Jump to content

Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

2011 UK consensus used 'country' for Northern Ireland

The 2011 UK census actually used the term 'country' and offered 'Northern Ireland' along with the other three. I actually jotted the question down to insert into Talk:Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom/refs at some point, but I can't find where I wrote it (and UKCOUNTRIES has got very messy again by the looks of it). Does anyone have the specific census question? Matt Lewis (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have it. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you actually mean census, rather than consensus? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
... and UKCOUNTRIES rather than UKCOUNTIES? Daicaregos (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrections made. Thank you kindly both for pointing them out. All part of the great service you both do for Wikipedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that you mean census, that's probably not so remarkable. It is my understanding that "Tick which country you are from: England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland" is one of those contexts where it has always been acceptable to refer to Northern Ireland as a country, simply because it stands in for Ireland after the rest of Ireland left the union. Whereas "Northern Ireland is a country" is not acceptable. To take an unpolitical analogy: "Tick which kind of chair you prefer: stools, office chairs, armchairs, sofas." There is nothing wrong with that, but "A sofa is a chair" is very jarring. Hans Adler 21:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course I meant 'census'. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This site has an "official" reference to NI as a country, though it may be relevant that the ONS is not a UK Government body - it is an independent publicly-funded body that reports to the UK Parliament, not the same thing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it has no such thing. You failed to understand my distinction. It just says the UK consists of four countries, then lists them and quietly includes Northern Ireland. That's like listing chairs and quietly including a sofa. Perfectly normal thing to do. What you won't easily find is a text speaking specifically about Northern Ireland that says specifically that it is a country. One of the four countries of the UK, that's rather easy to find. A country of the UK is slightly harder but should still not be hard at all. But a source calling it a country without somehow making it clear that it means country in the sense that it plays the role of a country in an internal UK context – that will be harder, and most such sources will be of generally poor quality. Hans Adler 22:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I confess that the logic of that defeats me. If a sofa is not a chair, it is equally not a "kind of chair". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Any new examples need to be added to RA's favourite list really. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "kind of". The problem is that it may be wrong to say "A is an X", but correct to put A on a "list of Xs" so long as there are enough proper Xs on the list and A is sufficiently similar to them. That's because when you make a list of Xs it's natural to use a more inclusive definition, while statements of the form "A is an X" are read to say that A actually has all the important characteristics of an X.
You can observe this phenomenon everywhere in Wikipedia. It's why Offa of Mercia and Egbert of Wessex are on List of English monarchs, even though their articles don't really describe them in this way. And that's in spite of Wikipedia's tendency to be hyperprecise for such things. See List of Presidents of the United States#About the list to see what kinds of people could reasonably have been included in a "list of US presidents" but were left out because they don't fit the strictest criteria and so are not called US presidents in their respective articles. Tomato is on List of culinary vegetables with no comment, but the explicit claim that it is a vegetable is carefully phrased and explained in its own article. Hans Adler 09:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hans' should take a look at that list and note how many reference refer to NI as a country to those that state its not a country. Hans' objections to NI's status as a country here is acknowledged, however doesn't overrule the consensus reached that is backed by the vast majority of sources - and many don't put it into the context Hans is saying needs to be provided either. Census form states country, and with or without context, still lists it as a country. Mabuska (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
You are misreading and overinterpreting the sources. They support putting Northern Ireland on a list of countries because they do that. They do not support saying that Northern Ireland is a country because they don't do that. Hans Adler 09:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
What Hans means is that talking about the four constituent parts of the UK as being "countries" is common place (and relatively uncontroversial). Whereas describing Northern Ireland, specifically, as being one is contentious and highly charged.
If you are looking for a language that is wholly logical, I suggest you quit English and take up C. --RA (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
And right here is the problem lies: oblique references to Northern Ireland on a census form are lorded about as divine proof whereas submissions by the UK government the United Nations are push away as inconclusive. Why not when source that directly discuss the question are put turned away from in favour of lists compiled by editors as evidience of their position?
It's a situation that should make anyone who has read WP:NPOV weep, or laugh or both. --RA (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
If Her Majesty's Government decides that the 4 parts of the United Kingdom are called countries then that is what they are. Id rather they were all just called "Nations of the United Kingdom" or something even less divisive than that, but if the 4 are called countries then theres no reason not to call it a country on this article in line with the other articles. If Scotland is a country, then so is Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
BW, in your absence you may not have caught up with the fact that the 10 Downing Street website no longer uses the term "countries within a country" or - so far as I can tell - describes NI as a "country". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
To call Northern Ireland a country is "highly charged"? Only to extremists surely! This is Wikipedia for crying out loud. Everyone here knows what sovereignty is - and beyond that it is all semantics. Northern Ireland was not 'borrowed' from Ireland, it remained British.
RA, nobody is “pushing away” alternate uses of the term, but you trying to claim that they somehow exclude the definition of 'country'! They simply don't. You did this over British Isles re the Channel Islands too. Alternative uses do not cancel out principle uses! You can find sources on anything, but it is essential to settle on the most authoritative definition. It is obvious with NI what that definition is, and I'm telling you now: there are young people there who would simply say, just let us be a country and fuck off: to both of you super states. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Matt, that's an interesting and worthwhile political ambition. However, Wikipedia is no place for you to pursue it.
What is required here is balance and neutrality with respect to sources (and "country" is a part of that mix). The current approach is selective and lacking neutrality (it represents one subset of sources as being definitive at the neglect of others). For example, even if we are to look to the UK government (which I presume you mean when you refer to an "authoritative definition"), we should ask ourselves why we are taking definitions from oblique references on census form and not explicit definitions in submissions by the UK to the United Nations?
It is that selectiveness in our approach to sources — even "authoritative" sources — that is the issue for me. (Aside from which I truly wish you well with your politics.) --RA (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
You can put your 'politics' back in your scabbard and undue weight till tomorrow for a reply, I'm off to bed. As I noticed someone opine when I looked here last year sometime - this is an article about the troubles. More than anything else, I find that deeply sad. If you are truly insisting on the terms 'province' and 'principality' (for NI and Wales respectively) based on that UN document, which itself claims it has decided to follow a single source due to no 'constitutional authority' - the OS - a mapping agency(!), then you are simply playing games. But that's what you've always done on WIkipedia imo. THERE SIMPLY CANNOT BE ANY NEED FOR IT OTHER THAN NATIONALISTIC ONES - AND IN YOUR OWN WORDS - WIKIPEDIA IS NO PLACE TO PERSUE THAT. For God's sake man, give it up. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I think (hope) that the point is not to push these seldom heard terms into Wikipedia but to actually follow the sources and not push "country" in ways that the sources don't use the term. Some people are inclined to engage in improper synthesis and assume that simply because Northern Ireland is listed as one of four countries it's OK to say vehemently that it is a country. That would be true if there were no contrary evidence and if there were no reason that almost all reliable sources intentionally refrain from doing that. Reliable sources are doing some very subtle things with language when talking about Northern Ireland, and if we don't follow them in this then we will either have to make everything totally explicit and treat everything as contentious (in fact turning this article into one about the conflict around Northern Ireland rather than about Northern Ireland itself), or we will have an article that uses strongly POV language in one direction or the other, conceivably even in both. Hans Adler 00:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I wasn't aware that we have such a phenomenal source that explains the situation. "The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy consisting of four constituent parts" – listed as "2 countries", "1 principality" and "1 province". The point concerning the "province" Northern Ireland being, of course, that it's all a big muddle as in some sense it belongs to the UK and in some sense it belongs to Ireland and sort of represents Ireland in the UK because it has taken its former place. The "4 countries" language must have come up when there were 3 countries and 1 principality. Maybe the language wasn't 100% pedantically correct at the time, but it was good enough. Then one of the countries left and only a fraction of it remained in the union. Almost all the old laws and rules in the UK that talk about Ireland are still in effect and are interpreted sensibly as applying either to the entire Island (e.g. some things about the right to live anywhere in the UK) or just to Northern Ireland (probably most of them), as appropriate/politically desired. By now, "4 countries" is even less precise than it was before, but nobody is bothered by the fact because there is all this re-interpreting going on anyway. So it should really be "2 countries, 1 entity that is kind of like a country, and 1 strange thing that is only part of a country or maybe of two". Or "4 countries, principalities and provinces". But that would never do as a succinct formulaic statement, and so it never got changed. I guess politicians are simply afraid of touching this sentence because once you look too closely at it it becomes so messy and it's not at all clear what to do with it. Hans Adler 00:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The when is a list not a list argument seems a little tortuous. Whatever, we have had this debate many times before and the general form of words "a country which is a part of" was agreed based in the main on the weight of the cited sources. We have subsequently modified the Northern Ireland article to explain some of the specific controversies. I don't see any new arguments above. I do see one editor indulging in a poke on all four articles, then an edit war here conducted by editors who are fully aware of the history of this issue and should know better. For once (and I surprise myself here) GoodDay did the correct thing in enforcing the prior consensus even though he has never agreed it so (and unusually) kudos to him.--Snowded TALK 09:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. There was a consensus on the wording based upon the weight of sources available and we have quite a big section dedicated to the issue in the article which more than suffices. Personal agendas aside, can you say that that is not the fairest way of solving a troublesome issue? Mabuska (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The only problems with the above are that, 1) GoodDay needed to break 1RR and has been reported for doing it, and so could get into trouble, and 2) people will assign different weight to different sources in these cases (whether thier decision is guided by emotion or not) - and WP offers no guidance on this regarding national status.
The UN source is weaker than the UK ones in part because it self-admittedly settled on a map-making company for guidance (and naturally doesn't claim the term 'country' is invalid, as do none of the non-polemical sources), but if it didn't have the caveats and was more assertive, there would be real problems here. Many nationalists (for want of a better word) are bound to regard the UN and the EU-especially with higher authority than the offending state (often blindly so, like many people see in some of the arguments for independence it perhaps could be argued). Wikipedia really does need to offer guidance on this.
The pipe-linked 'country that is part of the UK' compromise was a genuine solution I agree, but things never properly settle on WP when they are based on compromise alone. If I remember it there only 10 or so editors involved - though that's not unusual on WP I accept. And it is a long-standing solution, but that in itself means little in some areas, esp when other factors stop people getting round to it (the diagram of the British Isles is a perfect example - which is still the Channel Islands-included version, and not the eminently more sensible duel-definition version.) Fear of punishment, escalation and ultimately wasted time often leads Wikipedia to be a weaker place, and only strong guideline guidance can stop that from happening surely. When things are properly settled, the article itself can move on. The arbcom solution of 1RR is just a plaster on maladjusted bones, and is actually cynical towards editors in my opinion.
In short, adherence to the state-related UK sources on these questions of UK nationality need to be in the UK MOS. I personally think that Wikipedia should have a guideline on national sovereignty in general for 'full-wiki' guidance, but each individual MOS can suffice. I know that it may lead on to other issues, like the Derry or Londonderry title question, and even (perhaps?) on to neutral and guideline-bolstering 'disambiguation pages' for multi-meaning terms like British Isles and Ireland - but be that as it may, should it happen. IMO, stong guidelines will lead to a stronger Wikipedia, and people with nationality concerns can continue to write them into the text, and simply accept that you cannot re-label status on Wikipedia, only explain any issues that may surround it. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you misread the source completely. It's not a document from the UN, it's an official submission by the UK government to the UN. And none of the information in this submission appears to be based "on a map-making company for guidance", whether self-addmittedly or otherwise. The UN asked what the national names authority for the UK is (for geographical names), and the UK answered that there is no such thing and that they are just using Ordnance Survey maps instead. (Ordnance Survey isn't a random "map-making company". According to Wikipedia, "Ordnance Survey, an executive agency and non-ministerial government department of the Government of the United Kingdom, is the national mapping agency for Great Britain".) There is no indication that Ordnance Survey was responsible for any part of the response, although even then it would still be an official response by the UK government because Ordnance Survey is an organ of the UK government.
Almost all serious non-partisan sources choose their language carefully and avoid saying explicitly either that Northern Ireland is a country or that it isn't. "Country" is a concept that just doesn't fit very well in this situation, and there isn't really any point in trying to decide this either way unless you want to make politics through language. Binary thinking of the type "either it is a country or it isn't, and we must take a position" is the problem here. Hans Adler 12:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That source was previously discussed and weighed along with multiple other sources when the previous consensus was reached. There are many cases where sources can support several wordings and in this is one where the community spent a lot of time working through an approach which has stood for several years (like the Derry compromise). No substantive new material or argument is being introduced here. --Snowded TALK 14:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hans, you say "Almost all serious non-partisan sources choose their language carefully and avoid saying explicitly either that Northern Ireland is a country or that it isn't.". That is a serious exaggeration, and I'm wondering how much knowledge you have on all this. The UK government consistently uses the term "country" for Northern Ireland and Wales, whatever the UN has documented in 42355435, or whatever it's called. The term 'Principality' certainly doesn't preclude the word 'country' (Wales was considered thus before 'annexation'), and neither does 'province', which was just a term they used when the Irish republic became independent. Neither Principality or Province has any solid official definition. The reality for Ireland as that they created two countries out of one country, and NI was (naturally given its proximity) always the most devolved in the union. The UN document is not intended as a 'statement of general use' - that is just your own reading of it. It's just a topographical standardisation document. Do you expect every country in the world to follow them? It clearly doesn't happen, especially with countries. You have to respect the work people have put into this in the past, and read up on all those many sources yourself: they were compiled to find a solution, not to prove a point. You cannot just cherry pick a single source and interpret it according to what you'd like to see.
BTW, I notice that the UN document is linked through Wayback Machine - isn't there a real-time link out there? Matt Lewis (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Matt, it is certainly not the case that "The UK government consistently uses the term "country" for Northern Ireland". It doesn't - as Hans says, it often finds a form of words that enable it to avoid using the term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This is just wikilawyering. There usage of "country" seems pretty damn consistent to me - most certainly in the context of replying to Hans Adler's hugely exaggerated claim. I'm not denying that the other terms are not used am I? I am saying that THE UK GOVERNMENT CONSISTENTLY USES THE TERM 'COUNTRY' FOR NORTHERN IRELAND. And they do. I didn't say they did it at the exclusion of any other terms, so please don't suggest that I did. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Which is why we added text to Northern Ireland to make the controversies clear. People have put a lot of work in here over the years to create something that is sustainable.--Snowded TALK 16:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
[The following is a response to Ghmyrtle in which I agreed with Ghmyrtle. Less than 2 hours later, Matt Lewis changed the indentation level to create the impression that I was instead agreeing with Snowded. [1] User warned. Hans Adler 10:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)]
Yes, I was about to write that. I mean, I am willing to be proved wrong when I am actually wrong, but I have looked for evidence that I am wrong and I haven't found any. I went through the sources on this list which supposedly call Northern Ireland a country – until it really got too boring. Some of them don't even mention Northern Ireland but just say that the UK consists of 4 countries. One is the ONS glossary, which says: "In the context of the UK, each of the 4 main subdivisions (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) is referred to as a country." (My italics.) But the context of an article on Northern Ireland, in an international encyclopedia, is not a UK context. It is in part an international context (where "country" implies sovereignty, which none of the 4 countries currently has, even though I have had nationalists here on Wikipedia try to prove the opposite to me) and in part a Northern Irish context (where one needs to be more pedantic than in the general UK context). One listed Northern Ireland among "the [3] devolved nations" in a UK/Scottish context. So far I haven't seen one that goes into some detail about Northern Ireland and calls it a country in close proximity.
To be clear: I am not arguing for any change in the lead text. The current reading "one of the four countries of the United Kingdom" is acceptable. The other reading "a constituent country of the United Kingdom" is also acceptable. (The argument that the four UK country articles must use exactly the same wording makes no sense, though, since the situation of each of the four countries is unique.) Hans Adler 16:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I do find your remark about "too boring" a little off-putting, especially after the time you've spent arguing this - not the mention all the time people put into those lists! Unfortunately, the internet is not the super-sourcable 'bible' of human existence that Wikipedia likes you to believe it is, but the lists were compiled none the less: and can still be added to. As a Brti living in Britain, I'm telling you now - the UK government consistently calls Northern Ireland a "country". So does it's mouthpeices, like the BBC - but perhaps that's an (unecessary) argument too far.
OK. So the UK Gov have use other terms too (province, principality, part etc). As I've demonstrated in a comment above, those other terms do not (and cannot) preclude the term 'country': they are too ill-defined, and barely official at all, and we cannot assume anything in their use.
The most recent source we have is the 2011 census, which was recently posted out to every household in the United Kingdom. Does anyone here really think they simply 'outsourced' it and never seriously checked it over? The UK Government public website is another place where they would want to get it right too, don't you think? They expressly used "country" on their website too. Those are places that can truly be called "the Government", and not various employees using the English language in a way that personally suits them, or contexts where the UK and Ireland are presented as states - so 'country' (in the sovereign sense) is deliberately avoided. Terms like "part of" often seem to be used in those kind of situations I found.
Wales is still referred to as "The Principality" by some older rather-conservative government individuals, while it is simply referred to as "the country" by others. It is just wrong to assume that either of those people would argue that Wales isn't really a proper country. Many people favour using the term "nation" to describe us all (including the UK) - which tells us nothing other than they favour the word "nation" does it? It is actually Original Research (WP:NOR) to assume that other terms are used to deliberately avoid the use of "country". Matt Lewis (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the use of other terms can preclude the use of country. A strong term should only be used if it is almost universally accepted. A less strong term has greater acceptance, 'part of' or component is perfectly accurate. You can say that these terms have no meaning, but self governing component seems fine to me and the question of whether that component is a province or a country can be dealt with in the text. I don't think the census form is of any importance, terms used there are designed to fit on a form, not create definitions. Ardmacha (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Census form is just one of a number of sources and the idea that its "just a form" is a rather dubious approach. --Snowded TALK 21:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't merely 'think' that "part" precludes "country" - it's not about opinion here - it's about logic. Work it out - terms like that do not preclude anything - FULL STOP. I've given examples above, but as usual they are wasted on people who think everything is about opinion. You have an interesting first edit btw. Care to answer the question Snowded asked you about IPs and the like? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
One of a number of number of sources, sure. But, what's incredible is that it would be given more weight on the question of what to call a constituent part of the UK than the UK's submission to the UN body on geographic names that explicitly defines the terminology to be used for the UK's constituent parts. It's not "just a form". It's an example of what makes this debate so absurd. --RA (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The only way you could even link to that form was via the 'WayBack Machine' - a website that stores various pages that can no longer be seen! Don't you think that is a bit absurd, given your arguments of 'weight'? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
See WP:DEADREF on Wikipedia:Citing sources. --RA (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
A quick search on Google would have shown you that the document is no longer available on the web - which is kind of my point. That's a bit of a misuse of the Wayback Machine imo, esp given the context here. I can't find it on the UN website either, though seem to be re-assessing this whole area at this jucture. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This has all been gone over before and (no more than last time) I see no progress or willingness to enter a genuine discussion — just a rehash of the same disproven arguments ("It what the UK government uses.") or the usual stonewalling ("This has been discussed before."/"It's consensus.").
@Ghmyrtle, thanks for your honesty. The disingenuity — and actually explicit cherry picking of sources — shown by some editors with respect to the vocabulary used by the UK government is one of the most galling aspects of this recurring issue for me. I'm grateful to at last hear someone who supports the current wording contribute honestly on this question.
@Matt, I don't even want to begin commenting on your last post (except to suggest a Google search for site:gov.uk "Northern Ireland" province). However, with regard to your last point that, "It is actually Original Research (WP:NOR) to assume that other terms are used to deliberately avoid the use of "country", here are some example reliable sources:

"One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." - S. Dunn and H. Dawson, 2000, An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Edwin Mellen Press: Lampeter

"Next - what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? 'Province' won't do since one-third of the province is on the wrong side of the border. 'State' implies more self-determination than Northern Ireland has ever had and 'country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd. 'Colony' has overtones that would be resented by both communities and 'statelet' sounds too patronizing, though outsiders might consider it more precise than anything else; so one is left with the unsatisfactory word 'region'." - D. Murphy, 1979, A Place Apart, Penguin Books: London

Anyway, time to step away and stop flogging this horse for now. --RA (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
And that is in no way actually explicit cherry picking of sources, of course. Also, please explain what is meant by "for now" (which is explicitly not Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass). Daicaregos (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Relpy to @Matt: Excuse me, I said "It is actually Original Research (WP:OR) to assume that other terms are used to deliberately avoid the use of 'country'" - so why on earth are you throwing me a quote from a 1979 polemic on NI identity? My meaning was obvious if you bothered to read my whole comment, and read the example I gave that showed how "part" does not have to preclude a definition of "country". I don't think you usually bother to do that do you? (though I suppose in the scale of things you don't really need to).
And why are so many of your blockquotes polemics? As I've told you scores of times in the past now, they are just not as impressive as you think they are. You keep quoting this one (D. Murphy, 1979, A Place Apart, Penguin Books) and as much as anything, it's from 1979. The other is a booklet from Lampeter. Neither bear any relation whatsoever to the point I made - that you cannot just make assumptions. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that if a quote from 1979 is to be diminished in importance, some significant change since then would need to be identified. There were substantial changes to arrangements for NI in the meantime, despite great deliberation on what should be said in documents such as the Good Friday agreement, none of these identified NI as a country. But then everyone knows that. The reality is that while NI is often grouped with the other countries of the UK, it itself is rarely seen as country, for instance in this UK government embassy website states that "The Northern Ireland Courts Service is responsible for courts in the province". But then everyone knows that too. Ardmacha (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
"The reality is that while NI is often grouped with the other countries of the UK, it itself is rarely seen as country" - totally original research not backed up by the amount of sources compiled here. We have far more sources that state it as a country compared to those that don't or those that call it something else. We have some government departments calling it a country with others calling it something else - quoting one or several specific government sources for a term is pointless as others will and have contradicted it. Thats why we all went for the term with the vast amount of sources backing it which is the fairest way of doing it in my opinion- country.
Daicaregos, RA says "for now" because this is an issue that according to RA himself if i remember correctly, it gets him riled up, as he can't accept Northern Ireland being called a country. So regardless of consensus or others opinions they will continue to voice dissent to it when the discussion arises. Mabuska (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Mabuska (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
"We have far more sources that state it as a country compared to those that don't or those that call it something else." Answered before: "You are misreading and overinterpreting the sources. They support putting Northern Ireland on a list of countries because they do that. They do not support saying that Northern Ireland is a country because they don't do that. Hans Adler 09:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)"
Reading sources correctly and in context is not, and has never been original research. And simply repeating false claims about sources after they have been corrected is disruptive. Hans Adler 14:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The irony of the comment above is that it's such a mesh of someone's own personal opinion, that someone could - by the same token - easily call it 'disruptive' itself! It's also 'reversal' in terms of the previous claim (and simple fact) that you cannot just assume terms like "part" etc preclude (ie disallow) a separate definition of "country". Matt Lewis (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me Hans, but we had a long drawn out mediated process on the issue; forgive me but I take that more seriously that your assertion (and that is all it is) that people are misreading or over interpreting material if they have temerity to disagree with you. --Snowded TALK 16:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
A "long drawn out mediated process" is no excuse for misrepresenting sources. The sources at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs that supposedly say "Northern Ireland is a country" do no such thing. They say that the United Kingdom consists of four countries, then list the four countries, and Northern Ireland appears among them. I have explained above why that makes a difference. If Northern Ireland were actually a country, or were actually routinely called a country, then you would have no trouble providing a big heap of sources that say explicitly something like "Northern Ireland is a country". (In fact there are a number of sources that get close. They say it is "a beautiful country" in the same way one would say that Yorkshire is a beautiful country. But surely that's also not enough to state in the lead of an article that it is a country. And these sources tend to be not interested in politics or fine points of geography at all.) You can't find such sources of sufficient quality, and so you just claim that the fact nobody actually calls Northern Ireland a country in public writing is completely meaningless and it appearing on a list of four countries is sufficient proof that there is no problem.
This is a perfectly standard case of proper evaluation of sources. Once you see A on a list of Xs, you are justified to assume that A is an X – unless and until someone points out that there is so much material out there that some of it would have to say "A is an X" explicitly, but none does. Add to this a few sources that directly contradict the claim that A is an X, and it is absolutely clear that we can't state in the voice of the encyclopedia that A is an X. What we can still do is put A on a list of Xs – which is precisely what all those sources out there do. Hans Adler 17:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Now you are cherry picking. Basically the mediated process listed virtually everything, then it was gone through to evaluate and agree a position. Subsequently the controversy over the use in Northern Ireland was raised, and an agreement made to make that controversy clear while keeping the common phrase for all four country articles, and thus end years of edit warring. I would also note that the use by the British Government (the census being the most recent) is a comparatively modern phenomena compared with the use for England, Scotland and Wales. In part this follows the changes in the constitutional claim of Ireland (the country) --Snowded TALK 18:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
And that's only the Government's use. Wales has called itself a 'country' in Welsh since it actually needed to self-define itself (ie just like many of the world's countries) - at some point after it defined its borders I imagine. To the people on the other side of (what became) the border with England, what else could the 'others' of Welsh-speaking Wales have been I wonder? Aside from the circular and decidedly-weak wikilawyering, we are always left with the actual definition of 'country' - which is ultimately defined per level of use, not by sovereignty or by alternative terms. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
What is infuriating about your above comment by Hans - and I personally now consider it trolling sadly, whether you can see it or not - is that it ultimately just makes all the debate here unreadable. And in 'x' amount of time it starts all over again, as RA basically acknowledged above in his comment about leaving it a while. What beats me is that you are a 'Member of the Logic Task Force'! Your logic here has most the faults it could have imo. Comment like "the fact nobody actually calls Northern Ireland a country in public writing" really is a trolling comment, you know. You have a responsibility to do better than that. I can see you have interest in Irish nationality (re British Isles and Sarah? Correct me if I'm wrong) - if you want to be as logical as you can, I would suggest that you take out what you may want to see out of the 'equation'. And read other's comments too. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no interest in Irish nationality whatsoever. I got involved in this topic when there was a huge, widely advertised, RfC about the title of the RoI article. I had to invest a lot of research to understand some of the things that would have been obvious to someone from Britain or Ireland. (I could not, and still cannot, really see the point of not calling it just RoI, by the way.) The closest I have come to sympathising with Irish interests was living in England for a total of three years and liking some kinds of English cider (but not any of the Irish cider I tried). It is true that I am more impatient with UK nationalists or UK separatists than with Irish nationalists, but that's simply because for numerical reasons they tend to be on the losing side even when they have a valid point.
I will not comment on the other personal comments, as they are simply too silly. I note that you still haven't provided a handful of strong sources that call Northern Ireland a country other than in a list context, which is all it would take to attack my line of argument properly. Instead you are resorting to desperate rhetorics. Hans Adler 20:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Desperate measures! After all of those links! I've actually decided to get on Google and add to them, as it has been a couple of years now. To be honest Hal, you seem to have fallen for Sarah's naive idea that the Irish on Wikpipedia are always out-voted by some kind of "British POV". As much as I grew to actually like Sarah, it was always paranoid nonsense from her (though I could never convince her it was even unfair), and she forever crossed the line with her hugely-damning "British POV" label - which she gave people simply because they were British, and had a real habit of equating with Nazism too (as if it wasn't daft enough). It's what the 'racism' block was all about - though that perhaps wasn't the best word of the admin to use. So don't fall for Sarah's nonsense there, whatever you do - you will be tarring yourself with her warped logic. Be careful with this: Being British does not make you biased againt the Irish, let alone anything else. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I'm sticking one of these in, which says everything I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly Hans Adler has made several well argued points and should not be accused of trolling. Secondly this issue of NI being a country largely arises from Scotland and Wales being countries, so NI gets listed as country also, on Wikipedia as elsewhere. The UK government starting to refer to NI as a country had nothing to do with the Good Friday agreement or the change to the Irish constitution. The UK government never accepted the previous constitutional article and the current one in no way reduces the idea of Ireland being a country, it merely removed the idea that Ireland the State had jurisdiction over the 6 counties. While you can refute the claim that there are no direct references to NI as country, there are few direct references to NI as a country. For instance on a simple google search of the UK government domain Northern Ireland is a country site:gov.uk 1 result Scotland is a country site:gov.uk 10,900 results Wales is a country site:gov.uk 9,740 results England is a country site:gov.uk 4 results Ardmacha (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Hans Adler had not made several well-argued points. That's just too easy for you to say. It's not a case of me lacking AGF - he just hasn't made well-argued points here. Secondly, the results I get are:
  • Northern Ireland is a country site:gov.uk 1 result
  • Scotland is a country site:gov.uk 30 results
  • Wales is a country site:gov.uk 14 results
  • England is a country site:gov.uk 4 results
It looks like you forgot the "is a country" when querying Scotland and Wales. Try being more careful. Given the size of each country, these results are broadly in line with each other (except that you would expect England to perhaps have more like 40, not 4). But then, it's not such a clever exercise really, because "is a country..." is not a phrase you'd have a right to actuall expect someone to use in most circumstances. And NI has always been more devolved too, so would probably have less immediate comparisons to the other UK countries (should they themselves be of quantity in this form), which are always dealt with on the British mainland of course. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
In any case the only hit for "Northern Ireland is a country" on gov.uk is the following: "[...] There are some very major and affluent countries connecting onto Jutland, which are looking for high-quality merchandise. Northern Ireland is a country on the periphery, and there are two stretches of water to cross before reaching Europe. There are difficulties. [...]" This was said by on Mr D. Lamont of the Northern Ireland Textiles and Clothing Training Council as a witness to the Committee for Employment and Learning of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [2] But this kind of search is not particularly helpful, as people don't usually have reason to say "the United Kingdom is a country" or "France is a country", either. Hans Adler 10:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Using my new Credo account

I recently got one of the Credo reference library accounts donated to Wikipedia. At first it seemed almost useless as all the information there is so very basic. But now it has become really useful. The following is a complete list of the first 10 hits that I got in my search for "Northern Ireland", stating for each what it claims Northern Ireland to be:

  • Credo topic page: "Constituent part of the United Kingdom, in the northeast of the island of Ireland"
  • Chambers Dictionary of World History: "A constituent division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, occupying the north-eastern part of Ireland."
  • Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary: "Ireland – Island [...]; divided bet. the independent (republic of) Ireland, which occupies the 26 counties in the S, cen., and NW part, and Northern Ireland (forming part of the United Kingdom), which occupies the 26 districts in the NE part."
  • Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary: "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – Kingdom, W Europe, comprising Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) and Northern Ireland". (Word "country" does not appear in the article.)
  • Chambers Dictionary of World History: "Ireland, Republic of – [...] and is bounded to the north-east by Northern Ireland, part of the UK." (Word "country" appears, but only in relation to the republic.)
  • Brewer's Britain and Ireland: "A constituent part of the United Kingdom that came into formal existence with the Government of Ireland Act in September 1920. The partition of IRELAND into Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State (now the Republic) was de facto recognized by the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921. Northern Ireland comprises the counties [...]" The word "country" does appear, with more or less specific application to Northern Ireland, only as follows: "For generations, a wide range of shooting in Northern Ireland has provided all sections of the population with a pastime which … has occupied a great deal of leisure time. Unlike many other countries, the outstanding characteristic of the sport has been that it was not confined to any one class. [...] For God's sake, someone bring me a large Scotch. What a bloody awful country." (I am not making this up. Seems to be a funny source. It's cited to Reginald Maudling.)
  • Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary: "Division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (Word "country" does not appear.)
  • Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World: "Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (The word "country" only appears with reference to Scottland and England and in "country music".)
  • Merriam-Webster's Collegiate(R) Dictionary: "country NE Ireland; a division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (EVERYBODY LOOK HERE! THEY DO CALL IT A COUNTRY!!!)
  • Brewer's Dictionary of Irish Phrase and Fable: "That part of Ireland that remains part of the United Kingdom, and which enjoys a limited amount of devolution." The word "country" does not appear, however: "The state of Northern Ireland came into formal existence with the GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT in September 1920." (LOOK HERE! IT'S A STATE!!!)
  • The Houghton Mifflin Dictionary of Geography: "A division of the United Kingdom in the northeast section of the island of Ireland. The province occupies much of [...]" (The word "country" does not appear.)

At this point the hits start getting more off-topic (overall there are 1338 hits). The most relevant among the next 10 are:

  • Propaganda and Mass Persuasion: A Historical Encyclopedia, 1500 to the Present: The article on Ireland makes no attempt to say what Northern Ireland is. The word "country" appears twice. Once it refers to the RoI, once the Irish Free State.
  • Encyclopedia of Nationalism – Leaders, Movements, and Concepts: "The Protestant majority in the six northern countries considers itself to be neither a nation in itself nor a part of the Irish nation [...] No overarching Northern Irish nationalism exists that could help hold these disparate groups together and strengthen a sense of shared purpose." (The word "country" appears three times – each time a misspelling for county!)
  • World Politics Since 1945: "Notes: Northern Ireland – The new province of Northern Ireland inherited [...] In these last years of the old order the province had three prime ministers. [...] From the winter of 1972-73 both sides within the province had produced groups [...] The British government, looking to Dublin for help on the first count, was willing to allow the Republic to become associated in some of the affairs of the province. [...] Profoundly hostile to Dublin’s involvement in the province’s affairs [...] The British government never convincingly affirmed a resolve to keep the province in the United Kingdom [...] [...] although Britain would not relinquish power against the wishes of a majority of the people of the province. [...] Finally, in the province itself the age-old religious backing for armed conflict [...]" etc. etc. etc. and so on. (Very long document. The word "country does not appear once.")

I think these results are pretty clear. Hans Adler 21:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to do the same with the other three constituent countries as the first hits tend to be much less relevant. However, I just looked at the first ten hits for Scotland and found the following:
  • Many of the most relevant sources do not call Scotland a country at all, let alone a "nation", which is really a body of people.
  • None of the sources I have seen define Scotland as a "country", although some define it as a "constituent country" of the UK and some refer to it as a country casually, after having defined it as a "constituent part" of the UK.
This suggests to me that the "country" meme is also being pushed more than it's worth for the other 3 constituent countries, and that the reason it is being pushed so vehemently here is really to protect reality from molesting the other articles. Hans Adler 21:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
That seems to be the case. The frequent argument is that all four articles need to be "consistent" (or similar), which totally ignores that sources treat Northern Ireland differently from the other three. Any attempt to change this article to be neutral is stymied by a "no consensus to change it" attitude, which ignores that consensus cannot override the neutral point-of-view policy. O Fenian (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The 'cross-UK consistency' argument is basically about whether to append "constituent" to them all, or use another form of "country" (like 'that is part of' linking to Countries of the UK). If you want to push for using "constituent" on all of them (or even just here) - and look - I would honestly go for either: they both mean 'country' as far as I'm concerned - then do it in a sensible and appropriate way - at a RfC (plus vote). The quality of discussion here is unacceptably poor, and it simply discourages sensible adults from coming here. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
England, Scotland and Wales are just as much countries as Northern Ireland is. Either they are all countries or none of them are. Quite frankly id prefer none of them, the only real country by most peoples definition and understanding is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But if we have to call England, Scotland and Wales countries then Northern Ireland has to be branded in the same way no matter how inappropriate some may find it. People should remember the current setup is far far more down to Welsh and Scottish nationalists getting their own way on these things than some form of British unionist/nationalist plot to annoy Irish Republicans who dont like the idea of Northern Ireland being described as a country. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I always remember your first edits when I see your name pop up. What was your preceding account again? You never said. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with the neutral point-of-view policy, and please stop using talk pages as some sort of blog for your own opinions. Sources make it quite clear that Northern Ireland is not a country, you do not get to simply exclude them because you do not like what they say. O Fenian (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
No source (other than the polemical texts) "makes it quite clear" that NI is not a country - not one of them. You are simply absusing logic to say as much. No other term that has been used precludes the definition "country", or indeed cancels-out all the existing uses of "country". Matt Lewis (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Do I really have to post these every time we have this discussion for people in total denial?
  1. "One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." - S. Dunn and H. Dawson, 2000, An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Edwin Mellen Press: Lampeter
  2. "Next - what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? 'Province' won't do since one-third of the province is on the wrong side of the border. 'State' implies more self-determination than Northern Ireland has ever had and 'country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd. 'Colony' has overtones that would be resented by both communities and 'statelet' sounds too patronizing, though outsiders might consider it more precise than anything else; so one is left with the unsatisfactory word 'region'." - D. Murphy, 1979, A Place Apart, Penguin Books: London
  3. "Although a seat of government, strictly speaking Belfast is not a 'capital' since Northern Ireland is not a 'country', at least not in the same sense that England, Scotland and Wales are 'countries'." - J Morrill, 2004, The promotion of knowledge: lectures to mark the Centenary of the British Academy 1992-2002, Oxford University Press: Oxford
  4. "Not a country in itself, Northern Ireland consists of six of the thirty-two original counties of Ireland, all part of the section of that island historically known as Ulster." - J V Til, 2008, Breaching Derry's walls: the quest for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, University Press of America
  5. "Northern Ireland is not a country in itself, but a small fragment torn from the living body of Ireland where now the last act of its long struggle for independence is being played out." - W V Shannon, Northern Ireland and America's Responsibility in K M. Cahill (ed), 1984, The American Irish revival: a decade of the Recorder, 1974-1983, Associated Faculty Press
  6. "Northern Ireland (though of course not a country) was the only other place where terrorism can be said to have achieved a comparable social impact." - M Crenshaw, 1985, An Organizational Approach to the Analysis of Political Terrorism in Orbis, 29 (3)
  7. "The study compare attitudes in Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, the UK, Holland, Ireland, Italy and West Germany. It also includes Northern Ireland, which of course is not a country." - P Kurzer, 2001, Markets and moral regulation: cultural change in the European Union, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
  8. "As I see it, I'm an Irish Unionist. I'm Irish, that's my race if you like. My identify is British, because that it the way I have been brought up, and I identify with Britain and there are historical bonds, psychological bonds, emotional bonds, all the rest of it you know. ... Bit to talk of independence in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is not a country, Northern Ireland is a province of Ireland and it is a province in the UK and I think that the notion of a national identity or group identity or racial identity or cultural identity here is a nonsense." - Michael McGimpsey quoted in F. Cochrane, 2001, Unionist politics and the politics of Unionism since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Cork University Press: Cork
  9. "Moreover, Northern Ireland is a province, not a country. Even before direct rule, many of the decisions affecting the economy, labour law, and wage bargaining were in reality taken in London, thereby diminishing the importance of local control." A Aughey, 1996, Duncan Morrow, Northern Ireland Politics, Longmon: London
Why do you wish to exclude those? O Fenian (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
No-one is 'excluding' them are they? They are polemical texts (not examples of use), and have been weighted in. But clearly, they are not suffient to replace the actual UK Government uses of "country", especially the public uses, like on their public website, and in the 2011 UK census. The sources you give however can always be used elsewhere in the article. They are clearly more suited to a 'naming dispute' than merely showing actual uses of 'province' etc: no text making polemical claims can outweigh multimple strong examples of serious use. Why don't you get them in somewhere, anyway? Or can't you fit them in with all the troubles stuff. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder, Hans, if you are not a member of the Logic Task Force as a cover for your constant abuse of it. What kind of scientist (social or otherwise) searches only for what he wants to see? I'm actually now even thinking of reporting you. You cannot continue to abuse logic - it actually contravenes a policy rule somewhere. You have deliberately added a mass of unwelcome text here, you are only encouraging avowed nationalists, with you continued nonsensical, contentious (and surely tendentious) statements. I'm going to put a warning on your talk page - you can take it or ignore it, but as far as I'm concerned you are simply absorbing the time it takes others to correct you, so please stop now. You are not "fighting the good fight" with clear fools (Snowded and I - for two - are not ignorant people, and are both adult Brits): you are on the wrong side of your own fruitless argument. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A scientist wishing to disprove a hypothesis may seek evidence to the contrary, and this should not be unwelcome to anyone interested in the truth. Nor does the production of evidence imply that those arguing the contrary is a fool. There is no reason to suppose that the UK is composed of equal parts, there is no law or constitution suggesting this. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have different histories and different modern political structures. None of them may be countries, some of them may be countries, or all of them may be. But they is no reason to suppose that they stand and fall together and it would be misleading for Wikipedia to imply a measure of symmetry that does not exist in reality. This is the Northern Ireland talk page, and it is NI that we should be concerned with. Ardmacha (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
In the context of all the above, that was an absolute nothing statement. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Ardmacha is trying to latch onto O Fenians arguement on the four parts of the UK not being equal. This has nothing to do with the issue and is an attempt to steer it down an avenue that'll back up the anti-country position better. Mabuska (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
They are not equal, according to reliable sources. Why do you wish to exclude those sources? O Fenian (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Those Reliable sources (ie the polemics that are dime-a-dozen in IRE/UK related issues) do not represent any kind of WP-recognisable 'truth'. WP is an encyclopedia that needs at least some term-standardisation based on balance and weight, and if those other terms have gone missing in the article, get your pen out and add them back in. There is no reason to remove the term "country" too. And why not create a 'naming dispute' article while you at it if this means so much to you? Wikipedia has plenty of them. Matt Lewis (talk)
If you do not even understand the meaning of "name", I share Hans' opinion. O Fenian (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is proposing removing the word country. Some of us are proposing amending the elevation of country in the lead above other more acceptable descriptions. BritishWatcher introduced the concept that if England, Scotland and Wales are countries then Northern Ireland has to be branded in the same way. It is not a question of whether someone finds this appropriate, the question is whether it is an accurate description of the situation. There is no symmetry of terminology in law or usage and Wikipedia should reflect this. Ardmacha (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is introducing any new concept, believe me. Do you really want the Northern Ireland article - troubles-saturated as it is - to be introduced by "Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom that is situated in the NE of the island of Ireland that has no official title, although 'country', 'constituent country', 'province' and 'part' have all been officially used."? It would last about 30 seconds I would say. If the UK Gov publicly uses country, then why not use it here and just mention the others somewhere below? Is this because none of you people can write? Wikipedia needs to build-in sovereignty into its guidelines anyway. These articles will just remain mayhem until they do. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

We are going over a lot of old ground here and it is a problematic issue. I first got involved in Wikipedia several years ago when concerted attempts were being made the denigrate Wales's status as a country. People will remember the edit wars there and at Scotland so finally we got a community process into place and got some agreed language in place. Once that was done Northern Ireland was added in and it was not the most comfortable of fits. In fact it has divided normal lines between editors - politically I am normally with O Fenian on British & Irish issues for example, and for the record I don't accept BritishWatcher's all or nothing argument. A year or so ago the issue came up again and we agreed a series of qualifying statements to make sure the controversies were clear and it was again stable for a period. Its also worth noting we have the odd neo-SPA account on this subject. With Wales, Scotland and Ireland we have countries which have a long history which involves periods of independence, this is not the case with Northern Ireland. However the thing which persuaded me is the the increasing use of country by the British Government, which partially reflects that the Northern Ireland Assembly has more powers than any other equivalent within the UK. In this respect the recent census is significant, remember this is the first census that allowed respondents to distinguish nationalities within the UK. We need to remember that Northern Ireland is different, it still has the ability to become a part of a united Ireland but its constitutional position has shifted since the GFA. I'm open to compromises such as adding after country "also know as" or similar, but I do think the consistency argument has a lot going for it. --Snowded TALK 05:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Just making the point (again) that the ONS which runs the Census is not in any sense "the British Government" - it is a publicly-funded organisation that advises Parliament. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
"Not in any sense the British Government"...."advises Parliament"! What on earth do you think the Government actually consists of? Sorry, I have to say my mind absolutely boggles at what you just wrote (even repeated). How do you think people like Major, Cameron etc got into their jobs? MP's vote in commons and return home to their consituencies - they don't write things like this, advisors and think tanks etc do it. The Government (usually in the shape of the office of the cabinet member in charge - which is full of advisors) watches over them, then ultimately signs them. They are always written by professionals. How can the way the Government runs be "in no sense" the Governemnt? Matt Lewis (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Matt, please there is no need for that language. Ghmyrtle, the ONS is an agency of Parliament and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is (to quote its own web site) a non-ministerial department which reports directly to parliament. --Snowded TALK 09:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Precisely. So, it's not a "Government source". Matt, there is a big difference between "the Government" and Parliament. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Well last I heard Parliament did have some role in Government --Snowded TALK 10:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, but the point is that it's inaccurate to refer to the ONS (or a Census form) as a "Government source", when it isn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
While i don't agree with everything Matt says above, the census is very much a part of Government. The fact that it has now started to use country is significant. Whether it is a Government Form or not is subject to debate, the fact that it originates from Government is not. --Snowded TALK 10:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
No it doesn't originate from Government, it emerges from the ONS which is not part of Government - it is an independent publicly-funded body. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I repeat the ONS "a non-ministerial department which reports directly to Parliament". It does not call it self an agency --Snowded TALK 10:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. It is an "official" source, it is a "Parliamentary" source, but it is not a "Government" source. So, it is incorrect to assume that, because it has issued information referring to NI (or anywhere) as a "country", that is necessarily the position of the UK Government. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you are confusing the Executive with Government and that is an interesting debate maybe for another occasion. For the purpose of this discussion Parliamentary Source is fine in terms of authority.--Snowded TALK 11:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem with this discussion is that the absence of something is difficult to weigh. If I call a spade a spade, but everyone else deliberately avoids calling a spade a spade, then you can argue that a spade should be called a spade as there is no evidence of it being called anything else. Important legislation and political documents relating to NI quite deliberately avoid calling it anything and I do not believe that the NI government would issue an authoritative document stating that NI is a country. The UK government is fully in agreement with the NI government and generally avoids calling Northern Ireland anything. But less authoritative sources may well imply that NI is a country when grouped with ES&W. Because these less important sources actually declare NI to be something, editors here are suggesting that they trump other sources which do not actually declare NI to be anything. This is quite wrong in my opinion, a place that is not clearly anything may be untidy to describe in an encyclopedia, but it is not the place of Wikipedia to give NI a definite identity which governments have deliberately not given it. NI has emerged from a profound process of building of political structures, where great care has been given to how things are organised, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to ignore or diminish the importance of this in favour of convenient standardisation which simplifies something that is not simple. Ardmacha (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Its your view to call UK Government sources "less important". Yes its complex, yes we need to recognise that, but we need to understand the diversity of language which include "country" and increasing levels of devolved power. I wouldn't call that "convenient standardization" but rather a recognition of change. I've suggested one way forward and we can also use footnotes (see previous discussions)--Snowded TALK 09:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I support Snowded's suggestions. The discussion on this page cannot be permitted to last as long as "The Troubles".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia pages include states, provinces etc. that are defined by law and constitutions internationally. The NI page should not give a definition based on a census form and elevate this to similar authority to other Wikipedia pages based on laws. As for change, if NI was not a country but became one recently I would be interested in the decision that determined that and would expect that decision to be reflected in parliamentary debate or legislation. Ardmacha (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Now that is a whole new issue and really misses the point of all the various discussions over what is or is not a country. That is not determined solely by legislation. Neither by the way is anyone advocating a definition based on a census form, that is one supporting citation.--Snowded TALK 09:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
ie the census is only the latest source. I'm going to try and update the list later today, I's been a couple of years now. We'll see what else is out there. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Any analysis of sources which seems to support the idea that 'NI is a country' is a wholly fringe/minority POV, that also comes to the same conclusion for Scotland, is I would have thought, already completely debunked, without need for further debate rehasing the same old same old. Anyone who thinks that 'Scotland is a country' isn't the majority opinion in all sources, is dreaming. And as we all know, the idea that 'country=sovereign state' is not remotely accurate, not in the world context, and most certainly not when used in the UK context. And on the issue of same old same old, why we keep having to be subjected to O Fenian's tendentious copying and pasting of sources on this talk page that he never even researched in the first place, is beyond me. These came from RA, and he knows nothing about them beyond what he copy-pastas here repeatedly. His knowlwedge of the proper use and weighting of sources to divine the NPOV should be seen in light of his attempts to paint the contents of both the British and Irish censuses that go against his personal political views as the mere scribblings of single civil servants. This, in a terminological field he is asserting using these same sources, is a hotbed of disputed nuance where it pays people to double and triple check such things for 'accuracy'. Go figure. MickMacNee (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The question of whether Scotland is a country is not the issue here, but if it were then Scottish official documents exist which have the phrase Scotland is a country in the United Kingdom (UK), providing Wikipedia with justification for using the same terminology. NI is indeed no longer wholly run from Westminster and has its own assembly and institutions, and due weight must be given local forms of description, which do not include country in official documents. Ardmacha (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Pelé is the world's greatest footballer

I can provide many sources that say so. I can also provide sources that say Lionel Messi and Diego Maradona are the world's greatest footballer. So do I exclude the sources I do not like and simply say that Pelé is the world's greatest footballer? O Fenian (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What absolute nonsense is that? Such an opinion (whether a label in itself or not) is does not become a label for something else, like a country! And by the way, Q) who did Pele think was the greatest footballer of all time? A) Northern Ireland was for years the centre of the bloody... Matt Lewis (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course it does. You have been provided with many sources that state Northern Ireland is not a country. So why does this article ignore those and state as fact that Northern Ireland is a country? O Fenian (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
That's enough, O Fenian. Not one non-polemical source has claimed that NI is not a country: they cannot and they do not. Your staccato repetitions won't look good lined up together. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Your so-called arguments are becoming more ludicrous with each posting. Feel free to go and ask if academic works published by university presses are reliable sources, you will get laughed at. O Fenian (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Look you turnip, a polemical text is not a term in use: I am not saying (and obviously never have said) that they are not 'reliable sources' - I am trying to get you to understand things like balance and weight, and how encyclopedias sometimes need to choose a principle definition (chosen on balance and weight), and that it is obviously necessary to deal with the other definitions too. The way you deal with Wikipedia is like a caveman dealing with rocks. And you are using this method of posting little lines everywhere to avoid my answers and to repeat yourself. I am then forced to repeat myself, to stop you from spinning off. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Cool it please, late night editing on British and Irish issues is always hazardous to WP:AGF! Iits not the best of analogies but lets restate it a bit. If the historically Pelé had been regarded as the worlds greatest footballer, but more recently the International Football authorities had started to say it as Maradona, but the Pelé name was still around then that would be closer. --Snowded TALK 05:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right of course, frustration set in and I should have put my night cap on. That said, I thought my George Best point was quite apt - and there is a huge lack of irony and thought in this topic. How can you talk about Pele in a Northern Ireland article and not even think of Best? I think that's what got me there. I personally wouldn't even bother trying to force sense into such an unsuitable and over-basic analogy, but yes - it is simply logical that the actual usage of the term "country" naturally became increasingly used over time since the creation of Northern Ireland, and has no-doubt picked-up quite a lot over the last 10 years (and they are over 10 years now, though still not fully behind the tragedies alas).
It's worth watching what that Geographical commission do at the UN: as I said, they seem to have removed that document which RA 'wayback machined', and are assessing the area as we speak. Of course they may not touch the UK, but we need to keep an eye on it all the same. It might not be a bad time to get in touch with them for clarification - esp over principality, the other decidedly non-technical term which I hear used even less than province now. I hadn't realised they both vanished from the articles in terms of alternative title use though. I don't know why people just don't put them back in somewhere, instead of fighting for the premium line all the time. It's that endless battle for space where is where it gets so silly for me. Wikipedia in a sense has infinite space (though is admittedly is full of all kinds of all kind of troublesome articles as a consequence). I don't think it's clever to entirely remove such information from the main articles though, and I think that's clearly happened at some point (despite that new defining statement from the Welsh Assembly). Matt Lewis (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
If we're following the model of how we do NPOV as it's applied to the British Isles dispute, I'd say the solution here is to present viewpoints favourable to Maradonna/Messi in the Maradonna/Messi articles, and not mention Pele at all, and we'll allow the Pele viewpoint to be present in the Pele article, as long as its suitably 'balanced' with equal weight with the Maradonna/Messi viewpoint. And in all other articles, rather than simply leave in peace the many thousands of editors who understandably introduce the Pele viewpoint in their writing about football as the almost universally accepted situation in the footballing world (especially given the true balance of sources over the issue, and the context of how the contrary Maradonna/Messi views are often presented) we as self appointed football experts shall invent our own rules and contexts about the precise situations where Pele may or may not be described as such. And of course, we shall leave the systematic 'correction' of these 'mistaken' pro-Pele edits all over the pedia to the one or two editors who are totally committed to neutrality, but by complete coincidence, also happen to really like Maradonna/Messi as footballers. Or, if this was an actual real example, we could just ask O Fenian who he copied all his football sources from in the first place, and talk to that person instead. MickMacNee (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Footnote proposal

@Snowded, 09:55, 19 May 2011 - Use of supporting citations is good. But neglect of contradicting citations is bad. That is what is vexing about use of "country" in this article. Not only is it refuted by reliable sources but why choose it over the other terms that appear in other reliable sources (including other UK Government sources)? It is that ignoring of sources (what I have called cherry picking before) that is the most serious issue here from the perspective of achieving NPOV for me.

The UK article currently uses a footnote to explain this issue. This was previously tried here but was streneously objected. Could we try the same again? Is what is good for the goose good for the gander? The UK's footnote looks essentially fine to me as it is but I would delete the part about the 2011 census and No.10 website (there is not need to argue the point in the footnote, they are ref'ed already) and simply leave it as:

Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom.[Note 1]

[Note 1] The United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country though England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also referred to as countries, irrespective of their constitutional arrangements. With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences." Other terms used for Northern Ireland include "region" and "province". For further information see Country, Terminology of the British Isles and Constituent country.

Before anyone asks, would that be the end of it for me: almost certainly. It is a difficult issue to resolve and "country" in a general sense for the constituent parts of the UK is fine (which is the context it is given in). A footnote like this would temper the NPOV issues with regard to use of "country" in the particular case of Norhtern Ireland (and I don't see the case to add one to the England, Scotland or Wales articles). For me to support a change to this article again, there would need to be a sound proposed alternative wording (which I cannot imagine). --RA (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with that --Snowded TALK 12:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
We already have a big section in the article that details the issue, but if you want to stick a footnote in then i'll back it. However instead of adding in tautology we could mask a wikilink to that section to appear as a footnote as such: [note 1]. Mabuska (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
We don't do that. There is already such a wikilink with full contextual information further on in the lede even. MickMacNee (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Footnotes are not for balancing POV, but for explaining minor things not needed to be explained in main text. Whatever happened on the UK article to come up with such a solution (and I can guess) is irrelevant - we do not identify good practice using other crap examples. Your sources are in the article already, still largely in the state in which you unilaterally inserted the whole section way back when, and still presenting various positions to a lesser or greater extent of truthiness. A proper incorporation of them will have to wait until such time as anyone bothers to commit themselves to giving this article a proper, neutral peer review for true and balanced treatment of all available sources, with the goal of ever calling this a quality body of work (fat chance). The current opening line is in no way innappropriate or pushing a minority viewpoint, and it is as ever not meant to embody the whole topic, but merely outline what someone is about to read about. Anyone here who want's to claim that NI doesn't have many of the traits of a 'country' (not state), and is not considured as one of four in the UK context, sufficient to support such an opener, is clearly the one pushing a minority POV. The foreign territorial claims that used to exist contradicting these general descriptions no longer exist, and the histroical context is already more than catered for in the article without misleading footnotes. NI is no longer an occupied province governed wholly from Westminster, and it has as much 'national identity' as it ever had, which is ever increasing. To call it a region today, on a par with the other UK regions, is frankly absurd. We aren't going to pullute this article further than it already has been by using unreferenced POV footnotes which intentionally mix the present day situation with the historical one, and worse, direct people to other garbage on Wikipedia as if that's where they're going to find some balanced further info on the subject. MickMacNee (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Who says we don't do that MickMacNee? At least provide the Wikipedia policy on it to back yourself up, and if you can, i'll refute you with WP:NORULES which can be adhered to if it improves the article. If a footnote (or link to section as i've suggested above) helps fix a troublesome issue then its improving the article and who can argue against that? Mabuska (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
First line of WP:Manual of Style (footnotes): "Wikipedia footnotes serve two purposes: to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article...(and to act as in line citations)". This first purpose, combined with WP:NPOV and the rest of the MoS, is generally understood by most people to mean that something is not considered to be 'distracting material' if it's inclusion exists to balance the text and thus present the NPOV. The case for it being needed to be 'explained' in a footnote so as not to distract the reader is further weakened by the fact the controversy this footnote purports to explain is already directly referred to later on in the lede, in standard text, with a pipe link to a whole article section going into minute detail. To pretend that in that situation, we would still then choose to 'explain' the controversy using a footnote, as an 'improvement', is absurd. MickMacNee (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Its a perfectly reasonable approach Mick and it resolved the issue on the United Kingdom article (although I notice you jumped in there as well). The full controversy is also described later as stated. None of this is "pullution" or "garbage" or whatever other invective you choose, in your own inimitable style, to throw around. --Snowded TALK 14:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
What part of 'other crap elsewhere' is not relevant is not understandable here? And on this proposal for this article, I'm not in the least bit surprised to see that this was exactly what I said the last time RA came up with this footnote proposal 6 months ago. He quietly dropped it then after half-heartedly trying to invoke IAR as some sort of rebuttal. When are people going to accept that for the puroposes of IAR, the NI topic area is by no means special or unique. We have plenty of controversial topics, and as such, we now have plenty of established policies and practices for this sort of shit. The time for inventing new ways just for this article is over, certainly unless or until new technical methods become available. If you or he now has a way to justify this sort of use of footnotes within policy, I'm all ears. No more IAR nonsense, and no more pretences that we look to other shitty articles which have also probably had 'IAR' invoked on them as a replacement for policy and common sense ways to justify it here. MickMacNee (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll explain why I'm unhappy with it as it stands RA - you bring it right down into the mire of the term 'country' being "politically controversial". What what right have you got to keep doing that across UK/IRE related issues? It's a huge leap from the argument of how many times these terms are used, and whether the various 'country' sources are fully-valid.

I also totally reject what you keep saying about the polemical texts being sort-of monumental "Reliable Sources" (and thus constantly inferring they inherently have large and equal weight). The fact is that those polemical sources simply cannot logically refute the fully and strongly-sourced use of a term, whatever the particular polemicists 'say'. They are just the writer's opinion, and are dotted over time, and are not as prolific as you make out. 'Reliable Sources' was never as simplistic and you always make it out to be. The internet is full of every kind of 'Reliable Source' you can think of - they do not ALL rock and roll. It so-often depends on the amount, content and importance of the counter-sources.

However, if we amended the 'political' part I would happy accept a footnote after any form of 'country'. Although I have to say, I do consider footnotes to be at least a portion of the general balance of the article as a whole. And I also strongly disapprove of the bold text that always seem to end-up highlighting the 'nationalistic' statements too: this practice must be universally stopped, as (as much as anything else) they really do mess up the balance of the article as a whole. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

RA's footnote proposal above is actually essentially a copy and paste of the consensus footnote agreed for the United Kingdom article with bits chopped out. The UK version is as such:

The United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country though England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also referred to as countries, irrespective of their constitutional arrangements, and are described as countries in the 2011 United Kingdom Census. The British Prime Minister's website has used the phrase "countries within a country" to describe the United Kingdom.[1] With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences."[2] Other terms used for Northern Ireland include "region" and "province". For further information see Country, Terminology of the British Isles and Constituent country.

RA should of included the rest of the "controversial" quote along with the source for verification, however Matt i don't remember RA even being involved in that discussion or consensus, so he didn't exactly bring it right down to the mire with his proposal as he is just basically cutting and pasting most of what other editors came up with. Also note that the quote in the above and RA's proposal says "can be controversial", it doesn't say that it is de facto controversial all the time. Mabuska (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me that. I'm consciously not looking at United Kingdom article at the moment, as I realise things are going on all around at present. To help this along I'm going to remove the "can be controversial" line from it right now, and I don't think a proposal first is necessary in this instance - so I'll be bold in this case and see if anyone can possibly object. Obviously I'll keep the following "province" line. I genuinely don't think it is a suitable comment at all, whether is actually says "can" or not. My point is that it is inappropriate and unnecessary to mention it at all. Regarding RA, well okay (assuming he was not present in any way - he was an IP for a long while remember), but 'cutting and pasting' is no great defence when you have a history of mentioning these things. But it's a strange thing anyway - the truly sad thing here is that 'the troubles' are probably so ingrained in our collective psyche that people simply overlook the poetic injustice of forever-making sectarian politics the flagship 'factoid' of Northern Ireland, always mentioned whether it is necessary to do so or not. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Nikopolis1912, 30 May 2011

Siege of Derry = 1689 notItalic text1698!

Nikopolis1912 14:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Well spotted.--SabreBD (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to collapse the template. elektrikSHOOS 18:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

ETHNIC/CLASS ISSUE? RELIGION AND HAIR COLOUR

Wikipedia is not a forum. Please keep article talk page discussion focused on questions of how to improve the article. General questions can be asked at the reference desk.
The following discussion has been closed by Rannpháirtí anaithnid. Please do not modify it.

I've visited Northern Ireland many times (I live in the Republic of Ireland) and I notice that Northern Ireland Protestants tend to be blonder than Catholics. (In fact, I would say they are probably blonder than people in other parts of the UK as well.) Does anyone know of any research that addresses this question? Or is there some kind of (social) class issue involved?

In the Republic it can be hard to tell Protestants and Catholics apart, but in Northern Ireland you often don't have to do anything else than look at the colour of their hair. Weird :-/ 89.100.37.108 (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have also been to the North many times and there are as many blonde Catholics as there are Protestants. There are also as many redheaded and dark-haired Protestants as there are Catholics. Many Northern Irish Protestants are descended from the original Irish; not sall are of planter origin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
And conversely: Gerry Adams is surely a planter name!--Red King (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. And Lennie Murphy's surname was about as Irish Catholic as one could get!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Can I just ask, how is hair colour of the country's inhabitants relevant to the article? Last time I checked, hair colour did not define social class in the UK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 217.46.163.221, 29 July 2011

Please adjust:- GDP (PPP) 2002 estimate 

-  Total £33.2 billion  
-  Per capita £19,603

to:- GDP 2011 estimate 

-  Total £55.3 billion  
-  Per capita £19,603

As this information is accurate as of June 2011. Source: http://www.nisra.gov.uk/publications/default.asp5.htm http://www.detini.gov.uk/deti_operating_plan_2002-05.pdf

217.46.163.221 (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: I reviewed the links you provided, but was not able to verify the statistics you gave. The second link is to a document from 2002, so it can't possibly verify 2011 statistics. The first link goes to a gateway page that leads to lots of different documents on economic statistics, but I don't know which one(s) would have this information. If you can supply a more specific link, please provide it and change the |answered= field in {{edit semi-protected}} back to 'no' so someone can review the updated request. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Communications

Snowded is taking issue with my section on Communications. The reason why I think that it is important for this to be here is that the Internet is literally flooded with people unsure about the situation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland regarding postage and telephone calls. I really do feel that it is of very high value for this to be here, and no where else on the internet (can I find anyway) that states in black and white that regarding the communications infrastructure, Northern Ireland is identical to Great Britain.

Sorry about no references, I will fix this this evening. Jonnyt (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it being there, if it's cleaned up and referenced properly. It's useful info. JonChappleTalk 18:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jon. Indeed, I do need to reference the text properly, which I'm in the process of doing :)

I've reverted twice on this, partly to enforce WP:BRD but also due to content issues

  • The point about Northern Irish identity has been discussed many times on these pages and is controversial. Inserting text without an source is plain wrong. The edit summary does not reference that change which is misleading.
  • There are no communication sections on Wales, Scotland or England. The original material was unsourced and the latest edits in the main use primary sources. I can see the case for a single sentence under economy but not a whole section --Snowded TALK 18:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I feel that the section is very useful information as many people in England, Wales and Scotland (never mind the rest of the world!) are completely unaware of the facts regarding the communication suitation. I do not feel that the reason that England, Wales, and Scotland doesn't have a comms section is of any relavance - this is a seperate article and should be based on its own merits and facts; in the case of this article, people just simply do not know (i.e it is not obvious) that Northern Ireland's Telephone, Broadcast and mobile networks as the same as England, Scotland, and Wales. Also, I had many non-primary sources there - many OfCom and ComReg documents as well as articles from The Register.(Jonnyt (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC))
We do try and keep some common structure. Also please read what I said, I don't object to a couple of sentences on this in another section. Neither would I object to a media section for BBC NI and the newspapers, but thats needs to be properly researched and references.
Also this is a misleading heading as you made a change on the nationality section which is controversial, I suggest you drop that one.--Snowded TALK 19:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I take no issue with you removing the nationality sentence I put in for the simple reason that is is already mentioned in the article, so that point is moot (which is why I haven't brought it up under this heading). Regarding a couple of sentence on comms, I do not feel that this would give the topic enough justice and emphases. Please point me to the Wikipedia policy that states that articles for different parts of the UK must form the same structure. Also, the Isle of Man has a whole article for its Comms! [[3]] (Jonnyt (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC))
For future reference its a bad idea to confuse two topics in one edit, especially if you revert it.
On what content is necessary, it seems to me that the only relevant fact is that NI uses the same telecommunications as the rest of the UK. With the odd pipelink that satisfies the need. Otherwise of course there is no policy that they should be the same, but we do as an editorial community look at precedent in making decisions. As I say a properly researched media section makes sense, but a lot of anecdotal material listing all the mobile phone providers is not very encyclopedic --Snowded TALK 19:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've restored the section pending the outcome of this discussion. BRD is not a license to revert wholesale and the content was uncontroversial. Neither is BRD something that is "enforced" through series reversions (particularly on an article that has a template stating that it is under 1RR). BRD is not policy and statements otherwise are troubling.
I've also added a reference for the statement regarding Northern Irish. --RA (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
You're edit warring RA and you know it, I could have reported Jonnyt under the 1RR rule but that would have been excessive. Your lack of respect for previous discussions in the Northern Irish issue, of which you are more than aware is not encouraging --Snowded TALK 19:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
As RA stated, the issue of Communications is uncontroversial, and as such, there have been no relavent "previous discussions" on the topic that he should pay respect to. My main reason for the section is that most people who live outside of Northern Ireland, are unaware of these facts. I mean see this ebay post: http://reviews.ebay.co.uk/Postage-to-and-from-Northern-Ireland_W0QQugidZ10000000003791864 . This type of belief is common around the world, and by stating it in black and white when many people are unaware of this fact, and that it would be useful information to them, is definitely encyclopaedic.(Jonnyt (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC))
Who said it was controversial? Just because something is none controversial it doesn't mean that it deserves a whole section. If you bother to read you will see I support a sentence saying that the UK systems apply so I am not sure what you are arguing above. The encyclopedic point related to the style and some of the content. The "previous discussions" related to the Irish Nationality Issue. Otherwise I am afraid your opinion and one ebay post hardly constitutes evidence of mass confusion. To make that point you need a reliable third party source that says it is an issue --Snowded TALK 19:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you trying to argue with me that this isn't an issue?
http://forum.o2.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=183911
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080226102013AAZ4XDZ
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110308075311AAGbsty
http://forums.hexus.net/shopping-retail-therapy/130261-postage-northern-ireland.html
http://help.vodafone.co.uk/system/selfservice.controller?CMD=VIEW_ARTICLE&PARTITION_ID=1&CONFIGURATION=1000&ARTICLE_ID=2281&CURRENT_CMD=BROWSE_TOPIC&SIDE_LINK_TOPIC_ID=1009&SIDE_LINK_SUB_TOPIC_ID=1081&SIDE_LINK_TOPIC_INDEX=null&SIDE_LINK_SUB_TOPIC_INDEX=null
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090508122932AA77UTO
http://community.ebay.co.uk/topic/Archive/Postage-Northern-Ireland/1100318613
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=537290 Jonnyt (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
To sum up, this is a HUGE problem for the folk living in NI, and the world should be educated :)
I am arguing (1) that if it is an issue it can be fixed with a couple of sentences and (2) that you need to read up on WP:OR your post above is a good example of it --Snowded TALK 19:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
OR isn't an issue when on the discussion page. The links above are to debunk your theory that the disputed text isn't of public interest. And no, it can't be fixed with a couple of sentenance, as there is much extra content in there which is unique to NI (such as the 048 number from ROI, inadvertent roaming, DSO). Also, there is actually another paragraph I need to put in about RTE broadcasts in Northern Ireland.(Jonnyt (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC))
This is an encylopedia not a travel guide, and the OR rule applies to anything you want to assert as a fact; I could claim any issue as "controversial" by picking up on a dozen web sites. Please sign your posts by the way --Snowded TALK 20:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Then why have article about any country at all? Your comments about a "travel guide" imply that the facts stated in the Comms section are of a non-neutral, "advertising" nature. I don't believe this to be the case. An encyclopaedia is about providing neutral, useful facts. Just because these facts don't interest you, doesn't mean that they aren't interesting or useful to others. Please state the policy that says that for a section to be useful, it needs to have a sweaping, non-OR source for the topic at hand. In fact, I have read Wikipedia's policies on references, and it says that you don't need to reference things that are unlikely to be disputed.(Jonnyt (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC))
Well I dispute it, I think you are exaggerating the problem. The travel guide point is very simple, its nothing to do with advertising its more that wikipedia is not about providing the advice to travelers sections you see in guide books --Snowded TALK 20:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

We should maybe try to include some content about Newpapers and Radio? (Jonnyt (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC))

I've added newspapers as a holding operation, it needs more work and radio should be added --Snowded TALK 20:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that the Carrickfergus Advertiser is significant enough, given that Northern Ireland has many newspapers. More significant papers would be the likes of "The Newsletter" and "The Irish News". I'm not sure about the Ballymoney and Moyle Times (never heard of it, but it may be significant). An Phoblacht is strongly controversial and not just available in Northern Ireland, so probably should be re-thought.(Jonnyt (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC))\
I picked the regional newspapers at random based on if they had an article, more than happy to change them. An Phoblacht is the dominant republic newspaper and it needs to be there to represent that community. --Snowded TALK 21:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
While I appreciate the fact of supporting that community, I don't think that An Phoblacht is the right choice, given that it is an all-Ireland paper. I think we should stick to papers that are generally perceived to be from Northern Ireland. A good newpaper that could represent that community could be the Andersonstown News. It's quite popular I believe. Jonnyt (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
AP's sales are insignificant. The republican community is more likely to be reading the Sun. Mooretwin (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Johnnyt, it is very unlikely that any republican newspaper would be confined to Northern Ireland . Mooretwin I am sure (although I regret it) that all communities are more likely to be reading the Sun, that sort of gratuitous comment really does not help --Snowded TALK 21:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
True, however I think we should stick to the general principals of notability. There are many unionist and nationalist newspapers in Northern Ireland that their sales are too insignificant to be noted down in a brief summary. An excellent newspaper that is targeted towards the nationalist community is The Irish News, which I've included in the article. It is indeed a very popular newspaper. Jonnyt (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see some third party sources on newspapers to resolve this - we are currently working with primary sources and opinion --Snowded TALK 22:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Since the article text is not claiming anything regarding popularity, no sources are necessary. Additionally, the selection of the Belfast Telegraph, Irish News, and The Newsletter are highly unlikely to be disputed, as these are 3 very popular newspapers inside Northern Ireland. Use this to get the circulation figures http://www.abc.org.uk/ (Jonnyt (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC))

No, what we choose to list represents the expression of an opinion. That should be supported by third party reliable sources. What we really need is an academic article or review piece that discusses newspapers in Northern Ireland. --Snowded TALK 22:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You're not from Northern Ireland, are you? :) Anyone from Northern Ireland would agree that the 3 papers selected are all very popular, and are representative of both communities. They are highly unlikely to be disputed. It's like telling a New Yorker that you need evidence that the New York Times is popular in New York...(Jonnyt (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC))
I know a little about Northern Ireland and I've spend a lot of time there since 1968. That is irrelevant however, as is any claim you might make. We need third party sources in wikipedia we do not rely on the opinion of editors. THe only save way forward is sources --Snowded TALK 22:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The ABC do provide reports, however is a membership only thing which you probably can't link to in Wikipedia. Jonnyt (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thats original research, what we need is third party commentary - see WP:RD and please sign your posts! --Snowded TALK 22:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wikipedia does not require reliable sources to be available free of cost. There is no prohibition on sources that lie behind a paywall. The only requirement is that they are verifiable.
Also, any material published by the Audit Bureau of Circulations is certainly reliable and is entirely verifiable — and is certainly NOT original research. --RA (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Its reliable for a statement of circulation, but its not reliable as a source to determine influence, that needs a third party source. --Snowded TALK 22:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Circulation is a sufficient criterion for inclusion. --RA (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Circulation does not establish significance and we need some learned article or similar which has carried out a proper study of the press and media on which we can rely. --Snowded TALK 23:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Breach of IMOS

Two recent edits by Snowded - 1 and 2 are in clear breach of WP:IMOS. See the second bullet point at WP:IRE-IRL, which makes it crystal clear what is expected in this context. Unfortunately, Snowded refuses to self-revert in compliance with the guideline. Can we agree to abide by IMOS here, please? Mooretwin (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems strangely ironic for you to selectively quote the IMOS and then make this edit, which is in breach of two guidelines described at IMOS. If you showed some consistency, your arguments might be better received. In general though, and not pointing at any editor in particular, there has been a rash of this type of editing - replacing the pipelink with "Republic of Ireland" - and it is starting to look like a campaign to replace the pipelinking with "Republic of Ireland" all over the wiki. I can't help but view this behaviour as a pre-emtive strike in advance of the expiry of the Arbcom ruling on September 18th. Especially since these areas have been relatively stable with broad agreement on the pipelinking for some time before this recent flurry of editing. --HighKing (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you're right. Although I hope we won't rush into the same impoverished debate as last time post the 18th. That said my clear recall is the agreement was Ireland whenever there was no ambiguity. IMOS seems to have changed that a bit and we probably need to raise it there --Snowded TALK 16:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I've a feeling that there's some editors waiting for the deadline to expire. I haven't seen any new arguments put forward, so in all likelyhood, it will end up as a repeat of last time. --HighKing (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Might be an idea to get an admin or two with knowledge of the issues but no involvement in the controversy to standby to moderate? --Snowded TALK 17:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
HK is probably correct, the related page move-in-question debate (next month), will likely have the same result. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Phrasing of opening line

I made the mistake of flippantly editing the opening line of the article from "one of the four countries of the United Kingdom." to "a country that is part of the United Kingdom."

I've since been made aware that there is some debate as to whether to name Northern Ireland a 'country' or not, but it seems to me that it's labelled a country in both phrases. I personally can't see any change in meaning explicit or implicit and I can't see it as being particularly contentious (or certainly no more or less contentious than the original statement). I think it would be better to phrase it differently so as to maintain some uniformity with the articles for England, Scotland and Wales. I don't think that slight change in phraseology changes the meaning of what is said, but you're welcome to disagree TomB123 (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The intent is that by saying NI is "one of the four countries of the United Kingdom", the sentence implies some relationship between NI being a "country" and being a part of the United Kingdom; whereas saying a place is "a country that is part of the United Kingdom" implies that, independently of being in the UK, that place is a "country". That arrangement of words was a compromise based on the real subject of contention: whether it is proper to define NI as a "country" at all.
NI is not uniform with the England, Scotland or Wales. Unlike other places in the UK, NI, historically, is not a country and never has been. Historically, it is a part of a country. Culturally, for many today, it still is. (Or a part of two countries.) Typically, the word used by the NI administration and others is "province" or "region". However, no word is satisfying to all. For example:

"One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." - S. Dunn and H. Dawson, 2000, An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Edwin Mellen Press: Lampeter

For Northern Ireland, "country", in a specific sense, is probably the most complicated and contended of all these words. (In a general sense the four parts of the UK are frequently described as "countries", but in a specific sense NI is typically not.) There are many references in the archives, like the above, that flatly refute that NI is a country in plain terms. However, sensitivities around use of the word "country" to describe other places in the United Kingdom mean that several editors are very insistent that that word appears in first sentence that defines what Northern Ireland is.
In reality, none of these words are actually needed at all. We could simply say that, "Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom situated in the north-east of the island of Ireland." --RA (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

They may be described as countries, but NI IS a PROVINCE of the UK, NOT a country. Sure, I and many can live with a "component part", but NOT country!!!!Agree with the above. Often people, who DO NOT know our situation and history, impose their illinformed views on US !!We are part of the UK fine, but NOT a country like England, Scotland, Wales are!!Our UK is three countries, of which ONE is a Principality (Wales) and a Province (NI). 95.149.182.0 (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Keeping the status quo will help avoid a lot of rehashing of old arguements, especially when the phrase being used in more specific and is/was sourced. Mabuska (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, both phrases to me (and I suspect most other people) imply that Northern Ireland is a country, but I'll let sleeping dogs lie on this issue. TomB123 (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading the lead...one would think...

...there's no more to Northern Ireland than its geography and current political position, the troubles, and to top it off, national and cultural identity. That's It. Is it me or is the whole lead paragraph lacking because ALL of it is being taken up by these political and confrontational events? The lead is supposed to give a general overview about the whole article. This article is not just about the Troubles, or its geography or national and cultural identity of NIreland. It should be expanded to reflect this. The article lead gives a poor outlook. (Sorry if this doesn't make much sense, it's very late) Thankies --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed WP:LEAD explains: The lead is as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. I guess a draft for new wording would be welcome here on this talk page, for other editors to review. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree, another draft would be better. There's a lot more to be said about Northern Ireland than merely the Troubles. TomB123 (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.150.70.167, 30 September 2011

I think it would be better to remove the Map of Northern Ireland off the Northern Ireland page and replace it with the Northern Irish Flag like the other pages belonging to the UK.

78.150.70.167 (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland doesn't have a flag. Bjmullan (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Not in the main box but maybe somewhere in the history section or next to the coat of arms picture. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Open Ireland page move discussion

After a two-year ban imposed by Arbcom, a page move discussion for the Republic of Ireland can be entertained.

Article Map.

Why is it shown where Northern Ireland is in Europe? It gives the erroneous impression that Northern Ireland is independant. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you denying that Northern Ireland is located in the continent of Europe?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Nope. I saying that showing Northern Ireland location in the United Kingdom, is sufficent. Only sovereign states should have their locations shown in their respective continents. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Why?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Because the current way, gives the impression of sovereignty for Northern Ireland. PS: I've little more to add, so others can view my concerns. NOTE: I haven't edit warred (for those who wanna run to Snowded's sandbox). GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
PS: It's the little map in the bottom right corner, that I'm complaining about. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Its GoodDay's latest little campaign - raising it on other articles in parallel. Suggest its ignored --Snowded TALK 19:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm speaking of the World map. Please ignore Snowded, he's merely trying to bar me from these articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's been a while SD. Hope you're well. I tend to agree about the World map insert. The map package is a bit like a Russian doll.Leaky Caldron 19:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Possibly on the World Map, but that is not how GoodDay started - see above and on Wales where he wants the map to be UK only then switches his stance to just removing the world map. Contradicting himself within a single screen. Trouble making (which is what I want you to stop GoodDay) --Snowded TALK 19:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I meant the World map all along. Holy smokers, I was a main proponent for the Europe map. I'm not perfect, Snowded. PS: You shouldn't be attacking my motives on these articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
A sudden change of position after a provocative opening. Typical. Suggest the discussion takes place in one place rather than four articles (or ideally just stops). I have responded to GoodDay's sudden change of position after a provocative opening in the talk page of Wales --Snowded TALK 19:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with centralizing the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been 8 days & there's no consensus for deletion of the inserted World Map. Proposal is withdrawn. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Irish pronunciation

I'm not too familiar with language tags, if anyone could fix the Irish pronunciation recording link for me and tell me where I'm going wrong. Hoping to roll this out across the counties and Gaelic place-names. Míle buíochas / Many thanks! Filastin (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Good man/woman/dog, Filastin! You may be interested in the Irish-language task force, which has a number of templates used for place names in Ireland (which give translations and meanings). You may also be interested in the manual of style entry for Irish place names. Best regards, --RA (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

How many Irish(ethnic) in Northern Ireland?

--Kaiyr (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The article has a demographics section.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

ISO definition and first sentence

In discussion with another on Talk:Wales, I was pointed to ISO definitions for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom (ISO 3166-2:GB). These are presumably based in some way on definitions of the United Kingdom Permanent Committee on Geographical Names.

In 2010, the ISO defined the UK as follows:

  • England: country
  • Scotland: country
  • Wales: principality
  • Northern Ireland: province

(Changes in the list of subdivision names and code elements (2010))

In 2011, this was changed as follows:

  • England: country
  • Scotland: country
  • Wales: principality country
  • Northern Ireland: province

(Changes in the list of subdivision names and code elements (2011))

What I suggest is that this ISO gives us a standard (also reflected in common speech) upon which to refer to the different parts of the United Kingdom and to have consistency across articles. For this article, I suggest a change to the first sentence so that it is closer to the other articles and reflects the ISO (and common practice):

--RA (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

In perspective: the reason you were “pointed to ISO definitions for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom (ISO 3166-2:GB)”, was because you cited outdated ISO definitions to assert your POV that Wales is a principality. No-one else thinks the ISO are the ultimate authority on the subject. I see no reason to change this article based on a single source that self-evidently makes mistakes. Daicaregos (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Dai, it's not my POV that Wales is a "principality". It never has been.
With regard to "mistakes" in the ISO standard, obviously any standard that deals with language use changes from time-to-time. In the case of ISO 3166-2: "The changes are based on information obtained from either national sources of the countries concerned or on information gathered by the Panel of Experts for the Maintenance of ISO 3166-2."
In the case of the United Kingdom, this is the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use, an interdepartmental service which advises and represents the British Government on such matters. Furthermore, BS ISO 3166-2, from the BSI, which the PCGN liaises with, is said to be "identical" to ISO 3166-2.
Thus, the ISO reflects:
  • Official British Government use
  • International (ISO) standards
  • British (BSI) standards
It is good IMO that the standard has been updated to describe Wales as a country. I hope the BSI standard is updated shortly to reflect this. But why should Northern Ireland still not be called by its standard designation? Province is how the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive describe it. That has long been the ISO standard (and presumably the BSI standard also, since the BS is described as being identical to the ISO one). It is how other sources describe it too. What's the problem? --RA (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Despite the fact i agree that Northern Ireland is a province of the United Kingdom, i see no reason to change from what we currently have in the articles. The issue has as far as i can tell been stable for a long time now so i see no need to re-drag up an issue that can become heated and drag on for ages. Mabuska (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, if the article is stable, IMO, it is through POV pushing by a small number of editors across several articles. Rather than a genuine consensus, I feel it is more a case of a forced consensus arising from a dispute in which the content of this article was an afterthought.
Why I raised it again is because the source above has been changed to refer to Wales as a "country" rather than a "principality". I hope that that will allay fears that calling Northern Ireland anything other than a "country" will have a consequence for the Wales (or any other) article. So, I am hoping, the issue does not need to become heated or long and drawn out this time around as Northern Ireland can be described as a "province" and Wales (and other places) can still be called a "country". --RA (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
POV pushing by a small number of editors? Would you like to name names RA? If you can't you should have the common decency to delete that piece of nonsense. We've already changed this article once after you didn't like it and you were content at the time. For God's sake there are enough disputes on wikipedia and the whole country/BI debates have been quiet for some time. Why are you stirring them up? ----Snowded TALK 18:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
"We've already changed this article once after you didn't like it ..." I think this says everything. WP:OWN much? --RA (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
It says that we have discussed and responded to your concerns before and reached agreement, and agreement which you now seem to want to challenge. I can't see any way that pointing that out reflects an ownership issue. ----Snowded TALK 21:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
"We"? Who is "we"? It's clear you don't see me as being a part of "we", whoever they are. So, who should I go to if I want to edit the first line of this article? Who owns it? That is the ownership issue that I am referring to. --RA (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
"We" clearly did include you when the current wording was agreed. If you want to edit the first line of the article then I suggest you make a concrete proposal here. You know that its a controversial issue so I hope, given your experience and position as an admin, that you would have the common sense and decency to propose changes here first for discussion. Oh and you still haven't named those "POV pushing" editors or withdrawn the comment ----Snowded TALK 21:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
"It says that we have discussed and responded to your concerns..." In that sentence "we" does not include "me". See examples of ownership behavior. You are demonstrating them.
"...I suggest you make a concrete proposal here." Facepalm Facepalm Look above (hint: it's the first post in the thread). You don't even read these threads before responding to them, do you? --RA (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
And you are denying that you raised issues and were part of a consensus to make a change to the lede? You are however right that in this case you did make a concrete proposal, my apologies for that, my frustration at your interminable lectures and insults without a proposal elsewhere got to me so for that I apologise ----Snowded TALK 05:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am glad this issue has been raised here. I too participated in the discussion on Talk Wales where this point arose first and I wanted to raise it here myself. I fully agree that it is not appropriate to describe it as a "country" in the way it is when the UK Government indicates to the ISO that it should be describd as a "province". I think the ISO is a pretty important source - it is international, reflecting a world view. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You can't argue the source as critical on one article, but deny it on another (Wales) ----Snowded TALK 05:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I do have to say that i find it wrong and slightly POV (no offense) to suggest that because the description of Wales has changed that that means Northern Ireland's article must be changed under the pretense there will be no argueing from Welsh-orientated editors. Despite RA's concerns, as far as i am aware there was a general consensus that was backed up by the majority of sources - what was that sub-article page that contained the mass list of descriptions and attached sources? Mabuska (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is Countries of the United Kingdom, the refs are here. A word of warning: that article, and the table of sources, were created to support the argument that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern were "countries" and to reinforce use of that term for those places. Indeed, originally the table of refs use to appear actually on the article page itself!
On the reliability of the table, I don't have much faith in it. The collection of sources to "prove" one thing or another through number of sources alone is bound to be intrinsically biased. No one can really suggest that the collation of these sources was approached as a rigorous scientific exercise. More than anything else, all the table demonstrates is the greater determination of one group of editors to search the web for sources that "prove" their point of view over others.
About the link to Wales, the desire for "consistency" across the four articles was a major component of drawn out discussions (and a failed mediation) that led to "country" appearing on all four articles. Previous to that, they were all treated independently. The introduction to this article has since been changed. However, the motivation to ensure "consistency" in terminology across the four articles in use of the word "country" was still important. One reason for doing so was to because if a word other than "country" appeared on one article, it was believed it would lead to "instability" on the other three. Wales, in particular, was open to being described as "principality" rather than a "country".
Now, I appreciate that raising that might seem as being an expression of bad faith in the editors who took part in those discussion. It's not. Those editors acted in good faith for what they thought was best for the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean that they were right, however, or that what followed represents a NPOV.
On whether use of the word "country" is consensus: Since the introduction of this article was changed to say "country" in 2008, the issue has been raised on the talk page 13 times. (I opened two of those threads.) Before then, it was only been raised 4 times.
What I want to see (and have wanted to see for a long time) is a reasoned discussion on 'what Northern Ireland is' as a case by itself — and not wrapped up with what people want to see England, Scotland or Wales described as. I don't believe that if we approached this topic on its own would we come up with the current wording. --RA (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Is having consituent ahead of country in the intro, an option for this article? GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
As I remember it, the argument for consistency was in part due to consistent treatment by the UK Government. Changes were made to this article when you last raised it and you agreed with those changes. I think your description of the past by the way is a failure to WP:AGF. You talk about a failed mediation as it it somehow or other challenges the validity of the researched compromise, a process led by an experienced admin. A formal mediation was rejected by a couple of editors and so it became a task force. Editors from both sides of the argument were involved in drawing up the table and simply saying that because the result did not support a position you now wish to adopt that it was a result of a more determined effort by one group over another is dubious to say the least. It might be worth your effort to look at the number of now banned editors or sock puppets involved in some of those disputes before you use a somewhat spurious count of 'number of times raised' as evidence of a lack of consensus. Now as it happens I think that the position on Northern Ireland is different in one significant way from the others in that its status as an independent political unit is more recent, and its independence was in dispute until the Good Friday Agreement. It does however have an assembly, and is one of the three legal systems in operation in the UK. Overall nothing has changed since the last time this was discussed. The ISO document said province back then as well. ----Snowded TALK 06:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The consensus reached on the Talk: Wales page was that the ISO source was critical. The suggestion that Wales not be referred to as a country did not receive consensus support. It seems to me the corrollary if we want to be consistent here is that NI should be described as a province. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Wrong. The ISO source when it said "Principality" was taken into account when the decision was made for country. The fact that it was changed by ISO when questioned confirmed that earlier decision. It was not critical and attempts to reopen discussion were not supported by editors on that article. ----Snowded TALK 11:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Snowded says "attempts to reopen discussion were not supported by editors on that article" - a more accurate statement would be that they were not supported by some editors. Some others thought it an interesting discussion worth having, despite being told it was causing huge grief, etc. (Other than the potential grief of having to talk about it, it was hard to see what the grief was.) If Snowded means that there was no consensus to change from Country in that discussion, that's correct, but the usage of Principality in parts of the article text is still under discussion. I would be interested to see the old archived discussion Snowded alludes to where he states that ISO was fully considered and rejected as a guide - rejected by people of a particular view presumably, since it does appear from the case-building that RA has helpfully provided that the ISO definitions do in fact reflect official government views. As for Northern Ireland, the best we can say about it overall is that the status of the (province/country) is in fact under dispute and has been left vague by the governments concerned, presumably deliberately. It isn't a country and the current "one of the 4 countries of the UK" thing is a little misleading. If ISO are to be trusted as an official source, we could say something like "whilst contested, the view of the UK government is that NI is a Province (and the ISO source)" but of course it will be fiercely battled here in WP, which alas is not always accurate when the battleground is thick with POVs. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
A majority of editors did not want to reopen a discussion resolved ages ago James. Please try and avoid hyperbole (grief, battleground, thick with POVs). I haven't seen any proposals for change in respect of mentioning the use of "Principality" beyond the references already made there. When they are I am sure editor will be happy to examine them. As to Northern Ireland I think the question is if people want to re-open a discussion that was previously resolved with RAs agreement or not. ----Snowded TALK 12:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying it can never be re-opened then? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Read my last sentence above ----Snowded TALK 12:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that given a well-constructed and thought-out proposal from RA, we shouldn't be using arguments about process to attempt to block discussion. Those who are opposed should be talking about the facts of the case and not raising arguments about former procedures. The simple fact is that the UK government appears to still regard it officially as a Province and that's worth putting in the article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but if the ISO definition is the last word, why wasn't Wales referred to as a prinicipality on here before its status was changed by ISO to a country? JonCTalk 12:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the ISO itself is the last word. It is a very significant source when to defining 'what' the different parts of the UK are. However, it should be seen alongside other sources. If we did so, I believe, "country" is the last word we would choose in the first line of this article.
Hitherto-fore, the desire to have have (and maintain) consistency of the use of the word "country" across the four articles determined what appeared here, regardless of whether it was the best choice of word here or not. With respect to Wales, there are NPOV issues there. A thread is open on it on Talk:Wales. What I hope the ISO re-definition will allay concerns that just because Northern Ireland isn't referred to as being a "country" that it will open the door to changes in other places.
The insistence on a false "consistency", a cornerstone of the change in 2008, is why there have been 13 threads opened on this issue on this page. Before then there had only been four threads on this issue. Far from the issue being resolved, it has been made worse by arguments brought here from other pages. Furthermore, the efforts to cut short discussion on this issue, and present reasonable attempts to open discussion on it as disruptive, is why the issue remains unresolved. --RA (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
That's obviously right about the disruption part. On the facts themselves, I would slightly query one of your assertions at the start of this tread RA - you mentioned that the ISO rulings "reflect Official British Government use" as you put it. I'm not certain this is correct - they certainly must contribute but has HMG issued a definitive ruling? The Permanent Committee says on its website that its principal function is to advise the British Government on policies and procedures for the proper writing of geographical names - this is not quite the same as governmental ruling. [4] I know you mentioned on Talk:Wales that it is regarded as the authoritative source, but it still appears to be a bit debatable what the actual import of an ISO ruling on names is. I doubt for example that if they declared the Falklands to be the Malvinas it would be accepted as such at the UN by Britain. Most government published sources like for example the website of the Northern Ireland Office are very deliberately completely silent on the subject of status. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Quickie observation and question then. It's been mentioned that the ISO isn't the last word. I disagree and would observe that ISO is the most official source there is from an NPOV international context. In my opinion, when data on Wikipedia differs from ISO, what we're usually dealing with nationalistic POV. As editors, we should be big enough to see and admit that, and decide on content from that standpoint. --HighKing (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Do the rulings of the UK ISO branch (and by reflection the Permanent Committee) get projected up internationally then and treated as global rulings? If so, you are right if its the most "official" global ruling on names, then it must also be the most internationally NPOV one presumably, unless there is some other listing used at the UN or something. Is there a definitive list of regional elements of nation-states in use at the UN, and do they use the ISO names? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You're right, James (that "this is not quite the same as governmental ruling"), but I tend to lean towards HighKing in that it is the most authorative source we have. The ISO source gives the Permanent Committee as the source of the change, but even leaving its UK origins aside, it is an international standard i.e. the international standard term for Northern Ireland is "province".
The best equivalent for the UN that I can find is here. It also draws on the Permanent Committee and describes Northern Ireland as a "province". (Wales is given as a "principality", I presume because it pre-dates the change in the ISO.) That report is among a series of "Reports by Governments...". The report itself is entitled the "Report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The author is given as "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". (It is prepared by the Permanent Committee and the Ordnance Survey, however.) So, quite authoritative :-) --RA (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we should just call Northern Ireland (and England, Scotland, Wales) simply a "....part of the United Kingdom" & thus avoid country, constituent country, province etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Part is vague, insufficient and does not impart any information to the reader regarding Northern Ireland's status.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It would be workable for all 4 constituent parts, though. In otherwords - "when in doubt, throw it out". GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to agree to a standard the could be used here at other articles dealing with NI and I would support the NPOV view of the ISO standard. I also think that the opening should be changed to support this. Bjmullan (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
@Jeanne, "part" is a bit vague, but what is Northern Ireland's "status" ("largely autonomous region"?)? We could fill it out by describing what sort of "part" of the UK Northern Ireland is e.g. "...a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland that is mostly self-governing since the partition of Ireland in 1922."
In the wider picture, I think there is a perspective on the word "country" that has caused problems. It is (for reasons that I can appreciate) a cherished status symbol of sorts for people in England, Scotland and Wales. That might be the case in those places, and in some aspects of NI life (e.g. "Our wee Country" in soccer), but in general "country" in NI is Ireland or the UK.
@Bjmullan, that is my believe too. Now that Wales has been fixed up in the ISO, it is a reasonable standard which we can follow for these terms. --RA (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, if ISO is the standard for the Wales intro, then ISO should be the standard for Northern Ireland's intro. In otherwords, go with province. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't find it curious at all that any editor who you could label as possibly being of Irish nationalist viewpoint backs the change ;-) (thats a joke in case anyone misinterprets it) However Snowded's point is still extremely valid - what makes this ISO have anymore authority than the one that called Wales a principality? We still called Wales a country regardless of it. Just because the ISO now calls Wales a country why does that mean that everything has to change despite all the other sources on that collection page? I find a change based on that notion very troubling regardless of the fact i accept that Northern Ireland is a province of the UK regardless of the ISO.

In fact i have a concern in regards to this comment of yours RA - "Now that Wales has been fixed up in the ISO, it is a reasonable standard which we can follow for these terms." - that reads to me as if your saying that because the ISO now reads as to how you like it too (and also for Welsh nationalists) that we should now follow it? Mabuska (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"…what makes this ISO have anymore authority than the one that called Wales a principality?" — They are both the same ISO. The ISO was changed in 2011 following the intervention of a Welsh politician after prompting by a Wikipedian.
"... because the ISO now reads as to how you like it too (and also for Welsh nationalists) that we should now follow it?" — In fact, quite very opposite. The ISO source came to my attention recently on Talk:Wales when I argued that the article lacked NPOV because it failed to fairly represent the view that Wales is a "principality". In that thread I argued against attempts to cut short discussions where contributors sought to change consensus with respect to how Wales is described in the first line (i.e. as a "country").
The United Nations document, which is identical to the former version of the ISO and was prepared by the same Permanent Committee as the ISO, was brought to my attention in 2010. I immediately argued that it was an authoritative and reliable source and added it to this article a day or two later. The source however met with great resistance on Talk:Wales. I argued for use of the source (and wanted to see it used in the article) but it's inclusion was was reverted. Indeed, if you look through Talk:Wales/Archive 11, you will see the same consistency in my argument for fair balance sources that described Wales as a "principality" and those that describe it as a "country" now as then. --RA (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It's only fair and appropriate to point out that the use of the term "Province" for Northern Ireland could be seen by some as an extra-territorial claim on the whole of Ulster. But a fair and balanced article should still highlight the official terminology in the lede where it is conspicuously absent. The article should also reflect the balance of reliable independent sources, which at the moment it doesn't. --HighKing (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not so happy with the proposal "Northern Ireland is a province that is part of the United Kingdom". "Province" usually only means something as a territorial division of a country, but the United Kingdom does not have any other provinces. Ireland does have provinces, but Northern Ireland isn't one of them. "Part" seems better to me, but to be both more informative and neutrally descriptive, how about something like "Northern Ireland is an autonomous [or: partly autonomous] territory made up of that part of the United Kingdom located on the island of Ireland" (or, to put it the other wat round, "that part of the island of Ireland which remains part of the United Kingdom")? "Territory" is a neutral term which doesn't make any assumptions or privilege any particular view as to the status of Northern Ireland or the preferred term to use for it. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
That's just a different way of describing the underlying purpose of this thread - should we use "Province" because that is the accepted definition the UK Government use? I think what you're talking about there are the views of others in Ireland and segments of opinion that don't like the term - fine - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't say "this is what the UK government call it, etc..." - we could also allude to "what people of different views think about that" with sources. There have been efforts before in these articles to obtain the official view for example of the Irish Government, but they also seem to studiously avoid defining Northern Ireland by a particular phrase. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, the current wording, although not perfect, is best. Whether or not Northern Ireland is normally described as a country in its own right (although it certainly is for sporting purposes; "provinces" don't have national sports teams), it is undoubtedly true that the four parts of the UK are called constituent countries, not "three constituent countries and one constituent province". What to call Northern Ireland has been a point of contention for many years, and the majority of sources – including those of the Northern Irish Assembly and Executive – appear to deliberately leave the question unanswered. Leave it as it is. — JonCॐ 11:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't put too much store in that table of references, or what it purports the "majority of sources" say. The case is more that the question is deliberately left unanswered because there is no satisfactory answer. In which case, we shouldn't be forcing an answer. That would be truer to a neutrality position.
On the point that this question has been "a point of contention for many years", yes it has. "Country" was introduce in 2008. Since then there have been 13 thread on the issue. Before "country" was used, there were four threads. That would suggest that rather than addressing a point of contention, the change made it worse. --RA (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The view among reliable sources that discuss the question of 'what is Northern Ireland' is that there is no answer to that question and that all answers are unsatisfactory to one degree or another. I think if we were to be neutral with respect to reliable sources we wouldn't use any of these terms in the first sentence (and use some non-definitive term instead, like as "part" or "territory", instead).
The section dealing with this question could be moved up (and revised) into an etymology section. We could still respect "province" elsewhere in the article, and across Wikipedia, as a sort of MOS decision (e.g. refer to it as a "province" when avoiding repetition of the word "Northern Ireland") - and use "countries of the United Kingdom" where talking en masse - but avoid suggesting a definitive answer to 'what Northern Ireland is' in the first line. --RA (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

@ HighKing - "It's only fair and appropriate to point out that the use of the term "Province" for Northern Ireland could be seen by some as an extra-territorial claim on the whole of Ulster." - Only by a few who don't know the difference that Northern Ireland is a province of the UK and Ulster is a province of Ireland.

@ComhairleContaeThirnanOg - "Province" usually only means something as a territorial division of a country, but the United Kingdom does not have any other provinces. - there is no law that states that a country must be divided up into provinces for it to have a province. Provence in France gets its name from the fact it was created as a province of the Romans, who used the term to refer to administrative and territorial units of the Roman Empire outside of Italy. Just as you could argue that Northern Ireland (until the abolition of the NI parliament) was an administrative/territorial province of the United Kingdom outside of Great Britain. Mabuska (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with High King where he said "In my opinion, when data on Wikipedia differs from ISO, what we're usually dealing with nationalistic POV"; I also agree with GoodDay that we should go with "province". Wikipedia should reflect the position; not try to shape it. NI's status per the ISO is "province"; we should accept that and incorporate it into the article. It's also consistent, rather than hotch potch politics. 86.42.178.193 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
"Only a few who don't know the difference" - I'd say it's more logical that it's the vast majority of readers who don't know the difference, especially as provinces are unknown in the rest of the UK, and given the history of that part of the world. Where did you come up with the statement that it was only by a few? Any refs? --HighKing (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Have you refs to the contrary that state the vast majority don't know? It's more a lack of logic if you can't tell the difference between a province of the United Kingdom and a province of Ireland. Also read my comments in full as your "provinces are unknown in the rest of the UK" is already answered in my previous statement. Mabuska (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't have refs. But then I didn't phrase it as fact, as in Only by a few who don't know the difference that Northern Ireland is a province of the UK and Ulster is a province of Ireland... --HighKing (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know what you two were arguing about. From where I am sitting, I think that the fact that "Northern Ireland" is the only province only makes that unique entity even more unique....it could well be mentioned in the article. 86.42.178.193 (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a 'country' (obviously)

This is about the most political claim I've ever seen in Wikipedia. The Six Counties is no more a "country" than is eastern England, or any other part of England. This is just a pathetic attempt to give historical legitimacy to the gerrymandered entity which is 'Northern Ireland'. Any honest person can see that. If anything, it's currently a region of the United Kingdom. 'Currently' being the operative word. It never was a country, or a province. It's a remnant of British colonial rule over the entire country. No more. 109.76.237.38 (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should preserve this comment as an example of WP:POV. Mabuska (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite of intro

Maybe a kitchen sink approach but here's a stab at rewriting the intro. A new feautre would be a new paragraph dealing with ... wait for it ... non-political matters ;-D This is something that there have been sporadic comments about: that reading the article, one would think there is nothing in Northern Ireland except for history and politics.

I haven't written this section, I'm not sure what to include. Some obvious things are music, sport (golf, soccer, and include all-Ireland aspect), and economics.

Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann pronounced [ˈt̪ˠuəʃcəɾˠt̪ˠ ˈeːɾʲən̪ˠ] ⓘ, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann or Norlin Airlan) is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland. It shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west. At the time of the 2001 UK Census, its population was 1,685,000, constituting about 30% of the island's total population and about 3% of the population of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is largely self-governing and co-operates with the the rest of Ireland, from which it was partitioned in 1921, on some policy areas. Other areas are reserved for the Government of the United Kingdom, upon which the Republic of Ireland may "may put forward views and proposals".

...

[INSERT NEW PARAGRAPH DEALINGING WITH NON POLITICAL THINGS HERE — E.G. SPORT, MUSIC, ECONOMY, GEOGRAPHY]

...

Northern Ireland was for many years the site of a violent and bitter inter-communal conflict — the Troubles — which was caused by divisions between nationalists, who are predominantly Roman Catholic, and unionists, who are predominantly Protestant. Unionists want Northern Ireland to remain as a part of the United Kingdom, while nationalists wish for it to be politically reunited with the rest of Ireland. Since the signing of the "Good Friday Agreement" in 1998, most of the paramilitary groups involved in the Troubles have ceased their armed campaigns.

Owing to its unique history, the issue of the symbolism, name and description of Northern Ireland is complex, as is the issue of citizenship and identity. In general, unionists see themselves as British and nationalists see themselves as Irish, though these identities are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Additionally, people from both sides of the community may describe themselves as Northern Irish.

--RA (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point unless England/Scotland/Wales also have their intros changed to state "a part of the United Kingdom". If they were also changed to match i'd support this proposal. Mabuska (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why Northern Ireland should be treated as if it were identical to England, Scotland or Wales. That may be an ideal some may have but it isn't a fair reflection of a neutral point of view on the subject. Anyway, the introduction here is already different from England, Scotland and Wales for that reason.
In any case, there's more to the rewrite above than just the first sentence. --RA (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
It's the closest thing to NPOV I've seen in a long time, although (question) could it be said that you should also mention "country" and "province" in the intro? I wouldn't even attempt to craft a sentence but I'm thinking "Northern Ireland is sometimes referred to as a Province (ref) or a Country (ref)". And dag-darn it but I really hate to see "Republic of Ireland" all in caps like that but that's a different discussion. --HighKing (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks bett6er to me, after a small correction. Since the status of Northern Ireland is treated very differently by reliable sources to those of England, Scotland and Wales I don't see that argument holding water. 2 lines of K303 13:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks better to me - I've never adhered to the "one description fits all" idea. Clearly some sources support that line, but this appears more neutral to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Also looks good to me. Since when has NI ever been treated the same as the rest of the UK in any respect. One size doesn't fit all in this case. Bjmullan (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The UK is not symmetrical, so NI should be considered on its own merits. Having identical wordings in England/Scotland/Wales implies a symmetry which does not exist in reality and Wikipedia should not give the impression that it exists. Perhaps a wording could be used that NI is part/component of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so indicating clearly that it is a significant part. Ardmacha (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this is an improvement. I also agree that if one particular phrase has been agreed for use in the opening sentences of the articles on Scotland, England and Wales, that is not in itself a particularly strong argument for its use in the opening sentence here - all the more so since, as pointed out above, it is controversial and there's a very strong case that presenting it as an uncontested "definition" of Northern Ireland does not reflect the usage of the Northern Ireland authorities themselves. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've only noticed this now, due to my recent diminished editing this past week or so - "re-write into pro consensus on talk page; using suggested non-political paragraphs per WP:SILENCE;" - i take it you didn't notice my comment on 23:17, 22 February 2012 so there is no silence on it. Also this so called consensus is based essentially on a restricted vote of mostly republican orientated editors (Irish and Welsh) who object to any mention of NI and country together. Per the Troubles Restriction outside opinion should be sought to avoid such bias - hence you should ideally have notified editors of this at the NI, UK, and Ireland WikiProjects and opened an RfC.

Whilst consensus does not have to be unanaminous, Wikipedia clearly states that consensus is not the result of a vote but decision-making that involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitmate concerns. I have listed concerns several times in the various sections of this debate and as far as i'm aware they haven't been adequately addressed. I also find it perplexing now RA that you have abandoned your arguement of using the ISO standard to list Northern Ireland as a province. So a politically-biased vote in a restricted discussion on a Troubles Restricted article that didn't seek outside opinion won't suffice as far as i'm concerned.

The following section to this which is the last thing i seen when i last visited this page is also quite misleading as when i last seen this talk page i assumed that your re-write of the lede was ignoring the description part at the time without reading the rest of the preceding section (due to time constraint). I now realise my error in not checking the above and raising these concerns earlier.

Also i find it leaning towards subversive that you link the "part" is this article to Administrative geography of the United Kingdom whilst England/Scotland/Wales all link the "part" to Countries of the United Kingdom which includes Northern Ireland. That does little to garner good faith along the above restricted biased vote called a consensus. Mabuska (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to add HeroicSandwich below summed it up perfectly: "One might think such mistakes would be avoided if changes like this to top level articles were advertised to a wide audience for review, but that appears not to have happened here, with these changes being discussed by what appears to be a group of mostly regulars to this article, and some wandering over from Wales till they got bored, and then ushered in under the fallacy that silence is presumed consent." Mabuska (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
"I also find it perplexing now RA that you have abandoned your arguement of using the ISO standard to list Northern Ireland as a province." — It's called discussion. It's not about getting one's own way or having entrenched positions. It's about developing the article in a way that a consensus of people feel is neutral towards the topic.
Additionally, there was no "vote". We don't vote on Wikipedia. A vote also implies that a new version is definitive and cannot be altered without a formal procedure to propose and adopt another version to replace it. That's simply not how things should work (although a culture has developed around that). The article was not now bound to some new version and still isn't. It should be developed further, improved and change over time.
Reverting, en masse simply because you don't like a particular aspect of a version is no way to achieve that. We should be developing articles instead of always pulling them down into entrenched on talk page discussions. Or reverting to a "stable" version; as if "stable" meant "better" or "consensus".
I'm going to enquire with ArbCom about removing the Troubles restrictions altogether. I think they have outlived their purpose. (There is a question if they every existed at all too BTW.) In the mean time, can I ask that you revert and develop the article? Not because I think the content should look a particular way but because I think editing should happen in a particular way: the normal way.
Overall, the rewrite was seen above as being an improvement but of course it's not perfect and can be improved and improved and improved. Eventually those improvements will mean the content will look nothing like the version above. But we'll never get there if we always revert to a "locked down" version and return to entrenched discussions. Rather than reverting, change the bits you don't like about the new intro. Improve it. That's how things get made better. --RA (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

New intro paragraphs on economy and culture

This is quite alien territory, so I don't expect to get it right first time, but here's a stab at "non-political" content to go with the suggestion above. I suggest that rather than working out details here and binding ourselves to some "agreement", that once a generally acceptable idea for the text is found that the details be worked out, over time, in the usual fashion, in the article itself:

Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann pronounced [ˈt̪ˠuəʃcəɾˠt̪ˠ ˈeːɾʲən̪ˠ] ⓘ, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann or Norlin Airlan) is ...

Northern Ireland has the smallest economy of the twelve statistical regions of the United Kingdom. Traditionally the most industrialized region of Ireland, the economy of Northern Ireland declined as a result of political and social turmoil in the second half of the 20th century. The economy grew significantly since the 1990s, in part due to a "peace dividend" and in part due to links with the Celtic Tiger economy of the Republic of Ireland, with which trade grew substantially.

Northern Ireland has a vibrant cultural scene that has produced world-renowned artists and sports persons such as Seamus Heaney, Van Morrison, Rory McIlroy and George Best. Cultural links between Northern Ireland, the rest of Ireland and the rest of the UK are complex, with Northern Ireland sharing both the culture of Ireland and the culture of the United Kingdom. In many sports, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland field a single team, a notable exception being soccer. Northern Ireland competes separately at the Commonwealth Games and people from Northern Ireland may compete for either Great Britain or Ireland at the Olympic Games.

Northern Ireland was for many years...

--RA (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing I'd object to would be the use of the slang term of soccer in there. Association Football please if you must! Other than that this seems ok to me. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Assocciation Football

Northern Ireland were also at the 1986 world cup finals. can someone with access edit this and then they can delete this message. 86.145.47.242 (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Added. Thanks, --RA (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Governance section

The Governance section doesn't actually give much detail on how Northern Ireland is governed (e.g. devolution, NIE departments, the role of UK parliament, north/south co-operation, etc.). It spends most of it's time discussing views on constitutional question.

I'm going to boldly split into a "background" section (which I think may benefit from being reduced in size, but won't do) and begin work on a genuine Governance section. --RA (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Pity you are using that to yet again change the lede after you have been reverted ----Snowded TALK 13:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Please strike that attack. Is it any wonder people are driven away form here when honest attempts to improve articles are thrown back in people's faces like that? It has been a long time since a comment truly disgusted me. That did. There isn't one drop of good faith in it. --RA (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Cool it RA, you were reverted and just restored your position its a factual comment, your response isn't----Snowded TALK 16:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
"Pity you are using that to..." — If don't you have the decency to apologize, at least have the dignity not to deny it. Anyway... --RA (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Another editor reverted your change to the lede. The then reverted that in a body of other edits (which I left alone by the way), per my above comment its a straight comment, your personal attack is not ----Snowded TALK 21:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Redundancies and repetition

There's a lot of redundancies and repetition in many sections (and across sections) of the article. Some sections are also disproportionately large for one reason or another (e.g. the Irish language section in Languages).

There may be good reasons for this, and I am not advocating stripping out everything so that all things are artificially equal, or everything is only mentioned once. However, I am going to try and copy edit the article. Doing so will probably involve trimming down sections of the article. I don't intend on removing any substance but I am flagging it before anyone wonders what's going on.

It has been a long time since the article was copy edited and it is looking like someone who has gone a long time without a hair cut. --RA (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the lead.

I know N Ireland is a very unique case in these Islands but honestly, reading the lead one is only informed of the complex situation in N Ireland relating to the troubles, religious ethno-conflicts, politics and nationalism in general. Can't there be anything in the lead that does not just relate to this? I know it's a depressing realization and I'm not saying undue weight is being put on the lead or there's any kind of POV issues, and sadly the lead is rather full already. Smooch~ --Nutthida (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There is a current discussion above on that point. --RA (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to rescind Troubles restrictions

A proposal to rescind Troubles-realated restrictions has been made here. --RA (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Can't find it?Red Hurley (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Carlingford lough

There is a discussion on the Carlingford Lough talk page questioning Northern Ireland and its validity as a country, the border with ROI and whether Northern Ireland can be used in the location field. Feel free to join the discussion.Hackneyhound (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no discussion on the validity of NI being a country Hound is twisting the content of a discussion there to advance his opinion. Murry1975 (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Murry, users have denied the use of Northern Ireland in the location field because "Northern Ireland is not a country" argument. That is surely questioning the validity of NI is it not?Hackneyhound (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes there has been questions in the past on this but you are the only one mentioning that now. And it has followed the same progress as above, so your point of forum shopping is? A RFC after a DR, now opening it on more talkpages. BTW if you are looking to change the style, which you seem to be, it should be brought to WP:IMOS the Ireland manual of style, not another talkpage. Murry1975 (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I think in your first post you jumped the gun. Perhaps read the entire carlingford Lough talkpage before you weigh into a discussion. I'm not trying to change the style of anything, I'm just seeking advice. But I will also take a look at IMOS.Hackneyhound (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This is one of the clearest cases of canvassing I have ever seen. This has been taken to DR, RfC, MOS and ANI. This really is a case of an SPA flogging a dead horse. Bjmullan (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Bjmullan, your POV is that Northern Ireland is not a country, and you have used this reasoning in the past so where better to discuss the status of Northern Ireland than here? And as I'm sure you have followed the conversation, I was directed to IMOS by Murry. As for raising DR and RFc, these are wiki tools that all are allowed to use. Don't know what your problem is but I can take a guess.Hackneyhound (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
SPA, my NPOV is that NI is not a country just like UN, ISO EU etc.... Bjmullan (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Bjmullan, given your edit history its clear to all that you are incapable of NPOV. Either way Northern Ireland does have to be a country to be a location. How do you not understand that?Hackneyhound (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is not a country. It is a "part" or "region" of the United Kingdom, and of Ireland. Brocach (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Van Speijk (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Terribly well-argued, Van, but not wholly convincing. Northern Ireland is, beyond question, a "part" of the UK, a "region" of the UK, and at the same time a "part" and a "region" of the island of Ireland. To call it a "country" is to use a highly controversial, politically loaded term. Brocach (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The new opening

While it's odd to see that somehow describing NI as "part of the UK" in the very first line isn't considered by those above as advancing a unionist point of view over and above the prior way of describing the place as a country in its own right, separate from the rest of the UK and inclusive of all communities, I just wanted to ask in what universe was it that Northern Ireland was partitioned from the "the the rest of Ireland"? While that sentence might make sense if it was referring to the geographic island, or even the rebel Irish Republic pre-partition, the use of an underlying link to Government of Ireland makes this wrongly refer to the 1937 republic. It's a simple fact that even the Irish Free State wasn't established until after partition, albeit very close to it. This article is not in good shape if errors of basic fact like this occur in the very first paragraph. Worse, most uninformed readers probably wouldn't even notice this subtle error, and it's those people who are supposed to be learning something from it.

I hope this was just an innocent mistake, easy to make in the complex world of Irish history, but this is not the only part of this new introduction that puts certain republican views above or before unionist ones or simple factual context. And while the aim seems to have been to expand what was already a woefully inadequate introduction, as far as politial history goes, it's all Troubles and post GFA co-operation, put above and before any of UK's role or viewpoint, while the entire period of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland doesn't apparently warrant a single mention, nor does the Kingdom of Ireland either, which by the by is presumably not what is being referred to when this current introduction talks of the nationalist wish for political "reunification" rather than the logically correct "unification" (albiet seemingly a mistake carried over from the previous poor version). You can't reunify what was never unified in the first place (and if this is intended to refer to a restoration of some pre-UK Irish political entity, I'd say that's pretty nonsensical).

Also, as far as "the smallest economy of the twelve statistical regions" of the UK is concerned, if Northern Ireland cannot be described as a country or home nation or whatever out of concern for republicans, can it at least be affored the dignity of being referred to as the place that is considered equal to Wales, Scotland and the 9 Regions of England? As far as I know, nobody in the UK has ever even heard of a NUTS Level 1, so let's keep it simple for those outside the UK who have even less chance of understanding such things.

One might think such mistakes would be avoided if changes like this to top level articles were advertised to a wide audience for review, but that appears not to have happened here, with these changes being discussed by what appears to be a group of mostly regulars to this article, and some wandering over from Wales till they got bored, and then ushered in under the fallacy that silence is presumed consent. Even after changing it, if someone has supposedly vested a lot of time in rewriting it I would hope they would want to put this new version out for peer-review from Wikipedia's established quality writers and readers with truly no opinion on the subject except except quality and utility. I fear this is never going to happen, but that's Wikipedia I suppose. It can only seemingly go the whole nine yards of writing, reviewing and approving decent and neutral articles on tiny niche topics nobody really cares about. When would this article ever make it onto the front page in this state? I don't think so. HeroicSandwich (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny. I hadn't considered how the link may have been used to infer that with regard to "from which it was partitioned". Of course, it was just an innocent mistake. I've removed the link altogether as a quick fix.
You are right about some historical perspective being lost in the rewrite and I don't entirely disagree with other points you make. How could we address them? Can I suggest that we be bold and go ahead make changes that are needed to make the article better (while assuming good faith of course). There should be no need to discuss or announce changes before making them.
One thing you may notice is that Talk:Baker Street and Waterloo Railway is empty. Not once did anyone contributing to that article see the need to discuss a change they made or feel obliged to get consensus first on the talk page or announce their intention to do so. That's how great articles are made. The people who made Baker Street and Waterloo Railway a Featured Article did so by simply going ahead and editing it in a spirit of collegialism and cooperation. Granted, that's probably not wholly possible with respect to the topic of this article, but we should still strive for it. --RA (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The so called consensus is flawed in various aspects HeroicSandwich and i've raised why above. Mabuska (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I restored to the stable version. Van Speijk (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I would also make the point that there is no comparison between articles on railways and those on politically contentious issues, and its not a comparison I would expect from an experienced editor. The need for consensus before making controversial changes is one of the only ways to manage articles where there are strong feelings and multiple ways of expressing facts, with sensitivity as to language used. ----Snowded TALK 17:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
See the last sentence: "Granted, that's probably not wholly possible with respect to the topic of this article, but we should still strive for it." Additionally, while discussion is good when needed, the primary means to develop consensus is through editing. --RA (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
That is a fair point. However, maybe th edit was just too big at this stage. Can we break it down and consider it point by point? And let's start with the issue of whether or not NI is a country. Let's consider that point on its own. Van Speijk (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I saw the last sentence and it was a redeeming but weak qualification to the earlier and main part of the statement. The simple fact remains that controversial issues should be discussed first. Doing this by direct editing always results in edit wars etc. etc. Otherwise I agree with Van Speijk, break down the issues and resolve them, then edit. ----Snowded TALK 18:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a moot point anyway, Snowded. The "controversial" edit in this case was proposed on the talk page and left to achieve consensus for two weeks before the article was changed.
Van Speijk, OK, but the ball in is your court. The text you reverted read:

"Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann pronounced [ˈt̪ˠuəʃcəɾˠt̪ˠ ˈeːɾʲən̪ˠ] ⓘ, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann or Norlin Airlan) is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland."

Personally, I see nothing controversial or open to dispute about that statement. What do you disagree with about that text? Or how can it be improved? --RA (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer to see reference to NI being a country in the first sentence, but I'm not aversed to the assertion being qualified somehow or other. For example "NI is one of the four countries ... but is often referred to as a province". Or "NI is a province .... sometimes considered as one of the four countries ..." just a couple of suggestions, not meant to be taken word-for-word. Van Speijk (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources, over several decades (for example, Whyte and FitzGerald:1991; Dunn and Dawson:2000; Morrill:2004; etc.), that deal with the question of 'what Northern Ireland is' state that calling Northern Ireland a "country" is incorrect, misleading or controversial, even "absurd" (Murphy:1979). In contrast to England, Scotland and Wales, ISO 3166-2:GB (2011) defines Northern Ireland as a "province" (England, Scotland and Wales are defined as "countries"). However, regardless of the choice of term, "̉[t]hese names can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences." (Whyte and FitzGerald:1991)
Therefore, let's leave all of these loaded terms out of the introduction. They add nothing, anyway. The question itself is dealt with further down the article.
(Incidentally, policy is that, "The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever [in deciding consensus].") --RA (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Virtually any name is (per the reference above) controversial. We therefore need a wording which reflects the sources and as far as possible covers off the various options. Per Van Speijk. RA I am not sure you really have much engagement for making a change, indifference more than agreement explains the lack of response. Bundling too many things in one set of edits is always a mistake. Regardless of the "country" word we need to be clear that NI has is up there with Scotland and Wales in terms of Governance (and in respect of Scotland legal systems). So there needs to be some reference to the fact that it is one of four "somethings". The word "province" is also well supported so should be there. ----Snowded TALK 13:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Snowded, look above! There was a four week discussion! The rewrite was proposed on the 22 February 2012, people supported it, the change was made. Wholesale reverting of content over individual concerns is unacceptable behavior.
Editing policy is to WP:PRESERVE content and move forward. In contrast, your habit is to revert content you dislike and draw things back to filibuster until others are exhausted and your preferred copy remains. That is unacceptable and disruptive behavior and it is your persistent modus operandi across multiple articles for an extended period of time.
The new intro is not written in stone, nothing is, but it is written and has agreement. Move on from there. That is how articles are developed. Now, do you have something to propose? --RA (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I see some agreement, some dissent and more recently a revert by another editor suggesting that we discuss the issues. Otherwise I suggest you remove the personal attacks, they ill befit an experienced editor let alone an admin. You also make a false assumption or two but not to worry about that for the moment. Strike the personal attack please. ----Snowded TALK 16:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The issues were discussed three weeks ago and consensus was that the new introduction was an improvement (not perfect, nothing is, and not set in stone). Yet, the entirety — including the new paragraphs on the economy and sports and culture and grammar fixes — is being reverted apparently for a single issue. That is no way to improve articles. Ironically, HeroicSandwich's criticisms, which are much broader in their base, are not being addressed by reverting to the old introduction.
Now, you want to add something "to be clear that NI has is up there with Scotland and Wales in terms of Governance (and in respect of Scotland legal systems)." That sounds like an additional one liner, not a wholesale revert. However, it is not clear to me what you mean exactly.
The United Kingdom is not a symmetrical. For example, we can say that governance in Northern Ireland is devolved like Scotland and Wales, but not England (but also not like Scotland or Wales in further respects). We could say that Northern Ireland is a distinct legal jurisdiction, like Scotland and England and Wales, but not like England or Wales individually. We could say that England, Scotland and Wales ordinarily compete as separate sporting teams, but Northern Ireland ordinarily competes as part of an all-Ireland sporting team. Thus, a particular problem is that Northern Ireland is not "one of four 'somethings". Looking at the England, Scotland and Wales articles, they don't try to it make out that they are.
If you do want something added, how do you suggest it be addressed? And why are you reverting everything over one issue?
I'm going to act on HeroicSandwich's suggestion and invite an outside view. --RA (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I am waiting, without that much hope, for you to strike the personal attacks. If you are not prepared to do that I really think you should consider your suitability to be an admin. ----Snowded TALK 20:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Then prove me wrong. Let's see you work constructively towards a consensus, here and now, rather than reverting and then filibustering. If you can do that, I'll strike it out. Nine editors expressed support for the new introduction. The onus is on you if you want to revert to explain why and reach a consensus. I've asked you twice to suggest a way forwards and you haven't done so. --RA (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Not impressed RA, you were reverted by another editor on the basis that there was not a consensus. You promptly restored your version. When I reverted that in support I got subject to the little diatribe above which made general accusations. We've had this once before on the Wales article where you lashed out with personal accusations when you were not (as we discovered) even proposing a change. Its inflammatory, unnecessary and unworthy of an experienced editor, let alone an admin. Even now you can't simply delete it. As you should know a personal attack is not acceptable, and the onus on me is not to prove it wrong. You made it, if you think its true you should be raising at ANI for sanction, if not you should withdraw it. As to your final comment suggestions were made for point by point discussion and I made a response to that. Try and get your facts right ----Snowded TALK 21:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm with RA on this. There was a clearly expressed view by most editors that the wording of the opening sentence needed to be improved and made more balanced, and I see nothing wrong with how that change was made. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm open to the argument on that Ghmyrtle, I saw RA revert an editor who had asked for discussion and supported them. A short discussion could resolve that one way or the other. I am not open to the generalised personal attack evidenced above ----Snowded TALK 21:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Look:
  • HighKing, ONiH, Ghmyrtle, Bjmullan, ComhairleContaeThirnanOg, Ardmacha, RA spoke for the new introduction.
  • Mabuska spoke against it.
Mabuska's arguments were directly refuted by several participants. That's consensus. So, after two weeks the new introduction was added. (See diff of the discussion.)
Since then, CofE and Mo Ainm have also expressed satisfaction with it. HeroicSandwich criticisms, which are fair and well expressed, apply to both introductions (he described the old introduction as "the previous poor version" and "woefully inadequate"). Yet, Van Speijk reverted saying there is "absolutely no consensus for the changes". And you reverted "per Van Speijk".
There clearly is consensus. Of course the new text is not perfect. That's OK because all articles are WP:IMPERFECT. It needs to be developed further, and it will over time (including integrating some of HeroicSandwich's criticisms, I hope). The important thing is that it is not set in stone; but we can't hold everything up every time someone shouts 'stop the world'. That's why I am calling you on WP:FILIBUSTER. Things move on. --RA (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Umm, I don't see clear consensus on the wording. I do see general consensus to change. I also see Van Speijk reverting your wording asking for more discussion and you reverting that without discussion. Then I see you lashing out with personal attacks (although very selectively). Sorry RA I know you are on a campaign to get direct editing of articles preferred over using the talk page. If you get community agreement to that fine, but you should have shown more respect for the Van Speijk revert and you should strike those personal attacks. I realise you are probably going to carry on prevaricating on that but best just to admit you were wrong (you may have been right on the content issue) if you want any credibility if you use your recently acquired mop for WP:AGF violations. ----Snowded TALK 12:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
"Umm, I don't see clear consensus on the wording. I do see general consensus to change." Snowded, seriously, the exact wording was proposed and agreed by a consensus three weeks ago. I linked to the diff above for your benefit (and here again). The community has agreed.
It is of course WP:IMPERFECT and it is not set in stone. It will develop over time and the issues raised by HeroicSandwich and Van Speijk (and others to come), what ever they are, will be integrated through consensus one way or another. --RA (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Well lets see, you propose the wording 2305 22nd Feb. HighKing, Ghmyrtle & Bjmullan agree. Ardmacha agrees NI should be treated on its own merits but does not agree the text per se. Comhariie... agrees its an improvement but no more. Mabuska opposes but at this point you institute it anyway. Heroic Sandwich then expresses concerns. Hans Speijk reverts on the basis it needs more discussion but you reinstate anyway. I revert and get subject to one of your little tirades. So that is 4 four, one sort of, one against and three thinking it needs more discussion. Get the point yet? ----Snowded TALK 15:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
So discuss... --RA (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
So strike the personal attack(s) ----Snowded TALK 17:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Where I'm coming from is that there are a number of terms used to refer to Northern Ireland. Country and Province being fairly common, but with multiple referenced sources pointing out problems with these terms. RA's suggestion appears NPOV and still leaves room to discuss terminology within the article or even the lede, while still remaining within "official" nomenclature. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree. It is unambiguously correct and uncontentious that NI is a part of both the UK and the island. The question is whether that term alone gives sufficient information to be helpful to readers. The issue is that any other term - "region", "province", "jurisdiction", "country", etc. - is problematic, irrespective of how many reliable sources use them. There is no overwhelmingly strong case for using "country", in particular. The reasons why such terms are problematic need to be explained in the article, and perhaps summarised in the lead. But, using any word more specific than "part" in the opening sentence would continue to confuse and mislead. A better (though, of course, not perfect) alternative to the current wording has been put forward, and I support it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
PS: For those who haven't yet noticed (I've mentioned it before, more than once), this citation, used in the current version of the lead, is an archived version of an old 2003 webpage. There is no evidence, anywhere, that the terminology it uses is currently supported. There is no good reason for using it now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"HighKing, ONiH, Ghmyrtle, Bjmullan, ComhairleContaeThirnanOg, Ardmacha, RA spoke for the new introduction. Mabuska spoke against it." - quote a politically biased "consensus" don't you think? Where is the wide spectrum of viewpoint? The moment you made the change someone complained about it. The so-called refutes on my points were illogical disagreements from nationalist editors that could't be substantiated - i.e. using "province of the UK" could "be seen by some as an extra-territorial claim on the whole of Ulster".

I agree with you that it's not a country in the same sense as England/Scotland/Wales. I back calling it a province (in fact when i first raised the issue way back and argued for calling it a province - you hijacked that discussion and got shouted down), however i disagree with your methods and general willingness to disregard any points that you can't work with to achieve your goal.

Just to sum up these are my main concerns with you on this issue:

  • Your continual re-raising of this issue under whatever pretense you can over the past few years despite the resolution or death of previous discussions.
  • Your continual disregard of any points that you can't work with to achieve your goal and willingness to accept an end result as long as it removes "country" in regards to Northern Ireland from the lede of this article.
  • You re-raised this issue after it had laid low for a while under the pretense that because the ISO has changed in its description of Wales from "Principality" to "Country" (which made it acceptable to Welsh nationalists) that it is now the unrefutable best source on what Northern Ireland is called. You then without any real logical discussion on it abandon the "province" and ISO arguement and adopt on board all nationalist concerns and create a proposal they couldn't possibly refuse.
  • The lack of any wide-spread discussion on this highly controversial topic with editors from a wide range of viewpoints from across the relevant WikiProjects and an RfC.
  • Failure to abide by the Troubles Restriction of seeking outside input for controversial topics and your present belief that the restriction should be removed.
  • The alleged "consensus" which is heavily biased when editors viewpoints are taken into account - editors who'd rather have anything that they can call neutral or better as long as it doesn't result in NI being called a "country", "state", or what it actually is; a "province". Such arguements that it is neutral does not mean that the comments are being made for a neutral purpose.
  • Your eagerness to accept such a narrow politically biased head-count as a basis of "consensus" and then try to enforce it by reverting a revert of your edit. Such a narrow biased head-count is hardly the basis of a stable, defining and acceptable consensus - but then again the less editors from other viewpoints who know about it...
  • Your willingness to disregard Talk:Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom/refs, but any wonder seeing as the vast majority of sources so far back the usage of "country". Just to point out in the past i added three sources to it for province.
  • Your unexplained piping of "part of the United Kingdom" to "Administrative geography of the United Kingdom" whilst England/Scotland/Wales all pipe to "Countries of the United Kingdom" which still lists Northern Ireland. Wouldn't all four be better linked to adminstrative geography or was it the fact it stated "countries of" the problem?
  • Your lack of neutrality and objectivity on this issue which is backed up a comment you once made to me that Northern Ireland being called a country gets you riled up. Once i manage to find this comment i will provide it here.

Obviously you will disagree with all of that and you are entitled to, just like i am entitled to my concerns. Mabuska (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Extra point:

  • You where quick enough to post notifications here, here and here for input on rescinding Troubles Restrictions but you still have failed to on this issue. You were however able to start an RfC with quite a biased synopsis of the situation. Why might i ask?

Encompassing my above concerns i must quote a very recent comment you made to me RA: That's not the way to develop articles.. Mabuska (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Its not often Mabuska and I are agreed on any subject concerning Ireland, but on this we are. ----Snowded TALK 08:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
About my "continual re-raising of this issue" - Since the introduction of this article was changed to say "country" in 2008, the issue has been raised on the talk page 13 times. I opened only two of those threads. (Before 2008, the issue was only been raised 4 times.)
  • "...adopt on board all nationalist concerns and create a proposal they couldn't possibly refuse." - I posted a proposal and left it here for two weeks inviting comment and discussion. The proposal was open for anyone to comment on and to discuss. The consensus of people who responded supported the proposal.
  • "The lack of any wide-spread discussion on this highly controversial topic..." - If this was a concern you had, why did you not post to the relevant WikiProjects? You were a party to a month-long discussion, including two specific proposals. If you were concerned that we should invite outside comment, why did you not do so? Why only bring it up now, after the fact? Why have you still not invited outside comment? (I have since posted to the relevant UK and Ireland WPs.)
  • "Failure to abide by the Troubles Restriction ..." - If that is a restriction, you also failed. The direction is for "all editors".
  • "The alleged 'consensus' which is heavily biased ..." - You were there too. You made only one argument, which was extremely weak, the central point of which was refuted directly and explicitly by several commenters. Additionally, the sole point you made had nothing to do with whether "country", "province" or anything else was neutral or otherwise.
  • "Such a narrow biased head-count is hardly the basis of a stable..." - It wasn't based on a head count. The sole dissenting voice was you; and you put forward a weak argument, the central point of which was refuted directly and explicitly by others. See WP:CONSENSUS.
  • "The moment you made the change someone complained about it." - HeroicSandwich complained about both version. Indeed, he/she called the previous version the "poor version" a described it as a "woefully inadequate introduction". My response was to acknowledge that the new introduction was WP:IMPERFECT and invited him/her to be bold and improve the new version. Your response was to revert to the version he/she called "poor" and "woefully inadequate".
  • "Your willingness to disregard Talk:Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom/refs..." - There is a difference between what the majority of sources say and what the majority of sources posted on that subpage say. There is an even greater difference again between that and a neutral point of view. What is significant about, for example, the sources I quote in the section below is that they deal directly with the question: what is a neutral way to describe Northern Ireland.
  • "Wouldn't all four be better linked to adminstrative geography or was it the fact it stated 'countries of' the problem?" - Possibly. I thought the administrative geography article was more informative. Why didn't you raise this point when the proposal was made? In any case, the new new version is not set in stone. It is WP:IMPERFECT. If that is your sole concern, change it. There is no need to revert wholesale just because you don't like where one link goes to.
  • "Your lack of neutrality and objectivity..." - We each come here with our own real-world POVs. But Wikipedia is not a battle ground. I don't throw your personal background back in your face. Don't throw mine back in mine. We are here to work together. Regardless of where we come from, or what personal beliefs we may have, we can do that objectively, if we respect each other and keep a focus on the purpose of this project.
  • "You were however able to start an RfC with quite a biased synopsis of the situation. Why might i ask?" - Because you suggested we invite outside comment.
Finally, the above contained only one suggestion for a change to the text. Why did you revert the whole thing, wholesale, if that is the only concern with the text? Why not WP:PRESERVE and WP:DEVELOP the text? And why did you not raise whatever other concerns you may have during the discussion two weeks ago? Raise them now, but don't accuse others of foul play because you didn't raise your voice (or when you did, the one argument you made was refuted comprehensively). --RA (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You may have raised it twice since 2008 but you've hijacked other raisings of it such as when i raised it. On your elusive "why didn't you" arguements - as the instigator of the discussion and of the proposals WP:BURDEN falls more on you than me - though that is not an excuse on my behalf, yet if you check my edit history as of late it is quite little as i've been too pro-occupied with real-world things to spend too much time on Wikipedia.

Just to point out your raising of this discussion at the UK and Ireland WikiProjects seems quite vague almost as if to not inform a reader of what exactly is under discussion unlike your quite clear notifications about rescinding Troubles Restrictions. Yes they can click through but lazyness is a major factor for people and if it doens't pip their curiousity they'll probably ignore it.

As Snowded pointed out, how many editors actually agreed to implement your proposal? Several editors said it was "better" or "more neutral" - thats not explicit consent for the change. Heck i didn't object to it outright either did i? So your 7:1 is quite flawed. Several editors have since you implemented your change have also raised their own concerns over it - so more input is vital.

You may try to silver tongue your way around my points and convulute them all back onto me ignoring some points and focusing on others, trying to make my arguements look weak or flawed but your not fooling anyone and if you look into the mirror you'll see yours are equally as weak if not weaker. Also FYI - your opinion is not law. Just because you claim someone's arguements or comments are "weak" and any retorts are proper rebuttals does not make them so. I find your casual disregarding of them as such quite lambastic. Also yes Wiki is not a battleground but policy quoting to side-step valid concerns is not a way to go about either.

If it's of any solace for you - as i've already stated - i didn't object to your proposal outright, and i can agree to it by on large. I however objected to your methods of trying to force this issue through in the shambolic manner that you have. Yes we have all made errors or mistakes in this discussion, at least i can accept mine. Mabuska (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Now if you would like to help restore the spirit of good faith we could start this whole thing afresh and do things properly and actually properly discuss other editors points whilst having it advertised in the appropriate places. Heck we've argued worse and pulled through to reach agreement on other things before. Mabuska (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
"I however objected to your methods of trying to force this issue through in the shambolic manner that you have." - Mabuska, I proposed a rewording and let is sit for two weeks. It got consensus (to mine and other people's eyes, at least). I didn't 'force it through'. Honestly.
"Now if you would like to help restore the spirit of good faith we could start this whole thing afresh..." - No, because we can't always pull things back. The way to go is forward. The new introduction (like all text) is WP:IMPERFECT, the way forward is to WP:IMPROVE it (maybe radically). I'm open to seeing it radically re-written. But let's not go back.
A whole lot of bad faith has been spilled over this. I'm not going to accept blame for that. (That's not to say that my conduct in this thread has been ideal in other respects.) I do want to see the bad faith set aside, however. And I know you're that kind of editor too. So, even if we don't start over completely in terms of text, let's start over in terms of faith, and without blame?
I've opened a new thread on this below. --RA (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Outside view

I'd like to seek outside views on the introduction. The old version of the introduction can be read here. The new version, agreed above (7:1 in support), can be read here. A couple of days after the new introduction was added, HeroicSandwich posted a criticism of it above (as well as criticizing the old introduction: "already a woefully inadequate introduction"). The new introduction was reverted and a series of reverts between the two versions followed (including two new editors expressing support for the re-write and two new editors opposing it).

As well as concerns about broadening the introduction beyond the Troubles, a particular issue is how to describe Northern Ireland. This is a particular problem that is specific to Northern Ireland, as described in the following sources:

Reliable source dealing with the question of 'what Northern Ireland is'

"One problem must be adverted to in writing about Northern Ireland. This is the question of what name to give to the various geographical entities. These names can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences. ... some refer to Northern Ireland as a 'province'. That usage can arouse irritation particularly among nationalists, who claim the title 'province' should be properly reserved to the four historic provinces of Ireland-Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connacht. If I want to a label to apply to Northern Ireland I shall call it a 'region'. Unionists should find that title as acceptable as 'province': Northern Ireland appears as a region in the regional statistics of the United Kingdom published by the British government." - J. Whyte and G. FitzGerald, 1991, Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford University Press: Oxford

"One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." - S. Dunn and H. Dawson, 2000, An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Edwin Mellen Press: Lampeter

"Next - what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? 'Province' won't do since one-third of the province is on the wrong side of the border. 'State' implies more self-determination than Northern Ireland has ever had and 'country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd. 'Colony' has overtones that would be resented by both communities and 'statelet' sounds too patronizing, though outsiders might consider it more precise than anything else; so one is left with the unsatisfactory word 'region'." - D. Murphy, 1979, A Place Apart, Penguin Books: London

What are outside view of the two introductions (strengths, failings of each, etc.)? What are outside views of how we could approach the 'what Northern Ireland is'? What is outside view of the process to develop the new introduction?

--RA (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out RA'a alleged agreement of 7:1 is politically biased and from a far too narrow range of viewpoints for such a contentious topic that they have continually raised over the years to no avail. RA also failed to abide by the Troubles Restrictions and seek outside opinions on the matter for example by raising it at the relevant WikiProjects and by RfCs. There are also other concerns that they have disregarded as being irrelevant such as this compilation of sources. Mabuska (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I've read over both leads, the discussion leading to the change, and the discussion above. My first note is that the new lead is a paragraph longer than guidelines suggest, but I agree the addition of a section on things not to do with politics and the history of that politics can only be a good thing for the lead. In regards to the first line, and the main question here. Normally I'm quite insistent on reflecting the actual facts on the ground, calling spades spades, so to speak. However, I don't think that there's an exact spade to name here. We all know the UK as a whole has a unique history with unique domestic politics. This causes issues on wikipedia, as many here know. Northern Ireland takes these initial problems and compounds them. In Northern Ireland's case we actually have sources which discuss and debate what Northern Ireland is, it's very obviously not just a wikiproblem. The sources also say that the names people use can reflect on political beliefs. I think it's fair to say that in many cases the meanings of the words used to describe Northern Ireland, country, province, region, nation, are meanings which the people who use the words (and by the same note the people who refuse to use a certain word) give to them. If that's the case with our sources and editors, it's quite fair to say a reader will face the same issues. With this in mind, I don't think choosing one possibility is the right thing, but at the same time, using multiple words in the lead (very simply eg. "...is a country, or province, of...") is in my opinion just going to confuse any reader unfamiliar with the subject. Because of this, I support the second leads explicit sidestepping of the issue, a nifty move that avoids a real world discussion and follows in the footsteps of the NI and UK governments, who seem equally eager to just not address the situation. However, I think that there is room to describe the debate in the lead. I note the last two paragraph are the same in both. I suggest that a sentence is added to the last one, which describes the difficulties of symbolism etc., about the different descriptions used by various people. This would be informative for readers, and perhaps clarify why we haven't used a particular term at the very beginning.
Non-first sentence stuff (with bold for tldr purposes): Mention of the split from the rest of Ireland in the first paragraph is I think unneeded. It was a historical inter-UK action, which can be left to the history section. Information about the Good Friday agreement, cooperation with the rest of Ireland, and the reserved powers of the Uk should be moved to the second last paragraph, as it fits in with the theme of the troubles and their ending. There's a "since 1998" in both paragraphs, so it's easy to see where they would go together.
I share the feeling about statistical regions being quite unknown. There's nothing intrinsically notable about saying NI is the smallest anyway, it has a small population and not a large area, so you wouldn't expect its economy to be that large. Drop that first sentence, the rest is a nice summary of the economy. As for Culture, I don't think we should list any specific people in the lead, and don't see any need for the first sentence really. The following sentences make a concise summary of the complexity of the culture there. CMD (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the new first paragraph is too contrived and the old one was far better. Country is a good word for Northern Ireland and it is used in UK government publications and it gets away from the province distinction. There's no need to try and cover it up. The new sentence about the signing of the Good Friday Agreement is fine but I'd remove the last sentence about reserving powers etc as being too detailed in the lead.
I'd leave out the new second paragraph about the economy entirely as not having any top level interesting information and the bit comparing to Britain as too obvious for words. It says nothing about what Northern Ireland does, it is just more politics.
I think the old second and third paragraphs about the history and the troubles should be merged and cut down. I'm sure about a third or more of them could be removed. The new intro just kept the third paragraph but that left to much history out. We can't just completely ignore the history as that's a lot of what Northern Ireland is known for and why it has been written about.
I'd just leave the culture paragraph of the new introduction as something people could edit to try and get into shape. It's nice to have something like that. Dmcq (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
BTW if worried about the ISO designation as a province by the national statistics office one can see they are pretty happy with calling Northern Ireland a country too. Here is part of their guidance about UK administrative geography [5]. Dmcq (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The National Statistics Office uses a very specific use of the word "country": "For the purposes of the NS Country Classification, a country is the name, either short or official, of a current country, dependency or other geographic area of interest. ... [This includes] administrative subdivisions, particularly the nations of the United Kingdom..."
This comes with the following disclaimer:

"The identification of country categories in the National Statistics Country Classification is designed to form the standard harmonised framework for the collection, processing and outputs of country-related data for statistical and analytical purposes only. It is not intended to be regarded as an authority on the formal recognition, geographic boundary, spelling or nomenclature of any country or geographical area included in the classification." [Their emphasis] (reference)

Almost in contradiction to this, the ISO designation originates with a UK Government committee that advises the UK Government on formal naming conventions (that is who the ISO reference). It is the same designation that the UK Government reported to the United Nations committee on geographic names. (References to these are further above.) But that is kind of beside the point. The more substantive point is that there is no consensus over what to call Northern Ireland (including among the UK government and public agencies). Further, reliable sources that deal with this question say that any any choice of word is problematic and fraught with (perceived or otherwise) implications.
But that's OK, because we don't need to use any of these terms. Like CMD wrote, we can simply side-step the issue and not use any. What would it add anyway? --RA (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
RA, the idea of an RfC is to get outside views, best to let that run without combating each one ----Snowded TALK 16:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hardly "combating each one", Snowded. RfCs are discussions, too. If an explicit point is raised there is no harm in responding to it. Doing so might help develop a consensus. --RA (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, you should assume that editors will read the material you have already supplied. There is a time to sit back and let others comment without repeating existing arguments in long indented threads. ----Snowded TALK 17:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
It's perfectly acceptable for him to raise points when others comment. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Support new intro as it neatly sidesteps many political landmines without being too weaselly. With NI, a certain amount of weaseliness is always necessary. The lead of England, Scotland and Wales should be similarly altered per this precedent. Would not suport otherwise. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting the new introduction

For reference, the current state of the new introduction (since CoE's edit and including changing the link of "part" to Countries of the United Kingdom) is as follows:

Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann pronounced ['t??u??c???t?? 'e????n??] ⓘ, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann or Norlin Airlan) is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland. It shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west. At the time of the 2001 UK Census, its population was 1,685,000, constituting about 30% of the island's total population and about 3% of the population of the United Kingdom. Since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, Northern Ireland is largely self-governing and co-operates with he rest of Ireland, from which it was partitioned in 1921, on some policy areas. Other areas are reserved for the Government of the United Kingdom, upon which the Republic of Ireland may "may put forward views and proposals".

Northern Ireland has the smallest economy of the twelve statistical regions of the United Kingdom. Traditionally the most industrialized region of Ireland, the economy of Northern Ireland declined as a result of political and social turmoil in the second half of the 20th century. The economy grew significantly since the 1990s, in part due to a "peace dividend" and in part due to links with the Celtic Tiger economy of the Republic of Ireland, with which trade grew substantially.

Northern Ireland has a vibrant cultural scene that has produced world-renowned artists and sports persons such as Seamus Heaney, Van Morrison, Rory McIlroy and George Best. Cultural links between Northern Ireland, the rest of Ireland and the rest of the UK are complex, with Northern Ireland sharing both the culture of Ireland and the culture of the United Kingdom. In many sports, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland field a single team, a notable exception being association football. Northern Ireland competes separately at the Commonwealth Games and people from Northern Ireland may compete for either Great Britain or Ireland at the Olympic Games.

Northern Ireland was for many years the site of a violent and bitter inter-communal conflict — the Troubles — which was caused by divisions between nationalists, who are predominantly Roman Catholic, and unionists, who are predominantly Protestant. Unionists want Northern Ireland to remain as a part of the United Kingdom, while nationalists wish for it to be politically reunited with the rest of Ireland, independent of British rule. Since 1998, most of the paramilitary groups involved in the Troubles have ceased their armed campaigns.

Owing to its unique history, the issue of the symbolism, including name and description of Northern Ireland, is complex, as is the issue of citizenship and identity. In general, unionists see themselves as British and nationalists see themselves as Irish, though these identities are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Additionally, people from both sides of the community may describe themselves as Northern Irish.

This doesn't include the contributions of outside views or other comments since.

What changes do we need to achieve consensus? Or how else could it be improved? How can comments expressed since HeroicSandwich's post be included? How should it be changed (maybe radically)? --RA (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that it would be better to approach this from the perspective of "Is it better than the current wording, overall?" If there is a consensus that it is better - not perfect, but better - it should be put in place. We, collectively, can then agree other improvements to make it even better, if not perfect. My view is that progress towards a better article, and better encyclopedia, is much more likely to be made by small incremental steps to which people can consent, rather than by radical rewrites. Having said that, my view is that this version is an improvement on the current version - but, I would like to have a go (at some point, not necessarily now) at improving the second paragraph, to give a very brief (one sentence at most) historical summation of when and how NI became more industrialised than the rest of the island, and moving the detail that its GDP is the smallest of UK regions (a trivial fact) to a less prominent position. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Ghmyrtle; This is an improvement over the current but the second paragraph could be changed. Bjmullan (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there a particular problem with the introduction as it currently stands, e.g. factual error/inaccuracy? Van Speijk (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Several outside views (both recent and in the archives) have expressed a view that the introduction is imbalanced in its content, in particular that it focuses too much on conflict and the Troubles. The essence of this view is that the introduction needs to be broadened. There is also the absence IMO of the context of Northern Ireland's constitutional, social and cultural relationship with the rest of Ireland. There is also the recurring issue of "country". --RA (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Another revisit

Suggestions. I've been contacted by the Wikipedia:Feedback request service, and have no prior involvement in the disagreement. Responding to this, a few issues caught my attention.

  • at five paragraphs, the lead is a bit long . Example: has the smallest economy of the twelve statistical regions of the United Kingdom
    ... does this need to be in the lead?
  • a vibrant cultural scene ... world-renowned artists and sports persons sound a bit peacock-y, like the chamber of commerce trying to change the subject from the troubles.
  • tired of history and politics as North Ireland people may be, there is no getting around the fact that the issue is big and can't be skimped on the lead.

Starting with the new version, I've made some changes according to the comments above:

Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann pronounced [ˈt̪ˠuəʃcəɾˠt̪ˠ ˈeːɾʲən̪ˠ] ⓘ, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann or Norlin Airlan) is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland. It shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west. As of 2001, its population was 1,685,000, constituting about 30% of the island's total population and about 3% of the population of the United Kingdom. Since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, Northern Ireland is largely self-governing. According to the agreement, Northern Ireland co-operates with the rest of Ireland — from which it was partitioned in 1921 — on some policy areas, while other areas are reserved for the Government of the United Kingdom, though the Republic of Ireland may "may put forward views and proposals".

Northern Ireland was for many years the site of a violent and bitter inter-communal conflict — the Troubles — which was caused by divisions between nationalists, who are predominantly Roman Catholic, and unionists, who are predominantly Protestant — though these identities are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Unionists want Northern Ireland to remain as a part of the United Kingdom, and generally see themselves as British, Additionally, people from both sides of the community may describe themselves as Northern Irish. Since 1998, most of the paramilitary groups involved in the Troubles have ceased their armed campaigns.

The economy of Northern Ireland has traditionally been the most industrialized region of the island. After declining as a result of political and social turmoil in the second half of the 20th century, it has grown significantly since the 1990s. This is in part due to a "peace dividend," and in part due to links and increased trade with the Celtic Tiger economy of the Republic of Ireland.

Prominent artists and sports persons of Northern Ireland include Seamus Heaney, Van Morrison, Rory McIlroy and George Best. Cultural links between Northern Ireland, the rest of Ireland and the rest of the UK are complex, with Northern Ireland sharing both the culture of Ireland and the culture of the United Kingdom. In many sports, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland field a single team, a notable exception being association football. Northern Ireland competes separately at the Commonwealth Games and people from Northern Ireland may compete for either Great Britain or Ireland at the Olympic Games.

Hope you like at least some of the changes --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me — and can be improved even further over time. Thanks, --RA (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks great. I'm sure there might be small suggestions and tweaks, but overall I support it as it is. Thank you! --HighKing (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree - it's a big improvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Get's my vote as well. Bjmullan (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
One thing I've just seen on reading it over a couple of times is the line: "though these identities are not necessarily mutually exclusive", which looks like it was cut and pasted in the wrong place ("nationalist" vs. "unionist" is kind of mutually exclusive, in contrast to "Irish" vs. "British"). Suggest adding back to the bit about unionists being "British" and nationalist being "Irish" in the version used in the article. --RA (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it needs to be moved further down the paragraph. --HighKing (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
This is really well worded though would have to reject the removal of "Northern Ireland is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom"Hackneyhound (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I also object to the removal of the point that NI is a country in the UK. There is no consensus for such a change. Looking at the proposal in the whole, forgive me for saying so, but it is not good. In every paragraph it primarily sets Northern Ireland in the context of "Ireland", with reference to the Republic. The UK context tends to come second, if at all. This is not what's needed. I'm especially concerned about This is in part due to a "peace dividend," and in part due to links and increased trade with the Celtic Tiger economy of the Republic of Ireland. Given the now near bankrupt state of (Republic of) Ireland this statement is not appropriate. Van Speijk (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
A good point about the Celtic Tiger. I'd rewrite that to be more in the past tense. --HighKing (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Or just reword it to say "....in part due to links and increased trade with the Republic of Ireland." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My view on this is that the "politically reunited" with Ireland bit should be changed to "politically united". I think that the current reccomendation leads to a misleading and in incorrect assumption that NI was once a part of ROI (as in the current context, I'm assuming that Ireland is supposed to mean the ROI. Which when I think about it, it makes it clearer if it said Republic of Ireland rather than just Ireland.) 16:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's great to see people working together on this. I have an issue with the lede paragraphs as I have outlined below, but I see there are many areas that can be improved. I hate reading something and knowing it could be better but not being able to think of anything :( --Τασουλα (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Not so sure I like the lead. Is it really acceptable to diminish the status of Northern Ireland systematically across Wikipedia. Don't think there is any need to mention According to the agreement, Northern Ireland co-operates with the rest of Ireland — from which it was partitioned in 1921 — on some policy areas, while other areas are reserved for the Government of the United Kingdom, though the Republic of Ireland may "may put forward views and proposals".

. This paragraph seems unnecessary as any country that neighbours another country will tend to have some sort of say in relation to each others policies. Nothing new. And certainly I would also like to keep "Northern Ireland is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom".Gravyring (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "...any country that neighbours another country will tend to have some sort of say in relation to each others policies. Nothing new." — Informally, possibly, but not at the level of international treaty or on a constitutional basis. For example, unlike Scotland and Wales, devolution in Northern Ireland is dependent on participation of members of the Northern Ireland Executive in the North/South Ministerial Council. And the UK co-operates with the ROI on non-devolved matters, including full-time a standing joint-secretariate to deal with non-devolved matters. That is very unusual.
  • @Van Speijk (and others), Northern Ireland's relationship with the rest of Ireland is just as important a context to understanding the subject as its relationship with the rest of the UK. At a constitutional, cultural, sporting, geographic, historical, religious, citizenship, etc. level, Northern Ireland is (regardless of partition) still inseparable to a greater or lesser degree from the rest of Ireland.
  • Regarding, "re-united" vs "united", I'd tend to favour "united" also. That is the term used in the GFA, for example.
  • Regarding, Northern Ireland's "country-ness", apart from "I like it", what arguments are there in favour of it? Why do we need to use any of these terms when there is no consensus (in reliable sources, UK government or otherwise) as to what Northern Ireland "is"? Worse again, sources say that — regardless of the choice — each of the common terms can imply a POV? There's no need for any of these terms in the first line. We can simply say that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK and leave the issue of what Northern Ireland "is" to the body of the article (or elsewhere in the lead if it is thought to be very important).
  • Agree with Ghmyrtle regarding, "Celtic Tiger". --RA (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem I have noticed is that attempts seem to spread across alot of NI related pages to demote the status of NI to no more than mythical place. POV elements seem determined to deny that Northern Ireland does not exist. I think if we do not acknowledge Northern Ireland on its on article page, then cue a mass of edits across NI related pages where NI is systematically removed. I think there are enough sources to suggest NI is a country and certainly it has been in the body of the text for a long time.Gravyring (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
There's no suggestion on this page that Northern Ireland doesn't exist. Terrible mischaracterisations of opponents arguments only hinder debate. CMD (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. Northern Ireland exists, nobody is saying otherwise, but there is no consensus as to what Northern Ireland "is" ("a province of", a part of", "a political division of", "a region of" and so on). Even among UK government sources, there are "enough" sources to support any of these terms. The problem is that all of the likely candidates bring POV baggage with them — and none are authoritative or definitive (Dunn and Dawson: 2000, Whyte and FitzGerald: 1991).
"Part of", while not particularly exciting, is the only genuinely neutral way to say it. The question itself can be parked to the body rather than trying to contrive a definitive answer in the first line to a question that doesn't have a definitive answer. --RA (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd go with "part of". "Country" for this small region is a highly controversial formula that is detested by nationalists, supported only by unionists (and a very few separatists), and contested by academics. Everyone can agree that, at present, it is a "part" of the UK. Brocach (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is any problem with "Country" to describe NI. If users find that offensive then that is their issue and should not be reflected in this article. Northern Ireland is one of the four countries of the UK and to say that is hardly offensive.Wp aide (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure anyone has said it's offensive so why imply such? The only thing that is offensive with this discussion is the number of socks we seem to get. Bjmullan (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This actually gets to the nub of the matter. Brocach states that "Country ...is a highly controversial formula that is detested by nationalists", so "detested" is the word, and the reason why there's so much pressure to drop "country" is nationalist POV. It couldn't be clearer. Just to confirm my position, using "country" to describe Northern Ireland is not wrong, and there is no consensus to change the terminology. Van Speijk (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Leaving aside who "detests" what or why. We know from sources that there is no consensus or definitive answer to "what Northern Ireland is". Different sources use different words and those that discuss the question say it is complex and that any choice of word will appear to push one POV or another (to use wiki terminology).
So we can park it and present what we can all agree on — without anything great being lost. Don't think of it as one POV putting pressure to drop certain vocabulary — or as an affirmation that "country" is "wrong", which it is not — but as a move towards consensus position where we can all look at the article and say, well, even if it doesn't say everything I want at least what is there is correct. --RA (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
(I've updated the lead with a consolidated version of the version above including suggested for changes. --RA (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC))

Notes to closing admin:

Consolidate version

RA, I think you need a neutral admin to close this. I'm open to moving away from the standard introduction to all four of the country articles, but I think the total removal is another thing and you have objections. I suggest "called a province or country" or something similar is needed rather than just "a part of". Whatever this really needs an RfC closed by a neutral admin. ----Snowded TALK 11:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the suggestion of a neutral closer. However, there has been an RFC. It has been discussed for two months and a strong consensus exists to substantially re-write the introduction. We move towards consensus; we avoid never-ending discussions (or instances on unanimity) that maintain a false consensus. In the thread above, Van Speijk is the only meritable objection. Other objectors are blocked as sock puppets.
For reference, below is the consolidation of the discussion above (not including Van Speijk's objection to removal of "country"):

Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann pronounced [ˈt̪ˠuəʃcəɾˠt̪ˠ ˈeːɾʲən̪ˠ] ⓘ, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann or Norlin Airlan) is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland. It shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west. As of 2001, its population was 1,685,000, constituting about 30% of the island's total population and about 3% of the population of the United Kingdom. Since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, Northern Ireland is largely self-governing. According to the agreement, Northern Ireland co-operates with the rest of Ireland — from which it was partitioned in 1921 — on some policy areas, while other areas are reserved for the Government of the United Kingdom, though the Republic of Ireland may "may put forward views and proposals".

Northern Ireland was for many years the site of a violent and bitter inter-communal conflict — the Troubles — which was caused by divisions between nationalists, who are predominantly Roman Catholic, and unionists, who are predominantly Protestant. Unionists want Northern Ireland to remain as a part of the United Kingdom, and generally see themselves as British, while nationalists wish for it to be politically united with the rest of Ireland, independent of British rule, and generally see themselves as Irish. Additionally, people from both sides of the community may describe themselves as Northern Irish. Since 1998, most of the paramilitary groups involved in the Troubles have ceased their armed campaigns.

The economy of Northern Ireland has traditionally been the most industrialized region of the island. After declining as a result of political and social turmoil in the second half of the 20th century, it has grown significantly since the 1990s. This is in part due to a "peace dividend," and in part due to links and increased trade with the Republic of Ireland.

Prominent artists and sports persons of Northern Ireland include Seamus Heaney, Van Morrison, Rory McIlroy and George Best. Cultural links between Northern Ireland, the rest of Ireland and the rest of the UK are complex, with Northern Ireland sharing both the culture of Ireland and the culture of the United Kingdom. In many sports, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland field a single team, a notable exception being association football. Northern Ireland competes separately at the Commonwealth Games and people from Northern Ireland may compete for either Great Britain or Ireland at the Olympic Games.

HighKing suggested far above to include discussion of "country", "province", "region", etc. as part of the old end paragraph on symbolism.Like him (and, it seems, you too, Snowded), I don't know how to go about phrasing that. However, if there are suggestions, I'd welcome them.
No whatever comes from it it, tho, we are not bound to it. Not only does consensus change but articles are also imperfect. We don't need to get it right first time. It may all change again in a month or two. And that's to be welcomed. For that reason (Van Speijk's objection aside), I think we can move on with the new text. Improvements of it, including how to best handle "what Northern Ireland is", will follow. --RA (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I think a decision needs to be taken on whether we seek an outside view on the wording of the entire section, or only on the specific question of whether NI should be described as a "part", a "country", or something else. Re the second point, I support the use of "part" as the most neutral term. ("Country" is, in some senses, not "wrong", but is more contentious, and not particularly helpful.) Re the wider wording, what is suggested here is an improvement on the current text, and so I have no problem with it being part of the article, but I have a slight concern that there is an over-emphasis on the implications of recent history, which is mentioned in every paragraph of the introduction, and I think a few tweaks could improve the balance. But, that is not a major concern, and I think it can be addressed without "outside" involvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we loose something to be honest. Province is well established and common, country entered into use post the GFA and Northern Ireland has as much if not more independence as Wales or Scotland. So just ignoring the name in the lede is an issue. I have a more general disagreement with RA's desire to resolve conflict by direct editing, remove troubles restrictions, pay too much attention to Single Purpose IPS making changes around the start of the Six nations etc. etc. I think the RfC relates to the precise issue of use of country and/or province. I'd also suggest that a neutral (Ghmyrtle?) drafts it. ----Snowded TALK 17:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
"Province" is utterly inappropriate - a "province" of what country, and what are the other "provinces"? It isn't one of the four provinces of Ireland, nor is it one of the... er... none of the United Kingdom. And it is nonsense to say that "country" entered the language after 1998 - it was in use by unionists (exclusively) before that, and by unionists (exclusively) since that date. Brocach (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
@Snowded, repeatedly calling for further discussion, not engaging in it, and then reverting consensus and calling for even more discussion is disruptive (i.e. Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling). I stated above that you habitually engage in filibustering. The issue has been discussed for two months now. Twice there has been consensus and twice you've reverted calling for more discussion despite choosing not to participate. We have already had an RfC and outside opinion. The text above came out of that. We're not going to have another one.
@Ghmyrtle, I agree with your point about to over-emphasis on recent history. HeroicSandwich raised a similar point. Some treatment of the Planation of Ulster, the Home Rule crisis, the formation of the (1912) UVF and the 1922—1972 state is needed to give context to Northern Ireland. In my view, these kinds of things can be added over time. No text should be seen as sacrosanct or final so the above is "good enough", in my opinion, to be part of the article now and be developed further in time by many hands.
@Brocah, agree that "country" did not "enter into use post the GFA". If anything, the post-GFA era is typified by "constructive ambiguity", and not blunt instruments like that. Comparisons with Scotland and Wales are bogus too. Devolution, and home rule before it, in Northern Ireland has wholly different origins (and significance) to devolution (and separatist movements) in Wales and Scotland. Indeed, it could be said that the (unionist) origins of devolution in Northern Ireland is the very opposite of the (separatists) origins of devolution in Scotland and Wales! Anyho, ... --RA (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry RA I think you should allow a neutral to close the discussion. For me this is a process issue, and in respect of you a behavioural one. Earlier you did not have a consensus despite your claims and (as is becoming the norm when opposed) you are again indulging in personal attacks. We now have a balance of a limited pool of participating editors for the new text, but there is still opposition. I'll not revert for now, but wait and see if any of the other editors opposed choose to do so. I'd respect you more if you reverted and asked for an independent admin to come in a close the discussion, although I think a properly worded RfC is better. The last one was not conclusive, although I accept that you think it was.----Snowded TALK 03:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I restored reference to Northern Ireland being a country. It is a referenced fact and it seems to be removed for less than wholesome reasons, and by that I mean a desire to push the political point of view that it isn't a country. Such a drastic edit can only be agreed by an unbiased editor. Northern Arrow (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
As an unbiased editor, happy to help. The reason for preferring "part" over "country" is that the former term is wholly neutral, whereas only one of the two main political groupings in that part of the UK ever use the term "country". If you can cite even one instance of a nationalist/republican usage of "country" for Northern Ireland, I will happily stand corrected; until then I have reinstated the version that was helpfully drafted by other unbiased editors. Brocach (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
"Unbiased"! You? Please understand, Northtern Ireland is not "a part", it is a country and that FACT is referenced, so until you can find some quality reference that states "Northern Ireland is not a country" then that's what we need to say. It is completely irrelevant that some groupings object to this fact and don't use the terminology. It's a shame for them, but there we have it. I'm reverting your recent change because there is no consensus here. I doubt there ever will be a consensus, because of the nature of the continuing conflict, so all we can go with is referenced facts. We are not here to pander to the whims of Irish nationalists or any other group for that matter. Even if Northern Ireland is a province or something else, it is still a country, in the same way that Wales is a country and a principality. Van Speijk (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Quality references that say just that are provided above and in the archives also. These references are not limited to any one "grouping" in Northern Ireland — and include specifically unionist view points also. Some examples (with my underlining for your benefit):
  • "One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." - S. Dunn and H. Dawson, 2000, An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Edwin Mellen Press: Lampeter
  • "As I see it, I'm an Irish Unionist. I'm Irish, that's my race if you like. My identify is British, because that it the way I have been brought up, and I identify with Britain and there are historical bonds, psychological bonds, emotional bonds, all the rest of it you know. ... But to talk of independence in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is not a country, Northern Ireland is a province of Ireland and it is a province in the UK and I think that the notion of a national identity or group identity or racial identity or cultural identity here is a nonsense." - Michael McGimpsey quoted in F. Cochrane, 2001, Unionist politics and the politics of Unionism since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Cork University Press: Cork
  • "Although a seat of government, strictly speaking Belfast is not a 'capital' since Northern Ireland is not a 'country', at least not in the same sense that England, Scotland and Wales are 'countries'." - J Morrill, 2004, The promotion of knowledge: lectures to mark the Centenary of the British Academy 1992-2002, Oxford University Press: Oxford
That's the rub. Simply having a source in this instance is insufficient. Not only do sources conflict but those that discuss the issue say the choice of term is a problematic and likely to reflect particular political view points (cf. Whyte and G. FitzGerald, 1991). Consequently, the matter is one of NPOV and cannot simply be answered by saying "it's referenced". There are references for all these terms but our choice would bias one view point or another. Better in that case to simply side-step all these terms in the first line, they add little to nothing anyway — and indeed it is misleading to present any of them as being definitive.
Van Speijk, you've broken the 1RR rule on this article. Please self revert. --RA (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

When I'm reading about Northern Ireland I want to read about distinguishing facts that seperate it from Ireland, And important things to know about the history of the province/country. Thepoodlechef (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the merits its wrong to say that removal of "country" makes it neutral, that remove itself represents a political position. Now NI is not the same as Wales/Scotland/England which were historically countries in whole or part. Personally I look forward to the day when the six counties are united with the rest and we have one country called Ireland. However that is a political position. In practice "country" has been used post the GFA and it is referenced as are other names. To my mind we need to come up with a form of words that reflects that. The last time (of many times) that RA raised this we did reach an accommodation and I still don't see the need to disturb that.. It is also very very clear that any determination of resolution of this should be done by a neutral admin. ----Snowded TALK 09:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
"...that remove itself represents a political position." - No, it wouldn't. The article would not state that country is "wrong". Indeed, the article should not make any comment as to whether it is "right" or "wrong" (or present anything as definitive). It would not represent any political position. It would be neutral on the subject. There is a habit among editors to look at how the text of an article changes, rather than what the text says. There is a presumption that if text moves from one POV then it must be moving towards another POV (and so we see opposing POVs waxing and waning rather than seeing it for what it is: a settling at a NPOV). Thus, we find ourselves discussing the "POV" of "removing" the word country (and how that removal represents a political position), rather than the NPOV of text in its absence.
In any case, at the very least, a large majority of us are now of the opinion that simply saying that "Northern Ireland is a part of the UK" (and leaving the question of 'what it is' to later in the article) is a way of moving closer to neutrality (on what is a complex and unanswerable question). There may be an even better way of putting it. However, I put it that those who are, for what ever reasons, opposed to that explain why (in terms of the text, rather than the movement) and put forward ideas for an even more neutral way of introducing the topic.
I also put it that we don't need to solve this now. A more neutral way, for now, is agreed by a general consensus. It's imperfect, but it's an improvement. Those who think that it can be made better, but can't right now think of how - or can't convince others of it, right now - can come back later. Wikipedia is a work in progress. --RA (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Okay, I've protected the page for a week as there is obviously some dispute going on over the recent edits to remove the word country. I know there has been a lot of discussion about it and I encourage the editors who were reverting against these edits to come to the talk page and get involved in the discussion. I know the edit dispute is relatively light right now but I've seen it happen before and I know this will escalate considerable in short order, so I'm protecting it before anyone gets too carried away in the moment and threats and blocks are required to keep things from disrupting the article. I've protected it to prevent disruption to the article which is not of benefit to the project. It's been protected it for a week, but that can of course be lifted if there is a consensus to do so prior to that. And before it's said I know, as with every page protection during a dispute, I've protected the wrong version. I will not get involved in one side of the discussion or another. Canterbury Tail talk 00:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be protected. I see one major issue here, what you might call the downgrading of Northern Ireland from country status. The other edits seem to be less contentious but still require agreement and consensus. Regarding country status, that point is referenced and is mentioned in other Wikipedia articles. To change it is just going too far in my opinion. UK government websites state Northern Ireland as being a country, so that is surely good enough. Van Speijk (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Van Speijk, I replied above to your request for "some quality reference that states 'Northern Ireland is not a country'". I'd appreciate it if you could reply there.
Northern Ireland is not being "downgraded". Wikipedia does not have that power. The issue is that there is no consensus in reliable sources (including UK government sources) as to 'what Northern Ireland is'. Worse again, those sources that discuss the question say that each of these terms ("province", "region", "jurisdiction", "country", etc.) bring POV baggage with them. It's an NPOV issue, and not one simply of verifiability. And the best solution, as unsatisfying as it is, looks to be to simply park all of them from the first line rather than picking one (and whatever POV it brings with it) arbitrarily. Later in the article, we can give the question the attentions it deserves. --RA (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Absofuckinglutely. It's long past time the lead was made neutral. People stamping their feet and saying "I don't agree so there's no consensus" might actually want to read the policy. 2 lines of K303 14:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, a perusal of the discussion before VanSpeijk's blundering in will show that alternatives had been well aired and the weight of opinion was in favour or removing the contoversial term 'country'. What we need here is a simple NPOV lede, as had emerged from the discussion before the revert frenzy, and treatment below of claims about 'country', 'province' etc. Brocach (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
A perusal of the history of the article shows VanSpeijk isn't the only one who disagrees with the edits, for whatever reasons. I see at least three editors objecting to it. So it's more than one objection. However if they don't come to the talk page to discuss it now, then feel free to put the edits back after protection has been lifted as they'll have had their chance to voice their concerns and give their suggestions. Canterbury Tail talk 23:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Error in Demography section

The second sentence of the second paragraph in the Demography section states "91% of people are Northern Ireland born, with 4.8% being born elsewhere in the United Kingdom and 7.2% being born in the elsewhere in UK and 2.3% being born in the Republic of Ireland." Can someone with correct numbers please update. It might be that "UK" was meant to be Europe, since a number for the UK was already given. Either way, it needs correcting. 196.2.126.176 (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.Brocach (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, the 7.2% was a combined elsewhere in the UK or ROI born. It was a hang over from a previous version. --RA (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Dab hatnote - link to older discussion

For some years there was a Northern Ireland (disambiguation) page but it has now been whittled down to include only one other entry than NI itself, and has been PRODded. The hatnote on the main article now links just to the EU constituency. That's the situation we had before the dab page was created. If anyone wants to discuss it, you might like first to read the previous debate at: Talk:Northern_Ireland/Archive_5#NI_disambig. PamD 11:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference page823 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Whyte, John; FitzGerald, Garret (1991). Interpreting Northern Ireland. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 9780198273806.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_Ireland/Archive_9&oldid=1278892837"