Talk:Iris Robinson/Archive 1

Continued vandalism = counter-productive
Given controversy surrounding Robinson, this article has repeatedly been used as a platform for "hate campaigns", vandalism, etc. If this persists, the page will be locked from anon edits. I would point out to those who are trying to make a point with this type of editting that it will ultimately prove counter productive. For two reasons. Firstly, if this article is full of this kind of nonsense then readers will not be able to distinguish between the flames and the legitimate commentary, reaction and fallout from Robinson's "extremist" views. And secondly, the page will be locked for anons, and subsequent any MEASURED edits by anons on this issue will not be accepted. Again hampering your "cause". And finally, for those "editors" who have vandalised my user page because of a perceived support of Robinson, I would point out that I am not a supporter of any of Robinsons views (politically, ideologically or otherwise). Far from it in fact. I am however a supporter of the mores of this project in terms of WP:LIBEL, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, etc. Guliolopez (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Petition removed
Anyone can set a petition up, why is this one significant? If a secondary source has covered it, then it may need to be included, otherwise it's thinly veiled spam. BigDunc Talk 17:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusion with Wikinews and Wikiquote
BigDunc recently tidied and summarised much of the "news" style content from this article. In doing so he/she removed some of the verbatim quotes and repeat (sometimes redundant) updates and follow-ups on the various controversies. Personally I think this is wholly appropriate under the "Wikipedia is not a news site" and related guidelines. Given that at least one other editor seems to disagree (and has reverted BigDunc's summarisation), this likely needs some discussion here. For my part, as much as I think some of Robinsons extremist views and comments need highlighting here, the constant addition of another 2 paragraphs every time she says something else outrageous (and someone subsequently reacts to that) is not appropriate. As noted, Wikipedia is not a news site. This article should impart that "Robinson has said and done some outrageous things, here are some examples and here are some reactions", without quoting every statement word for word. As BigDunc attempted to do. Guliolopez (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * well, having spent at least half an hour tracking down her latest gaffe to a proper Hansard reference, I was a bit saddened to see it chopped! As it was an example of wikipedia displaying greater rigour than the your typical newspaper. user:BigDunc cited WP:WEIGHT - if some "balance" can be brought to the article by citing some of Iris' postive achievements as a politician, by all means let's have them!--feline1 (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the information you added, I moved it into chronological order. Please check edits more carefully before blindly reverting, I invite you to self-revert. BigDunc  Talk 13:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresented by Hansard?
I'm wondering if the whole "misrepresented by Hansard" stuff should be pruned. Hansard is about as reputable a source as one can get, and Robinson's claim she had been "misrepresented" by it directly quoting her words was clearly bullshit of the highest order. Having several lines in the article about her claiming misrepresentation and Hansard refuting this seem pointless to me.--feline1 (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that the fact that she claimed to have been misrepresented by Hansard is significant in its own right, however if there is strong feeling otherwise, I will happily concur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andysjs (talk • contribs) 09:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But it's such a lame and improbable claim - although I suppose maybe that's why you think it was notable! But really, encyclopedias are about verifiable facts, not ludicrous disputations of verifiable facts...--feline1 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section - summarise or cleanup
As has been noted previously, while the ongoing public focus on Robinson and her views needs highlighting, the addition of an extra paragraph every time another column inch is printed, has led to the "controversy" section becoming way too long. And very very difficult to read.

It needs summarising. Ideally from the 10 or so current paragraphs. To about half that. Where the gist remains: "After man was attacked, Robinson said {"cure them" quote}. Other authorities and groups (including College of Psychiatrists/amnesty/SDLP/Sinn Féin/gay community/etc) reacted against these statements, and she was investigated under hate crime legislation. She later said {"viler than child abuse" quote}. She claimed this was misrepresented - though it wasn't. This led to an online petition which was promoted by groups such as amnesty/lib dems/labour party/etc. For these apparent breaches of the parliamentary code of conduct Robinson is a figure of considerable controversy, and her apparent bigotry has been widely decried."

And leave it at that. The details of when/where/who denounced her could be left to the refs. The current level of detail is too much.

Maybe it could be cleaned up without too much summarisation. But some kind of cleanup is required. Guliolopez (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and completed some of the summarisation mentioned above. I think the section is now a little easier to read, and the main points are still clear. As stated, the main focus was to summarise the references to Robinson's detractors (focusing on the orgs they represent rather than listing every single person by name and every quote verbatim). Have also summarised/paraphrased some other verbatim quotes. (So that message is retained, but the actual quoted statements are left to the refs to impart). As stated before, while I appreciate that the amount of coverage and the strength of the allegations is pretty overpowering, we need to be careful about ensuring a measure of NPOV is retained. And that this article doesn't become a onesided anti-Robinson soapbox. Hard as that might be given the subject(s), the project guidelines expect that we do our best to avoid defamation. Guliolopez (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Adultery
I'm interested in hearing views as to whether we should refer explicitly in the article to the word "adultery"? At the moment we don't, we just say that she had an extra-marital affair. However adultery has a particular resonance because of Robinson's strong personal religious views and could be of relevance to this article. She has reportedly sought forgiveness from her husband for having the affair. But just as significantly she speaks as a Christian about seeking forgiveness from God and being given a "second chance". As such she would not be seeking forgiveness of God for the affair, but rather for committing the sin of adultery. There is a distiction here which could benefit from being brought out and thus showing respect to Robinson's Christian beliefs. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I support extra marital affair, I imagine that is from the citation but whatever I like it, adulteress is a bit loaded imo, she may be a christian but I don't think we are required to use biblical expressions to portray her. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok - fair enough. Shame though as it would have been quiet poetic bearing in mind that Biblical quote: "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Contaldo80 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand that position, she did ought to turn down her rhetoric a bit. I prefer that don't throw the first stone story and prefer forgiveness to judgment. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have redirected the name of the individual to her personal life to prevent any immediate creation of a separate article now that his identity has been revealed. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  22:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good edit. Off2riorob (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed a passage quoting Robinson on Hilary Clinton's marital difficulties of some years ago. It was clearly included only to make a point. Philip Cross (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed it also. BigDunc  13:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Had she made any statements, prior to the affair being revealed, regarding adultery? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Retirement
"Robinson's intention to retire from elective office were brought forward in an announcement on 11 January 2010"

WERE brought forward TOMORROW? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.244.124 (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Irisgate
Editors of this bio will probably be interested in the article Irisgate that an editor has started on the scandal involving Robinson and her husband. Fences &amp;  Windows  02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for flagging. But do we need a separate article? I know there is a vogue for adding "gate" to everything but it says the same thing as the main Iris Robinson article. I'm just worried it all gets a bit messy. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thread at the BLP noticeboard
A thread has been opened at the BLPN regarding the balance of this article including the controversy section and the content regarding the subjects views on homosexuality, all involved parties are invited to comment there or here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * please do not just swiftly remove all someone else's previous edits without rationale so you can have the last say in the article before it goes to discussion. You are just edit warring. Vexorg (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed things a bit, with only minor loss of substance (and the "Pink News" bit was just a recycling of the Telegraph interview, so pretty useless and somewhat confusing duplication). Could be trimmed further, possibly - too much detail on the petitions, I think, considering they have so little meaning - could be reduced, maybe partially relegated to a footnote. Also, some of the sources need improving - dates, publication names, etc. Rd232 talk 22:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree - it was a bit too long. I've cut a bit more which seemed a bit peripheral while retaining the key points. Now that there is more to say on the financial issue and resignation, this section on sexuality is looking more of a reasonable length, where perviously it stood out a bit. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected
In view of the high-level of vandalism and WP:BLP violations on this page by anonymous IP editors, I have semi-protected it for three months, so that only established editors can edit it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Suicide attempt
The powerful Gay lobby brought their wrath to bear on Iris and destroyed her and indeed her husbands political career. She gave them the goods and they used it. Across the border in the Irish Republic,politicans and bankers never resign,they accept money from property developers all the time,the 50,000 that Iris Robinson got from her friends the property developers ,would only be petty cash to them. Iris is sorry for her greed and lust for young skin,to late,to late.

Article states "she issued a statement in which she admitted that she had attempted suicide" Given that no proof of this attempt has been offered or brought to light article should read "she issued a statement in which she claimed that she had attempted suicide" The date given for the alleged suicide bid was March 1st, curious then that Peter should have been cracking jokes across the floor of the chamber in Stourmont the following day isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.152.108 (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Has anyone said how she attempted suicide, where it happened, or whether it was a genuine wholeheated attempt to kill herself? She and her husband have stated it happened - is that enough to include her in Category:Politicans who attempted suicide? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Eamonn Mallie, Northern Irish journalist had an interview with Peter Robinson, the transcript of which is published on www.sluggerotoole.com, in which Peter the husband claims that the suicide attempt was drugs related and that he and what is understood to be his family attempted to remove the drugs from her body as best they could. The interview leaves unanswered many questions, in particular the involvement of qualified medical personnel in dealing with the alleged suicide attempt.


 * "The powerful Gay lobby brought their wrath to bear on Iris and destroyed her and indeed her husbands political career." What a load of emotive cobblers. The so-called "gay lobby", of which I am proud to be part, have been trying for the best part of a year to secure a prosecution of Robinson, because (and only because) of her homophobic remarks, and we have had little success. She would still be in position today were it not for her ill-judged affair with a teenager - and the various financial arrangements that allegedly ensued involving the two of them. Also, Northern Ireland is a separate political entity from the Republic (as the unionists constantly remind us all), and I am amazed that the unionists are now defending the behaviour of one of their own by comparison with that "papist" entity. It is known that, even in the 26 counties, there is a growing awareness of the type of corruption practised by the likes of Haughey, and now, allegedly, by Iris Robinson. Robinson can count herself unlucky that people are discussing her arrangement while she is still alive, something Charlie managed (more or less) to avoid. 87.112.13.220 (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The only evidence relating to this suicide attempt is the statement made by Peter Robinson. Are there any facts to back up this statement? A suicide attempt would normally involve some sort of self harm which would require hospital treatment. I believe that unless we have evidence to backup this statement then the phase "alleged" should be used. If no one has objection I will be changing it in the near future. Bjmullan (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Despite the fact that information about the alleged suicide attempt is extremely limited and thus far has not been independently corroborated, I think use of the word "alleged" is particularly provocative as it suggests a substantial contrary view which outside of tittle-tattle doesn't exist here - one would normally accord a person's claim legitimacy unless there was substantial reason to view otherwise.


 * I agree with the above comments and since my initial entry on this subject I now understand the Mrs Robinson was attended by two doctors at her home and also emitted into hospital. Bjmullan (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * References to a "gay lobby" are unsubstantiated and of a political nature. I would suggest that wikipedia is an inappropriate forum for such musings. Also worth checking your own spelling eg "to late" (sic). Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Was she admitted to hospital in early March, after the alleged suicide attempt? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Balance of opening section
I feel that the balance of the opening section of this article is wrongly weighted. The second sentence tells us the she is married to someone, surely she is her own person and this information could be moved further into the introduction. My take on the intro would be something like this (this is a rough draft)...
 * Iris Robinson (née Collins; born 6 September 1949) is a disgraced (former) Northern Ireland Unionist politician. Robinson describes herself as a born again Christian, and has publicly stated that "the government has the responsibility to uphold God's laws"; her expressed views on homosexuality caused controversy in 2008. In December 2009, she announced that she would leave politics and withdraw from public life following prolonged periods of mental illness. Robinson's extramarital affair with a 19 year old in 2008, revealed in January 2010, became connected with allegations of financial impropriety involving Robinson and her husband Peter Robinson, who temporarily stepped aside as First Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 11 January 2010..

What is other peoples' opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjmullan (talk • contribs) 09:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * as noted before, "disgraced" is a disgrace for an encyclopedia. Unless Robinson is legally convicted of a crime, the term is grossly inapproppriate and POV. Furthermore I reject the undue weight on her personal religious beliefs. Robinson's claim to fame is political, even though the two are hard to separate in the Northern Irish setting. Your intro's main purpose is denuciation. Wefa (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the disgrace piece, that was purely a cut & paste of the then current state of the article. What I'm trying to get across (badly?) is that the second sentence should be about HER and not her husband. As for the reason for her fame that is certainly one for debate! If I wanted to denounce her I would have put something straight into the article. What I am trying to do is stimulate debate in the hope the we improve the article.Bjmullan (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It was your own version you cut and paste here. And it was you yourself who three times now has tried to insert "disgraced" into the article, only to have it removed by a different author each time (one of them me). Just drop the disgraced thing and be done with it. As for the rest, feel free to explain why you think an accomplished politician of several decades should be characterized by details of her religious beliefs and not her extensive political career. Wefa (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think you are missing the point. As you have said she is a politician in her own right so therefore the opening should be about her and not her husband. That is what I am trying to say. Let's forget the disgrace bit as on reflection I agree that it has no place here or in any othe WP article. So as you are the only reply to this heading how would you improve the openning? Bjmullan (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Over-sympathetic tone of the page leaves it unbalanced
I re structured the last paragraph of this page because the tone of the page did not reflect the legacy of this politician. It was far too sympathetic and as such was seriously unbalanced. Let us consider the reputation of this former politician; she is someone who claims to be a "born again Christian" and denounced people who practised homosexuality in the most ardent and intolerant manner. Nevertheless, she then began having an affair aged 59 with a teenager aged 19. This is morally unacceptable to many people in NI and deeply hypocritical. She then announced she was retiring from politics because of "depression" and concealed the real reasons for her withdrawal from public life until the affair was made public by the press. It was then revealed and she released a statement saying how she had considered committing suicide. Finally, it was revealed that she had broken the law by failing to disclose the fact she had forwarded some £50,000 to the teenage man before the affair was revealed and had personally profited receiving £5,000 as a gift from her lover, despite earning almost £600,000 per year together with her husband. She never disclosed this payment to the NI assembly and neither did her husband, the First Minister.

This is a serious scandal and shows the deep hypocrisy of this woman. The tone of the wiki was unbalanced, being far too sympathetic and actually seemed like it was concealing the scandals that ended this woman's career. Her legacy will always now be this scandal.

What do people think? James Frankcom (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a strange story. It combines moral, political and legal dimensions - and these can easily become confused. Iris Robinson had an affair with a teenage boy - but adultery is not a crime, and the boy was of legal age. She did not declare that she had received loans on his behalf - which was in clear breach of her obligations. But what seems equally obvious is that this woman has suffered from mental illness for many years, and has been hospitalised on many occasions. There is something distasteful in the relish with which her fall from grace is being followed: some of the same people who properly deplored her rush to black-and-white moral judgements are now guilty of the same offence. (adesterre)           —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adesterre (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum for discussion. We need to focus our comments on improving the content of the article. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a point - but I think you are being a little harsh on me. I was responding to a preceding contribution which claimed that the "tone of the wiki was unbalanced". I was trying to point out that it is extremely difficult to strike a balanced tone in an article when its subject has a history of mental illness. I was also suggesting that the previous contributor was unduly judgemental in his or her comments - and inappropriately so, in a case where clinical depression was involved. Perhaps, I did not make that sufficiently clear. (adesterre)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.68.187 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't intend it to be a criticism of you. I think your points were valid ones and I agree with them. I was rather responding to those comments that followed around the "relish with which her fall from grace is being followed". This has nothing to do with the article and is just peripheral comment/ opinion. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't personally see a serious scandal and we are not here to attack her or be a mouthpiece for the opposite side of the story either. Off2riorob (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, it depends on what your definition of "serious" is, doesn't it? ;) Rd232 talk 10:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (a) I'm not sure where you see "over sympathetic tone" in the version before you edited; and it's not Wikipedia's job to moralise. (b) remember it's an encyclopedia, not a newspaper - this affects the tense that should be used, as well as the amount of detail to be reported. (c) it seems OK for now, pending further developments - but I'd caution against ballooning in every detail. The temptation with these things is always to add too much detail; I urge resisting it. In general, readers can follow linked references for more info, a clear summary is just fine. Rd232 talk 10:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The financial irregularity evidently involved will very soon make this a scandal I think. Leaky  Caldron  10:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks exaggerated to me, imo, expenses scandal type issue where no charges will ever be brought. Off2riorob (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a serious affair that has destroyed Iris Robinson's career, looks likely to destroy her husband's as first minister, could lead to elections (if some paper reports are true) and reshape northern irish politics. I can't see how it can get much more serious that that. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Clinton
Here comments were a a public statement made by a person in public office and should be included. Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They are just be added to make a point. Snappy (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Iris Robinson made the comments to make a point in the first place. The comments may not have been notable at the time, given the DUP's known "religious intolerance", but the are certainly worthy of note now. Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case it needs more context, when did she say it? There is no date given. To whom to she say it? and in what circumstances? I have removed the commentary on what she didn't say. Snappy (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The comments were made on the record in April 2008: ''Iris Robinson MP... talks about her future as half of Northern Ireland's premier political couple Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree it would be more appropriate in Political career section as (1) I doubt it caused any controversy at the time and (2) the interview was in anticipation of here taking up the position of "First Lady". Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be moved to that section. Also the heading with the loaded word adultery should go. Snappy (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Was?
I wasn't aware that Mrs Robinson had perhaps been successful in her suicide bid. Could it be that Mrs Robinson IS a former Unionist politician? --94.6.155.205 (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Former politician and revamp of lede
I think it is about time to remove the "Chiltern Hundreds" bit and replace the opening sentence with "Iris Robinson (née Collins; born 6 September 1949) is a former Northern Ireland Unionist politician who is married to Peter Robinson, that currently the First Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly." I also think that the Controversies which she is most famous for should be introduced into the first paragraph. with the other paragraphs looking at the history of her career. I also believe that the third paragraph should be removed as it is covered in the body of the article. Bjmullan (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as she no longer holds any political office. The Chiltern Hundreds is actually an office, merely a mechanism by which MPs resign. Snappy (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Bigot award
This issue was discussed on this page above and at WP:BLP almost 2 years ago. There was no consensus to remove it then and I see no consensus to remove it now. Leaky Caldron  22:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hullaballoo Wolfowitz appears to have removed any reference to this award four times in the last 48 hours in preference to participating in the discussion at Melanie Phillips about her receipt of the same thing. To repeat a point already made to him, BLP states, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Clearly this policy applies not only if the subject dislikes it, but if WP:POV-pushing editors dislike it too. Exok (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it goes again without discussion here first it will go straight to WP:3RR. She was a politician and therefore fair game. It's a very minor mention, well sourced and drafted in an appropriate context. Leaky  Caldron  23:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The material has once again been removed under the dubious edit summary of "BLPN discussions demonstrated lack of consensus support for inclusion of derisive mock-awards)." This discussion at BLPN archived yesterday, was not a consensus to remove the material across all articles and did not address the content within this particular article. There is no policy-based justification for removing the sourced material from this article.  Leaky  Caldron  18:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Said editor/vandal has been doing the same (in violation of 3RR, violation of consensus, refusal to discuss on talk, making mention of arcane BLP discussion which they refuse to link to) at Chris Moyles. Editor/vandal needs to get with the programme, by wikiforce if necessary. --82.41.22.244 (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iris Robinson. 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/20071117060753/http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/members/membership07.htm to http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/members/membership07.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Iris Robinson. 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/20100210202820/http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/members/biogs/irobinson.htm to http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/members/biogs/irobinson.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/iris-robinson-and-her-10-catholic-cousins-14564011.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100427051809/http://www.peterrobinson.org/biography.html to http://www.peterrobinson.org/biography.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414221340/http://www.allianceparty.org/news/003825/alliance_blasts_robinsons_offensive_comments_on_gay_people.html to http://www.allianceparty.org/news/003825/alliance_blasts_robinsons_offensive_comments_on_gay_people.html
 * Added tag to http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/ireland/psychiatrist-in-gay-storm-steps-down-from-belfast-hospital-13938019.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615102234/http://www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/dpp_list_of_independent_and_political_members_31-3-08.doc to http://www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/dpp_list_of_independent_and_political_members_31-3-08.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205031142/http://www.andrewmuir.net/about/chrono3.htm to http://www.andrewmuir.net/about/chrono3.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203133043/http://www.allianceparty.org/news/003889/hansard_confirms_robinson_correctly_quoted_on_homosexuality_and_paedophilia.html to http://www.allianceparty.org/news/003889/hansard_confirms_robinson_correctly_quoted_on_homosexuality_and_paedophilia.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006201208/http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2007/080630.htm to http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2007/080630.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/11000-demand-pm-reprimands-iris-for-her-outburst-about-gays-13918742.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iris Robinson. 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://archive.is/20120910045843/http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=11764 to http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=11764
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720032950/http://www.castlereagh.gov.uk/newsitem.asp?id=177 to http://www.castlereagh.gov.uk/newsitem.asp?id=177

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)