Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Northern Ireland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Nimbley Troll Warning

A well known Troll Nimbley 6 latest manifestation User:Ricky Oliver appears to be paying the this page the same attention s/he normally gives Scotland. User: Jza84 provided the following summary of how to spot him: Bad spelling, obsession with subheadings, flags, Scottish female singers, Kilmarnock, Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre and "Scottish" inventions are all very easy tells. This is a chronic sockpuppeteer, who's not going to stop so long as we don't apply WP:RBI. To that I would add that he also seems to be obsessed with specific types of teenage clothes such as MacKinsey. He also has a particular style on his user page --Snowded TALK 06:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The latest incarnation of the Nimbley6 troll seems to have Northern Ireland in its sights: see their user page. This seems to be a common modus operandi for Nimbely6 these days: practice on a user page then try and rapid-fire the changes through to the real article. It's been attempted by at least two of Nimbley6's socks on Scotland recently. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

GA delisted

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of September 19, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R.

Every statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.
References should state the author, publisher, publishing date and access date if known.

Regards, Epbr123 12:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Same thing happened to Dublin - yer just not gettin' yer act together folks! Too much bickering. (Sarah777 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

Ulster Banner straw poll

Hello there,

A straw poll has opened at this section of the United Kingdom talk page regarding the use of the Ulster Banner for that article's circumstances only. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. Hope to see you there, Jza84 22:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Count this up

Republican paramilitaries have contributed to nearly 60% (2056) of these. Loyalists have killed nearly 28% (1020) while the security forces have killed just over 11% (362) with 9% percent of those attributed to the British Army. That comes to 108% it's meant to be 100% so who added on the extra 8% ? - Culnacréann 18:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did you go to school 60+28+11=99 the 9% figure is taken from the security force 11%, which would mean the other 3% of that would be attributed to the RUC/PSNI.--Padraig 18:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why quibble? Surely Loyalist/RUC/BA killings should just be bundled together as is done with "Republican paramilitaries"? Then when we look at civilian deaths the British side emerge as the champs. (Sarah777 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

The Army and NI Police are not paramilitaries. Astrotrain 20:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Prior to the GFA they were just that. (Sarah777 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

no they wern'tDionysus99 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Described at [1] as "Paramilitary designates forces whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military force, but which are not regarded as having the same status". Thus the Army are not a paramilitary- whereas the terrorist organisations can be decribed as such. Astrotrain 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

They were not terrorist organisations. You shouldn't use meaningless words. BA and RUC were trained killers. Fact. loyalist/RUC/BA killings; all the same. (Sarah777 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

It is rationale to list them by Republican terrorist killings, Loyalist terrorist killings, Police and then Army. They are all independent of each other. And I suppose the Army are trained killers, it is their job! Astrotrain 23:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And one they did rather well when it came to Catholic civilians, but weren't so good at killing freedom fighters. Paid killers. It is rational to have only two main lists: Freedom Fighters and British Murder Gangs. Why over-egg it? All else is bull. (Sarah777 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

And btw Astro, you are transparent; but you'll never make a charge of "anti-Britishness" stick when you are actively making provocative statements. Try it and see! (Sarah777 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

I haven't made any charges against you. And I haven't made any provocative statements (most people would not be offended by referring to IRA/UVF etc as a terrorist organisation in line with how the British and Irish governments do). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotrain (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You know you can't call folk terrorists on Wiki. And you have to be very careful who you accuse of genocide or Nazi similarities too. (Sarah777 23:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Do we really have to have this political propoganda pushed onto wikipedia. The official forces of any state are never viewed as paramilitary organisations by any neutral party. Sarah777, I think you should really consider what you want to acheive on this encyclopedia. Trolling is not the purpose of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 10:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the separation should be

British Army (the 2 legal militaries involved on the island of Ireland)
RoI Army (yes, I suspect they didn't shoot anyone but I include it for completeness)
RUC/PSNI (the 2 legal police forces involved on the island of Ireland)
An Gardai Siochana/RoI police
Loyalist paramilitaries (the 2 illegal groupings)
Nationalist Paramilitaries

This way, each of the armies, paramilitaries and police are listed. We must remember that the violence occurred on both sides of the border. As many Loyalists distrusted Westminister and the IRA was equally in favour of destroying the pro-Treaty RoI for their new Communist state, the divisions are hardly that easy. As for Sarah777, she might want to continue the fight that her ancestors sacrificed their children and their children's children to, but the rest of NI want to keep their knee-caps in their knees, thanks. Wee Jimmy (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland in the UK

Added to opening line constituent country, which Northern Ireland is, matching it with England, Wales and Scotland. GoodDay 20:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed that. Please don't include controversial terms which are still under discussion. There is no agreement on this. (Sarah777 20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

If it is sourced to Downing Street website, it can be used. As usual, Irish Republican editors only want to use sources if it suits their own POV. Astrotrain 20:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've run into a similiar complaint at Scotland, concerning my recent changes. GoodDay 20:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with using constituent country if it is supported by a WP:V and is a WP:RS.--Padraig 20:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Does one reference on a Downing St website make it legal? Make it a fact? And as for reliable sources a political website??! (Sarah777 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Seems everybit as illigitamite as calling Tipperary or Dublin counties! Fasach Nua 21:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hardly, as NI is clearly not a country. "County Dublin" would imply that it is indeed a county, the hint is in the name. But my objection is to using a political website as a reliable source, especially as it seems the only source. If we can do that it opens up a vast range of possibilities for those of us seeking to balance rampant British pov in Ireland related articles. If some Irish Government website remarks that "British Isles" is an incorrect term for these islands, do we change the article name? (Sarah777 21:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

But we're talking about Northern Ireland, not the island of Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. GoodDay 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We are taliking about wikipedia, which unilaterally made Tipperary a county, regardless of the opinion of the Republic of Ireland government, what is to stop WP unilaterally making NI a country, regardless of the UKs view on the matter? Fasach Nua 21:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you'd find many people in Tipperary (or on Earth) who would agree that wikipedia unilaterally made Tipperary a county!! You will find literally zillions of references to attest to the Tipp is a county - you certainly won't have to depend on a single political website! (Sarah777 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Do these literally zillions of references [2] make it legal? Fasach Nua 22:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about "legal" in ref to Tipp? NI is neither legally a country nor does it have any verifiable references that it is widely regarded as a country. In the link you give I was questioning the implication that the Downing St website implied some legality. The "zillions" for County Tipp are contrasted with the "1" for "NI is a Country". (Sarah777 22:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Nobody said Northern Ireland was a country, it's a constituent country. GoodDay 22:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So, a red rose is not a rose?! (Sarah777 00:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

And is a Koala bear not a bear? Fasach Nua 08:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In fhírinne a Koala bear is not a bear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.249.174 (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

But constituent country has "no defined legal meaning" according to the article in Wikipedia. You could argue that the Republic of Ireland is a constituent country of "the Home Countries" with regard to rugby just as easily. Coolavokig 09:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Downing Street website is not definitive, but unsourced republican ideology is? The basis for this discussion is patent nonsense.Traditional unionist —Preceding comment was added at 11:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree this discussion is nonsense as NI is blindingly obviously not a country, red, Koala, constituent or otherwise and there are no independent or reliable sources to support such a ridiculous claim. As for "unsourced republican ideology" - can't see any in this article - where is it? (Sarah777 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

You are stopping the term being used based on unsourced republican ideology. Encarta for one disagrees with you.Traditional unionist 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Though it probably won't be added, Northern Ireland is a constituent country. However, if it's gonna be banned from this article? Northern Ireland should be omitted from Constituent country and from United Kingdom. We can't have it both ways, enough of this double standard. GoodDay 14:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed from the article Constituent country. The Encarta ref is useful but certainly not enough to set against the overwhelming references to NI as a "province", "statelet", "entity" and so forth. As I said that would be akin to removing the name "British Isles" if we could find a few references to say that Ireland isn't included - which we can. (Sarah777 15:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

This is a very Lame as content disputes go, if Downing street say its a constituent country of the UK and a WP:V has been provided to support that then it should be included, if anyone can find other sources to dispute this then that can also be mentioned, but we can't censor an term just because some may not agree with it.--Padraig 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Its good to know some republicans have some common sense.Traditional unionist 15:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No10 is a political website; not a reliable source. Also the uttering of a single website cannot over-ride mass usage. The sources to "dispute" this usage are the vast array of times in print where NI is referred to as a "province" for example. Or a "failed entity" even - probably a more common usage than "country"; after all that is how an Irish Prime Minister (your No10 equivalent) described it. What is important about this is that the very same editors who insist on the term "British Isles" are reversing all the arguments top claim NI is a country. Let us have a SINGLE standard to apply to articles relating to these islands. (Sarah777 15:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

What sort of evidence do you require Padraig to counter the No10 political website? Maybe the Sinn Fein website? If I can muster 5 references to NI as a "province" rather than a "country" is that enough for you? (Sarah777 15:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Sarah the British has always refered to the north as a province not a country, the term constituent country dosent alter that or make it a country as its a meaningless term to start with, and the Downing street website is a British government website, therefore its content is the opinion of the Prime Minister and his government. As for sources on it being refered to as a province, I give sources to support its use in a discussion either in another section of this page or on the United Kingdom talk page, if you want to dig them out, then you could add that it is also regarded as a province. But either way the term cannot be excluded.--Padraig 16:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No wish to exclude and certainly not to censor. But the article should call NI a constituent part or province, not a country. We can refer in a footnote or some such that some very limited sources call it a "country" - much as we'd have to do with a claim that the tricolour represents NI in some folks opinion. (Sarah777 16:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Sarah we can use constituent country and add the reference to the Downing Street website, then add the use of the term province also with references.--Padraig 17:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

But that would be like putting the tricolour in the NI box with a ref to the SF website and then adding references to support the use of the Union Jack lower down. My point is that "country" is (almost) original research with very little usage compared to other terms; plus it is inaccurate. (Sarah777 18:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Presumably that means that FIFA has got it wrong all these years – calling Northern Ireland a country ‘n all? And PRONI (a Northern Ireland 'non departmental public body' refers to the 'country of Northern Ireland' on it's first web page, And Britanica.com refer it to a country. Perhaps somebody had better tell the Northern Ireland tourist board is isn't a country as they seem to think it is -. Oh yes and the UK National Statistics call Northern Ireland a country too - but heh! what would they know .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionysus99 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(Deindenting) It seems to me that 'country' is fairly non-specific and uncontentious. It doesn't imply statehood or the like, it's just a place. I think there would be grounds for complaint if it said "constituent nation"! I don't think that Sarah's complaint is well founded. --Red King 20:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in the least bit uncontentious. NI is simply not a country, by any measure. Redking7 might even agree - it seems he is the chap I thought was you in the Inis Mor affair. (Sarah777 20:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Well ok, maybe it is not a Country! (but then neither is England, Scotland or Wales by the same definition!). --Red King 20:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No Red, I would argue with you on those three despite my not being much given to argument.(Sarah777 21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Consistancy folks - It's either re-add constituent country here OR remove the term from United Kingdom, England, Wales and Scotland. The current status among these articles are unacceptable. What's it gonna be? GoodDay 21:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Important Surrender Announcment: notwithstanding the obvious fact that I am entirely right (as usual) in a spirit of Wikiness, and in the absence of any visible support, I hereby withdraw my objection to describing NI as a "constituent country". (This was in no way related to the fact that Googling "NI is a country" threw up 35,000 hits). (Sarah777 21:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is one country consisting of four parts. The island of "Great Britain" has two constituent countries (Scotland and England), and one principality (Wales). "Northern Ireland" is a province on the island of Ireland. Jnthn Rsh (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland only covers about two-thirds of the "province" of Ulster and therefore is only part of a province, not a whole province. The United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland consists of two parts, not four. Just look at the full name and you see both of the two parts named, "Great Britain" AND "Northern Ireland". Great Britain may consist of three parts - England, Scotland, and Wales - but the United Kingdom is a union of the two enitities named in the full title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.197.241 (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct - but emotions trump facts all the time on Wiki so long as the emotions are in the Anglophone mainstream. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Northern Ireland can be a whole province entirely in its own right from that of the Irish variant. The British province of Northern Ireland is six counties. The Irish province of Ulster is 9 counties. And on the number of counties in Ulster - like in all provinces it has varied over the years, for example Louth used to be part of Ulster according to some old maps of Ireland. Mabuska (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland vs Republic of Ireland

Just to clear this up the republic is officially Ireland and is just called the republic of ireland to make it easier In the UN for example Ireland sits beside the other countries beginning with I eg. Israel If the British say ireland is called the republic of ireland so be it But it is really what the country its self says and it is offcially just Ireland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.11.151 (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit made is fine, but just to clear up the edit summary, the EU website has around 4 and a half thousand references to the Republic of Ireland, and the UN website also refers to it, but a number is hard to find, as google throws up Iran (Islamic Republic of) Ireland as a hit. Which isn't correct. My point is that the term is widely used throughout the world to refer to the Country just as there is a vernacular for the Republic of China Traditional unionist 15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to this edit, then I, personally, think it's quite puerile. I've warred over "Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland" on the "Ireland" side in the past, but when drawing parallels with Northern Ireland, and speaking in terms of the island, then it's obvious that "Republic of Ireland" is the clearest way of putting it. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it was puerile if it was anywhere other than the intro. It's probably worth the clarification there.Traditional unionist 16:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The intro states "officially named Ireland", this is not the case, in UK law (Ireland Act 1949), the name of the state is "The Republic of Ireland", and therefore in NI it is officially called the Republic of Ireland Fasach Nua 10:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

At the time of the British-Irish Agreement (not part of the agreement itself) both governments agreed to use the official names by which each state describes itself (see here). If anyone knows where exactly they agreed this, I'd appreciate it. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, it did contain some interesting information, but as you say it was an agreement between Govenments, the question would be how this agreement was implemented, was the Ireland Act 1949 ammended or revoked as a result. In theory the government should opperate within the law, not that I could imagine the UK govenment behaving dishonesty in its foreign relations! Fasach Nua 11:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"dishonestly in its foreign relations" - ah, but RoI is "not a foreign country" under the 1949 act :) --sony-youth^pléigh 11:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed the un-needed (possibly contraversial) info. It's covered at Ireland and Republic of Ireland (as it should be). Let's avoid the potential for political fighting, shall we? GoodDay 20:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The cure was worse than the disease. So I've removed the sentence completely as it doesn't need to be in the intro and it certainly can't be expressed in a ten words or less sentence. --Red King 22:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Partition of Ireland, partition of Ulster"

Before I changed it (possibly for the worse!), the last sentence of Northern Ireland#Partition of Ireland, partition of Ulster said The Council of Ireland provided for in the 1920 Act, and in the Treaty, to link Northern Ireland eventually to the Irish Free State within 50 years was removed. Does anybody know what this is supposed to mean. The Council of Ireland article doesn't mention it. I've tried to rephrase it and put a fact tag on it. --Red King 22:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Council of Ireland article does mention it, but it applied to "Southern Ireland - Northern Ireland" not to "Irish Free State - Northern Ireland." A rewrite would be: "The Council of Ireland provided for in the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was intended to rejoin Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland under a single parliament within a 50-year period. However, events in the south over took this provision, and many others, from the 1920 act, so that with the Anglo-Irish Treaty, and the establishment of the Irish Free State, the Council of Ireland was non-operational and no formal structures existed to facilitate future Irish unity." --sony-youth^pléigh 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the Government of Ireland Act 1920 been repealed then? What replaced it? (anything before 1948?) I see for example at Boundary Commission (Ireland)#Dáil Debates on the Commission, 7 - 10 December 1925 a complaint from Professor Megennis that the clause hadn't been referred to in the agreement. This would have just been 'comfort wording' if the provsion remained in British Statutes. It was certainly my impression that there was some talk during the time of the Belfast Agreement that the Council of Ireland should meet (and David Trimble called for a counter-balancing "Council of the Isles". --Red King 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

From recollection the "Council of Ireland" was the title of the All-Ireland body in the Sunningdale Agreement, which some attribute as one of the main reasons for the Agreement's ultimate downfall (and also Gerry Fitt says it was the SDLP's insistence on it that made the party a nationalist party not a socialist party). Was this a new body explicitly legislated for or was it the 1920 body finally being activated under legislation that was never repealed? Timrollpickering 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Black North

Is this a spoof? I've heard of the industrial north of England as "the Black North", but not NI. Just because somebody may have used it in jest a couple of times doesn't make it widely accepted. I've also heard the expression "the frozen north", but wouldn't dream of listing it. I don't think this one deserves a citation tag. If no-one objects in the next 7 days, I'll delete it. --Red King (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was used to describe the high proportion of our protestant brothers in the north.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Black Preceptory = the most anti-Irish/Catholic of the anti-Irish/Catholic organisations; the Orange Order are Catholic communists compared to them. Hence the use of the word Black as in Black North and Black Bastard while not nice, is most likely not unwelcome to members of that institution. 213.202.184.252 (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)I do not think this is a spoof and although not widely used, I have a few colleagues in Dublin who would use it. In addition, there is now a page here The Black North.

The supporting article (which I will tag after this exit) has no citations of current use. On supporting reference which talks about the USA and one obscure reference which might at best be a description. There is no evidence of current use presented so I have removed it pending such evidence. --Snowded TALK 06:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a reasonably common description of Northern Ireland - particularly, obviously, by people from Down South. I haven't done a search online or anywhere else, but I've heard the expression a few times. It's not as popularly used as "The North" or "The Six Counties" etc, but it's still a common description. --Setanta747 (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In just five minutes of looking, I found a few examples of its usage in formal and semi-formal publications:

The Independent - May 2008
http://www.thevacuum.org.uk/issues/issues0120/issue09/is09artbellov.html www.thevacuum.org.uk] - page last updated November 2006
A book on sale by Amazon called "The Black North: An Account of the Six Counties of Unrecovered Ireland : Their People, Their Treasur[sic] (Hardcover)", published in 1950. (I think I saw another reference to this on the 'Net which suggested there was a forward by DeValera).
The Irish News - May 2008
The Irish News again - July 2007

I think the text should be re-added to the article. --Setanta747 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It is no doubt that it is used as a synonym for the North (possibly even as distinct from NI). But none of the sources above show no context to prove a perjorative use, only use as a name. If anything, there is a case that the term came to symbolise correctly or incorreclty, the industrial north, like the Black Country, see [3][4], which may also explain its early usage by socialists. MickMacNee (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

My grandmother, who was born about 1880 in Dundalk, often referred to the North of Ireland (basically, any place north of Dundalk) as "The Black North". To her this had a negative connotation--she didn't like the place and would never visit even for a holiday.Hohenloh (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I am able to determine, the phrase was possibly used many years ago in relation to economy. It seems to have been more commonly used in the pejorative sense in relation to religion and/or politics in recent decades though. I'll think we should add the economic sense to the article too though. I'll probably do it if nobody else does. Cheers. --Setanta747 (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship

The annon may well have a point. Question number one before I go on, is citizenship registered on a birth certificate?Traditional unionist (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't, it just gives details of parents, place and date of birth.--Padraig (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then logically, one would have to renounce British citizenship if born in Northern Ireland and the birth was registered in Northern Ireland. Perhaps people don't know this and and are carrying duel nationality without knowing, but as I recall, the Northern Ireland Act didn't amend the Nationality Act.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect I was born in Northern Ireland and hold an Irish Passport an I am a Irish citizen, I never had or was I required to renounce anything.--Padraig (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WHich could mean you're a duel British and Irish citizen and don't know.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No it dosen't the GFA makes it clear that you can adopt either British, Irish or Duel citizenship, the choice is up to the individual.--Padraig (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

1st, im willing to bet you were born before 1998, 2nd I don't recall the NI Act amending the Nationality Act, which it would need to to make effect to that section of the agreement to become law.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was born a long time before 1998 :), its immaterial what the Nationality Act says or not the GFA is a binding agreement :::::::::::between the two governments, the political parties of Northern Ireland and its population.--Padraig (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't matter diddly squat wat the belfast agreement says. If it's not in the Northern Ireland Act of 1998, it's not law therefore it doesn't exist. The agreement was a legal framework that the Northern Ireland Act and the referendum in the Republic put legal power into.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The election in the north and the referendum in the south was based on the content of the GFA, that is what people voted for, we can't now decide to ignore the parts that one side or the other don't particulary like, its the whole package or none.--Padraig (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not the politial system we live under. Parliament is soverignb, not the people. If its not law, its not so.Traditional unionist (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Traditional unionist is correct the GFA is not binding, only the legislation used to implement it is. Sinn Féin took some government body to court on the ground of breach of GFA, but the judge through it out, as it is not a legal document (does anyone have a ref for this). Citizenship is ill defined in the UK, there was a discussion at Talk:Ruairí_Ó_Brádaigh regarding RoI citizenship for NI born people, which is an opt in system. (could someone post the edit that started this thred) Fasach Nua (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I must say this is something that has always bothered me. Born in the UK you must have British citizenship from birth and have a right to RoI citizenship. But the British one comes automatically, the RoI one is optional. Normal citizenship laws still must apply. People born in NI should technically be British citizens whether they like it or know it or not. Many probably don't apply for a passport, or do anything that requires citizenship identification but they must surely be British citizens in the eyes of the law plus whatever they choose on top. A baby cannot choose their citizenship. I know people say otherwise but I cannot see how it can possibly technically be otherwise, even if it isn't technically enforced. Ben W Bell talk 14:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so, on any census form you have the option of giving your nationality as British or Irish etc, there is no automatic adoption of Britishness at birth, that maybe the case in the rest of UK, but not Northern Ireland.--Padraig (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are more than just people born in NI who live in NI! The only definitive proof would be the Nationality Act mentioned above, I have never seen it never mind read it, so I dont know what the situation is, having EU citizenship makes the thing redundant in most instances, so I have never seen the need to investigate. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If two Polish people have a child in Northern Ireland, do you say it is automatically British, with an option to be Polish? Someone needs to look at the act! Fasach Nua (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If they're just Polish citizens, child will be British if one parent is a "permanent resident" (which means 5 years U.K. residence, for EEA member state citizens). Otherwise child can be registered as British once parents reach 5 year mark. Interestingly, child would be Irish if parents had lived in Northern Ireland (or ROI) for at least 3 years, but unlike in the U.K. there is no way to get Irish citizenship for the child if parents reach the 3 yr residence mark after child is born. JAJ (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

this is excellent on the subject.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Published by the Reform Movement in Dublin. Seems pretty clear to me. Born before 1983 in NI you are British. Ben W Bell talk 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was born after 1983 in NI, and trust me, I never opted into British citizenship. Padraig, strange request, but it might be helpful if you called the Home Office and asked to renounce your British citizenship, see what they say!Traditional unionist (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

very informative, thankyou TU Fasach Nua (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would I have to renounce something I never was to begin with, I was Born in Ireland and hold and Irish passport.--Padraig (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Some things are worth doing just for the craic :=D Fasach Nua (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As the source says, if you were born in Northern Ireland before 1983, you're a British citizen regardless of your knowledge or usage of that fact.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The source also says If you are a British citizen or subject and don't want to be, what can you do?

You can either ignore the fact, and just use your Irish citizenship, or you can formally renounce British nationality at the British Embassy. Very few people do this.

So although you may believe we are all British, I don't.--Padraig (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that says that you are a British citizen, but choose to ignore that fact. You are still a British citizen all the same though. WHich leads me back to the origional point, the annon is substantivly right, if not in the detail.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you post the a link to the post that started this thread please? On a seperate issue, as much fun as this discussion is, this page is about discussing the article, and how to improve it, can we keep it on topic? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

TU, a large minority of the population of Northern Ireland do not and never have regarded themselves as British, they are Irish, and no matter what the Unionists or British say that is the way it is. The Irish government accepts them as Irish citizens and give them the right to hold an Irish passport.--Padraig (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The second part of your statement is not in question. But the law is the law regardless of what people believe, think or want. The fact is that you and everyone born in NI is a British citizen until this is renounced, as the annon pointed out. Ignoring this is perfectly acceptable, but does not alter the fact of the matter.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My wife and I are citizens of one country, but our son was born in a different country. Our son is automatically a citizen of my home country — by law of that country. He is obviously also a citizen of the country he was born in. Interestingly, neither country actually recognizes the concept of "dual citizenship", but he has that status regardless. From each of those countries' perspective, either you are a citizen or you are not. They don't care if you hold additional passports, and don't make you renounce or surrender them. He may never actually even set foot in my home country in his life, and yet, he will be a citizen of that country all his life! This little anecdote may be irrelevant to this conversation, but from what I read, the concept of people born in N.I. automatically having UK citizenship, whether or not they want it and whether or not they actually get a UK passport someday, sounds perfectly legitimate to me. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

They also have Irish citizenship as well, a fact recognised in the GFA.--18:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't. They are entitled to apply for it, but they don't automatically get it. Ben W Bell talk 21:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If they want it. I'm entitled to it,but don't have it. You are in a different boat, you can renounce British citizenship if you want, but are by birthright a British citizen.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone born in NI wishes to be a citizen of the republic of Ireland, then they can choose to take this citizenship, it is not automatically thrust apon them (Michael McGimpsey learnt this the hard way).

The GFA is irrelevant, it is as binding as a political parties election manifesto, but even if it was it gives people the right to define themselves as Irish, British or both British and Irish, how an individual defines themselves does not mean that is how the state legally defines them. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

this is the diff in question. I think we have found that the annon is in fact correct.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the anon mentions the home office, but the reference you gave said to renounce citizenship at an embassy, which would seem to suggest this was in the remit of the Foreign and commonwealth office, but the rest seems correct Fasach Nua (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the difference would be someone resident in the UK (ie Northern Ireland) and someone living abroad (ie the Republic)Traditional unionist (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

British citizenship (including renunciation) is the responsibility of the Home Office. Applications for renunciation from a person in Northern Ireland would be made direct to the HO, outside the UK (eg ROI) would be sent to the British Embassy for forwarding to the Home Office. JAJ (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course if you choose to ignore the fact you have British citizenship that's perfectly fine. For most people this will be enough, and no one will ever bother about it. However the one time it could be an issue is if in the incredibly unlikely event that the UK introduced conscription, if you hadn't renounced the citizenship whether you acknowledge it or not you'd be eligible for the draft. Just ignoring the laws of the country you were born in won't protect you in that case, hideously unlikely as it is to occur. Ben W Bell talk 21:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit is more or less correct. It should be expanded by explaining that anyone born in Northern Ireland is by default an Irish citizen (ref). If they wish to renounce their Irish citizenship, they may do so by applying in writing to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (ref). Some common-sense restrictions on renouncing Irish citizenship apply. The restrictions on jus soli described in the text for Irish citizenship similarly apply for British citizenship. The common-sense restrictions on renouncing Irish citizenships also apply for renouncing British citizenship.

(Ben, we've already been through the conscription debate on this island. If it didn't happen 1914-18 or 1939-45 then it's never going to happen.) --sony-youth^pléigh 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship General Information from sony-youth link above.

Article 2 of the Irish Constitution says:

"Every person born in the island of Ireland, its islands and its seas, has an entitlement and birthright to be part of the Irish nation". That entitlement and birthright translates, in terms of citizenship laws, into an entitlement to be an Irish citizen2.

Every person born in the island of Ireland 3 is entitled to be an Irish citizen. If you were born anywhere in Ireland, it is open to you to choose to exercise that entitlement.

If you, as a person born in the island of Ireland do an act which only an Irish citizen is entitled to do (for instance, applying for an Irish passport), the law regards that as an exercise of your entitlement to be an Irish citizen, and you are accordingly an Irish citizen from birth. This also applies to persons not yet of full age (i.e. those still under 18 and not married) on whose behalf such an act is done.

If you were born in Ireland, the mere fact that you have not done (or if under age have not had done on your behalf) such an act does not on its own mean that you are not an Irish citizen. Nor does it mean that you are presumed to be a citizen of another country. --Padraig (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

From the same document

I was born and am living in Northern Ireland. I don’t hold any passport. Am I an Irish citizen?

You are if you want to be. As a person born in the island of Ireland, you have an entitlement to be an Irish citizen. You don’t have to obtain an Irish passport in order to be an Irish citizen (though having an Irish passport is of course a convenient way of showing that you are an Irish citizen).

I was born and am living in Northern Ireland. I hold a UK passport. Am I an Irish citizen?

You are if you want to be. As a person born in the island of Ireland, you have an entitlement to be an Irish citizen. That entitlement holds even if you have obtained a UK passport. You don’t have to obtain an Irish passport in order to be an Irish citizen (though having an Irish passport is of course a convenient way of showing that you are an Irish citizen). As far as Irish law is concerned, there is no difficulty about holding Irish citizenship and at the same time citizenship of another State such as the United Kingdom.--Padraig (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Those quotations are badly worded, but don't reveal anything particularly new, we seem to have arrived at what the situation actually is.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Quotations are taken from the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, leaflet, so that you think its badly worded is neither nor there, it is clear that anyone in Northern Ireland is entitled to Irish Citizenship.--Padraig (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes - that everybody born in Northern Ireland is an Irish citizen in exactly the same way as a person born in the Republic unless they renounce it (that includes you, Trad.). And that everybody born in Northern Ireland is a British citizen in exactly the same way as a person born on Great Britain unless they renounce it (that includes you, Padraig). --sony-youth^pléigh 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[5] 7-1 would suggest otherwise Fasach Nua (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no evidence, but strongly suspect that has since been amended,Traditional unionist (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I already hold a Irish Passport, and have done for a long time.--Padraig (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Which isn't the point. The point is that you are presently, and have been since birth, legally a British citizen.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Padraig, I mean renounce your British citizenship otherwise you are still a British citizen in exactly the same way as a person born on Great Britain - or just ignore it as it makes no difference. (Just as Trad would have to renounce his Irish citizenship or still be an Irish citizen in exactly the same way as a person born in the Republic - or just ignore it as it makes no difference.) --sony-youth^pléigh 00:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I reckon the only difference is that Padraig has been a British citizen from birth, while I have been an Irish citizen from 1998. Which is a stupid way to run your citizenship laws (even after the amending referendum), but thats neither here nor there.Traditional unionist (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

TU that predates 1998, I think it dates to the Adoption of the Irish Constitution in the south, actually my brother-inlaw is a staunch Unionist, born in Belfast and he holds a Irish Passport.--Padraig (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course he does, its daft not to hold all passports you're entitled to regardless of how stupid the rules are in whatever jurisdiction. Anyway, the above source indicates it doesn't predate 1998.Traditional unionist (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to add he dosen't hold a British passport, and the information I posted above comes from Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2001 which updates the previous act.--Padraig (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be under the delusion that holding Irish citizenship precludes you from holding any other nationality. The references you are using to refer to Irish citizenship only. It does not affect the application of any other citizenship. The fact is that practically everyone in NI holds dual British/Irish citizenship. The only ones that don't are the ones that have renounce one or the other. josh (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is what the GFA states that anyone born in Northern Ireland can hold either British, Irish or duel citizenship, it is apersonal choice.--Padraig (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a personal choice, but you are still legally a British citizen until you exercise your personal choice formally and renounce it. You can happily decide I'm not a British citizen, or I'm not an Irish citizen and that is your choice and up to you, but legally you still will be unless you formally renounce it. It's not an issue, not likely to be an issue, and holds practically no consequence whether you do or not, but on the papers of the legal states you are still that citizen until you say otherwise. I can only see a couple of real advantages to holding a British passport over an Irish one (or as well), and that's mainly evacuation should you find yourself in a warzone, the UK has more capacity to airlift or sealift its citizens out of there (see Lebanon or the like), but the chances of that are slim anyway. You can self identify as whatever you want, no one can take that away from you.Ben W Bell talk 14:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You never know Ben. It's always best to hold all passports you're entitled to just in case. A friend of mine holds 3.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. I'm entitled to four different ones, though currently only have 1. Never seen a great reason to have one other than my British one. I'm not above applying for one if I think I'll get into a situation where I think it would be useful though. Am working towards entitlement of a fifth one as we speak as well, one I will apply for. Ben W Bell talk 19:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Which means that everyone in NI is a duel citizen until they choose renounce to either Irish or British citizenship. josh (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, like I keep saying, the Belfast Agreement is not a binding legal document. If the law wasn't changed it's not binding.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Duel citizenship" - Freud would have a field-day. I've collected the relvants acts from the Dublin side: Constitution of the Irish Free State Act 1922, Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1935, 1956, 2001 (1986, 1994 are irrevelant from our persepctive).

First for jus soli:

The post-2001 scenario seems to be that everyone has dual citizenship and can renounce one or the other if they wish, and that this is retrospective as far back as Fionn mac Cumhaill but with Irish citizenship "from birth" being only for those born post-2001. Those born pre-2001 are "entitled to be an Irish citizen" without the "presumption that the person is not an Irish citizen" until they do "any act which only an Irish citizen is entitled to do" whereupon they become an Irish citizen "from birth" (relevant sections of the 2001 act are here).
Before then, from Fasach's 1956 ref above, a person born in the six counties after independence had the option on Irish citizenship only upon making a declaration (relevant section is here).
From 1935 to 1956, a person born in the six counties after independence was not an Irish citizens by jus soli. However, for one month after independence, Northern Ireland was a part of the Irish Free State. Those born in Northern Ireland during that time were born in part of the Free State and thus jus soli applies to them (relevant section of the 1935 act is here).
Anybody who was alive and residing in Ireland (including Northern Ireland) at independence is/was an Irish citizen. From independence to 1935 these were the only people, north or south, who were Irish citizens as no other citizenship law except for the Free State constitution existed (see article 3 here).

Now for descent:

This is a bit mad ... Since everyone living in Northern Ireland at the turn of 1922/23 was in law an Irish citizen (see article 3 here), presumably this would have had a knock on effect for their children - and their children's children - under the 1935, 1956, 1986, 1994 and 2001 acts.

The 1935 act explicitly lists registering a birth at with the Northern Ireland births register as all that was necessary to be a "natural-born citizens of Saorstát Eireann" if a person was born to a father who is an Irish citizen. Since virtually every male in Northern Ireland who was over 12 years of age in 1935 was an Irish citizen owing to the Free State constitution and that month in 1922/23, that would make basically everyone in Northern Ireland born between post-independence an Irish citizen under the 1935 act by reason of descent. This would have a knock on effect for the 1958 act ("Every person is an Irish citizen if his father or mother was an Irish citizen at the time of that person's birth ...", from here) and subsequent acts. The Irish nationality law article says that the 1986 act put a limit on citizenship by descent, capping it at four generations from jus soli but I can't see where in the act. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I just interject with the text from the GFA itself?

(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

You can "identify" and "be accepted" as Irish OR British or both. The only thing the GFA says about citizenship is that you can hold both. It doesn't specifically say you are entitled to hold either on their own. However as the law is worded, almost everyone born in NI is a British citizen. According to Irish [sic] law, for those also holding or entitled to another nationality (e.g. those born in NI), citizenship is conferred automatically as soon as you do something that only a citizen can do (eg apply for a passport) and is then backdated to your birth. So if you never use your citizenship of the Republic then you don't actually have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beano ni (talk • contribs) 13:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. What you say is true of Great Britain, Spain or the Galapagos Islands. It is not true of Northern Ireland. The Irish nationality law says that anyone born in "Ireland" has Irish citizenship by birth (with some exceptions since 2004). Since the law cannot over-ride the Constitution in constitutional democracies, "Ireland" in this case is the island, not the jurisdiction of the state. Of course if as a Norn Iron resident, it only matters when you come to assert your right to a passport (since dole money is contingent on residence in one or other jurisdiction). The Belfast Agreement merely accepted and regularised the status quo ante with respect to both citizenships. Very convenient to have two passports - one of Cuba and one for the US, one for Israel and one for Saudi (or do they still refuse entry if you have the 'wrong' stamp in your passport?) --Red King (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And not not quite. Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 states that someone born in Northern Ireland has a right and entitlement to Irish citizenship by birth, but they aren't automatically Irish citizens unless they exercise the right. Right and entitlement isn't the same as actual is. Canterbury Tail talk 23:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact isn't it illegal under international law to impose nationality upon persons outside the territory of jurisdiction? It's one thing to make the option of citizenship freely available to all people in territory the state doesn't control, it's another thing altogether to automatically impose it upon people and I suspect demands based on it (e.g. in the hypothetical case of conscription, demanding the handing over of "Irish citizens" from Northern Ireland who have travlled to third countries) would not get far in the relevant courts. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Some" again

Which NI sports teams do not use the UB? I feel sure we have discussed this before, but what the hell, bandwidth is free...--John (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe there are any teams that represent Northern Ireland exclusively that do not use the Ulster Banner. There are several all-Ireland teams that use alternate flags (rugby, cricket, field hockey, etc.) Therefore, I think the confusion about the word "some" depends on how you read that disclaimer in the infobox. Only "some" sports involving Northern Ireland athletes use the Ulster Banner. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But as far as I know too, all teams representing Northern Ireland (the subject of the article) do, so in the context of the flag note, having 'some' seems wrong. --John (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

John in cases of say for example Snooker tourments where you may have a number from Northern Ireland players playing but not as a team but individual competitors playing against each other and players from other countries. That is why some sports is used in the text, there are other sports that play as a team that don't use the UB--Padraig (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's understood. I don't know much about snooker; is there a Northern Ireland team that plays other countries' teams, like in football? If there was, and it (verifiably) didn't use the UB then I could go with the wording we have. --John (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of flags in sport in Northern Ireland.--Padraig (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

John is owned!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Taunting aside, I think John is correct. Can anybody name a single sport where Northern Ireland is distinctly represented apart from the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland, and/or Wales where the Ulster Banner is not used? I'm not talking about all-Ireland representation, or "GBR" representation (Olympics etc.), but specifically that situation I describe. Where NI and ROI have distinct representation, and/or the four constituent countries are uniquely identified, the Ulster Banner is universally used for NI, from what I have seen. Padraig's reference agrees with this, mostly pointing out that the large majority of sports use all-Ireland representation. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrwsc, the reason some was initialy added was that some editors where adding the UB to infoboxes of northern Ireland based sportpeople using the excuse that it stated in this infobox that it was used in sport. We have already had this discussion where it was agreed the the inclusion of some would prevent this and resulting edit wars on other articles, now the edit wars over the UB have stopped, so why drag the issue up again.--Padraig (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So you would prefer to make the infobox inaccurate in order to make your life a bit easier. josh (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not inacurate, the UB is only used in the Commonwealth games and International football to represent the teams.--Padraig (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not "only". The netball team uses it in World Championships outside the Commonwealth Games, and various individual athletes in sports that distinguish NI athletes from ROI, English, Scottish, and Welsh athletes also use it. Golf is the most visible example of that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Got a ref for its use in netball and golf.--Padraig (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For netball, the NI netball association does not have a website yet. The International Federation of Netball Associations website doesn't use flags. The ROI netball website (here) clearly states that there are distinct NI and ROI teams, and this is one sport that does not compete on an all-Ireland basis:

Netball Ireland first applied for full membership to the International Federation of Netball Associations in 1974. Some delay in processing the application ensued, mostly due to the fact that the netball representatives from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland were engaged in preliminary discussions regarding the feasibility of merging the two Associations. However, the terms were difficult and it was felt that more people could be included if the two Associations were to hold onto their own identity.

I did find an "unofficial" site here that shows the UB for NI netball. I don't think there are going to be too many sources available to me where I live for a fringe sport in a fringe country....

As for golf, I've provided those sources several times already and I'm not going to waste time repeating them again here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The netball site is an not an offical site and not been updated since 2005, as for Golf IIRC you provided a link to some American news/sport site and said they used it in broadcasts of golf events, hardly reliable.--Padraig (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The wording in the infobox says "in an unofficial manner", so what is wrong with unofficial websites? I knew you would jump all over that! And how are ESPN, Sports Illustrated, the Professional Golfers' Association, etc. "hardly reliable"? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem, as John pointed out, is that the statement isn't correctly precise as written. It could use some word-smithing to express the concept properly. I defer to someone who is strong at writing brilliant prose to figure out how to do that... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And the current ref, as well as not backing up the current wording, gives: "FOO: Union Jack/N Ireland flag/Other[UEFA/FIFA]". What "other" flag is ever used in football, besides the Ulster Banner (or the "N Ireland flag" as Padraig's ref calls it)? --John (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was quite amused to see it called the "N Ireland flag" in that document, considering all the disruption caused by renaming Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg to Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg on Commons! I have yet to see anything outside Wikipedia that calls it an "Ulster Banner". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[6] --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the 'Ulster Banner' being the actual name is pretty much a Wikipedia invention. On nowhere on the crwflags site is that said to be the absolute name - they could have just as easily used Ulster Banner / Ulster Flag / Red Hand of Ulster / Northern Ireland Flag. I have seen 'Ulster Banner' used on other websites, but these have only popped up after the term was spread by WikipediaJonto (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If Padraig was consistent, he'd jump all over that for being an unreliable reference... But I thank you for pointing that out. It had seemed to me that the term was a Wikipedia invention, so now I've learned something new. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Read The Union flag and flags of the United Kingdom p.7/8 that makes the issue very clear, the Ulster Banner is the correct name, also sometimes mistakenly refered to as the Ulster flag, but at no time was it ever refered to as the flag of Northern Ireland.--Padraig (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Typical obfuscation. Nowhere in that entire document is the phrase "Ulster Banner" used, so why bring that reference into this discussion? The phrase "Ulster flag" (note the lower-case "f") is used once, so perhaps that's the term we should use. But why Ulster Banner? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The unofficial netball website is hardly WP:RS looks like a member of the team made it up I could do one like that in 10 minutes and put the stars and stripes on it. BigDunc (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We have been through this all before, why start it all up again? Now what happened to WP:V, and as mentioned above by Dunc WP:RS? --Domer48 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that netball site was a great source... But I can't find anything either that says they don't use that flag. My position remains that I have yet to see any counter-example that refutes this statement: The "N Ireland flag" is used to identify teams from N.I. and individual competitors from N.I. in all sports and games in which Northern Ireland is distinctly represented separately from the Republic of Ireland and/or England, Scotland and Wales in international competition. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I read that as saying "the sources do not agree with my POV on the subject, so I'll rubbish the sources". Correct me if I'm wrong. --John (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are 3 sports I found on a quick search of NI sport teams snooker and billiards and Karate and ten pin bowling so "some" seems correct. BigDunc (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well done for finding those websites; however they are not germane to this discussion which concerns the flag teams representing Northern Ireland use in international competitions. --John (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are relevant they are the NI governing bodies of the respective sports.BigDunc (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Irish FA] doesn't use the NI flag either. Nither does the FA, RFU or ECB use the English flag. We are discussing the representive teams not the governing bodies. In order to claim that only some representive teams use the flag you have to find a ref that proves that. It is imposible to prove that all teams use the UB. No matter how many teams are produced you could say "well is that all of them". The ref currently used on the page proves that all known NI teams use the UB. This has to be contridicted in order for the word some to be justified. josh (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you have failed to provide and ref or links, to show its use outside of the commonwealth games and international football, so the some is justified in the text.--Padraig (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

References and links have been provided; you just choose to disregard them. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, it should be mentioned, that there are very few sports and games in which N.I. is distinctly represented in international competition, with association football, Commonwealth Games teams, and golf being the most obvious. After that, it's pretty much just fringe sports, I think. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So will we change some to very few then.--Padraig (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"All" says the same thing in fewer words. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If your talking about the netball ref it is hardly WP:RS--BigDunc (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ignore them, the netball one links to a fansite that deals mainly with school competitions, what links have you provided for golf.--Padraig (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A few minutes on Google gives us a few:

SI.com (CNN owned website) — leaderboard from 2007 Arnold Palmer invitational
United States Golf Association — 2007 US Open leaderboard
PGA Tour — profile of Darren Clarke
ESPN.com — another Clarke profile

Many, many links like these are trivial to find. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One leaderboard showing the UB for one golfer, and two profiles on commerial sites for the same person. The wikipedia link mean nothing, where is a source that a Northern Ireland golfing team played and used the UB.--Padraig (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And...? What is your point? My point is that the flag is frequently used to identify individual golfers from Northern Ireland, and no other flag is used. Those references support that point. You seem to consistently think that unless there is an official government declaration stating "X", then "X" cannot be written in Wikipedia. At no point am I claiming that there is any "official" policy about flags and golfers; I am merely pointing out multiple independent sources that reflect common practice. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The book chapter on the CAIN website is about as solid a source as you will find. According to it angling, badminton, basketball, bowling and one of the cycling associations compete as "Northern Ireland" but do not use the Ulster Banner. In fact from that document only boxing, soccer and the second cycling association use the Ulster Banner in any context. "Some" therefore seems an understatement. Really it should be "a minority". --sony-youth^pléigh 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumably then you reckon boxing, football and cycling constitute minority sports when compared to the overwhelming popularity of angling, badminton, basketball and bowling (or did you mean bowls?) as competitive sports in the context of Northern Ireland? In all seriousness, can you provide a reference for these "sports" verifiably having international teams which play as "Northern Ireland" yet do not use the UB? --John (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not what Sony said and you know it, he is sying that a minority of NI teams use the UB. BigDunc (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for translating what he is sying for me, BigDunc. What about Subbuteo? Perhaps you're too young to remember the Undertones' 1980 single "My Perfect Cousin", the cover of which featured a Subbuteo figure in the colours of the band's hometown team, Derry City F.C. That has to count for something, surely. --John (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dont be so patronising john your comments are not helpful. BigDunc (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Golfers in my opinion do not represnt their countries they are playing as individuals it is not a team game on the PGA tour or US open.BigDunc (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions are noted, bigdunc. What would be even more helpful than your unsubstantiated opinion would be a verifiable source that backs up the wording the article currently contains. This, so far, I have not seen. --John (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And I have not seen any ref that states that the UB is used by every NI sports team. If it is not used by all then some is correct. BigDunc (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

John, I didn't know that I needed translating. As Dunc explained, the contested text is "such as some sports teams". The reference is the book chapter on the CAIN website that Padraig references above (here). It lists the context in which sports associations field teams and the flags that they use. According to it the angling, badminton, basketball, bowling and one of the cycling associations compete as "Northern Ireland" but do not use the Ulster Banner and that only the boxing, soccer and the second cycling associations use the Ulster Banner in any context. "Some" therefore seems an understatement. Really it should be "a minority".

(Yes, I meant lawn bowls, which is an outdoor variant of bowling. I presume that you thought that bowling always meant ten-pin bowling?) --sony-youth^pléigh 21:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sony. I don't think you needed translating, that was BigDunc's contention. I had already read the reference Padraig provided (and indeed referred to it myself above). Interesting point of view. However it seems to be based on a survey (inherently unreliable) and to date from the bad old days of 1995. I request a more up-to-date source which states authoritatively that there are (in 2008) sports teams representing Northern Ireland which do not use the Ulster Banner. I'll leave my opinion that angling is not even remotely a sport aside; however, I would certainly ask that you not include tiny minority sports in this, which was the intention of my Subbuteo comment above. Sorry if that was not clear. --John (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

John if you want to dismiss that source, then provide sources to contradict it that show they do use the UB.--Padraig (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

John, a survey, far from being inherently unreliable, is the perfect method for collecting data of this kind: in which the population is of a small and known size (sports associations in Northern Ireland), in which the data to be collected are two perfectly quantifiable variable (in this case of the nominal sort: yes or not to competing as "Northern Ireland", and what flags do they compete under), and the purpose is to analyze the data using the most basic of descriptive statistics (i.e. who competes where and under what flag). In fact, using any other method would be insane or just plain stupid. As for being from 1995, that's only 13 years ago. For someone who can remember Subbuteo and the Untertones, surely it's not "soooo 20th century"? For the purpose of the supporting "some" in the text, it as solid as they come ... unless you're seriously suggesting that all of those associations suddenly switched to using the Ulster Banner in the intervening years?? --sony-youth^pléigh 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The CAIN document isn't as clear as it ought to be, and I can't find sources to back up some of those claims. I have no idea about angling! (This is a sport?!?) As for the others, badminton, basketball, bowls and cycling are all Commonwealth Games sports, and so NIR would apply in that context (of course). Outside of the C.G., I don't think N.I. competes as a distinct team internationally, which would appear to contradict Sony's conclusion from the CAIN document. All these sports seem to have all-Ireland representation:

According to the Badminton World Federation, there is no Northern Ireland association. Badminton Ireland link seems to imply it has all-Ireland representation internationally.
Accoding to FIBA, there is no Northern Ireland basketball association. According to Basketball Ireland (link) the Association has responsibility for the promotion, development and administration of all basketball activities in Ireland and Northern Ireland.
For lawn bowls, information is difficult to find for international competition. There is a Northern Ireland Bowling Association (link), but they don't seem to compete internationally. There is a Irish Bowling Association (link) which is a member of the British Isles Bowls Council (link) and competes in a "British Isles" tournament. I presume it is an all-Ireland team because they seem to compete under St. Patrick's Saltire per the BIBC website. I also found a British Isles Indoor Bowls Council (BIIBC) website here that shows the "N Ireland flag" for The Association of Irish Indoor Bowls. Beyond the home countries, I found a World Bowls webiste (link) that shows the Irish Bowling Association as a member, again with the Saltire, implying all-Ireland.
For cycling, all the results I found on the Union Cycliste Internationale website (link) show "GBR" or "IRL" for individual cyclists, so I don't know where "NIR" would be used for cycling outside of the Commonwealth Games.

I also looked up some of the other team sports that are competed at the Commonwealth Games, such as water polo and rowing. FINA governs water polo and uses GBR and IRL. FISA governs rowing and does the same. Therefore, the conclusion to be drawn is that the "N Ireland flag" is used to identify teams from N.I. and individual competitors from N.I. in all sports and games in which Northern Ireland is distinctly represented separately from the Republic of Ireland and/or England, Scotland and Wales in international competition. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In conclusion?,you mean in your opinion, yet have failed to prove it.--Padraig (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What part of that statement has not been proven? Which sport uses another flag? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrwsc, the question asked in section 3.1.3 (International Competition) is whether the associations fielded teams as "Northern Ireland". Sections 3.2.1 (Flags) asked the associations what flags they fielded teams under. Apart from not being original research, this is clearly a far more accurate method for knowing what teams compete under what flag as opposed to reading this that or the other based on what you see or do not see on some website or another. The association may be all-Ireland or all-UK, but the team fielded is Northern Ireland (this is a complexity of the British and Irish situation). Where do you get your quote from (or is it a quote? - "the 'N Ireland flag' is used to identify teams ...") or is this based on your original research as opposed to the reputable published secondary source that says otherwise?

I don't think there is anything I have said that is inconsistent with section 3.1.3. That is, the only team sports that NIR competes in distinctly from IRL/ENG/SCO/WAL internationally outside of the Commonwealth Games (the "World/Olympic" column) is football ("FOO" in Table 6) and netball (not in their survey). Within the Commonwealth Games, NIR competes distinctly from ENG/SCO/WAL in every event (some of these are shown as "N Ireland" in the "C'wealth/Home Int" column of Table 6; not all Table 6 sports are Commonwealth Games sports, and not all Commonwealth Games sports made their survey.) As for the quote, that is mine, but it's not something I'm suggesting go into the article as written with a reference after it! It is intended for communication on this talk page.

You really want to say that all teams form Northern Ireland compete under the Ulster Banner, don't you? And remove all mention of the contrary? It is not true that they do. A reputable published source says that some do, while others do not. Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. I just don't want to hide the fact that multiple, reputable media and sporting organizations use the "N Ireland flag" to identify Northern Ireland competitors. I'm not trying to promote the flag for political reasons; in fact, as I've stated before, I think it affords us an excellent opportunity on Wikipedia to point out the flaws in that approach. But ignoring the situation is not a neutral point of view. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, don't assume that the Ulster Banner is the correct flag in the context of the Commonwealth Games. From the CAIN document again: "In basketball, for example, the Tricolour is flown at world level and for events staged in locations such as West Belfast; the Union Jack is used for home international fixtures; and the Ulster provincial flag for commonwealth championships."

Basketball was not a Commonwealth Games sport until 2006 (and netball not until 1998), so the CAIN document predates that. Outside of the Commonwealth Games, N.I. basketball players would have to compete internationally for one of the two FIBA sanctioned teams: GBR or IRL. And I am certain that the "N Ireland flag" is flown at the Commonwealth Games, as the photo of this smiling guy would clearly show.

We are not discussing what flag is flown at the Commonwealth Games or what flag the man in that picture is carrying. The the question is whether "all", "some", or "none" sports teams from Northern Ireland compete under the Ulster Banner. The published verifable source plainly indicates that "some" do while others do not (including at Commonwealth level). --sony-youth^pléigh 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may reply to your question on behalf of Padraig ("What part of that statement has not been proven?") No part needs to be "proven", it needs to be sourced. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess this will remain a problem. I think it will be virtually impossible to find any peer-reviewed journal, textbook, etc. that describes textually what major media organizations use on their contemporary websites and broadcast productions with respect to the "N Ireland flag". I think the best we can do is list the set of links of reputable websites in support of any statement that those organizations use the flag. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Media organisations, what have they got to do with this issue, I wouldn't regard them as a reliable source on any subject, find sources from the sports organisations themselves to support your claim.--Padraig (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If the statement that needs a reliable source is about what media organizations display on their websites or broadcasts, what sporting organization would have authority over that? If the statement is as specific as "the PGA uses the "N Ireland flag" to identify golfers from Northern Ireland on it's website", then surely a link to that identified website is a sufficient source. It seems like you want an indirect statement from somebody else that says what the PGA does, instead of a direct link that demonstrates what the PGA does. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a problem, Andrwsc. The document we are discussing here is a published textbook (Sugden, J. et al (ed.s), 1995, Sport and Community Relations in Northern Ireland, Centre for the Study of Conflict, University of Ulster, ISBN 1859230911). It says quite plainly that some teams representing Northern Ireland are fielded under flags other than the Ulster Banner. If major media outlets make the mistake of thinking that all teams representing Northern Ireland compete under the Ulster Banner then that is not our concern - except to not allow Wikipedia to make the same mistake. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how that book says "quite plainly that some teams representing Northern Ireland are fielded under flags other than the Ulster Banner". It's not plain to me at all. Can you point out the specific sentences where you draw that conclusion? If you are referring to the basketball-specific quote (In basketball, for example, the Tricolour is flown at world level and for events staged in locations such as West Belfast; the Union Jack is used for home international fixtures; and the Ulster provincial flag for commonwealth championships.), then I interpret it as follows: Table 6 says that teams are all-Ireland at the "World/Olympic" level and N. Ireland at the "C'wealth/Home Int" level. We know that FIBA recognizes an all-Ireland team (IRL) that uses the tricolour internationally. This is consistent with the first clause of the sentence. As for the second clause ("home international fixtures"), I presume this is a purely amateur home nations thing, as I can't find any other evidence of a Northern Ireland representative basketball team playing any other nation outside the UK. Some might say this is not really "international" in the same sense as FIBA's scope. I guess the bottom line for me is that I think this book is actually pretty piss-poor, as it is not clear at all what the real situation is. It doesn't mention any of the actual organisations they surveyed, nor did they identify any of the competitions where N.I. competes internationally. I do not believe this source ought to be held up on a pedestal as the definitive source on this issue. Granted, it's the only academic publication we have on this topic, but it is vague and outdated.

My point about "major media outlets" is that I think Wikipedia ought to document this common practice — and describe why that is incorrect. A common theme that I have been promoting is that I think the "N Ireland flag" is frequently enough shown by multiple reputible organizations that we should not pretend on Wikipedia that it doesn't exist. We should document what they do, and explain the inaccuracy of their actions. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) And would you say that the Northern Ireland situation has changed in any way since 1995? With Andrwsc, I'd rather use contemporary sources than a survey quoted in a book from 13 years ago as guides to the current situation. --John (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What changes have there been in sport in Northern Ireland in that time, the only major change I know of is the GAA dropping it ban on members of the PSNI from being members and letting football to be played in Croke Park, so unless you can point to any others then the information in that book is as relevent today as it was then. In reply to Andrwsc point it is not WP role to use mis-present flags just because of misconceptions by media organisations that are to lazy to research facts. The use of the UB in sport is limited to a small number of sport organisations in a international context that is fact.--Padraig (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we mis-represent the usage of the flag; I am suggesting we document the existing mis-representation.
You say that usage is "limited to a small number of sport organisations in a international context". I say that the flag is used for the large majority of instances where Northern Ireland competes distinctly apart from the rest of the UK and/or the rest of Ireland; it just happens that there are very few sports and/or multi-sport events where Northern Ireland doesn't compete as part of an all-Ireland team or as part of a GBR team. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is why the word some is used because it is not used all occassion and not by all sports.--Padraig (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't be bothered reading all of this, but I did notice the other the other that competitors competing under the name Northern Ireland use the St Patrick's flag in World's Strongest Man of all things. Derry Boi (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

John, do I think that the Ulster Banner has become any less contentious since 1995? No. Do you? Really? We know what the situation was in 1995. If you think attitudes to the Ulster Banner have changed so dramatically since then, produce a source.

Andrwsc, I'm replying down here to your comments above. RE: discussing the 'error in their ways' of media outlets using the Ulster Banner in inappropriate ways - wonderful, but the info box is not the place for that kind of discussion.

RE: whether you think the books chapter is "piss poor" or not, frankly it beats inferring this that or the other from the graphic design of one website or another. The simple fact is that it's a published source from a reputable organisation and we have absolutely no reason to doubt it's veracity. As for how plain it is, table 6 lists that the angling, badminton, basketball, bowls and one of the cycling associations field teams specifically for Northern Ireland (as distinct from UK/ENG/SCO/WAL/IRE/ROI or anywhere else). Table 7 shows the responses of these associations when asked to identify the flag or flags used by their sport for the purposes of international competition. None of these association listed the Ulster Banner despite fielding specifically Northern Ireland teams for commonwealth and home nations competitions. We don't need a directly quotable piece of prose to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. It's plain just from reading the source. Nothing is being inferred or deduced.

As for your "read it this way" of the basketball quote, really Andrwsc, it's quite simple. Northern Ireland fields a basketball team. Depending on circumstance it competes under the tricolor, union jack or ulster flag. The only teams mentioned that participate under the Ulster Banner are the soccer, boxing and one of the cycling associations. --sony-youth^pléigh 01:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not really concerned about the use of "some" or "all" in the infobox. "Some" is just as much a weasal word as "all" (probably more so, since it is imprecise with respect to the quantity), but at least we can tag a reference to it. However, I think "most" is a more accurate word in this situation. My participation in this spirited debate was to serve as a counter-point to the attempt by some editors to marginalize the "N Ireland flag" through comments that it is "used by very few sports". There is evidence that it is used in most every context in which Northern Ireland is represented independently — but as I've pointed out, there are few situations where that happens! The full situation must be described if any of these comments are to be put in the article.

With respect to the CAIN document, I am baffled how you reach the conclusion that "Northern Ireland fields a basketball team. Depending on circumstance it competes under the tricolor, union jack or ulster flag." The report says no such thing!! Section 3.1.3 describes the international and/or regional team(s) which their top sportsmen and women were eligible to compete for. That does not imply a single team — note that it says "team(s)" (possibly plural). For basketball, there is no "Northern Ireland national basketball team" that could ever compete in Eurobasket, for example. There is an all-Ireland team that competes under the tricolour, so presumably that's what the CAIN document refers to by showing "Ireland" in Table 6 and listing the tricolour in Table 7. Next, Table 6 does not distinguish between Commonwealth participation and home nations participation, lumping them together as one. We can't draw conclusions from that about what kind of team(s) competed where, especially in 1995, when basketball was not a Commonwealth Games sport. I can tell you that prior to the 2006 Commonwealth Games (when basketball was first introduced), there was a European qualifying round in which England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Malta, Cyprus, and Gibraltar competed. I haven't yet found results for that, but we know that England and Scotland qualified on the men's side and England and Malta qualified for the women's tournament. Presumably, had Northern Ireland qualified, they would have marched behind the guy carrying the "N Ireland flag" in that BBC photograph. As for home nations competitions, you might say that isn't really "international" anyway, so the Union Flag would apply to any of those competitions. That might or might not be the same team as competed in the Commonwealth qualifier, but the CAIN document doesn't help answer that question. Finally, Table 6 has "Provincial/Regional" listed as a type of "International Competition", I suppose because competition between a UK territory and the Republic of Ireland is international. Anyway, I had thought that Northern Ireland (6 counties) doesn't compete in those types of tournaments, but Ulster (9 counties) does — and Table 6 says "Ulster" for that column. That would explain the "Ulster Provincial" flag reference in Table 7. The bottom line is that the CAIN document is very sparse on details, so it is easy to draw incorrect conclusions through careless reading and interpretation. If any part of this document is used as a reference, we cannot infer any meaning from those tables, but only quote passages directly. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, you claim that "the only teams mentioned that participate under the Ulster Banner are the soccer, boxing and one of the cycling associations." I hope you are not suggesting that the swimmers, track & field athletes, badminton players, boxers, cyclists, gymnasts, lawn bowlers, shooters, squash players, table tennis players, and triathletes that the Commonwealth Games Council for Northern Ireland sent to Melbourne for the 2006 Games didn't participate under that flag! That would clearly be another incorrect conclusion to draw from the CAIN source. I am certain that when David Beattie won his silver medal in trap shooting, and when the men's lawn bowls team won their silver medal, that the "N Ireland flag" was hoisted along with the flags of the gold and bronze medal winners. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying nothing, the verifiable source is doing all the talking. The source lists various sports associations that supply players to compete on behalf of Northern Ireland at "commonwealth/home nations internationals". It further reports what those association said were the flag or flags used by their sport for the purpose of international competition. Some of those associations listed the Norhtern Ireland flag as being used to represent their sport at internatinoal level. However, most of those surveyed reported using a flag other than the Ulster Banner for the purpose of international competition.

It is not the case that only those associations that are organized on an all-Ireland or all-UK used flags other than the Ulster Banner. Nor is it the case that only those associations that supply players in compete in competitions on behalf of Northern Ireland at events other than "commonwealth/home nations internationals" that report their sport as using the Ulster Banner. Boxing, for example, is organized on an all-Ireland basis and only supplies sportsmen and women for Northern Ireland for "commonwealth/home nations internationals" only. It uses the Ulster Banner for the purpose of international competition. The second cycling association is organized on a UK basis and only supplies players to compete on behalf of Northern Ireland only for "commonwealth/home nations internationals". It reports uses the Ulster Banner for international competition.

The angling, badminton, basketball, bowling and one of the cycling associations report flags other than the Ulster Banner being used in their sport for the purpose of international competition despite listing Northern Ireland as being a team that they supply sportsmen and women to (competing at "commonwealth/home nations internationals" in each of their cases). About basketball, the source explicitly says "the Ulster provincial flag [is flown] for commonwealth championships."

If you refute this please provide a source. If I have made an error in reading, please explain where. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't refute anything you said in these comments, because here you are not (mis)interpreting what is written in that document. Yesterday, you wrote Northern Ireland fields a basketball team. Depending on circumstance it competes under the tricolor, union jack or ulster flag, and that is what I refuted. Nowhere in the document did it make that claim, and for good reason — it isn't true. Do you still believe that statement? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think you are reading too much into your one source here. I think too that Andrwsc has made some compelling arguments and done some good research to provide (more recent) good sources which disagree with your 1995 one. The world of competitive sport has indeed changed significantly in the last 13 years and we should definitely not be relying on such an old source to comment on the contemporary status quo. I could probably live with "most" in the infobox too. Finally, can we rule out angling in this debate? I really don't think it is a sport, more of a pastime. If we're going to debate angling then we almost may as well bring Subbuteo into it too. We should stick to the major sports which attract the most participation and spectatorship, in my opinion. --John (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Where am I reading too much? It's black and white. What is convincing about Andrwsc's arguments? To me, with due respect, they sound like (poor quality) original research?

(Also, on a note of humour, don't put down angling. Please, there's not many events that Ireland has a world champion in - from Irish Times in 2006: "Ireland has a new World Cup champion. Philip Rooney, from Rossinver in Co Leitrim, took the crown after five days of competitive angling at the World Cup Trout Fly Angling Championships at Lough Mask, Ballinrobe, Co Mayo, the weekend before last." More seriously, it is considered a sport by the UK government and received £352,112 in lottery funding in 2005 in Northern Ireland alone. See here.) --sony-youth^pléigh 00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gosh! One learns something new every day here. The idea of competitively catching fish, for your country, seems ludicrous to me but I hear what you are saying. On a more serious note, I would seriously like to see more up-to-date research on who uses which flag. There are a number of flaws in the report you're quoting, and it's more than possible that some sports which previously competed as NI (with or without a flag) now operate on an all-Ireland basis. I would genuinely be very interested to know, and it'd be surprising if there weren't good refs on the subject. Now, as for Subbuteo...--John (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a sociology lecturer who always reverted to the "martians landing on earth" analogy: if martians landed on earth and saw men competing over who was the better at catching fish, and men competing over who was the better at kicking a bag of wind around a field, who would they think were the more ridiculous? Subbuteo, I think, would come somewhere in the middle.

As for the source. Yes, a more up-to-date (or even better written) one would be better, but it trumps inferring this or that from an association's website. "... that some sports which previously competed as NI (with or without a flag) now operate on an all-Ireland basis ..." - I doubt this. Northern Ireland still exists, and will for the foreseeable future, and thus will continue to field teams for Commonwealth and Home internationals. The same, of course, goes for all-Ireland teams which have continued to compete more or less as if partition never happened with a few notable exceptions. The two aren't mutually exclusive, it's a complexity that people just get along with. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a WP:V and WP:RS source used to back up the statement in the info box if editors want to change it they will need to supply a contradicting ref. BigDunc (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Edit

Could editors not remove ref material while an ongoing disscusion is taking place. BigDunc (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, reversion to a version of the article not backed up by the sources is always good when in doubt. --John (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Protestant is... ?

I can't find what is meant by Protestant in this article. The definition of Protestantism is the Christian faith that originated from the Reformation - but that's the definition. To what church or denomination do Protestant Northern Irish feel affiliated with? Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism - or Presbyterian, Methodist? Even Jehovah's Witnesses are Protestant by definition. --Soetermans (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite a mixture is the answer. Protestantism in Northern Ireland is heavily divided with no one denomination having an overall majority. There are large numbers of Presbyterians, of Church of Ireland Episcopalians and many others, Ian Paisley is the founder of the very small but prominent Free Presbyterians and there are numerous others. Hence the particular importance of organisations that transcend this divide like the Orange Order. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an important question and a good answer to it might help a lot of people understand the political Catholic/Protestant divide in Northern Ireland. Personally, I'd start with explaining the "three groups": Anglican, "dissenter" and Catholic, of which only "dissenter" refers to true "protestants" in terms of reformed Churches (as Soetermans points out).

A run-down from the reformation might explain how initially Britain and Ireland, under Henry VIII, declared Catholic but then split with the Roman Church over the rights of the king, forming Anglicanism (but how theologically this differed little from Catholicism though over the five hundred years since has been spiced by Protestant influences as it developed independently). How Scotland reformed thus creating the bulk of "Dissenters" in Irish terms (mainly through migration during the Plantation of Ulster?). From here we get "Dissenters", broadly meaning anyone who did not belong to the established Church (i.e. Anglicanism), but more casually meaning Protestant, as opposed to Catholic, "dissenters". This created the "three groups": in respective size throughout the island: Catholic, "Dissenter", Anglican. Both Catholics and "Dissenters" were disenfranchised at one time, and thus shared a common cause. Following the Act of Union, by which time much of the disenfranchisement against "Dissenters" had been relaxed, "Dissenters" moved closer to Anglicans as a social group through involvement in organisations such as the Orange Order, which initially excluded both Catholics and "Dissenters" but later allowed "Dissenters" in. Thus forming the typical religious/political divide: Anglicans and "dissenters" in one group representing the "Established" community; Catholics in another representing the "dis-established" community. This rule of thumb doesn't hold true any more in the 26-counties, but became frozen in Northern Ireland.

Thus in Irish terms Protestant = Anglicanism + "dissenter". (Deft mention of the maxim that it was safe to say that every Irish gentleman was a Protestant, not ever Irish Protestant was a gentleman might be useful too.)

Does this sound like a fair summary? --sony-youth^pléigh 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is. Now my question is, is it worth adding into the article? --Soetermans (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not really relevant or appropriate for the top level article, maybe in a sub-article. In fact that could be said for a lot in the article which concentrates on stuff that really should be in sub-articles rather than the main country article which should only be providing an overview of everything. Ben W Bell talk 02:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox redux

Every time I come back to this article, I cringe at the infobox. Since there seems to be some weak consensus to not have any flag in the standard infobox, I scratch my head at the insistence of having a caption for a missing image. It's one of the silliest things I've seen on Wikipedia. Can we agree to remove that part of the infobox altogether, since it is all described quite well in the "Symbols" section of this article and that section's "see also" link to the Northern Ireland flags issue article? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Howzat? --Vintagekits (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, well, I could have been just as bold and done something like that myself, but this article seems to be patrolled intensely by "revert happy" editors and I thought prior discussion was always necessary here... Anyway, I meant just using the standard Template:Infobox Country minus the flag related parameters, and minus any inline HTML "hack" to put a pseudo-caption there, as I removed with this edit. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that there is a 'weak consensus not to have any flags'. Removing NI flags from a prominent position at the top is completely in line with nationalist tactics to undermine any northern symbols, in order to attempt to dilute any presence of a border between north and south. By NOT having any flags the article has an in-built nationalist bias not based on the realities. The only way to be non-partisan is to show the flags that represent the area in line with the other UK regions, but also to have a clear caption stating any of the flag statuses or controversies. This approach was used in a version of the article that was stable between 2005 and 2007Jonto (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only reason I called it a "weak consensus" is that the article has been relatively stable for a few months in that state. I am perfectly happy to restart the discussion — my immediate concern was only to address the aesthetics of the infobox as it has existed during this "ceasefire". It really looked shabby with the bold, small font, imageless caption. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Prominence of flag of Republic of Ireland

I understand the 'flag campaign' from Padraig etc. has gone on for too long, and many are sick to death of it and the persistent campaigning by some people with too much time (it would surprise me if they weren't employed full time, by Sinn Fein for example, to perform such a task!) and many people don't want to keep things stirred up so no longer want to interfere and contribute. However, the current state of Northern Irish articles is completely partisan beyond belief, and I have gone without comment for too long.

There is no need for the flag of the Republic of Ireland to be placed so prominently on this article. It is placed above symbols that have been (in official governmental contexts) and are still are currently officially used for Northern Ireland (officially used in unique international representation of Northern Ireland in sport). As the article stands it is extremely partisan.

Whilst the article should portray the current era and the right to open freedom of expression in Northern Ireland, the article does not portray the reality that as things stand Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom, and not in any way politically connected to the Republic, despite the aspirations of a minority for the latter to be the case. The notion that symbols of Irish nationalist aspirations should somehow be given an 'equal' status to symbols of unionist realities is a complete nonsense and utterly ludicrous concept - one that has spread throughout this website due to the zeal of some nationalist editors, and for no other reason.

I will continue to oppose any presence of an Irish tricolour on this page, as long as the actual symbols of Northern Ireland are tucked away in the middle. However, I can accept Irish tricolour on this page only if both of the following conditions are met: 1. That the Northern Ireland flag with an optional Union Flag displayed prominently at the top, with a sub-note clearly explaining any flag statuses. 2. That it is highlighted very clearly that the Irish tricolour is used to represent a minority aspiration, that this is clearly stated as only an aspiration, and that it is nowhere near the top of the page. Anything less is simply obfuscating aspirations with realities for political means. A 'non-NPoV' warning tag should be placed at the top of this page, should the current ludicrous situation continue for any longer. Jonto (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My goodness. See WP:CIV. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Paramilitaries and security forces vs "combatants"

Was a consensus reached over the use of the term "combatants"? There doesn't seem to be a correlation between the article on combatants and paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. It seems to be a technical distinction, does the army, the police and paramilitaries all have the same status in law? Alastairward (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Paramilitaries are terrorists, thats why they go to jail.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just like Lee Clegg. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not for membership of the British Army was it?Traditional unionist (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, I was simply asking if a consensus had been reached over the term, if not I was suggesting splitting the two (security forces and paramilitaries) Alastairward (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. One set of people acted completely outside the bounds of the law and civilised humanity - the vast majority of the other did not.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just remember your audience in this. The RUC were a paramilitary force. Paramilitary doesn't mean terrorist, doesn't mean illegal. The use in Northern Ireland doesn't always gel with its use in the work at large. Canterbury Tail talk 13:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, purely on the definition by the WP article. Notwithstanding the fact that the police are armed in Northern Ireland. There is a much better case to be made that the USC was paramilitary.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that the comment above "Paramilitaries are terrorists, that's why they go to jail" isn't terribly clear in the world view where paramilitary is often quite legitimate. The RUC is often described (though not in Northern Ireland) as a paramilitary force, just like the Royal Hong Kong Police which was based on the RUC model. All I'm saying is that because this article will be read by people from all over the world, to be careful of the use and definitions of paramilitary within the article least it be misinterpreted. The general NI usages doesn't always gel with worldwide accepted dictionary usage. Canterbury Tail talk 13:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I was never suggesting that should be included in the article!Traditional unionist (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, just making sure there was no confusion. Continue the work. Canterbury Tail talk 14:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't looking to stir, the article on parmilitary specifically mentions the use of the word in Northern Ireland, so if we include that link, it should be ok Alastairward (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Motto

I have removed the motto, which was tagged, the ref TU provided is not a reliable source to support the claim.--Padraig (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that website has been used as a reliable reference before. Why is it not reliable?Traditional unionist (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Google search is interesting. That site says it's the royal motto, yet that site and Wikipedia and mirrors are the only people that agree. WP:REDFLAG comes into play here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Google isn't going to be very good on such a niche topic. Am making inquiries.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Niche topic?! You think the royal motto of an English speaking country would be capable of being sourced from something other than a self published source. Do some Google searches on just the allaged motto and Northern Ireland, you'll find plenty of reliable sources that say it's the UDA's motto and make no reference to it being the motto of Northern Ireland as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because a group of thugs hijack a phrase doesn't make it their invention. The motto seems to only have been added in 1971, which is a pretty short window.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware it wasn't their invention. However the fact remains that when sources mention it's the motto of the UDA while neglecting to mention it's also the motto of Northern Ireland, you really wonder whether it is or not. As if it is the motto, surely you'd expect to be able to verify the claim on various official political or royal sites? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't come as any surprise that the UDA has been studied much more than the heraldry of Northern Ireland.18:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional unionist (talk • contribs)

The motto belongs to The Most Illustrious Order of St Patrick,[7] it also appeared on the Coat of Arms which was granted to the former Government of Northern Ireland in 1924/5, which has not been officially used since 1973 as the body it was granted to no longer exists, and although the Royal warrant still exists under which the CoA was devised it has never been transfered to the current government or executive.--Padraig (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So we've been here before, and we still have no references for your inferences from the facts. Still making inquiries.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if you can provide references to support that it is the motto of NI today feel free to provide them.--Padraig (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Scotland straw poll

A straw poll has opened at this section of the Scotland talk page regarding the use of the term "nation" to describe Scotland in the introduction of that article. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. -MichiganCharms (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

SDLP Question

Normally I'd ask this on the SDLP page, but it's unlikely to be replied to there until months from now... so I'll ask it here: Since the SDLP sit in Westminster, how do they reconcile taking the Oath of Allegiance? There's no mention of it anywhere on Wikipedia. -MichiganCharms (talk) 10:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I presume because they're constitutional nationalists who wish to change things within the existing structure, the same as the Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru (when the pro independence crowd have the microphone). The non-taking of seats is a complicated issue with some seeing it as being rather more about whether or not the legitimacy of Westminster (and, in the past, Stormont) to govern the province is acepted than whether or not an oath is given to a monarch - note the refusal for decades to sit in the Dail either. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, I never quite fully got the not taking seats... seems like an awfully hard way to make the changes you want or indeed any changes, it's like accepting taxation without representation... but that aside, do you think it deserves a mention in the SDLP article? -MichiganCharms (talk) 11:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A while ago there was a judicial review into the refusal to give SF policy development money availaible to parties with 2 or more MPs. I'm certain that i remember Michelle Gildernew stating then that even if the oath was changed or abolished they still wouldn't take their seats.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Some SNP MP'S crossed their fingers whilst taking the oath!Sorted!!!--Jack forbes (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox footnote

I have removed.

Norlin Airlann is a neologism which was not used by Scots speakers historically, but which has some official usage. The spelling Norn Iron is often used by indigenous speakers as an affectionate phonetic spelling to reflect local pronunciation.

Why is any of that necessary? The Norn Iron thing is surely far too colloquial to be in an encyclopedia entry. Re: the claim that Norlin Airlann "was not used by Scots speakers historically" - if the state is only 80 years old, surely that's a given! Has the Gaelic Tuaisceart Éireann any more historically accurate? (I only ask because I recall a discussion, possibly on this page, from a Gaelic speaker arguing that nobody speaking Irish uses the term so the Gaelic for "6 counties" should be used instead, because that's what everyone calls it - so the argument went). I get the impression that both Norlin Airlann and Tuaisceart Éireann have simply been extrapolated by using existing translations of the 2 words in the name given to the (country/province/state/region/(bastard) statelet/bastion of colonialism) in law.

beano (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that both the words "Norlin" and "Airlann" are neologisms dating from the 1990s, along the same vein as "Ullans". --sony-youth^pléigh 11:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

userboxes

Hi there, I was looking for a userbox to put on my userpage when I noticed the code for one of Scottish ones was "Talkstosocks" which is an obvious slur on Scots(sweaty socks),so I decided to delete it! Also noticed the same words on a N.Ireland userbox. I would'nt want to delete it as you may not feel the same way as I do (am I being too sensitive? I don't think so!) I thought I would give you a heads up and leave it to the N.Ireland wikipedians whether they want to do anything about it! I was not sure if this was the right pages to bring this up, if not please let me know! Thanks!--Jack forbes (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, could be referring to 'sock puppets'....81.179.7.86 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

National Anthem

So Northern ireland has a national anthem: "God Save the Queen" and the "Londonderry Air" (de facto)...where did this idea come from? I thought that the UK anthem was "God Save the Queen". As regards the "Stroke Derry Air" when did this become a de facto anthem.....was it perhaps during Barry McGuigan's world title fight? Has County Down a national anthem as well..de jure or de facto?Eog1916 (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of it being used as the de facto anthem either, so I tagged it for a reference Alastairward (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say both need sourcing. GSTQ is the national anthem of the UK, not Northern Ireland. Look at the kerfuffle when people tried adding GSTQ to the Scotland article, it isn't the national anthem of any of the constituent countries. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the infobox which covers all of these points. Bettia ^(talk) 14:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not even close to being a reliable source, in fact it's a mirror of an old version of a Wikipedia article. Not only that, it didn't even say GSTQ was the national anthem of Northern Ireland. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit where this source was being used to source GSTQ at the National Anthem of Northern Ireland, when the source states "Unlike the Olympics, however, where England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland compete together as the United Kingdom (whose national anthem is God Save the Queen)". I will re-iterate that the National Anthem of the United Kingdom is not the National Anthem of Northern Ireland, it is the National Anthem of the United Kingdom only, in the same way that it isn't the National Anthem of England, Scotland or Wales either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If the anthem that is used when Northern Ireland athletes compete in the Olympics is not acceptable, perhaps a qualification of "(Protestants)" and the reference from The Uncivil Wars: Ireland Today by Padraig O'Malley (1997) (reference pp. 9-10) would be acceptable: "The million Protestants of Northern Ireland(for the most part) ... regard themselves as ethnically British, ... their anthem is 'God Save the Queen'." Then you could add a third anthem for "(Catholics)" because O'Malley goes on to say, "...the half a million Catholics in Northern Ireland are, for the most part, ethnically Irish ... and their national anthem is 'The Soldier's Song'". Perhaps that would resolve it (with an acceptable reference). --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"If the anthem that is used when Northern Ireland athletes compete in the Olympics is not acceptable" - Northern Ireland don't compete at the Olypmics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland compete at the Olympics. As above, the anthem of the UK is not the anthem of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. GSTQ is not the national anthem of England. GSTQ is not the national anthem of Scotland. GSTQ is not the national anthem of Wales. GSTQ is not the national anthem of Northern Ireland. GSTQ is the national anthem of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What people regard as their national anthem doesn't come into it, either Northern Ireland has its own official national anthem or it doesn't. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)Huh. And I had always assumed it was "Suspect Device" by Stiff Little Fingers... --John (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it utterly ludicrous that the infobox claims a de facto national anthem, supported by a source that primarliy refers to the usage of the song at the Commonwealth Games, but when the same de facto rationale is applied to the Ulster banner to justify it's placement in the infobox, there is much objection. There has to be some consistency here! Either we remove the anthem section, or we add the flag(s).

On a related note, some of the other {{infobox country}} parameters would seem to be inapplicable here, using the same logic as the flag and the anthem. For example, Northern Ireland doesn't have a currency — the United Kingdom does. The monarch and prime minister are also "inherited" from the UK.

I realize that the UK's constituent countries are not precisely equivalent to other sub-national entities, but just as we don't list the euro in the infobox of Catalonia, or list the US president in the infobox of California, perhaps we should limit infobox fields on this article to items that are strictly from Northern Ireland. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

{{infobox UK constituent country}}, anyone? --John (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a strong idea. I note that it ought to be built on top of {{geobox}} instead of starting from scratch, as some other "political subdivision meta-templates" are constructed. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove the unofficial anthems, similarly to England, Scotland and Wales. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a country

Country can ether mean a soverien state or a nation. It's not a soverien state because it's not independent, and its not a nation because not everyone there would share the same identity. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Belfast Agreement has quashed the idea of UDI for Northern Ireland and has accepted that it is part of the country called Ireland. Eog1916 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So what? it's a admin. division of the UK. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a Constituent country, that article has a note on the appropriateness of the term country when applied to Northern Ireland. Also, there is no country called Ireland, just an island upon which is located the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Alastairward (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a country called Ireland. The Republic's constitutional name is 'Ireland' not 'Republic of Ireland'. 'Republic of Ireland' is technically only a 'description' not the actual 'name' and is used to avoid confusion with the island of Ireland. Tameamseo (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am arguing that it is inappropriate. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The article describing it as a Constituent country is the best place to argue that, if you are successful you can remove the link here Alastairward (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say that? 122.105.217.71 (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The article describes Northern Ireland a constituent country because of the reasons set out in the article on Constituent Country, please address the appropriateness of the term there and if you can argue against successfully, remove the link here in this article Alastairward (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussions opened by 122.105.217.71

An identical discussion doubting the "country" likeness has been opened by the same anonymous 122.105.217.71 for talk:Wales#It is not a Country, talk:England#It is not a Country, talk:Northern Ireland#It is not a Country as well as talk:Scotland#It is not a Country. The focus has been on the "definition" according to the wiki article and has sparked extended debate. As the law of the UK clearly states these regions are countries I would strongly suggest to close it here, as no argument on Wikipedia is going to change UK law. Arnoutf (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely 'the right of national self determination' pertains to a country by the UN Convention.

No such right has been granted to Northern Ireland and the Belfast Agreement has settled the issue. Eog1916 (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can Arnoutf give a reference for the law saying that. 122.105.216.1 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What an insult!!! Northern Ireland IS NOT A COUNTRY!!!!! It is a province of the United Kingdom, which itself is made up of two countries (England and Scotland), a pricipality (Wales, which IS also a country) and the six counties of Northern Ireland.

(i) Who is insulted? (ii) how about calming down a bit & (iii) please sign your comments --Snowded TALK 19:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ulster Scots Dialect

Ulster Scots is a variety of the Scots Language, therefore it is not THE language, rather is it the dialect of the Scot's language. If Scots was a variety of Ulster Scots..then Scots would be a dialect of Ulster Scots! Which is it then, the cart before the horse or the horse before the cart? One cannot have it both ways! You can say that people speak the same language -- or a dialect of the same language -- if they understand each other. One of the tests people use to differentiate "language" from "dialect" is mutual intelligibility. It is obvious to all that Scots and Ulster Scots are mutually intelligible. Many would go even further and argue that English and Scots (including its varieties) are mutually intelligible. So one can say that people speak the same language -- or a dialect of the same language -- if they understand each other. Max Weinreich said that; "A shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot" (A language is a dialect with an army/navy" ). We know that the Scots had such an army and navy, so I guess they win the argument as far as Ulater Scots is concerned! Eog1916 (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just taking what I see on the section itself, which goes both ways. While it remains like that, its best to leave the article section as is Alastairward (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Gaelic Dialect

The Gaelic language has historically been part of a dialect continuum stretching from the south of Ireland, through the Isle of Man, to the north of Scotland. Classical Gaelic, was used as a literary language in Ireland until the 17th century and in Scotland until the 18th century. To argue that Ulster Gaelic is Ulster Irish is to divorce it from its roots, which belong on either side of 'Sruth na Maoile' (North Channel or Straits of Moyle). Ulster Gaelic is a variety of Gaelic, therefore it is not THE language, rather is it the dialect of Gaelic. If Gaelic was a variety of Ulster Gaelic..then Gaelic would represent a dialect of Ulster Gaelic! Which is it then, the cart before the horse or the horse before the cart? One cannot have it both ways! You can say that people speak the same language -- or a dialect of the same language -- if they understand each other. One of the tests people use to differentiate "language" from "dialect" is mutual intelligibility. It is obvious to all that Scots Gaelic and Ulster Gaelic are mutually intelligible. Many would go even further and argue that Irish Gaelic (the modern standard form or Caighdeán) and Scots Gaelic (including its varieties) are mutually intelligible. So one can say that people speak the same language -- or a dialect of the same language -- if they understand each other. Max Weinreich said that; "A shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot" (A language is a dialect with an army/navy" ). We know that the Gaels did not have a navy or army in the modern sense, therefore all the dialects of Gaelic have / should be treated on a par, they simply represent varieties of Gaelic! After all, this concept is not new to the Gael, an old Gaelic saying has it that "languages live in their dialects". Eog1916 (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Alas, this may be your view. But it contradicts the official terminology accepted by both states in Ireland, linguists, the speakers of the language and historical philologists!

That is what this website deals with, validating statements with sources and official verification, not so we can enforce our own personal views!

Tf every article could be altered to suit each of our own preferences, it would be a quare looking encyclopedia!

CelticSeimi (talk) 00:34, 18th July 2009 (UTC)

NI doesn't have an anthem, it shouldn't go in the infobox for NI.

Who can argue!Eog1916 (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but now that I comment I see that it has been removed from the infobox, its better listed in the main body of the article as it is now Alastairward (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Something amiss in Scotland

A conversation about the current maps used to represent the constituent countries has been started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Something_amiss_in_Scotland. This discussion is hopefully to resolve issues that have been raised and to try to set a standard within the UK. For all those that wish to comment on this, your input is requested. Thank-you :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

the Map

~~Seeing as Scotland doesn't shade the rest of the UK on it's map, should this article do the same? GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)~~

If anyone is planning on creating a new map, a neutral colour for Northern Ireland wouldn't go amiss either! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My question doesn't matter anymore. I've given up on the Scotland article; too much group ownership issues there, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

New Map

I like it, cool. This map has been adopted at England and Wales (currently being rejected at Scotland). -- GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have created the map currently on the main page Image:Uk map northern ireland.png. I hope you all dont mind that I was WP:BOLD and added it myself. I really don't want to create any edit wars I just want to see what others think and hopefully bring this to a nice consensus on what to use. I hate the idea that other countries seam to be more organized then us with these things, so I hope you think the new one looks professional... I'm actually kinda pleased :-) Please voice your opinion over at Talk:Scotland#Straw_Poll I know I'd personally love to hear your opinions! Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I loathe it. Besides, I fully support Ben W Bell's edit. The broader European context is more useful than a British Isles context.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country

OK 78.16.122.227, Why do you wish to say NI is a constiuent part? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it creates confusion that NI is a country which it isn't.78.16.122.227 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You're correct NI isn't a country, it's a constituent country, just like England, Scotland & Wales; there's a differance. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge there's a slight difference but take note of this from constituent country's page: Use of the term constituent country is sometimes regarded as inappropriate when applied to Northern Ireland because some do not regard it as a country. Instead, some regard it as a province of the UK while others regard it as part of an Irish nation. So constituent part directing to constituent country is the appropriate thing to use in this case.78.16.122.227 (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to wait and see what others think. This discussion occured before & the choice was to go with constituent country. Remember it's not entirely up to us. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear 78.16.122.227 (can't you register here?) on the article on provinces, it is noted that Northern Ireland has changed politically and is no longer as autonomous as it once was and today has only a limited degree of self rule. I would keep it as constituent country, with a link to the article to let others make their own mind up on the issue. Alastairward (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

But if they have even less self rule then surely the term country should be avoided? Using the term constiuent part linking to constiuent country would make more sense.78.16.176.146 (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Being a consistancy buff, I prefer all UK components being called constituent country. Also, constituent part just doesn't sound encyclopedic. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but reality trumps consistency. There's no point in having 'consisency' if it's not correct.78.16.176.146 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the change proposer. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just given proof in the article.Check it out.78.16.176.146 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I still prefer constituent country, however I'm not gonna revert your sourced edit. Wow, I must be getting tired of these disputes or perhaps I'm feeling wore down; interesting. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The source doesn't use the term "constituent region" (which ludicrously links to constituent country anyway). In addition there's ample proof of constituent country - [8] [9] [10]. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term 'country' or even 'constituent country' is misleading. It is noteworthy that Wales ( and Northern Ireland) were not offered a Parliament in the devolution process. Wales has long been part of Britain (NB: not Great Britain), in Gaelic we know Wales as 'an Bhreatain Bheag' ( English = Little Britain). I think there was a regiment in the British army called the 'Ancient Britains' which consisted of mainly Welsh recruits. As far as Northern Ireland the Belfast Agreement has stated clearly that it is not eligable for 'self determination'. Before Partition, many protestants and most catholics considered themselves as Irish and their their country to be Ireland. Ireland was then a constituent country of the United Kingdom, just like England and Scotland. Ever heard of the triple crowm? Munster still has the flag!Eog1916 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Again it's probably most simple to direct viewers of the page to the constituent country article, if they disagree with the inclusion of Northern Ireland as such, let them hash it out there Alastairward (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Remembering that Wikipedia is not an appropriate source, why if it would be inappropriate to refer to Northern Ireland as a constituent country in the Constituent country article would it be okay to do so here? --sony-youth^pléigh 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It just seemed that if we're linking to the constituent country article to explain why NI is a constituent country, using its sources, then that article is in a way the root of the argument. Instead of repeating an argument in two different places, it would save time to provide sources etc in the root article, and if its decided that NI is not a constituent country then link to that article to say why here. If its not the way things are done in wikipedia, then ignore that obviously, but it just seemed at first the most logical way to do it. Alastairward (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship 2

Here is the previous discussion. The current wording reflects both consensus and reality.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged your edit, please provide a RS to support that.--Padraig (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sony and Ben, your expertise would be useful here. This discussion only provides references on the Irish side, not the British.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tagged un-referenced claim.--Padraig (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Anoter proposed guideline for "the British Isles"

I have numerous concerns about the current proposal for a guideline for the use of the term British Isles and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

NI disambig

I think the following disambig at the top of the NI artilce looks really silly and should be removed. Does any one really look up NI thinking they'll go straight to an EP constituency page? Heres the disambig:

This article is about the constituent country. For the European constituency, see Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency).

Does any one else support deleting this disambig? Redking7 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the hatnote is appropriate, particularly if you're looking for the European parliament constituency and are not sure what to search for. I'll add a comparable hatnote to that page linking to this one. WLU (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Any one else have any view on the "hatnote"? I still think it looks really silly and out of place. The following is the "hatnote" User WLU has added to the constituency page:

"This article is about the constituency in the European Parliament. For the United Kingdom constituent country, see Northern Ireland."

—

I can't help but find it amusing that any one would think that any one would look up Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency) and expect to read about NI!

Still, if no one speaks up to support removing the "hatnotes", I will leave these edits as is. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reproduced this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northern Ireland as that appears to be a more active forum. Redking7 (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Better link: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Northern_Ireland#NI_disambig. Will comment further there. WLU (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hatnotes exist for a very specific reason, how would anyone otherwise expect to be able to find the Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency) article? The two things have the same name, therefore "(European Parliament constituency)" is the disambiguation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A hatnote 'looking silly' isn't really a reason to remove it as it's just an opinion; my opinion is that it is a useful means of distinguishing between closely named articles that does not look silly at all and increases the ease of navigation between wikipedia pages. The hatnote I added was based on the {{otheruses}} template, standard for all wikipedia articles. I think it's an appropriate use of a hatnote per Wikipedia:Hatnote#Two articles with the same title. It's possible that Wikipedia:Hatnote#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous applies, but since both pages are about political and geographic divisions that have the same name but within different systems, I think that the hatnote is suitable. WLU (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In reply to the above:

“[hatenotes are a] useful means of distinguishing between closely named articles”. Couldn’t disagree with that! However, why is the Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency) page being singled out? There are numerous “closely named articles”. Examples: Northern Ireland peace process; Northern Ireland Executive; Northern Ireland Tourist Board...the list could go on for a while;
If Northern Ireland becomming a disambiguation page is in fact what is desired, this could be proposed and if a consensus backed it, put in place (I wouldn’t support it). To me the “hatnote” is very silly and that is a perfectly good reason to remove it!; and
Next, we need to think about consistency. This is the only page where such a “hatnote” features. There is no such hatnote on the London article (even though there is a London (European Parliament constituency) – just a general hatnote advising people that London has other meanings. As an alternative to NI becoming a disambig page, this could be added to the NI page. The disambig page the NI hatnote would lead to could include all of the above-mentioned similarly named articles. I don’t think it's necessary but I wouldn’t object to that. That might be the appropriate comprise.

Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Both are political constituencies and linked geographic areas; I don't see much chance for confusion between the other uses of Northern Ireland. I don't see a need for a NI DAB page either, but it's a possibility. Note the hatnote at the top of the London page, which links to the London (disambiguation) page, which has in it London (European Parliament constituency); there is no equivalent DAB page for NI. If you're really concerned, we could get a WP:RFC on it. Irrespective I don't think the hatnote should be removed. WLU (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be (re)moved. Neither the Germany page nor Germany (disambiguation) mention Germany (European Parliament constituency). Same goes for Luxembourg and Malta. Cyprus, Denmark and the Czech Republic, like NI, don't have a disambiguation at all and none of these have an ugly hatnote to the EP constituency of the same name. The best place for it is in the "See also" section. Crazy Among (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Since they don't have an appropriate hatnote and neither do the disambiguation pages, I'll add them. The hatnotes being 'ugly' isn't really a reason - they are functional choices, not aesthetic ones, and the constituencies have exactly the same names. Based on WP:DAB, WP:WPDAB or MOS:DAB is there a reason to remove the link? Lacking a NI disambiguation page means the hatnote is appropriate. If a NI disambiguation page is needed, then I, or you, can create it. I'll bring this up at the wikiproject to see if there's a reason to remove the hatnote. WLU (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ick, the Germany disambiguation page was terrible. Since wikified. This is part of the reason why using other pages as examples isn't usually an unambiguous solution - pages can be edited by anyone, including vandals, and there's no guarantee the page is in keeping with the suitable wikiproject, policy, guidelines or manual of style. WLU (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks ridiculous and it's relevance and/or usefulness is extremely suspect! beano (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't consider 'looks ridiculous' to be a valid objection. There should be some link between the pages, and the hatnote is the standard means. I've posted the question on Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Northern_Ireland, if that doesn't garner much interest I'll try another venue. Also note that all the pages cited above have been adjusted, so possibly there'll be more input from people on those pages. WLU (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to legitimise the hatnotes by adding them to the articles then you'd better go through all the other regions with the same name as a European Parliament Constituency... Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Île-de-France. The rest need the constituency added to their disambiguation. I really don't think people go to Northern Ireland expecting the EP constituency for the same reason they don't expect it at Finland, Cyprus or Slovenia. I really think the best place for this is in the pages 'see also' section or even the Politics of Northern Ireland article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy Among (talk • contribs) 22:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I added that hatnote, on 30 Jan 2008, and am glad to have found my way to this discussion. At the same time I added hatnotes, or entries in dab pages, for all the UK Euroconstituencies (some were already there), to provide a route for someone who knows the constituency name but not the Wikipedia convention for Euroconstituency names, to find the article. For Scotland, there's a link on the dab page. For Northern Ireland, as for Yorkshire and the Humber, there is a hatnote. The Euroconstituency is very different from other entities such as Northern Ireland peace process etc as listed above, because it's an entity named called "Northern Ireland", the "(European Parliament Constituency)" being to disambiguate it. Please leave the hatnote, unless you're going to create a dab page for NI which can include this among other items, with a hatnote pointing to the dab page. (I notice that the Scotland (disambiguation) includes various national teams etc, so that a parallel NI page could reasonably be created.) I agree that a "For other uses see Northern Ireland (disambiguation)" would look slightly more sensible than the existing hatnote, but it requires the dab page to exist! PamD (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that: Both Northern Irelands are likely to be searched with the term "Northern Ireland" and you need to be able to find both. If there are other items that will be searched for with (just) "Northern Ireland," then we need a dab page. If there is no dab page and we have two items like this, the hatnote as-is is the appropriate solution. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and pointing out the pages that need to be corrected Crazy Among, I will try to get to all of them. If I do not, then feel free to correct the pages yourself. I may not be watching the page in the future, so feel free to drop future comments on the European Union Wikiproject where a more comprehensive set of editors can address them. WLU (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, if any other exist the otheruses templates are easy to copy, paste and adjust. The Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency) incidentally, should not really be in the see also section (see also sections shouldn't really exist, I see them as a failure to fruitfully integrate a relevant link into the body text), if there's a section on politics of Northern Ireland the parliament constituency link should be in the body text there. If there's a main page, the link should be duplicated there as well. The point isn't to link to the pages only once, it's to link wherever it makes sense. WLU (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would not have bothered with the hatnote on the "X (European Parliament constituency)" pages. If they had been looking for the country X, they would probably never see the hatnote. My comments were about the "X" pages only. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

I disagree about the see also section. Not violently, but you may be more interested in one of those topics but not be able to find it via WP search any more easily. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the discussion is taking place here already... I think the links simply don't fit into the head of the article. There is a better way to find the articles, like EU parliament article or appropriate sections in countries articles. --Tone 08:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the hatnote issue. What I describe how it is handled in most WP articles and the way most readers will expect to find the article. If you wanted to find the NI EU article, how would you expect someone to find it? (John User:Jwy talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Either a NI disambig page is create or the hatnote stays I also find it odd that some people find the hatnote extremely suspect! the constituency has the exact same name how else is one going to find it. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just created dab pages for some other EU countries whose names are the names of their Euroconstituencies, but wouldn't dare to try to do so for NI. I've added a "See also" to the equivalent of Category:National sports teams of Northern Ireland in each case, as those teams are known as "[country name]". (And, in passing, I've made that NI category appear under "National sports teams by country", as the Scotland and Wales ones did, as well as appearing as a subcat of "... of the UK".) I suggest someone assembles a nice dab page for NI, then everyone will be happy. PamD (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(copy of comment I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northern Ireland)

The hatnote is clumsy and doesn't seem to fit the spirit of WP:DAB. The constituency article is about NI, so it should be summarised in Northern Ireland#Demography and politics of Northern Ireland and linked from there. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

PamD: I don't see the benefit of a disambiguation page. In my experience, good dab pages list dissimilar topics, not overlapping ones. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The constituency article is not about NI, but about the European constituency called NI, which represents the country. It is part of a whole pattern of articles about Euroconstituencies, which have a wide range of names: "London", "Yorkshire and the Humber", "Pomeranian", "East", etc. If someone is looking for info about this Euroconstituency, but doesn't happen to remember the exact formula of "(European Parliament constituency)", they will type in "Northern Ireland". They deserve to get a link to it, either direct or via a dab page linked from the top of the page. (I tend to agree that we don't need the reverse: anyone typing the whole rigmarole to get to the article about the Euroconstituency will not be looking for an article about the country). Good dab pages help people find what they are looking for. I'll put one together for NI: I was hesitant because of the toes to be trodden on around NI, a country with which I have no connection, but here goes. PamD (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I hope most people are happier than with the previous hatnote, and that no-one wants to delete the dab page as being too small. The only acceptable alternative, to my mind, is to go back to the cumbersome hatnote directing to the Euroconstituency. PamD (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

PamD wrote They deserve to get a link to it, either direct or via a dab page linked from the top of the page.

They emphatically do not deserve any such thing. How do we know what they want to know about the constituency—its population, its climate, its economy, its national politics? None of those are in the constituency article. If they are searching for the name of the MEP, or an election result, then Google or MediaWiki search or any other search engine will get them the constituency page, or they can scroll down Northern Ireland to the link. UK parliamentary constituencies do not follow that pattern, neither do US senate seats or English counties. If a few European countries and regions have dab links, then they are the exception, and their editors have not paid any attention to WP:DAB, or think that European constituencies have more political and encyclopedic importance for that country than they really do.

The constituency article is not about NI, but about the European constituency called NI Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency) is about Northern Ireland. Repeating it a hundred times does not make it about some other topic. —Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the creators of Northern Ireland (disambiguation) and the hatnote were unaware of the 2006 guideline at WP:RELATED. I was! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

First Minister over Prime Minister?

I would like to suggest Placing the First Minister's name over the Prime Ministers as the article is about N Ireland. Looking at articles on Australian states, US states and Canadian provinces there is no mention of Presidents or Prime Ministers. I am not actually suggesting removing the PM's name, just swapping the names over. I wonder if anyone would be interested in this proposal? --Jack forbes (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would find this acceptable. However, since England doesn't have a 'First Minister'? It's best to keep the UK Prime Minister above the 'First Ministers'. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay but not for any reason concerning the England article. QE2 appears at the top so it looks like a hierarchial order is to be followed. I think the Australian states are different too because they have Governors who are QE2's representatives etc. I don't think the four UK regions have that (although NI [uniquely?] did have a Governor until the 1970s). Regards. Redking7 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

England not having a First Minister is irrelevant to this discussion not sure about the queen she appoints the Welsh and Scottish ones but I think the situation is different in NI --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Gavin Lisburn (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Could someone amend the post nominal letters of Robinson & McGuinness from MLA to MP, MLA as I am not too sure how to do it?

Due to the fact the Northern Ireland Assembly is a devolved institution of the United Kingdom, and several matters regarding Northern Ireland still lie reserved at Westminster, the Prime Minister authority is still greater than the First and Deputy First Minister's. Thought Gavin from Lisburn, you shouldn’t be replacing MLA with MP, you should be adding MP to MLA. Peter Robinson and Martin McGuiness are both elected as MLA's to the Northern Ireland Assembly and as MP's to the House of Commons. Thought Peter Robinson position as First Minister is not recognised in the House of Commons, due to the presence of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the UK Cabinet, so he is an MLA and First Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but is only an MP in the House of Commons. If his position of First Minister was to be regarded in the House of Commons he would have to answer to the House of Commons in a similar position that members of the UK Cabinet have to at question times, this is a proposal I do believe that the House of Commons should consider with the three First Ministers. Martin McGuiness thought as you will know refuses to take his seat in the House of Commons due to his party’s republican outlook, official leaving his constituency voiceless in the UK. Thought it is notable that until 1972 it was the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, the Parliament of Northern Ireland and the Privy Council of Northern Ireland, but from 1998 they became the First Minister of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Executive. In respect of devolved matters, Northern Ireland is slight below Scottish Parliament, but farther advanced than Welsh Assembly (of which the First Minister was called the First Secretary from 1998 to 2002 to emphasis its weaker status than Northern Ireland and Scotland). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.53.34 (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Motto

I have deleted this from the "info box":

Motto: Quis separabit(Latin)"Who will separate us"

This "motto" has no official status as a "motto" for NI nor is it used by the UK or NI government etc. It featured on the old coat of arms of the Executive Committee of the Privy Council of Northern Ireland, long since abolished. It may be the motto of the UVF and other groups - but not of NI. As everything - even pure accuracy points like this - tends to be controversial, I would ask that before any Users re-insert this "motto", they provide UK/NI Government sources authenticating its official status today. I have found none. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

H (pronounciation)

There are supposedly some minute differences in pronunciation between Protestants and Catholics, the best known of which is the name of the letter h, which Protestants tend to pronounce as "aitch", as in British English, and Catholics tend to pronounce as "haitch", as in Hiberno-English. -- thats not a proven fact. im from northern ireland thers no difference whether they be catholic or protestant. like it says on the other part of the page "the war is over" people arent segerated anymore 81.157.242.82 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Americans also pronouce the letter H as aitch. When I lived in Dublin, where they pronounced it Haitch, my friends and workmates presumed I dropped the H due to the fact that I'm Protestant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Country within a country" wording proposal

Come look see here and vote. MickMacNee (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors need to be aware that a consensus is being built on Talk:United Kingdom to replace reference to Northern Ireland as a constituent country with "Northern Ireland is a semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the north east of the island of Ireland"--Snowded (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of Border article

At Talk:Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border, I have proposed that the name be changed to comply with diplomatic protocol. Please comment there. --Red King (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-22 United Kingdom

I hope ya'll can give us your imput. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Map

Considering that the previous discussion of the map here ended without an agreed consensus... would anyone be in favour of changing the map to bring it inline with the one at Scotland and (one of the maps at) Wales?-MichiganCharms (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, whatever ya like. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lives lost and injured in "the Troubles"

I've removed references to "combatants" in this section. Language such as this is highly controversial, implying as it does that the Troubles was a "war" and thus giving legitimacy to paramilitary organisations and creating equivalence between paramilitaries and the police and armed forces.

The whole article actually requires a re-write.

It is also necessary to clarify what is meant by "civilians". Ordinarily, police, prison warders, etc., are considered to be civilian occupations and if such persons are not considered as "civilians", then this must be stated for clarity.Mooretwin (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Combatants is what secondary sources use. Either they are civilians, or they are combatants, you can't have it both ways. Inventing labels of "other" is not acceptable. Also please stop labelling the defunct Ulster Banner as the "Flag of Northern Ireland", that is loyalist POV. BigDunc^Talk 17:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And what "secondary sources" use "combatants"? "Combatants" is the term preferred by Provisional Sinn Féin, the political wing of the main terrorist group - it is clearly not a neutral term. It attaches legitimacy to terrorist groups and implies equivalence between terrorist groups and security forces. It is unacceptable terminology. "Others" is unsatisfactory, but preferable to "combatants" until such time as a re-write is performed in more suitable language. It is not a case of "either civilians or combatants" - that is a false dichotomy. A civilian is someone who is not in the military. The police are not in the military. Nor are prison warders. Being in the military does not make one a "combatant" unless there is an armed conflict in the legal sense, which was not the case in Northern Ireland. As for the flag, it is not a "loyalist POV" to refer to the flag of Northern Ireland. The flag in question is de facto used as the flag of Northern Ireland. To use your language, it is a "republican POV" to insist that the flag is NOT the flag of Northern Ireland. Finally, please stop referring to the "Constitution of Ireland" in an article about Northern Ireland - it makes no sense to refer to the "Constitution of Ireland", when said constitution is a 26-county constitution - the name is a misnomer and therefore confusing. "Republic of Ireland" is a neutral term and avoids ambiguity.Mooretwin (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good to see a new editor independently coming to the same conclusion over the flag that many of us were at months ago. I'm inclined to agree on combatants being a POV term too.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Under most definitions I'm aware of civilians would not in this case include police officers. Compared to the army yes police are civilians, compared to the rest they are not. I think most sources lump police officers into non-civilians categories. Canterbury Tail talk 11:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've re-written this category using purely factual information and avoiding biased and controversial terminology such as "combatants". I take on board Canterbury Tail's point about civilians (although in the legal sense, police officers are certainly civilians) and have retained use of this term, albeit with a definition after the first reference.Mooretwin (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone - Pureeditor - is simply reverting the edits made to this article without engaging in discussion. Although I have received a threat from BigDunc, I am replacing the edited text. If Pureeditor wants to discuss the article, let him do so here.Mooretwin (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a poorly formatted section using boxes is any replacement for the previous prose, and I have reverted. Also that the Ulster Banner is not the flag of Northern Ireland is not republican POV, it is backed up by government legislation. If you object to the term Constitution of Ireland I suggest you complain to the government of Ireland and see if they will change it, or failing that attempt to move the corresponding article. Until then, it will be called by its official name, and the same applies to the Flag of Ireland. Please seek consensus for these controversial changes, as more than one editor objects to them per the discussion below BigDunc^Talk 17:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the replacement section certainly was better than the highly-partial article that precedted it. If it is poorly-formatted, then feel free to improve the formatting, but the article to which you reverted is unacceptable in its use of language and the biased emphasis it places on its interpretation.Mooretwin (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. the flag of NI, pray tell what legislation you refer to. In the real world, the flag is used de facto as NI's flag.Mooretwin (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally, whether or not the "Constitution of Ireland" is the official name is not the point - the point is that the name is ambiguous and misleading, just like the name of the state. In an article on one part of Ireland, it does not make sense to refer to the constitution of the other part as though it were the constitution for the whole island. If "Republic of Ireland" is acceptable terminology elsewhere in the article, then it is acceptable in this section. Ditto with the "Flag of Ireland" - it is not the flag of Ireland, merely the flag of the Republic, notwithstanding the "official name" of that state.Mooretwin (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:Summary style, the tables with death statistics are too much detail for this article. The section on "The Troubles" should simply be a one or two paragraph summary of the main article at The Troubles. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

History

Have corrected date of Larne gun-running from 1912 to 1914. And removed reference to Lord Randolph Churchill as this relates to a previous anti-home-rule campaign and not the one being discussed. Mooretwin (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship and identity

The relevant law is section 6 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (as amended by the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2001).

6.—(1) Every person born in the island of Ireland is entitled to be an Irish citizen.

(2) (a) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person born in the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth if he or she does, or if not of full age has done on his or her behalf, any act which only an Irish citizen is entitled to do.

(b) The fact that a person so born has not done, or has not had done on his or her behalf, such an act shall not of itself give rise to a presumption that the person is not an Irish citizen or is a citizen of another country.

(3) A person born in the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth if he or she is not entitled to citizenship of any other country.

As you can see, subsection (1) refers to an entitlement to be an Irish [sic] citizen.

Subsection (2)(a) provides a criterion for being an Irish [sic] citizen. It is not clear, however, what acts this refers to. The obvious one, however, would be applying for a passport (or possibly voting in a Dáil election?).

Subsection (2)(b), however, states that, even if one has not done one of these acts, one is not presumed not to be an Irish [sic] citizen. This is a strange construction, which falls short of saying positively that someone who has not performed one of these acts is assumed to be an Irish [sic] citizen. Hence there is room for manoeuvre in that someone who has not performed such an act, while not presumed not to be a citizen, equally may surely not be presumed to be one either.

Hence my edit to say that people from Northern Ireland MAY BE regarded as ROI citizens from birth.

I'm therefore making the edit again. If anyone disagrees, please enter into discussion rather than simply reverting.Mooretwin (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes people born in NI are not automatically Irish citizens, but are usually automatically British citizens. They can choose to become, are are generally entitled to, Irish citizens, but it isn't usually automatic. Canterbury Tail talk 13:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - hence the edit.Mooretwin (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made the minor revision to state in less certain terms that NI people "may be regarded" rather than "are regarded", as currently this is the consensus here. BigDunc made a reversion without discussing first.Mooretwin (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted a few colloquial terms of 'The Republic' being used to refer to the state called Ireland. As an encyclopedia colloquial terms should be avoided and common and official names should be used instead. The official name of the state portrays everything in a more international NPOV. I also fear the term Irish will soon be substituted with 'Southern Irish' the way things are going, but please don't. If we keep everything to the official name then this article will be better for it.Pureditor 14:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As previously discussed, references to "Ireland" when meaning the Republic of Ireland are ambiguous in this particular article. "Republic of Ireland" is used elsewhere in the article and therefore is appropriate throughout.Mooretwin (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As previously discussed? Where is it? There is no consensus on it. This is an encyclopedia, colloquial names have to be avoided. The term is not used elsewhere. Its use is justified in the opening two lines but after that differenciation has been made, so therefore the official name should be used for the rest of that article as it has been before edit wars started happening.Pureditor 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the "Ireland v Republic of Ireland" discussion! Also read the article - Republic of Ireland and "the Republic" are used throughout. These are perfectly acceptable terms and the most sensible terms to avoid ambiguity. Please stop reverting to "Ireland" which doesn't make sense when referring to one part of an island on an article about the other part! Your "argument" about "colloquial names" is a red herring. And "Republic of Ireland" is actually the "official description" of the state and therefore perfectly acceptable. Mooretwin (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That is your interpreation of a primary source, please stop adding it to the article, and please read the messages at the top of this very talk page, as most of your edits are unsourced and POV. BigDunc^Talk 14:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the above is addressed to me, I have read the messages at the top of the page, which advise one to see if the topic has already been discussed. Indeed, this had, and the previous discussion concluded that it was not necessarily the case that citizenship of ROI was automatic for people from NI. Hence, it is safer to say "may be" rather than "are".Mooretwin (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Tentative Proposal

I wonder if it would make sense to reference material in The Troubles rather than repeat it here (casualty figures etc. I did think about being bold on this but given the recent edit skirmish decided to raise it here first. --Snowded (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly preferable to the highly partial article that preceded my edit.Mooretwin (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. But any proposed deletions should be proposed here and then given a proper edit summary. Unlike the one I've just reverted. --Red King (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Those casualty tables should most definitely not be in the main article on Northern Ireland. In The Troubles yes, in the article on the country no. Canterbury Tail talk 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Red King (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree (as the one who clandestinely removed said list, before Red King reverted it, sorry). A dedicated subsection in the history section should be devoted to the troubles though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William.mu (talk • contribs) 17:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(indent) OK I made the change as people seem in agreement. The section needs more work though to make it more of a summary - too much detail in other areas, the civil rights movement and other key events omitted for example. --Snowded (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I did, but now there has been a mass revert which leave the history section giving the same prominence to broadband adoption as to the troubles. Can we have less drastic action please. I have to get a flight so can not do anything now, but this is nonsensical --Snowded (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

BigDunc's out of order with his last edits85.210.78.70 (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

East-West Bias

I fumbled my edit summary; I moved the section on "East-West Bias" to Demography and politics of Northern Ireland, since it seemed overly detailed for the top level. It's also poorly referenced, so I tagged it. -- Beland (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Flags

The description of the ROI Tricolour as the "Flag of Ireland" is misleading in an article about Northern Ireland. The flag relates only to ROI, not the whole island. Therefore it is necessary to be clear to avoid ambiguity, given the subject of the article. Mooretwin (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The correct description of the flag is the "Flag of Ireland" not the Flag of the Republic of Ireland. Thats the legal position and can't be ignored even if editors might like to. See Names of the Irish state and Flag of Ireland. Any controversial change would also need a consensus. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should read "Flag of Ireland (not adopted/used/official in Northern Ireland)" - just to make it clear that that "of Ireland" doesn't mean the island of Ireland. Crazy Among (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be silly. Flag of Republic of Ireland makes it perfectly clear. Mooretwin (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not silly. WP policy indicates that Ireland is used, not ROI. Please don't just write here and instantly revert Mooretwin. Other editors have made valid points. Reverting on the article is not the thing to do.Pureditor 10:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WP policy suggests no such thing, as you well know.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's silly to say "Flag of Ireland (not adopted/used/official in Northern Ireland)" instead of just "Flag of Republic of Ireland"! Funny how you're happy to revert away on other articles when you don't like the text, but object when you do like the text! Mooretwin (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You're defying WP policy on naming disputes, commonnames and verification. You're the one edit warring. I reverted you, you have reverted two editors. Again you go straight to revert rather than explaining here. There are three editors here against your POV yet you continue to ignore it and just revert away.Pureditor 11:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Accuse editors of edit warring (if you are happy to be hypocritical) but do no accuse editors of breaking policies which they are not. The naming convention policy is bunkem and IMOS does not cover this matter. Disinformation is not cool at all.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Again you go straight to revert rather than explaining here": Pot calling kettle black. Somebody changed the name - I reverted. Then you changed the name - I reverted. There's no defying of policy on common names or verification. Mooretwin (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Irish Tricolour" is preferable to "Flag of Ireland" Mooretwin (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought before it was removed for no reason. Would you officially agree to it as a compromise? Then we could get the editor who removed it to either explain why or just reinstate it.Pureditor 12:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The tri-color is not a flag of Northern Ireland, it should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a good point - why is the flag shown at all? I propose that it is removed - the appropriate place to give it treatment is in the "Northern Ireland Flags Issue" article. Mooretwin (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well its been there all this time for a reason. The Ulster Banner has no official status, so that is there just as a symbol; so the Irish tricolour has just as legitimate reason to be there, considering the state had a constitutional claim on the area. Even ignoring that, aren't there a lot of tricolours being flown around the whole of NI? That surely classifies as a symbol in Northern Ireland? It's not an official flags section! It's about symbols.Pureditor 23:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly a flag of the Republic of Ireland; it's gotta go. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the flag of Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what its the flag of; it's a very common symbol in NI. Do you deny that its a symbol in NI GoodDay?Pureditor 23:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

But it's not a symbol of Northern Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep it. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A consensus is needed to chage "Flag of Ireland" to anything else. No consensus has been reached. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a consensus above to change it to Irish Tricolour. Your opinions doe not trump consensus. Do not edit war. Perhaps |GoodDay or edit twin can restore consensus on the article.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus clearly. I for one do not support the changes that are being made - renaming flags etc and giving them names they do not oficially have. If you want to make a change, you have to base it on facts and then reach a consensus. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly no consensus. I strongly disagree with the proposal. Sarah777 (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Then we arrive at the original problem, and I now support the removal of the flag from the article. Its necessity here is highly dubious.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest calling it "The National Flag (Ireland)" or "The National Flag (Republic of Ireland)", but that would seem to open a whole new argument, from what I see on the Republic of Ireland talk page. As for including it in the article at all, there seems to be enough mention of the parallel lives that our two splendid communities live through different place names and education, why not mention the different symbols they identify themselves by? Alastairward (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The flag should be removed. The Tricolour is not a flag of NI. Mooretwin (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a symbol of, and used in NI. It being there is not up for debate.Pureditor 16:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could cite the policy you're using for your dogmatic approach?Traditional unionist (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem - WP:NOTCENSORED Pureditor 16:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That does not provide you with an excuse to claim a matter is not up for discussion. Please reacquaint yourself with WP:CONCENSUS. Then come back and we'll discuss the removal of the flag.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? I was happy to negotiate a different name for it. You and Mooretwin want to now remove it. I'm not sure that'll ever gain consensus. I'll stick with abiding with the global policy I quoted and making sure that the flag remains.Pureditor 16:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty to discuss. It is not the flag of Northern Ireland. Placing it where it is is misleading. Are you aware of consensus now? Are you now aware you that can not unilaterally halt a discussion?Traditional unionist (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)There is no flag of Northern Ireland at all. There are numerous flags used in NI as symbols; some historic or otherwise. The Irish flag is one of them. I'm not going to unilaterally stop a discussion but two editors aren't going to censor a flag either.Pureditor 17:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The Union flag is the flag of Northern Ireland, it just isn't specific to Northern Ireland. The Flag of the Republic has no status in Northern Ireland. Its inclusion is therefore dubious at best.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said the Flag of the Republic/Irish Tricolour (chose your own NPOV name for it) had any official status in the UK (exceptions, when it's used for official visits etc of course) but it's used a great many as a symbol of their perceived nationality. It seems a little much not to touch on an issue that's dominated life in NI for the past few decades in the main article. Alastairward (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Many flags are used in many countries as a symbol of people's perceived nationalities - that does not make them symbols of the country in which they are used. Catholic Irish people in England use the Tricolour, yet the Tricolour does not appear on the England page. Mooretwin (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A weak argument, how many people in England would fly such flags? And is there such a clear divide in the overall population as there is in Northern Ireland? Alastairward (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is Wiki policy to include the flags of neighbouring states used by minority populations in articles about states or regions. Does the Latvia article display the Russian flag? Does the Bosnia-Herzegovina article display the Croatian flag? Mooretwin (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And you can of course quote that policy for me? Nobody is including the flag in the info box for Northern Ireland, it's listed as the flag of a foreign country pretty clearly further down the article. Alastairward (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for any change from "Flag of Ireland". To make a change, facts to justify a change are needed and consensus is required. Regarads. Redking7 (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you read the discussion you'll see that a consensus was reached for "Irish Tricolour" - the discussion then moved on to whether there is any reason to have the flag in the article at all. Mooretwin (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. No conseneus was established. Open a poll if you wish to test consensus for renaming the Irish flag as "The Flag of the Republic of Ireland" --HighKing (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ludicrous to have "Flag of Ireland" in an article about part of Ireland for which it is not the flag! The flag shouldn't even be in the article - if it is, however, let's not use misleading terminology. Mooretwin (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever people's opinions or preferences, a consensus is needed for any change from Flag of Ireland. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

When you take away the plethora of wikipere socks, there appears to be consensus for change.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Mooretwin (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You need a consensus to make the change you want. There is no consensus. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been a dispute about this section relating to the naming of the flags and the inclusion of the ROI flag. Some editors wish to include the ROI flag and have it described as "Flag of Ireland". Others think that the ROI flag is not relevant in an article about Northern Ireland, but, if it is there, it should be described in unambiguous fashion as "Flag of Republic of Ireland". As a compromise, "Irish Tricolour" was agreed upon above, which has the advantage of being consistent with the other flag names ("Union Flag" rather than "Flag of the UK", "Ulster Banner" rather than "Flag of NI", etc.). Unfortunately nationalist editors such as Redking7 and Big Dunc are editing so that it reads "Flag of Ireland" again. This ought to stop as we have a compromise here. Mooretwin (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If the nationalist editors are going to change the name to "Flag of Ireland", then others will have to move to remove the flag altogether from the article. There is no sound reason for it being here. Mooretwin (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeking change. The article originally read as "Flag of Ireland". Editors made changes without consensus. Without rehashing the above - the correct names for flags should be used. The correct name for the flag in question has been discussed at length - see Talk: Flag of Ireland. If you want to make a change, you need consensus. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly reject the change that has been made to change Irish tricolour to Flag of Ireland. It should atleast say Flag of the REPUBLIC of Ireland. Rather than just flag of Ireland, which is clearly misleading. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed above and a consensus emerged which was stable until Redking arrived. Mooretwin (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A tag-team of POV editors - Redking7, Snowded and Domer48 - has started an edit war on this article, ignoring the consensus achieved on this page. Because of 1RR they have succeeded in making the change. Poor behaviour, although entirely to be expected. Mooretwin (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not tag teaming Moortwin I am dealing with what I see when I come on line. This was debated on the Flag of Ireland page and the name agreed. Making a case for its removal, or possibly a qualifying remark would make more sense. Incidentally I was not aware this was under a 1RR restriction. Your comment above alerted me to the header on the talk page and I tracked it through. I'll stand out given that. --Snowded TALK 13:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the Flag of Ireland page. This is an article about Northern Ireland. The ROI flag shouldn't even be on this page but, if it is, it can't be called Flag of Ireland due to the ambiguity. Hence "Irish Tricolour" was agreed. Now you and your pals have come along to impose your doctrinaire will. Out of order. If the name "Irish Tricolour" is unacceptable, then the flag will have to go altogether, as it is not even relevant to Northern Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any such consensus above, just the usual debates. As to "pals" and "doctrinaire will" I assume that is just another example of your inability to engage with other editors in a rational way. If the flag of Ireland goes then other unoffical flags and symbols should go to. --Snowded TALK 15:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland is confusing in an article about a country called Northern Ireland. It would seem to imply official status in the whole of Ireland. Irish Tricolour or simply tricolour is better. Until this dispute is over I have added "No official status in Northern Ireland", I trust there are no objections to this... ;) PS: For the record I too support the removal of the flag, I can't say I see any connection to NI. Perhaps somebody should check for sources. Best, --Cameron * 17:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Including that extra note is a good idea cameron until agreement is reached although i still feel strongly that it should NOT be called Flag of Ireland. Considering there is NO flag of Northern Ireland(even if there isnt an offical one) on the Republic of Ireland page raises doubts about the need for the "Flag of ireland" being on this article at all. I can accept the reasons for including the flag, but i think its only reasonable and fair that we use a more moderate / less offensive name for the flag and that would be the Irish Tricolour. If there isnt further objections to changing it back to tricolour i think it should be done in a few days time. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As someone who is interested in football articles I have noticed this

representing the nationalities of players from N.Ireland. I'm just wondering why there is a discrepency between this and the fact, stated here, that the flag doesn't represent the whole of N.Ireland. Titch Tucker (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi BritishWatcher, that you find the Flag of Ireland offensive is hardly reason enough to have its name changed. Now the name is the Flag of Ireland that is an established fact. It is internationally recognised as the Flag of Ireland. We also have a consensus on this project that it is the Flag of Ireland. The reason there is no Flag of Northern Ireland on the Republic of Ireland Article is because there is no flag. The is no internationally recognised Flag of Northern Ireland and that is an established fact. The Flag of Northern Ireland dose not appear on any article on this project because it dose not have one. I hope that helps, --Domer48_'fenian' 01:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So if Northern Ireland offically recognised a flag of their own and it got international recognition like England, Wales and Scotlands flags have then the Northern Irish flag could take a prime position on the republic of Irelands page? LMAO i think not, there would be strong opposition to that.

There was NO consensus to call that flag the Flag of Ireland on this page. It was the Irish tricolour not that long ago until one person changed it and i fail to see a consensus made to make such a change on this talk page. If you can not understand how it is offensive and misleading to have the Irish flag on this article and simply call it "Flag of Ireland" then you need to think again. I accept the note now expaining that it has no status in Northern Ireland takes away the urgency to remove it, however its still far from satisifactory. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi BritishWatcher, could I just point out that there is no need for a consensus on this page to call it The Flag of Ireland. That consensus was already reached on the Flag of Ireland Talk Page. To change the name of the flag, you would have to get consensus on the Flag of Ireland Talk Page. Now the name of the flag is the Flag of Ireland, and because of an agreed consensus the editor was correct to change it here. There is not even a consensus on this page to change it, and even if there was, it must be changed on the Flag of Ireland Talk Page first. I hope that helps clear it up for you, --Domer48_'fenian' 12:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In the first sentence of the flag of Ireland page it notes it is also known as the Irish tricolour. It is not like a few editors on this page who originally called it the Irish tricolour on this page just invented the term, the term is widely used just as "union jack" is used. There is no conensus on this page i accept that, but there was no consensus to change it from Irish tricolour to Flag of Ireland either. The current version with it making clear the flag has no offical status in Northern Ireland i can live with, it seems like a reasonable compromise that could be accepted by both sides. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi BritishWatcher, I'm not sure if I understand you correctly "there was no consensus to change it from Irish tricolour to Flag of Ireland either" like I have explained above, no consensus is needed to change it here. That decision was made on the Flag of Ireland Talk Page, when consensus was agreed to call it Flag of Ireland. I don't have a problem with the note to clarify its status, only with changing its name. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 15:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I only made my original objection and reverted a change because at the time i saw it change from Irish tricolour (which it had been for some time on this page) to Flag of Ireland with no explanation explaining its status under the flag. Just calling it a flag of Ireland without the added explanation clearly made it seem like it was the flag of ALL ireland. There is a question about if this flag belongs on this page at all as it has no recognition in northern ireland anyway but it seems the current version should be acceptable to most atleast until the future of all the flags on this page are decided.BritishWatcher (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested compromise on flag

Given the context of the section, which is about flags as symbols within NI, I am inclined to ask whether the image caption needs to have the "proper name" of the flag. Certainly, whether it has official status is not relevant to its status as symbol. I suggest the caption be changed to Flag of Irish nationalists - which is exactly what it is when it is flown in the North, and the article text be edited to say, "The Union Flag and Northern Ireland Flag are flown in some loyalist areas, and the Tricolour, adopted by republicans as the flag of Ireland in 1858, is flown in some republican areas." This makes it explicit that it is known as the flag of Ireland, and that it is republican in origin. Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion here on this, why noot join it? --Domer48_'fenian' 08:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this should be a sub-section of that but its not going anywhere fast. Lets take a wider look at this. The title is Symbols and the context here is largely sectarian use and hopefully will at some stage be a historical curiosity. For the moment we see the tricolour, the union jack, the red hand, King Billy etc etc on the walls of Belfast (I am still waiting for some of them to be designated as heritage sites). The Arms never appear. I wonder if we would be better with photographs and flags here using factual names and a better text? --Snowded TALK 08:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You have got it in one Snowded, using factual names. Here we use the factual name, and not make one up and suggest its a compromise. Now there is a discussion, as I have already indicated, were there is agreement forming. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

But it needs more context for this section, at the moment its not about symbols its about flags (and you know I agree on the factual name from the debate on that page) --Snowded TALK 08:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving the section made sense, thanks. I have added a small bit to the section to clarify the use of the flag. It now at least has spme context. This would also lend its self to the above agreement, and the need for the clarifying note. It at least removes the urgency in the discussion. We can all be right, just not right now? Thanks Snowded, --Domer48_'fenian' 09:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree your edit takes the heat out of the discussion for the moment. What do you think about my idea of making this a real section on Symbols? Some of the wall paintings, entering Free Derry etc. These all have immense symbolism in the history of Northern Ireland and have artistic merit in their own right. It shouldn't be difficult to ensure they are balanced - possibly a collage as per some of the "people of" sections elsewhere in the WIkipedia? --Snowded TALK 10:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My thanks also. I had looked to see if there was an ongoing discussion and hadn't found it. What does anybody think of my suggested textual changes above? Scolaire (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There is currently agreement on this, that is, we don't change the name to suit editors opinions. The name of the flag is Flag of Ireland, which is based on an agreed consensus. If you want to change the name go on to the article talk page and request a name change? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the situation. If you refer to the name of the Flag of Ireland article, there is not currently agreement on this, nor is there agreed consensus. And, in any case, it is very much a different matter how to describe the flag on this article. Mooretwin (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin, what you really mean is that you do not agree with the position on the Flag of Ireland page. Yes you and a small number of editors moved the page, but it was moved back with a larger number of editors involved. This happens in Wikipedia and with good grace accept that you will loose some of them. I put in a compromise to include the Tricolour name and have suggested a wider change to the section.

If I - and many others - don't agree then, by definition it is not agreed. Mooretwin (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You know full well that is not the way WIkipedia works. Often there is a position with minority dissent. That is the case here and the current position, settled by an admin is that it is the Flag of Ireland. Please respect that; as we move forward on other pages having the main protagonists respect agreed positions even if they disagree with them is going to be essential. I did my best to modify the name to accommodate your position. --Snowded TALK 19:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

However WP works is irrelevant: the fact is there is no agreement. The imposition of the title on that page does not mean that it must be imposed here, where the context is quite different. The flag shouldn't be in this article, nonetheless consensus was reached to keep it under the description "Irish Tricolour" - you and your pals breached that consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well we are in the WIkipedia so how it works has relevance. Please don't fall for a conspiracy theory on this. If you remove that flag then you also remove several other items. You also have not responded to my suggestion to increase the number of images. I would be interested in your reaction to that. --Snowded TALK 19:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

IT doesn't. There is no agreement. The fact that WP doesn't require agreement doesn't alter the fact that there is no agreement. Stop twisting the truth. The flag has no place on this article. You and other POV editors are imposing your will. Mooretwin (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Matthew 7:3 might make good reading Mooretwin. While you were placing this edit, I was making a request to Arbcom that you be not banned. I don;t regret that but I do think you need to reflect on this response. Its making you look as though you will not accept any change in WIkipedia which you do not agree with and that will make wider agreement difficult. I would still like your response to my wider suggestion (your talk page is under watch so I will see it there if you want to post during your current ban). --Snowded TALK 20:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen this discussion. As it stands, I am of the opinion that the image of the Irish flag in this section is unnecessary given the fact that it clearly has no official role, is controversial, and is largely unnecessary. A mention in the article text more than suffices. --HighKing (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with snowded on this. The current version clearly explains that the flag has no offical status in northern ireland, which is actually better than it was previously when it was just named Irish tricolour with no explanation. Until an agreement is reached on removing the flag (which does have justification but probably will never happen) keep the version as it is. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

We need a defined set of guidelines BEFORE a move. Otherwise we'll have chaos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooretwin (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 December 2008

I agree BritishWatcher, with both snowded and my edits we have removed the urgency to remove by providing some clarity. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Three questions. (1) Does it have to be called the Irish Tricolour? Readers are unlikely to think that Irish nationalists/republicans are flying the French Tricolour, and in any case there's a picture of it. (2) How does its lack of official status mean it is "unnecessary" in a section on the (obviously unofficial) use of flags as symbols by the two communities? (3) do editors agree or disagree that the change to the the article text that I proposed at the beginning of this section would also provide some clarity? I will reproduce it here:

Today, Northern Ireland comprises a diverse patchwork of communities, whose national loyalties are represented in some areas by flags flown from lamp posts. The Union Flag and Northern Ireland Flag are flown in some loyalist areas, and the Tricolour, adopted by republicans as the flag of Ireland in 1858, is flown in some republican areas. Even kerbstones in some areas are painted red-white-blue or green-white-orange (or gold), depending on whether local people express unionist/loyalist or nationalist/republican sympathies.

As well as describing the flag, this leaves out the redundant "therefore" and changes "appears" (by magic?) to "is flown". Scolaire (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And, by the way, what does "diverse patchwork of communities" mean anyway? Are there Muslim communities flying the Palestinian flag and gay communities flying the Rainbow flag? Scolaire (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your wording above is fine although it would need "former" before "Northern Ireland Flag" to be accurate. For the moment I put Tricolour back in as it was a compromise at the time. --Snowded TALK 09:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, you put Irish Tricolour back in. Why can it not just be Tricolour? Scolaire (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term Northern Ireland Flag as the Northern Ireland Flag is not correct. Northern Ireland dose not have a flag. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland is a red cross with a red hand and a white star with a crown on top. 84.226.148.42 (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are saying the same thing as Snowded i.e. it should say "former Northern Ireland flag", then I think we three are all agreed. Scolaire (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

NI has no flag except the Union Jack the Ulster Banner is NOT the flag of NI and should not be portrayed as such. BigDunc^Talk 13:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Ulster Banner is the Northern Ireland Flag - it's just not used by government.

Thanks, Domer, for correcting the date in my edit. I had a feeling I might have got it wrong. Scolaire (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove the Tricolour from this article

The Tricolour is not a symbol of Northern Ireland, so why is it in this section? It seems that it is here at the behest of a group of organised Irish-nationalist editors who are adept at playing the Wikipedia game, by creating controversy and thus the need for "consensus", which is then achieved by force of numbers. Could we have instead some genuine discussion as to why the flag should be included in a section on symbols of Northern Ireland? Please could other editors take part, otherwise this article - like others - will continue to remain under the control of the Irish-nationalist editors? Mooretwin (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC) It was previously agreed that the flag could stay if its ambiguous and POV "Flag of Ireland" name were changed to "Irish Tricolour", but even this compromise has since been overturned by the nationalist group. Remember: consensus means more than majority rule. Mooretwin (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny how you see it plastered over walls and flown in many areas then. It is the Flag of Ireland by concensus established on that page (although you were unhappy about that). Please tone down the accusations that anyone opposed to your particular perspective on Irish issues is a nationalist playing WIkipedia games. Aside from the fact its not true, it doesn't really encourage participation. --Snowded TALK 10:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin, you talk as though the section were about the "Legal" or "State" symbols of the state of Northern Ireland. It's not. I'm not even sure that there is any legislation constituting anything as an "Official" symbol. The article section - and I know you've read it - is about symbolism as evidenced by the flying of flags etc., and an image of the Irish flag does not purport to give it official status or push any other nationalist POV - it only shows readers what the flag looks like, and what it's called. It belongs because it illustrates the text, purely and simply. Bear in mind that while consensus means more than majority rule, one person acting against consensus doesn't mean consensus doesn't exist. Scolaire (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be about symbolism. It appears to be about flags, with one small paragraph referring to murals. Mooretwin (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I thought Scolaire's point on symbolism was a good one and covers all the images on the page. Increasing and expanding the section to include murals would make a lot of sense however, it would balance out the article more. --Snowded TALK 18:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair point User talk:Snowded, I agree more murals would make a lot of sense. Check out some of the murals on the Troubles Article. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

For good measure I fact tagged the section. Alastairward (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Irish Tricolour should not be included as it is in this article. To imply that it ever had the same amount of official credibility as the Union Flag has or Red hand Flag had by placing it in the same manner is quite preposterous. Even more ridiculous is that the official flag of the Republic of Ireland is simply described as the "Flag of Ireland" on a Northern Ireland article - controversial to say the least and definitely doesn't comply with any sort of NPOV policy here.

My proposal would be to remove the Irish Tricolour as it is now, instead replacing it with 2 images of murals - 1 Loyalist and one Republican. 84.227.57.175 (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, I will re-instate the mural proposal (note, not only my proposal) that Snowded removed and told me to wait. 89.217.188.221 (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I object, and echo Scolaire's comments. O Fenian (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I also object --Snowded (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You have reverted without explaining any of your objections to what what a compromise edit (here). This edit still shows that the Irish Tricolour is used by Irish nationalists (may of whom say they don't even recognise Northern Ireland itself), but the edit also avoids any of the implied PoV that the flag of the Republic of Ireland has the same credibility in Northern Ireland as Official/former official Northern Ireland Flags. Until you have provided some explanation, I will restore the edit so others are given an opportunity to also comment. 89.217.188.221 (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I echoed Scolaire's comments, which is explaining my objections well enough. As you have breached Arbitration Committee sanctions already, I suggest you stop trying to force your preferred version through. O Fenian (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of arguments laid out above, if you want to propose moving all the images to pictures of paintings on walls then at least you would be taking a non POV position. Discuss the matter here, do not revert.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 05:42, 26 March 2009

re "Scolaire's comments", the question is not whether the murals should remain, but whether the flags/arms should remain. Once again, this section is not "Official and semi-official flags and arms of Northern Ireland", but "Symbols", and it discusses who flies, paints or sings what, not what is or was the legal or quasi-legal flag or arms of the state. So keep the murals, drop the others, I say. Scolaire (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

On a point of order, can we not please move this discussion down to the bottom of the page so that editors can join without searching through 344 kb (ten article lengths!) of text to find it? Scolaire (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that suggestion is that someone will put the Government of Northern Ireland flag back into the article somewhere else. It needs to be in the article, despite its offensive sectarian nature, so your suggestion would amount to removal of the Flag of Ireland via the back door. The flag image is more appropriate than a scabby picture of a mural. O Fenian (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As I have always said, the Southern Tricolour should not be displayed on this article, giving the impression that it has some kind of official or semi-official status. It seems to be nationalist POV to include it here. A section entitled "Symbols" in an article about Northern Ireland indicates surely that it is about symbols of Northern Ireland. To claim that it should be about "symbols used in Northern Ireland" is somewhat of a contrivance. Mooretwin (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The people of Northern Ireland are equally capable of deciding what symbols represent their country. O Fenian (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange, apparently random comment. Mooretwin (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see it should stay there. Wikipedia is not censored and something should not be removed because someone doesn't like it. The flag is undeniably one of most important symbols used in Northern Ireland so therefore its use in the section is more than warranted.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Censorship is irrelevant. Just because there is no censorship does not mean that every article should include every possible thing that exists in the world. There has to be a judgement about each article's content - that includes what to include and what to exclude. Exclusing something that is irrelevant or gives a misleading impression is not "censorship". Mooretwin (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

On the substance of the issue at hand, the Southern Tricolour is not a symbol of Northern Ireland. Therefore it should not be displayed in this section. Mooretwin (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It may not be an official symbol in Northern Ireland, but it is a symbol that represents a large number of people here (myself not included), thus it should be in a symbols section of the Northern Ireland article if the section also points towards flags by which this same group of people prefer not to be represented. I understand the idea of the compromise of showing the flag in mural form, but in practice I found it looked messy and to be honest, derogatory to the tricolour itself, which is something that this article should not be pushing -- this is simply a section outlining the main symbols used to represent the people of Northern Ireland.

I added a similar image of a Union flag. If you can find a better "non-derogatory" mural image then please use it instead. The mural solves any PoV issues very succinctly. Does not imply that the Flag of the Republic of Ireland is a flag representing Northern Ireland, but illustrates that some people in NI identify with it. 84.226.148.42 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the inclusion of the tricolour being nationalist POV, I should mention that having points of view represented on a page is not against the code of Wikipedia, but if the page is able to equally show article content to express views represented by both (or more) sides of the community, then it keeps to the idea of WP:POV. Fattonyni (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, but it's inclusion adds the implication that the Flag of the Republic of Ireland is an all-Ireland flag, which it is clearly not, no matter how much some wish it to be. 84.226.148.42 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The mural included this PoV, but did not imply in any way (explicitly or implicitly) that it was ever a symbol of/ ni/

As discussed before, then, if the flag is to remain in the article, its description needs to change. Describing it as the "Flag of Ireland" in an article about Northern Ireland is clearly ambiguous. Also the title of the section needs to change to "Symbols used in Northern Ireland" also to remove ambiguity. Mooretwin (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't remain - put it as a mural 84.226.148.42 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The name of the flag is "Flag of Ireland". You have tried to change this before and people objected, please do not change it again. O Fenian (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The official name may well be "Flag of Ireland", but that is an ambiguous name, and - given the context of its use here (i.e. an article relating to that part of Ireland which the flag does not represent), then it is sensible to use a clearer description. Why run the risk of confusing the reader? I do not believe the flag should be displayed here at all but - if it is - then we should make sure that readers will clearly understand that it is neither a symbol of Northern Ireland, nor the flag of the entire island of Ireland. What is your objection to that? Mooretwin (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise, I've accepted that the "official name" remains, but have further clarified its status by saying that it is the official flag of the Republic, with no official status in NI. I've also changed "Symbols used in NI" to "Symbols seen in NI" as I think this better reflects that the coverage of the section includes unofficial usage: "Use" may imply official usage. Mooretwin (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"that part of Ireland which the flag does not represent" except we are using to to describe the flag that does represent that part of Ireland, according to the people who are using it. "no official status in Northern Ireland" is quite clear, without making up a name for the flag. O Fenian (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Some people in NI may consider that the flag represents them, or represents the whole island, but the reality is that its official status (and you appear particularly concerned about keeping things official) relates only to the 26 counties. I don't think people in NI who use the Tricolour believe that it represents NI, but rather all of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

⬅Please propose and gain acceptance to any change here before you edit the article. The name of the flag has been debated many times as you know only too well. --Snowded (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that I restored the name of the flag, so your comment above is irrelevant. I also have explained my other edits above - I see you have reverted without offering any reason why. Could you explain why you disagree with the most recent edit (which retains the "official" name of the flag? Mooretwin (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The renaming of the Tricolour from "Flag of the Republic of Ireland" to "Flag of Ireland" on Wikipedia was a very recent phenomenon pushed through by the highly vocal "Irish Nationalist Wikipedia editing squad" who seem to have got their way in distorting quite a few articles in recent times. In no way should it be described as the "Flag of Ireland" in this article. It was controversial to rename it to "Flag of Ireland" on the flag of Republic of Ireland page itself. 84.226.148.42 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin, just try on controversial of debated issues to propose changes on the talk page and see how people react. The name of the flag is clear, the pipelink takes it to the right place and its stated its not official. Your desire to stamp "ROI" on anything which moves is becoming tedious, or possibly tenacious.

Are you seriously suggesting that you can't see the potential ambiguity in referring to "Flag of Ireland" in an article about Northern Ireland? The desire of nationalist editors to remove "ROI" from anything that moves is becoming tedious, or possibly tenacious. Mooretwin (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I notice that the vocal "Irish Nationalist Wikipedia Editing Force" have also recently removed the Northern Ireland flag from the Ireland article 84.226.148.42 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Can I add the Coat of arms of Ireland to the infobox? --Cameron * 13:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No. That is the coat of arms of the Republic of Ireland. It has nothing to do with Northern Ireland.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, it did used to be the coat of arms for what is now NI, but still, it is no longer and has never been anything to do with Northern Ireland as it presently exists.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Ireland used it. It is still on the coat of arms of the United Kingdom. Surely NI is the successor to the Kingdom of Ireland? --217.227.71.204 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not on its own. The United Kingdom is the successor to the Kingdom of Ireland, so on those terms the UK page is where it would sit.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't agree. It is the "de facto" flag of much of NI and represents over a third of the population. Sarah777 (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is the de facto flag? I thought they couldn't agree on one? Hence our article Northern Ireland flags issue. I personally like St Patricks because it fits in nicely with the Union Flag, like three pieces of a puzzle. --Cameron * 19:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we use Coat of arms of Northern Ireland then? --Cameron * 19:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's more like it! --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Flags and arms have been an extremely contentious issue for this article, and their inclusion has been debated extensively and repeatedly. The current situation is a compromise that took a long time to thrash out. Please familiarise yourself with the archives (eg here) before resurrecting this albatross. --Kwekubo (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider the removal of the flag of Northern Ireland from the infobox on the Northern Ireland article a "compromise". I consider it a cop-out to avoid offending certain vocal editors. --Setanta747 (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What flag of Northern Ireland????? BigDunc^Talk 08:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The flag of Northern Ireland!!!!! --Setanta747 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Union Jack? BigDunc^Talk 19:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the flag of the United Kingdom. --Setanta747 (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Flag of Northern Ireland"? What's that? Sounds as real a flag of the island of Ireland. Let's no make things up just because we like the sound of them. --78.152.206.159 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the flag of Northern Ireland is specified as a protected emblem in the Trade Mark Act 1994[11] (part 1 4(b)). 87.114.38.187 (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting ... but you'll agree, surely, that what makes it interesting is because it is so so rare a reference. --89.19.72.235 (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Entitlement to British and Irish cizenship

Of the two forms of wording suggested, "People from Northern Ireland are entitled to both British and Irish citizenship" is a straight fact, whereas "In addition to British citizenship, people from Northern Ireland are also entitled to Irish citizenship" suggests that British citizenship is a primary entitlement, and Irish citizenship an extra privilege—which may well be how some people see it but is not how it is phrased in either the GFA or the Irish constitution—and is therefore a more POV wording. Scolaire (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The latter wording is accurate. The fact that NI is part of the UK means that people from NI are UK citizens at birth (with minor exceptions). ROI citizenship is not necessarily automatic. See long discussion above. The former wording would be ludicrous - UK citizenship is not an "entitlement": it is automatic at birth. You wouldn't say that French people were "entitled" to French citizenship, would you? Mooretwin (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But you'd say Irish people are "entitled" to Irish citizenship? Derry Boi (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Only insofar as it applies to Northern Irish people. Remember that when you say "Irish citizenship" you really refer only to citizenship of the Republic of Ireland: there is no all-Ireland citizenship. Mooretwin (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

American citizens, if I remember correctly, are not entitled to dual citizenship, French, Irish and British citizens are. Therefore citizenship is an entitlement. Furthermore, Irish citizenship is automatic at birth, according to both the GFA and the Constitution. So the first wording is not ludicrous but it is NPOV. The second is POV - the POV that you expressed above (note: POV only means 'point of view' and says nothing about the validity or reasonableness of the point of view). Scolaire (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dual citizenship is an entitlement, but UK citizenship is not an "entitlement" - you have it at birth. My edit reflects this (in addition to UK citizenship, NI people are entitled to Irish (ie ROI) citizenship). Regarding ROI citizenship, see the long discussion above, after which consensus was reached for the longer sub-article. The reference in the intro should reflect the longer sub-article. (For info - NI people can be regarded as being ROI citizens from birth, but not necessarily if they don't want to be.) Mooretwin (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My knowledge is that according to the Good Friday Agreement, that Irish and British citizenship in Northern Ireland is completely equal, neither is more automatic than the other.213.202.189.10 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the previous discussions. The GFA does not have any legal effect on citizenship and, even if it did, it does not even say what you claim. You need to consult the relevant law of the ROI, which is quoted for you above.Mooretwin (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Your further edit, when you changed "may be regarded as" goes against the consensus reached above and is inaccurate. Please revert. The text you changed was arrived at after a long, painstaking discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Even by the standards of NI Wikipedia, this is a fairly silly debate. Everyone agrees that people born in NI are entitled to UK and Irish citizenship. You all use the word 'entitled'. The only debate is whether it should be 'entitled to UK and Irish' or 'entitled to UK and also Irish'. Either way, is it really worth that much energy, which could be used productively elsewhere? --Helenalex (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

UK citizenship is not an "entitlement" (which implies choice) - it is simply a fact of being born in the UK. Mooretwin (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scolaire the first edit is NPOV and that should be the edit thats shown.ThatsGrand (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the "first edit" to which you refer? It is factually incorrect and misleading to describe British citizenship as an "entitlement". Mooretwin (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"People from Northern Ireland are entitled to both British and Irish citizenship" is the edit I'm referring to. It is not factually incorrect. There are many people in NI who are not British citizens but only Irish ones. It was the terms of the GFA that it is up to the choice of the individual. You could also add that people in NI will are intitled to British cizitenship regardless of its future sovereignty. NI is a special case in the world in regards citizenship and therefore we have to remain neutral.ThatsGrand (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It can't be right to say people from Northern Ireland are entitled to British citizenship" as it implies that it is not automatic at birth. Also, it's not the case that there are many people in NI who are not British citizens but only Irish ones. The terms of the GFA did not turn UK citizenship into "the choice of the individual". You'd do well to read the previous discussion, or even to read the text of the GFA.Mooretwin (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, born in the UK you are a British Citizen. Born in NI you are entitled to take up Irish citizenship as well at choice, but you're born British. Even the Irish citizenship sites acknowledged this as referenced in the previous discussions. British citizenship is conferred as birth. It can be renounced, but you are still British until you do so even if you don't take up a passport or acknowledge it personally. Irish is through choice (or birth if your parents are of Irish citizenship as well). It isn't entirely through choice otherwise a child would have no citizenship at birth, and Ireland cannot under any international laws, impose citizenship on people born in another country without parental carry down. Canterbury Tail talk 14:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)The Belfast Agreement, Article 1, states that the two governements recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

In light of the official text, I propose "People from Northern Ireland have a right to hold both British and Irish citizenship" --HighKing (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is the text of the GFA, but it still does not trump the UK and internationally recognised citizenship laws that state that you're British if born in the UK. The GFA is not a full document of law. Canterbury Tail talk 16:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not about UK law, it's about NI law, so I suppose that yes, this does "trump" UK law (no such thing as internationally recognised citizenship laws I'm afraid). But the idea is to find an agreeable sentence which is what my proposal is attempting to do. --HighKing (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is the GFA isn't a law, it isn't automatically enshrined into the legal system of the UK, or NI in that way. The individual bits would need to be put into the laws of the individual countries which it hasn't been entirely. Anyway NI doesn't and can't make citizenship laws, only the UK can. I'm not saying the GFA isn't accurate, but it's still a case of born in NI, British citizen, even the government of Ireland has recognised that as referenced in the previous discussions on this topic. Yes you can choose not to have the UK citizenship once you're of the age to legally make that decision, but your still British whether you acknowledge it or not until such a time. It makes very little difference to anyone's life, but legally that's the case. Canterbury Tail talk 18:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No Irish citizenship is "automatic at birth" - all Irish people are "entitled" to Irish citizenship, whether they were born north or south of the border. It is cynical and disenginious to exploit the differences in the wording of nationality law from two different jurisdictions. UK nationality law phrases it one way, Irish nationality law phrases it another, the end result is the same thing: a person born in Northern Ireland (practical exceptions aside) is a British citizen on the same terms as anybody else in the UK and an Irish citizen on the same terms as anyone else on the island of Ireland.

A phrasings such as "People from Northern Ireland have a right to both British and Irish citizenship" is completely accurate (I would remove "to hold" as entitlements to dual citizenship are not unique - you could equally say that people from the US have a right to hold both US and Irish citizenship). Playing off the wording of one set of nationality law or another to arrive as phrasings that imply one citizenship is an "optional extra" is disingenuous. --78.152.249.77 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force

An Ireland disambiguation task force (WP:IDTF) has been created. It will: free up various Talk pages for their respective articles, avoid inner and cross article repetition, avoid debate-postponing moratoriums from needing to be placed, and can accommodate all aspects of the issue of disambiguating the word "Ireland". --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

UKCOUNTRYREFS - the shortcut of choice for those who accept UK countries

These Reliable Sources tables (and the Countries of the United Kingdom article they are home to) were designed to save valuable time repeating the facts within them, to those who raise again the question of whether the UK's constituent countries can in fact be called 'countries'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Juse because something calls itself a country, or is called a country by others, doesn't actually make it a country if it does not fill the definiton of being a country. Any more than a regime becomes "democratic" just by saying it is and getting its allies to say it is. Meowy 00:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Entirely agree with Meowy, "constituent country" was the agreed postition as I understood it. Redking7 (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Meowy and RedKing7 both check out the OED definition of "country" and the table Matt referenced. --Snowded TALK 04:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Map (2)

Just tentatively testing the water here (I know people feel very strongly about these things on this article), but I wondered how we felt about swapping the infobox map from the current version to Image:Europe location N-IRL2.png. Rational being that it has a more global context, and is of a slight higher (carto-)graphical quality. --Jza84 | Talk 11:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks great. I would have no issue here. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the EU maps give a great context to all European countries. However I'm worried that NI on that map would look too small to make out easily from the normal thumbnail in the infobox. Canterbury Tail talk 11:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine, but I notice that the various regions/countries of Europe have now diverged again in their map style: e.g. Netherlands, Luxemburg, Scotland, United Kingdom, Great Britain ... None of these have stand really head and shoulders above any other, but it would preferable surely to have a standard map style. --78.152.206.159 (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Demonyns of Northern Ireland

Resolved

The Demonyn of Northern Ireland should include ‘Irish’ as well as ‘Northern Irish’. Many people in Northern Ireland do not use the term ‘Northern Irish’. There are similar cases throughout Wikipedia, with many states having two demonyns, such as North Korea (North Korean, Korean) and The Republic of China (Chinese, Taiwanese). Many organisations in Northern Ireland (The Irish Football Association) use this, exclusively for Northern Ireland and not just Ireland as a whole. Northern Ireland is moving forward; this backward thinking mentality that one should not respect the rights and views of others is what caused our Troubles.

This should obviously be reflected in an unbiased encyclopaedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.61.70 (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC) That's a rather harsh tone to use, unless someone has been deliberately wiping Irish out of the infobox. As ever, why not be bold and do it yourself? Alastairward (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My view is Northern Irish should be listed first, and Irish also listed. Mooretwin (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It should not be there at all, being labelled Irish is also offensive to many people in Northern Ireland who do not consider themselves Irish. The demonym parameter should refelect official terms only, and not pander to sensibilities. You don't get Kurdish in Turkey, or Kosovan in Serbia. MickMacNee (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC). Or to put it another way, if you add Irish on the above reasoning, you need to add British as well. MickMacNee (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact is that neither Irish nor British is not a denonym of Northern Ireland.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't find it offensive, and think that those who do are rather foolish, but I accept that my personal feelings are quite irrelevant, and perhaps my contribution above, therefore, should be ignored. Mooretwin (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't find what offensive? Irish or British? Or both? MickMacNee (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

does it matter?Traditional unionist (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I find neither offensive, but TU is right: it doesn't matter.Mooretwin (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

So, are we removing Irish then? MickMacNee (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know about removing it. NI is every bit as Irish as ROI. If ROI can have "Irish" as a demonym, why shouldn't NI? Mooretwin (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The why shouldn't question is answered above. So, if you want Irish in, what is your position on having British in also? British has the same merit to be there given all the arguments for including Irish so far that I can see. MickMacNee (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for consistency with Scotland, Wales and England. Do they say "Scottish, British", "Welsh, British", and "English, British"? If so, then NI should say "Northern Irish, Irish, British". If they don't include British, then just "Northern Irish, Irish". In my view. Mooretwin (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(indent) They have English, Welsh and Scottish only. This is all speculation, but I would imagine you would never get British applied as a demonym of Scotland, because it is a) techically wrong because Britain <> Scotland, b) potentially offensive. That is not to say that many people in Scotland have no problem with being called British. On this basis, Irish for NI is also a) techically wrong as Ireland <> Northern Ireland, and b) potentially offensive, but is also possibly justified because many people in NI have no problem identifying as Irish. So, I agree that consistency is desirable and would then support Irish/British here, but whatever argument you apply to adding British to E/S/W to achieve this looks to be the same as having Irish on NI. So, as British currently isn't on E/S/W, Irish should not be on NI. MickMacNee (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how "Irish" for NI is technically wrong, unless it is also technically wrong for ROI. I don't follow the logic in your last sentence. Mooretwin (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying someone from Nothern Ireland is Irish isn't necessarily wrong, but I think the demonym should just be related to the specific article that it's in, and it shouldn't have anything to do with if something is offensive or not. This particular article deals with just Northern Ireland and not the Republic of Ireland and not the island of Ireland, so it should just be Northern Irish without adding a string of others. It's true that people from Northern Ireland maybe both British or Irish, but the article has a specific scope. Just to give a couple of similar (maybe not exactly the same) examples: people from Catalonia, Spain are both Catalonian and Spanish, but the Catalonia article deals with a specific part of Spain, so it does not list Spanish as a demonym. People from New York, United States are both New Yorkers and Americans, but that particular article is about New York, so the demonym states New Yorker. Kman543210 (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand the logic, but by the same logic, "Irish" should not be included for ROI, as ROI deals only with a specific part of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably because there's no such country called ROI. Internationally it's called Ireland. The anomoly is that the UK calls it ROI. Therefore Irish is appropriate. But funny enough, using different logic to get to the same conclusion, I also believe that since many people in N.I. identify with Irish/British, then I would say that it makes sense for Irish/British to also be added. --HighKing (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For those people who live their lives bound by the narrow legal strictures of the language of the 1937 constitution, while also managing to deny the existence of the Republic of Ireland Act and fifty years of usage of the term, there is no country called ROI. But for the majority of people, there is. Mooretwin (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I find no sources to support the term Northern Irish. On a side note... I have never met anyone form Norther Ireland that called themselves anything but Irish. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your failure to meet such people is irrelevant. Mooretwin (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is why it was a side note. Anyone find any sources to support Northern Irish? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but describing yourself as "Northern Irish" holds no legal weight. You can declare yourself an Irish or British citizen, there's no such thing (legally) as a Northern Irish citizen. You can be a resident of the place certainly, but you're either British or Irish, so perhaps Northern Irish might appear at the bottom of that list of demonyns? Alastairward (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that the law is relevant in this particular context. Mooretwin (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

'Scottish' has no legal weight in that sense either. MickMacNee (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think listing Northern Irish, Irish and British is appropriate. If you look at the England article they have said English has de facto usage, although for example Cornish exists. Here we have the same situation more or less. Depending on your politics people will label Northern Ireland Inhabitants as Northern Irish, Irish or British. There is no way to show which is de facto, and certainly no way to show which is de facto that will satisfy everyone. Therefore I think this is the best way forward. I would also be happy with Deleting the Denonym box as it doesn't add much to the article. May I direct readers of this section to the section below.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who put all 3 in (as only having 1 or 2 demonyms will stir up even more trouble unrelated to editing an encyclopedia.) But if it is still going to attract the chattering classes, then I would prefer we don't have it in the infobox at all. It is already covered at Northern_Ireland#Citizenship_and_identity. Actually, I will hyperlink it to there, and see if it helps. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

‘British’ is a Demonyn of the United Kingdom; not Northern Ireland. As such England, Scotland and Wales do not have ‘British’ as a Demonyn. New York does not have “American” listed. Maybe 'Ulster' could be listed? But 'Northern Irish' and 'Irish' seem to cover the spectrum of Northern Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.225.39 (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Korean" is a demonym for South Korea, as British is a demonym for Scotland. Northern Irish is a pretty informal term, and if we include Irish, we must mention those who regard their identity as British. But like I said earlier, if you don't get it, let's forget it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

'South Korean, Korean' is listed. 'British' is a demonym of the United Kingdom; as I mentioned, England does not have 'British' and New York does not have 'American'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.45.222.60 (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just mentioning Northern Irish people would be the simplest solution. But if "Irish" is included aswell, then British clearly must remain there. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We should just include all three rather than being immature and political about it. After all, we do have dual nationality, therefore, all three should be included =)

--Theosony (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actual Wikipedia Work

Rather than wasting time discussing the usual pseudo political whabouttery drivel on this here page, is anyone interested in obtaining GA status for this article? If so please sign your name below. Cheers, --ZincBelief (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not be bold and do it yourself since us other users are such wastrels? ;) Alastairward (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Teamwork is better.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to the Northern Ireland Executive! Roadnote ♫ 16:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine I won't bother then.--ZincBelief (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

New Ireland project

Hi all,
I've started a new Ireland related project which I hope will bridge a gap I feel exists between the two Wiki community's with an interest in Ireland related matters. The project has just started but I hope it will allow us to work together at first on uncontroversial articles such as Sports in Ireland and if successful I hope will allow for a more constructive and friendly approach to the controversial issues Gnevin (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is UK a Country or is NI a Country?

The opening sentence has read up to now: ''Northern Ireland' (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is a constituent country of the United Kingdom,lying in the northeast of Ireland, covering 5,459 square miles (14,139 km²), about a sixth of the island's total area' It is proposed that it should read: Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is a country within the United Kingdom,^[1] lying in the northeast of Ireland, covering 5,459 square miles (14,139 km²), about a sixth of the island's total area. I prefer constituent country to country. I think constituent country terminology is better than "country of" or "country in" etc. E, S, W, and NI are not "countries" - where would that leave the UK, would it not be a country? - they are constituent countries, a term that was agreed on after much discussion. There is no law defining them as "countries" whereas the UK is a country. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly get your facts right. NI was described as a country until you changed it to constituent country late last night. You are therefore proposing a change. The question was extensively debated sometime ago and the various authorities summarised in Countries of the United Kingdom. That position was achieved after much discussion and a focus on citations. I suggest you read that material and either accept the position or come back with citable evidence, not your opinions. --Snowded TALK 11:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a country and is the Sovereign State. However the term "country" is used alot by many different reliable sources to describe the different parts of the United Kingdom. Even when it read "Constituent country" its still calling parts of the UK a country, as the opening to that page is "A constituent country is a country that is part of a larger entity". I understand completly how you feel as i felt the same way less than a week ago, and i was very concerned "Constituent Country" had turned into "Country" but there is alot of reasonable evidence for this term.

The best solution in my opinion would be for the pages about each part of the UK to open with... "Northern Ireland is a country of the United Kingdom . If it was worded this way then they are still called countries, but their relationship to the UK is not confused and more detail can easily be found by clicking on it. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There might (for the moment I reserve my position on this) be a case of changing the pipe link to read country. However on this and Wales/Scotland/Ireland the ledge in each case makes it very clear that the country in question is a part of the United Kingdom so I doubt anyone is being misled. --Snowded TALK 11:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I accept the NI/W/E page clearly say its part of the UK, i just feel it would be more easier for people if it was worded like the above and linking direct to the Country of the UK page, and it would also prevent some people getting worked up or into the debate on what makes a "country" . Scotland is the page that really concerns me, Unlike Wales there is a lot of information on Scotlands location before mentioning its part of the UK. The further away UK is from the word "country" the more problematic it becomes, but thats a debate for the Scotland page. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Re. "Firstly get your facts right. NI was described as a country until you changed it to constituent country late last night. You are therefore proposing a change." - That is not true. The article has long used the words "constituent country" - Simply "country" is a very recent edit which I do not believe has been discussed here. You need to discuss it here and then get a consensus for the change. My views are as per I have set out above. "constituent country" should stay. Please do not revert until you get a consensus for your change. Other Editors may have views they wish to express. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the recent Edits, it looks like this change was sneaked in without discussion a few weeks ago. Standards on this NI article are falling. Accuracy is being left to one side. It's a pity. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked back over the history for the best part of a month before I made that comment Redking7. I am not proposing a change from constituent country, I was just protecting the current position from a controversial edit. Just for the record I was not involved in any prior change, but it may have been to conform with usage on Wales/Scotland/England who moved away from constituent country some time ago. Nothing to stop you re=opening the debate of course. --Snowded TALK 05:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference and to save me time :), could u give me the date of the change so i can take a look also pls?BritishWatcher (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Look. NI clearly isn't a country - it is part of a country, whether that "country" is Ireland or Britain is disputed; but the notion it is a "country" is pure Wiki fiction. A bit like FIFA maintaining that it merits a soccer team while places like Kurdistan (pop 25 million) and Catalonia and Tibet don't! But WP:NPOV doesn't apply to the mainstream view of things in Britain and America. If folk want a "country" they should have the courage to become soverign. I'd apply this to Scotland and Wales and England equally. Note that Tibet and Catelonia get called "regions" (despite their size, own language and culture) but NI is called a "country"! Sarah777 (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea that countries have to be sovereign to be defined as such is a classic POV. NOWHERE DICTATES THIS. It pure nationalistic bullying, and should come under the arbcom ruling. Comments like "If folk want a "country" they should have the courage to become sovereign" is provocative nationalism that has no place on Wikipedia. I'm drawing attention to it now, and reporting it tomorrow. This arbcom ruling has got to stand for something, and I'm not prepared to let it pass it any more. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FORUM FOR NATIONALISM. As much as anything, this kind of hyper-nationalism is hugely right-wing, however some so tragically see it as heroism. It is totally unwanted, completely radicalised - it doesn't reflect the youth of today at all, I'm totally fed up of having to let it pass from the same culprits, as if it is part of the Wikipedia furniture.

Regarding Northern Ireland, Ireland became two countries - they are both valid. It was the deal whereby part of the then-British Ireland become a republic. One is sovereign, the other is constituent. We don't have to say "sovereign country" and we don't have to say "constituent country" - we only need to say "country", and explain any other detail the might souround this (such as being of - or part of - the UK). That is the reality, with countless refs to back it up. The simply reality of a "British" identity (too often called "POV") is not an 'equal' foil to any form of nationalistic fervour: The 'accusation' of "British nationalism" is not a valid and justifying retort to anything. Britain simply exists. An all-island Ireland, independent Scotland etc DO NOT. If arbcom does not take this seriously, I would be entitled to report this website as a racist (or xenophobic to the pedantic) abuse forum. People don't seem to realise what this kind of hate-centred 'them and us' nationalism can breed when simply allowed to pass unchecked.

Regarding Tibet, China strongly objects to defining it as a country, unlike the UK, which happily calls NI et al "countries". We only have to go by what the governing sovereign states say, and detail everything else within content. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Read what you've just written Matt. Such a splurge of 24 carat POV as we've seen here! Shouting and all.

The idea that countries have to be sovereign to be defined as such is a classic POV. It is a point of view, my point of view and one shared by many (read the debates) and supported by common usage.
It pure nationalistic bullying, and should come under the arbcom ruling. Expressing a point of view that you don't agree with is "bullying" is it? But threatening someone with "Arbcom" isn't?!!
This arbcom ruling has got to stand for something - yeah. But hardly for the hysterical OTT political ranting you've written above, one would hope.
As much as anything, this kind of hyper-nationalism is hugely right-wing - bull, but even it is was true are you saying only what you imagine is "left-wing" is allowed enter the debate on Wiki?
it doesn't reflect the youth of today at all - can you support that statement with anything better than your own wishful thinking? And if you could what relevance has it got to anything?!
Regarding Northern Ireland, Ireland became two countries - they are both valid. No, I totally disagree; NI does NOT meet the commonly used meaning of a "country". Simple fact. You may wish it did. But it doesn't.
- That's what arbom is going to have to deal with. It is an undisguised political attack on the authenticity of a British culture and a British country. It is not 'borrowed' from Ireland - it is a clearly-defined country in the "commonly meant" sense (ie like Wales, France etc). To be Northern Irish and see all this political abuse? It's got to stop - Wikipedia is NOT the place for, regardless of right or wrong (and I happen to think you are VERY wrong to do this - and I'm tired of that being called "British POV". No more.). --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The 'accusation' of "British nationalism" is not a valid and justifying retort to anything. Actually Matt is is a clinically good description of your sentiments above. In fact you are so imbued with your pov that you see anything you disagree with as "nationalist", "right-wing", "provocative", "radical" "racist" "xenophobic" "hate-centered" - so much so that you'd sweep the talkpages clear of it and leave them entirely to those who share your narrow world-view.

Now I'm sorry Matt, but I don't find it acceptable to be called "right-wing", "provocative", "racist", "xenophobic" and "hate-centred" (none of which are accurate) because I believe, and continue to believe, that in no way does NI meet the normal common usage meaning of the word "country". It simply doesn't. It is more usually and more accurately called a "province" or sometimes, less often, a state. If you cannot cope with this reality Matt I strongly advise that for the god of the project you remove yourself from articles and discussions where the facts upset you. Sarah777 (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

- And leave you to carry on what you have been doing for years now? I'm taking it to arbcom tomorrow at the latest (unfortunately I have promised someone a graphic, which is now more urgent). I see that with Rockpocket you have tried to get me into trouble for taking you to task on this matter (as have previously tried to do with Alison) - if anyone wants to take this forward before I do, I will be happy with that. You are not some kind of 'golden child', and I am 100% at my limit with the provocative and completely unhidden political comments like you made above. I would support an effective cultural minority like Northern Ireland ten times out of ten over a cultural bully like you. They are human beings - can't you see that? It is totally unacceptable, will easily come under 'the troubles' ruling (which needs to be sprung from into a UK countries ruling). The current anarchic situation has to stop now.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

⬅ Its interesting that we have two POV attacks on the question of country. One is from avowed Unionists both in Britain and Ireland who seem to feel that the UK is the only valid country and in some cases want Ireland reunited under the Queen. The other is from a republican POV which is against Northern Ireland being called a country and therefore denigrates that status for Wales, Scotland and Ireland to support said position. This then spills over into debates on names with another group of editors who seem to have an obsession with the imposition of the term Republic of Ireland. The amount to time and energy which goes into this is out of all proportion and the number of editors involved very small and I am increasingly of the opinion that it will need some form of ArbCom intervention at some stage, if we could get the issues tied down. --Snowded TALK 05:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RedKing and Sarah i know how you feel, my original view of the term country was it should only be used to describe a Sovereign State but there is not full agreement on such a requirment (not on wiki and not in the real world either.) The situtation with the UK is probably fairly unique in the world where despite being a single Sovereign State (Which IS a country) for 300 (or 200) years we have protected our previous identities of "English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish". Most unionists are not just proud to be British but also their other national identity which makes them British. Now in places like America and Germany they may be proud of their states, but they dont consider their state their nationality.

So as the United Kingdom is a special case, we shouldnt confuse people by having the separate word "country" in the opening paragraphs to describe these parts of the UK. A reasonable and good solution to this would be to open with the statement "Northern Ireland is a country of the United Kingdom. This should keep reasonable people on both sides of the debate happy. It is still describing the place as a country, which people seem to desperatly want for other parts of the UK especially, whilst leaving NO doubt in anyones mind that it is part of the country / Sovereign State called the United Kingdom. And they can click the link to go to that page where theres more details on the UK setup. I cant see a better compromise BritishWatcher (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, how would you feel about "Northern Ireland is a country of the United Kingdom" ? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(I indented your comment for you) . None of the current ledes could leave anyone in any doubt that the said countries are a part of the UK , we made sure of that when we went through the tortuous process of assembling evidence and dealing with sock puppets and trolls months back now. The current situation was achieved by multiple consensus based decisions and if you can't come up with something new (and so far you haven't) then I for one see no reasonable to disturb the situation. --Snowded TALK 09:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There is still clear doubt by people on the use of the term and confusion. Because you get different people asking on the different pages of each part of the UK if they are countries or not. The fact you say this might have to go to arb, shows there is no true consensus on the use of the term. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You have ZERO evidence to support that assertion. There are some editors who support "constituent country" (had limited citations) and also the various POV positions as per my note above. If you look through the comments on each page (and I have watched them all for well over a year) the only questions come from people wanting to remove country altogether, reopen a debate over exact wording or assert a POV. I have seen no comments from anyone that establish that any reader has in any way been confused. My statement that this and related issues may need to go to arbcom is because of the constant deluge of POV pushers, trolls, sock puppets etc who infest these pages. It seems like every month or so a brand new editor emerges opens this sort of issue and wastes a lot of time when we could do with improving the articles themselves. --Snowded TALK 10:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Editors support using different terms, some may want country removed all together, some may want Constituent country, what ever they want it goes to show there is not consensus. A compromise that many of those people who come on asking such questions would be able to live with is the "Northern Ireland is a country of the United Kingdom" It would atleast then lead to most of the future debate on the issue taking place on the countries page rather than the E/W/S/NI pages as people can disagree with the term there. When ever there is a comment asking is something a country, it shows there is confusion. The article is important, but the opening line should be as accurate as possible. I accept (E/W/NI) say its part of the United Kingdom, but it still calls it a Country linking to the country page where its not defined. The Scotland pages is simply misleading. It does not just seem to be brand new editors that have a problem with this. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Show some evidence that anyone is confused, other than someone attempting to change the words (like you). The Country article says up front that not all countries are sovereign states, so you didn't even bother to check that. Consensus has been achieved on the basis of evidence carefully collected on Countries of the United Kingdom. Not everyone agreed with that (you might like to look up the definition of consensus, and you will find it does not mean unanimity). You might get further with your attempt to suggest that the British National Party is not fascist. Look, let me try to help you. You are presenting no evidence, just your own opinion. Try for evidence it helps. --Snowded TALK 10:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact people (not just myself) have posted questions on all of the pages still asking if such things are a country or not seems like some evidence to me that there is confusion or concern by some people. I was simply suggesting a compromise which would of been a full link to the page you strongly supported and which keeps the term country. The country page may have an explanation of what country is, but its not specific and in detail on the UK. I am not formally asking or proposing a change, just stating my opinion which i think would reduce some of the concerns people like Sarah and Red have. On the BNP i am not suggesting or attempting to have the term fascist removed, i simply replied on the issue of the NSP which was the term for the nazis and the fact the BNP really dont meet the description described on the wiki fascism page as disgusting as their policies are. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

⬅ OK you have evidence of concern (whatever the motivations) but you have zero evidence of confusion which was your original claim. Also wandering around pages giving people the benefit of your opinions may provide you with satisfaction but has little utility. I've done my best to point you towards the need to provide evidence, I'll leave it there. --Snowded TALK 11:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Snowded; it is perfectly reasonable to accept that Scotland is a "country" and reject that claim in relation to NI, which at best is but part of a country, as I stated before Matt lost his marbles. Seriously, what are you proposing here? - that a widely shared view on the issue of this discussion is to be outlawed. As one who was involved in the earlier debate on this I seem to recall that the weight of sources calling NI a provence far exceeded those calling it a "country"; much of the 'evidence' for the "country" notion ws based on a dodgey extract from a Downing St website?!! Sarah777 (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that when you strip out the threats, hysterics and name-calling Matt seems to be saying that WP:NPOV should be discarded in favour of some political message he'd like to deliver to "young people today". And they let him loose with Admin powers!! Sarah777 (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out here, for the record, User:Matt Lewis is not an admin. I don't know where that has come from. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarah I am happy to accept that NI is a different case and that the citation weight could change from the present (see the table at Countries of the United Kingdom - in which case a change might be considered. Personally I have always supported a United Ireland as I support Welsh Independence, but the Wikipedia needs to work from citations whatever our particular opinions about what should be. In that context the UK Government web site is an authoritative source. In any event this particular edit has ambitions for all the country pages, NI is just one on which the conversation is taking place. As to Matt, he is a force of nature and I've had my own run ins with him. But he is not an admin and he also puts in hard work, he's not a newby editor who has lost his/her memory of previous roles scattering opinions on contentious pages --Snowded TALK 13:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't start the debate and all I was doing was adding weight to the argument that the bald use of "country" (last time I was here constituent was part of the compromise) was not valid. I certainly didn't threaten or abuse anyone and didn't expect to be. If Wiki was run as I'd prefer it, the likes of Matt I could more that deal with off my own bat; but I have both hands tied by the authorities so I must react to such venom with protest to said authorities. Sarah777 (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

On the country issue I have a similar memory to you but it has been there as country for over a month (which is far as I checked back). Personally I don't really see constituent country as a compromise, just a clumsy form of wording. If you have the citation evidence for province (ie weight) then there would be a case for change. Matt is a separate issue. He has strong views and is pretty passionate about being British and cries down damnation on all nationalism (I know as the thunderbolts have been thrown at me) but his heart is in the right place. I find being very very polite to him is the most effective response along with being ever so reasonable, he likes it if you fight back in kind --Snowded TALK 14:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Off Wikipedia I fully respect all nationalist views. Every case is different (with a unique opinion from me), and I have been into politics all my life. I also defend minorities from cultural attacks, and the British in Northern Ireland have too long been culturally abused (whatever the feelings are surrounding troubles). I'm not going to allow it to happen so openly on Wikipedia any more (which is supposed to have rules on this) - let alone abuse to the British in general! WIkipedia is simply no place for the promotion of nationalist views. When it is hidden in edits it is perhaps a fact of life - but Sarah thinks she can just openly express political views she knows full well that many find offensive, whenever she sees fit (and she then runs to an admin, and pretends her hands are tied!!). She is simply in denial about the offense she openly causes. She clearly isn't going to stop on her own accord, and if someone doesn't address it from the top I want to know why, and I'll keep asking questions now till I get it addressed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Now Matt, regarding your waffle above, I suggest you read what I've written. Listen more, rant and push your naked British Nationalism less. This is an encyclopedia, not Hyde Park Corner. Snowded, to say that Matt is pretty passionate about being British and cries down damnation on all nationalism is surely oxymoronic? That's like saying I am pretty passionate about being Irish and cry down damnation on all nationalism Sarah777 (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess self-awareness is a problem I have that Matt isn't cursed with. Sarah777 (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been busy but don't push it. You can't be nationalistic (in the sense we are clearly meaning - ie Snowded is a Welsh nationalist) about something that simply exists. Britain exists - a single-state island of Ireland does not exist. Hence you are a nationalist, and I am merely a British person who refuses to see his country insulted on Wikipedia. I'm not having you fudge things like this - delete this if you want, just give it a rest. Ignore Snowded's silly comment of me "liking it if you fight back in kind" - he has no evidence for that, and has rarely passed an opportunity to get in a dig like that either - he has never been polite to me in an actual argument (Snowded, you naughty boy - I have a diffle bag load of your digs and OTT's! Why score off something like this?). --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see Matt I was defending you, other than possibly the comment about "fighting back in kind" but then you do like a scrap you know and it might be better to acknowledge it to avoid Sarah's self-awareness point. As it is we all have political opinions. You don't agree with a nationalist position as you have made very clear in very many edits. That is a political position. What matters is that we stay neutral here, working with citations etc. --Snowded TALK 08:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like conflict at all! My position on UK nationalism is clear in my comments - but never in my edits - which are always neutral. Sometimes (alas) if you don't draw-up and fight on Wikpedia, just a couple people can very easily get their way. I'm too often taking the rap for a two-way conversation (or even when I stand up to a gang), but I never myself attack people for their propensity to stand forward and fight an issue - only ever on the style of arguing, and the issue itself. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom government rules Northern Ireland and it along with other sources have described Northern Ireland and the other parts of the UK as "countries". Adding Constitutent country makes no difference because the definition on that page starts out saying "is a country". Use of the term country for Northern Ireland is the most debatable, personally i prefer the term Province of Northern Ireland, but countries has been agreed on for them all. Its funny with Matts attempts to always push for the inclusion of W/NI/E/S on international lists i thought of him more as a separatist than British nationalist :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Attempts to always push for inclusion in international lists"? What are talking about? I'm got much better things to do! I joined that argument a couple of times over the past year or so, yes - but I'm hardly an WP:SPA! And I thought you were a new user, anyway? --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am new and i never suggested that was the only thing u have been doing or wanted to do. The comment about inclusion on international lists was based on the conversations that took place recently on the list of countries page and it was meant as a joke in response to sarahs comment. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Might it be easier to leave the intro reading "a constituent country of the United Kingdom", thereby freeing up the talk page a little and allowing editors to look at other parts of the article, and also leaving the constituent country article to focus on the issue of calling NI a country within a country? Alastairward (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does seem to accept the term Constituant Country though it is unloved by some. Ireland was a country, Like England or Scotland were, before unification. The term Cconstituent Country would have applied between unification and partition. Without resorting to opinion or personal preference, is there an official source for the current status of Northern Ireland. Was it ever a country in its own right that then became a constitiant country? Is is now a constituent counrty or is it, as a former part of the counrty of Ireland and now part of the UK, a province? I mean no prejudice and I consider my home of England nolonger to be a country in its own right. What is the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, and also England Scotland and Wales, so we can put an end to the arguements.Smart51 (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland proposals - important update

There is currently a 'joint' Requested Move proposal, here at Ireland Talk, that proposes moving Ireland to Ireland (island), and removing the forked 'Irish state/country' material that has appeared over the years (including additional material on Northern Ireland). The Republic of Ireland would then be the principle article for the Irish state/country, as it was originally intended to be. Concurrently, Ireland (disambiguation) would be Moved to the vacated Ireland, so the many uses of 'Ireland' that refer to the country/state (along with those uses referring to the geographical/island use), would now offer the reader a choice of destination.

The Move was based on ongoing discussion at the Ireland disambiguation taskforce (see its Talk page specifically).

In addition to the above Requested Move proposal, there are alternative suggestions currently underway at the taskforce Talk, such as changing the direction of the two main Ireland articles simply by editing them, including most recently; 1) Promoting Ireland as the official country/state article (not Republic of Ireland), and building up Ireland (island) as a geographical/island article, and of 2) Ensuring Ireland is a geographical/island article only (and so removing much of the forked country/state-related material). Neither of those options would require Ireland (disambiguation) to be moved to Ireland.

If you support (or reject) the disambiguation page option for Ireland, please vote in the Requested Move poll, or perhaps consider commenting at the taskforce on one of the other options. As some options are 'edit-only' (and do not need to be polled), it is looking likely that something could be moved on.

In good faith, --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal on Ireland naming-dispute

A compromise proposal on the Ireland naming dispute is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sub Headings

Hello, i have removed some sub headings which are completly pointless, hope you dont mind --Ricky Oliver (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Given they were reverted someone obviously did, but you removed them again. Bring the issue here if another editor objects and you would be advised to slow down a bit on all your edits on this page. --Snowded TALK 17:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree User:Snowded. I've placed the notice below just to inform/remind editors to this article.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Northern Ireland article is currently subject to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case, as laid out during a previous WP:AE case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

Editors are working on this article with a very collective approach which has to be encouraged. There is little or no bickering and it should continue. If Editors would bring suggestions to improve the article to the talk page, as suggested above it would be a step in the right direction. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Northern Ireland an exclave?

This article has been added to Category:Exclaves. I'm not sure about the definition of an exclave but isn't it close enough to Scotland that it's connected to the UK by the sea? Scolaire (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it fits the idea of the definition of exclave. Here is the definition: A portion of a country which is separated from the main part and surrounded by politically alien territory. It isn't completely surrounded by Ireland, so I think it is no more an exclave to the United Kingdom than Alaska is to the United States. Kman543210 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It does meet some of the definitions, it is a legal area not physically contiguous with the rest of the political entity. Some definitions state it must be physically surrounded by another country, some don't. Canterbury Tail talk 23:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing it, its a controversial addition as it has political implications: "alien territory" surrounds! --Snowded TALK 06:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Home Nation

Is it useful to have that term in the opening paragraph? The linked article states it to be a term used for Northern Ireland or Ireland/Republic of Ireland in sporting circles, is it deserving of it's current place in the Northern Ireland article? Alastairward (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Northern Ireland a country?

According to these sources it isn't here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and a wiki article here. BigDunc^Talk 22:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing the issue of sovereign and non-sovereign countries: the lists you provide are all lists of sovereign countries and Northern Ireland would not be expected to appear on such lists as it is not a sovereign country. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Countries of the United Kingdom provides sources showing the use of the term country for northern Ireland and the other parts of the United Kingdom (England,Wales and Scotland). I agree that Northern Ireland is the hardest to define as a country, but there is currently consensus on all of the pages UK, Scotland, Wales, England, Countries of the UK and here for the current description. I agree that Northern Ireland etc should not be included on international lists like on the county lists you source as they are not sovereign states, but there isnt many better ways of describing the different parts of the UK instead of Countries. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Does it have an ISO country code? BigDunc^Talk 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, but all this depends on someones definition of "country" A month ago i felt the same way as you do and i didnt like the idea of describing the different parts of the United Kingdom as countries because they are not sovereign states, but there is a difference. The sources on the Countries of the United Kingdom page are reliable and include use of the term by the UK government itself. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823 This source alone justifies the use of countries of the United Kingdom on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusing the issue of sovereign and non-sovereign countries? The sourses provided by Dunc illustrate quite clearly that NI is not a country. Is it that we define it as a country based on consensus, and simply because we have sources showing the use of the term country. Northern Ireland is not included on international lists or European lists as a country so why do we use it then on this article. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone define for me what a non-sovereign country is please. BigDunc^Talk 23:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have no place on international lists and all major international lists such as the CIA, IMF etc only list sovereign states and territories which they do not fit into. However the UK can call the different parts of the UK what ever they like, and thats what the sources show is done. "Northern Ireland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom" clearly explains NI is part of the united kingdom.

A sovereign state / sovereign "country" is a country that has complete control over its affairs, such as the United Kingdom or the United States. A non sovereign state doesnt.BritishWatcher (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A non sovereign country is a country that is not sovereign...! Scotland is an excellent example of a non sovereign country: for most of the last thousand years it existed as a sovereign country but since 1707 has been part of the multinational country known as the United Kingdom. Therefore the country was soveriegn in the past, may become so again in the future, but at present is a non sovereign country. Hope that helps! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If its not sovereign, is it a dependant or dominion? --Domer48_'fenian' 00:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It could be, but need not be. In the case of the countries that together are the United Kingdom, each has pooled their sovereignty with th others so that the whole - the United Kingdom - is the sovereign entity, but that does not make each of them 'dependent' on the United Kingdom. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dunc's lists are either sovereign country lists, or commercial sites relating to the purchase of rail tickets or the like where the legal entity is probably appropriate. The overall citation strength, as shown in Countries of the United Kingdom is that it is a country. Now historically it never existed as such. Ulster might have a claim but three counties were removed during the partition. Wales, Scotland and England all (but not always with the same boundaries as at present) had independent existence. However new countries can be formed by partition (Pakistan and India for example). The Irish government now acknowledges the existence of Northern Ireland and has removed any claim from its constitution. While many of us hope that at some stage in the future Ireland will be united under one government for the moment the citation balance, in particular the designation by the UK Government stands. That designation also links to the UK Government ceasing to use ROI and agreeing to use Ireland as the name for the country by the way--Snowded TALK 04:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Dunc's list show list of Countries of the World and European Countries. None of them mention "sovereign" at all. That was simply added into this discussion. I also see a number of official government sites in the list. Citation strength, is that based on the number of them or the quality? I also notice in the list provided by Dunc shows Ireland as a Country. You also say that for the moment the citation balance, in particular the designation by the UK Government stands and that designation also links to the UK Government ceasing to use ROI and agreeing to use Ireland as the name for the country. Based on that view, could you explain what this is all about? Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 08:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not save this article the debate and call it a constituent country, which seems to be factually accurate, the debate can be left to the core article. Alastairward (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the phrase 'constituent country' is controversial precisely because it is often used to imply that a country is not a country because it is only a 'constituent country'. The problem occurs when the whole phrase is used as a noun, rather than as an adjective followed by a noun. To illustrate, there is a difference between calling Northern Ireland a constituent country and a constituent country. Hope that is helpful! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been some strange POV debates on wikipedia, but this yet another one. Why don`t the people who suggest Northern Ireland is not a country insist the same on the other pages of the United Kingdom i.e Scotland, Wales and England ?. All of these pages state the same `a country of the United Kingdom`, smacks once again the same people pushing their own agenda on wikipedia --Rockybiggs (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So your reason fo reverting is to have a rant, I have provided sources above which state it is not a soverign country and as a compromise non-soverign has been inserted, so are you saying it is a soverign country? Also comment on content and not on the editors please.BigDunc^Talk 15:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not commented on a editor Sir, i have merely posed a valid question, if Northern Ireland is changed then why not the other countries of the U.K ???. --Rockybiggs (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So you reverted because another wiki page was like that and no other reason? BigDunc^Talk 15:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Personaly, I see no need for the non-sovereign disclaimer. The opening line is quite clear, stating it is part of the United Kingdom (the sovereign state). Titch Tucker (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because you brought the issue to the talk page, and changed the page when the discussion hasn`t even finished, don`t you think you jumped the gun !. i.e Fishiehelper2 has since suggested 'constituent country', but you had already changed the page. I notice you are unwilling to answer my question--Rockybiggs (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are asking me why I haven't edited pages on Scotland or Wales because I couldn't give a fiddlers about those articles I have no interest in them so why should I edit them. Also I didn't jump the gun I said it wasn't a country and every editor said it was a non-soverign country, looks like consensus to me. Now as it stands it says it is a country it is not. If you say it is a country tell me it's ISO country code and why do the lists I provided not say it is. BigDunc^Talk 16:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at earlier discussions november 2008 and it seems there was an earlier discussion before that, the whole U.K terms has been agreed upon as country of the U.K. Therefore the other pages are more than relavant, and a whole concencus must be reached upon at Countries of the United Kingdom or involving(Constituent country)--Rockybiggs (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have answered your question can you answer mine please. BigDunc^Talk 16:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I’m sorry BigDunc, you know the iso country code is the U.K. To go back on your discussion on Ireland naming issue, you stated ``Ireland is the name of Ireland. No matter what the name of the state is called, the people of Ireland call themselves what they want`` (or roughly along those lines). Therefore taking that into the equation surely the U.K has the right (whether you agree on N.I being part of the U.K in N.I is irrelevant.) to name areas of the U.K how it wishes. [12] Which the majority of N.I does think of themselves as a country part of the U.K, same with Wales etc.

However you and I are never going to agree on this subject; however this current situation has been agreed in November. As i have stated before the current discussion surely has t be taken to or incorporated with Countries of the United Kingdom or involving (Constituent country)--Rockybiggs (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi BigDunc. You say "If you say it is a country tell me it's ISO country code and why do the lists I provided not say it is." My understanding is that only sovereign countries have ISO country codes. Also, many lists only include sovereign countries - hence Northern Ireland does not get included. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats exaxtly my point Fishiehelper2 it is not a sovereign country so I added non-sovereign to the sentence, is that not correct? BigDunc^Talk 18:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think its neccesary, "Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom" already confirms that. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And why would it not be neccesary the sentence as it reads is incorrect NI does not fit the criteria for a Country and shouldn't be portrayed as one. BigDunc^Talk 18:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Northern Ireland a non-sovereign country? Yes or No? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if I understand things correctly, the answer to your question depends on what you mean by the phrase 'non sovereign country'(which is a good reason for not using the phrase in the article.) Northern Ireland is a non sovereign country in the sense that it is a country that is not presently a sovereign state. However, the people of the country are sovereign in the sense that the future status of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to decide for themselves. (Therefore, Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as that is the wish of the people, but they can chose a different status if they wish.) This means that the answer to your question is both 'yes' and 'no' depending on how you interpret it. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I take it then from your comment "Northern Ireland is a non sovereign country in the sense that it is a country that is not presently a sovereign state" that it is currently a non sovereign country. So the answer to my question would be No. So obviously my next question would be, having agreed that it is currently a non sovereign country why we can't mention it in the article. Now this dose not depend on what I mean by the phrase 'non sovereign country,' because I did not raise the term. In your first post you raised it "You are confusing the issue of sovereign and non-sovereign countries: the lists you provide are all lists of sovereign countries and Northern Ireland would not be expected to appear on such lists as it is not a sovereign country." So you do and you don't accept it is a sovereign country? To make it easy for us all, could you provide us a link which says it is or is not a sovereign country? Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 20:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I raised the term non sovereign country but in the talk page - not in the article itself. I used the phrase to try to explain that most lists of countries only include countries that are sovereign countries. As I explained in my previous post, I believe using the phrase 'non sovereign country' in the article may be potentially confusing. The matter would be more straightforward if we could link the phrase to an article that explained the term directly, but I fear that such an article would constitute original research. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to help, here is a UN source that does list Northern Ireland as a country [13]. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

OK lets try and look at this objectively. Countries of the United Kingdom was established to attempt to assemble in one place all the various citations and other material to prevent this particular topic erupting time and time again. At the same time the current form of the lede was agreed and put in place on all pages other that Scotland which was more nationalist in nature, but finally changed over last week to the the current phrase. On grounds of consistency and citation the current form therefore seems the best. Otherwise: (i) it is clearly established (OED as well a citation) that a country does not have to be sovereign to be a list; (ii) on Wikipedia lists the ledes are starting to change to explicitly state that they are lists of sovereign countries (iii) the lede clearly states that NI (and the others) are a PART of the UK in the first sentence; (iv) in response to Domer, I am as you know making exactly the same argument on the Ireland naming dispute in respect of the GFA to remove ROI as a name so I am been very consistent here and I would hope you would be too in respect of this article; (v) There is no need whatsoever to add the qualifier "non-sovereign" as it adds nothing, the pipelink and the following use of "part" make that clear. The language of some of the early reversals is unfortunate to say the least (I reference 86. here not the main protagonists above and its fairly typical of that editors interventions) but it does illustrate some of the complex political issues here. So I come back to where I started. Consistency & citation argue for the current position. --Snowded TALK 07:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well said Snowded, totally agree with every point. (1) Especially the consistency point, which i touched on earlier `with the Ireland naming issue. One argument was being made to change to a preferred phrase of `Ireland`, but when users preferred phrase for N.I not being a `country` is raised, the consistency goes out of the window and a totally different argument is made, which totally makes nonsense of previous wiki users arguemnts on the Ireland naming issue. (2) The other point you raised and which i also touched on the country naming of England, Wales, Scotland is linked to the N.I country name, and N.I can`t be only changed, unless there is universal concencous on all four --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP

There is already enough edit warring on this article. This subject is still under discussion and the page should not be changed until there is agreement. Some of us have jobs to do (and now trains to catch) so allow time for consensus please. --Snowded TALK 18:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Notable people

Should this should be in list format? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As there would appear to be no issues with this suggestion, I have set up the section in list format. It definitely needs expanding to make it worthwhile. This could be dealt with by a link to the Ulster History Circle (http://www.ulsterhistory.co.uk/). Gavin Lisburn (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the criteria for this? Do people born before the creation of Northern Ireland count and how famous does one have to be to be considered notable?MusicInTheHouse (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is getting quite large and has potential to be larger. Should we propose those born in Northern Ireland (say 1922 onwards) only and if they have a wiki page? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. I agree about the birth date but saying if they have a wiki page means they should be included is wrong imo. Thousands of people have a page; an article on Northern Ireland should not be an indexation of all Northern Irish people. My thinking is that is should only include people who have had some impact on society. People like George Best, Ian Paisley, Gerry Adams etc. Something like 20 people I think would make that criteria. A more focused section like I have described would benefit the article rather than a list which should be avoided.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's have a discussion and agreement before a deletion. Your deletion has been reversed. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I was being wp:bold. It truly does look awful. Do you see lists like that anywhere else? It was only put in a very short time ago, so there's hardly strong consensus for it to remain. I think what should be done is that the list should be moved to its own page where it can be linked to under 'see also' on the Northern Ireland page or something like that.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I will revert this last change and perhaps you could set up the list and appropriate link? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries that could affect whether or not Northern Ireland is included in various lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Daicaregos (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

^ The Countries of the UK statistics.gov.uk, accessed 10 October, 2008

[1] The Countries of the UK statistics.gov.uk, accessed 10 October, 2008

[1]