Talk:Traditional Unionist Voice

Same party?

Is this the same party [[1]], there is no Traditional Unionist Voice listed at the Electoral commisions website Fasach Nua (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well they only launched themselves less than 48 hours ago. It's possible that the link you have was a holding reservation, designed to get the basics of the title ("Traditional Unionist") secured before going public with it and before the final name had been thrashed out. Let's see if there's any clear move by the TUV towards contesting elections under that label, something that will become clear in the weeks ahead. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fianna Fail also registered this week, and they arent coming up on the websearch either, maybe it is just slow! Fasach Nua (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Party Colours

Does TUV have any ?

Can someone more acquainted than I make it possible so that when entered into election boxes it behaves like other parties and shows its colours? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buggerhed (talk • contribs) 16:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

With it's colours being broadly the same as the UUP and DUP, it will be a while before any common usage colour emerges for this party I'd imagine.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue emphasis

The article displays with about half its content being about a by-election they didn't even win. I'd suggest somebody create a new section for Allister's win as a TUV MEP this week. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd swear I read a report that he won election yesterday. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideology

The ideology section needs a lot of work.

To begin with, why 'Anti Catholicism'? I've read their Euro election manifesto (available on their website) and there's nothing anti Catholic in it. It states that they are not against coalition government with Catholic / Nationalist parties, just against mandatory coalition with Sinn Fein. I'll give it a few days and then delete unless someone can come up with a convincing argument based on their published material. Whiteabbey (talk)

No case put forward for 'anti Catholicism' - I'll remove Whiteabbey (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

'Protestantism'? TUV is an anti agreement political party, not a religious body. I've no doubt virtually all of it's members are Protestants but that is the case with all NI unionist parties. There is no mention of a specific branch of Christianity on its website or in its manifesto and the application form for membership has no religious requirements. Whiteabbey (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Racism allegations

Someone has added a section headed "Allegations of anti-Irishness", stating (with weasel words) that "the party was accused of Anti-Irish racism". I removed this on the basis that it is unsourced, but it has been restored on the basis of an accusation posted on the Slugger O'Toole blog. AFAIK, Slugger is not a reliable source, and therefore there is currently no basis for this section to remain in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In my mind, the problem isn't with the section being there, it's with the terminology. Whether it's accurate or not, Slugger O'Toole and others have accused the party of "racism". The section originally said "sectarianism" too, but I removed that since religion wasn't involved. Perhaps we could remove "racism" altogether and simply say "the party caused controversy" ?
~Asarlaí 13:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole is a blog and therefore not a RS as I understand it. If there is a reliable source that says the party caused controversy or was racist or sectarian, then fine (although I'm not sure it is particular notable). So far none has been provided. Mooretwin (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If nobody cared about the remark then the story wouldn't have been in the papers, on news websites, on blogs, on forums, etc. A quick Google search will show that. ~Asarlaí 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the reliable source to say that a controversy was caused? And there is no reliable source about unionists setting up a Facebook page to insult Irish speakers. Please remove this. Mooretwin (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[2][3][4][5][6][7].

Again, we don't need reliable sources saying the exact words "the TUV caused controversy". The fact that people were angry and the story was covered by numerous papers/news websites/blogs etc, is evidence enough. We don't need reliable sources saying "unionists setup a Facebook page to insult Irish speakers" – the page is (or was) there for all to see. ~Asarlaí 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The first source doesn't mention the language thing, and the last one is a blog, but the others seem fine. So the controversy remark seems fine but you need to remove the Facebook reference as there is no secondary source to support what is said. Linking to the site itself is insufficient. Mooretwin (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

The first two paragraphs seem relevant enough to the party as a whole. I can't see the relevance of the last two though. The third involves a party member speaking in an individual capacity on a blog, a story which only attracted mention in a single local news story... how does that minor news story relate to the party as a whole? The fourth is pure coatracking. All parties will have members and councillors who break the law including sexual abuse cases but generally if you look at articles on similar parties per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS we don't include those stories. There is (rightly) nothing in the Sinn Fein article about this minor news story nor in the Labour Party article about convicted paedophile and 2010 parliamentary candidate Manish Sood for example. I could see a case for "controversy" and thus inclusion, if TUV had defended Tweed in some way, but according to the news story, they suspended him pending the formalities of expelling him, thus any controversy attaches to Tweed himself, not the party. Valenciano (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The TUV is a tiny party with very few elected representatives. It chose to put up as a candidate for Ballymena Council a very well known public figure who had convictions for assault and drink-driving, and had been charged and acquitted in 2009 of child sex abuse. After his election this man was convicted on separate charges of child sex abuse. (As it happens, Tweed's running mate when first elected to Ballymena Council for the UUCP, William Wilkinson, has been jailed for rape; he never joined the TUV but his politics were pretty close to it.) The TUV reaction to Tweed's conviction merely "notes the conviction of Cllr David Tweed of offences relating to a period long before he was a member of this party" (http://www.belfastdaily.co.uk/2012/11/29/orange-order-expels-convicted-sex-offender-davy-tweed/). This is the sort of stuff that people wanting to know what the TUV is like need to read. As for the David Vance para, it is also relevant and stood in the article for a long time before Valenciano, for whatever reason, decided to remove it.Brocach (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding 2009, if a person is acquitted of a crime then they are, by definition, presumed innocent. Hard to see the "controversy" in putting someone up for election who has been tried and found not guilty. In total I can't see the relevance of either that or the Wilkinson situation other than an attempt to smear the party by adding in "guilt by association" stories. Northern Ireland parties from all over the spectrum are full of people who have been convicted and done lengthy prison time for stuff a hell of a lot more serious than drink driving and assault, yet, in their relevant articles, we don't have a bulletpoint list of those in the relevant party's articles. Why the difference here other than to make a point? The TUV statement in the article you link incidentally goes behind merely noting that, to saying that he has been suspended and implies that the party is waiting for the result of his legal appeal before expelling him. Again, any controversy here attaches to Tweed, not the TUV. Thus it should be removed per WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE. Most of the Vance story is sourced to Twitter and 2 blogs, none of them reliable sources. The only one that is, The Belfast Telegraph, provides a minor news story of no apparent lasting significance and at no point in time does it suggest that he was acting in anything other than a personal capacity, so I'll ask again, what is the relevance of that to the TUV? Valenciano (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Tweed had convictions for assault and drink-driving, and had as you say been acquitted of sex offences against children, before the TUV ran him for election in 2011, while he was still under police investigation for a series of sex assaults against children, resulting in a further acquittal and his eventual conviction on multiple charges. I can't think of any other political party, anywhere, that has run a candidate in comparable circumstances, so I think that the information is highly relevant to the TUV article. These are not matters private to Tweed: they reflect on the TUV. As for the Vance para, it is supported by four references; the only Twitter link is to Vance's own comment, so it is hardly an unreliable or irrelevant source. Vance was at the time one of the most prominent TUV voices, and was making public comment on political matters while preparing to run for election as a TUV candidate, so again, controversy attracted by him attached to the TUV. I just don't see why you would want to remove from a piece about the TUV two accurate and sourced references to two of its (then) most prominent public figures. Brocach (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, both Unionist and Nationalist parties in Northern Ireland have run candidates convicted and jailed for offences much worse. Some would argue that running a candidate who spent 15 years in jail for shooting someone in the back of the head is a bit more serious than running one convicted of drink driving. Either way though it is still WP:UNDUE weight... if you could come up with sources showing that them running him in 2011 was controversial I'd be a bit more convinced of the need for its inclusion, without such sources, it does seem like coatracking and it's largely your own opinion that them running him was controversial. Regarding Vance I've removed part of that, since a self published blog like sluggerotoole is not a reliable source. The Vance story remains a minor news story (politician attacks another politician) and without evidence that that news story had any lasting significance, it shouldn't be in, again per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS, particularly since he wasn't acting in a private capacity, not as a TUV spokesman at the time. Valenciano (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Still tilting at windmills, V... I nowhere said that it was "controversial" that the TUV ran Tweed as a candidate in 2011; that was generally regarded as a decision for the TUV alone and no reasonable person would challenge the right of a political party to choose the most appropriate person to represent its values. The controversy arises from the subsequent court verdict that proved that one of the TUV's handful of elected representatives was a serial-offender paedophile, in addition to what the TUV already knew about his having been guilty of assault and drink-driving when it selected him as its candidate. Could I gently suggest that you drop your campaign to expunge reference to Tweed from the TUV article? Brocach (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's controversial for Tweed, but not for the TUV, since there's no suggestion that they have acted improperly. Can you name other political party articles which give such WP:UNDUE weight to such stories? Is the Manish Sood controversy in the Labour Party article? Why not? I mean by your argument we should be adding the Tweed case to the Ireland rugby team article as well, since he had the drink driving convictions then and subsequently did something wrong (even though it was unrelated to his membership of that team.) I notice you still haven't explained why the minor news story involving Vance is relevant given that there appears no lasting impact? Valenciano (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the Labour Party in Great Britain has quite a few elected representatives. If one-seventh of their number were suddenly convicted of child sex abuse, that would probably merit a mention. Whether the TUV acted improperly in relation to Tweed is a matter that I am happy for others to judge; the article only needs to give the key facts. Brocach (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

We're going round in circles here, which is why I did take the first step in dispute resolution. Relative numbers don't come into it. WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK apply. I also note that you still haven't explained why the very minor news story about Vance is included (any more than you've explained why shooting someone in the back of the head is less serious than drink driving) ? You still haven't provided evidence that there was any lasting significance to the Vance story to make it an exception to WP:NOTNEWS. Regarding Tweed, no, it isn't simply a case of adding anything to the article and then "leaving it to others to judge", particularly when the stated agenda is to show "what the TUV is like", reliable sources need to be produced showing that this affects the TUV and is a controversy for them, not for Tweed. Are you going to produce those? Valenciano (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Produced. Brocach (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

((deindent)) that ref doesn't mention Vance. Nor does it say anything about TUV's selection of Tweed being controversial. So I'll remove the Vance thing, as you've been given 2 opportunities to prove that it's an exception to WP:NOTNEWS and have failed to do so. Valenciano (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Asarlaí. I'd like to take up your offer of a WP:BRD cycle on the subject of the reviews which we made on the 17th February 2023 to the Controversies section of the Wiki page on the Traditional Unionist Voice political party. To start the discussion, can you give me a couple of examples from my edits that you found to contain unnecessary detail, or which didn't match what the sources say? In that way, I can get a sense of how your perspective on the four items concerned differs from my own. BrownBowler (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

BrownBowler, the main issue was the bit about Bloody Sunday. The source says the following: The video – uploaded on the YouTube account of former TUV councillor Jolene Bunting – shows Mr Ross speaking to a crowd in 2019, where he states: "One Para, and I make no apology for saying it, carried out a very successful operation". John Ross wasn't quoting anyone. These are his own words and opinions, which is clear from watching the video. Your re-wording said that Ross had been "referencing a quote by a member of the Parachute regiment". This is mistaken. The source actually says In a later part of the video, Mr Ross referenced Ulster Unionist leader Doug Beattie, who criticised a television interview given by another paratrooper in which the soldier described Bloody Sunday as: "A good operation, a job well done. They all came out alive." So, later in his speech, Ross attacks Doug Beattie for criticizing a paratrooper. But Ross himself doesn't say Bloody Sunday was "successful" because the soldiers "came out alive". He simply says it was "successful".

As for Davy Tweed: the only thing relevant to this article is him being a TUV councillor. There's no need to list the past rugby teams he played for, which is dealt with on his own article.

The rest of my reverts were simply trimming wordiness and unneeded detail. Examples are "assault on two sisters in Coleraine"..."As a result of this new conviction for assault"..."In relation to his conviction". We should try to be as concise as possible, keeping only what's relevant and important. – Asarrlaí ^(talk) 12:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Asarlai, thanks for coming back and giving me these examples: I now have an idea of your perspective.

I have a few things I'd like to discuss with you about each of the four paragraphs but let's take the Davy Tweed one first, since it's come up.

The most significant aspect of Davy Tweed's persona, to the public, was not that he was a councillor but that he was a big, burly somewhat gruff guy who played a rough sport at the highest level. It is probably the key, biographical detail of his life. Even the Belfast Telegraph article on his trial which is provided as a reference source is entitled "Former Irish rugby international David Tweed guilty of child sex abuse". And the prosecutor at his trial for child sex offences stated (according to the same newspaper article) that: "He was a big, powerful man, charisma, sporting prowess - the perfect veil to hide behind and the ultimate in living a lie." So, that aspect of Davy Tweed's life is relevant to his trial and is of interest to the general public (which, of course, includes Wikipedia readers, even if many of them have no idea about the sport of rugby union.) Any newspaper report about someone who is a sportsman or woman who gets into trouble begins along the lines of: "top footballer Mr X....". Also, one of the features of using an encyclopedia, especially one like Wikipedia, is that you can easily link off into other subjects as they take your interest: encyclopedia, of course, basically means "all round knowledge" and that's one of the pleasures of using it. His membership of the Traditional Unionist Voice party is relevant in the context of controversies associated with that political party but any mention of the man should surely contain the few words "former Ulster and Irish rugby international":- those facts are essential to understanding the man, why require someone to discover them by going to another page?

One more thing on the Davy Tweed paragraph. The edit I made to this paragraph ended with a straight quote from another of the reference sources, viz."David Tweed's conviction was overturned in October 2016 after a challenge by his lawyers on the grounds that there were "flaws in how bad character evidence was put before the jury" at his original trial.""

Your edit replaced that with the following: "David Tweed's conviction was overturned in 2016 due to flaws in bad character evidence". Which might mean that 'bad characters gave evidence which had flaws' or that 'evidence about bad characters had flaws'. In fact, what I think the lawyers meant was that some of the evidence at the trial, which suggested that Tweed was of bad character, was flawed but even the original source is a bit vague, however I think my original edit contains less ambiguity than your revision.

By the way, the sub-heading to the latter source article begins with the phrase "Former Ulster and Ireland rugby player David Tweed...". BrownBowler (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

BrownBowler, thanks for your detailed explanation. I've re-added your proposed wording. – Asarrlaí ^(talk) 11:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Asarlaí.

I took a look and I think your new version is a good compromise between our different versions (I'd have preferred mention of his Ulster rugby representation too, but can't have everything.) I'm going to spend some time looking at the Wikipedia Manual Of Style WP:MOS before moving on to the thorny issue of the Bloody Sunday comments. As and when I've some contribution to make on that one I'll get in touch via your User page. Regards. BrownBowler. BrownBowler (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem, BrownBowler. However, it would be better continuing the discussion here so that more editors can see it and get involved. – Asarrlaí ^(talk) 14:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, again Asarlaí.

I've a few suggestions regarding the paragraph on the controversy over the description of the parachute regiment's actions on Bloody Sunday as a "successful operation". I've read your remarks dated (12:54, 20 February 2023) above and tried to accommodate that viewpoint in my response.

In an effort to make the discussion easy for other editors to follow, I'd like to start a new thread below in order to discuss this one. Hopefully, that format's ok by you (if not, we can agree on an alternative.) BrownBowler (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Asarlaí, here's my thinking regarding the paragraph on the controversy over the description of the parachute regiment's actions on Bloody Sunday as a "successful operation".

The Bloody Sunday Trust is a charity that campaigns on and commemorates Bloody Sunday. They are mentioned at the very end of the edit but only by name. Since they are one of the two protagonists in the controversy (the other being the Traditional Unionist Voice political party), I think we could provide the reader with some background. Here's a link which might help source.

The only other thing which struck me on re-reading the edit was the question: why was Mr Ross protesting outside the BBC offices in Belfast in 2019 and why was he speaking about Bloody Sunday? The current referenced source article source doesn't tell me either of those things. Since it's the start point of the controversy, I looked on the internet to try to find what it was about. In the end, I discovered that it wasn't a protest by the Traditional Unionist Voice (see source). It was part of a protest at BBC offices in several UK cities by British Army veterans complaining that the BBC wasn't representing fairly their version of events during the Troubles. I think the reader ought to be allowed to know why Mr Ross was speaking about Bloody Sunday and that he did so at a protest organised by British Military veterans, not by the Traditional Unionist Voice party.

The only other remark I have concerns style (I've been reading the Wikipedia Manual of Style WP:MOS.) Since Bloody Sunday is such an emotive subject, it strikes me that the Manual Of Style's Principle-of-Minimal-Change is good guidance viz. ("wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change". And also the guidance on 'Words to Watch' MOS:WTW and 'Words to Avoid' WP:NPOV.

In respect of the above, here's an effort to preserve what you've already contributed and also to integrate the notes above. I'm conscious of the need to be concise in these edits and avoid unnecesary detail, so I've tried my best to respect those considerations too.

In August 2021, the TUV defended its prospective Assembly candidate for East Belfast, Mr John Ross, against criticism from the Bloody Sunday Trust source, a Derry-based charity which seeks to preserve the legacy of the events of Bloody Sunday in which fourteen unarmed Catholic civilians were shot dead by the Parachute Regiment.

In April 2019, Mr Ross had said, in relation to Bloody Sunday: "One Para, and I make no apology for saying it, carried out a very successful operation.” in a speech he gave outside BBC offices in Belfast as part of UK-wide protests by British Army veterans complaining that the BBC wasn't presenting fairly their version of events during the Troubles. source

The chair of the Bloody Sunday Trust said: "Bloody Sunday has been the subject of a meticulous public inquiry which found that all those killed and wounded were innocent" and that "I would like to ask Mr Ross and Mr Allister which part of the military operation on Bloody Sunday was successful and what was good about it?” and he asked the TUV to re-consider whether Mr Ross was a suitable candidate for election.

The TUV responded to the criticism by saying that Mr Ross's words had been taken out of context and that he would remain their candidate.

BrownBowler (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

BrownBowler, I've added the important extra details, as you suggested. I've left out some of the less-relevant detail for the sake of conciseness and to avoid straying too much from the topic. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, Asarlaí.

I have only a couple of remarks on this new version of the paragraph.

Regarding style; the beginning of the final sentence seems jarring to me. Normally, a sentence beginning e.g. "He said..." would be followed by "He also said", rather than the use of "He said..." again. Can we begin that final sentence with "They also said that..."? I agree, it's a bit longer than "It said" but it's also less curt and it flows more naturally from the preceding sentence.

On the subject of what Mr Ross was doing, at a protest, talking about the Parachute Regiment's operation on Bloody Sunday, you've done quite a bit of trimming of my suggested sentence (which was a long sentence, admittedly).

I had proposed:

"In April 2019, Mr Ross had said, in relation to Bloody Sunday: "One Para, and I make no apology for saying it, carried out a very successful operation.” in a speech he gave outside BBC offices in Belfast as part of UK-wide protests by British Army veterans complaining that the BBC wasn't presenting fairly their version of events during the Troubles."

Which has been trimmed to:

"In April 2019, while addressing a protest for British Army veterans (part of wider protests), Mr Ross had called Bloody Sunday "a very successful operation" by the paratroopers."

For me, the parenthesised phrase "(part of wider protests)" is ambiguous. Does it mean geographically wider? Or that subjects other than the Parachute Regiment's actions on Bloody Sunday were being raised at these protests? Should the reader have to refer to the source in order to discover what these British Army Veterans were protesting about and why their protests were targetted at the BBC?

My reason for proposing, in the first place, that this bit about the British Army Veterans protests be included in the paragraph was to provide context to Mr Ross's "very successful operation" quote. In previous versions of this particular paragraph the reader was told that the Traditional Unionist Voice party weren't going to de-select Mr Ross because they thought his words had been "taken out of context" but there was no explanation of what they meant by that. I thought to myself "How come? What was the context?" and hence, I took a look.

In summary, I'd like to ask you to consider whether we ought to re-instate the following "in a speech he gave outside BBC offices in Belfast as part of UK-wide protests by British Army veterans complaining that the BBC wasn't presenting fairly their version of events during the Troubles." and dispense with "((part of wider protests))". The aim of this is to give the reader enough information to be able to appraise both sides of the controversy for themself.

I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on the above and hopefully we can continue the discussion then.

Regards BrownBowler (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I've added a brief explanation of what the wider protests were about, based on what your source says. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, again Asarlaí.

Thanks once again for taking the time to amend the paragraph.

I've a suggestion regarding the use of the phrase

"prosecution of British soldiers involved in the Troubles".

The source article uses instead:

"prosecution of former British soldiers who served in Northern Ireland."

A brief survey on the internet as to how these prosecutions are most commonly referred to throws up

"Troubles prosecutions"

or

"Troubles-related prosecutions".

I think the latter may make more sense to readers outside of the UK and Ireland.

The phrase

"British soldiers involved in the Troubles"

doesn't seem to be in such common usage - I haven't managed to find a direct

match to it during my internet searches.

My Oxford English Dictionary tells me that "involved in" can be used instead of "implicate (person in charge, crime etc)"; so perhaps it's seen as 'loaded language' and not so commonly used in this context.

Regards BrownBowler (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

BrownBowler, I think "protests against Troubles-related prosecutions of former British soldiers" works fine. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 19:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Asarlaí.

OK, I'll change it to that then.

One more small thing (the last thing I can think of) is the second to last line : "The TUV replied that there had been "various conflicting judicial findings"". That might be grammatically improved by adding that they were findings about Bloody Sunday. The sentence then makes sense in its own right without the reader needing to assume that they were findings about Bloody Sunday. For readers with weak English the clarification may be of use. BrownBowler (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Replying to myself: since no-one has raised any objections, I'll add the qualification "about Bloody Sunday" to this sentence - as proposed above. BrownBowler (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Asarlaí, in the paragraph about Ms Bunting and sectarian comments by her, is the date correct? The source given indicates she resigned from the TUV party in February 2017. If it needs changing, do you want to do that? I'm happy to amend, if necessary. BrownBowler (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Replying to myself again: since no-one seems to have any comment on the above, I'll assume the date is wrong and change it from "2018" to "2017". BrownBowler (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Asarlaí. One final remark on the paragraph about the Bunting controversy. The outcome of the controversy is dealt with, somewhat cursorily, in a single sentence at the end of the paragraph. That sentence prefers the phrase "preventing her standing" (not used in the source article nor, it would seem, in Ms Bunting's resignation announcement on Facebook) rather than what she actually announced when explaining her resignation from the TUV, i.e. that TUV party officials would not allow her to stand again for election as a TUV party candidate in North Belfast. The current edit also doesn't give the TUV party's statement regarding their decision not to re-select her as their candidate. With all that in mind, I'd like to propose amending the final sentence from:

"In 2017, Bunting left the TUV, after claiming the party were preventing her standing as an Assembly candidate due to the earlier controversy."

to

"In 2017, Bunting resigned from the TUV, claiming that party officials would not allow her to stand again for the party in North Belfast because of these past sectarian posts. The TUV issued a statement saying that to give its candidates the "best change of success" the party must "take tough decisions". Ms Bunting remained on Belfast City council as an Independent member until the 2019 Belfast City Council election when, standing this time as an Independent candidate, she received 3% of first preference votes and was not re-elected to the council."

I think that might help to give balance to the paragraph in respective of the different parties to the controversy. BrownBowler (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Since no-one's responded to the above proposed amendment to this part of the Controversies paragraph, I'll go ahead and make it. If anyone subsequently does take issue with it, then please come here first to discuss and reach consensus. BrownBowler (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello again Asarlaí. I've been thinking about the edit concerning the controversy over their 2009 press release about the Irish language. Here, are a few observations. If you have any further thoughts on the topic then please reply below.

MOS:REDUNDANCY advises us to "Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence", so maybe we don't need to begin with "the TUV caused controversy", given that this is the "Controversies" section.

The following is a pedantic point but, to be accurate, the press release (still viewable on the Flickr application) doesn't refer to a figure of £47,000. Mr Harbinson is quoted in the source material (an unattributed article from BBC News) as referring to that particular figure but it isn't mentioned in the press release which instead says "spending on Irish translation increased by more than 350% in the Department of Education over the past year".

As editors, I think we're obliged to be particularly careful to respect the reputations of living people - source yet, the fact that Mr Harbinson disavowed the use of the word leprechaun and that the TUV acknowledged it didn't come from him but from an unnamed employee isn't mentioned in the edit.

The edit relates that "the amended press release was posted on their website" but doesn't tell us what the amended press release was - in fact they appear to have amended the title of the press release to "TUV Blast Irish Language Waste", so it would probably be logical to either tell the reader that fact or, alternatively, to use the indefinite rather than the definite article e.g. "an amended press release was posted on their website".

Also, for readers who are not from Ireland, it would probably be helpful to qualify the phrase "Irish translation" with something more explanatory such as "translation from english into the Irish language".

Regards BrownBowler (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

BrownBowler, I have no issue with making the changes you suggest. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone else has any suggestions on this topic. I'm aware that it's a sensitive subject in Northern Ireland and that a lot of time has passed since they issued this press release. BrownBowler (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

For discussion of an edit to the paragraph "Controversies section". The edit was made in April 2024 by the editor Athousandcuts2005. I think the edit should be removed in its entirety due to shortcomings regarding WP:NPOV and WP:V.

The content of the edit is as follows: "In 2010, the party distanced itself from Ann Cooper, who had run as a TUV candidate in the Castlereagh Council by-election brought about by the resignation of Iris Robinson.[67] Cooper expressed support for seven men who had been sacked for deliberately underpaying ethnic minority staff at a Belfast call centre.[67] She tweeted, "Well done lads. Sorry you got caught. You deserve a medal. We need more like you".[67] A spokesman for the TUV said that Cooper did not speak on behalf of the party.[67] "

Here is the newspaper source cited in the edit.

If Athousandcuts2005 (or anyone else) has any opinion on the following then I'd be happy to discuss.

As a reminder, here is what Wikipedia expects from editors regarding Neutral Point of View:

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies.

And also:

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.

Here's why I think the edit doesn't convey the information contained in the cited source "fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias":

The source article (dated 20 August 2010, from The Belfast Telegraph, which is a tabloid newspaper based in Belfast, Northern Ireland) concerns someone called Ann Cooper, who stood as a candidate in a By-election in May 2010 in Northern Ireland for a political party called Traditional Unionist Voice. According to the source article, Ann Cooper had posted a Tweet of a racist or xenophobic nature. The edit recounts clearly and precisely what the source tells us about the content of that Tweet and its context. On the other hand, the edit curtails significantly the TUV response to the controversy and omits entirely the important fact that, at the time the source article was written, Cooper was no longer a member of the TUV.

For comparison:

Here is what the edit tells us: "In 2010, the party distanced itself from Ann Cooper......A spokesman for the TUV said that Cooper did not speak on behalf of the party."

But here is what the source article tells us:

"A TUV spokesman stated: “TUV can confirm Ann Cooper is no longer a member of the party. Anything she says she says as a private citizen.”"

and

"She told the BBC yesterday she had left the TUV party last month “because my views are very strong and I didn't want to embarrass the party or Mr Allister”."

and

"Ms Cooper's Twitter account states: “Any views posted on this site are my views and are in no way connected to the TUV.”"

So, the edit fails to mention the fact that Ann Cooper was no longer a member of the TUV at the time the source article was written (on 20 August 2010) and that she had posted the Tweet on a personal Twitter account which stated that her views were her own and not the TUV's.

Apart from my NPOV reservation regarding the edit, I think there is also a problem regarding Verifiability WP:V of the source article in relation to this controversy because it fails to tell the reader when precisely Ann Cooper sent her controversial Tweet. Did she send it when she was still a member of the TUV? Or did she send it after she had left the TUV? Obviously, if the latter is true then it is unreasonable to claim that the TUV should take any responsibility for Ann Cooper's personal opinions or actions. So, I think it was remiss of the Belfast Telegraph journalist to neglect to give that information in his article. And yet, he had that piece of information available to him; we know that because he references an article on the BBC website, also concerning Ann Cooper's Tweet. This BBC article is dated 19 August 2010 and informs us that Ann Cooper made the Tweet on "Wednesday" (the 18th of August 2010), i.e. after she had left the TUV in July 2010. Here is that BBC article. The same BBC article also contains the following quote (omitted by the Belfast Telegraph journalist in his version of the controversy) "Referring to her Twitter remarks, TUV party leader Jim Allister said: "I don't endorse those comments."

In conclusion, Ann Cooper posted this Tweet on the 18 August 2010 on her personal Twitter account, having left the TUV in July 2010. Her Twitter account included a disclaimer, disassociating the TUV from her own opinions, and the TUV said that she was no longer a member of their party, her opinions were her own and they did not endorse them. Also, the Belfast Telegraph source cited fails to give perhaps the most important fact in the story - that Ann Cooper's Tweet was made after she left the TUV, so she made it as a private individual.

Please bear in mind the following guidleline in Wikipedia WP:V "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups..... . You should also be aware of how Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to groups." BrownBowler (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Replying to myself, since no-one else has replied: for the reasons stated above, i.e. WP:NPOV and WP:V, I intend to remove this edit entirely. BrownBowler (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Political Position

This is for discussion of the Traditional Unionist Voice party's position on the political spectrum from left to right. The long-standing description was that of "Right-wing". BrownBowler (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you want? I gave you very good references. If you give a second, I can get so much more references. Monito rapido (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not a question of what "I" want, Monito rapido. It's a question of providing proper, reliable, accessible references which back up your claim that the Traditional Unionist Voice is a "far right" party.

So far, you've provided an opinion piece from an Irish online source, a source from Le Monde which I can't access without paying for and an academic paper with just over 1000 views which appears to be Primary Research and not reviewed. Can you provide a single reliable, widely accessible source (preferably one from the UK or Ireland) which describes the Traditional Unionist Voice as "far-right" - not "Hard right" but "Far Right". To my knowledge, none of the main UK or Irish media have ever described them as "far-right". Therefore, I think your edit is unsupported. BrownBowler (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

First we have to understand that hard-right is the same as extreme right, something that all the dictionaries in the world say. I attach examples:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hard-right

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/es/diccionario/ingles-espanol/the-hard-right

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hard+right

https://educalingo.com/en/dic-en/hard-right

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hard%20right

Second, it is not my problem that you cannot access the reference which refers to the party as "a hard-right organization" as well as an extreme right. Monito rapido (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Monito rapido, you refer to a source which is behind a paywall at Le Monde, then refuse to give me the full quote from the article?

As to the use of the terms "hard-right" and "far-right", I'll repeat the question which you have not replied to - Can you provide a single reliable, widely accessible source (preferably one from the UK or Ireland) which describes the Traditional Unionist Voice as "far-right".

Are you familiar with the important principle in Wikipedia called the Principle of Minimum Change MOS:PMC which states that "wording of the quoted text must be faithfully reproduced". Is there a category of "hard-right" Political Position in Wikipedia? BrownBowler (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/adams-hits-out-at-dup-failure/30355926.html

There is the Irish source. Monito rapido (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Monito rapido, please see my reply to your comment "Here is another source" for my reply on this source. BrownBowler (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not complicated, you have to search in quotes for the Traditional Unionist Voice and on the other hand in quotes for hard-right and it is one of the first options that appears in the search where it says that it is "a hard-right grouping." Monito rapido (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Monito rapido, are you telling me that you haven't actually read the Le Monde article but that it appeared as part of a search list in response to a Google search enquiry of "Traditional Unionist Voice" + "hard-right"? Have you read the full article? BrownBowler (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is another source.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/adams-hits-out-at-dup-failure/30355926.html Monito rapido (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Monito rapido. This article does contain the phrase "but were being challenged by those on the more extreme right like the Traditional Unionist Voice and UKIP". However, this is an assertion made by Gerry Adams in a speech during an Irish Republican gathering near Dublin not, I think, an assertion by the author of the article.

The article begins with the following phrase "The Sinn Fein president blamed the challenge from those on the "extreme right" of unionism opposed to concessions and said the party's partners in government at Stormont had failed to face down so-called rejectionists." NB, "extreme right" is placed in quote marks by the author, indicating that they were Mr Adams' precise words, not the author's.

Now, Gerry Adams is a very controversial figure and, in relation to Northern Irish politics, he is totally partisan and not an impartial observer. He is very antipathetic to Unionism and, on the other side, the Traditional Unionist Voice are very antipathetic to him and refuse to deal with Sinn Fein because they consider them to be very close to the Provisional IRA.

So, this is an article reporting the words of a hardline Irish Republican politician. The journalist has merely recounted what Mr Adams has said about the Traditional Unionist Voice and UKIP. It is Mr Adams who has used the phrase "extreme right". Just because Mr Adams has that opinion of them doesn't make it a fact. Thus, although the Belfast Telegraph is often considered to be a fairly reliable source on matters related to Northern Ireland, in this case you are again presenting opinion (that of Mr Adams) as fact. BrownBowler (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

For the record, Monito rapido has now been blocked by Wikipedia Admin for the following reason: "Registered shortly after CulturalHuya and AmigodeMassa were blocked, exhibits precisely the same type of editing, with focus on far-right politics. Like master, seems to use Spanish language. Technical competence from first edit, continued to edit the same articles as master and socks. BrownBowler (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Our current citation doesn't specifically say TUV is a right-wing party, but on the right of the DUP, another very right-wing party. I am thinking of changing the position to "hard-right", based on the Le Monde article. Far-right is a stronger term and I agree it requires its own source. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, HansVonStuttgart.

Thanks for taking care of that vandalism to the article. Unfortunately, vandalism is a recurrent problem in this article.

I note that you're pondering a change to the political position given for the Traditional Unionist Voice party from "Right Wing" to "Hard Right". The article already notes that some journalists consider the TUV to be "more hardline" than other Unionist parties in Northern Ireland. In my view, in describing the TUV that way, they are referring to two facets of the party's political programme. Firstly, to the TUV's adamantine refusal to deal with Sinn Fein with whom all other Unionist parties are prepared to deal. And secondly, because of the TUV's socially conservative posture with respect to the totemic issues of Abortion and Homosexual Marriage. So, the first difference is specific to Northern Ireland's very particular Unionist/Nationalist split, which in itself has little to do with either right wing or left wing politics. And the second difference is that the TUV has views on social issues which are quite close to those of, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church and the more fundamental Protestant Churches; so that could be considered a right-wing stance but if it's a "hard right" stance then the Roman Catholic Church might be described thus too.

Another difficulty with the use of the term "Hard Right" is that it doesn't seem to have a clear definition. It seems to be used by some journalists as a euphemism for "Far Right" and by others as a yardstick of how doctrinaire certain members of any right wing party are. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on either "Hard Right" or "Hard Left" but has one on each of "Far Right" and "Far Left". So there's the question of just what "Hard Right" actually means objectively.

The following website is perhaps not definitive on political classifications but it is credible and long-standing: Wolfram Nordsiek, Parties and Elections in Europe.

Also, here is a link to all of the election manifestos of Northern Irish parties over the last 20 years or so Ulster University, Conflict and Politics in Northern Ireland.

I can't see anything in the TUV manifestos that merits a label of other than right-wing and socially conservative.

Also, you describe the DUP as "another very right wing party". They are reputed to be very socially conservative but in fact have at least one councillor who is in a gay marriage. Not many other Northern Irish parties can say that. Also, they have always been reputed, even since the Ian Paisley days, of being very pro government subsidy and creation of jobs via public money. Whether they are truly right wing in their economic stance is debatable, although they would say they are pro-business. So, I wouldn't call them "very right wing". Again, you can take a look at their manifestos via the link above (I don't think they mention either abortion or gay marriage, even going back to their 1997 manifesto).

Do you have the content of that Le Monde article? It requires a subscription and I'm not a subscriber to it. BrownBowler (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The Le Monde article calls them a "hard-right formation" IIRC. It also says the most extreme unionists started voting for them instead of the DUP. We don't need to comment on if unionism is right-wing or not even though I believe it is seen that way, at least outside Ireland.

My view is that it is useful for a reader to see that they are considered more on the right than other parties in the same legislature. That's what infoboxes are for, isn't it? RS seem to say hard right, and making decisions based on our own analysis of their political platform would be OR. (Edited to add: you can view Le Monde articles using a certain archiving website with an Icelandic TLD, but I don't know if it's okay to link to it on Wikipedia.) HansVonStuttgart (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

HansVonStuttgart, thanks for coming back so promptly. I think I understand where you are coming from.

Would you help me by explaining some of the abbreviations that you use in your reply, please?

What do "IIRC", "RS", "OR" and "TLD" mean? I'm not familiar with them in day-to-day usage. BrownBowler (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

IIRC = If I remember correctly.

RS = WP:RS

OR = WP:OR

TLD = top-level domain. Valenciano (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Valenciano. BrownBowler (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, for some reason I thought those Wiki-abbreviations were already linked above. :) HansVonStuttgart (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, HansVonStuttgart.

You say that, so far as you can recall, the Le Monde International article cited by editor Monito rapido, viz. citation offered by Monito Rapido to support far-right/hard-right assertion contains the phrases "hard-right formation" and says that "most extreme unionists started voting for them instead of the DUP.".

As I've already said above, much of this article is behind a paywall and I'm not very computer savvy so I doubt I'd be capable of making use of your suggestion about an "Icelandic TLD". If you've got access to the citation, can you reproduce here the actual paragraph from it containing these two assertions. I asked Monito rapido twice for this but they either couldn't or wouldn't oblige. Since it's the only citation so far provided to back up the "far-right/hard-right" case, I think it's reasonable to ask for this. BrownBowler (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Message to all editors to remember and follow WP:SYNTH. If a claim such as "far-right" is going to be added to this page the source must clearly and explicitly call this party specifically "far-right" not "hard-right" or any other term, no matter how similar people might think other terms are in regards to meanings. SYNTH applies across Wikipedia and should be remembered and kept to. Please only use sources for what they explicitly state. Helper201 (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Traditional Unionist Voice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080309073914/http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk:80/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?frmGB=0 to http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?frmGB=0&frmPartyID=800&frmType=partydetail

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Traditional Unionist Voice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605043722/http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=69467 to http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=69467
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jimallister.org/default.asp?blogID=864
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221170749/http://www.banbridge.com:80/home.asp to http://www.banbridge.com/home.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721205152/http://www.eoni.org.uk/dromore_result.pdf to http://www.eoni.org.uk/dromore_result.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111025193900/http://www.tuv.org.uk/press-releases/view/671/thank-you-to-tuv-voters-and-workers to http://www.tuv.org.uk/press-releases/view/671/thank-you-to-tuv-voters-and-workers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Traditional Unionist Voice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.banbridge.com/home.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721203915/http://www.eoni.org.uk/turnout_-_website-4.pdf to http://www.eoni.org.uk/turnout_-_website-4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 5 June 2017 (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)