Talk:Democratic Unionist Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Unionism in Ireland WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Unionism in Ireland. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Top This article is on a subject of Top-importance for Unionism in Ireland-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

WikiProject Unionism in Ireland tasks:
Politics Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of politics and government within the United Kingdom. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.
Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:


[edit]  !!

The DUP, at this minute, is not the biggest party in Westminister. The UUP is one up.

The DUP is the largest party in Ulster,yet it is the 4th largest party in the United Kingdom. - (Aidan Work 05:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC))


They have 9/10 seats at westminster that were won by any unionist party. 82.163.39.200 15:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholics

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

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


that is rubbish. I'm from NI. There was never a single catholic in it. 82.163.39.200 15:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't be certain that there are absolutely none The DUP do not allow catholics to join the party but they want htem to vote for them

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

[edit] Existence of spy ring in Stormont

On Friday [16th December 2005], the Northern Ireland Office said it "completely rejected any allegation that the police operation in October 2002 was for any reason other than to prevent paramilitary intelligence gathering". It said "the fact remains that a huge number of stolen documents were recovered by the police". Police sources earlier reiterated that the "Stormontgate" affair began because "a paramilitary organisation was involved in the systematic gathering of information and targeting or individuals". [1]

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

[edit] Serious editing has been going on

(1) Most of the content of this talk page has been removed

(2) Entire sections of the DUP's history have been deleted, apparently because they cast the party in an unfavourable light. The information on the DUP's connections with paramilitaries are topical as well as encyclopaedic - I'll reinstate them if nobody disagrees ..

[edit] Category:Protestant political parties

would anyone object if I classified this article in the Category:Protestant political parties? -- C mon 07:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

i wouldnt that what it is

The debate earlier in the page sums this one up - The DUP has had members who have been Roman Catholics and there is evidence to suggest that some (albeit very small) support is from Roman Catholics. The Party has no rules to prevent support from, or membership from those who are Roman Catholics therefore there is no justification to describe the DUP as a 'Protestant' political party.

[edit] "Consistently devolutionist"

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

Do you have a source for Paisley being an integrationalist in 1972? He opposed the closure of Stormont in the 70's. Quarkstorm 13:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have read it here: "Paisley's approach at this stage [1972] was to advocate stern security policies...but instead of calling for the return of Stormont he became an integrationist, one of those rare Unionists who believed a new Stormont would tend to separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. It was an interesting theory but at the time there were few Unionist takers for it, and eventually Paisley would quietly abandon it and return to more familiar ground."--David McKittrick and David McVea, Making Sense of The Troubles (Penguin, 2001), pp. 89-90.--Johnbull 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. He opposed the closure of Stormont before 1972 and by the late 70's. I think he was advocating devolving security to a reconstituted Stormont. I don't think integrationalism was ever a serious policy. The only person who has been consistently integrationalist is Bob McCartney. Quarkstorm 16:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political position

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

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

[edit] Category:Protestant political parties

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

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


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


[edit] Political links?

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

This is so a person from the BUA, DUP or anyone else can come onto this discussion page and clarify for me if they were aware of the link between the BUA and DUP flute band.

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

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

[edit] DUP and homosexuality

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

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

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

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

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

The Maurice Mills bit has been fixed. I'm merging the Iris Robinson and Ian Paisley Jr remarks, as per above. Mills is a councillor though, so there's no way a separate article can be created. Given his low profile, the comments could either be i) removed for lack of real notability or ii) just put in a separate Controversy section (surely DUP-related controversy must extend outside homosexuality thing - the internal factions, any paramilitary related things, etc.) Any suggestions? -- The Great Gavini 15:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
These links prove it is more than just a couple of outspoken members here and here and as one states the DUP's near pathological obsession with all things gay shows it's a party-wide thing. BigDuncTalk 14:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Not really - the latter relates to Ian Paisley Jr.'s comments already mentioned in the article, plus views of unrelated parties (UUP and the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster). The former link might be useful under the rather sparse Policies section of this article (though surely it can be sourced outside of "Pink News"?). Incidentally, the creationism thing does not really warrant a separate section and would do well under the Policies section too. -- The Great Gavini 15:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus for the removal of content you just did Greatgavini. BigDuncTalk 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ednabelfast supported the merge of this redundant information, and Quarkstorm believes it should be discussed on the individual MLA articles, not here, implying a merge. What exactly do you claim has no backing? -- The Great Gavini 15:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, those comments were made before sources showing homophobic bigotry is endemic within the DUP were provided. Secondly Quarkstorm said If thats the consensus in a few days, not whitewash the article now. BigDuncTalk 15:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I apologise - I did not see the latter part of what Quarkstorm had written. But "homophobic bigotry is endemic within the DUP"? That (in a NPOV state) is for sources to decide - the article's not supposed to be a Guardian op ed. As for the "whitewash[ed]", see Republican Party (United States) (or, to a lesser extent, the Australian Liberals, maybe the Canadian Conservative Party of Canada, or even our own Tories) for a real example of supposed "whitewashing". A party with a platform against homosexual marriage, with a history of controversial comments from members from federal to local level, yet not alluded to (except in the individuals' articles). Yet I move two passages to Iris Robinson and Ian Paisley, Jr., but must be reverted as it is somehow at odds with BigDunc's "endemic" "homophobic bigotry" theory. -- The Great Gavini 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

No, unless you can find other articles with "[political party] and homosexuality" with a record of comments of members at local/council level. Additionally, we'd presumably need "DUP and the Roman Catholic Church", "DUP and the Free Presbyterian Church", "DUP and paramilitaries", "DUP and neo-nazism", "DUP and racism", "DUP and the Orange Order" and any other sections that could include any other comments by otherwise-unknown councillors that might be "offensive" to anyone. It's just not something done in these articles. Better just have a general Controversy section, putting grievances under that, though not many mainstream political parties even have that either. -- The Great Gavini 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I take your points on board Great Gavini though this is such a hot topic for the DUP that I feel it should be kept. It's not just Iris Robinson, Maurice Mills & Ian Paisely Jr. It's also about comments and actions by Jeffrey Donaldson, Edwin Poots and Arthur Templeton. Three of those involved are MPs. Some of the others are MLAs. I might add in their actions as well to this section. Anyone object? --Ednabelfast (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a "hot topic" for many parties (especially the G.O.P., for example) but that still does not make the article a soapbox for a list of criticisms of the party. Looking at the G.O.P. article, and those of similar parties, there is not a single article that has a "x and homosexuality" section. None. Nor is it likely that any other article will. -- The Great Gavini 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Show me another political party with a track record of homophobic bigotry as bad as the DUP's, and I will agree they should have a section too. We have two sources that specifically deal with the DUP's record with regard to this in addition to the many disgraceful comments by DUP members, one source The Great Gavini has not even read properly. The section may need some tweaking and expanding, but it should stay. Domer48 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Some have cited the G.O.P. as having a track record of what you call "homophobic bigotry", though you are very unlikely to get a "Republican Party and homosexuality" section - it just does not warrant a section. But "two sources"? One is from a news site of a homosexual organisation, the other is an opinion piece of a left-leaning paper. Yes, they are relatively acceptable sources, but no matter how "disgraceful" etc. Domer48, BigDunc, etc. feel it is, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for analysing political parties' psyches - it is not something that is done. Yes, it is possible to include a note like The DUP has been criticised for comments offensive to homosexuals among its members, from MPs {source}, through MLAs {source} to councillors {sources}, and reporting these comments in each MP's and MLA's respective articles, but even this is unusual in these types of articles (though I would support it). Sinn Féin, for instance, has something like 3 lines on its links with the IRA (!), summed up by a Danny Morrison quote. -- The Great Gavini 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There are ample BBCNews sources for most of these since pinknews is unacceptable for the great gavini. I've previously provided links to BBCNews for Ian and Iris and Maurice (this is from a protestant website) in the article. I've found one for Arthur Templeton here and Jeffrey Donaldson here And here's the Belfast Tele website for evidence of Edwin Poots' opinion on homosexuality here. I think we can safely say that our sources are reputable. --Ednabelfast (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)