Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Disputed Status?

I don't think we can really say that its status is disputed in a real sense, such as Palestine. Not a single country in the world recognizes Northern Ireland a part of the rest of the country politically, however much they might wish it. With the vote accepting the Belfast Agreement the claim in the Constitution of Ireland to the whole island of Ireland was changed to a declaration of aspiration. While groups such as Republican Sinn Féin might not have accepted this, or indeed any election north or south since 1922, the page shou'd be neutral, and showing the views of an extreme minority is not. The government of the Second Dáil accepted the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which paved the way for the situation we have at the moment. I don't however see that any change I make will be accepted; we will probably continue an unstoppable reverting battle.

--User:Henry Williams Jan 10, 2004, 0950 (UTC)

Henry, be careful with phrases such as "Not a single country in the world recognizes Northern Ireland a part of the rest of the country politically ..." What country are you refering to? Do you mean the UK or the Republic of Ireland? Fergananim

I think it is fairly obvious that he is stating that not a single country in the world doesn't recognise that NI is part of the UK. -Fobo

Stroke City

Quote: Derry, not Londonderry, is the formal name of the city, as passed by its local council and given the force of law in recent years.

I'm pretty sure that no new Royal Charter has been issued for the City, and that therefore any name change does not have the force of law, whatever the wishes of the Council.

--User:paul

---

Numbers

Firstly, get the terms right. The British didn't colonise Ireland because when the colonisation occured there was no 'Britain'. Britain as a state was formally created only with the merger of the English and Scottish kingdoms in the eighteenth century. It was the english colonisation of Ireland, albeit freuqently with Scottish colonisers.

Number 2: The colonisation WAS brutal. All colonial powers of the period were brutal. The english colonisation of my country was no-more brutal than occured elsewhere, and had Ireland been in a position to colonise England, the odds are that we would have been as brutal as they were to us. Those were the times, unfortunately, regrettably but that was the reality, with each colonising state (and the United States of America was no exception in how it treated other states!) believing that it was 'civilised', 'morally superior' and doing 'God's will' to the native savages. In fact, as someone whose family fought British (yes British. We are talking after the 1707 Act of Union) rule, and as a historian, I have to observe that British rule, though frequently abusive, incompetent and rascist, was technically quite moderate by the nineteenth century by the prevailing standards of the time! A proper historian does not use loaded prejorative phrases to assess a time when the standards by which behaviour as judged were different, however wrong he in retrospect may think that behaviour was. JTD

Certainly, colonisation becgan before 1707 when Great Britain was created, but the plantations were by no means exclusively or for that matter predominantly English as the Scots were a large part of these settlements. "British" would therefore seem a fair adjective being that of those from Britain in general whether or not it was politically unified at the time, but an alternative might be "English and Scottish", but then someone is bound to pull a Welshman out of the Hat. Dainamo 19:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okay, but Ireland was not a country at the time of any of these raids or invasions. Fergananim

---

Tridesch the historian, what is "Holocost"? Did you mean Holocaust? I also didn't find the word "brutal" there. Why should it be here? --mav

---

Tridesch says: , touche on the spelling

so you think the holocaust wasnt brutal? slavery was brutal, the holocaust was brutal, the colonization of northern ireland byt he british was brutal too.

IMO the Holocaust was brutal and so were many aspects of slavery. My POV aserts that the British also accomplished some fairly brutal acts too - but which country hasn't. But the IRA blowing up a bus with school children is also brutal, IMO. So to be fair we would have to say both side were brutal but this word is POV-charged. How about we stick to the facts at hand and let the reader make a decision on their own? Again, have you read our NPOV policy? --mav

---

Province

Removed the Province from the opening sentence, which read The Province of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland - Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connacht. Northern Ireland consists of six of the nine counties of the Province of Ulster. The term province is often used colloquially by one community, interchangably with the word Ulster. But we cannot use it because

1. It reflects one community's use of language. This article needs to be NPOV and so should avoid using terms that are exclusive to one community. So we cannot call this article, Ulster, the North of Ireland or the Province because all are agenda-driven terms.
2. As explained above, it is factually incorrect. FearÉIREANN 01:27 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

So Northern Ireland, poltically, has no formal status (e.g., "province", "territory", "state") at all? It is just "a part" formally? --Menchi 02:22, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

yup. Some critics of its existence used to call it a statelet but that too is POV. FearÉIREANN 04:53, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is a province in the sense of it being politically a part of the UK, but not a country. How else can it be defined? The four traditional provinces of Ireland in their current shape have no polictical meaning and even the cultural division is a bit blurry now. Northern Ireland, irrespective of views on this, is at this time a disttinct entity and may be correctly defined as a province.

Shouldn't Northern Ireland have the same status as England, Scotland and Wales within the UK. The official name of the UK is, afterall, the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" --Burwellian 16:01, Jun 24, 2005 (BST)

---

I understand the combination of the Presbyterians with the Church of Ireland in the final column of the table, but where did the extra three percent of Catholics come from? -Smack 00:57 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Population

The Page gives the impression that the Republic of Ireland has a population of 1.6 million when that population is Northern Ireland's

Good point. I've corrected that. FearÉIREANN 23:51, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Religious affiliation table

Something is wrong with the religious affiliation table. The third and fourth column are contradictory. Are Catholics 40.3% in 2001 or 43.8%? And why are the 9.9% "other religions" (are those only "other Protestant religions"?) and the 9% "not stated" (does this mean "Protestant, but not stated which Protestant"?) added to the Protestant total in the fourth column? --Wik 19:34, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

From what I can remember of the census returns, other religions are all other religions, not just christian religions, but are primarily christian. Not stated means those that refused to give a categorisation and left page blank, whether deliberately or accidentially, but the categorisation in most cases was easy to work out; many names in Northern Ireland indicate their community; Patrick O'Leary in West Belfast, for example, is 99% certain to be from the catholic community, Seymour Crawford in Lisburn 99% certain to be from the protestant community. Other questions also gave information that could clarify from which community a person who neglected to declare their categorisation belonged. There also was, if I remember correctly, a problem with the categorisation of 'Catholic' as 'catholic' can be interpreted in the Northern Ireland case as a political or religious designation, causing conflicting numbers at different parts of the census. But other questions could clarify ambiguities and work out where a non-designated person belonged. FearÉIREANN 21:05, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The differences are caused by the difference between 'religion' and 'community background'. An unbaptised atheist is a Catholic if he's called Seamus and lives up the Falls! Gerry Lynch 17:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

The table design is very awkward. The All Protestant summation should just be a separate row in the table, highlighted differently, rather than the current way which is very strange. Daniel Quinlan 19:25, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

---

Area

NISRA state the land area as 14,160 sq km, not 13,843 as it currently says on Wikipedia.

--Scronide 18:38, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC)

Norlin Airlann

Please, Norlin Airlann (as the Ullans name) appears on many governmental and quango web pages (search for it, please). Don't keep changing it to Scottish Scots or removing it. See [1] [2] [3] [4] etc. -- Kaihsu 21:36, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

Norlin Airland is made up nonsense. It may well be made up by quangos or whoever but Scots-speakers have never used it anywhere at any time.

Try finding it in both the Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue and the Scottish National Dictionary (Which includes Scots in Ulster - read the Intro.) [5].

Scots in Scotland and Ulster are the same language. Unfortunately certain circles can't be bothered learning the real language and make up gibberish.

See:[6]

The european charter from the Council of Europe[7]

"b) The United Kingdom declares, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Charter that it recognises that Scots and Ulster Scots meet the Charter's definition of a regional or minority language for the purposes of Part II of the Charter."

NOTE: _a_ regional or minority _language_ not two separate ones.

The North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) Northern Ireland Order 1999 defines Ullans as: "the variety of the Scots language which has traditionally been used in parts of Northern Ireland and in Donegal in Ireland."

The Good Friday Agreement simply refers to Ulster Scots without the qualifier 'language'.[8]

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

User:217.225.26.59 01:04, Aug 22, 2004

See also my comments on Talk:UK and User talk:217.225.26.59 — OwenBlacker 00:27, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I have added Norlin Airlann back, with a note. It appears in the documents – even if some thinks it made-up nonsense. — Kaihsu 17:58, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

Norlin Airlann is perfectly acceptable. The official Ulster Scots name for Waterways Ireland is Watterweys Airlann, as is always shown in their logo [9]. The other North-South institutions also use this spelling. I am removing the explanatory note. --Kwekubo 15:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just to make the point (i am not taking sides as i know little on the official spellings and status), but any versions of a states name used should have official status (within that state) if used over the data table. The data table is not the place for placing a states name in every language currently documented, if it is not official but common then consider using a footnote - keep wikipedia professional looking. Djegan

See also Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_1#Scots_language_name

Overly political?

While undoubtedly many readers will come to this page for its political content, there are many other worthy sides to Northern Ireland which could be mentionned. The page, to me, feels quite dark and threatening. I wouldn't choose to holiday in NI after reading it! Would anyone care to mention some of the more positive things NI has to offer e.g. cultural festivals, musical and artistic tradition, tourist attractions (Bushmills, giant's causeway...), countryside, pubs and hospitality. I know a couple of these have been relegated to a list at the bottom. Maybe a separate page for NI's political history is needed?

If you don't like the way it's written, get on there and change it. You have a very good point, but the point of Wikipedia is that users can edit things themselves. Gerry Lynch 17:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re-NPOVing - Hun Nats/Taig Unionists=

This is a controversial page, so am giving warning! The phrase:

Most Irish Catholics (of both Gaelic and Anglo-Norman origin) still support reunification, while strong studies have shown that many from the Protestant community (especially the Scotch-Irish Presbyeterian community which produced many famous Irish nationalist rebels in the pastlike Wolfe Tone, Henry Joy and Robert Emmett) are beginning to move over to the nationalist/republican side again.

Is extremely POV - most surveys indicate that there are considerably more Catholics who wish to remain part of the UK than Protestants who want to join a United Ireland, and although the proportion of the latter has fallen dramatically in the past 10 years, the proportion of the former hasn't changed and remains tiny. (see just about every opinion poll produced in the history of NI, the annual NI Life and Times Surveys, etc.) Not to mention the fact that most Southerners couldn't care less if Belfast got nuked as long as the fallout stopped at Ravensdale!

Also the point about Gaelic and Anglo-Norman Catholics is spurious and irrelevant. Any conscious difference between the Old English and the Gaelic Irish passed away about 250 years ago. It wouldn't enter into anyone's head to even think about it. Gerry Lynch 17:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A further note: "Most Irish Catholics (of both Gaelic and Anglo-Norman origin) still support reunification". For once and for all, would someone please tell me when the hell the island of Ireland was united politically? Correct me if I am wrong but this never in fact occoured. I am from the south, and as far as I am concerned the Republic of Ireland is the only political entity that can be called Ireland; we no longer have a claim on the territory of Northern Ireland which is in the UK. IF someday the north wants to join the south, fine (just as long as we can vote on letting you in!) but don't dress this up as reunification. Ireland has being a nation, never a united political country consisting of the entire island.

And the distinction about Gaelic and Anglo-Normans ceased to apply hundreds of years ago. The overwhelming majority of Irish people are of both the Gael and Gall. Only an idiot would make a big deal out of it these days, as it simply does not apply. I am happy to be an utter mongrel descended from Gael, Gall, Sen-Gall, Vikings, Prods, Taigs, Dissenters, as well as Welsh, Scots, French, Norman and even ENGLISH!!! Mix them all up and you end up with an Irish person.Fergananim

Ireland was unified as part of the UK until 1922.--Po8crg 6 July 2005 23:13 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Flag

Someone on a talk page or in an edit comment (I think it was Morwen) said there is no flag for Northern Ireland. Well there is. It's the Cross of St George with the Hand of Ulster placed in the centre. Can we have it back please, at the head of the article?

Morwen is actually correct. The flag you are thinking of was the flag of the Parliament of Northern Ireland (i.e. the one that was got rid of in '72). It has no official status although many Unionists have adopted it as an unofficial flag. And it certainly has no cross-community consent.Gerry Lynch 12:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So how about a section on NI flags - there's lots of them.

There is already an article - Flag of Northern Ireland, which just needs linking to. 80.229.39.194 13:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Great idea. You know what to do! Gerry Lynch 14:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've done it

Sorry to be so brutal but I had to do it as:

• Gaels/Anglo-Normans – nobody even notices this sort of stuff. Really. Let’s not get too into racial purity ideas.
• Sinn Féin supporters – an encyclopaedia is no the place to boast about how many votes you have. Save it for the talk boards and try and be a little bit more impartial.
• Wolfe Tone was an Anglican of English background, not Ulster-Scots, and the Presbyterians (and especially offshoots like the Free Ps and Brethren) will be last people on Earth to support a United Ireland. Hell will freeze over first! Wishful thinking seriously at work here.
• Six Counties – POV term, sorry.
• Paisley isn’t a Presbyterian, he’s a Free Presbyterian. It makes a whole wide world of difference.
• ‘free elections’ to be held soon – when was our last ‘unfree’ election?
• ‘There is a small, usually silent, middle class minority of Irish Catholics who support union with Britain.’ – that’s almost certainly true, but they almost all vote SDLP/SF or Alliance. They don’t vote UUP and that’s something that’s worth pointing out.
• ‘with Catholics beginning to use contraceptives, reunification will most likely only occur with consent from the Anglo-Saxon and Scotch-Irish Protestant community’- Hmmm, this comes from one of the sort of Prod who really thinks Catholics take direct instructions from the Pope. A bit smutty and not really fit for an encyclopaedia. The point is probably correct in macro terms, although the cause of the collapse in birth rates all over Europe (including among Ulster Protestants) is more complex than contraception).
• Party structures in GB may well have their roots in social class – but the class basis of politics is weakening in just about every major democracy. There’s no evidence that NI is going down that road, and certainly arguable whether class based politics are a good thing.
• Catholic UUP Assembly members – oul’ John Gorman didn’t stand for re-election, and the one off Catholic Unionist (e.g. Sir Denis Henry, first Attorney General of NI) and Prod Nats are nothing new. But they tend to be one offs.
• The British Conservative do contest elections in NI – they might not win any, but that’s a different story. And the UUP have no formal links with the Tories, either.Gerry Lynch 12:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kilometres or not

Picking up on the Kilometres versus miles point (edits and reversions on 20th July): Kilometres are obviously the preferred unit for tabular data of the sort in this article. Use of standard units enables comparisons between countries and the like. Their use in a scientific or geographical context is clearly beneficial. However, I suggest there is little or no benefit to their use - or preference - in less formal text of the sort that introduces this article. Despite so-called metrication in the UK kilometres, and by extension sq. kilometres, have not been adopted by the man in the street. They should not, therefore be preferred in written, less formal text, in the British context. One would not expect the text of an article on Northern Ireland to be written in American English, so why should non-British units of measure, especially the little used kilometre, be given priority over the extensively used mile? If ever Kilometres come to be used on British (and Northern Irish) roads then I'll perhaps revise my point-of-view.

I don't see what the border with RoI has got to do with it, even if they do use kilometres on the roads in the South.

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style and Wikipedia:Measurements_Debate for lots more on this.

Arcturus 18:49, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Arcturus, to quote from the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers).

Areas of land should be given in km², which is entered as km². This form is preferable to km², which adds extra line leading. Smaller areas in m² etc. Volumes in m³, cm³ etc. Note that the compact superscript style works only for 1, 2 and 3 (unless you use numeric UTF-8 codes &8304; for superscript zero and &8308; to &8313; for superscript 4 to 9). This means that the <sup> style has to be used when general superscripts are required, as in the examples below.

Citing in km² also means you can link to the area comparisons meaningfully, which you have just reminded me to do.

As for whether the man in the street uses metric or imperial units - we all know these things are a bit of a mess in the UK and people can be fluent in metric in one area and entirely ignorant in another. The article cites both measures and I didn't see any reason to change it. (You didn't, someone else did). Arcturus 19:44, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The border does matter - the average person in Northern Ireland is more likely to deal with kilometres on roads on a regular basis than the average person in Great Britain.Gerry Lynch 19:23, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gerry,

Yes I noticed the quote in the style manual but I was wondering whether it actually meant '...if you use square kilometres then use this format...' The bullet points which preceded the quote perhaps support this, especially the fourth one:

• In scientific contexts, such as physics and chemistry, use SI units. Unless for any historic reference or other particular reason, it is not necessary to state American or Imperial units in parentheses.
• If using American or Imperial units, give the metric equivalent as a courtesy.
• If using metric units, remember that many readers will not know what you mean and will be aided by the equivalent in American or Imperial units.
• Equivalents should be given to the same level of precision as the original measurement, for example, "the moon is 250,000 miles (400,000 km) from Earth", not "402,336 km".
• If the quantity is always given in one form, you need not perform any conversion at all.

The style guide does state that you should use units appropriate to the locality and gives alternatives for distance, but as you point out, not explicity for area, which seems a little strange.

Good point about the average person from NI having greater exposure to Km than someone from the rest of the UK.

Anyway, I suppose this particular issue is not the most important one to dwell on in the overall Northern Ireland debate.

Arcturus 19:44, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No more or less important than anything else! We don't spend all our time talking about the troubles! While I was cycling home from work (don't ask - yes I am a wikipediholic!) it hit me than the man in the street neither uses square miles nor square km very much. To most people (me included except for some reason I've always known NI was abt 14,000 km²) these things are meaningless without a comparison table. I know what a square mile or a square kilometre is but 100,000 don't make much sense unless I sit down and work it out. Gerry Lynch 21:31, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To user 62.253.226.1

If you're going to make major changes on the political tone of an article, you may find it best to discuss them here, and get consent from other users, first. That way it's less likely your edits will be reverted. Gerry Lynch 16:03, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

National Anthem

Quote: "Similarly, there is no longer a national anthem; A Londonderry Air was the national anthem."

Is this accurate? I was under the impression that this was never the official national anthem.

A Lonodnderry Air/Danny Boy is played when an NI athlete wins a gold medal at the Commonwealth Games.

Government of NI

The opening paragraphs referred to the suspension in 1972, the troubles and the ceasfires. The sidebar mentioned 'First Minister. The NI-Assembly is mentioned only in reference to the Womens Coalition, and the the 1998 Agreement only under Languages. Since the agreement was a major event in the history of NI and defines how the current Govt is to be operated, any reader of the encylopedia would expect it to be mentioned. Therefore I have added one sentence to the opening paragraphs. Rye1967 03:39, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Anthem

Is the anthem really Das Lied der Deutschen? I don't recall hearing Deutschland Uber Alles in NI. 62.49.5.21 16:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It isn't- nor is the top level domain .de - why can't the info box be amended? The SDLP uses a '.ie' address, but I can't see anyone using '.de', unless they want Anschluss!

You mean, why can't you edit Template:Northern Ireland infobox? I don't know. Maybe your browser is broken?

James F. (talk) 03:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I have inserted the NPOV tag because I think this page goes too far on the Unionist/Loyalist idea that "Northern Ireland" is a legitimate legal entity. The last democratic vote in Ireland was for the Second Dail, the military occupation of the six counties is illegitimate, Ireland is one, united country, with its own army, the Irish Republican Army, who have been fighting the British occupation for decades (with other republican organizations fighting before that). Ruy Lopez 20:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your POV is not one shared by the majority of people in Ireland, irrespective of what side of the border they live on, only by Republican Sinn Fein, which refuses to recognise the Republic of Ireland, whose Constitution was amended to allow for Irish unity through consent, and was approved by a referendum in 1998. The so-called "Irish Republican Army" is banned in the Republic as well as the North, and many of its leaders were sent to the gallows by the government of Eamon De Valera in the 1940s.

Quiensabe 17:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey Ruy! Does that mean that every vote and election result held in the Irish Free State and the Republic of Ireland since 1922 is illigitimate??? Say it ain't so!

Specking as an Irishman and a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, my county is united, all twenty-six countys of it. We have no claims on any other territorys (except maybe Rockall).

The so-called army you refer do are outlawed in my country, and very few of my fellow citizens see them as anything other than the criminal scum they are. If that were not the case, the part of the UK called Northern Ireland would have become part of the (United) Republic of Ireland in the south a long time ago. It ain't, and guns and bombs are not gonna change that, so get used to it.

What you are supporting is an organisation that wants nothing less than the complete and utter overthrow of my country, her institutions and government. That sounds like terrorism to me. Fergananim

Ireland is Ireland, an island by the Atlantic Ocean, and one of the nations of the British Isles. Politically, part of that country has remained within the United Kingdom, as Northern Ireland. Another part left, and is now the Republic of Ireland. What is the problem with recognising this? It doesn't mean someone from Northern Ireland need be any less Irish (not in the sense of being of the Republic of Ireland, but in an apolitical sense of being from Ireland), regardless of their British citizenship. Anyone in Northern Ireland is in the same situation that anyone from Ireland was in prior to partition (i.e. from the United Kingdom, but from Ireland within that). Are all those born in the 800 years before partition not Irish despite having been within the United Kingdom (or subject to the monarch)?

Unfortunately because of the ROI acting as "Ireland", some people from NI may not be happy with being called Irish, in the sense that a Canadian may be unhappy with being called "American" (technically correct, but not in the citizenship sense). It could also be mistaken as someone from NI that has citizenship of the Republic of Ireland (also called Irish citizenship).

If it wasn't for politicians screwing up, it would be entirely of no consequence whether someone from the island of Ireland (i.e. an Irish person) was from the United Kingdom or not.

zoney ♣ talk 10:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"and one of the nations of the British Isles"- Well, is it now? Perhaps it is to the British, but to the Irish Ireland will never be one of your "British isles"- no Irish person uses that expression. That jingoistic, imperialist mentality really is endemic to British views on Ireland, and Ireland's British problem.

Flag

Northern Ireland is the only country/territory that does not have a flag image. While it may be a disputed point on what is the flag, at the very least, the Union Flag should be shown. What do NI football team use? Astrotrain 20:44, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

For information on the official status of the Union Flag, please see my submission on the "Flag of Northern Ireland" page. I hope it's clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Northern_Ireland - JimJim

Flag icon

I think we could do with a better one and I've proposed some alternatives at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#A_better_flag_icon_for_Northern_Ireland.3F --Cavrdg 13:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Flag icon Oct 2005 Update

Hi, I am from Northern Ireland. We do not have an official flag. The flag with the Red Hand, is now only used by extremist terrorist organisations in the region, specifically loyalist.

Please remove it.

It clearly states it is unofficial. Djegan 17:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, the coat of arms originally also said unofficial, but someone changed it to semiofficial. I'm not sure why this change was made (or why one could be considered unofficial and the other semiofficial).--JW1805 17:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It Might State it is unofficial, then if it does so, why don't we take it out. Put a link of "Associated Flags of Ulster" where you can talk of the different flags that might be associated with this province, but this flag should not be on this article. Paddy 19:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The flag is, as stated at Flag of Northern Ireland, still used as a cultural flag for Northern Ireland at events like football matches and the Commonwealth Games. --Kwekubo 21:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Kwekubo, it is still a Flag of Norther Ireland, but it is by no means an official flag of Northern Ireland politically, so then why make it feature as the main flag on this article, surely a link to Flags of Northern Ireland Should replace that flag, a link to a section where all possible flags are stated, and their history shown, Just an idea like.

Paddy :-) 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I am an Irish-American, whose family fled Ulster. The Red Hand of Ireland was created by Niall of the Nine Hostages, who won the kingship, acording to legend, in a boat race in which he cut off his hand to gain the kingship. Niall later kidnaped a boy named Patricius, who later escaped via Dublin, and eventually made it to Rome. There, Patrick became a preist and converted the rest of the country. Since then, the O'Neill Clan for the most part are still Catholics, as such, I would have to file a formal protest over the use of my clan's emblem to support the traitors who support union with Imperialist Britain. Patton 117, Historian for the O'Neill Clan in America

It's not entirely true that it is "only used" by terrorist organisations. It is used as an identification for Northern Ireland at international, mainly sporting events. It is simply has more meaning to the region than just using the Union Flag, which is the official flag of Northern Ireland. If the DUP ever get their act togeather and the assembly gets back up and running I am sure we will get a flag that everyone can relate to [rant]And also, Imperialist Britain hasn't existed for half a century, the United Kingdom would gladly give up Northern Ireland (we cost more than we are worth), except that it is a Democracy and under such Government the majority gets its way. I am quite happy to belong to the UK and own a British Passport. I could go on about Americans sticking their noses in to affairs of foreign countries but I wont.[/rant] Sorry about that last bit, just had to get it off my chest, been one of those days. :: Keith :: 18:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Some versions of the legend do have an O'Neill as the winner of the race (given that it is the O'Neill emblem), but I'm not aware of any suggestion that it was Niall of the Nine Hostages. Your clan may need to get another historian. --Ryano 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Reinstated paragraph

The following paragraph was removed.

Once established under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, Northern Ireland was structured geographically (see gerrymander) so as to provide a permanent unionist majority in key geographic areas, with predominantly nationalist areas producing unionist majorities through the granting of voting rights exclusively to property owners (where most Catholics were renting and most Protestants were owners). Local government wards (local government constituencies) also had boundaries constructed to ensure Protestants won most seats and so controlled local government in areas like Derry. Anger of local government control by Protestants, and the awarding of housing to Protestants to ensure Unionist majorities in areas with large Catholic populations, played a significant part in creating the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, with a sit-in by nationalist politician Austin Currie in a house granted to an unmarried protestant woman ahead of a large homeless Catholic family triggering off the movement.

I have reinstated it. It is factually correct. (BTW, lest anyone think otherwise, I am not a Sinn Féin-style Irish republican, nor am I anti-unionist. I have been accused on wikipedia of being "pro-British" - once a "British apologist", for refusing to write nationalist/republican propaganda into articles!) Studies by Paul Bew and in particular the universally acclaimed the late Professor John H. Whyte (Queens University Belfast and University College Dublin), whose books, notably Interpreting Northern Ireland (1990) are regarded across the political divide as the most authoritative on Northern Ireland, state categorically that local government gerrymandering did exist. It was also condemned by British politicians. Its existence has also subsequently been admitted to by leading unionists, including David Trimble, whose "cold house for Catholics" comment describing Northern Ireland, was partly in reference to the infamous gerrymandering. Indeed so blatent was the gerrymandering that one British Home Secretary called it "astonishing".

What happened was simple. In places where large nationalist majorities exist, wards were constructed to keep all the nationalists together. Some wards would be 95% nationalist, but massive nationalist wards would only produce a minimal number of seats (the maximum available for a ward). Had boundaries been drawn neutrally, that population would have been broken up into several wards because of geography, with each ward having nationalist majorities, producing far more nationalist councillors than could exist when nationalists were crammed into a couple of massive wards. Elsewhere, nationalist and unionist areas were put together in wards where it was arranged that unionists would outnumber nationalists. Derry/Londonderry was a notorious example of this gerrymander. In addition, the awarding of housing was arranged to give unionists houses in 50:50 nationalist/unionist wards, again producing over time unionist majorities.

Finally voting in local government was by means of property ownership, with in some cases the owners of properties having multiple votes and the tenants of properties none. As economic wealth in Northern Ireland was until recently years more associated with unionists than nationalists (ie, there were more middle class property-owning unionists per proportion of the population, and more working class nationalists without property per proportion of the population) a voting register based on property rights unduly favoured one class, and so the group with most members of that class, unionists. If I remember Whyte's lectures correctly (and a leading Ulster Unionist made the same point to me a couple of months ago, as did someone in the Northern Ireland Office when my group of students met senior officials on a visit to Northern Ireland - we also met the SDLP, UUP, Sinn Féin, Alliance and DUP, etc) Northern Ireland was the last part of the UK still to have a property based electoral register, such a voting regulation having been abolished in the recent of the UK in or around 1945. It was re-introduced in the North for local government by the Stormont government, against the advice of Lord Carson, who correctly predicted that any institutionalised discrimination would destabilise Northern Ireland and prove a mistake. Sir James Craig, to Carson's horror, thought otherwise. Voters by property (ie, votes for rate-payers) was one of the first things abolished by Britain when it took running Northern Ireland. The entire Northern Ireland local government system was re-organised in the 1970s, on the excuse that local government was being reorganised in England and Wales by Heath's government.

Leading unionists today regard the gerrymandering of local government has perhaps the biggest mistake ever committed by the Stormont government. They say that the whole civil rights campaign owed its origins to that mistake. Had local government not been gerrymandered so blatently Stormont could have survived. But that the entire edifice of government had been completely discredited by what was effectively rigged local elections. The gerrymandering provided the spark that brought the old Northern Ireland down. And we have all had to live, for good or ill, with the consequences. FearÉIREANN 23:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Below is a section of How much discrimination was there under the unionist regime, 1921-68? by John H Whyte.

The fate of Londonderry County Borough aroused the most bitterness. It had a substantial, and growing, Catholic majority - by 1961 Catholics were more than 60 per cent even among the adult population (Hewitt, 1981: 366). Yet unionists won back control under the ward division imposed in 1923, and when, after some years, it looked as if the nationalists might capture one of the unionist wards, the boundaries were redrawn so as to perpetuate unionist rule (Buckland, 1979: 243-6).

The stock unionist defence for the post-1922 arrangements (Walmsley, 1959: 9-10; UUP, 1969: 12) is that local government electoral boundaries were drawn so as to take account not only of population but of ratable value. This was justified on the ground that those who paid the most rates were entitled to the biggest say in the conduct of local government. Thus unionists, who were on average richer than nationalists, could legitimately find themselves more favourably represented. This, however, is a dubious defence. Democratic theory does not in general permit that the rich should be more strongly represented than the poor; the unionists themselves did not make such a provision in parliamentary elections. Furthermore, as time went by, it became less and less true that large ratepayers contributed the bulk of local government finance. Grants from the Northern Ireland government became increasingly important, until by 1969 they provided three-quarters of the revenue of local authorities (Cameron, 1969: para. 141). Thus, as the Cameron commission concluded (ibid.), 'such validity as this argument ever possessed is one which is rapidly losing any force which it mighthave had'. If electoral boundaries were drawn so as to over-represent the rich, this was not a refutation of the charge of gerrymandering: it was a description of how the gerrymandering was achieved.

In any case, attempts to defend the post-1922 arrangements crumble before Buckland's (1979) discoveries in official papers. He shows that the Northern Ireland government did not even attempt to be fair. The 'sole concern' of the Ministry of Home Affairs was 'how to give effect to the views of the Unionist rank and file' (ibid.: 233), and the reorganisation in controversial districts was 'virtually dictated by local Unionists' (ibid.: 239). The Derry redistribution of 1936 was designed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, who did the job better than the Derry unionists had been able to do it for themselves. 'Throughout the discussions between ministry officials and Londonderry Unionists there was never any question that the government should not assist the latter' (ibid.: 245). Buckland's conclusions are particularly weighty because his previous writings (on unionism in the period 1886-1921) had shown him as sympathetic to the unionist cause.

To sum up on electoral arrangements. Charges that parliamentary constituencies were gerrymandered against the nationalists have only slight validity, whatever other criticisms might be made of the effects of abolishing PR. The peculiarities of local government franchise were also of little effect. But when it comes to gerrymandering of local government boundaries, criticism is much more firmly based. Nationalists were manipulated out of control in a number of councils where they had a majority of electors. This is one of the clearest areas of discrimination in the whole field of controversy.

Overall, Whyte challenges many nationalist claims of widespread institutional discrimination against them. However in the area of the gerrymandering of local government wards (the specific focus of the paragraph I have re-inserted) he finds nationalist criticism "much more firmly based." And for those who do not who of Whyte's credentials, the late John H. Whyte was universally regarded as one of the most neutral, most independent, and most fact-based writers on the Northern Ireland problem. Unfortunately John died in 1990, so we lost the chance of experiencing his thorough objective analysis of the peace process and of the Good Friday Agreement. FearÉIREANN 23:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The word APARTHEID springs to mind....

Aparthied is very close, as the situation in Ireland is such, the Anglo-Saxon/Norman British are currently ruling over the Celtic Irish, while not allowing the citizens of Ulster to have a say in the government. Patton 117, O'Neill Clan Historian

Removed lines

A couple of lines in this article were irrelevant, or to detailed in this context and belonged elsewhere.

• Going into detail on the allegation that Adams and McGuinness are on the Army Council is irrelevant here. That has to be in wikipedia articles, but is too detailed a fact in this type of article. (In here, it is really a footnote.) All that needs to be said is that some people believe there is a shared leadership between SF and the IRA. The detail of who is allegedly on what belongs in articles on the IRA, Sinn Féin, the Peace Process, etc.

• The stuff about Sinn Féin's electoral achievements in the Republic is completely irrelevant here, let alone details of who was elected and the numbers. All that needs to be said is that SF also runs for election in the Republic and so unlike other parties is a 32 county party. Any more detail than that belongs in an article on Sinn Féin and the Republic of Ireland, not here.

Apart from that, the opening of the article was somewhat weakly written and needed tidying up. (It is rather a basic requirement to point out that Northern Ireland is located on the island of Ireland. How the heck did was that elementary fact missed?) Also talking about Ireland being ruled from Westminster post 1801 is misleading. Westminster was the location of the lawmaking. Government was carried out from Whitehall and ceremonial functions from the Palace. If you are going to be specific about mentioning Westminster, you can't leave out Whitehall. (It is a bit like mentioning Congress but forgetting the White House.) This article doesn't need those specifics. All you need to say is London. FearÉIREANN 23:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As regards the intro:

It is rather a basic requirement to point out that Northern Ireland is located on the island of Ireland. How the heck did was that elementary fact missed?

I doubt that it was. No doubt it was removed at some page. Some would like to forget that apart from the political situation, Northern Ireland is nearly exactly that (or rather, the region is Northeastern Ireland).

zoney ♣ talk 17:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is it not obvious that Northern Ireland, from the name, is in the North of Ireland? Is there a need to state the obvious? Astrotrain 13:48, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately yes there is a need. A shame really, but there you are. Ben W Bell 14:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Northern Ireland" *is* the "North of Ireland", and it is in the north of Ireland. The subtleties of the Queen's English should not need explaining.

But the northern most bit of Ireland, Malin Head, isn't in Northern Ireland. --Cavrdg 08:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

stamp?

I don't suppose anyone can find a picture of a NI postage stamp - one of the little definitives which differ from the English ones by the emblem in the corner? --Doric Loon 16:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference? I never noticed a difference between them I must admit. A standard first class stamp in England is the same as one in Northern Ireland. Unless something has changed, I admit it's been 10 years since I bought stamps in Northern Ireland. Ben W Bell 16:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

File:Stamp NI 1st.png File:Stamp NI 2nd.png Here are the 1st and 2nd ones from last year. They've been re-issued this year with a white border. Google image search will give you those and the E and top value images from the post office site. --Cavrdg 08:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Try [10] - on the bottom left - don't know about copyright though. There are many pictures on ebay. Jonto 20:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sneaked back edits

The same user has been editing this and other pages under various numbers and names, and when he is challenged disappears only to reappear as a new person and re-enter the same stuff. It looks like he has done it again. One of the things he does on all Irish articles is call Irish provinces Irish "traditional/historic provinces, as if to apply they don't exist, when anyone who has ever consulted a map can see they still do. He does that to claim that the province of Ulster (9 countries) doesn't exist, therefore implying the unionist tendency to call Northern Ireland 'Ulster' is de facto the modern correct meaning. It is a highly controversial claim. Keep an eye out for his next visit.

I also re-inserted the section about disputed geographic nomenclature. Whomever recategorised them as slightly nationalist and slightly unionist is seriously misunderstanding the strength of feeling the usage of the various terms arose. I once saw a fight break out in a Northern bar in Belfast when some loyalists over from Scotland for the twelfth went into it and began to talk loudly about "Ulster" in a pub mainly full of people who call it the "Six Counties". Some years ago when meeting members of the youth wings of the various political parties, the meeting broke up when a southerner innocently talked of the 'six counties'. The Unionist delegates walked out in protest. The next day, when meeting a Sinn Féin delegation, they made a big rumpus when some of the southern delegation talked about "Northern Ireland", hissing back at us the words "Occupied Six Counties" everytime NI was mentioned. During their presentation, they made a big point of saying "six counties" very loudly everytime they mentioned the Northern state, as if to say 'its the six counties, and don't any of you free staters forget it!" The whole trip became a linguistic nightmare, with everyone reminded not to say 'six counties' at the meeting in Stormont Castle and in UUP HQ, not to say 'Northern Ireland' in SInn Féin HQ, to use 'North of Ireland' with the SDLP, and what to say and what not to say when brought by the various delegations to loyalist, republican, nationalist and unionist areas. (It got so bad when staying one area we were warned to go to the chipper at one end of the street - nationalist/catholic - rather than the other - loyalist/protestant - because southerners with southern accents would not be welcome in the loyalist one. "But I'm a southern protestant!" one of the women announced. "They'll presume you are a papist" she was told. "Pretend to be a catholic for the weekend and you'll be safe" she was advised!!! FearÉIREANN 00:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)</font?

Hi,

I made those edits, so have no idea what you are talking about in the first paragrpah.

Sorry, but I’m going to have to disagree. I also object to you saying that my corrections were “sneaked”, and feel that this is quite unnecessary behaviour.

I think you are greatly oversimplifying nomenclature in NI. You cannot simply put terms into sectarian boxes of either “unionist” or “nationalist”. You are making some very bold statements which imply that all unionists solely use and own certain phrases and all nationalist solely use and own others, when all 4 terms could be used by anyone in Northern Ireland. Look at the Times survey 2003 table in the article – it says that 35% polled consider themselves neither of nationalist nor unionist affiliation!

You also provide a great oversimplification in saying “pro Belfast agreement” and “anti Belfast agreement” – I think these are also out of date terms considering the Good Friday “agreement” was 8 years ago and from the current situation it is doubtful that there ever was any real agreement back in 1998 in the first place. I object to including “occupied six counties” as a term in an article in an encyclopedia – the term “six counties” is already mentioned which is sufficient - adding the word “occupied” has a very rare occurrence and is simply spreading extreme republican propaganda.

I’m guessing you are from the South and don’t actually live in NI. Maybe this is just a reflection of one bad experience you had in Northern Ireland – I am sorry on behalf of my countrymen for any poor hospitality which you may have experienced. From what it sounds like you were in the company of some extreme Republicans who may have distorted your POV. I would consider myself a moderate Northern Irish unionist – however from living in NI on a daily basis I meet many people – protestant and catholic who all generally call NI “Northern Ireland”, with any of 4 the other terms being very occasionally used by all. (Admittedly, certain terms are used more often by certain elements, but this is covered in the Seamus Mallon / Ian Paisley paragraph). Maybe I’m just an optimist, but I don’t think sectarianism is actually anywhere near as grim or prevalent in NI among ordinary decent people as would be portrayed by you, certain politicians and elements of the media.

I feel that some of the writing in your section is also very poor – in one sentence you have used the term “The North” for Northern Ireland. Usually only news bulletins in the Republic (certainly not in NI or rest of UK) refer to NI as “the north” as this would only make a relative geographical sense if talking from the South. Everywhere else the sole terms used are usually “Northern Ireland” or “The Province”. “Ulster” and “Six counties” are also used by international media, however I doubt that all usage is solely due to the Unionist/Nationalist leaning like you suggest. Your understanding of the nomenclature for Londonderry is also incorrect – unionists also sometimes call it Derry for short – it is even referred to as Derry in “The Sash”!

I have removed the word "slightly" if that makes you feel any better.

Pollywolly 16:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re the 'sneaking around' bit - it is a bit suspicious how a series of 'new' users keep cropping on the same pages and make the same edits to the page and make the same contributions to the talk page. When a host of named users then point out the blatent POV in this mysterious gang of users' identical edits, the latest 'version' disappears and promptly re-appears yet again under yet another name, does the same edits and makes the same points. And hey presto, now we have Pollywolly echoing the edits of Alec, who echoed the . . . etc.

As has been pointed out numerous times by numerous users on numerous pages, the edits are every bit as POV now as the first time, the second time, the third time etc that they were made. Regarding your claims that

the Good Friday “agreement” was 8 years ago and from the current situation it is doubtful that there ever was any real agreement back in 1998 in the first place.

• You can believe that if you want. But it is a POV and wikipedia cannot use POVs. The Belfast Agreement was signed by its participants. We cannot second judge their motivation, merely state that it happened.

I object to including “occupied six counties” as a term in an article in an encyclopedia – the term “six counties” is already mentioned which is sufficient - adding the word “occupied” has a very rare occurrence and is simply spreading extreme republican propaganda.

• You can object all you want to, but it is a fact that (a) that term is used, (b) it is used in a different way by different people to refer to NI. As such under NPOV rules it has to be included. It may to you be a "very rare occurance" but there are tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland who do use it. Whether you hear it being used or not is irrelevant. We cannot censor things out to keep unionists happy, any more than we can censor things out to keep nationalists or republicans happy. If it exists, we must cover it.

As to your claim about me being in the company of some extreme Republicans in Northern Ireland, I was actually in the company of my then boyfriend, who is a member of the DUP. One close friend of mine was a young RUC officer who had his head blown off by republicans. I have friends who are loyalist, republican, unionist, nationalist. I spend a lot of time in Northern Ireland dealing with both communities. Your writings here as elsewhere suggest that, as is so often found in Northern Ireland, you hold the views of side of the community, think your side is right and immediately dismiss anything that doesn't reflect your community's perspective as wrong, just because you, in your life, haven't experienced it. Wikipedia is not in the business of reflecting either community's views but of being factually NPOV (which is why I have ended up reverting pro-IRA edits on some articles, no-loyalist edits on others, anti-unionist diatribes on some pages, anti-republican diatribes on others. FearÉIREANN 18:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many Unionists prefer to use the term Ulster, and they are both correct and incorrect to do so. If a Belfast Unionist states he lives in Ulster, this is true. If a Belfast unionist states his country is called Ulster, this is false. As all Irish people know Ulster is comprised of 9 counties, 6 in Northern Ireland and 3 in the Republic of Ireland. I do not understand why Unionists choose to usurp the word Ulster to describe the Six Counties. It is an ancient Irish word that was used long before the Planters arrived from Britain. Perhaps they wish to identify with their Irish heritage? There may be hope for reunification after all.

As someone brought up by and around Northern Irish unionists (not political, but cultural), yet actively encouraged to understand the POV of everyone else (except those choose who practice violence to forward their political aims), I also foresee reunification some day, but not under the terms of any political groups currently active in the country at this time. This is my opinion, nothing more. I hope that when it occurs, it'll make everyone genuinely happy.

That said, there were indeed traditional kingdoms of Ireland, and Ulster was one. Many sporting competitions are based upon this regionalization, and as far as I can see, no one has a problem with Ulster existing in that sense. I suspect that Ulster is better described as a cultural region, despite the attempt of many to make it a political one. I went to the University of Ulster myself! Nearside 17:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

List of people killed

I was trying to find a list of people killed during the Troubles and came across the CAIN listing for Malcolm Sutton's 1994 book "Bear in mind these dead ... An Index of Deaths from the Conflict in Ireland 1969-1993" (Belfast: Beyond the Pale Publications ISBN 0-9514229-4-4) (Out of print) ... so I added an external link to it. The listing is from "14 July 1969 and 31 December 2001" but was updated as recently as March 2004 http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/updates.html

The book "Lost Lives" by McKittrick et al provides a matter of fact account of the deaths of all those who lost their lives in the Troubles, that somehow manages to be deeply moving!

Lower/Upper Case

Why revert the U in Unionist to lower case? Gerry Lynch 19:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland/Tuaisceart Éireann/Northren Ireland/Norlin Airlann

So this is English/Irish Gaelic/Ulster Scots and what? --Audiovideo 13:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

English/Irish/Typo?/Ulster Scots --Ryano 15:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At least one of the last two variations should be struck down, use a footnote if excessive (or alternate) translations are to be provided, infoboxes should only incorporate official names. Djegan 16:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The United Kingdom infobox gives Unitit Kinrick o Great Breetain an Northren Ireland as the Scots language version, but a Google search [11] suggests that wikipedia is the only source for this. A search for Norlin Airlann shows this to be the version to go for. I will remove "Northren Ireland" --Audiovideo 01:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is that "Norlinn Airlann" is pidgin Scots, no matter how widespread it is. The equivalent in English would be something like "Northland Iarlind". Native Scots speakers generally do say "Northren Ireland". Even if we did say "Norlinn Airlann", we'd at least spell "lann" consistently. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

UTV

From the article: The regional ITV station, Ulster Television, changed its name to simply UTV so as not to offend anyone, particularly in the Republic where it has a large audience and many advertisers.

Is there any evidence that this was a consideration, rather than simply adopting the abbreviation that everybody used? --Ryano 09:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must admit that line has me going a bit. It changed it's name quite some time ago, and quite frankly the use of the term Ulster in companies and institutions only offends a very few people, but I'm not sure as to why they changed. It could be because that's just what everyone else was doing, Kentucky Fried Chicken to KFC, British Midlands International to BMI, a lot of things in the modern world have gone down the acronym route so I do actually doubt that causing offense was the reason behind it. It may well have been a factor but I doubt it was the reason. Ben W Bell 09:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey Ben. Actually, KFC changed because of a reluctance to be hit up by the state of Kentucky for royalties based upon using the name of their state. I read that the Kentucky Derby was close to suffering the same fate. Sounds like urban legend, doesn't it? Nearside 12:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and I've scrapped it pending any back-up being provided. --Ryano 10:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Demographics and politics of Northern Ireland

The contents of this section have been moved to a separate article Demographics and politics of Northern Ireland, as the Northen Ireland Wiki was over 37kb long. I have also archived previous talk (>54 kb) to talk:Northen Ireland/Archive01 wiki. It contains discussions prior to 2005.

Thewikipedian 8th July 2005 11:37 UTC+ 2

Survey Results

Lapsed Pacifist keeps removing the results of a 2004 survey [12], on how much of the population is unionist/nationalist/etc. This is valid information and should be included.--JW1805 22:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, because if political representaton were extrapolated from this survey, nationalist representation in the Assembly would be reduced from 42 to 24, and unionist representation increased from 59 to 64 (and "others" from 7 to 20). It's an informal survey, and is not reflected in voting patterns. If it's included, it certainly should'nt be given precedence over actual political representation.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Polls are perfectly valid sources of information. Especially since the NI Assembly hasn't existed since 2002, while the poll is more recent (this should probably be clarified in the article). I don't see a problem with putting both the poll results and the Assembly makeup. Any comments from other users? --JW1805 22:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist - the only reason you don't like this survey being included is because it prevents you from now claiming that a "slight majority" of the population is unionist and a "significant minority" is nationalist, thereby preventing you from furthering your campaign of spreading republican propaganda (, implying that a united Ireland is near) throughout the whole wikipedia site.

That survey has been going for a number of years, and the figures have been fairly consistent. Try replacing the "2004" in the URL with another year to see for yourself.

I have already explained the statistical discrepancy that you mention - this is because not everyone votes. Many people don't vote in Northern Ireland because they are fed up with the eternal political wranglings over the constitiutional issues rather than day-to-day politics. These type of people are more likely to support the status quo, and hence support the UK. It is also widely documented that turnout in elections is higher in nationalist areas compared to in unionist areas. Also Proportional Representation tends to favour minorities. Jonto 22:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• I added a diagram showing the survey results over the years. Any comments? --JW1805 23:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Surveys change nothing. Elections do. None of this addresses my concerns about its prominence.

Lapsed Pacifist 23:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist - people vote for political parties on all sorts of issues (and thats the way it should be in any normal developed country in the world). This is the only way we can get a reliable opinion on the single issue of the constitution. There are Catholics who vote for the SDLP (a nationalist party), but yet would support the union - these are often deemed "soft" unionists. Another example would be if, for example, I was a nationalist, but felt that the Ulster Unionists were doing a better job on certain local issues in my area, then I might vote UUP because I felt they represented the majority of my opinions more accurately. This is exactly why precedence cannot be given to election results over a poll on the single issue in question.

JW1805 - I like the graph! Perhaps try to get in to fit in so that it doesn't mess up the formatting so much. I also would suggest changing "reunify with Ireland" to "unifying with the rest of Ireland" as that makes more sense. There is also a debate as to whether "reunify" is an accurate statement (see united Ireland) as many argue that Ireland has never been united in the politcal sense, and often "united" is used (though "reunited" is used in the survey, so maybe you should leave it in!!) Jonto 23:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

JW1805 - I think it also needs to be stated somewhere around the graph that those polled were from around Northern Ireland (maybe stating the obvious though!)Jonto 23:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"Normal developed country". Good for you, Jonto.

Lapsed Pacifist 00:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Poll inclusion

I see no reason why a single poll should be picked out as a definitive gauge of public opinion in Northern Ireland towards Unionism/nationalism. The election of representatives however is a clear indicator of people's preferences, as the parties are clearly nationalist or Unionist.

Any poll as to Unionist/nationalist leanings is not going to get an accurate response anyways, as moderate nationalist will more likely say no preference than support those lunatic extremist Republicans with their private army.

Nationalists are clearly under-reported in the poll included. 22%? Are you stark raving mad?

zoney ♣ talk 00:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to the graph created by JW1805, now moved under Demographics_and_politics_of_Northern_Ireland because it messed up the Northern Ireland page layout. This is not the result from a single poll, as evident in the graph (perhaps we should average the results). This poll is conducted by Queen's University Belfast and the University of Ulster and is widely respected.

Your reaction of "Nationalists are clearly under-reported in the poll included. 22%? Are you stark raving mad?" clearly demonstrates the great effectiveness of the modern Sinn Fein PR machine - a party who also receives an extremely large amount of press coverage.

There may be issues on how people answer the questions (as there issues on the way people vote), but this is the only way we can obtain information on opinion on the single constitutional issue. I have also explained above the most likely reaons for discrepancies with voting patterns.

Jonto 01:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jonto. The best way to ascertain what people think about a single issue is to specifically ask them. People vote for various parties for any number of reasons. The poll numbers should be included. The alternate version ("an annual survey gives a different view") is extremely vague and misleading. Just put the numbers from both the survey and the elections. I don't see what the problem is with that. --JW1805 01:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It hinges on definition. If by Nationalist one means someone who defines themselves as Irish as opposed to British, then it is wrong. However in this context nationalist = someone who would vote in a referendum tomorrow for a united Ireland. In that context it is correct. Support for a united Ireland, contrary to Sinn Féin spin, is around 1 on 4 of the population. Remember over 30% of Catholics also oppose a united Ireland — some because they think economically their interests are better served in the UK, because the UK can subsidise NI, whereas even Celtic Tiger Ireland couldn't. Others fear the power of the Catholic Church (even if these days it really has none) down south. Others have other fears).

A personal angle: one thing I found astonishing when I first began visiting Northern Ireland was how few "nationalists" would vote for a united Ireland. Chatting to people in a bar during an SDLP conference the number of people who said "but if there was a vote on it, I'd vote to stay where we are" (ie, in the UK) was mindboggling, as was the sheer numbers who said "but why would we want to join you lot? Why would we want to have your Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, the Irish language pushed down our throats, crooks like Haughey, etc." Even SDLP concillors said that. - So did a Sinn Féin guy btw, who then said "Oh Christ. Don't say I said that." I mentioned the observations my professor, who had written extensively about the North, and who said it was typical. A large chunk of SDLP voters, and even Sinn Féin voters, in polls show that they they would vote for the status quo in any referendum on Irish unity. They 22% is consistent with other polls and with practical on-the-ground attitudes. If anything, the number will probably go down rather than up if the Belfast Agreement actually works. International experience shows that agreements like it tend to make people want to change less, not more. People develop an attitude of 'if things aren't broke, why fix it?'. Some academics and politicans privately suspect that as the reason why the IRA have been slow to disarm, as they had promised to do in the Belfast Agreement. They wonder if it is in Sinn Féin's interest for the agreement to exist but not to work. Its existence has established principles (the equality agenda, police reform, powersharing, etc) that cannot be gone back on. But if it actually worked, it might undermine the support for moving onto what SF sees officially as the next stage: unity. (That is what happened with partition in the South. Once its state ran successfully, real support for unity, as opposed to lipservice, died away, producing some classics as Ray Burke in the Dáil slamming Fine Gael for running for the presidency Austin Currie, someone from "outside the country". Or the number of people who come south from the North and are horrified at the hostility the south shows to both sides in the North. The attitude was one of "our government works. Why risk it by landing ourselves with "that lot" and having our taxpayers foot their bills."

I don't agree with you that SF voters in NI aren't for a United Ireland. All the polls of SF voters where a straight Yes/No to a United Ireland is asked show that around 98% of them would vote Yes. Interestingly, the SF vote in NI is almost exactly the same % that say in polls they would vote for reunification. Also, the poll referred to here about 22% in NI wanting a United Ireland is misleading because the poll in question was multiple choice as opposed to a simple Yes/No to reunification. About 11% of Catholics say in this poll that they want an independent NI. I agree however that those Catholics who are unenthused about a United Ireland would nearly all be SDLP voters. There is also an age gap with younger Catholics being for a United Ireland compared to the older generation. I would add too that SF gets the majority of the Catholic vote and that a much more recent poll by the ESRI found 65% of NI Catholics in favour of a United Ireland, with 21% for staying in the UK and 11% in favour of an independent NI state. On the question of why the IRA took so long to decommission I would put it down to the refusal of the Unionists to go into government with SF until near the end of the 2 year period by which decommissioning was supposed to have finished. I personally as a Southern Irish person envisaged that the executive would be set up, and that had this happened immediately with a prolonged period of stability then the PIRA would have disposed of their weapons earlier. Peter O'Connell

I'm not sure if I fully buy into this argument as to why the IRA has been so slow in delivering on its guarantees. From my experience senior republicans actually believe that the Agreement will make unity the next logical step. It is an elementary error: international experience shows the exact opposite. If the half-way house works, people decide it is too risky to move away from it, given that it is working, to something else that way be a gamble and might not work as well. That was Trimble's reckoning, and it is the view of researchers and academics who have studied agreements. Indeed historians argue that if the UUP in the 1920s and 1930s had followed a different policy other than a "protestant state for a protestant people" Irish unity as an option would have off the agenda in a generation. But by not bringing the minority into their Northern Ireland, they left them alienated and so fatally undermined their own state. That is the thesis of Hume, Trimble, of renouned academics who wrote about Northern Ireland like Professor John Whyte, Paul Bew, etc. Many believe that the Agreement was a victory of Unionism because if it works it will kill off chances for Irish Unity.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

"Chatting in a bar", rock-solid sourcing at its best. If the Daily Mail were to publish a poll indicating a significant amount of support for repatriating immigrants, should we conclude that a large proportion of British people are "soft" BNP supporters? Would this then be presented as fact in Wikipedia? The idea that tens of thousands of people would vote for politicians who want the exact opposite in terms of the region's constitutional future of what they want is insulting, to say the least.

Lapsed Pacifist 04:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It is quite common to find people voting for parties because they see them as the natural representatives of their group in society, regardless of the voter's and party's position on a "nation question" - in Wales Plaid Cymru attracts voters who see it as a specifically Welsh party that Welsh voters can support regardless of whether or not they are espousing independence/recognition at the UN or whatever this week. The Scottish National Party similarly seems to attract a good portion of voters who believe in Scottish autonomy, doing things for Scotland not London and so on but again not automatically translating into support for an independent Scotland.

Furthermore the results from election overlook a significant portion of the electorate who do not vote. The 1998 Good Friday Agreement saw about 140,000 people turn out who don't normally vote (the comparison is with the Assembly elections two months later, though these too were on the upper side of average turnout) and concentrated especially in the areas where nationalist parties poll the weakest. It seems most likely that they were primarily Protestant but further information is unclear, although many believe them to be the "garden centre unionist" that gets talked about a lot. It is not unreasonable to assume that a border poll will similarly attract people who don't normally vote in elections. If we're talking about the proportion of opinion in Northern Ireland as a whole then the non-voters need to be considered and surveys seem about the only way of getting any data beyond heavily circumstantial evidence (for instance average turnout in North Down has not noticably risen because the SDLP and Sinn Fein started contesting the seat, nor does Sinn Fein's vote since 2001 there suggest that the non-voters before that were just waiting for an SF candidate to vote for). Timrollpickering 14:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I however believe that only votes matter. Like it or not we all live in a democracy. Yes it's true non-voters may have an opinion on the matter, but in the end only people who go out and vote will count, such is the nature of democracy. If people feel strongly about it then they should vote. Surveys are also so wildly inaccurate no matter what they are measuring unless you survey the entire population, results are always skewed in areas, income brackets, religion and by everything else. I think we can only take actual votes as an indicator. Ben W Bell 10:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

True but the election is an election and not a single issue referendum. The non-voters don't vote in the election but the 1998 precedent suggests many will vote in the referendum. Only a border poll with decent across the board turnout (not the mass nationalist boycott of 1973) will give a clear answer on this one. Timrollpickering 10:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems logical to me to extrapolate from current voting patterns, which does'nt necessitate the exclusion of the poll from the article.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that would only be logical if:

1. Everybody voted. (Obviously, not true)
2. Every vote cast was based solely on that party's position on union/united ireland. (Also, obviously not true, although maybe this is where you would disagree?)
3. The number of seats that each party received was exactly equal to the percentage of the vote that they received (Not true for various reasons, the obvious one being that there must be an integer number of seats).

All the current version says is that, according to a recent poll, a certain percentage of people are unionist/nationalist. That's it. That's a fact, the poll really does say that. And polls are an accepted tool to gauge public opinion. --JW1805 18:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes cast are an even better tool for gauging public opinion. That is why many countries have elections. No-one is disputing the inclusion of the poll. Whether or not it should be considered definitive is, however, another matter, as is the blanking of election results that tell a different story. It's possible that many people in the region vote for politicians that they disagree with on the issue of the region's future, but I doubt very much that the figure is over 100,000, as the poll results would indicate. If you're unhappy with extrapolating from the seats gained, I'm prepared to give percentages based on votes cast. To sum up, the secret ballot is a fundamental premise of western democracy, and I don't think the survey offered the same level of privacy. Guessing the political aspirations of people who are'nt bothered to vote is a mug's game.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "blanking of election results". The election results are in the sentence beginning with "The make-up of the Northern Ireland Assembly..." I've said all along to put both results (poll and election). Your premise that opinion polls are worthless just doesn't hold water. They are a well established and useful tool for examining public opinion. --JW1805 21:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Who said the survey is worthless? The blanking I referred to concerned the results of the latest election, in 2005, which I entered and which have subsequently disappeared. Currently, only the 2003 Assembly election results are mentioned.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that edit was reverted since you had attempted to obscure the poll results as well. By all means, put in the most recent election numbers (indicate that they are from the 2005 election to avoid confusion).--JW1805 22:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There was no such attempt on my part, unless you consider placing the election results after those of the poll similarly "obscuring".

Lapsed Pacifist 22:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course there was. You took out the numerical results from the poll, and wrote "An annual survey gives a different view." (and said that a slight majority of the population favor staying in the union). All precisely calculated to obscure. --JW1805 01:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no great faith in the survey, but I shan't remove it again. Nothing concrete indicates to me the majority is more than slight.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Coat of Arms?

I note that on this site that there is a picture of the Northern Ireland coat of arms (the one with the stag). Since I'm relatively new to editing here, I'm not too sure as to the copyright rules for images etc. Does anyone know where a colour version of this could be obtained that would fit the fair use poilicy, and could be placed in the "Symbols" section. The Northern Ireland article is the only part of the British Isles articles without a coat of arms!! (even though I understand that the Stormont parliament was abolished, but think it should be included anway) Jonto

The coat of arms featured is DEFUNCT. Nobody uses it, least of all the UK government - while Scotland does have its own version of the British coat of arms, Northern Ireland doesn't. The flag (which is a banner of the arms) is still used sometimes, but the coat of arms itself is not used any more, unofficially, semi-officially, or officially. Quiensabe 2005-10-13 04:00 UTC

The arms featured are defunct and incorrect. The lion supporter is not crowned and should look to the arms and not the viewer. The compartment was added in 1971 as including 2 flax plants with three flowers each, but no motto was drawn onto/around the compartment. In fact the Home Office even queried if it was correct. 82.24.32.135 16:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I tried to correct ist, I think it's better now, but not good. I know the head is worse, but it looked like copied from that page.--Hun2 16:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This article has become crap again

Somehow, this article has become, once more, crap. Too many things which should be in the main politics and history articles. Also the structure is way out of kilter with most other country articles. I'd suggest first of all taking most of the tedious )(and often inaccurate) nomenclature stuff out into a separate article.

Can we try and make it more readable and legible regardless of our POVs, please? Gerry Lynch 15:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I seriously agree - their is a point at which it is time to "cull" an article heavily - topical news items can be particularily in this category where they become a "dump" for every side in a npov-perversion. In particular the section on geography has become large, compared to others. A good article should be factual, to the point, have flow and balance - it is going to be a difficult job identifying what is to be culled here as it has seriously been fought over in revert wars recently. Djegan 18:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The nomenclature section is perfectly correct and needs to be in to explain to readers outside Northern Ireland why certain words are used. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I think it's excessively detailed for a main article, it can be put in a linked side article. It's also riddled with value judgements, urban myths and straight out inaccuracies. Gerry Lynch 12:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - the nomenclature section is very poor. Full of PoV and too focused on Nationalist/Unionist divides. Words are used for many reasons and not simply for those stated. And where's "Norn Iron" on the list!!?Jonto 20:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear.

Lapsed Pacifist 05:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't resist it

This article sucks and is way in need of attention. Please improve it in any way you see fit.

Gerry Lynch 12:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Survey

Why is a 2004 Survey being used, instead of the 2005 elections? According to http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/ 51.4% of Northern Ireland voted for DUP or UUP for westminster, and 49.3% voted for the 2 unionist parties in district councils. While 42 and and 41.1% voted for the SDLP or Sinn Fein both of which believe in a united ireland 100%. An election is a far better sample then a small (comparitively) survey, am I wrong? SCVirus 00:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right.

Lapsed Pacifist 00:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Totally wrong. Data analysis over and over again shows a significant minority of SDLP are not in favour of a united Ireland but simply a just Northern Ireland. Elections are not voted on policy, but policy, regionalism, candidate appeal, even alphabetical location of a candidate on a ballot paper has an impact. (Remember some Catholics voted for Trimble and even for Paisley. Protestants voted for Durkan. Bizarrely in some European polls some even voted DUP number 1 and Sinn Féin number 2!) The survey focused not on such issues but exclusively on policy. All the evidence of all the surveys suggest unambiguously that the survey accurately represents popular support on the issue of a united Ireland versus the union. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright I realised that since there was a link to a main article, that is where I should of been mentioning this, but when I took a look at that article, I noticed that the statistics were different. On the 'main' article it says in a 2003 survey Unionist 38% Nationalist 24% Neither 35%. Whereas in this article a 2004 survey says its 59% unionist and 22% nationalist. That sounds like a pretty big difference/margin of error. Surveys are not definitive, they sample a small number of people and have a wide margin of error. I agree that probably alot of people vote for parties that they don't agree with all the policies of, but those are atleast a reasonable representation of the entire population. These surveys are even from the same source. Somehow I don't think one year created a 21% increase in unionism. SCVirus 01:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The survey results are all over the place. Jtd, concerning "a significant minority of SDLP". 22%, the figure given for those in favour of unity, is just slightly more than half the entire nationalist vote. Even if not one unionist voted for a nationalist politician, and assuming that Sinn Féin voters are more likely to want a united Ireland than SDLP voters, 22% of the total population would indicate that no SDLP and only some Sinn Féin voters favour a united Ireland. I would have some difficulty swallowing that.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The first point is the distinction between Big U Unionists & Big N Nationalists - i.e. people who identify as part of the "Unionist community" or "Nationalist community" respectively - and small u unionists & small n nationalists - i.e. people's position on the border. There are many who would not call themselves "Unionists" and be associated with Orange Orders, Paisley and the like but who would vote for the union come a border poll. I'm not sure if the first survey you cite is seeking community identity or position on a border poll.

Second point is that the survey is giving results for Northern Ireland as a whole and not just the turnout in elections. This is a crucial distinction because whatever some parties may say, the elections are not a referendum on the border - does anyone seriously go to bed on results night and worry that they're going to wake up in a United Ireland? People who are happy with things as they are or who don't see a need to express a preference in an election for a representative body tend to be less inclined to vote than those who want to see significant change - and this is reflected in the way that turnout is traditionally higher in staunch Nationalist/Republican areas than in staunch Unionist areas. The Good Friday Referendum, with something like an extra 140,000 voters (mainly in the east) suggests that on a major single issue itself many more will turn out to vote. I'm also not sure what percentage of non voters (whether under age, non registered or what) come under the auspices of the survey. Does anyone have the numbers to hand to indicate what the number of people who voted for SF & the SDLP are as a) a percentage of the total electorate and b) a percentage of the population as a whole. Whilst some have suggested that those who don't vote in elections shouldn't be counted "as they chose no to have their say", I disagree as I don't see the election as a definitive border poll.

Thirdly the SDLP's position on Irish Unity has historically been all over the place - Fitt & Devlin tried to keep the focus on social democracy; Hume in the later years talked about "post nationalism" and so forth. Equally a lot of studies indicate that there are many Catholics who would opt for the Union in a referendum (even the 1973 border poll indicates that the number of people voting for the Union was above the regular number of voters for Unionist parties) but who feel alienated from all the parties with "Unionist" in the name given the community divide and are more likely to vote for the representatives of "their" people than for a party they happen to agree with on an issue that is not the primary point in the election at hand. So where are they likely to go? Timrollpickering 14:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

To answer your first point, the descriptions with capitals don't appear to me to be anything more than shorthand for Catholics and Protestants. As for your second, "Northern Ireland as a whole" was'nt being asked, only a number of people the pollsters believed representative. As for the difference in voting patterns across the communal divide, I believe this is informed more by the quality of political leadership being offered to unionists at present, rather than complacency. Regarding your third, I won't argue about the SDLP's frequent repositioning; however, recent election results indicate to me that many SDLP votes in the past were from nationalists who could'nt bring themselves to vote for a party that condoned the IRA's excesses. As the IRA has wound down, Sinn Féin is picking up those votes. Surveys are by necessity blunt instruments. A person may favour closer integration with the Republic, without the region leaving the UK altogether. Another may favour joint sovereignty, yet feel strongly attached to their association with Britain. The SDLP's position at the moment seems to be that the Belfast Agreement should continue even in a united Ireland, meaning a separate political system for the region would continue either way. The UUP seem more amenable than the DUP to the Republic exercising influence, but not too much. While these nuances seem to slip through the net, I'm not against including the surveys. But I feel they should be qualified, and should'nt be given prominence over election results.

Lapsed Pacifist 15:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The SDLP's decline seems to be a number of factors - the withdrawal of Hume and his replacement by frankly far less inspiring leaders (it was once said the SDLP's problem was that it was a two-man show of Fitt & Hume - and they solved that the wrong way), Sinn Fein offering more dynamic alternatives, older voters dying off, younger voters agreeing with Sinn Fein more than the SDLP on a number of issues including social ones, a past surge in the Catholic birthrate now reaching the ballot boxes, Sinn Fein proving that they are the party to keep the Unionists out in the Westminster seats in the west, a desire to keep Sinn Fein/IRA wedded to the political process, a near thoroughly effective Sinn Fein electoral machine, (if one internal document is to be believed) even complacency leading to voters to leave the ballot box behind and become the mirror of the Garden Centre Unionist that the UUP seems to have spent the last seven years chasing and perhaps a more general malaise of being a predominantly middle class party with a few good issues that are popular but overall not really offering a great package and once those issues are implemented the party is left floundering (this also seems to be affecting the Alliance).

Surveys aim to be representative and true they don't always succeed, but they are one of the few instruments in use that has actually asked the border question, rather than crudely translating headcounts into the division of opinion.

As for the differential turnout, I'm not so sure. Some parts of Northern Ireland have always had rotten turnouts (e.g. North Down) and others have consistently seen the turnout at high levels. Yes the leadership currently offered isn't the most inspiring but given that several different leaderships have been on offer over the years and this has not noticably varied the outcome, it seems likely to be a stronger trend. When there has been a high turnout amongst the Unionist community it's often been in tightly fought marginal seats (e.g. Fermanagh & South Tyrone) in a desire to keep Republicans or Nationalists out. In the Unionist-Unionist contests in the east this isn't a fear - look also that the turnout gap between referendum and assembly elections was strongest in the areas where nationalists are weakest.

There's one simple solution to this - let's have that border poll. Timrollpickering 09:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland naming dispute

The article Northern Ireland naming dispute has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Ireland naming dispute. Djegan 21:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

If the outcome is deletion, then kindly reintegrate its content into the parent article (viz this one), and also transfer its talk page here. //Big Adamsky 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. That article should not be deleted, but renamed to something like "Terminology for Northern Ireland". As discussed with what looks like consensus under "This article has become crap again", most of that nomenclature section is woefully long and inaccurate. I propose to scrap the majority nomenclature stuff from this article and link to the mentioned article instead. Jonto 18:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Decolonizing Occupied Ulster

Decolonization has been adopted by the U.N. as official policy, and has even been forced - such as for example, in the case of Guine Portuguesa ("Guinea Bissau"), where the U.N. 'denounced' the Government of Portugal for 'aggression' against the rebels! Let us also not forget the Pied Noirs of Algeria, who were left with no other option than to repatriate to Continental France. Why are the Anglo-Scotch colonists in Occupied Ulster an exemption to this? The Occupation is justified only on the basis of these colonists, who have no moral right to remain in Eire in this day and age.

If colonism is immoral, it is immoral everywhere, and by whomever practised. And colonists do not have a moral right to carve out bantustans for themselves on basis of pretended colonist-majority districts!

Why is it that the English imperial fiction of "North Ireland" is considered moral and legal, but the bantustan carved out of Romania-Moldavia by Russian-Ukrainian colonists as the "Republic of Trans-Dniestria" or the Turkish bantustan for Turkish colonists in North Cyprus considered illegal? Hypocrisy? Double standards? Englishmen have a right to rob and impose themselves on others, while Russians and Turks don't?

One can argue about the morality and honesty of Robert Mugabe, his tactics, personality cult and his cronyism, but one can hardly argue with the fact that if colonists are uncomfortable with their host communities, it is time for them to repatriate. Or, perhaps, a la "North Eire", the English should invade Zimbabwe to carve out a "Free Rhodesia" for English colonists there?

Can colonists pretend to a right to democracy where they do not belong? Englishmen and Scots have rights to democracy in England and Scotland, not in Occupied Eire.

Today, in Eire, we see an effete and compromised Irish people willing to sell their birthrights to the colonists and their imperialist masters in London in exchange for an illusory peace. That is the greatest monument to the success of the centuries-old English program of terrorism of and genocide directed against the Irish, and it would seem, that this "success" will present the world with a fait accomplii.

As a citizen of another occupied territory (Goa), I appeal to Irish patriots not to join the bandwagon of the complacent traitors but to pursue justice unalloyed and true. Freedom is always worth the sacrifices involved. There is no real liberty without winning one's right to it. It is high time to compel England, whichever way, to recall its colonists from Ireland.

WikiSceptic 18:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Great Idea! - we will start re-patriation of Irish colonists from England immediately. Irish nationalism has more in common with BNP than it has ever been prepared to admit. 82.13.18.57 (talk)

I trust you don't really think that the above ill-informed rant by WikiSceptic is characteristic of mainstream Irish nationalism. --Ryano 21:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think twice already that comment was blanked, Wikipedia is not a soapbox; as a matter of course i dont believe their is any policy that states an off the topic comment must stay. Djegan 22:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't see any reason to blank that particular comment if the rest of the comments in this section are to stay. There doesn't appear to be any discussion about the article in this section whatsoever. --Ryano 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank You my good sir, First High King Niall probably looks down with pleasure. As his descendent, I thank you for promoting the full withdrawl of the British Pupeteers from the place that Nial ruled from. As a member of the Irish community in the United States, I too call for the total and complete removal of the British from the Sacred Hills of Erie. May our Lady of Knock Queen of Ireland look with favour upon the devout who support a peaceful withdrawl of the british from the Emerald Isle. Patton 117, Historian for the O'Neill Clan

I too wish to see all 32 counties free of British control, but if that includes expelling "Anglo-Scotch colonists in Occupied Ulster" then we would also have to consider the position of "the Irish community in the United States ... [including] Patton 117, Historian for the O'Neill Clan" as some of the many colonists of Native American territory82.24.32.135 16:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

BBC Newsreport: British govt mulled 'relocating' Irish out of Occupied Ireland - WikiSceptic 20:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine if you want to decolonise Northern Ireland then I'll go for it, but you also have to decolonise other areas. Everyone in North American who is not a blood descendant of the original natives must leave, same with Australia. Israel must be handed back to the Palestinians who must then hand it back to the Jews who must then hand it back to the Eqyptians/Sumarians/whoevers. Southern Spain should be handed back to the Moors, half of France should be returned to the English and then back to the Francs. You cannot keep going back in time as ultimately we should all retreat to a small pocket somewhere in Africa and then rid the world of the human species. Ben W Bell 08:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL! If you want to "decolonise" Ireland, then where do you draw the line Wikisceptic? Not only should we remove our English and Scottish cousins, but we should also remove surely all of our Muslim and African etc fellow humans. And let's go further back in time, why not.. we should remove also the Normans throughout Dublin and the Pale and the rest of Ireland, remove the Gaels and the previous Celts too. After all, what "moral right" do any of those peoples have to remain in Ireland?

As for an "English imperial fiction of 'North Ireland'" .. I've never heard of North Ireland before. I am aware of Northern Ireland though, but its certainly not a "fiction". As for imperialism - this is the 21st century: welcome.

Englishmen and Scots have right to democracy across the United Kingdom. The individual regions do not matter so much: a Scot can live and work in England and is free to vote in elections for his English constituency. An Englishman may live and work in Northern Ireland and will be afforded the same rights. They are not, as far as I know, automatically granted these same rights in "Occupied Eire".. assuming by that phrase you're talking about the Republic of Ireland.

"Illusory peace"? LOL! "Terrorism and genocide"? LOL! I suggest you read a history book and stay away from romantic idealist notions.

As you are a citizen of Goa, I suggest you stick with what you know.

Yours sincerely, A free Irish patriot. --Mal 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Confusing sentences

These two sentences had me scratching my head:

"Although Protestants are a clear majority, the largest religious denomination of Northern Ireland is the Roman Catholic Church, followed by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and the Church of Ireland, with the Methodist Church of Ireland coming fourth. These two views are linked to deeper cultural divisions."

What on earth do they mean? Do "practising" protestants outnumber "practising" catholics? Or the other way around? Which "two views" are being referred to in the second sentence? Robertbyrne 15:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It means that in terms of the Protestant-Catholic division there are more Protestants than Catholics. But in terms of a detailed breakdown of individual religions, Catholicism is the largest one, then Presbyterianism, then the Church of Ireland, then Methodism. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I guessed this around the time "plurality" was substituted for "majority" on the 20th October. Not sure the wording is clear yet though. By the way, what does "fear eireann" mean? (Should I fear Ireland? :) ). Robertbyrne 04:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous history

Ulster's Unionists, though generally opposed to the introduction of Home Rule to Ireland as a whole, were willing to accept a divided Ireland, with the nine counties of Ulster remaining under direct rule from London. Not true. Unionists did not want partition. Some were willing to accept it tactically in the belief that Britain would not partition the island. Most Unionist leaders like Carson were appalled at the very idea of partition.

Frankly the entire section was barely pass standard. If written in an essay it would get a "must try better" note from a teacher. It was way below basic encyclopædic standards.

To put it bluntly, this graphic sums it up:

This article sucks and is way in need of attention. Please improve it in any way you see fit.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

County Derry/County Londonderry

I do not agree with "County Derry" being given prominance as of late in the article, "County Londonderry" should be given first prominance as it was the official name of the administrative county whilst it existed and today it remains as the name used for the Lord-Lieutenant title for the county, County Derry has no official status. Introducing information on what each community uses only introduces clutter in an already large and overbearing article (this is already a big issue in all Northern Ireland articles where every opinion has to be pandered to), and as it was largely agreed that the compromise was for "City of Derry" and "County Londonderry" then I think its only a matter of time before its open day on this question again. Call it dumbing down if you want, but simplicity rules. Djegan 23:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

County Londonderry is the legal name for the county, as created for local government purposes, in British law. But the article isn't talking just about the legal name of the county in that section. Geography doesn't use Londonderry but County Derry. That section needs to cover the variants. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Where is the term County Derry used geographically? Counties are nothing but political entities. The name of the county is County Londonderry, that is straight forward fact no matter the opinions of either side. Should we change the Republic of Ireland article to the name Down South as that's how many people in Northern Ireland refer to it? Of course not, so why should County Londonderry be changed to something it is not? Hell even the infamously unbiased source of the CIA Worldbook lists it as County Londonderry. Ben W Bell 08:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but like it or not Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and the official name in the UK is County Londonderry. I see no problem with recording its alternative name as well, but its official name in its own country comes first. And what do people mean by 'geographical' name? It is (or was) a county. A county is purely an administrative unit. Geography has nothing to do with it. Its name may be County Derry in the Republic, but it's not in the Republic, whether some would like it to be or not! -- Necrothesp 13:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The term County Londonderry is always given prominence in any map\atlas, it is the Official name of the county, which has never had any other name. It was created when the County of Coleraine and parts of Tyrone, Donegall and Antrim were formed to make County Londonderry, this is when Derry town (as it was then) was renamed. The GAA use the term County Derry because it is a Catholic association where the term Londonderry is not accepted. :: Keith :: 15:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to this discussion, but I hope you'll excuse a pedantic point on your comment: it's not fair or accurate to call the GAA a "Catholic association". --Ryano 18:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

County has a number of meanings:

• a geo-political unit as defined in law — the name of that is County Londonderry, but not everyone in that context calls it that.
• the historic county as used since the layout of Irish county boundaries by the Ordinance Survey. There the law and common usage diverged frequently. Sometimes County Derry is used. Sometimes County Londonderry is used.

In most states the name of a county is easy to use. Not so in Northern Ireland where law, ordinance survey usage, cultural usage, and geo-political usage diverges based on the the competing demands of two rival communities that their choice be picked as a zero-sum game to say 'we beat you on that one' to the other commmunity. (Both communities pay that zero sum superiority game. It is pain in the butt to the rest of the planet.) Not to use Londonderry, or not to use Derry, when both are used widely, would be POV and guaranteed to trigger endless edit wars as people from either community come on. If we were just talking about the constituency, or only about the legally defined geo-political unit, then only one name would suffice. But the article isn't doing that. It is using terms that are more than simply legal formulaic and have to recognise and deal with the rival usage of names. BTW catographers very rarely use Londonderry is practice when discussing the county. Broadcasters face a similar problem to us here and they always use both names, usually Londonderry in the heads and Derry in the text. Using one alone is not an option however much one community's supporters might demand it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The news report thing (BBC I believe) is only in reference to Derry City not the county, it is, and always has been Londonderry, County Derry would only be seen in a news report about a GAA game. Cartographers generally, unless is is different in the Republic of Ireland as it is here, use County Londonderry. Usually the city is printed as "Londonderry (Derry)". I can assure readers that any maps I have used or own have the county written as County Londonderry as it would be expected to be. :: Keith :: 22:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have worked with the BBC. That is incorrect. It is heads LD, text LD 1st, D 2nd and on. With county LD is used as primary, D as secondary. And you are misrepresenting OS and geographic usage. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay Jtdirl, back up your claims with evidence, I personally have never seen County Derry on a map that wasn't from a Republican source. The county has only one legal name and has only ever had one name. Ben W Bell 07:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl - this reminds me of when I posted a comment on the Londonderry talk page (Talk:Derry) about this very issue. You tried to claim than the name for the city was "Derry" on most maps. Now you are claiming the same for the county. This is complete nonsense, unless you are talking about maps produced in the Republic. Again, can I suggest that you do a google image search on maps from around the world and report back your findings? IMO the only place where the term 'Derry' should correctly be used is in reference to the administrative council area or airport.

IMO the overly PC BBC NI is not a good reference for this issue.

Also, I note that through the edit history on Ulster that you also try to claim Ulster as a geographic region - this is another highly dubious claim. Jonto 17:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Plebiscite

I note that a figure of 57% has been given for the plebiscite in the 70s withiout a source. I remember thinking that this was much higher. Anyone got a source? Jonto 17:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

West midlands influence?

Could someone explain how the Norn iron accent is influenced by that of the brummys, or where this came from? Jonto 17:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea where someone got that idea, the accents are totally different. Also there isn't really such a thing as a Northern Irish accent, it varies so much from place to place more so than in many countries for some reason. Ben W Bell 19:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The article refers to dialect not accent! Can't be arsed explaining it but since the majority of English Planters came from the West Midlands (not the same thing as contemporary Brummy) a result is that the dialect shows influence from their speech habits (not the same thing as sounds the same). Hope that wasn't too difficult to understand.

Ken Mair 10:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The Map

The map "Northern Ireland's location within the UK" does not show remote parts of the country, namely the isles of Scilly and the Shetland Islands. On the other hand, some of the neighbouring countries and territories are outlined (in white), namely the isles of Man and Ireland, whereas nearby France and Belgium are not shown at all... --Big Adamsky 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The Republic is presumably in outline as it shares the UK's one and only land border. The omissions, however, should probably be corrected, as should the similar pictures at Scotland, England, Wales etc. Try leaving notes on the images' talk pages, or adapt the pictures yourself if you have the graphical knowhow. --Kwekubo 12:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I would do it myself if I had the technological means... For now all I can do is "complain", as it were. But at least it's a start. 8-] --Big Adamsky 13:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incorrect/misleading section on "Northern Ireland nationality law"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(NornIron, 9 April, 17.14)

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

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

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

(NornIron, 10 April, 13.01)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. The teams official name is Great Britain[13].

Irrelevant. Olympic jurisdictions are sovereign countries or legally incorporated territories. Great Britain is neither. JAJ 23:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Even before partition, Irish athletes entered as part of a "Great Britain" team. It should probably have been UK, but the name stuck. I've noticed a lot of TV commentators refer to the "GB and Northern Ireland team", in the way a lot now refer to the "British and Irish Lions". The team someone from NI plays for often depends on their sporting association - Eventing, Boxing and indeed most sports apart from football recognise a 32 county team, as a carry-on from pre-partition times.Blowmonkey 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

At the Olympics the only choice for a Northern Ireland person is to represent either the United Kingdom (Team GB) or the Republic of Ireland. Assuming the person is a dual citizen - those in Northern Ireland who are not Irish citizens may only represent the United Kingdom at the Games. JAJ 23:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Validity of voter demographic?

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

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

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

Clearly showing a rise in Nationalist voting patterns.

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

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

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

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

BBX 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ulster Scots

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

Since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I thought it best to point that out. BBX (talk

• Good point. I'll take it down, unless anyone can substantiate that it has official status. Guinnog 19:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not named under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which I assume is where Irish derives it's "official" status, perhaps renaming the "Official language" box, to "Languages", and annotating what languages are official would be in order? This could also include the languages of the substantial portugeese, and chineese communities that have developed over the past number of years.
  • For a list of NI languages see [[14]], which I suspect is about as much of an official statement as we are going to get

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

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

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

Unfair removal of work

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

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

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

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

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

Also, the old government of northern Ireland has never been official as a flag of northern Ireland, and so what is wrong with adding the word “Unofficial” under it, to further explain it’s status? BBX (talk

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

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

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

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

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

This is a good addition as it informs the reader that although the questionnaire of tiny percentage of northern Ireland say this, it is also important to take into account that the survey shouldn’t be taken with a grain of salt. BBX (talk

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

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

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

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

=To “Jonto”=

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=To “Timrollpickering”=

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

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

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

This is short, to the point, truthful and simply insightful to the reader. It wouldn’t be fair to try and give a casual reader fact that are not facts. BBX (talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flag Status

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

Thanks for bringing up discussion on this

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

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

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

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

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

No discussion?

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

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

1. No change. Union flag.

2. Union flag flown at regulated occasions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flags and emblems

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anything else would be simply be one sided.

BBX 00:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Poll: Ireland article titles

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

Net Domain

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

---

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

Or you could argue that .uk is official in ROI because of addresses like [15].

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

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

Thoughts?

NotMuchToSay 23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Flag usage

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

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

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

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

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

I say either one of the follow should take place:

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

B. No flags used, only a map.

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

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

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

This is getting ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New flags page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anthem: De Facto, Londonderry Air or none.

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

• Well lets put a union flag on their pages!

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

Flag: Official government of northern Ireland standard.

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

Anthem: De Facto: Londonderry Air

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

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

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

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

BBX 15:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'd like the following removed

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

There is so much wrong with this paragraph.

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

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

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

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

From the GFA:

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

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

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

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

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

This article has become a fiasco...

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

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

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

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

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

Jonto 13:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BBX 00:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response to:

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

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

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

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

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

BBX 00:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

BBX 18:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Djegan 20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

BBX 16:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the way this section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official Language reversions

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

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

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

I do want to report something serious though:

WildIrishMan Vandilising

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

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

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

Calling any Adults posting here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do want to report something serious though:

WildIrishMan Vandilising

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

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

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

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

Is there a way of lodging a complaint?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Van Morrison was wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note on "its" vs "it's"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look:

• It's = It is
• Its = possessive

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

Civillian Deaths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danny Boy

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

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

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

Stroke City

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

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

Section on discrimination

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

Melaugh decribes it as follows.

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

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

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

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

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

Religious breakdown

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

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

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

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

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

More on religious breakdown

The leading sentence in the Demographics section says:

"In the 2001 census, 45.5% of the Northern Irish population were Protestant, (Presbyterian, Church of Ireland, Methodist and other Protestant denominations), and 40.3% of the population were Roman Catholic. 13.9% of the population did not specify a religion. [16]"

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

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

Unionist or Nationalist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

northern ireland is an illegally occupied part of ireland .the northern irish statlet encourages sectarianism Bouse23 14:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irish Passport Issue

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

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

Jonto 23:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Hey there ,well I was Born in Northern Ireland and a Number of years ago Before the Good friday agreement I was going to apply for a Irish Passport but was put off doing so (i already have a UK Passport) ,as you had to prove that your grandfather/grandmother were born before 1921/1922 this was all done away with in the Good friday agreement all we Northern Ireland people whom apply for Irish Passports now do is just send in Our Long Birth certificate showing that we were born on the Island of Ireland .....before 1998/1999 you had to send in your and your parent(s) and Grand parents Birth Certificate to get a Irish Passport , but now its much much more simple !!! so in answer to your question Jonto yes before 1998 yes we could apply for Irish Passports but it was a hard to get all the Proof etc but not now all you do is get a application for a Irish Passport fill it out and pay you fee (in UK pounds in a UK post office here in Northern Ireland ) and they send it to Dublin for processing ...

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

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

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

Djegan 12:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

My ma and da both have always had Irish passports, years and years before the GFA. While my mother's mother was born in Wexford, both my father's parents were born in Derry, post-1922. In fact I'm pretty sure I got my first passport around 1996 or 97, and I had no problem obgtaining it. So are you sure you couldn't get Irish passports pre-GFA? (Derry Boi 08:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

There's a lot of debate on this subject, little of it fact based. The bottom line is that Irish passports were generally available in Northern Ireland from 1956, subject to a little extra paperwork. The evidence for this is the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (original version) JAJ 01:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad wording on third paragraph?

On the third paragraph, it read:

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

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

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

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

Article getting messy again

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

Added

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

Hi Fluffy,

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

socio-economic

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stormont

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

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

There is a very long and uninteresting piece on [[17]] explaining the difference between the 'assembly' and the current assembly of memebers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.12.249.63 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

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

Names

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

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

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

'official languages'

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

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

Idunnomeself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idunnomeself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nonsensical edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the British Isles article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dieu Et Mon Droit

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

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

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

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

Idunnomeself

flag

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

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

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

PS - Something like this?   theKeith  Talk!   16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There is only one 'official' flag of NI recognized internationally and it is the Union Jack. Ergo it should feature on the page instead of any parochial one.

I replaced the flag of the former government with an outline of Northern Ireland in the Northern Ireland topics navigation box, as Keithgreer suggested. However, another editor immediately reverted it with the comment see Northern Ireland. Please discuss the template at Template talk:Northern Irish topics --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ulster banner has to go it is no longer offical it should be replaced by the Union Flag. --Barry^talk 11:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Northern Ireland flag must stay. It is the only flag which uniquely represents Northern Ireland. Scotland's entry only shows the Scottish flag. Northern Ireland's entry should show the Northern Ireland flag which is officially used by the NI football team and at the Commonwealth Games. Happytalk (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

see #Ulster Banner below

The flag officially under United Kingdom law for Northern Ireland is the Union Jack so the flag for Northern Ireland on here should be the Union Jack too. Somethingoranother (talk)

Lives lost in the "Troubles" section needs numbers

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

Extent of Ulster

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

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

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

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

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

"northern irish" - neutral?

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

No more than "Northern Ireland" suggests the entity is on the island of Ireland.   Keithology  Talk!  17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Languages

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

British/Northern Irish/Irish

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

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

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

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

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