Talk:Northern Ireland

This is a selected entry on Template:March 24 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

---

Previous Discussions:

Archive 1 (2004)

Archive 2 (2005)

Split

Oh god, I can'tfind where to put this correctly. But can someone please put up some information about why Ireland chose to split, and why it continued to remain seperate from the Republic of Ireland. This should be one of the most important parts of the history, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.96.242 (talk • contribs)

sorry this is simple in 1921 and indeed before 1921 in what today is the Republic Of ireland there was a war of independence they choose to go their own way simple while the Majority of people in Ulster (londonderry/derry/antrim/down/armagh/tyrone/fermanagh along with Donegal Monaghan Cavan make up the Province of Ulster the first 6 of these counties went into Northern ireland while donegal Monaghan and cavan went into the republic as the 6 counties of Northern Ireland had a high Unionist Majority and the other 3 had a high Nationalist majority so they went into the Republic of Ireland the 6 counties of NI decided to stay in the UK because we wanted to indeed in the treaty drawing up the border Northern Ireland had the option of staying in what was then the "Irish Free state " But decided to stay within the UK ...as we have done so since then dont know why people think we are being occupied by the "British" excuse me but I'm a British and Born in Northern Ireland and we dont wanna be part of the Republic of Ireland because we dont simple its called the principle of consent read the good friday agreement (0r belfast agreement as its officially called )- "it is hereby declared that Northern ireland shall remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as the Majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish it to do so " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.240.15 (talk • contribs)

Since you define yourself as British that would be why you don't think you're being occupied by the British. Those that do not view themselves as British or do not feel that they are represented as an Irish person by being a part of the UK would otherwise define themselves as being occupied. Simply because the majority of Northern Ireland does not wish to be part of the Republic does not mean that the issue is closed until such time as there is a majority. Haven't you ever heard of the tyranny of the majority? This is not an ideal situation. It would be wise to state that the current state is such that Northern Ireland is part of the UK by choice, but that there is a large desenting minority that does not wish to be part of the UK and would rather be part of of the Republic. Fair enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.204.155.241 (talk • contribs)

Northern Ireland didn't "continue to remain" separate from the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland continued to remain a part of the UK. --Mal 02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Their was never a split as such but the reason that The north is part of the uk is because of the the brits look up the Irish civil war and the Ulster Plantation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.34.70 (talk • contribs)

There was indeed a split, and this was ratified in an international treaty. The Republic split from Ireland because a large minority of Irish people didn't want to split from the UK. Most Irish people didn't particularly want to split from the UK until after the leaders of the failed Easter Rising were executed for treason. --Mal 02:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The split occurred because it was an integral part of the peace treaty that the UK offered to the nascent Irish Free State: the civil war occurred because certain members of the IRA couldn't accept a treaty that meant the North would remain part of the UK and the Irish government would have to swear an oath of alleigance to the King of England. But really who cares anymore anyway? We're all a part of Europe, right?

Incorrect/misleading section on "Northern Ireland nationality law"

It is not correct to say that "a co-national law exists to protect the rights of both nationalities in Northern Ireland and to protect the rights of the people of Northern Ireland under law to identify themselves as either Irish or British or both, if they so choose".

This is simply incorrect. There is no "co-national law". There is UK nationality law, and there is Republic of Ireland nationality law. These are separate.

In UK law, everyone born in Northern Ireland (who has at least one parent who is a UK citizen) is a UK citizen.

In ROI law, everyone born in Northern Ireland is entitled to ROI citizenship.

It is not the case, then, that "the majority of persons in Northern Ireland are entitled to both British citizenship and Irish citizenship", since UK citizenship is not an "entitlement", but a de facto state. Only ROI citizenship is an "entitlement".

The statement "Entitlement to Irish citizenship is due to the Republic of Ireland extending its nationality law on an extra-territorial basis" is correct.

The passage from the Good Friday Agreement that is cited is relevant, but legally meaningless, since "being accepted as Irish or British, or both" is not legally enforceable, and nor has any attempt been made to legally enforce it. The significance of the passage is that it resulted in the ROI changing its citizenship law to become extra-territorial.

(NornIron, 9 April, 17.14)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, you should read this WP:BB, and have fun. You might also be interested in adding yourself to the WP:NIWNB. theKeith 16:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above. The Good Friday Agreement provisions are nothing more than a political statment by the two governments and are not legally enforceable. However the extension of Irish nationality law to Northern Ireland does produce a situation where certain persons connected with Northern Ireland may be Irish citizens but not British citizens. See Chen Case. Incidentally, the comment that everybody born in Northern Ireland is entitled to ROI citizenship is no longer true for those born on or afer 1 January 2005. Also, the comment that a person born in Northern Ireland must have a UK citizen parent to be British also isn't true, a parent who is a UK permanent resident (also known as "settled" in the UK) is enough. JAJ 02:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have amended the section. Can you refine it to include reference to the ROI changes post-1.1.05?

(NornIron, 10 April, 13.01)

What is the correct name of the UK's Olympic team?

Is the UK's Olympic team "Great Britain" or "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?

see Cfd discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Great_Britain_at_the_Olympics_to_Category:Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_at_the_Olympics --Mais oui! 22:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Its the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Wrong.

The UK does not have an Olympic team. England, Scotland and Wales play as GB. NI sportsmen either play for Ireland or register as English, Scots or Welsh.

Not possible to "register as English, Scots or Welsh" as these are not Olympic teams. Olympic teams are based on sovereign nation (all representatives must be citizens of that country) and recognised non-sovereign territories, so the default for any NI sportsman is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland team. However, a person from NI with Republic of Ireland citizenship may represent the Republic of Ireland instead if he or she wishes, and is selected to do so. JAJ 01:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but there is no United Kingdom team, just team Great Britain. Northern Irish athletes can choose to compete either for Team GB or for the Republic of Ireland, it is their choice (and obviously the choice of the particular team managers). Ben W Bell talk 06:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be called "Team GB" however it's still a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland team. "Great Britain" on its own could not be an Olympic particpant as it's not a sovereign entity. JAJ 22:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Team GB is a shorthand name for the team known as "Great Britain and Northern Ireland". beano 14:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No. The teams official name is Great Britain[1].

Validity of voter demographic?

I am puzzled by the 59%/22% Unionist to Nationalist percentage that We have on the main Northern Ireland article. These figures, in My opinion, don’t represent the voting figures for Northern Ireland voters and seem to bias towards the Unionist side for Me. I looked into it, and these figures were gained by interviewing an alleged 1800 people. I question the validity on the groups that it doesn’t state were this survey was carried out. For example, was it in Belfast city centre, a fairly unbiased city, or was it say Ballymena or Portadown? Can we also trust 1800 People to fully give us a representation of Northern Ireland opinions on politics?

This source seems to be a little too convenient for my liking.

I draw People’s attentions to the following link: http://www.nationmaster.com/wikimir/images/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Northern_Ireland_election_seats_1997-2005.png/650px-Northern_Ireland_election_seats_1997-2005.png

Clearly showing a rise in Nationalist voting patterns.

On the same website, they also claim to have conducted a survey were a staggering 86% of People in Northern Ireland claiming they could learn to accept a United Ireland.

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2004/Political_Attitudes/FUTURE1.html

Based on voting figures, I don’t feel We have a fair representation of the opinions of Northern Ireland peoples.

I would recommend perhaps keeping in the voting figures as they are, but also adding it that they were based on only, what, less than 8% of the population of Northern Ireland? I would also recommend a few words on recent voting figures putting that percentage at a different scale, particularly that Nationalist vote is larger than stated.

BBX 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood both the nature of polling and what they say. What those numbers show (and they are replicated in poll after poll) is that on the issue of a united Ireland 59% support the union, 22% support a united Ireland. Every survey ever done shows that not all nationalists support a united Ireland. The figure usually ebbs around the 50% mark. On my first visits to Northern Ireland I was astonished to find how few nationalists, while proud of their Irish identity, actually support a united Ireland. I met Conradh na Gaeilge activists, a lot of SDLP members, and even Sinn Féin members who privately would say that they would vote against a united Ireland. One of the main arguments was economic: they believed that even Celtic Tiger Ireland could not subsidise the North to the same level as the British taxpayer. They believed unity with the Republic would lead to wholescale cuts in education, environment and social spending. The figures accurately reflect surveys done year in and year out, and are far more accurate than voting figures, where things like personality of candidates, geography, tactical voting, and the undemocratic First Past the Post system all distort outcomes. (Eg, both Mark Durkan and David Trimble picked up large amounts of support from the other community because the alternatives, SF and the DUP, were less acceptable to moderates. Paisley, bizarrely, even picked up thousands of Catholic votes in European elections! In one ballot box I saw opened, some voted 1 Paisley, 2 the SF candidate, 3 UUP!!!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

---

This isn't about the above - while I still disagree with the figures, I'll accept them until I can give concrete evidence against them. This is to do with the adding in of the phase:

"In practice, though, those born in Northern Ireland do generally become British Citizens and not automatically Irish Citizens. They can, however, claim or renounce either nationality."

The Irish Government recognise the birth right of all Irish People on the island as being Irish. Why doesn't it therefore also say everyone is recognised as Irish citizens by birth also? The above phrase, to Me as an Irish Nationalist, comes across as petty and serves no purpose. There was nothing wrong the paragragh as it was, this just seems to have been added out of spite by someone. I myself have always been Irish, and have never had to denounce anything.

---

Since no one objected I've removed it. However, I dunno how this place worked to be honoust about editing pages and whatnot, so if I have get expressed permission before editing, I apologise and hope that if anyone does indeed disagree, then as the title say, discuss it.

I'm not bothered about the inclusion of the poll. What annoys me is the prominence given and importance attached to it, while election results (the true markers of change) are glossed over. 1800 people, plus acquaintances of Fear "Don't ask Google, ask me" Éireann. A fraction of a per cent of the region's population.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you don't know what an opinion poll is. As to elections being "the true markers of change" no-one involved in politics believes that. Elections show a mixture of party strength, candidate appeal, regional impact, electoral spending, the impact on weather on the day of polling in terms of turnout, the impact of alphabeticalisation of candidate's names on ballot papers, media coverage and a host of other things. They do not, and never have done, give any clear example of views on a policy. Opinion polls do analyse policy issues alone without electoral, geographic, regional, financial and weather impacts and are done professionally using strict mathematical formulae and using carefully worded questions framed to contain no language that would influence the person being questioned.

The only people who feign disbelief in detailed polling are those who find that polls show their views do not reflect the opinion of most people. Tracking polls offer the additional protection of ensuring that no rogue polls create misleading impressions. Because polling organisations have to work with people on all sides of political divides, they refuse to ask questions framed to produce a particular result because their credibility rests on their independence. They could (and are) asked to work for Sinn Féin one week and the DUP two weeks later, the Tories one month, Labour the next. No professional organisation will compromise their credibility by fake polling. So you won't find them asking loaded questions like "The cost of subsidising Northern Ireland is x billions. The Republic's Minister for Finance says the Republic could not pay that and so would have to slash payments on health and roads in the North. In the light of that, do you support Irish unity?" or "Martin McGuinness was head of the IRA in Derry when horrific murders were carried out. Is he a fit person to become Minister for Finance?" or "Martin McGuinness is widely regard as having been a superb Minister for Education. The IRA has disbanded. Do you believe that Martin should be back in government?"

Questions are very carefully worded to be absolutely neutral. In fact before a poll takes place dry runs are carried out with questions to test out their neutrality with feedback taken to see if the person being questioned picked up any unintended bias in the question. Only questions that pass a strict test are carried out.

Polls use 1100 or more respondents because it means that mathematically the odds are that some people will be found who will not be representative of the electorate. The larger the poll size, the smaller the impact under mathematical formulae each individual respondent is overall, which means that on a poll of 1100 the margin of error is could be around 3% but in reality it is usually in the range of 0.7%. Depending on the type of survey, respondents are picked for age, gender, location, class, with groups used that reflect that their segment among overall society. The accuracy of polling is increased marketly if done face-to-face rather than by telephone and to avoid creating bias by making respondents give the sort of answers they think the questioner wants the organisation who commissioned the poll is never released. Indeed questioners may give false names for themselves if their name (Murphy, Paisley, etc) is seen as belonging to one community. Polling numbers are cross-referenced to ensure accuracy and all questions are examined to ensure that the numbers do not throw up a possible bias.

Everyone, from the DUP to Sinn Féin, uses polling and takes the results seriously. Some polling organisations, such as MRBI in the Republic, have such credibility that governments will change policy based on the outcome of polls. Professionals in politics swear by MRBI results. It is not simply a case of asking a couple of hundred people a few questions and claiming that that is representative. It is a very complex process carefully vetted and regarded universally by mathematicians, pollsters, and politicians as 100% reliable. LP's comments suggest that he does not know what polling is, how it is carried out, what its perameters are, and that is big gripe is that polls disprove his theories. Unlike him, privately Sinn Féin does believe the polls — privately leading Sinn Féin figures will tell you that a united Ireland is, on the numbers, not a goer in the forseeable future. But as with all political movements they have to say something else publicly because to say that would demoralise their supporters, just as Bertie Ahern knows that come the next election his party is likely to lose 10-15 seats and has no chance of being in government with the PDs after the next election. Which is why FF are trying to get Labour to ditch Fine Gael and why the PDs are trying build bridges with Fine Gael. The reason for all of this is their own private polling, and isn't explained publicly for fear of demoralising their supporters. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing you've written, nor your tone, is new to me. Polls have changed and will change nothing; elections and referenda do that. I don't believe I've outlined theories anywhere on Wikipedia, so I don't understand how this poll disproves them. Unlike what you imply, I don't have a problem with the poll's inclusion. Just its prominence when compared to election results.

Lapsed Pacifist 00:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

An ESRI poll in mid 2005 (more recent) showed 65% of Catholics favouring a United Ireland, 21.1% supporting the Union, and 11.2% favouring independence. Furthermore, 3.8% of Protestants supported a United Ireland, with 87.7% supporting the Union and 5.5% in favour of independence. I think those figures should be inserted here as a more recent poll is more relevant. For this reason, I am inserting the relevant details and a link to the source of them. (mango2002)

Ulster Scots

I'd like to point out that Ulster Scots is not an "official language of Northern Ireland" as stated in the main article. The Good Friday Agreement does not refer to Ulster Scots as a "language", rather describing it as a "variety of the Scots language". It recognised it as "part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland", and the Agreement in part lead to the formation of the cross border "Ulster-Scots Agency". The Irish language is official, and is (supposed to) be promoted through media and television/radio broadcasts, as well as being taught in all schools, to all People who wish to learn it.

Since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I thought it best to point that out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .

• Good point. I'll take it down, unless anyone can substantiate that it has official status. Guinnog 19:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not named under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which I assume is where Irish derives it's "official" status, perhaps renaming the "Official language" box, to "Languages", and annotating what languages are official would be in order? This could also include the languages of the substantial portugeese, and chineese communities that have developed over the past number of years.
  • For a list of NI languages see [[2]], which I suspect is about as much of an official statement as we are going to get

• Ulster scots is not actually a language, but merely invented by unionists to counter the irish language when it was revealed under the good friday agreement that it would receive funding. Although I am aware that nothing is going to change in this article and don't really care either way, I will point out that if the real world allowed for an =entirely= objective view on things then an "encyclopedia" would state this. I'm afraid no matter how you look at it, nothing in this world will ever be objective and particularly not in the case of northern ireland. --Spark13579 03:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have studied Ulster Scots and I would tend to agree. I am a unionist and I am strongly pro British but I still have to be convinced Ulster Scots is its own language. Scots however is a language and it is spoken in Northern Ireland. I don't understand why people refer to it as Ulster Scots? Its a dialect of Scots just like American English is a dialect of English. I wish however people from the Nationalist community would have a bit more tollerance and respect when it comes to the Scots language though after all it was the official language of Scotland at one point in its history.

It seams every other minority language in the world is supported by Sinn Fein eg Basque, Catalin etc. The republican movement are out to destoy and erase anything they see as a threat to their united ireland based on cultural hegemony. If anyone here Speaks Spanish you will understand how easy it is to read Catalin and how easy it would be to learn Portuguese and Italian. Anyone who speaks one of the Scandanavian languages will understand how easy it is to pick up one of the other languages. That does not take away from the fact they are all seperate languages!

Unfair removal of work

I’d like to know why, when I add a piece that is constructive and informative to the article, it is consistently removed? Let me show an example.

I add in that Northern Ireland shares a “relaxed” land border with the Republic of Ireland, and it is removed. Why? This is true. The Irish border is as relaxed nowadays as, say, the border between Scotland and England. There is no stop points anymore, no check points, there is North - South ministerial bodies that will be put into place (Per the Good Friday Agreement) that will see the border even further relaxed. Isn’t it right to inform people of this situation and give it its proper title? Yes, it is a border which entails all the legal status of such, but is a relaxed border, which does not have the sternness of a border between say, America and Mexico. It’s an important piece of information to inform people of that, whether people leaning towards a certain side want to acknowledge that or that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .

It is just as "relaxed" as any other EU state border. Look up France or Spain or Netherlands etc., and see if it describes their boreders as being "relaxed". Jonto 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• The thing you are failing to take into consideration is that the border between northern ireland and the republic of ireland was not always "relaxed". For many years there were police checkpoints all along it, and this of course was not the case for any border in europe. The fact that the border is now relaxed has everything to do with the history of the troubles in northern ireland. It's like talking about a country where beef has been banned for 30 years and someone writing "imports of beef are very relaxed here", and you writing "Look up france or spain, and see if it describes the beef imports as being relaxed". The fact of the matter is that it is appropriate to state that the northern ireland border is relaxed, as it hasn't always been relaxed in the past. Anyone who objects to this obviously feels that saying the border is relaxed is, in a way, undermining its existance and bringing it closer to the republic of ireland, i.e. they have an obvious unionist agenda. --Spark13579 03:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me (a Protestant from NI) to be simply a statement of fact - the borders were at one stage very tightly controlled, and now are relaxed. What they are with relation to European countries actually doesn't matter a great deal. I agree with the above comment. Orderinchaos78 15:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the old government of northern Ireland has never been official as a flag of northern Ireland, and so what is wrong with adding the word “Unofficial” under it, to further explain it’s status? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .

It already says "De facto" and "former". It once was the official government flag. Was always and still is the de facto civil flag.Jonto 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This flag was never an official flag to my knowledge, it was merely teh transposition of the coat of arms onto a piece of cloth, if you have any proof that it was ever officially used, would you please post it.86.12.245.194 17:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Check the Flags Of The World database article. I can't access it right now but it mentioned that the government had 'authority' to transfer the arms to a flag and that they exercised this right (in 1953?) for the Queen's Coronation. Beano ni 18:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Under demographic and politics I believed that a piece from another part of the website would be a good addition under the small questionnaire demographic. I added:

Strangely, the same survey shows support for full independence at 11%, while the Ulster Third Way party (the only party that supports independence) receives less than a tenth of 1% of votes. It is important to take into account the fact that public opinion polls can be very inaccurate at times.”

This is a good addition as it informs the reader that although the questionnaire of tiny percentage of northern Ireland say this, it is also important to take into account that the survey shouldn’t be taken with a grain of salt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .

That is too much detail for the main article. Lapsed Pacifist added that to the Demographics article which needs cleaned up badly. Using words such as "strangely" is POV pushing.Jonto 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference between support for the independence option and Ulster Third Way is to my mind further evidence that elections cannot be taken as direct referendums on this matter. Leaving aside the fact that they only contest the odd seat, Ulster Third Way is a rather fringe political force with very limited appeal, primarily pitching to loyalist areas with doses of Ulster nationalism and having links to the British National Front. It promotes a lot of "traditional Ulster culture" like the Orange marches and the Ulster Scots language. That's not exactly going to appeal to middle class golf course Protestants for a start. And their reasoning for independence - as a Rhodesia UDI style way of escaping from an all Ireland state - is not exactly something to get Catholics to vote for them. U3W speak for virtually nobody and certainly aren't the voice of one community or the other.

What the raw headline figures don't show is just where in the population the 11% comes from. But belief in an independent Northern Ireland as a compromise for both communities (and it's easier to grasp and sell as a permanent option than a joint sovereignty area) and a view that the people of the six counties are closer to each other than to those in either Great Britain or the Republic, or for that matter emigrees from either wanting to get the province away from them, is not an unknown phenomenon - but none of these are even ideoligcally in line with Ulster Third Way even if they do happen to reach the same conclusion. Timrollpickering 14:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

People vote for reasons far removed from their stance on a given issue. For instance, there are many people who care about the environment, but they may not vote for the Green Party. There are many people who care about the rights of the working class, but they may feel their vote is safer with UUP than SDLP. And like Timrollpickering said, sometimes the party promoting a particular option is not a credible advocate of said option. This trend is amplified in a first-past-the-post system as a vote for anything other than a major, winnable party is seen as a "wasted vote", and may erode a majority from the party the voter sees as being the lesser of the two evils (ref Florida 2000). Orderinchaos78 15:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

=To “Jonto”=

I am from Ireland, I travel to Dublin quite often and to mainland western Europe on occasion, I can safely say it is more relaxed than any EU State border I have ever crossed. It’s no more a border than the border between American States. I don’t understand why people get so worked up about the word “Relaxed”, it’s the truth whether people want to believe it or not. A relaxed border is exactly what it is, yet people don’t want it to be acknowledged as such here. Seems like a case of anti Nationalism towards northern Ireland and Southern Ireland people to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .

I was born in Northern Ireland - I currently live in Switzerland and being right in the centre of Europe I travel frequently. I travelled from Belfast to Dublin and back less than a month ago. The border is no more relaxed than most borders throughout continental Europe.

This is not "anti nationalism" as you put it. I respect that you have nationalist views, but you must remember that when you write here that you must be careful as to not only what you write but as to what you are implying. What you are writing implies that the border doesn't really exist. The border may currently be more relaxed than it was in the past due to the past higher perceived level of terrorist threat, but the current border has simply been brought into line with any normal European borderJonto 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Don't be ridiculous, who is implying that the border doesn't exist? For years and years a person couldn't travel across the border in northern ireland without being stopped by police and their car searched. This was, of course, not true for continental europe. It is a valid point to state that at present the border is "relaxed", i.e. on par with borders throughout western europe. The key point to take out of what you stated above is that it has now "been brought into line" with other european borders; i.e. it was not always like this. Why not indicate that at present the border is now as relaxed as any other border throughout continental europe? --Spark13579 04:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The old government of northern Ireland flag has never, and will be the official flag of Northern Ireland. It has no more right to be there than say the Irish Tricolour, which represents the other half of the northern Ireland community, yet if I was to add it, I’m sure that it would be removed. That is despite the fact that there is a much better change of seeing the Irish Tricolour (along with the Union Flag) flying over the city hall of Belfast, than seeing the old government of northern Ireland flag flying over it. Again, an unbiased opinion is not being given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .

That's why it's used for the Commonwealth Games team, isn't it?! The Tricolour wouldn't be allowed because it is the flag of the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland. There isn't such thing as a "nationalist flag" for Northern Ireland, because many Nationalists would prefer if Northern Ireland did not exist at all. I'm sure that even if NI had a new flag sanctioned by the assembly then nationalists would probably demand that it was removed! Jonto 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The flag of northern ireland, although possibly worth mentioning, is defintely unofficial. It is used, but generally to hang off lampposts. If you ever see the "flag of northern ireland" flying abreast any kind of official building then please let me know, as i'd be very glad to hear. --Spark13579 04:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

=To “Timrollpickering”=

You make some good point, as for “where in the population does the 11% come from” that is a question I have asked before, in relation to where exactly the figures for the entire survey were conducted, and even at that, is it fair to simply take this as the word of truth when only 1800 people, a tiny percentage of the people of the north of Ireland, were questioned.

Maybe the piece was perhaps too long and too commonly written to be placed into an encyclopaedia article, but how does the term below term suit:

“It is important to take into account that small scale opinion polls can be very inaccurate at times”.

This is short, to the point, truthful and simply insightful to the reader. It wouldn’t be fair to try and give a casual reader fact that are not facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .

The facts that are being stated are that these are results from a poll. Please take a look at Image:Northern_Ireland_Poll.png for the results of the poll over time. It is up to the reader to make up their own mind about the poll results. Your edit still implies that the poll is wrong. Jonto 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm living this year in Germany, but normally I live about half and hour from the Massachusetts/New Hampshire Border. And I can say that any time I've travelled internationally here (with the exception of one time into Switzerland), the borders have been comparable. So I'm not sure how the Northern Ireland / Ireland border could be much more relaxed. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Jonto, what I added in is not implying anything, however leaving the results section as it is implies that the results are the full truth, when in reality, 1800 people (a tiny percentage of northern Ireland) cannot possibly give a fully accurate and unbiased viewpoint of Irish northern beliefs on Unification. The Catholic population has been growing for years, if the trend line continues their could likely be a Catholic majority in the north of Ireland by 2017. Should we incorporate that into discussion? 40% of the north of Ireland vote Pro Nationalist/Republican, and Unification parties, should we incorporate that into discussion in that section?

What I’ve added in (and I’ve seen it has been removed/censored even though I shortened it, so I’ll add it back in) gives the reader an unbiased opinion on the Irish northern situation, removing it is clearly bias.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .

User:BBX, please avoid editorializing within the article. Instead, continue to discuss the inclusion or removal of the poll data here on this Talk page. Adding editorial comments on its reliability is outside our purvue. Jkelly 18:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want it removed, I simply want it made clear that the opinion poll could be unreliable and shouldn't be taken as the full truth. I don't understand why people are so against giving an unbiased viewpoint on this matter, isn't an enclycopedia supposed to be unbiased and free from personal opinions?

I also brought it to attention that Ulster Scots is not an official language of northern Ireland, yet it still remains listed as so. I wouldn't care if it was or not, but encyclopedia is about facts, and we should respect that. Why can't we simply be more unbias with this subject and try and give a fairer representation of northern Ireland?

I haven't been following the language issue, but your commentary on the value of polls is itself the kind of personal opinion that articles should be free from. Jkelly 19:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Flag Status

What is the official status of the flag? And can it be backed up with a source? Under which government was it official? I'm asking simply because I'm curious, don't know for sure, and feel like it's important to the discussion of whether or not to include any reference in the infobox.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 20:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up discussion on this

The old government of northern Ireland flag is taken from the actual flag of Ulster. The hand has historical fact as being the symbol of the O’Neil’s and a representation of Irish resistance before the Ulster Plantation. Since that time many myths and stories have arisen, such as the popular story of a King and his Sons and the cutting of a hand. There are, however, fabricated due to some Unionist/Loyalists not wanting to have a symbol of Irish resistance to British rule on their flag. On the hand, the thumb was moved from being towards the hand, to being outward, to try and differentiate it from the original hand and the historical symbolisation which it has. The cross was also thinned out from the original Ulster flag, to make it into a St. George’s cross, the flag of England. When displayed in the Governor of northern Ireland’s flag, the disc was yellow, not white as it’s became known by Unionists today. The colour was quickly changed also, to further give it a more “English/British” look, with the addition of the Royal crown of Britain.

The flag was used as the official government of northern Ireland, however, after the Irish Civil rights movement began (Peaceful protests against Unionist oppression towards Nationalists) and the Provisional IRA began their much documented campaign to end British rule in Ireland, the British government suspended and then abolished the Unionist Stormount government in 1973 and began governing northern Ireland straight from England, which - give or take a few moments here and there - has continued up until today.

The flag has not been the official government of northern Ireland flag since 1973, and has never been the official flag of northern Ireland. Some unofficial usages of the flag exists, usually in Unionist dominated fields, such as the Irish FA (the Irish FA only use it during game openings, but since Nationalists don’t support the state of northern Ireland, they would find it hypocritical to support a football/soccer team that represents that state, so they support the Republic of Ireland, hence why there isn’t much objection to the usage of the flag, although the Irish FA might gain interest more from Nationalists if they incorporated a neutral flag)

Although northern Ireland doesn’t have it’s own official flag or national anthem (mainly due to bickering) most peaceful Nationalists and Unionists would probably agree that the unofficial national anthem of “Danny Boy” and the St. Patrick’s cross are fair, unbiased, good and neutral representations of northern Ireland, while it remains a State.

I am a Nationalist of Ireland, however, I would agree upon using the St. Patrick's cross to represent northern Ireland, as most people from here that are neutral would already view it as such.

No discussion?

What goes on at this place. I was hoping that we could perhaps discuss the subject, and maybe get ourselves a neutral symbol for northern Ireland, instead somebody has simply overlooked what I said, and decided to heighten sectarianism and further oppress the views of Irish Nationalists. I even see the old government of northern Ireland flag is still there, so I will ask: Would anyone object to me adding the Irish Tricolour to the same grouping of flags?

Belfast city council were discussing Flag regulations in regards to what is flown on city hall prior to the suspension of the northern Ireland assembly. There was three options tabled:

1. No change. Union flag.

2. Union flag flown at regulated occasions.

2. Neutral. Belfast city crest, or no flag.

3. Equality. Union flag and Irish Tricolour flown simultaneously.

Not once did I hear or read anything about the old government of northern Ireland flag being used. Therefore, by logic, the Irish Tricolour has as much, if not more, legal right to used as a representation of northern Ireland in the modern age.

I will await a reply, but if none is given then I will obviously presume that no one objects, and I will add, or ask for assistance in adding, the Irish Tricolour.

I would have personally agreed to the St. Patrick’s cross being used as a neutral flag, which most unbiased northern Ireland today probably view as the flag of the State, for the time being.

• See the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus article, complete with flag. Guinnog 23:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Complete with NPOV tag. --Red King 23:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Flags and emblems

Flags and emblems are a major issue in Northern Ireland that inflames continuous PoV arguments such as the one above. As BBX observes, it is not unique to Wikipedia. In the interest of NPOV, the most reasonable approach is not to have any flags. Northern Ireland is not a nation, so it does not have a national flag. The most reasonable position is to replicate the infobox from, say, the North East England article. No flags, no emblems, no PoV. Just a map. --Red King 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. It's the approach also taken by official governmental issues in northern Ireland at the moment. Whether it is to do with Policing, simply official letters, or even building, the two governments and official bodies in northern Ireland (Unlike the rest of the U.K or the island of Ireland) tent to avoid ANY flags or emblems, which has seen changes to a lot of things in northern Ireland (such as the police force getting the neutral name of "Police Service of northern Ireland"). BBX 00:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is different from a region of England, and is generally seen as more akin to Scotland and Wales, it has its own International Football team and had its own regional government. The flag normally shown is a recognised symbol of Northern Ireland and is used by Northern Ireland at various events. Also, It's the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in English language northern Ireland and Northern Ireland are completely different, northern Ireland could describe the northern half of the island. Northern Ireland is the name of the constituent part of the United Kingdom set up by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. There have been a number of discussions about this and they usually end in the "Red Hand flag" being reinstated as a cultural symbol rather than national flag. There are many strange things associated with this article, like the .ie TLD in the infobox. - TheKeith 00:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In some sporting events the old government of northern Ireland flag is used BY CHOICE by the northern Ireland people using it. However, Wayne McCollough and Eamon McGee are example of Sportsmen who used/use the Irish Tricolour as their representation. McCollough used it mainly because northern Ireland is apart of the Irish Boxing body, who’s flag is the Irish Tricolour, and McGee used and uses it because of his heritage and Nationality. The bottom line is that the old government of northern Ireland is used in some sporting events because the people/bodies using it have chosen the flag, just as they are free to choose the Irish Tricolour if they so choose.

Also, if the old government of northern Ireland flag is to be used a “Culture symbol” them the exactly same case will be made for the Irish Tricolour. Unionists, by and large, decent from Scottish and (to a lesser extent) English settlers from the Plantation of Ulster, so they have their culture. However, Irish Nationalists, again by and large, decent from the Irish population predating such settlements. They have, therefore, different cultures and different heritage and so if one culture is to be represented, then the other should be also. Otherwise there will be a serious case of one sidedness that does not reflect the modern day northern Ireland.

The best solution, in my opinion, is to take the advice of Red King (Not to mention the example set by current northern Ireland ways) and leave all flags and emblems for the section that lists northern Ireland flags and emblems.

Anything else would be simply be one sided.

BBX 00:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to say BBX and Red King have a point. Northern Ireland has no official flag. Why should one be displayed so prominently on the page?--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 02:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. The non-existence of any acceptable flag for this entity is very telling of the particular circumstances that apply. I still feel the article 'needs' a flag or flags somehow. Maybe another bit of text about the controversy would be appropriate? Guinnog 02:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That would indeed be a good idea - a section detailing the ins and outs of the situation that have been laid out in the course of this discussion, with appropriate images (of the red hand flag, the irish tricolor, the union flag, and the saint patricks cross) would certainly be both informative and npov. I say yes.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 02:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

While i agree that symbols of Northern Ireland are a contentious issue both here and in the real world. I do not believe nor do i support the removal of the symbols on the basis that it would make the article any less pov, if anything it would make the article just as pov not to have these symbols then it would to have them. The removal of the symbols would give editors of the unionist community the ability to say that the removal of the symbols is some kinda of nationalist pov. Regardless of NI is a nation or not, it is one of the 4 constitute parts of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and should have an infobox that is appropriate to it's status, of which it currently has. While i will not stand in the way if the current infobox being reshaped to remove the flag and coa, based upon their current status of usage, i will only support it on the conditional basis that a section about symbols is added with the imagery, as being that both at one time were official symbols of Northern Ireland, and then in the case of their flag, it sill holds a de-facto status in being a representative symbol of Northern Ireland, regardless if it is accepted as so by all communities, and that the coa still holds a semi-official status being that it's grant has not been rescinded. Besides that i don’t see any need to add any other symbol, i.e. the try colour, to the section with the exception poss of the St Patrick saltire. Also if were are going to remove the sympols because of their non-official status, then the same should be done with images of the same status on other UK pages, i.e. the COA of Wales. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an official flag of Northern Ireland and only one, and I'm sure it will come as a disappointment to those who wish to be either politically correct or sectarian. It is neither the Ulster Banner nor the Tricolour -- it is the Union Flag. If this article is to be strictly accurate, then the internationally-recognized flag of the territory should be shown. Displaying former flags, flags of other countries, and non-official country name translations (for that matter) is simply misleading. --62.6.127.190 00:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Ireland article titles

A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Net Domain

As with most things in Northern Ireland, we have 2 tld .uk, and .ie. While .uk is the most common, the .ie is "open the domain to registrants located in, or with a significant connection to, the island of Ireland". Historically there has been geographic domain allocations such as the .gb, although largely defunct would have covered Britain, and not NI. I would guess the .sco name should also be included if it finally materialises. 86.12.245.194 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

---

To be honest, surely the official TLD is .uk and not .ie? Although the Irish net authorities do not recognise the border as such, .ie isn't officially in use in NI regardless of how widespread its use is. Otherwise you could argue that .co.ni is official because the Nicaraguan authorities sanction its use.

Or you could argue that .uk is official in ROI because of addresses like [3].

Personally although .ie should be mentioned, I don't think it should be given the same prominence. And I don't think that .sco should ever be included. We aren't Scottish!

Or maybe we should just get rid of that box altogther.

Thoughts?

NotMuchToSay 23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The .ie domain is geographic specific, whereas the .uk is available to all, similar to .com with no consideration to geographic location, it just tends to be used a lot in the uk. The point of the .sco domain is that it is a cultrural domain, for scots culture, and if I can say it without starting a fight Scots language, so may be relavent 86.12.245.194 19:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The .ie and .uk domains are both reserved for specific countries - see Country codes. How the two domains are administered may well place restrictions on use outside their respective administrative areas. In the same way, you can't state that .ni is available as a NI country code, even though the Nicaraguans may (or may not) allow some in NI to register a domain in their administration. It should be removed from the info box. Bazza 18:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Flag usage

While the government of northern Ireland was the flag that represented the northern Ireland government pre the early 1970s, people also need to realise that the Irish Tricolour was originally created to be the flag of ALL IRELAND, under the Provisional Irish government after the 1920’s partition of the island.

The green on the flag was supposed to represent Irish Catholics throughout Ireland (and their heritage), the white in the centre was to represent a lasting peace, and the orange was to represent the Protestant peoples in the north (and their Irish/Ulster-Scots heritage).

The Irish Tricolour was never the official flag of northern Ireland, but neither was the old government of northern Ireland flag. The Republic recognised it as such though, as did the Irish Nationalist population of the Ulster Province.

As northern Ireland is at the moment, there is much more chance of the Irish Tricolour being flown, along side the Union flag, than seeing the old government of northern Ireland flag flown officially.

Many Unionists don’t mean offence when they fly it personally, but to many Nationalists and Catholics, it represents a government that treated them like second class citizens, myself included. The Nazi flag was once the flag of the German government, yet it also wouldn’t be correct - politically, officially, socially or unbiased - to show it on this website.

I say either one of the follow should take place:

A. Both the old government of northern Ireland flag and the Irish Tricolour are shown, listing both as “De Facto” or “Unofficial”.

B. No flags used, only a map.

We really need to come to an agreement on this, instead of ignoring the discussion and simply doing what fits one’s agenda. I have my own view on the flag situation, but I’m clearly trying to find a compromise, and I believe I have been nothing but unbiased here.

PS: Since no one has objected since Guinnog's post, I believe it's time we removed Ulster Scots as an "official language", since it currently isn't an official language of northern Ireland. As the Good Friday Agreement states, it does play a role in “the culture wealth of the island of Ireland” but I guess there simply wasn’t enough demand for legal status pertaining to the dialect, as their was for the Irish language. Most Unionists/Protestant I know don't seem to care about it anyway, although their is obviously speakers of the dialect and I would never object to it recieving legal status if the sitution ever arose.

• So even though you dont even consider it a language, you wouldn't object to it receiving legal status??

This is getting ridiculous.

Whoever the silent editor is, I would appreciate that you join the discussion, instead of simply overlooking what people are writing and doing as you so please. We’ve already brought it to attention that Ulster Scots is not an official language of northern Ireland, you are giving false information by consistently listing it as so.

We’ve also come to the conclusion that - what you have edited - are unofficial symbols of northern Ireland, the Tricolour of Ireland is also an unofficial symbol of northern Ireland, not just with Irish Nationalists in northern Ireland, but throughout the island of Ireland and worldwide. Removing it, yet keeping another unofficial symbol, is biased.

Either equality: both the old government of northern Ireland and the Tricolour of Ireland, or nothing. Those are fair opinions I believe, and I would appreciate some discussion and not totally overlooking what we are discussing. This is a public encyclopedia and we all entitled to have our say on issues pertaining to how exactly an unbiased article should be laid out. I've got my POV, but adding it into the article without any regard for an unbiased read is - as far as I am aware - against Wikipedia rules.

BBX 21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

This is getting riddiculous, I think we need some emblem of NI at the start. The use of the assembly logo, seems to be a step in the right direction, it is reasonably neutral, but unfortunetly not widely recognised, even within the area it is proported to represent, but I am at a loss to think of anything better. Any thoughts?

I can agree to that, but if the unoffical old government of northern Ireland remains without equal representation of the Irish Tricolour, then nothing will have changed. There is a distinct feeling of Anti Irish Nationalism here, and I will not accept anything bar equality and a totally unbiased article that represented northern Ireland for what it is: not what some people would like to still be. BBX 00:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree with that. The Irish tricolor has NEVER been used to represent Northern Ireland, and this article is about Northern Ireland. The Irish tricolor was only adopted as an official flag in 1937, and then for the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland. Since the flag has never ever been associated with NI then it cannot be included. Ben W Bell 08:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

With thought I think the "Red Hand and Crown" flag should also be removed. While it was the official civil flag of Northern Ireland for almost 50 years it also has had no official status for over 30 years now. The only flag that can be flown for Northern Ireland is really the Union Flag, no other country article shows historical flags so there really is no reason that the NI article should either despite it's rather unique situation. So all the flags should be replaced with only the Union Flag as that is the only official flag that can be used. Ben W Bell 09:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The article has underwent a lot of editing in the last few days, to say the least. The symbol for the Northern Ireland Assembly has no more place in the infobox anymore than the symbol of the Parliament of the United Kingdom should be in the United Kingdom infobox (the portcullis often seen on the British One Penny coin) and not least because the assembly is currently suspended. Djegan 11:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I would think a symbol of an assembly suspended 3 years ago, is slightly more relevant than one suspended 35 years ago (not much though). The flax was uesd to represent N.Irleand on the pound coin a few years ago, and seems a reasonable compromise, although, I would hope there would be something better, if anyone can think of it 86.12.245.194 11:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The infobox isnt a drop-in-center for lost symbols; it is for the flag and coat of arms only. Djegan 12:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Cut the crap, the Northern Ireland flag is the official symbol of Northern Ireland and that isnt changing because you want it too. If I was the editor of this I would have the Northern Ireland flag flying, the Union Flag and the St Patricks cross but the tricolour has nothing to do with Northern Ireland.

New flags page

I have created a new page, entitled Northern Ireland flags issue which should hopefully keep people happy. As for the flags which are on the Northern Ireland page, I suggest something like this:

Flags: - Union Flag (official) - Flag of Northern Ireland (former official) - Northern Ireland Coat of Arms (former official) There is a flags dispute, click here.

That is very one sided. This page is on NORTHERN IRELAND, not the United Kingdom. The Union Jack is the flag of the U.K, which northern Ireland is currently apart of, however northern Ireland is also part of the European Union, so why not the European flag? Living in northern Ireland all my life, I know exactly how flags are dealt with on an official basis: they are avoided.

As I've said before, the old government of northern Ireland flag was never the official flag of northern Ireland, only the government (as the Nazi flag was the official flag of the German government).

If we are dealing with northern Ireland, not the U.K, we should use nothing but the government of northern Ireland standard. The current government is suspended, not collapsed, so it still is technically running (the MLA's are still collecting their pay checks for it I may add).

Also, "God Save the Queen" is not the official national anthem of NORTHERN IRELAND, it is the official national anthem of the U.K, and again, I believe we are discussing northern Ireland and NOT the U.K as a whole. G.S.T.Q is used by some sporting bodies (namely the Irish FA) simply because Nationalists do not support northern Ireland the football team, they support the Rep. Ireland, so a Unionist agenda is free to be filled. "Danny Boy" (Londonderry Air) is used during the Commonwealth games, why not used that? Again, a total display of bias. People have used the term “De Facto” to fill their own agenda’s, so why not use the term “De Facto, Londonderry Air”, since it is the unofficial anthem of northern Ireland. Again, the one sidedness is so obvious it’s becoming a joke.

I am offering a completely unbiased solution here, yet it is being overlooked. This is ridiculous.

Flag: ONLY the official government of northern Ireland standard. It may be suspended, but it is still official and has not collapsed.

Anthem: De Facto, Londonderry Air or none.

That is totally neutral. Why are people finding it so hard to be unbiased here?

• People are finding it so hard to be unbiased because Republicans want everything that was ever British or Northern Irish removed from Northern Ireland. It is no surprise that this website is constantly disputed over. Londonderry Air is not the official national anthem of Northern Ireland because we are part of the UK and the nation's national anthem is God Save the Queen. It is also true we are part of the UK and our official flag is the Union Flag so lets see it when we enter the page but let us also see the Northern Ireland flag. I have no objection to the European Flag also being displayed. I would not object to Londonderry Air being mentioned as an anthem played to represent the country at some sporting events.

---

Not sure what you mean by "official government of northern Ireland standard". I don't believe the flax logo was ever designed to be flown as a flag, it's simply a logo for assembly letterheads. I suppose that could be used in place of the crest, even though it is not one (Official Government Logo?). I don't understand your use of de facto for the anthem used at the Commonwealth Games and not the flag? This is a very controversial issue and never seems to be far from the Talk:Northern Ireland page, maybe it's about time for a proper vote as to what symbols to use in the Info box?

One last thing sign posts with four tides '~' (Shift and # on most keyboards) makes talk pages easier to read. - TheKeith 15:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the official standard as I'm aware, and I for one would view it as totally neutral. Why does their NEED to be a flag anyway, there is no flag of northern Ireland, a simple crest of the current government of northern Ireland would do the job. The fact is, it's really the only official symbol for northern Ireland as a state.

Let's be honest. Is there a Union Jack on the Scotland page? No. Is there a Union Jack on the Wales page? No. Is there a Union Jack on the England page? No. So why one on the northern Ireland page? Am I seriously the only one who wants this article to unbiased?

• Well lets put a union flag on their pages!

Again, I would like ANYONE to tell me what exactly is wrong about the following:

Flag: Official government of northern Ireland standard.

All "flags" can go in the new flags of northern Ireland page where they belong. There is no flag of northern Ireland (at the moment anyway), any usage of unofficial or Union flags (U.K or European) is simply gonna be one sided and won't give a fair representation of what northern Ireland is and represens today.

Anthem: De Facto: Londonderry Air

I will also point out that the Irish F.A are debating using their anthem at their home international football games to try and attrack more Nationalists to their games. The Irish F.A is fairly biased at the moment, most would agree to that, but in most other Sporting events (unless it is an All - Ireland body, which is usually the case) the theme of "Danny Boy", the Londonderry Air, is used.

Also, I think we all know that any vote would result in a total one sidedness towards Unionism, which may be the want for most of the people here, but it simply isn't true if we are to give a fair, unbiased account of the modern day northern Ireland.

PS: Keith, how long have you been at the Uni of Coleraine, I was gonna their myself. Good to know some other people from northern Ireland are here, if only it could be left up to yourself and I to get this article sorted.

Now, to whomever it may concern (i.e. the silent editor) English is an official language of N. Ireland, Irish is since the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, and Ulster Scots (rightfull or wrongfully ..... I don't think much people - Nationalist or Unionist - cared) does not have the same recognition as either. Please take this into account before overlooking and editing. Believe it or not, the '70s are over, there is Unionists who learn Irish, and Nationalists who join the Police *shock*. cheers.

BBX 15:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Like the Ulster Banner, the Londonderry Air was the anthem of the government of Northern Ireland, so has the same "de facto" status as the flag. Also, the Arms were never actually withdrawn so, while no longer used, are not "former". Whether or not the Assembly executive could use them if they chose to, I'm not sure.

Also what's wrong with " Official government of northern Ireland standard." is the small n, which is simply wrong and could refer to anywhere north of Dublin.

Beano ni 19:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that our anonymous poster is correct to a certain point. Northern Ireland's only official national flag is the Union Jack. Its only official national anthem is God Save the Queen. However, as this is an article specifically about Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland has its own official, semi-official and non-official symbols etc, then I support the fact that the Union Jack and the national anthem are not in the infobox at the right hand side. --Mal 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like the following removed

"Under the Good Friday Agreement, Irish and Scots have official recognition on a par with that of English. Often the use of the Irish language in Northern Ireland has met with the considerable suspicion of Unionists, who have associated it with the largely Catholic Republic of Ireland, and more recently, with the republican movement in Northern Ireland itself."

There is so much wrong with this paragraph.

1. In the Good Friday Agreement, it states that Irish is to be promoted in various television and radio broadcasts and media outlets as well as being made available to all school's who wish to teach it and pupils who wish to learn it. It does not extend the same legislation to Ulster Scots. Mainly because not many people speak Ulster Scots, it was created in the 1990's, and is basically the language (or more properly describled, dialect) of the Orange Order.

2. As an Irish speaker, I find it highly offense that I have my native tounge put down as the voice of sectarianism. We have spoken Irish for 100's of years in Ireland, Catholic and Protestant, North and South. It mentions nothing negative about Ulster Scots, a dialect that isn't two decades old, a dialect that a small minority of northern Ireland who are usually in the Orange Order. Has anyone here even read Ulster Scots?

Irish has official usage usage, U.S does not, it has none. I'm not saying that to push any PoV, I'm not saying it as a lie, or an altering of facts, I'm saying it as a fact. An encyclopedia deals with FACTS. I find it offensive that my native tounge is cast in a negative light on this webpage, when it is clearly not true. I live in northern Ireland, I work with members of the Protestant community, I interact with Protestants all the time, they do not believe this. A small sectarian number do, as there is sectarianism on both sides. Give the facts, and not a PoV.

Re the language: Irish is not "official" moreso than any other language, just because the government have committed to promoting it. Also, you may be right that it is offensive to have mention of Irish being put down as the voice of sectarianism, but you lose credibility by launching into a tirade against Ulster-Scots.

From the GFA:

"3.All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland."

Beano ni 19:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• • And I find it just as offensive, as a student who has studies Scots, that you totally disrespect Scots as a language. For your information Scots was the official language of Scotland at one point in time with all business and parliament using the language. Perhaps if you didnt highlight your secterian views about anything loosely associated with Protestants people might respect your own opinion about the Irish language. Might I also point out that I have met with many speakers of Scots who are neither Protestant nor unionist and many many people probably including yourself use Scots words and utilise Scots grammar on a daily basis. It is quite IRONIC that you as an Irish speaker come on the website to defend your language as non secterian but your blatent secterianism shines right through your whole argument. Let me make myself clearer. The Irish language isnt secterian, nor are many of its speakers. The Scots language is not secterian, nor are many of its speakers. It is you who are secterian no matter what language you preach in.

It is inaccurate to say that Ulster Scots was invented in the 1990s. It was standardised in the 1990s, a big difference. Scots has been spoken in Ireland since the Ulster plantations, nobody bothered to create a standardised 'language' until recently. I don't know when Irish was standardised (I'm guessing 19th century) but I think most Irish speakers (and nationalists) would highly offended if told that their language did not exist until the 19th century.

Scots might be popular with the Orange Order now but pretty much everybody in Northern Ireland spoke that way at one time.GordyB 15:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has become a fiasco...

Over the last two weeks because of continuous warring this article has become a fiasco, I have seen more sober stuff on Uncyclopedia. The infobox has become untouchable by any sane person.

• Firstly removing the arms and flag of the government from the infobox (which whatever side your on are some of the most recognisable symbols of Northern Ireland) and replacing it with the symbol of the suspended assembly.
• Secondly the warring over the internet tld, substituting .co.ni (like as if the link with Nicaragua is relevant for a infobox which should be a summary) and putting in .ie (that’s a Republic of Ireland contention that it applies to the whole island) really compounds the fiasco because Northern Ireland does not have its own internet tld as a matter of course.
• Thirdly the issue with the official language. Many countries don’t have official languages per say, but rather a de facto official language. Like who are you kidding when you say Irish and Ulster Scots are "main languages"?

In summary, the infobox has more terms and conditions than a mortgage, people should look at England and Wales for guidance when editing (remembering Scotland maybe another battleground of nationalist/royalist). Infoboxes should be short and have quick, recognisable, relevant facts. Warring only reaffirms traditional cultural attitudes of Northern Ireland. Djegan 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with everything you have said there Djegan. To be honest, I think this article always was a fiasco! Who ever added the "good article" tag - this article had never been up to standard as compared to the Scotland or Wales articles.

Currently I think there is way too much of the Unionist v. Nationalist / Protestant v. Catholic crap throughout. When I get some time I'd like to do a major edit to add a lot of non-sectarian info. and add some decent photos.

Jonto 13:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. As a Northern Irish man myself I feel embarassed about this article but I try not to make changes to prevent inserting any POV into it. The article had a type of status quo with everyone agreeing what could be put in it and what couldn't until a couple of weeks ago when a new editor turned up and lit the powderkeg. Ben W Bell 14:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to: "Re the language: Irish is not "official" moreso than any other language, just because the government have committed to promoting it. Also, you may be right that it is offensive to have mention of Irish being put down as the voice of sectarianism, but you lose credibility by launching into a tirade against Ulster-Scots."

I never launched into any “tirade” against Ulster Scots, I was simply giving a just argument on the flip side of the coin. If Irish is to be painted with a sectarian brush, why shouldn’t Ulster Scots? It’s completely one sided to offend Irish speakers, and simply ignore the same derogatory allegations which could be cast upon Ulster Scots, rightfully or wrongfully.

Now on the subject of Irish not having any official recognition more so than other languages, I would disagree. Irish is a recognised, ancient and working language in the modern World, which has been agreed upon by both the Catholic AND Protestant communities in northern Ireland, under purely democratic votes, to be promoted throughout the North of Ireland in different areas and outlets. No other language was given the same level of recognition in the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement, so I would argue that Irish does indeed have more recognition and official usage than any other language bar English in the North of Ireland. Ulster Scots simply does not represent the Unionist community in northern Ireland, more Unionists neither know nor care to know Ulster Scots. It was a modern created dialect created by members of the Orange Order. That is facts which speakers of the dialect support. I have never had a problem with US, I may hold an objection towards the Orange Order because of it’s anti Catholic legislations that it’s members are supposed to follow, but that is neither here nor there.

Pertaining to the article itself, I believe its in a better state than it was, but some areas need cleaned up. The flag issue has been resolved and I believe that if the symbol of the official northern Ireland government is to be removed, then no symbol should be presented, but I do feel that we have at the moment is fine and gives an unbiased representation. The old government of northern Ireland flag is seen by Nationalists and Catholics as a flag of hate, as it was the flag of the government which openly discriminated against them for years and was - as the first “first minister” of the state said: “A Protestant government, for the Protestant people”. It would be totally irresponsible to show an unofficial “flag” which is offensive to half of the North of Ireland. It’s fine as it is.

The info box should remain in tact, perhaps simply remove things that aren’t representative of northern Ireland. I mean, “National Anthem”? That differs from each person and each body which has to choose one. While most see the tune of “Danny Boy” as unbiased, as I do, most would also agree that there is no one clear National anthem of northern Ireland. The term “National” is, in itself, a joke, since northern Ireland can be ruled at a whim by Westminster and by a government which the people of northern Ireland cannot vote for.

Northern Ireland is a bi-National state, it’s one of the most complex areas in Europe with Irish and British citizens, and it’s obviously not going to be as straight forward as other areas for people outside the North of Ireland to write about. In fact, I would go as far as to say that, at this point, no one outside northern Ireland who has not been to or does not know every detail about the state has a warrant to give an unbiased article on it. I would like any people from northern Ireland to join a discussion in here that does not push PoV, but will build towards giving the best article possible, which I believe we may be close to getting. Both sides need representation equally, whether we have ten Nationalists and one Unionist posting, or visa versa. Most of us can interact just fine nowadays with members of the “other” community.

BBX 00:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately BBX I don't believe you can put an unbiased POV on this article, just reading your post above shows that. Every instance of Northern Ireland you have put there is done as northern Ireland, or you refer to it incorrectly as the north of Ireland. Northern Ireland is the name for it, recognised by the entire world including the Republic of Ireland. If you cannot refer to it by it's correct name then you cannot provide an unbiased opinion. Also you have stated that Irish is your native language, a statement that is brimming with agenda as English is the native and by far most used language of both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland with Irish being a language that is added on top in the Republic of Ireland education system. Ben W Bell 08:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ben, just to let you know there are still people whose native language is Irish, both in Gaeltacht areas and elsewhere. I'm not sure if BBX is one of these, however. --Ryano 10:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I do realise that, but there are only about 10,000 of them and BBX states on his user page that English is his native language. Ben W Bell 10:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There aren't very many of them in Co. Antrim, Ryano. Beano ni 18:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Not terribly many in Down, either (my home county). In Down, incidentally, I've noticed an odd nomenclature - most people seem to call Northern Ireland "Ireland" and the Republic "South of Ireland" or "The South". Orderinchaos78 15:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I can understand that the flag and arms are not everybody’s favourite none-the-less I believe that they are better than the corporate logo of the suspended assembly. Using that logo would be comparable to using the shamrock in the Republic of Ireland article, its simply a poor substitute even though it has some legitimacy.

As for the "Northern Ireland is not a nation" argument that simply does not wash, the terms "state" and "nation" are being confused here and they are quite distinct - one is not the same as the other. And to claim that this article is under the exclusive control of Northern Irish people is a non-starter.

One person cannot decide what is and is not appropriate for the article. Djegan 22:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - the flag and arms should be restored to the infobox. I would actually prefer that [this] was Northern Ireland's flag, but just because we don't agree with what the flag SHOULD be doesn't mean that we should try and misrepresent what the current de facto flag actually IS. The argument that [this] should be removed from the Northern Ireland article just because it was used by loyalist paramilitaries is the same as saying the the Tricolour should be removed from the Republic of Ireland article just because it was used by the IRA, or that the Union Jack should be removed from the United Kingdom article just because it is used by the BNP. There is also already plenty of linked info outlining all the flags and emblems issues in considerable detail, so I doubt this will cause any NPoV issues.Jonto 23:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to:

"Unfortunately BBX I don't believe you can put an unbiased POV on this article, just reading your post above shows that. Every instance of Northern Ireland you have put there is done as northern Ireland, or you refer to it incorrectly as the north of Ireland. Northern Ireland is the name for it, recognised by the entire world including the Republic of Ireland. If you cannot refer to it by it's correct name then you cannot provide an unbiased opinion. Also you have stated that Irish is your native language, a statement that is brimming with agenda as English is the native and by far most used language of both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland with Irish being a language that is added on top in the Republic of Ireland education system. Ben W Bell 08:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)"

1. I write “northern Ireland” by habbit, not consicious. If you look correctly you will see I also write “Northern Ireland”, it’s a joke that a capital “N” can be noticed and brought to attention as if it means anything. I also write “North of Ireland”, because that’s how the vast majority of people from Ireland call this area, it’s not a political thing despite what some might like to push others into believe. It is the North of the island of Ireland, big deal. Northern Ireland, North of Ireland, “northern Ireland”, it’s the same thing!

2. “Irish” is my native language. Natives of this island spoke Irish as their language for hundreds of years before the English came, my ancestors are from here, hence, Irish is my native language. English is my first language. I am a speaker of both Irish and English. Is that somehow wrong? No. I have a right to freely celebrate my heritage. A right which I will not have oppressed and labelled as somehow being anything but peaceful and good.

Pertaining to the flag issue, it’s clear that people are not willing to accept equality. The old government of Northern Ireland flag is not displayed in any legal governmental capacity in northern Ireland. The Tri colour of Ireland has more chance of being flown aloft government buildings in Belfast than the old government of Northern Ireland flag.

Nationalists find the old government of northern Ireland flag offensive because it represents a government which openly discriminated against them and forced them into second class citizenship. That is a fact. People can deny it, people can lie about it, but that’s a simple, straight forward fact. What we have now is an unbiased symbol for the state of Northern Ireland. People want to change it into an biased, outdated and offensive standard. And that’s not a “Point of View”? Gimme a break will ya. The sheer fact that people are so worked up about getting the symbol shown over an unbiased OFFICIAL standard, shows a clear pushing of PoV.

BBX 00:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes you have the right to "freely celebrate" your heritage but not on a Wikipedia Article, use your Userpage.

2. When using English "Northern Ireland" and "northern Ireland" are different. northern is a geographic term, while Northern is a used as part of a name (hence the capital letter).

3. What we have now on the top of the article is a corporate logo used on letterheads, which means little or nothing to anyone anywhere. - TheKeith 16:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You’ve misunderstood. I was trying to get across how I don’t like the way my heritage is being labelled as sectarian in the paragraph I brought to attention. The Irish language is a big part of my heritage, as it is for all native people across this island. The language is nothing but peaceful and is celebrated freely by both Catholics and Protestants, Nationalists and Unionists, both sides of the Irish border.

As for the capital “N” it’s a joke that it can picked up on. Northern Ireland is northern Ireland, I would say I didn’t mean offence, because I didn’t it’s simply habit, but I write “northern Ireland” and “Northern Ireland” just as I say “northern Ireland” and “The North of Ireland”. They’re exactly the same.

And for the symbol, the official standard, I can’t state anything I already haven’t. It’s an unbiased official standard for Northern Ireland. Replacing it was a totally biased, unofficial, outdated and offensive symbol would be strongly pushing a PoV and would not give a fair representation of the modern day northern Ireland.

BBX 18:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the United Kingdom so in lieu of NI having it's own official flag then the only flag that is legal to be flown in the country to represent it, the Union Flag, should be used instead. Ben W Bell 18:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Trying to use the arguement that we can only use a flag that has "official" sanction is misleading. In the United Kingdom and its constituent parts convention and tradition are often seen as a fundemental part of life and as important as the law; see Constitution of the United Kingdom. The articles flag of Northern Ireland and list of British flags may provide interesting reading. In any case if someone did cite a relevant legal instrument i am sure you would argue that Northern Ireland is illegitimate anyhow.

Djegan 20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The flag issue is fine as it is. We are discussing Northern Ireland, not the United Kingdom. We have an official standard of NI on the heading of the webpage, and a seperate page - clearly linked in the article - to show all flags which represent NI and those which represent the different "communities" of northern Ireland. We would all like our own PoV's to be represented and our own flags to be shown, but this is 2006 and Northern Ireland is different than it was in the '70s. Using the official standard is the best and only way to go, to fairly represent the people of this area and to give an unbiased representation of the area. Anything else is pushing a PoV, which isn't right.

Ps: I believe it might be a good idea to lock this article. It's open to so much vandilism from both sides, it's gonna be one of the most controvesial articles on the encyclopedia.

BBX 16:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the way this section

Many voters (regardless of religious affiliation) are attracted to Unionism's, free-market policies and "let's get down to business attitude". While other voters are instead attracted to the traditionally leftist, nationlist SDLP and its party platform for Social Democracy.

is worded. For starters, it's tendentious and secondly it's not accurate. There are five main political parties. Currently, the largest unionist party is the DUP, the largest nationalist party is Sinn Fein. Then you have the UUP, the SDLP and the Alliance. None of these parties are remotely free-market and the SDLP is a middle of the road slightly conservative social democrat party, they are not "leftists". Anyone unfamiliar with NI reading the article would get the wrong impression of NI political parties. I also doubt that any of the parties really have a "get down to business" atitude. Mcgahon 08:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

With respect McGahon, the DUP is very much a free-market (read: capitalist) political party. I agree with your assessment of the "let's get down to business" phrase. --Mal 08:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Re the DUP, I've just had a quick scan of their manifesto and my impression remains that, as with the other parties in NI, they have little interest in economic matters and are more concerned with the typical political issues in NI. It seems to me that there is very little discussion in NI generally about the economy and none of the conventional "free market" issues, tax, (de-)regulation, privatisation, etc. appear in the DUP manifesto. The only reference to "tax" I could find was about water charges, the only reference to "regulation" was to do with waste management and EU regulations and there was no reference to privatisation at all. I have no problem saying they are a conservative party or a party of the right, but "free market" has a specific connotation (of classic/neo-/economic liberalism) which doesn't really apply to the DUP. Mcgahon 11:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, historically the ideology of both unionist parties is that of the free-market. I wouldn't press the issue personally, when it comes to writing the article, because the DUP have never been tested in the matter of economic policy, as that is all controlled via Direct Rule. --Mal 09:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"Free market" and "Conservative" don't mean the same thing, even though many free-marketeers call themselves "conservative" and many conservatives praise the free market. Historically the UK Tory party weren't free market - "Laissez-Faire" was the policy of the old Liberal party, not the Tories. Margaret Thatcher was the first Tory PM to be notably pro-free-market. That the unionist parties supported her was probably more to do with her attitude towards Republicanism and the more traditionally conservative aspects of Tory policy. I doubt that most of the people involved with the UUP or the DUP would be familiar with F.A. Hayek. The "ideology" of the Unionist parties is unionism, that's all. Economics doesn't come into it. AS you note, under their favoured direct rule, economic policy is ceded to whoever is in power in Westminster, Labour or Tory. So why mention economic policy at all. It's less misleading to simply elide the reference to "free market" than it is to retain it. Mcgahon 07:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you repeating what you already said about Conservatism? Hullo?!? You might doubt this, that or the other about whoever, but until you actually talk to one of them, I'm afriad you'll probably remain in the dark about it.

On another note of your ignorance regarding Unionism - Direct Rule is NOT Unionists' favoured constitutional status. Don't try to imply that is what I had said, thank you. --Mal 09:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not getting through: Conservatism does not equal "free market". This is pretty well attested. you are applying your own POV into what should a neutral description. Mcgahon 10:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What's not getting through? I am aware of difference between the Conservative Party and capitalism and a mixed economy. In relation to the politics of the UK, the DUP lean towards free market ideologies. I am not applying POV to anything, as I've not made any edits regarding the issue. Stop being so patronising. --Mal 16:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I call bullshit. If you're going to come up with a statement like "the DUP lean towards free market ideologies" when they patently don't, please offer something to support it. I noted above that I scanned their manifesto for any evidence of same and couldn't find any. Now that was just a scan, but I've never heard anything so much as a hint of a "leaning towards free market ideology" from the DUP. I'm prepared to be corrected but not on the basis of some bland throwaway remark. As it happens "in relation to the politics of the UK", the DUP is considerably less free market (but more conservative!) than the Labour party! The reason I'm mentioning your POV is that you appear to wilfully conflate conservatism and "free-market Ideology" to the extent that you are prepared to argue against a non-controversial edit - replace "free market" with "conservative". I'm at a loss as to why this is so problematic. The point of such an edit would be to present a more accurate picture - anyone unfamiliar with NI or the UK might be misled into thinking the DUP was some sort of deregulating, tax-cutting, privatising party. While I'm at it, I'm going to come back to your insistence that unionists don't favour direct rule. Unonists most certainly favour direct rule compared to joint authority and a signicant proportion of Unionists favour direct rule compared to power-sharing with SF and these are the only options on the table at the moment. Mcgahon 17:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No mate - if you're going to disagree with the fact that the DUP lean towards capitalism, when they patently do, please offer something to support it. You can't see any mention of their economic poicies on their website, yet you feel able to make your own "throwaway comment" that they are somehow "considerably less free-market" than the Labour Party. You're arguing against yourself Im afraid. Enjoy.

As for your insistance that unionists favour direct rule over and above any other form of local government.. well you obviously aren't a unionist for a start, as you have little understanding of them. --Mal 07:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

McGahon, it might interest you to know that I have changed the relevent entry in the article. My main reason is because, as I suggested, the Unionist parties have not been in a position to demonstrate their economic policies for over 30 years now, due to Direct Rule. I try to never let an argument or duscussion get in the way of facts! ;) --Mal 20:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

i am an Irish Catholic a lot of abuse in this article that has been thrown at the Irish (Gaelic) language. Many sectarians, Ulster Scots or people from all Protestant denominations have treated the Catholic peoples as the scum of the earth for 100's of years. They have tryed to trample our believes, ways of life and our language ever since they came to this land. They now believe that because they have been here for so long that the Irish will just accept everything that has happened to them. Then if you believe these things you are wrong.

I myself have no problems with members of Protestant denominations and am happy to live along side them in peace, but what I do have a problem with is the UVF, LVF, the Orange Order and various other Loyalist groups. These groups do their best to cause as much bother and damage to the Catholics and Republicans. For instance the Orange Order have marched threw clearly Catholic areas and caused riots in a clear attempt to stir trouble. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OisínDonnel (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC).

I think most people who believe in the rule of law and democracy have problems with paramilitaries but this isn't really the place to discuss them. If you have a problem with this specific article you can add it here. Also if you would sign your posts with four tides ~~~~, it will add your name and date to the end of your post, a bit like this... <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> theKeith  Talk to me  18:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Official Language reversions

Okay, fact time. Irish is not an official language of Northern Ireland, it is recognised but not an official language, government is not done in the language but in English. It is also not a language that is spoken by 87% of the population as someone has claimed. In the Republic of Ireland, 1.6 million people claim some knowledge of the Irish (yes Irish, Irish is a language, it is part of the Gaelic group but Gaelic itself isn't an actual language). That 1.6 million is less than half the population of the RoI, and of those less than 550,000 claim fluency. Now in Northern Ireland, which this article is about, only 160,000 people claim knowledge of Irish, and less than half of them claim fluency. Now since 160,000 represents less than 10% of the population of Northern Ireland I do not see where this ridiculous claim that 87% of the country speaks the language comes from. Ben W Bell 19:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In answer to Ben W Bell I would just like to say that you are clearly diluded. Are you unaware of the fact that all Catholic schools have Irish on their curriculum. The fact that Irish is not spoken by all Catholics and Nationalists is because the English came here and trampled and beat the Irish language out of everyone who spoke it. The fact that you have got to except is that the Gaelic language is more widely spoken now than it has been for hundreds of years. By OisínDonnel

I have no problem with keeping flag, I personally support the usage of the St. Patrick's cross with the Shamrock centre flag, and hopefully a more non biased flag will be used soon, but w/e. So long as it's clearly labelled as the former government of NI standard. Being "de facto" is whatever people believe it is. Some people, from both Ireland and internationally, view the Irish Tricolour as the de facto.

I do want to report something serious though:

WildIrishMan Vandilising

I would ask those "in power" to please take a look at the history page. WildIrishMan has removed factual information pertaining the the N. Ireland census, and added in untrue and ufactual information to strongly push his PoV.

I would ask that this is please deal with ASAP. I noticed how quick Nationalist points are removed, now how long will this be allowed to go?????

Please sign your comments. --Mal 20:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling any Adults posting here

I've just had a jook at the "history" section for this page, seems like some people have been busy boys and girls. There is so many Kid's here it isn't even funny anymore. People, act like adults for this one. Ok. Here's my opinion. If anyone would do me a favour and actually get back to me on this, I'd appreciate it. Let's a have simple, discussion.

1. National Language. There is none, we've learned that. It's over. English is the working language like it is in a lot of countries, it doesn't MAKE you English, or British, or Australian or American. Irish is spoken by a lot of people, and is the native (historic) language of the island of Ireland, so it has some recognition. A smaller number practice Ulster Scots. Let's leave it as it is. It clearly states there is no official language. I believe it's fine. Can we agree to settle this?????

2. National Anthem. Now this one is a joke. There is no "National Anthem" of Northern Ireland. God save the Queen is the anthem of England and the United Kingdom, though unofficial I believe. We are discussing northern Ireland, not the United Kingdom. There is as much reason to put "National anthem" on the Northern Ireland as there is to put it on the South East England (or whatever region it is) page. It's nit picking guys.

The De Facto, UNBIASED anthem for northern Ireland is Danny Boy/Londonderry Air. The Irish FA play Gstq, big deal, the Commonwealth Games play Danny Boy. On a discussion note, the I.F.A have discussed played it in their new stadium. Now as far as I'm aware, the Irish FA don't make laws pertaining to the State. They wonder why so little Nationalists turn out to n. Ireland games????? Oh come on, get real. They know exactly the reason.

Put Londonderry Air there if it's so important to People's PoV to have a "National Anthem" there. Pointless argument, absolutely pointless.

I don't want People ganging up on me. I'm a Nationalist from Belfast, yes, but I didn't actually want to believe there was this much bitternes still going on in the Province. I have many Unionist/Protestant friends - I really don't care about my friends political affiliation. I'd like for a mature Unionist poster, who is open about it, to discuss this with me, someone who actually socialises and knows we're not in the '70s anymore. People come on, this isn't the place to be acting like Kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude1 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC) --Mal 01:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I was about to start a subheading on this talk page, though I see you've already addressed the points I was going to address Wikidude1. The official language, as such, is that which is used by all the people, and in official government documents and legislation etc. that would be English. Now, before you consider I'm expressing POV, I have to say that yes - I do consider myself unionist, and I'm also from Belfast. But I also support the survival of the Irish Gaelic language. I should note that Gaelic isn't necessarily the "native" language of Ireland, as it replaced whatever language(s) was(were) used by the people of the island(s) before their arrival. But it was the 'native' language by the .. what - 6th century AD?.. up until the imposition of English on the Irish people. One possible compromise would be to simply change to "Language(s)", and list them in order of popularity of use (English, Irish, Ulster-Scots?).

Regarding the National Anthem, Londonderry Air was adopted by the NI government as the national anthem. Its interesting to note the wikipedia entries for the other constitutional countries of the UK. The claim seems to be that "God Save the Queen" is not the 'offical' anthem and nor does it appear to be the official anthem of the UK. However, GSTQ is always used (as far as I can determine) when it comes to 'official' (countrywide, as opposed to regional) events and has thus surely become de facto. As "countries within a country", therefore, the 'de facto' anthem for each part of the UK would surely be GSTQ. However, as there is already a UK article, which explains the usage of the anthems, I could logically propose that we drop the anthem entry from the infobox completely. And do the same for the other three UK regions for consistency, and put a note in the main body somewhere.

The NI flag was adopted by the government of 1920 - 1972 also. But the official flag of Northern Ireland is actually (whether you agree with it or not - and no offence is implied) the Union Jack. I would propose that we keep the Northern Ireland flag until such time as perhaps the Assembly is back up and running, and decides to adopt a different flag.

The problem is, I think, that the UK has no written constitution. Laws, rules and policy are determined by practical implementation - Common Law. The other main problem is that Northern Ireland's constitutional status within the UK is, obviously, not 'accepted' by every person in NI. To be an elected MP for example, it is the custom of the country to swear an oath of allegience to the monarchy. The problem in that sense, as I see it, is the acceptance of the established facts: that NI is part of the UK; that the nationality (de facto again!) of its people is British; that it is part of a country which is a monarchy; that it was created to ensure the Protestant majority of the region was, in fact, the majority. Again, I mean no disrespect or offence by stating these things - I merely offer them for discussion and reasoning (and, with regard to nationality, I'm aware of course of the similar de facto situation regarding being an Irish citizen). Anyway, I hope that is a mature enough response to your points, even if you should disagree with any or all of my suggestions and 'facts' as I understand them. To summarise then, I would suggest dropping the 'national anthem' from the infobox in favour of a note in the main text; keeping the flag as is; adjusting the languages part to reflect common usage. --Mal 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with keeping flag, I personally support the usage of the St. Patrick's cross with the Shamrock centre flag, and hopefully a more non biased flag will be used soon, but w/e. So long as it's clearly labelled as the former government of NI standard. Being "de facto" is whatever people believe it is. Some people, from both Ireland and internationally, view the Irish Tricolour as the de facto. Despite what this website - which in my opinion is making me, as a Nationalists, feel very unwelcome, claims - I believe a United Ulster and a United Ireland are sooner coming than reported here. My ideal Ireland is for four self governing local assemblies of the provinces, operating as part of a Reunited, Political Ireland. Scots decendant people have nothing to fear in a united nine county Ulster were they celebrate their culture freely with their Irish neighbours, as part of a thirty two county, Political Nation.

I'm assuming this comment is from you Wikidude1. Please sign your comments mate. As for the Patrick flag with the shamrock in the middle - sounds ok-ish. I'd like a red hand in it for historical reasons (I appreciate the red hand of Ulster has been hijacked by certain paramilitaries, but I'm claiming it back!). The crown would probably be best omitted and the 6-pointed star too. For the minute though, the NI flag is the semi-official one, and I guess that should remain for now, and as you say - label it as the former flag of the govt. The Tricolour cannot be viewed as de facto, no matter what foreign people my think (and, let's face it, many foreigners think many things, and not all of the things they think are correct!), because the majority of the Northern Irish people reject the notion. The govt of the RoI have also ammended their constitution as part way an acceptance of this. If you believe that a United Ireland is going to come sooner than articles here report (though I have to say that I've not noticed any article so far that suggests a time frame for this happening), I'd certainly be glad to discuss that with you - probably best as a separate discussion from this talk page. The other points you make are not directly related to this article either, though I personally appreciate hearing your viewpoints. Regarding your suggestions, since you offered them, I have to say that you appear to have a simplistic view (no offence) of these people you think that should have nothing to fear: while I have some Scottish ancestory (my granda's granda was a Scottish Quaker), all the rest of my roots are Irish. I do think your suggestion excludes any desire to remain British, as part of the British political entity. In my case, and with respect, that's not acceptable. That's my personal opinion though, and nothing I think either of us should get upset about. :) --Mal 21:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I do want to report something serious though:

WildIrishMan Vandilising

I would ask those "in power" to please take a look at the history page. WildIrishMan has removed factual information pertaining the the N. Ireland census, and added in untrue and ufactual information to strongly push his PoV.

I would ask that this is please deal with ASAP. I noticed how quick Nationalist points are removed, now how long will this be allowed to go?????

Please sign your comments. I've not looked at the article for the changes made by this editor, and I'm putting Northern Ireland on the backboiler for the minute in any case. But my suggestion would be to remove a LOT of the references to the troubles and political ideologies, stating only a basic summary (if at all possible!), and concentrate more on the many other aspects of Northern Ireland. Ideologies and politics are best left to other articles such as Unionist (Ireland) and Irish nationalist etc. Obviously there's a certain amount of overlap with both UK-related subjects and RoI-related subjects, though I would personally like to see both of those aspects pruned as much as possible so that its specifically geared towards these 6 of 9. --Mal 21:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'd probably agree with that. I do believe it's an absolute joke that they're using a small scale, unofficial opinion poll to give facts. I mean, come on, a majority of Catholics don't support a United Ireland????? That's the biggest load of horse crap I've ever heard. 40% of Norn Ireland support Nationalists parties with main goals of a reunified Ireland for Pete's sake! This place is unbelievable at times.

Is there a way of lodging a complaint?

I'm getting tired of being trolled by user Ben W. Bell and his constant anti Nationalist views. Each and every valid point I insert is removed because it's Nationalist, whereas any Unionist points are kept in - rightfully so of course - but this bigetory has to stop. Does anyone know if there is a way to lodge a complain to a competant person in power around here?

Please SIGN your comments. Otherwise its not easy to find out who you are and where your talk page is, if anyone wants to contact you about issues you've raised. --Mal 20:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry what have I done? If this is user BBX then looking through the history yes I did revert an edit of yours recently. However that was not actually intentional, I was reverting back because an anonymous user had deleted a massive chunk of the article including all the links, references and other items, almost half the article. Reverting was the easiest way to get it back. Checking what you had done afterwards I have no problems with the edit you made and I'm sorry I didn't go back in and re-add them. Ben W Bell 08:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition I revert and alter many Unionist edits to these sort of pages as well when they are very POV. On articles such as this it is important to maintain a neutral POV on the page. If you check my histories while yes there may be more reversion of nationalist POV than unionist POV, but that is just pure numbers as these articles are historically more likely to be POV'd to nationalist leanings. And watch who you are calling anti-nationalist as you have no idea as to my actual political views on this topic, and probably never will as my views don't come into an encyclopaedia. I deal solely in facts as accepted by the world. Ben W Bell 08:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough I apoligse, the constant change from "good" to "rubbish" or "PoV" on this article is getting tiresome for me, your name was really only the first I saw a few times in the history page. I didn't mean to cause any offense personally, I'm just trying to vent a few fustrations about the subject. Again, I didn't mean any personal offense.

PS: The article as of the time of writing this, flag and all, are close to totally neutral as we're going to get. If only someone could lock the page eh.

Van Morrison was wrong

Wikidude: you put a quote in the article (which has since been removed) by Van Morrison:

Perhaps Belfast born singer/songwriter Van Morrison put it best when he proudly declared "I'm Irish and a British subject."[1]

But Northern Irish people gain British citizenship by virtue of being born in the UK to Northern Irish parents - they are not "subjects". Subject status was reserved for British overseas and commonwealth citizens, but that nominclature was changed in the early 1980s I believe. --Mal 00:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The term British subject has a restricted meaning today. In its statutory sense it only encompasses those holding British nationality solely by connection with India, Pakistan or the Republic of Ireland prior to 1949. JAJ 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Though its more than just India, Pakistan and the RoI. --Mal 23:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The only way one can be a British subject under the British Nationality Act 1981 is through a connection with India, Pakistan or the Republic of Ireland before 1949. People connected with other former colonies or territories of the UK may have a different status, such as British Overseas citizen or British National (Overseas) but these persons are not British subjects in the statutory sense of the term. Nor are British citizens. JAJ 23:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We're agreeing here quite a lot.. though I had thought that other regions (other than Pakinstan, India and the RoI) had previously been known as "subjects" before the change in policy/law regarding that usage. Either way, Van the Man was quite wrong. --Mal 01:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Prior to 1983 the term "British subject" had a much wider statutory usage in British law, including Citizens of the UK & Colonies, citizens of Commonwealth countries, and British subjects without citizenship (certain persons from India, Pakistan and RoI). From 1983 the term only applied to the third category as far as statute is concerned. However the term British subject may still mean in a more generic sense a subject of Her Majesty in right of the United Kingdom, which includes all categories of British nationality other than British protected person (five categories in total). JAJ 01:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see what you're saying here. I'm not sure that those people are truly subjects though. As far as I can see, to be truly (or officially, if you like) considered a British subject, a British citizen would have to be a knight or similar..? --Mal 01:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really. There are two different definitions of "British subject" out there - a statutory definition under the British Nationality Act 1981 (sections 30-35) and a more generic concept of being a subject of Her Majesty in right of the United Kingdom (as distinct from other Commonwealth Realms such as Australia or Canada). Being knighted doesn't make you a "British subject" - you have to be a British subject (in the generic sense of the term, which includes British citizens) to get a substantive knighthood. There is also such a thing as an honorary knighthood. See List of honorary British knights (the distinction between the generic and statutory definition of British subject is also discussed on the talk page). The Home Office Immigration & Nationality Directorate generally use the term "British subject under the 1981 Act" to make it clear they are using the statutory definition of British subject. JAJ 01:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OK so, with reference to Van Morrison's quote, he would have been referring to a general perceived concept, as opposed to an official label. In that sense then, he is not entirely wrong then. --Mal 01:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct, except that usually the term "British subject" is used as a substitute for "British citizen" when the latter term is the more appropriate one for the context. JAJ 02:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OK I'd agree on that, though I think to call a British Citizen a "British Subject" is possibly wrong, though that may be just my own personal point of view. Certainly, British Citizen is more correct when talking about the average UK resident. I'm not particularly pro-Monarchy.. but I guess I'm not particularly anti-Monarchy either. --Mal 14:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Note on "its" vs "it's"

In modern English it has become correct to use either version. An editor recently changed "it's" to "its" in the article, though there was no real need to. I'm not changing it back of course, because the new edit is just as correct as the original. --Mal 07:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

When did this come in? Everything I've seen says that this is still a recognised difference - and easily the most common spelling error going. Timrollpickering 15:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm...I'm not sure that's true, Setanta. I know it's (or is it its?) often treated that way, but I'm almost 100% positive that with an apostrophe, it's (or is it its?) a contraction meaning "it is" or "it has," and that without an apostrophe it's (or is it its?) a possesive. And regardless of its (or is it it's?) colloquial usage, it would have been wrong to leave a possesive with an apostrophe.--82.83.39.161 15:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I should have been clearer, sorry. It's become acceptable to use the form its for the contraction (it is; it has), though not to change the possessive form into it's. Thus, its acceptable to drop the apostrophe in the contracted form. Apparently however, it's was the accepted form for both in the 19th century. In the last couple of hundred years though, it became correct grammar to only use the apostrophe in the contraction. I didn't actually read the context of the sentence that was changed in the edit by the way (EDIT: So it looks as if what I said in my initial post here was uneccessary, as it was a change made to a possessive form!). --Mal 04:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think it's become acceptable to use "its" for "it is" or "it has"; most certainly not in any institution which actually teaches English. That people commonly make mistakes which are not even registered any longer in spoken language (e.g. in German "wegen dem" instead of "wegen des", or "weil er hat gesagt" instead of "weil er gesagt hat") any longer does not change anything about the rules of the language. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 11:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Better example for the English Wikipedia (though I'll admit exactly those two German examples were the first parallels to come to mind, too): in English, even though like 95% of everyone says "If I was there, I would've (or is it wouldve?)done something" for the conjunctive, that doesn't(or is it doesnt?) make it correct. It has to be "If I were there." Because it's used colloquially does not mean it's correct. --This guy

I beg to differ Nightstallion. While I agree, the established grammar is that the apostrophe is used in the contraction, it has become 'acceptable' to omit it.. as taught to me by an English teacher. --Mal 11:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference to any source that allows its for the contraction? I must say this is the first I've heard of it.

Some might say a little laxity in these rules makes things easier, but I would take the opposite view. It's easier to learn rules of grammar and style when these rules are consistent. Allowing something like its for the contraction just introduces another exception to the rule which must be learned along with the rule itself. A good example is the practice of allowing things like CD's for the plural of CD. Many style guides allow this on the basis of "readability", but I would favour "writability" over readability. The rule "an apostrophe is never used to indicate a plural" is easier to learn than a rule "an apostrophe is never used to indicate a plural except in certain specific cases on which nobody agrees". --Ryano 12:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you Ryano. Its(!) ok for informal writing, but with regard to literature such as this, I think it's(!) important to stick to more rigid rules.

As for my source.. well an English teacher with degrees coming out of her ears, and several other learnéd people have indicated to me that this rule has become more lax in the last couple of decades.

Regarding the plural of CD - I actually thought that people use the apostrophe to denote the missing letters - isc (although obviously nobody does it between the letters as in "C'D"). --Mal 14:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's is a contraction of it is whereas its is the possessive of it. Working for three years in the media with editors, it doesn't appear to be particularly flexible. Orderinchaos78 15:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's cause its not flexible. 82.82.188.159 16:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet I'm just after explaining that it is. --Mal 11:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't consider it in any contexts other than informal ones. Your source may be an English teacher, but it's certainly a minority opinion. Although it may become acceptable in a few decades, it isn't yet.BovineBeast 16:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Justifying lax use because of its rampant overuse does not imply it's correct. Ain't is not a word, but a lot of people use it ... does that make it acceptable to use here? --PaddyM 18:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It would appear you're definitely in the minority on this, Setanta. Quoting from the excellent Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss: The confusion of the possessive "its" (no apostrophe) with the contractive "it's" (with apostrophe) is an unequivocal sign of illiteracy and sets off a simple Pavlovian "kill" response in the average stickler. "It's" and "its" were once interchangeable in the posessive sense, but no longer is this the case.--Kwekubo 19:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Look:

• It's = It is
• Its = possessive

It's (!!) one of the exceptions. No more. End of argument. Jonto 16:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Civillian Deaths

Sutton states that 96.7% of Loyalist killings, 56.8% by the security forces and 43.1% by Republican paramilitaries took the lives of civilians.

Is it not the case that since the killing of republican terrorists (IRA etc) would be registered as 'civillian deaths', and if so the above statement be amended to reflect that? beano 12:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Loyalist terrorists? Nil Einne 11:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

96.7% of Loyalist killings... what about Loyalist terrorists Nil Einne..? (96.7% is incorrect by the way) --Mal 22:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also the whole issue of the term "terrorist". Articles have been written on its meaning and use. If it is used in this article, I hope it is applied to both sides or not at all. Fsotrain09 01:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What issue? I have not seen the word terrorist appear in this article for quite a while, so I don't think it is an issue. My personal opinion is that they should all be labelled what they are: terrorists. However, there seems to be an unoffical and unspoken consensus that articles relating to Northern Irish matters describe these plethora of groups as "paramilitaries". I've stuck by that myself. --Mal 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mal, I was referring to the above comments, and just advising that we keep anything one-sided and/or inflammatory out of the article itself. Thanks for doing that yourself. Fsotrain09 03:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah .. mea culpa. I misunderstood your comment. --Mal 09:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Danny Boy

At the Commonwealth Games, the Northern Ireland team uses the Ulster Banner as its flag and Danny Boy is used as its National Anthem.

Is the official name used for the anthem Danny Boy rather then Londonderry Air? Or if there is no official name, is this the name commonly used to describe the anthem in the media? This wouldn't be surprising since I expect we would have a Londonderry/Derry Air controversy otherwise but can someone confirm it's the case? If it is, can someone update the Londonderry Air article appropriatly Nil Einne 11:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Danny Boy is a song played "to the tune of Londonderry Air". Basically I think, without the lyrics, the song is Londonderry Air. There is no controversy surrounding the name: it was always referred to as Londonderry Air despite the controversy surrounding the name of the city and county. --Mal 14:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Stroke City

Can we agree on a compromise when editing articles, that all references to the city be called "Derry" and all references to the county be called "Londonderry" perhaps..? --Mal 06:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally yes its a good idea and principal, the only exception I can think of is for quotations that need to be as is. It is very clumsy in articles having to remind the reader of the correct and incorrect name every time, and particularily in tables where space is limited. Djegan 10:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Section on discrimination

I have edited the section discrimination and deleted some of the information relating to unionist attitudes to discrimination. This is a contentious issue and my reason for doing this is make sure that we keep as factual as possible. Therefore I believe the way the article was edited from my intial contribution was somewhat misleading and not really backed up by the facts. Undoubtably there were and are many unionists who belive discrimination did not occur but the issue was being dealt with by government agencies from as early as 1969 e.g. Cameron Report and I believe the article had been edited to appear that it was only in the 1990 that the majority of unionists finally came to accept discriminationa s a reality. I belive this isn't backed up by the information on the Cain website.

Melaugh decribes it as follows.

"The Unionist Party enjoyed 50 years of control in Northern Ireland without intervention from Westminster. During that time many aspects of the operation of the state continued to benefit Protestants more than Catholics. An element of this was a number of forms of direct and indirect discrimination. Whyte (1983) produced a list of fields where discrimination was practised and ranked them from the greatest level of discrimination to the least. These were, electoral practices, public employment, policing, private employment, public housing, and regional policy. While the extent of direct discrimination in these fields was, and remains, the subject of debate (Hewitt, 1981, 1983, 1985; O'Hearn, 1983, 1985; and Kingsley, 1989) most researchers and commentators accept that this type of discrimination was practised mainly against Catholics over an extended period of time. Perhaps the most important consequence of this was the creation of a perception among the total Catholic population of a more widespread and systematic form of direct discrimination than the currently available evidence would support. Nevertheless, the Catholic allegations of discrimination by a number of local government districts, predominantly in the south and west of the region, were substantiated in many respects by later investigations (Cameron Report, 1969). There is also evidence that Catholics, in a few areas where they were in control of a local authority, discriminated against Protestants. As Catholics were less likely to be in a position to exercise such discrimination there was less of it; this is not in any way to excuse that discrimination which was carried out.

The Civil Rights movement focused British and wider public opinion on the relatively poorer circumstances of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland. Under pressure from Westminster the Stormont government began to introduce a number of reforms in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Some reforms required little more than political will and the introduction of new legislation, and so were implemented fairly quickly. Other difficulties, in particular the relative economic disadvantage of the Catholic community, have proved more problematic. Reforms in this area have taken longer to implement and appear to have had less impact on the situation. At the heart of the problem is a cycle of disadvantage which, while affecting the poorest sections in both communities, is particularly pervasive in the Catholic community. This cycle involves a number of interrelated elements including education, employment, income, housing, wealth, social class, and health.

Issues related to education are considered elsewhere in this book (see Chapter 11) but it is worth noting here that an important effect of the segregated education system is the marked difference in the educational attainment of Catholics and Protestants (Gallagher, 1989). According to Northern Ireland Continuous Household Survey (CHS) estimates, based on samples of the population taken during 1988 to 1991, 52 per cent of Catholics had no formal education qualifications compared to 46 per cent of Protestants (Policy Planning and Research Unit (PPRU) 1993). While differences in educational attainment do not fully explain community differentials in employment opportunities (Eversley, 1989) they are an important factor in the job prospects of each individual."

Therefore I removed the info realting to unionist attitudes to discimination as the rpevious edit was misleading. When can however discuss this further and come to a consensus.# --Strangelyb 18:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you were right to edit. This is indeed a very contentious issue, and is near impossible to summarise succinctly. The Whyte reference mentions something like "discrimination was neither black nor white but most likely a murky shade of grey". The previous mention of unionist denial and opinion, was not balanced with nationalist exaggeration and opinion. Jonto 17:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Religious breakdown

I have removed the addition of the Free Presbyterians as being stated as the third largest religious denomination in Northern Ireland. According to the CAIN website, Free Presbyterians make up around 1% of Northern Ireland's population as compared with Methodists' 4% and Baptists 2%. The data was taken from a 1993 source, and I doubt very much that the percentages have changed enough to place Free Presbyterians ahead of Methodists in the subsequent years.

CAIN had a problem for me, though I was able to access a cached version of the page. --Mal 20:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well since that 1993 source the membership of the Free Presbyterian Church has increased dramatically, however I wouldn't have thought they'd be anywhere near the other churches in percentages still. Ben W Bell 09:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I spent a good few minutes looking through websites to try to find a more current statistical breakdown, but to no avail. If anyone can prove that Free Ps outnumber Methodists in 2001 or more recently, I'd be happy for any change to be made to the article. --Mal 10:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this excel file from the 2001 census will prove invaluable to this and other NI articles. In descending order: Catholic 678,462 (40.26%) ; Presbyterian Church in Ireland 348,742 (20.69%); Church of Ireland 257,788 (15.30%); Methodist Church in Ireland 59,173 (3.51%); Baptist 18,974 (1.13%); Free Presbyterian 11,902 (0.71%) ... (Total population 1,685,267). Given the problems inherent in combining other smaller religions - please be careful using these statistics. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

More on religious breakdown

The leading sentence in the Demographics section says:

"In the 2001 census, 45.5% of the Northern Irish population were Protestant, (Presbyterian, Church of Ireland, Methodist and other Protestant denominations), and 40.3% of the population were Roman Catholic. 13.9% of the population did not specify a religion. [4]"

..Which adds up to 100% when including those of other non-Christian religions. Yet the source quoted says 40.26% Catholic, 39.5% Protestant (Presbyterian, Church of Ireland, Baptist), 6.07% Other Christian, and 0.33% Other religions. The other Christian element includes many Protestants, but also other Christian religions such as 8,502 (0.5%) 'Christian,' Greek Orthodox, 'Believe in God', Non Denominational (1,115), 'Church', Independent, Interdenominational, Charismatic, and numerous other minorities that are not, or may not be, Protestant. It is wrong to include them all in the Protestant figure. This figure is over-inflated. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

..This should be changed to be more accurate, in table format or something. 7 June 2006 16:55 (UTC)

Unionist or Nationalist?

"Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a unionist, a nationalist or neither?"

• Unionist 38%
• Nationalist 24%
• Neither 35%

First, please cite your sources, and don't just delete them. Second, I interpret this as 38% in favour of unionism, 24% in favour of nationalism, and 35% not expressing a preference. This is not the same as wishing to remain part of the UK. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

re the claim that a "majority" of 38 support the union with the UK, that falls into an easy mistake to make. Those who analyse polls are very careful never to interpret a poll that way. The actual question was about definitions: do you regard yourself as Unionist, Nationalist or other? Those sort of questions are used to establish numbers on definitions, but invariably, as pollsters know, the numbers are nonsense. The reason is that a large group of each community will define themselves in a misleading way, either deliberately or accidentially. For example, middle of the road citizens in a divided society invariably give a definition that says "I'm not part of either extreme". But when the numbers on specific issue questions are asked, you find they do actually belong to one or other camp. The odds are, for example, that most Alliance Party members will have put themselves in the third camp, but when questioned about the respective merits of union versus unity, the overwhelming majority will be in the union camp. Similarly, detailed surveys of Nationalists show a surprising number are actually pro-union. Polling done after Paisley's electoral triumph showed a drop in the "unionist" category, because moderate unionists interpreted "unionist" as indicating support for the main campaigners for the Union, the DUP, and they wanted to have no association with that party. Ditto in Nationalism. If electoral swings produce a swing towards Sinn Féin, moderate nationalists tend to define themselves as "other". Self-categorisation is always a weak point in polling. It is usually done by pollsters do answer the question "what do you think you are? What are you really?" with the latter question answered in detailed questions of the sort "if a referendum was held tomorrow, would you vote for Irish unity or maintenance of the Union?". Professional pollsters regard the latter as more reliable that self-definition questions, which are only used to establish the degree of definitionary distortion voters possess.

Anyone who understands polling would not use the figures you use in the context in which you use them. It is called definitionary distortion, the tendency of people to categorise themselves in a false way. (See above). Your analysis in that paragraph is fatally flawed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, so it is certainly wrong to suggest that 66% are in favour of the unionist position, which is why I added the correct figure and source for your edit which said that. I suggest this section says exactly what is referenced - that 38% describe themselves as unionist, 24% describe themselves as nationalist, and 35% describe themselves as neither. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you even read the paragraph??? Your edits suggest you haven't. It doesn't say that x number defines themselves as such and such. It states that "A majority of the present-day population (number) wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, but a vocal minority (number) want to see a united Ireland." That is not what the survey says. Surveys show that people who define themselves as "Unionists" when questioned in detail don't all fit the category, while those who define themselves as Nationalist don't all fit the category either (some "Nationalists" favour the Union over Unity!) And by the way 38% is not, under any definition, a majority. All you simply did was crudely edit a paragraph to change its meaning with different numbers without knowing that you were using the wrong survey question. You didn't even see the clanger that resulted in you describing a minority result as a majority!!! Please be more careful. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to say 66% wish to remain part of the UK?. Do you have any sources which say that 45.5% of the population are Protestants? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I noticed you changing the number first, marking the edit as minor (which it certainly is not), and not using an edit summary. Looking through the page history the source used until fairly recently was this survey - which says 59% think the long term policy for Northern Ireland should be... - however again this relates to the government's policy, and not their personal preference (in favour of...). I have no idea why you removed a valid source, or why you later removed the template saying that the statements are unsourced. The Protestant figure is still wrong, and I encourage you to acknowledge both statements are still unsourced. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the Ark surveys, as opposed to misrepresenting them. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So, no sources then? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the Ark surveys, as opposed to misrepresenting them. The answers are all there. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 13:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is a member of the United Kingdom - Fact!

I'm troubled (pun intended!) that on reading the Northern Ireland page, I find that the first line is:

"Northern Ireland is one of the constituent countries (disputed — see talk page) of the United Kingdom. "

How can this fact be disputed? Regardless if individuals or organisation's political stance, the fact that Northern Ireland is a member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is undeniable (as of 4th May 2006).

Perhaps the first line of the article needs to be more carefully worded to avoid the ambiguity of the "disputed" reference.

Come on people - the clue is in the name: United Kingdom of Great Britain '''and Northern Ireland''' ItsGrimUpNorth 08:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but the fact that its a part of the UK isn't the disputed part, it's whether or not Northern Ireland is actually a country that is the disputed fact. Thing is Northern Ireland's international status is very odd and unclear. I consider it a country, but many don't, and there's not a clear cut answer. Ben W Bell 08:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair play! Perhaps the use of the word country (or rather countries) should be reconsidered, to avoid such an ambiguous opening line to the article. Perhaps the article should open with:

"Northern Ireland is one of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom." and later have a reference to "The matter of whether Norhern Ireland holds true country status is a matter of some discussion..." ItsGrimUpNorth 08:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to "Thing is Northern Ireland's international status is very odd and unclear", the contrary is true. Only sovereign states have "international status" and Northern Ireland has no status in that respect. The international community in its entirety recognises - and has always recognised - that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. JAJ 03:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This would seem to be the fairest and most NPOV way of doing it. Orderinchaos78 11:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The disputed claim is centered on the constituent country status not on Northern Ireland been part of the United Kingdom. Its a matter of terminology. Djegan 18:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Irish Passport Issue

Quote from article: "This is as a result of the Republic of Ireland extending its nationality law on an extra-territorial basis in 2001 about as a result of the Belfast Agreement of 1998, which stated that:"

Did the RoI not issue Irish passports to NI citizens prior to 1998?

Jonto 23:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Until quite recently it was not assumed that someone from Northern Ireland was an Irish citizen automatically (unless they or a parent where an Irish citizen), instead they had to complete a section of the passport claiming the entitlement to a passport. Typically this involved stating that they or their parent where born in Ireland prior to 1922. Been born in Northern Ireland alone was not enough. Djegan 18:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You sure about that? I was born in 1978 and my parents had the option of selecting British or Irish citizenship for me. My parents were both born in Belfast. Orderinchaos78 11:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite sure, unless you were otherwise an Irish citizen (i.e. by birth, decent, naturalisation or marriage) then Section 7(1) Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956 would of applied to you if you were born in Northern Ireland.

Perhaps one of the most formost examples of Northern Ireland and Irish citizenship is McGimpsey v. Ireland (1990) in which two brothers from Northern Ireland challenged the legality of the Republic of Ireland to approve the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Whilst it was assumed the two were indeed Irish citizens they had not proven this by actually making a claim or statement under Section 7. Thus it was determined that they did not have locus standi and the action was dismissed in the Supreme Court.

Djegan 12:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to : "I was born in 1978 and my parents had the option of selecting British or Irish citizenship for me. My parents were both born in Belfast." There is nothing optional about British citizenship, in this case British citizenship is acquired at birth. It's optional about deciding whether or not to apply for a British passport, but holding British citizenship is not contingent on that. JAJ 03:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad wording on third paragraph?

On the third paragraph, it read:

Northern Ireland was for many years the site of a bitter ethnic/religious campaign of violence between a minority of Nationalists (who wanted it to be reunified with the Republic of Ireland) and a majority of Unionists (who wanted it to remain part of the United Kingdom). The campaign was known popularly as The Troubles.

I think that's worded badly, as there has been fighting in that way for hundreds of years in Northern Ireland. Thoughts? (Also, first talk page comment. :) ) --Pauric 03:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There can't have been "fighting in that way" for "hundreds of years in Northern Ireland" as Northern Ireland has only existed for 85 years. --Mal 13:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Has there not been sectarian strife of one form or another in Ulster long before the advent of Northern Ireland? Also, the passage makes it sound as though only a minority of Nationalists want a United Ireland, and a minority of Unionists want to remain part of the UK! Martin 21:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Article getting messy again

The article is getting a bit messy. Again. I would suggest moving the lists of towns and places of interest to the bottom of the article (it looks very broken up and bitty atm), and also paring the politics/demographics section back to what it was a year or so ago - there is an extensive specific artile on the subject. Also, the flags controversy is waaaay to prominent. Most people in NI/Ulster/the Six County pseudo-statelet never fly a flag in their puff. If it needs to be in the article it can go down a bit. Gerry Lynch 12:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Added

Added a cite on "Some Unionists argue that any discrimination was not just because of religious or political bigotry, but also the result of more complex socio-economic, socio-political and geographical factors" Dont know what it means or who it refers to. Added detail on the arsenal of loyalist paramilitaries and link to IICD. Cleared up some grammar. Shame there is no economy section yet, or immigration section. Good work otherwise, tricky subject. Fluffy999 20:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fluffy,

What don't you understand? Here's definitions on the words which might be confusing. No offence quoting just don't really see what is confusing unless it's terminology.

socio-economic

socioeconomic adj : involving social as well as economic factors; "socioeconomic status"

so·ci·o·po·li·ti·cal adj. Involving both social and political factors.

The point of the sentence is that discrimination is not a black and white issue. It is argued that discrimination occured for other reasons than bigotry or prejudice.

"A debate about the nature and extent of discrimination has been going on for many years. There are many in the Unionist community who maintain that there was no systematic overt discrimination against Catholics and any observed differences between the two communities were the result of structural factors such as geographical concentration. An example of this debate was found in the pages of the British Journal of Sociology."

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/sum.htm

Don't think I managed to add the citattion correctly so any help would be appreciated.

Stormont

I thought that the Assembly has been un-suspended... Am I wrong? - File:Icons-flag-scotland.png calum 10:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It has only been semi-un-suspended, it still can't do anything theoretically. It has still no powers, they are still with the Secretary of State. But in Northern Ireland getting a group politicians to sit in the same room is seen as a huge achievement. theKeith 11:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a very long and uninteresting piece on [[5]] explaining the difference between the 'assembly' and the current assembly of memebers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.12.249.63 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

I presume you're referring to the debate on the 16th of May. What we have now is "the Assembly", not the "Northern Ireland Assembly". --Kwekubo 17:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Names

I've added the two new names to the names section.Ive included that they are not serious but they are used so please dont delete them.Dermo69

Well Norn Iron is very common usage but I've never heard it used specifically only related to the football team. It's an exceeding common phrase for the country that plays on the Northern Irish tendancy to drop parts of words when increasing the spoken speech. As for the Not Brazil, I think that should go as it's very specialised and I've never actually heard it used. Ben W Bell talk 13:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. The "We're not Brazil" chant is already explained at Northern Ireland national football team. --Kwekubo 17:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

'official languages'

I changed 'official languages' to 'spoken languages', as they aren't official. No language is official anywhere in the UK. Maybe 'spoken' isn't the quite right word, but it is more right than 'official'! Source:

http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/FAQs/FAQs.asp?ba=teanga says: 'Níl teangacha oifigiúla ar bith i dTuaisceart Éireann. Is é Béarla an teanga is mó labhartha ann. IE: There are no official languages in Northern Ireland, English is the most widely spoken language'

Idunnomeself

English is the language of government and the law, and hence is the "official" language in all of the United Kingdom. Despite the fact there is no Official Language Act in the UK. JAJ 03:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted this, as I can find no mention of it in the English translation of the page. "Spoken" languages doesn't make it any clearer, as there are way more than three different languages spoken in Northern Ireland (I would imagine there are many more people who speak Chinese than there are who speak Ulster-Scots).

You have made me curious though: if you're trying to claim that Irish is not an official language in NI, why are you quoting Irish language NI government documents in order to do so? Rather self-defeating, no? Martin 12:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done a bit of a re-shuffle regarding the language section in the info box; I hope the current version is more acceptable to those who were raising objections to the previous one. Martin 14:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but why this obsession with 'official' languages? there aren't any in the UK, can't we just leave it at that. 'Official' status for a language means something to most people around the world (EG in Canada, Ireland, South Africa), and it is quite different to the situation in Northern Ireland or the UK. If you look at the Welsh langauge act you'll see the tortous circles that Parliament went into to give Welsh a status equal to English, without saying that either of them was 'official'

Irish and Ulster-Scots are 'officially recognised minority languages', in that they were recognised by officialdom, not that they are used by officialdom..

Incidentally the page i linked to gives figures for Ulster-Scots and Chinese speakers- and there aren't more Chinese speakers than Ulster-Scots speakers.

Martin- I thought the point of this was accuracy, just because I KNOW that Irish (or indeed Ulster-Scots or English)isn't an official language doesn't mean I don't support it, or I can't read it a bit! (and I noticed that the DCAL site says different things in different languages, it just ignores the issue in English)

Idunnomeself

Hi, Idunnomeself (btw, why don't you register?), I was simply following the convention used in the info-box at United Kingdom (one also shared by Wales). Scotland and England simply have a "Languages" section in the info-box. Perhaps this might be a better idea, then we could avoid the whole notion of official languages. My main objection to your edit was the use of the term "spoken languages". I mean to say, why stop at the three, unless they have some sort of special status (which they do)?

As for number of Chinese speakers vs. Ulster Scots (or Irish for that matter), I'll wager my granny that Chinese is actually spoken more frequently by people in NI. I passed several people in the street today holding conversations in Chinese, and I have not once overheard people talking in Ulster-Scots (although, there is a blurry line between speaking English and speaking Ulster-Scots, IMHO). I'm sure you're aware that there is a certain proclivity towards claiming to have some Irish/Ulster-Scots in certain groups, even though the person's grasp of the language is tenuous at best (this happens on both sides of the border). As a result, I would be slightly dubious as to the accuracy of self-reported figures in this area. Martin 20:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've just changed it to "Languages". Martin 20:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Martin, thanks, logged in now, last edit was at work and it wouldn't let me you see. Re Ulster-Scots/ Chinese, I supose it matters which street you walk down. In Bushmills or Stranmillis? There are likely more Chinese about since the census in 2001, but on the other hand the survey DCAL cite was taken before Ulster-Scots was widely known about/ heavily politicised. I'll let you keep your granny either way! Idunnomeself

I've just removed the following from the article and replaced it with {{Fact}}, although it seems a valid point: [is there a citation for this, the 2001 census didn't record language speakers other than Irish] --7segment 04:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the passage in question. After having looked through the NI census available here, I can find no mention of the Chinese language. If I've missed it, or if anyone finds a reliable source for this, they should feel free to put it back in. Martin 12:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when did "Ulster Scots" even become a language? Not ten years ago it was firmly a dialect, and just as firmly unheard of. Not bad going wee Nelson McCausland. 193.1.172.138 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether you agree with it or not Ulster-Scots was recognised by the UK government under the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Martin I'm 100% sure that the 2001 census didn't have a question about Chinese or any languages other than Irish. I know this because in their consultation for 2011 I asked them to put one in! Idunnomeself

nonsensical edit

It is standard in articles here and everywhere to assess physical attributes by means of physical landmass and (if one exists) archipelago. It is perfectly normal and standard to state that Lough Neagh is the largest inland lake on the island of Ireland as well as on the British Isles, just as it is perfectly normal to state whatever is the tallest mountain in Scotland is the tallest mountain in Scotland, not to delete Scotland just say how tall it is in relation to the British Isles. It is that sort of amateurish POV-pushing that undermines WP's credibility. After all, if the British Isles are part of Europe, should we then delete the British Isles and just assess everything in terms of Europe? Of course not. The same is true. It is standard writing to state something's relationship to (1) landmass, (2) archipelago, (3) geopolitical or political entity. Not to do so is pure amateurish POV-pushing. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Amateurish POV pushing? And here was me thinking Wikipedia had some kind of rule about assuming good faith. I guess I must be mistaken. Regardless, the biggest x in the British Isles is by definition, ipso facto, the biggest x on the island of Ireland. Mont Blanc is the highest mountain in Western Europe, and so it goes without saying that it is also the highest mountain in France and Italy, as both those places are in western Europe. If Lough Neagh was the biggest lake in Europe, are you telling me that you would be insisting on saying that it is "the biggest lake one the island of Ireland, in the British Isles, and in Europe"?

I shudder to think of the contorted phraseology you'd be using if it was the biggest lake in the world (the biggest in Northern Ireland, Ulster, the island of Ireland, British Isles, Europe, western hemisphere, Eurasia, northern hemisphere, on and on and on....). ;) Martin 00:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Complete garbage. It is absolutely standard if a lake is the biggest on an island to say that. It is less standard to also state its relationship on an archipelago. And it is patently absurd and amateurish in the extreme to remove a mention of its relationship to the island it is on and regard an archipelago as more important. The British Isles, as anyone with a passing knowledge of geography knows, is very much secondary in usage. (People do not define city size by British isles, transport infrastructure by British Isles, language usage by British Isles. Actually they define next to nothing by British Isles.) It is normal and standard to judge geographical features primarily in relation to their landmass, whether that be the island of Great Britain or the island of Ireland. The standard revelant reference is landmass in the island, in this case, Ireland, so its inclusion is obligatory, just as the relevant area with Ben Nevis is Great Britain. British Isles is an optional extra detail. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to side with Martin on this one, it's preferable to use the largest geographical area possible for assertions of this sort. Lough Neagh's relationship to whatever subdivisions you care to use can be inferred perfectly well. --Kwekubo 01:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, "complete garbage", "patently absurd" and "amateurish in the extreme"! Please tell me you'll write my eulogy. A lesser man would have said they disagreed with me. Kudos to you for taking a brave stand against Wikipedia's civility policy!

Meanwhile back at the ranch: how does saying that Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the British Isles "remove a mention" of the relationship to the island it is on, when "British Isles" implicitly includes the island it is on? Martin 02:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it odd that now all of a sudden it being the largest in the British Isles has become an issue, since it's always been that way in Wikipedia until recently. If it has been accepted for so many years why is it suddenly wrong? It is the largest lake in the British Isles. It's in Northern Ireland and the largest in the British Isles, Northern Ireland is on the island of Ireland so it is easily inferred that it is the largest lake in Ireland. Using largest in such and such you really want to name the largest geographical entity in one go that you can. Ben W Bell talk 07:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The very use of the term "British Isles" is, obviously, pov pushing. It is a hangover from British rule over the entire country. Those days are gone. The term is not used by those who oppose that rule, namely 80% plus of the island's population. Every single person in these discussions who uses the term indicates his/her political allegiance. 'British Isles', like 'Éire' to describe part of Éire and Ulster to describe part of Ulster, is used by those pushing a unionist agenda. At least be honest about that. 193.1.172.163 14:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You're making an unwarranted generalisation there. I broadly consider myself an Irish nationalist and I have no problem with the term British Isles. It's a widely-used geographical name, and many people I know, in Ireland, use it quite frequently. A sweep of Google News demonstrates that the phrase is indeed widely used. But I agree that other terms are more frequently used still, like "Britain and Ireland"; nevertheless it seems to me that the largest applicable geographical term should be preferred. Would it be accurate to say, I wonder, that Lough Neagh is the largest inland lake in northwestern Europe? --Kwekubo 15:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Northwestern Europe sounds a bit too devoid of political connotations so it probably will be resisted. It is an excellent alternative, by the way. 193.1.172.138 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

From the British Isles article:

“ For political reasons, the term British Isles is sometimes seen as contentuous in the Republic of Ireland, even though it describes a geographical and ecological region and not a political entity, and even though the prefix "Brit-" actually derives from the Pretani a term once used as the collective description for the inhabitants of both Great Britain and Ireland. ”

I'm a Catholic from Northern Ireland, and I'm certainly not a Unionist, so I'm afraid your little theory that "every single person in these discussions who uses the term indicates his/her political allegiance" falls down somewhat. The term "British Isles" is not a "a hangover from British rule over the entire country", but the rabid anti-British sentiment (to such an extent that the very word "British" is intolerable) present in a vocal minority, is. Just imagine how bigoted and anti-Irish you'd have to be to refuse to use the term Irish Sea. It is anglophobia, pure and simple. Now, can't we all just play nice? Martin 16:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A bit too devoid of political connotations? Don't presume that everyone has a political motive behind all their edits, presume good faith. I feel British Isles is a well understood geographical term for it what we are discusssing, and has been adequate ever since 2002 to define Lough Neagh on Wikipedia. I have no political attachment to the term, and you have no idea what my political views are unionist, republican or don't care either way. As for the term northwestern Europe, I feel the term lacks definition as to exactly what northwestern Europe is. It's not a defined definition in common usage and leaves it very wooly as to what exactly is northwestern Europe. Ben W Bell talk 16:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of a member of the Irish government using the term. A closet Unionist, obviously. Martin 16:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I made these comments on the British Isles page, but I feel they need repeating here.

"Well since the dispute with this seems to rest almost entirely on the premise that people in the Republic of Ireland think of the term I though I would see what the government of the ROI thought of it. Google search through the irgov.ie site, the official Ireland governmental site. "British Isles", 43 hits, including many Dail offical reports on such things as how the Shannon is the second largest river in the British Isles, freedom of travel between Europe and the British Isles and so on. "British and Irish Isles", 0 hits. Seems the government of the Republic of Ireland has no problems with the term. Oh and some more numbers for us. A main google search for "British & Irish Isles", 18 hits but only about 7 unique sites. "British and Irish Isles", 127 hits. "British Isles", 16,600,000 hits of which only 4,510,000 are from the UK leaving 12 million+ hits from outside the UK. Guess which term is known and used the world over?" Ben W Bell talk 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dieu Et Mon Droit

It said Dieu Et Mon Droit (God and My Right) is the motto of Northern Ireland - "in common with England and WALES." I have removed the Wales part as the official motto of Wales, printed on the Prince of Wales feathers, is Ich Dien. The unofficial motto - and the more representative motto - is either "Cymru Am Byth" - Wales Forever; or "Pleidol Wyf I'm Gwlad" (as printed on edges of pound coins ) - roughly translated "I love this land".

What happened to "Quis Separabit"? I thought this was the motto for NI. beano 14:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• In a word, no. "Quis separabit?" is the motto of the UDA, and was formerly the motto of the Order of St Patrick and Royal Ulster Rifles. --Kwekubo 18:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is still the motto of The order of St Patrick? I saw it on a wreath

Idunnomeself

flag

Northern Ireland doesn´t have nowadays official flag. Unionists use the flag that appears in the article and irish nationalists use the irish tricolor. The flag must be rubbed. User:Norrin_strange

At the bottom of the Northern Ireland topics pages, I believe the "Ulster Banner" should be romoved, as it gives the false impresseion that it is the flag of Northern Ireland. I believe it should be replaced with a less contentious symbol, such as a picture of Northern Ireland or a more neutral symbol. Irish Lad 12:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's all looking a bit English, isn't it? What about replacing it with an outline of the Provence, as in other templates? Also, I think it would look better in green?  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> theKeith  Talk!  16:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

PS - Something like this?  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> theKeith  Talk!  16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Lives lost in the "Troubles" section needs numbers

The section titled Lives lost in the “Troubles” lists some percentages but needs actual numbers of deaths. Someone unfamiliar with the situation might think it's 1 million people, or 100. Tempshill 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Extent of Ulster

From the article: The province of Ulster covers a greater landmass than Northern Ireland (though it didn't always) - what is the source for this last bit? I imagine it's safe to assume that the Kingdom of Ulster was once a lot smaller than 1/4 of the island, but the above seems to imply that it was once co-terminous with present-day Northern Ireland, which seems pretty unlikely. --Ryano 09:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this sentence needs re-worded or simply ignored for the reasons cited above. Perhaps the insertion of the word 'modern', as in "The modern province of Ulster..." would suffice. The borders of all the provinces have changed over the centuries, and were finally established in their current forms officially by a British monarch. --Mal 09:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, although "modern" might give the wrong idea also, as the boundaries were set in Elizabethan times. --Ryano 09:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is really dredging the depths of my memory from primary school, but didn't there used to be five provinces/kingdoms? (Hence the Irish for province, Cúaige, meaning a fifth) and may seven before that? But this would be pre-Norman invasion. --Red King 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup - the midland Gaelic colony, Meath, used to be a province. --Mal 17:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"northern irish" - neutral?

Do you think the term "northern Irish" is neutral when applied to a person or does it suggest that he or she is "Irish"?Kuifjeenbobbie 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No more than "Northern Ireland" suggests the entity is on the island of Ireland.  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology  Talk!  17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is that many in Northern Ireland consider themselves to be not at all Irish or predominantly British. Therefore saying "Northern Irish national identity" seems misleading as it suggests that all are "Irish", which many are only weakly or not at all.Kuifjeenbobbie 18:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Keithgreer on this one. They are from the Northern country of the Irish island. Of course, by state/law, the people are British too, but I can't see how a person living in Northern Ireland isn't Northern Irish. Pauric 18:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone who doens't like being labelled as Irish objecting to Northern Irish. After all it is Northern Ireland and Northern Irish is what you are if you live there, it's an inescapable fact. Ben W Bell talk 19:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you ask the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, they are all Irish. They sound Irish (or Scots, who can tell?), they use Hiberno-English, they go to church every week - definitely not British. :-) --Red King 20:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the statement "seems misleading as it suggests that all are "Irish", which many are only weakly or not at all" is highly POV. Everyone in Northern Ireland is Northern Irish. The vast majority of the population are Irish whether they label themselves as such or not. They are not Irish in the context of nationality, except where their political ideologies come into play or when they hold Irish national passports. The residents are also all de facto British by nationality.. again, whether they accept this label for themselves or not.

Secondly, in a couple of opinion polls taken over the last decade, it appears that "Northern Irish" is the single most acceptable label preferred by the people across the board in Northern Ireland. It is more popular even than the labels "British", "Irish" or "Ulster". --Mal 20:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing the polls you refer to. Can you reference them?Kuifjeenbobbie 08:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement "The vast majority of the population are Irish whether they label themselves as such or not" is also IMHO also POV. The question then arises "Who decides who is Irish or not? The people themselves? Or some "general consensus"? I myself think that people should be described as who they label themselves to be, as they themselves are most informed about who they are. Perhaps a section (or a new article) needs to be added on "Different interpretations of the word "Irish""Kuifjeenbobbie 09:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

For myself I describe myself as Northern Irish. I have UK passport, but British just seems wrong to me as a description. --Blowdart 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember the places I saw the polls. I believe one was published in the Belfast Telegraph. Another can probably be found on the CAIN website.

I can't see how the statement you refer to could be considered POV. The vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland originate from Northern Ireland. As such, they are therefore Irish. There are only two meanings for Irish: one is a nationality and the other is ethnicity - "of, or relating to, Ireland".

If I can find a link to one of the polls I mentioned, I'll add it here for your interest. --Mal 14:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Languages

I think it's fair to add Polish into the languages section at the top, although I was unable to find a source with a bit of quick googling to back up my addition, (and I know people can be somewhat protective of changes on the Northern Ireland article ;) ) I was hoping either someone could help find a source, or just agree, because it's obvious, there is signifigantly more Polish spoken here than there is Irish or Ulster Scots. Pauric 23:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

British/Northern Irish/Irish

If its any help, we here in the south usually refer to all the inhabitants of Northern Ireland simply as "Northerners", whatever community you claim to come from. Not sure what they call us, other than "Free Staters" (sic) or "Fenian bastards" (sic). Fergananim 13:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I once worked with a guy from Newry who used to call all us Southerners "Mexicans" :) Demiurge 13:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• They can call us what they like so long as they keep being nice to us and each other. Otherwise, we Mexicans say "Northerners??? We don't need no steeking Northerners! Unless ye buy the first round!" Seriously, anyone else anymore terms they use for us/us for them? Fergananim
• 'Go on out of that you tight bastard' seems to have a very felicitous delivery when the recipient is from any place beyond the walls of Ceanannas Mór, or places north of that which is known as Kyaaavan, named after a hollow in the ground where all the people lived because they were too tight to build houses. The feckers don't even change their names with, for instance, the more civilised Mac Gabhann being known as Smith in south Cavan but in the wilds of deeper Ulster- oh Jaysas, there's none of that generosity on the name front. The further north you go, the tighter they get with everything. Even one syllable words- for instance, 'No!'- are taken to a new level of penuriousness. Not even an 'Ara sure that's an idea in itself' followed by a philosophical discussion of the pro and cons of an idea. Words are like money in the north: scarce and guarded. It would be interesting to see the per capita charity donations of every county in Ireland. hehe. The road to... Scotland is paved with good...retentions. El Gringo 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Em. You are a bit behind with your names, Gringo. Ceanannas Mór was axed as a name in the late 1980s and replaced by simply by Kells with Ceanannas as its Irish translation. I lived there at the time and there was a lot of happy people when Ceanannas Mór was dumped. It was a pain in the proverbial arse. You had all these tourists looking to find the town made famous by the Book of Kells but who couldn't find it because all the signs said Ceanannas Mór. That name is no more. The council and the minister binned it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JD. Maybe I just know the people of those particular times a bit better? I've had this conversation before with residents of Kenlis and I must say that the people in question were among the most unenlightened members of Irish society. That's usually the guideline for me. Being around 12 at the time, I had the good sense to tell them precisely this to huge laughter in the hollow halls of the big house surrounded by trees. They were so chuffed to be on that side of the walls of Kenlis they drew my wrath down on them. Sophistication, for them, was a trip to Balladuff (for the mart, of course, oh cultureless ones!) on a Thursday and a trip over to Mullagh on a Sunday morning for a cockfight down beside "the cross". A productive conversation was one along the lines of 'Bejaysas, didn't that bullock have a fine arse on it, Shayme?' And that, make no mistake about it, was serious business in Ceanannas Mór. And you daren't say anything bad about one 'John V', the finest defender of their interests in the Dáil. Oh, and no apologies about that little incident in Spain in the 1930s, either. It was the whole package I was dealing with. I'd sit for hours talking with them and usually the only vocabulary I had left for them was 'Oh Jaysas', followed by the nod of my head. We built up a great friendship and lifelong respect based on such honest exchanges. How do you change the redirect on the Kells page? Ceanannas Mór should only go to the Meath Kells. El Gringo 13:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I've also updated the page on Kells Co Meath to refer to the change in name. I remember all the fanfare there was when the old Ceanannas Mór signs were taken down and replaced by Ceanannas. I'm afraid Mór is no more (or no mór if you prefer!). As to John V. how is he these days? I haven't seen him in years. I missed the Virginia Horse Show this year unfortunately. I haven't been Mullagh in ages either. Nor Moyalty (of "All to one side like the town of . . . " fame). Damn it. I must start visiting there again. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish?

I only know one person from Northern ireland who speaks Irish... many schools like the rest of the U.K teach french instead of irish so therefore you could as well just put french down there. Southern Ireland has a lot of Irish speakers, Northern doesn't. Therefore the sentence saying that the main languages of northern Ireland are English and Irish isn't true. Irish is a minor language in Northern Ireland and is only shown on main bilboards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisquared (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please sign your comments.

Secondly, Irish is spoken by many thousands (tens of thousands?) of people in Northern Ireland. It may be less common than Chinese (Mandarin?), but it is an officially recognised language of the region. It is also an indigenous language of historical import to the country. --Mal 17:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign, but even so, it really isn't spoken in Northern Ireland often. And furthermore few schools teach irish. I've lived in Northern Ireland all my life and I've never even heard a conversation in Irish. I've heard a conversation in Irish in Dublin, but that's in the south. Also further adding to my point, since everyone in Great Britain and Northern ireland HAS to learn french as a second language, you could even say it's also an official language! As far as I know, Irish is only taught in Northern ireland as a third language, and is usually replaced with spanish or german. I understand that for centuries it has been used as a language of trade between the british and irish, but at the moment Irish can be considered a lot like Welsh - i.e. it is only used inside it's own country. Irish is not used for trade any more. English is. Also finally, the official website of belfast says little about the Irish language. Wikisquared 17:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone on Great Britain has to learn French. Bazza 12:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Really I thought it was compulsarary for wales, england, scotland and northern ireland. Maybe it's just northern Ireland and England then. Wikisquared 13:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't speak for anywhere else but in England a "Modern Foreign Language" is compulsory - it doesn't have to be French [QCA] Bazza 13:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's weird, If you want to do a modern foreign language (that isn't french) in northern ireland it'll be your third language. Some schools even teach another language on top of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisquared (talk • contribs)

In Northern Ireland it's also a Modern Language [6], most teach French, while larger schools (msotly Grammer Schools) offer a wider range.  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology  Talk!  13:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure French (or any other "Modern Foreign Language") is even mandatory in any region of the UK. I didn't have to take French in school, though I chose it. In saying that, the education system has changed since the O Levels, so perhaps a second language is compulsory in the UK now.

Incidentally, I was never offered Irish Language at my school. Also, I believe Ballycastle is a Gaeltacht (sp?) area and the University of Ulster at Coleraine offers a wide variety of courses on the language.

I believe there was an Irish Language class set up on the Shankill Road too at one point. --Mal 14:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right there is no requirement to take any exam. When I was doing my GCSEs (2002/03) I didn't pick any languages, but still had an hour a week of lessons. .  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology  Talk!  14:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have officially given up now... go ahead keep it there... Wikisquared 21:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Constituent part/element/country/entity

I have re-ordered the sections on the page to bring this long-running thread together. I suggest we continue business as usual at the bottom of this section. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dubious

The claim that Northern Ireland is a "constituent country" of the UK is universally regarded as garbage. The term is defined as meaning a "country within a country" (a largely discredited definition in itself). No-one in Northern Ireland, whether Unionist, Loyalist, Nationalist or Republican, regards Northern Ireland as a country. They variously call it a "province", a "geopolitical unit", a "statelet", etc. Scotland, Wales and England qualify for the term (though many political scientists regard it as a makey-up term that doesn't really exist). Many in Scotland, Wales and England take offence at the equation of their historic millennium-old nations and countries with a mere region like Northern Ireland. But by no definition can Northern Ireland be regarded as a "country within a country". Even Ian Paisley laughs at the idea. On WP the whole "agenda" for pushing a discredited term shows all the signs not merely of "original research" (itself against Wikipedia rules) but shabby and poor original research at that. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 12:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it myself sometime ago until it was reverted. I think the term division, nation or region would be better when discribing the relationship. At best Northern Ireland is a "constituent part" or "constituent region" of the United Kingdom but "constituent country" is bogus. Incidentially the term did not come into usage on Template:United Kingdom until recently (i.e. prior to 2006).
Djegan 13:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Setanta is incapable of actually obeying the rules on dubious tags. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag because there is no doubt as to the fact. It seems that you are incapable of understanding facts. --Mal 19:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem utterly incapable of actually reading the Wikipedia rules on the dubious tag and how to deal with them. But then that is part of the course with POV pushers on Northern Ireland articles. Until you follow those rules the tag will be inserted, and your refusal to obey WP rules pointed out to admins and on relevant pages. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

How is describing a constituent country of the UK, as a constituent country of the UK POV? I am not a POV pusher thank you. --Mal 01:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

We should be sensitive to issues like this, especially if we don't live in the particular locale. But to be honest Mal, I have never heard of N.I. being referred to as a country until I read this page. Always a province or a territory, can you explain why you want country retained? --83.70.226.89 22:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand here that WP tries to avoid mentioning personalities on main talk pages, but since accusations have already been started in this dicussion, and I have already recently been described as a "vandal" by the admninistrator in question, I think I will have to say something: Jtdirl, while I think you have made many generally worthwhile and NPoV WP contributions, I do occassionally have problems with your attitude. Jtdirl is first in here with the "POV pusher" line. I think this is more of a case of you, jtdirl, pushing your personal PoV that NI can't be described as a "country", rather than anyone else pushing a PoV that it can. Jtdirl has also had a recent campaign to say the entire UK cannot even be described as a country!!

Yet, amsusingly, jtdirl also maintains elsewhere that the entire modern-day island of Ireland can reasonably be called a "country". Additionally, he argues that the term "Ireland" should be promoted as terminology for the Republic of Ireland, despite the term's high degree of ambiguity and controversy. He also claims that "Derry" is the official name of NI's second largest city, and argues that it should be the only one used in that article. None of his pedantry in these examples; hmmm... looks like a case of double standards if you ask me! Jonto 16:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do I want country retained?!? Firstly, the term refers to a Wikipedia article entitled Constituent Countries. Secondly, having grown up all my life in Northern Ireland, I can tell you that I've heard this expression to describe Northern Ireland many times. Unfortunately, the Point of View of many nationalists is to reject any notion that Northern Ireland is a country. Now, given that Northern Ireland has a culture and infrastructure that is different from Scotland, England, Wales and the Republic of Ireland, and given the fact that when it was set up it was actually the most independent constituent countries (the first to have a devolved government), I think that speaks for itself. NI is referred to (rather inaccurately) as a province because that is how it is often seen by unionists - contained, as it is, wholly within the confines of the province of Ulster. --Mal 01:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Writing as a southerner of mixed background, I am sensitive to some these issues Would N.I. survive as a 'country' on it's own? I would believe that question would really define the de facto position. You seem to be taking a political view, which is not in my gift to either agree with or disagree with. Personally I think there should be more divolved governence as I dislike central government, and that applies here too! 83.70.226.89 01:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Would NI survive as a country on its own? Interesting question, and one that I've addressed before in the past (not on Wikipedia though). Had it been the 1940s or thereabouts, when Northern Ireland had the largest textiles and rope manufacturing industries in the world, and other very successful manufacturing industries, I'd have said yes. Due to the last industrial revolution, and out-sourcing of the modern world economy though, I'd have to say I don't think it would survive without a lot of borrowing (much like the Republic seems to have done until the economy had developed enough to boom). Would it ever manage to eventually break out of the need for economic aid? I couldn't honestly say. Many countries throughout the world survive (just about) constantly in debt.. getting deeper and deeper into debt too. There'd be an initial drop in standard of living, and that's something it would probably never recover from. NI has no natural resources worth talking about (oil, coal, gold, diamonds etc), other than manpower, fertile land area and fish really.

I don't agree that its ability to survive on its own as a country is necessarily a defining factor.. given that at various times in history the answer would very probably have been yes, and that as a "country within a country", the context is perhaps slightly inappropriate. The same question could very well be asked of Wales. The Isle of Man seems to be doing OK (though quite how that region is defined is another matter!).

Saying that I'm taking a political view is .. well its undeniable really. But again, it depends on the context I think. I certainly think that certain editors here appear to me to be taking a political view, but I would say that I am not attempting to take it as a political view in that same context. When asked "What country are you from?" I have heard many responces from many people in Northern Ireland. One of the most frequent answers I hear is "Northern Ireland". I personally would say "The UK", because that is a country by all definitions of the word. Northern Ireland, as well as Scotland, England and Wales, in my view are states very much akin to Texas or Ohio in many respects.

Finally, I would very much agree with you about devolved government: I think that local people are best suited to local governing. I still believe in a central government, but I favour devolved government over direct rule so that the people that make policy decisions for this region are culpable to the people. Faceless administrative Civil Servants, who don't have to live here on a daily basis, are not responsible to the people: they don't have to care because they do not have to face a possible loss of position come the next election. --Mal 02:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This speculative discussion on whether Northern Ireland could survive as an independent country is all very interesting, but not really relevant to deciding what terms should be used in the article. We need to fall back on sources, so the question is whether there are relevant/official sources which call NI a "constituent country" of the UK. I've certainly heard "country" being used on occasion by people I know in NI, although obviously not by nationalists. More formally, e.g. on the BBC, my understanding is the usage is exclusively "province". However, I'll wait and see what sources can be dug up. --Ryano 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is a Province of the U.K., not a country. That is a legal fact. The description of it as a country is therefore either wrong, or at best misleading. Is there a good reason why this error should not be corrected? Extramural 22:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the challenge has gone out. Obviously if reliable sources are not forthcoming then the claim that Northern Ireland is a "constituent country" will be removed in due course. Djegan 22:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel there is much wrong with describing NI as a "country" in the same way as Wales, and I don't see this as being a big issue as constituent country is wiki-linked together as one phrase. However, to keep quiet those who are anally over-pedantic, I propose the introductory sentence as follows: "Northern Ireland is a province and one of the four constituent entities of the United Kingdom." That way, the article describing the "constituent countries" can still be linked without any revert wars. Jonto 16:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Just another way of stating the same falsehood. Djegan 17:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Dubious tag

I have removed this tag yet again, as the fact is not in dispute. An editor has suggested that we take a look at a user guide page which contains the following information:

It suggests that the 'dubious' tag be applied if one of the following cases is true:

   * It contains unlikely information, without providing references.
   * It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
   * It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

It certainly doesn't fall into the third category. The first and second categories are also not appropriate: references have, I believe, been given on this discussion page. While it can be difficult to verify, it is not impossible. The term is, as with many terms applied to the complex combination of Common Law, history and politics of the UK and the British Isles as a whole, an oft-used colloquialism rather than official, written-in-law terminology. But that does not make it any less a fact.

With that in mind, I shall continue to revert this tag and hope that the disruption to this article will cease soon. To be frank, the article is (still) in a mess, and more important editing could be done to the rest of it instead of, as I see it, needlessly challenging an aspect of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland from a Point Of View that rejects the status quo. --Mal 01:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the sources you refer to above. Can you tell us where to find them? --Ryano 09:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Its disengenious to suggest that one of those three categories are a must, in any case the issue surrounding a dubious tag must be properly verified before removal, viz Wikipedia:Disputed statement which states, amongst other things,:

Don't remove the warning simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time to properly verify it.

Its not simply a matter of wishing it away, the responsibility lies on those who wish to retain the statement cite and verify it correctly. Three registered and one anonymous editors have expressed concerns at the statement. Verifiability isn't about disruption its about doing things properly. Djegan 15:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted Djegan, and I had actually resolved not to remove the tag again before reading these last couple of comments. I think the onus lies on the people who dispute it in this case though. --Mal 10:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The onus is always on those who wish to continue the retention of the work, from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an official wikipedia policy, it states amongst other things:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

The disputed term "constituent country" is used prominantly (introductory line) in the article and this gives added impidious that the term must be appropriately cited as it is not in broad public usage (in fact I have never heard it in the context of Northern Ireland before) and I believe at this point four registered users have expressed misgivings about the term. Having said this it goes without saying that wikipedia has been at the centre of a number of scandals recently and if we want to keep this great project alive then verifiability and not original research are the standards we must meet. Djegan 17:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Northern Ireland was not listed at Constituent Countries until last December; the edit that added it took as its basis the use of the term in this way at the Prime Minister's website, which is not a legal document. The Government of Ireland act does not list NI as a country, a constituent country or indeed anything else; I don't know if any later legislation defines the legal status of NI. At any rate, the 'dubious' tag is merited for the moment. --Kwekubo 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your first point is the one that concerns me most (if its such a widely known (or undisputed) "fact" howcome it appears here in only the last few months). Of course in the age of spin the prime ministers website or indeed the taoiseachs is simply a political tool and not the law. Neither the Ireland Act nor the Northern Ireland Act (the two most notable laws) use the term "constituent country"; in the later the "Status of Northern Ireland" is;

(1) It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1.

(2) But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll is that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland.

Status of Northern Ireland Djegan 18:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed with respect to the potentially illiterate person in the prime ministers office they cannot even get the name of the "Irish Republic" right. The Ireland Act makes it clear that "Republic of Ireland" is the proper term to be used in UK domestic law. Djegan 19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

They probably use "Republic of Ireland" because Ireland already refers to the island. Found this act of parliment that uses the term "constituent countries". If you read the commencement section it is clear that it also refers to NI. josh (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats just an explanatory notes, its not the law, it comes with a disclaimer:

These explanatory notes relate to the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003. They have been prepared by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in order to assist the reader in understanding the Act. They do not form part of the Act and have not been endorsed by Parliament.

Djegan 18:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way "Republic of Ireland" is explicity mentioned (and defined) in the said Ireland Act. Djegan 18:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A term does not have to be defined in law to make it accurate. Especially in the British case when there is no real defined constitution. Irrespective of the status of Northern Ireland, what other terminology is used by government to refer the 4 parts collectively? I guess "home nations" is used, but then of course jtdirl would be venting his PoV at that one too, despite there being nothing wrong with it IMO. Jonto 20:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The term used to refer to the four parts collectively is (wait for it)... "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". No really the Ireland Act made it clear (since repealed those parts) that Northern Ireland was "part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom", the Northern Ireland Act makes it clear that it is "part of the United Kingdom". No more. we dont fit terms to suit the current fetish. Djegan 20:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say was "to refer to the 4 collective parts on an individual basis".

Just going back to the initial comment by jtirl here. It seems to me that it is a very POV comment - one in which an obvious belittling attitude is prominent. Witness the following statement: "Many in Scotland, Wales and England take offence at the equation of their historic millennium-old nations and countries with a mere region like Northern Ireland."

jtirl, you make this statement and yet I have never in my life heard anything approaching that from the people of England, Wales or Scotland. On the contrary, I've actually heard the reverse more often than not. Northern Ireland is a millenia-old nation, depending on perspective. It is also the continuation of a country that had been added to the UK in an official and legal capacity in 1801.

As I've said before, Northern Ireland was the first region of the UK to gain any form of independent devolved government, unless I am mistaken - making it a self-governing constituent part (or country) within the UK. It would be interesting to hear your opinion on whether you considered Ireland as a constituent country during the period 1801 — 1921.

The following statement is in error, and clearly shows that you have not had much communication with unionists or loyalists: "No-one in Northern Ireland, whether Unionist, Loyalist, Nationalist or Republican, regards Northern Ireland as a country." As a unionist, I have always thought of, and referred to, Northern Ireland as a country (within a country).

"They variously call it a "province", a "geopolitical unit", a "statelet", etc. Scotland, Wales and England qualify for the term" The term "province" is a nickname (although it has been suggested here that Northern Ireland is "officially" a province of the UK, I'd like to see a source for that). I have heard this term applied to Northern Ireland lots of times of course, and I have heard the term "statelet" too, though only from nationalists. I would suggest that the term "statelet" itself implies "country within a country". In that sense of course, England, Scotland and Wales can also be considered statelets. I have never heard the term "geopolitical unit" being applied to Northern Ireland.

"(though many political scientists regard it as a makey-up term that doesn't really exist)." Again, a source for this would be nice, just out of curiousity. However, if your insistance is that it is a "makey-up term", then what is your problem with applying it to Northern Ireland? The term exists, whether officially or legally, or otherwise, though it is not Original Research. Argument could be made that the only proper constituent countries (if we accept the argument that NI is not one) are Scotland and England, as Wales is a "mere" Principality and therefore, surely, not a country. The term "constituent countries" has always been used, to my knowledge, to refer to those four main parts of the UK, and never solely to refer to only three of them.

I suggest that the attempt to remove, or even to dispute, Northern Ireland's place as a constituent country, is simply an attempt to belittle the existance of NI in the first place. Kwekubo above mentions that the Government of Ireland Act does not mention Northern Ireland as being a constituent/country. But, as was rightly pointed out - the term doesn't have to be legally or constitutionally enshrined for it to be notable.

The British Prime Minister has refered to the constituent parts that make up the UK as "countries within a country".. and that's good enough for me: NI is a country by a similar loose-fitting definition that can be applied to the other three parts, and is a constituent part of the UK. Therefore - a constituent country. --Mal 17:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

lol. That has got to be the weakest argument imaginable.

• You clearly don't know what the term country means;
• You push the ludicrous definition, that would be laughed at if written in a university essay, that a part is the same as a country.
• The claim that the removal of a grossly inaccurate term is somehow an attempt to "belittle the existence of NI" is absurd and offensive. The people removing the inaccurate term are constantly attacked by extreme republicans as "unionists" or "pro-Northern Ireland". The bottom line is accuracy, not any POV. The United Kingdom is made up of three constituent counties (England, Scotland and Wales) and a region (Northern Ireland). If the term was used in primary legal documentation then it might have some validity and notability. Wikipedia does not use inaccurate terminology simply because some individuals use it. If it did, it wouldn't refer to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom but the Queen of England. It wouldn't refer to Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples but Victor Emmanuel IV, it would use America rather than the United States. And it would use Irish Republic or Irish Free State when it means Republic of Ireland. You may think that basic standards of encyclopaedic accuracy don't matter, but thousands of Wikipedians (including those of us who have fought battles to stop Irish republicans replacing every mention of Northern Ireland with the Six Counties and attempts to move the article there) do. Try using objective criteria of definitions and not amateurish usage of POV language, for a change. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that this issue has been ongoing now for some weeks speaks volumns, no one as yet has been able to cite a reputable source to support the simple idea that Northern Ireland is a "constitutent country" of the United Kingdom, yet both the Ireland Act and Northern Ireland act clearly say it is "part of the United Kingdom" (this I dont dispute) and do not use the terms "constitutent country" even though they span fifty years of British legislation. When you say, and I quote above "Northern Ireland is a millenia-old nation, depending on perspective" then either you dont know your history (at all) or it is simply a reminder that this dispute is well justified. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research and this is fundemental to the question here.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and like any encyclopedia if an idea cannot be backed up it ough to be removed. I am not trying to dispute the status of Northern Ireland but then again I am not going to present bogus theories. Sources people, sources. Djegan 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl:

• You clearly don't know what the term country means;

I do when it applies to the constituent countries of the UK. Apparently you are the one who doesn't understand it in that context.

• You push the ludicrous definition, that would be laughed at if written in a university essay, that a part is the same as a country.

You obviously wouldn't make a good examiner, as you clearly haven't read or understood what I actually wrote.

• The claim that the removal of a grossly inaccurate term is somehow an attempt to "belittle the existence of NI" is absurd and offensive.

As a matter of fact, it is absurd and offensive to suggest that it is a grossly inaccurate term.

You say: "The people removing the inaccurate term are constantly attacked by extreme republicans as "unionists" or "pro-Northern Ireland". The bottom line is accuracy, not any POV. The United Kingdom is made up of three constituent counties (England, Scotland and Wales) and a region (Northern Ireland). If the term was used in primary legal documentation then it might have some validity and notability. Wikipedia does not use inaccurate terminology simply because some individuals use it."

And yet that is precisely the case for the term "Constituent Countries" itself, as I have explained above. But the term is notable apparently. As such it is therefore an article in this encyclopedia. The constituent countries number four - not three.

"Try using objective criteria of definitions and not amateurish usage of POV language, for a change." I do thanks. Try taking your own advice. --Mal 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Djegan:

"When you say, and I quote above "Northern Ireland is a millenia-old nation, depending on perspective" then either you dont know your history (at all) or it is simply a reminder that this dispute is well justified."

I don't see that this is a "reminder" that the "dispute" is "justified". And nor am I unfamiliar with my history, thanks. I was pointing out that many people, including historians and other learned people, are of the opinion that Northern Ireland, in its previous incarnations as Ulster for example could arguably be regarded as a nation separate from the rest of Ireland (and the rest of the British Isles). I am not saying that I particularly hold that opinion personally, but my comment served a purpose in the context. Try not to take things quite so literally all the time.

It has been shown that Northern Ireland can be regarded as a country in the same context as the other three regions of the UK. It has also been shown that Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the UK. Therefore, it can be regarded as a Constituent Country. --Mal 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Learned people know that Northern Ireland was created by the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and did not exist before that time, period. It would be just as inaccurate to say the Republic of Ireland existed for millennia. Your last comment is simply a reminder of the original research that the claim is. Just that England, Scotland and Wales are regarded as constituent countries, it does not follow that Northern Ireland must be one; one would not claim that because the United States consists of fifty states that theirfore Washington D.C. must also be one, on a par with the rest. No, no one has been able to cite a reputable source that Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, simply a disputed theory that A=B=C... Djegan 21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"It would be just as inaccurate to say the Republic of Ireland existed for millennia" .. indeed it would. I'm not sure you understand what I was getting at though. However.. moving on...

Likewise, with your example of England, Scotland and Wales being regarded as constituent countries, has anyone been able to cite a reputable source that Northern Ireland is excluded from this term..? It makes logical sense to me that if those three regions are regarded as constituent countries, then so is Northern Ireland. Your example of Washington DC is perhaps applicable to London.. but not to Northern Ireland. It is just as much original research to claim that England, for example, is a constituent country as it is to claim that any of the other regions are constituent countries. --Mal 23:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You still have not produced legislative evidence for the claim. No evidence. No usage. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How hard have you been looking? I would strongly suggest that if you feel like that about Northern Ireland then, fair's fair - delete the entire article. After all, where is the "legislative evidence" for any of the regions being constituent countries? --Mal 01:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I found several government docs (Statutory rules http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Sr/sr2002/20020137.htm][7][8] and an Act[9]) refering to a "country outside Northern Ireland" this infers that Northern Ireland itself is a country. Due to the converluted way the British legisture works this would make it officially considered a country of the UK. josh (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what your point is but if it is that theirfore the term "constituent country" can be citied by this then I would say no. The word country is of such general meaning so as to make such a implication original research. Djegan 18:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Legislative evidence that NI is considered a country was asked for. The above refs conclusivly show this. It is obviously a constituent of the UK so constituent country applies as well. josh (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats a theory, until proven otherwise. Djegan 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is a country

(duplicate post by josh removed --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

On the Northern Ireland page of Wikipedia the four Home Nations and four constituent countries of the United Kingdom are in fact England, Scotland, Wales, and er.. umm... England. Northern Ireland is officially an Entity of the United Kingdom. Anything on .gov.uk is not an valid source for this page. The discussion is here.  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> theKeith  Talk!  12:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability - Please be reasonable

Setanta,

Please do not insert material against consensus and Wikipedia:Verifiability, you well know the policy. Dont replay what was discussed here previously and pretend as if nothing happened and a conclusion did not occure. Misinformation is vandalism.

Djegan 06:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Its "Setanta" - he's an Irish folk hero.

I assume you are referring to my correction of information (not "misinformation") in referring to Northern Ireland as a constituent country, yes? I that is the case, then I suggest you take a look at the article itself, and do NOT accuse me of something I haven't done, thank you very much. --Mal 09:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again, sigh! Read the policy, its simple. Another article does not constitute a "source". Supply a source that reaches the standard set in the policy or it gets removed per policy. That is the rule. Djegan 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally I did not accuse YOU of vandalism, merely stated "Misinformation is vandalism." - which it is, read the policy. Djegan 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again *sigh*.. read the article Constituent country. I suggested you do this because it is pertinent to this discussion we are having, and there are verifiable sources contained within it. If you feel there needs to be reference to those same sources in this article, then feel free to copy the references from it into this article, and into the articles on England, Scotland and Wales also. --Mal 17:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume the reason why a citation is not provided is that their is none that pass a wikipedia policy, in particular Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The policies stand and they are not negotiable. Djegan 22:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Mal/Setanta,

Like the last time you started this revert war your just going to have to face the fact that any changes adopting "constituent country" need to pass appropriate policy or be removed and stay removed. Anything else does no one favours, not least yourself. Simple.

Djegan 23:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"I can only assume the reason why a citation is not provided is that their is none that pass a wikipedia policy".... you don't have to 'assume' anything. Go to the article Constituent country and find out for yourself. Reverted (again). --Mal 06:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Like the last time you started this revert war" I started a revert war..? Prove it. --Mal 06:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Links in first Sentence

There are 7 links after the phrase "constituent country" which I found odd...so I followed all of them. The first, IMO covers what was said. The others except the last 2 seem to be examples of where Northern Ireland is referred to as a constituent country, the 6th defines consituent country and the 7th says the same exact thing as the first with less detail. I want to suggest that the 1st [10] and maybe 6th [11] links can be kept but having Census 2001 - Ethnicity and religion in England and Wales [12] and Explanatory Notes to Waste And Emissions Trading Act 2003 [13] is kind of silly. If there are no objections, I'll cut it down to 2, maybe 3 links. Omishark 13:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentially some of these links do not have "constituent country" in body and are therefore not valid citations at all. Djegan 17:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections to cutting down the number of citations. I included all the citations from the article Constituent country with the expectation that the list would be whittled down to one or two.

A brief explanation of some of the citations you had trouble with Ommishark though:

The first is a link to the Downing Street website in which is stated, "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland", under the heading "Countries within a country". Made up of four countries - ie. constitutes four countries.

The second link (Waste and Emissions Trading Act) is an official government website that specifically uses the term "constituent countries" and from which it is plain to see that they number four.

The third link is an official webpage of the Republic of Ireland. This also explicitly states "constituent countries" and directly afterwards lists all four.

The next one is a BBC link which explicitly mentions "constituent countries" and then goes on discuss Northern Ireland in that context.

The 2001 Census link includes the statement "This question asked "What is your country of birth?" with tick box options of: England; Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland; Republic of Ireland and Elsewhere, please write in the present name of the country." One of the questions discussed in the article Constituent country was whether or not Northern Ireland was considered a country (and therefore a constituent country). This citation shows that Northern Ireland is indeed considered a country not only by its residents, but also by its government.

The National Statistics website is another British government agency, the link to its webpage notes that Northern Ireland is a country within the UK.

The final citation is that of an official webpage of the British Embassy in the USA, which describes the four countries of the United Kingdom.

I hope this is of help for any editor deciding which citations to keep, and which to let go. --Mal 21:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is fundementally where my problem lies, we are very good at providing links that backup the case for Northern Ireland been a country within the United Kingdom (the term country is a very broad term); but when it comes to the use of the term - and it is a term - "constituent country" then the appropriate links fizzel out to backup the latter case. Thus we have a problem with WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. We need to prove that Northern Ireland, beyond doubt, can be discribe as a "constituent country" because anthing else is simply an afront to the afformented policies when wikipedia is one of the few references using it.

For instance if I created an article "constituent county" (not country) and proceeded to claim that the counties of Ireland where discribed as such because they made up Ireland than this is a bogus term in the same sense. But its the same basic idea.

Sources, please that show the term has broad acceptance. Djegan 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And at least three of the links are quite specific. The term constituent county is not a term that I have ever heard mentioned anywhere. That's the difference. The term we are discussing, on the other hand, has been: one exists; the other does not. The term is not Original Research, and has been verified by the citations. --Mal 21:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What links? A quick google gives 610 returns fo "constituent county", and 79 returns for "constituent county" ireland. Just shows you can get a google return on anything, but proving its notable for WP:VERIFY (..."Just because some information is verifiable, doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it."...) and WP:NOR (..."It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source."...) is another thing. Djegan 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Google returns some 14,500 matches for "constituent country" too. Quite a lot higher than the paltry (in comparison) 610 matches for "constituent county". I also note that Encarta has a map of Northern Ireland described thusly: "Map of Northern Ireland (UK constituent country), United Kingdom".

But that is besides the point. Are you telling me that you've never heard of the term "constituent country" in relation to the United Kingdom..? --Mal 22:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No it is disputed in relation to Northern Ireland because Northern Ireland, unlike Wales, England and Scotland, is not a country. It is a region. Because it is disputed the consensus when this was discussed various times before was to footnote it and explain it, not use it in the text. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that some people apparently do not like the phrase does not mean that the term does not exist. We have already established that Northern Ireland is a country by the way (see Constituent country). --Mal 14:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Northern Ireland" could be discribed as a "country". So what. The term in discussion here is "constitutent country" - a whole different term unless I have missed something. Reputable sources, people - no self-promoted ideas and theories.

Djegan 17:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What "self-promoted ideas" and "theories" are you talking about? The citations are there for all to see. Northern Ireland is a country. It is also a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, vis-a-vis, a constituent country of the UK... which is a term that common in usage, and has even been used by the British government and the Republic of Ireland's government.

You have indeed missed something. --Mal 17:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat myself, indefinitely. You can see my rationale above. You can review the policies WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR at your pleasure. These are the policies by which I made my determination. Djegan 17:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The objection would seem to be to the inclusion of the word "country" in the phrase. which is why I have stressed that Northern Ireland is a country.

07:36, 14 August 2006 Djegan (Talk | contribs) (rv-still no citation (another article is not a source))

22:46, 15 August 2006 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (added citations)

18:03, 16 August 2006 Djegan (Talk | contribs) (rv-see talk/unresolved issue regarding acceptance in referenced works)

I'm wondering just what exactly would satisfy you (and Jtdirl and Mel) regarding what constitutes a verifiable source which specifically states "constituent country" relative to Northern Ireland in this case. It appears that every effort I make to meet your requirements, you find some other excuse to reject this simple phrase. It really is quite trivial of you.

And it looks as if you are going to repeat yourself indefinately. I have added verifiable sources, and its still not good enough for you. --Mal 17:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

After all this you still do not get the point. Two "sources" simply underline the fact that the term has not gained broad acceptance. WP:NOR/WP:VERIFY. Djegan 18:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest it is you who doesn't appear to get the point that the term is in usage, both officially and informally.

• The term "constituent entity" is Original Research.
• The same arguments that you apply to "constituent country" can be applied to ".. entity".
• The wikilink for ".. entity" points to an article which makes it clear that Northern Ireland is one of the four constituent countries of the UK.

--Mal 18:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is no article on constituent entity and no suggestion that it is a term. It is simply used, and was agreed through a consensus, as two words to avoid edit wars and to facilitate the inclusion of a footnote explaining a controversy of actual terminology. You are simply clutching at ever more farcical straws. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"There is no article on constituent entity and no suggestion that it is a term." Exactly. There is no controversy over the term by the way - it is in use, as pointed out by the citations. --Mal 14:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is controversy over it. But given that on WP you invariably dismiss Nationalist views and insist that if the British government says something then it must be right, you probably haven't noticed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again Jtdirl, I would ask you to refrain from personal attacks against me. --Mal 04:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl - I think the views of the internationally recognised legal government of a territory do carry a hell of a lot more weight than the views representing a fraction of 22% of 2.7% of that territory's population. Certainly the internationally unrecognised minority nationalist viewpoint that considers the entire island of Ireland as a "country" should be noted as a footnote, but to let a minority dislike of a certain phrase rule out the sovereign government's preferred terminology is quite ludicrous! Jonto 16:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

The fact that peer review has been requested does not negate the requirement that WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR be meet. Indeed the most recent reference did not even use the term "constituent country". Sources please, not derivations. Djegan 20:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the sources have been included does negate the requirement for same though. --Mal 16:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Mal/Setanta your understanding of the policies is not something I am assured of, Re: this "misunderstanding".

Djegan 21:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Pick one Djegan: Mal or Setanta - you don't need to use both.

As for the 3RR block in which you were instrumental, I would remind you that not only is this the first time any such action has been taken against me, but also that you yuorself were on the cusp of getting a warning. Indeed, I believe you would have received one had somebody taken it upon themselves to complain about your reverting, as you did with me.

And finally, the citation is there, for all to see. Its as plain as the nose I presume you have on your face. You asked for a citation: I provided one. --Mal 04:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed if anything we should use the terminology that the Northern Ireland Act has used "part of the United Kingdom"[14]. When their is a dispute keep it simple and factual. We need to stop banging about terms like "constituent country", "constituent entity" and "constituent parts" and the like because it is increasingly evident that their is no consistancy even among official sources (i.e. government, as distinct from law) and that terms vary widely. A truely conclusive source is as allusive as ever. We need sources that stand up to scrutiny and not terms used in an ad-hoc manner on government websites in FAQs and the like. If these terms are really that common that they deserve inclusion then where are the respected and written sources that cite them? Djegan 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest keeping a link in which the UK refers to NI as a consituent country, one in which Ireland does the same. For the other links, a wikipedia user could click the internal link to constituent country I think. Omishark 04:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A link showing that Northern Ireland is sometimes referred to as a "constituent country" would be a valid compromise as part of a rewritten opening paragraph. But with the absence of any authoritive sources the definitive claim that it is a "constituent country" is intollerable by the standards set out in aformented policies. The first paragraph needs a rewrite, its based on too many assumptions, it should include a citation on the Northern Ireland Act ("part of the United Kingdom"); this been more prominant and focused than other claims. The current status quo is largely bogus as it places too much emphasis on ad-hoc faqs as "sources". Djegan 21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Its quite simple:

• Northern Ireland is a country.
• Northern Ireland is a constituent of the United Kingdom.
• Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom.
• The term constituent country(ies) is used in reference to Northern Ireland.
• You can't get much more authoritative than the government.
• The term constituent country is notable enough to have its own article.
• The Constituent country article, the United Kingdom article, the Home Nations article, the England article, the Scotland article and the Wales article all state that the United kingdom is made up of four constituent countries, and that Northern Ireland is one of them.
• Why haven't you and your cohorts mounted a campaign to remove the phrase from the articles on the England, Scotland, Wales, United Kingdom and Home Nations articles?
• Further, why haven't you AfD'd the Constituent country article itself?
• What exactly is your problem with the term constituent country? Is it the constituent part, or the country part?

--Mal 09:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, you have demonstrated a very elegant theory. Where are the authoritive sources? Djegan 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

DCA --Mal 19:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

We are going to have to try a bit harder - it uses the term in passing, about city status. The fact that it comes from a government does not make to definitive, or show that its widely accepted. Djegan 20:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You say "we", though I cannot see you going out of your way to provide a source yourself.

You also suggest that its not "widely accepted", though I can tell you that I am quite familiar with the phrase. Also, I note that you still haven't made similar edits on each of the other articles in which the phrase is used: England, Scotland, Wales, Home Nations, or United Kingdom. Nor have you, as far as I am aware, attempted to make the Constituent country article a candidate for deletion.

You asked for an authoritative source, and I provided several (the British government, the Irish government and the BBC amongst them). I found another source and decided it would look better if there was only one in the actual article. The cited source actually uses the phrase in the introduction, stating quite clearly:

City status will be granted next year by personal Command of the Queen, on advice from Ministers, to a suitably qualified town in each of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. --Mal 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentially of you see WP:VERIFY the onus is on the editor who wants to retain the material to cite a reputable source. My belief, as my rationale is explained above, is that the first paragraph needs a rewrite anyhow and that any current version(s) are a nonsense that contain "constituent x" nonsense. If their is controversy they should state unreputable facts first. Djegan 22:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reported you for 3RR violation. Our anon friend (193.1.172.138) is not me nor have I requested him/her to revert. I dont live in Ireland incidentially. Regards. Djegan 21:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what your not living in Ireland has to do with me, or this discussion. Anyway, I have duly reported yourself for breaking 3RR also. I had hoped not to go down this path, but unfortunately you do not appear to have accepted any effort I have made to address your concern regarding WP:VERIFY.

I have included a citation from a reliable source, and many more are available (as you know). Therefore your directing me to WP:VERIFY and talking of on whom the onus rests, is not applicable.

I can't quite work out your last sentence in your comment at 22:04 on this date. Perhaps you could re-write it. I personally don't see anything wrong with it other than the phrase "constituent entity": it is succinct and factual. --Mal 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously your mentioning of your whereabouts is in relation to the last reverter of the article. --Mal 22:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Constituent "elements"?

Constituent elements seems to me to be most NPOV (well it would, wouldn't it, I thought of it!). "Nations" is definitely wrong. Widespread use in GB is that there are two nations, a principality and a province. Its a bit hard to take seriously a place that has a smaller population than the West Midlands. Calling it a nation looks like hubris. --Red King 19:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hubris? I think that is POV to be honest. But this isn't abouot POV - its about factual editing.

You say that "its a bit hard to take seriously a place that has a smaller population than the West Midlands". Well let me tell you I take my country of birth very seriously. Quite frankly, I'm offended at your lack of sensibility.

Aside from that, take a look at the populations of various countries:

(table showing that countries with population similar to Northern Ireland, moved for space reasons to Talk:Northern Ireland/Population Table by --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC) )

You will notice that the Republic of Ireland has less than twice the population, and there are around 82 countries with a smaller population than Northern Ireland. You might also be aware that the Republic has a smaller population than the West Midlands, as do both Wales and Scotland.

On top of this, one of my main reasons for editing the article and putting back both the phrase "constituent countries" and the citation for it, is the fact that changing this phrase solely for the Northern Ireland article is inconsistent with other articles throughout the Wikipedia. Not only that but, because it is solely the Northern Ireland article, it smacks of POV.

I believe that some editors may have let their own personal political viewpoints get in the way of factual editing. --Mal 23:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear Mal! Was just about to post the same table! I think there is an underlying contempt for NI by many southern editors who continuously like to lecture us about their neutrality. Nothing makes this more evident than the comments by Redking above. Jonto 23:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say Jonto that I wasn't even aware where RedKing lives! --Mal 23:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I came to look at this issue as a result of Setanta747/Mal's request for peer review. Therefore I reorganised the talk thread, and reviewed recent diffs. I am quite new to Wikipedia so I am not claiming some kind of divine authority, nor even claiming impartiality (I have recently had dealings with some of the main editors here at other articles, and I have proved earlier today that I cannot count.)

It seems that a debate begun in April died down by May 10 (edit) as a kind of unspoken consensus or truce. The word "entities" remained for nearly three months, until edits between countries and entities started up again on August 3 (edit). As far as I can see, both sides are claiming that the issue has already been decided, and both sides are claiming that their opponents wording is not neutral.

So, the content of the debate: Talk:Constituent country seemed to decide that 'constituent countries' was a technical term independent of the meaning of 'country'. The term 'constituent countries' in the first sentence of Northern Ireland however has turned out to be highly divisive (among editors - we can't know what the readers think.) The main objection to the term, as used here, is that it gives readers the impression of identifying Northern Ireland as a country separate from the Republic of Ireland. The objection to the 'constituent entities' is that ducks out of using an established term, that it seems to give favour to Irish reunification by denying 'constituent country' status, and that it is not consistent with the articles on England Scotland Wales and Constituent country. There are a couple of additional twists and nuances on either side that are also interesting.

It seems no term can be found that every editor can agree is totally neutral, so we have to make a group decision on what is the least bad.

My suggestion: 'constituent countries' gets consensus as a specific technical term, but is divisive when seen as plain English at the top of the article. However, its specific meaning is not widely understood. 'constituent entities' had an unspoken consensus for three months. No-one has said that Northern Ireland is not an entity, but some editors (and verifiable sources) say it is also a 'constituent country'. Therefore, since no editor disputes the accuracy of the term constituent entities, I suggest that be the term used throughout the article, as most clear to the reader, and least divisive among the editors. Exception being in body of article it makes sense to have one link to Constituent countries.

That is my 1 penny and 1 cent. Lets wait a few more days and see what other 'peers' have to say. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that Hroðulf. At this point I'd like to reiterate that Wikipedia articles are not meant as debating forums - an encyclopedia should report the facts. Any unpopularity of particular phrases or events etc, should really be simply marked as 'footnotes'.

I had taken a bit of a break from Wikipedia during the time the 'unspoken consensus' was arrived at, and I would not have agreed to the proposal. The clear and simple reason is, as has been said: consistancy. Prior to the 'unspoken consensus', I'm sure the article contained the phrase as-is, did it not, for a period of time?

There are people I have known who have obhected to, and taken offence at, the very 'phrase' "Northern Ireland". Yet this is the correct and factual name for the country. Wikipedia reflects that, and I don't see that this technical jargon should be treated any differently. Certainly if it can be proven that a large number of people object to the term constituent country then a footnote can be included in the article. It is official policy that "Wikipedia is not the place for original research."

Nor is Wikipedia a soapbox.

Nor is it censored. --Mal 01:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My belief is that on the absense of any authoritive sources we should jettison an constituent country, elements and parts claims as one is as bad as the other. Just limit citations to the law. Djegan 12:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Wales count as a "country" in a United Kingdom context? Isn't it a Principality? JAJ 17:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If the question and implication is that if Wales is a country theirfore it must follow that Northern Ireland is a country this is not the case. All parts of the "cake" do not have to be equal, by any measure. For instance the fact that New York is a U.S. state does not mean that Washington, D.C. is also a U.S. state, the latter is a federal district.

If you have a serious issue regarding the Principality (sic) status of Wales, raise it at talk:Wales. Djegan 18:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Move request at constituent country

It seams their is no end to this fiasco and farce, see Talk:Constituent_country#Requested_move_2. Djegan 22:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The controversy is unfortunately inevitable. People on both sides can have cause to gloss over the fact that the island was a single nation and country until 1922 (albeit within the UK). I do not see how the North magically became a separate nation by remaining in the UK (its status in this regard is the same as before 1922 - i.e. British Ireland). Country is an ambiguous term that includes the nation, and should also be avoided. State would be appropriate, but is not in common usage. Constituent part is therefore the most logical term. zoney ♣ talk 23:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Deaths statistics

Please see this discussion. Any input would be appreciated. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 21:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides "Free Staters" (sic) or "Fenian bastards" (sic)

What's the general term for people from down south? Just curious Fergananim 19:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

From who's perspective? I wasn't sure this question deserved an answer at first. But I'll assume Good Faith and inform you that the term "Fenian bastards" is an insult used by a small minority (people who would generally be called loyalists and bigots). Nor does the phrase, when used, apply solely to people from the Republic of Ireland. The phrase is used variously to describe Irish Roman Catholics, Nationalists, or specifically republicans (with emphasis on specifically millitant republicans). Sometimes it is used in Northern Ireland jokingly, in mixed company - usually only when the atmosphere is friendly. The term "Free Staters" is, I think, becoming antiquated and obviously referes to one of the names the Republic of Ireland had previously been known as. --Mal 20:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I still hear "Free Staters" quite a bit. The most common is probably "Southerners". "Dirty Mexicans" is certainly the best term though :P ;) Jonto 14:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the Republic of Ireland itself is usually found referred to in conversation as The Free State or Down South or sometimes The Republic. As for the people just things like Southerners or Them Down South is used, there's not really a solid term for those who live the other side of the border and the derogitory terms aren't used that much by the general populace to be honest. On both sides of the political divide there is still a sense of everyone really being the same people with little in the way of differences (though obviously there are a few who think otherwise). Ben W Bell talk 07:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly down here, "northerner" is the most common term for someone from, well, the North. I guess this is applied to Donegal or even Cavan/Monaghan folk too though. zoney ♣ talk 23:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dubious

I have added a dubious tag to the introductory sentence. The sentence used to state that Northern Ireland is one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom. This was changed to the WP:NOR phrase "constituent entities", then to "constituent elements", and now to "constituent parts".

The phrase has again been changed recently to remove the part "one of the four".

Northern Ireland is, however, one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom. I believe we should re-add the phrase, as it has been verified and sources have been cited in this and in other relevent articles (England, Scotland, Wales, United Kingdom and Home Nations).

I had added a reference note, suggesting that some people mightn't particularly like the phrase "constituent country" when applied to Northern Ireland.. as a compromise. That too was removed. --Mal 15:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: a way forward?

Considering recent confusion and dispute regarding constituent country/element/part status of Northern Ireland I propose that we dump the premise of such status (in the main body at least) as they are high dubious as shown. Instead, in the main body, we should use the terminology of the Northern Ireland Act viz "part of the United Kingdom" and nothing more. A constituent status footnote, appropriately cited, could be retained. Djegan 18:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it dubious that UK government and the (RoI) Irish government websites show use of the term "constituent country"? The weasel wording of constituent part as a piped link to Home Nations is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV which requires at the outset that "all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent all significant views fairly and without bias". This seems to be an attempt to censor an official government view to present only the presumed viewpoint of those with allegiance to an adjacent country. If the term is controversial, the controversy should be made clear in the opening paragraph of the lede, and the article should include proper representation of both viewpoints as expressed in reliable sources which should be properly cited. .. dave souza, talk 20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As you can see from WP:VERIFY the fact that something is used on an external sources does not mean that it should and must be used on wikipedia. The question here has been that has the term sufficent usage that qualifies it as an authoritive and definitive discription of the Northern Ireland and United Kingdom relationship, viz WP:NOR. It appears on a few faqs and the like - so what? (if their was authoritive and definitive sources they would be forthcoming, long ago) Incidentially that claim of usage on a Irish government website is one usage in the Houses of the Oireachtas in all the parliamentary debates since 1919 until recently (with regard to results relevent to Northern Ireland/United Kingdom). Djegan 21:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I support your removal of the "piped link" - I agree its dubious and misleading at best. A paragraph that weighs up the viewpoints of "constituent country" would not be unacceptable. As long as the outlandish claim that faqs and the like are somehow the final and definitive word on status. Djegan 21:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:V says nothing about there being a requirement for "sufficient usage" - where did you get that from? From a quick google, looking at the first 20 of about 25,300 for "northern ireland" "constituent country" .gov, I find that the Department for Constitutional Affairs is happy to use it, as is Defra, and Hansard provides a table which clearly demonstrates its usage. There are also a lot of government pdfs using the term to describe NI. The extent and context of the usage should be stated, as should the usage that NI is a country. And what you claim was the "one usage" is from Dáil Éireann - Volume 541 - 03 October, 2001, the Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin): not as ancient as you suggest - maybe use there is increasing? What I haven't seen is any objection to the terms, and links to sources showing such objections will be welcome..dave souza, talk 22:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish Name

I live in Belfast and I am an Irish speaker. I have changed the Irish name of Northern Ireland to "Na Sé Chontae" to reflect the fact that this is the Irish name given to Northern Ireland. Tuaisceart Éireann is just the direct translation from English into Irish. Irish speakers refer to Northern Ireland as "Na Sé Chontae". Irish doesn't always directly translate into English and vice versa. Seamus2602 21:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Good for you, the Irish wiki is at http://ga.wikipedia.org. As for the name, whatever next? Djegan 21:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Na Sé Chontae means "Six Counties" in Irish, and while I've no problems labelling it as so, it does not literally mean "Northern Ireland". I agree that the area is often called the six counties, however, and think that the term should be inserted in the article somewhere. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Their is, incidentially a whole article on alternative names. Djegan 21:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

While yes there is another page about that, we are talking about this page. If you list the Irish name of a place in an article then it should be the name used by the majority of Irish speakers. Dublin is called Baile Átha Cliath in Irish but to translate Dublin back into Irish you get Dubh Linn. The rease Baile Átha Cliath is used by Wikipedia is that it is the name used by the majority of Irish speakers. The same should be applied here.

This is the English wikipedia first most. Djegan 22:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

When we're dealing with the Irish name for a place, then the Irish language should be correct. Most Irish speakers use the Six Counties name. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Many people say "American" when they mean United States. Djegan 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point mate. I live in Belfast. I live in an area where Irish is spoken every day. I have never heard the name Tuaisceart Éireann being used for Northern Ireland. If you don't like that fact remove the Irish name all together. I would prefer the Irish name to not be there than a wrong Irish name to be there. User:Seamus2602 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• "I have never heard the name Tuaisceart Éireann being used for Northern Ireland." — try here: [15] [16] I speak Irish too, and I've never heard the term "Sé Chontae" being used for Northern Ireland, except by people who were trying to push a certain political agenda. This seems to be just an attempt to reopen the old "six counties" debate through the back door. Demiurge 22:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am pushing no political agenda. There are many other more important things that I can pick a fight about. I am just putting in the name used by the majority of Irish speakers. Seamus2602 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• "the name used by the majority of Irish speakers" — prove it. Demiurge 22:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't. I'll come out and admit that I can't magically produce surveys in favour of Na Sé Chontae but believe me I am not trying to push a political agenda. I just want the article to reflect the use of Na Sé Chontae in the way the Dublin article reflects the use of Baile Átha Cliath. Seamus2602 22:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if you are correct, just because Na Sé Chontae may be the common term as Gaeilge does not mean it is the most appropriate term to use in this article. Tuaisceart Éireann is the official term as Gaeilge. I believe the article mentions alternative names for the North already. I find it hard to beleive you are not just pushing a viewpoint. zoney ♣ talk 23:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I speak Irish, but the six counties name seems more plausible to me. Who'se going to name another region of their country "Northern Ireland". Northern ireland is hardly even the north of ireland, as it only takes up six of the 32 counties of Ireland. Wikisquared 14:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with that logic is that Northern Ireland is not just a region. It is currently separate from the other 26 counties and under UK rule (i.e. a separate country from the Republic of Ireland). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 14:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Since the infobox was changed the top three lines of text (Northern Ireland (English), Tuaisceart Éireann, (Irish) and Norlin Airlann (Ulster Scots)) haven't been looking right. The spacing doesn't look right. Anyone else noticed this or is it just me? I can't seem to fix it. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I added ^{<small>&nbsp;</small>} after Tuaisceart Éireann which acts like the subset 1 after Norlin Airlann. Maybe someone could take a look at the template for a better solution.  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology  Talk!  08:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)