protocol. So, in fact, these TUV members canvassed on two days for a single Reform UK candidate who then left Reform UK, 9 months later. This didn't seem to me to be of enduring notability. I'm not totally against its inclusion, it was newsworthy but is it of long-term significance?”

No citation of WP:N there.

And, you replied, on 22 March “That sounds reasonable regarding the Reform candidates.”

The edit in question was originally added by User Jay942942 on the 3rd February 2024, sourced from a newspaper article published on 2 February 2024. The edit contains misinformation and relates to a news article which seems to have been of no significant lasting and historical interest and impact.

Wikipedia isn’t a newspaper, nor is it a blog. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics but most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style – see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROPORTION.

Your intervention does though prompt one thought: is there any actual affiliation between the TUV and Reform UK? I’ve read some news articles in the recent past which seem to cast some doubt upon it. Also, there is a Wikipedia page called Reform UK-TUV alliance, to which you’ve contributed, which seems to talk about their alliance purely in the past tense.

When you get a moment, let me know your thoughts, including about the last point. BrownBowler (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi BrownBowler, the crux of your argument - and your reasoning in your edit summary for removing this - was "removed one sentence from the paragraph about their position on Brexit. Some leafletting for a Ben Habib by-election campaign was possibly newsworthy at the time but maybe not of enduring notability". Again, when quoting yourself above you state, "This didn't seem to me to be of enduring notability". As stated in WP:NNC, notability does not apply to content within articles, so we don't remove stuff because it is perceived by editors as not having "enduring notability" or whether editors think it has "significant lasting and historical interest and impact" or not. This absolutely is in accordance with proportionality. It’s a relatively small piece of information midway through the page, not something given prominence. Honestly, I can't really profess to know the ins and outs of just exactly how similar the TUV and Reform UK are. Helper201 (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Helper201, you are correct, I've used the phrase "enduring notability" several times when reasoning for the removal of this line from the article and I've also used the phrase "significant lasting and historical interest and impact". I'm aware that, as you point out above, the word "notability" has a particular significance within the context of Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines and that you are reminding me that, even if I didn't cite WP:N, my use of the word "notability" can be viewed as connoting or being synonymous with WP:N. WP:NNC suggests that the word "noteworthy" is an appropriate word to use in reference to the merits of particular article content and I wasn't aware of that, thank you for directing me to that information. What I was attempting to say in using these phrases is that the line in question has not aged well. It was added on Feb 3 2024 and cited a newspaper report from the day before, Feb 2 2024. Until I proposed its removal, the line had remained in this Wikipedia article for over 2 years, unchallenged. I see this line as an exemplary case of why it's best not to add news coverage to an article straightaway because it may, over time, turn out not to be of encyclopedic value. The Recentism guideline advises that editors should write with "an aim toward a long term historical view" " and "Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, with attention to the long-term significance of the information included". It's always risky to try and predict whether today's news story will have significance a couple of years later and that's perhaps one reason for the Wikipedia is not a newspaper guideline.

So, here, with a view to avoiding the use of the word "notability", is a short list of why I think this edit shouldn't have been added in February 2024 and oughtn't to be restored now.

The edit doesn't satisfy the Verifiability policy. It contains misinformation. Anyone who reads the cited source can see that TUV members canvassed for a single Reform UK candidate. Why the editor chose to claim that "The TUV has campaigned for Reform UK candidates" is anybody's guess. I haven't found any source which reports that TUV members have campaigned for Reform UK candidates on any other occasion. So, if the edit was to be restored, it should, at the very least, be altered to say: "TUV members have campaigned for a Reform UK candidate".

The 2 days of canvassing that this group of TUV members did for Reform UK candidate Ben Habib during his campaign in the Wellingborough by-election in February 2024 seems, so far as I can discover, to have been reported by just one news outlet, the Belfast Newsletter; so, it could be said that their efforts weren't considered to be particularly noteworthy by the mainstream media.The WP:PROPORTION guideline says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news." The Belfast Newsletter's report doesn't tell us how many TUV members were involved in this canvassing but there is a photo accompanying the article which shows 7 people, one of whom is Ben Habib. If the edit is to be restored then I think it would be more honest of us to make clear to readers the actual extent of the campaigning that was done (2 days of canvassing by, it seems, a small group of TUV members): a modest effort.

The cited source from the Belfast Newsletter makes clear that the TUV members went to Wellingborough to support Ben Habib as a mark of appreciation for his efforts (unique among British politicians, I believe) in supporting the Northern Irish unionists' campaign against the Northern Ireland Protocol. In fact, Reform UK is mentioned just once in the article, viz. "...Mr Habib, Reform UK's candidate...",. In contrast, Mr Habib is mentioned six times. Habib left the Reform UK party in November 2024. So, the emphasis of the cited source is on the TUV members support for Mr Habib personally but the edit doesn't convey that. Could there therefore be an issue there with WP:WEIGHT or even WP:CHERRYPICKING?

As you will know, having made several contributions to it, there's an article called Reform UK–TUV alliance. Perhaps there is a place for this edit there. BrownBowler (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Traditional Unionist Voice Political Position, far-right?

Hello, ProgramT. I've revoked the recent addition of "far-right" which you made to the Political Position field in the Infobox of this article.

The explanation you gave for your edit was "update infobox; in Northern Ireland politics, TUV is located further to the right than "right-wing" DUP, and TUV alliance with "right-wing to far-right Reform UK".

Have you any sources stating that "in Northern Ireland politics, TUV is located further to the right than "right-wing" DUP"? And, if you do, do those sources actually describe the TUV as "far-right"? NB. this subject has recently been discussed on this very Talk Page (see April 8th) and (see April 13th).

And, when you say: "and TUV alliance with "right-wing to far-right Reform Uk", do you have any sources describing the TUV as "far-right" on account of any association it has or had with Reform UK? If you haven't, then your assertion is a case of WP:SYNTH. Also, whatever Political Position is attributed to Reform UK in the Wikipedia article on that party is not an appropriate source to cite in attributing a Political Position here: WP:CIRCULAR and WP:OTHERCONTENT.

In making those two statements I think you've strayed into Original Research of your own.

You do, though cite two sources which describe the TUV as far-right. The question is, are they reliable sources, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and are the authors sufficiently authoritative on the subject of Northern Irish politics for their opinions on this party to be credible?

The first source you cite is an e-book called "War By Any Other Name", published by a non-profit organisation, registered in Brussels, called "The Battleground". I can't find much information about the author, John Foster, other than that he is "a historian of European politics. He was educated in the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany" and that this e-book compiles "articles written for The Battleground since its launch in March 2019, War By Any Other Name illuminates the platform’s progressive mission and focus on political narratives." The Battleground appears to be a Substack newsletter/social media/blog website () whose address is a postal box in Brussels. No phone number is provided for it. John Foster is one of its "leadership team". Your cited quote from this e-book is "While some sections of what might be called 'moderate' Unionist opinion assented to the deal, there are still significant rumblings among Ulster Unionists, Democratic Unionists, and the far-right Traditional Unionist Voice. In these doubts they are alone on the island..." . Battleground.eu, the publisher of this e-book pursues, in its own words, a "progressive mission and a focus on political narratives", i.e. it's a politically-oriented, campaigning organisation focussed on particular political outcomes and makes no claim to be objective. WP:UGC says "Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis, and other collaboratively created websites." WP:BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources (including books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, or social network posts) as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themselves. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs....These sources cannot be used for exceptional claims, or claims about third parties". The Wiki essay on potentially unreliable sources includes a caution about citing from self-published books: "These may appear to be reliable as they are in Google Books and Amazon, but they have no editorial oversight.". In short, I think you've cited a poor-quality or Questionable Source, one which may have a political conflict of interest when covering Northern Irish politics.

The second source you cite, an academic treatise called "The Micro-Sociology of Peace and Conflict" by Isabel Bramsen, Associate Professor and Director of Peace and Conflict Studies at Lund University, Sweden looks, on the face of it, more credible as a reputable source: it is published by Cambridge University Press, has 12 citations from other scholars, and the author seems to be a sitting professor who has a body of published work to her name and has, also, a speciality in Conflict Resolution studies. The quote from this work is "For example, Jim Allister, representing the far-right party, TUV, continually interrupts the meeting with criticism of the newly elected speaker". Ms Bramsen's major thesis in this publication is that the manner in which politicians interact with one another has a bearing on the progress they achieve towards conflict resolution. She devotes one page of this publication to an anecdote about TUV party leader Jim Allister making a series of remarks, during the re-opening of the Northern Ireland Assembly on 11 January 2020. She notes that some of his remarks amused the assembled representatives (there's a nice photo of everyone laughing. Even Mr Allister.) Ms Lund gives no explanation or analysis to explain why she qualifies the TUV party as far-right, she simply presents it as a statement of fact. But, is Ms Lund an authoritative, reliable source regarding Northern Irish politics? I think the answer is no, she isn't. Why do I claim that? I simply look at the paragraph preceding the quotation you cited, which says: "In Northern Ireland, the Unionists aiming to be part of Ireland and the Loyalists wanting to stay part of the UK signed a peace agreement in 1998 with which they established a governing body, the Northern Ireland Assembly, where both Loyalists and Unionists could fight for their cause, thereby allowing the conflict to continue via political rather than violent means". Which is, of course, arrant nonsense. It's notable that Ms Lund used this same anecdote about Mr Allister in a prior essay, published by the journal "Third World Quarterly" in 2022, called Agonistic interaction in practice: laughing, dissensus and hegemony in the Northern Ireland Assembly. In that version of the anecdote she didn't use the term "far-right" to describe the TUV. It is also notable that in her acknowledgements at the end of this 2022 essay, Ms Lund acknowledged "First, I am sincerely grateful for the ideas, insights and sparring from Sara Dybris McQuaid, with whom I initially wrote this paper, before we divided it into two distinct articles. The input from Sara significantly improved the article, and her comprehensive knowledge of Northern Ireland has been a true gift." By contrast, in the lengthy Acknowledgements section in the 2024 source which you cite, "The Micro-Sociology of Peace and Conflict", there is no acknowledgement from Ms Lund of any particular assistance in writing the part on Northern Ireland.

Could you explain why you chose to cite these two sources in of support your edit, please?

References collapsed for brevity and clarity

|