Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Ethnicity misuse

In this section, it shows "Ethnic groups" when it should say "Racial groups." An Ethnicity is "pertaining to or characteristic of a people, especially a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like." (dicionary.reference.com) A racial is "denoting or relating to the division of the human species into races on grouds of physical characteristics." (dicionary.reference.com) For additional proof, I have provided several links that exemplify correct usage of race and ethnicity.

"Ethnic groups (2011) 98.28% White 1.06% Asian 0.20% Black 0.46% Other[1]"

https://www.census.gov/2010census/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn125.html https://www.census.gov/2010census/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn125.html

I believe that any further proof of the correct usage of race and ethnicity that may be in question could be found easily at several sites, some even in Wikipedia. I feel that this mistake, though common, could be offensive to some. I am extremely sorry if I am mistaken about my correction, but I am completely convinced that I am correct, until told otherwise. Thank you so much! 4885sj (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We use the terminology "ethnic group" used in the census itself - as in this document - see page 15. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

NI: "largely self-governing"?

Since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, Northern Ireland is largely self-governing.

I don't think the above statement is true. NI can't even set tax rates! Practically all fiscal matters are set by Westminster. All monetary matters are set by Westminster. NI has no control over immigration, foreign affairs, EU matters, defence, passports... In reality, NI enjoys a modest measure of local government. It's not "largely" self-governing. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you want to say instead? It has self government over everything that has caused real trouble and that is what people are interested in. And it is obvious Britain will give it like a shot whatever extra powers they ask for if they present a united front saying they want them so its not really as if Britain is denying it any powers. Dmcq (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not think it is accurate. The term is usually used to refer to overseas territories, not to constituent parts of a country. Is Texas largely self-governing? TFD (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe "largely self-administrating" would be better in the context? Murry1975 (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is largely self-governing. France doesn't control its monetary policy or immigration either. Unified foreign policy and defence define a sovereign state. Not even the "self-governing" Crown dependencies control those. And Northern Ireland is responsible for a number of fiscal matters. Within the budget set by the UK government, Northern Ireland can spend on whatever it likes. That's around 50% of its public spending. Defence and pensions account for the majority of non-devolved spending. Also, Northern Ireland is gaining tax powers, and has had that option for years. Likely the reason it hasn't already is because it would begin to loose some of the £4 billion subsidy from English tax payers every year. Rob984 (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The article for Scotland says limited self-government, I think that's probably the closest to Northern Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with "limited self-government". Britain is not a federation, for heaven's sake, and parliament retains supremacy. RGloucester — ☎ 14:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that conveys anything. Any area with a local government has limited self-governance. I think somehow explaining that it is largely self governing in regards to internal matters would be better? I'm not sure how to word that well. Rob984 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not "largely" anything. Any measure of self-government that it has was granted by parliament, the sole and supreme authority. When NI exercises "self-government", it is exercising the will of parliament, not its own will. This is not a federation. RGloucester — ☎ 20:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The UK's unitary structure is irrelevant. The UK government has "supreme authority" over Bermuda, but the territory still has complete internal self-government. Authority and governance are not the same. Even if the Assembly is subordinate to the British Government, it is a separate body, and the British Government has devolved responsibilities to it. The constitutional structure of the UK would not have to change for Northern Ireland to have "complete internal self-government" like Bermuda. Rob984 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There are two issues. One is whether NI has been provided any powers. Bermuda for example is a non-self-governing territory, so in a sense it would be incorrect to call it self-governing. But devolution is more similar to federalism, where two levels of government have different areas of responsibility. The article devolution provides the examples of U.S., Canada and Australia Internal territoires and districts have devolved governments. They have been provided by statute with powers held under their constitutions by powers exercised by states and provinces. But no one one describe states and provinces as self-governing. There is a division of responsibilities between two levels of government. TFD (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The powers of the assembly have only been devolved, not transferred. I think everybody is clear on that?

In the case of the US, the US Government never devolved or transferred powers to the 13 founding states, they transferred power to the US Government. Some might describe the process by which territories became states after that as "devolution", but the powers were really transferred, not devolved. Anyway, my point is that it's not comparable at all. The US states have a degree of self-governance. As does every area with a local government. Even if the US states have power in there own right, they may have a lesser degree of self-governance than Northern Ireland. It is important to distinguish power/authority from governance.

Bermuda is internally self-governing. The UN doesn't regard territories as "self-governing" until they control there foreign policy, but regardless, the UN's view on what is a "non self-governing territory" is contentious, and the UK Government regards Bermuda as internally self-governing, and Gibraltar as largely internally self-governing. Rob984 (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The UK added Bermuda to the list of non-self-governing states. It is not self-governing in the sense that the UK may legislate for it and law enforcement and courts are still directly controlled by the UK. Regarding Canada, the US and Australia, the correct comparison is the territories which come under direct federal jurisdiction, but the central government has "devolved" powers to them comparable to the powers of states or provinces. But no one calls them "self-governing." The term is generally only used for external territories. Since NI unlike Bermuda is part of the UK, the term "self-governing" seems unusual. TFD (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to simply rein the discussion back to Northern Ireland. I don't think any one here think's it is "largely self governing". Is there consensus to align its description with Scotland - "limited self-government"? Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What about "has devolved powers?" TFD (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I like "has a devolved government with power to legislate in essential areas", or something like that. RGloucester — ☎ 16:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"essential areas", as oppose to? The majority of internal matters are the responsibility of the Assembly, so something like "...Northern Ireland is largely responsible for its own internal affairs" is more specific and factual. Rob984 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I prefer "executive" and "assembly." "Government" is ambiguous. Does anyone know if judges (not JPs) are appointed by NI or the UK?

The assembly has no responsibilities that are not given to it by the British parliament. It is merely a servant of the British government, no different from a county council in England. I'm fine with "has a devolved executive and assembly with powers to legislate in certain essential areas". RGloucester — ☎ 18:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

While you are correct, that puts them in the same class as British Overseas Territories. But they do not even have that degree of independence, since NI remains part of the UK. They do not for example control their borders or issue their own currency. TFD (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm wary of the following things. For one, Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, as you say. This must be made clear. Secondly, the NI devolved authorities has many competencies, but these are not inherent to NI. They delegated these responsibilities by the British parliament. I believe that I like the Wales article's solution best, if we're going down this line: "Established under the Government of Wales Act 1998, the National Assembly for Wales holds responsibility for a range of devolved policy matters". Likewise, "Established by the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, the Northern Ireland Assembly holds responsibility for a range of devolved policy matters". Something along those lines. The present wording is absolutely horrid. NI is not "largely self-governing" in any respect, and the following sentence is even worse "according to the agreement, Northern Ireland co-operates with the Republic of Ireland on some policy areas, while other areas are reserved for the British Government, though the Republic of Ireland "may put forward views and proposals" with "determined efforts to resolve disagreements between [the two governments]". This seems to imply that the Republic is on the same level as the British government, when this is obviously not the case. That's not even a comparison that should be made. It should read something like "Established by the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, the Northern Ireland Assembly holds responsibility for a range of devolved policy matters, while other areas are reserved for the British government". RGloucester — ☎ 19:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good. BTW do you know if there is any legal opinion that the UK Parliament may have actually irrevocably ceded power? There was some writing on that subject after Australia, Canada and NZ's constitutions were changed in the 1980s. TFD (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've implemented the above wording. Feel free to tweak it. Insofar as parliament ceding power, I do not know of anyone significant that holds that viewpoint. I suppose one could say that it would be quite hard to revoke devolution, but the British government has done so before with regard to Northern Ireland, and presumably could do so again in future. RGloucester — ☎ 20:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That is an improvement. The Northern Ireland Act 1988 says it "does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Northern Ireland." (section 5(6)) By comparison, the Barbados Independence Act 1966 says, "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on or after the appointed day shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to Barbados...." (Section 1(2)) That puts NI in the same category as a municipality. TFD (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ireland Act "guarantee"

The Ireland Act 1949 gave the first legal guarantee that the region would not cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.

I don't think the above is accurate/appropriate. What does it mean? A guarantee? No. The IA 1949 was an act of parliament; the parliament is sovereign; it can change that Act just as it could any other. Indeed, if that was a "guarantee", the "guarantee" has already been broken as the Parliament of Northern Ireland was abolished by an act of Parliament. Also, since when would the UK be giving guarantees to parts of its own territory. Has it ever guaranteed Devon that Devon will remain in the UK? I've heard the above sort of statement before but don't think its correct or proper. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Confusing phrasing in lede

From the article's current lede (bolding added by me):

Unlike Southern Ireland, which would become the Irish Free State in 1922, the majority of Northern Ireland's population were unionists or loyalists, who wanted to remain within the United Kingdom. Most of these were the Protestant descendants of colonists from Great Britain; however, a significant minority, mostly Catholics, were nationalists or republicans who wanted a united Ireland independent of British rule.

I find this confusing. The end of the first sentence is about the majority of the population being unionist. The second sentence begins "Most of these", which I take to mean "most of the unionists". But the second sentence goes on to refer to "a significant minority", which I would take to mean "a significant minority of the unionists", but it actually seems to mean "a significant minority of the population", referring back to the first sentence, not the first part of the second sentence. A suggested rephrasing (minus the citations) that may clarify my point:

Unlike Southern Ireland, which would become the Irish Free State in 1922, the majority of Northern Ireland's population were unionists or loyalists, who wanted to remain within the United Kingdom. Most of these were the Protestant descendants of colonists from Great Britain. However, a significant minority of Northern Island's population, mostly Catholics, were nationalists or republicans who wanted a united Ireland independent of British rule.

152.121.18.252 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Citation for Peter Robinson being First Minister and for the Deputy Minister being Martin McGuiness.

That part of the article needs a citation. Here is one,http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/index/your-executive/ministers-and-their-departments.htm. I suggest it be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulBustion88 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Ireland"

The naming of the article at Ireland and the usage and topic of the pagename "Ireland" are up for discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Move "Ireland" to "Ireland (island)" or similar (June 2015) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2015

Vandalized page 27Canislupus (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: I don't think adding the term "unitary" is in bad faith. If you want an edit further back undone, you need to be more specific with the request. —C.Fred (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

List of books about the Troubles

The article List of books about the Troubles has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to participate in the discussion. IQ125 (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Poor demographics table

The table at "Citizenship and identity" does not add up, or is poorly designed. 79.101.241.105 (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

What's the issue? It doesn't have to add up, people can identify in multiple groups. Canterbury Tail talk 11:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

NI and the Irish Free State in 1922

Did Northern Ireland have to opt out of the Irish Free State or did it have to opt to remain in the United Kingdom when the Irish Free State was created on 6 December 1922? There appears to be some dispute. Also if all Ireland had left the United Kingdom would that not have meant that the United Kingdom would have ceased to exist as there would no longer have been a union between Great Britain and Ireland? AlwynJPie (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

NI-related AFD (2nd nomination) pending

Hard to believe only two editors (including nominator) had anything to say, during 1st nomination, which resulted in non admin closure due to lack of consensus, which is an intolerable and inexplicable outcome. See here. Quis separabit? 15:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica displays Unionist flag for Northern Ireland article.

The flag in detail. The article.

Is this a reliable source to display on the Wiki page as the flag? EB isn't known to mess up on things like this.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 03:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It just lists it as an image, it does not identify it as the flag ----Snowded ^TALK 04:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's the Ulster Banner. It has no official status and therefore we should not use it. TFD (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Unionist POV

Snowded, why do you use derogatory language for nationalist descriptions of the polity that you leave absent from unionist descriptions? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware that I used any derogatory language - sorry you will have to elaborate ----Snowded ^TALK 18:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is it Irish nationalist terminology alone that has an implication? Gob Lofa (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you will have to make a clear statement about the changes you made and why you think they are justified then I am happy to respond, Neither of the questions you have asked (or maybe it is one question in different form) make sense and in one case fail WP:AGF ----Snowded ^TALK 03:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you say nationalist terminology has an implication? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

For the last time: "you will have to make a clear statement about the changes you made and why you think they are justified then I am happy to respond". Vague insinuations and statements that seem unconnected to any change to the article are not only unhelpful they are disruptive. If you can't be bothered to respond otherwise expect further comments to be ignored. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a simple question that's directly related to your recent edit, I don't see anything unclear or vague about it. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

See previous comment ----Snowded ^TALK 14:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. It's difficult to avoid the impression you're now being obtuse; exactly what part of my question is unclear? Gob Lofa (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You made a contested edit. If you want to restore it then you have to make a case here and I will respond. Instead of doing you are asking generic questions which in effect make statements I don't recognise. So it is very simple; make a case for your proposed changes or shut up. If you think I am being evasive then take it to ANI ----Snowded ^TALK 15:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Try to stay civil old bean, and allow me to retort. Your version says "North of Ireland (Tuaisceart na hÉireann) or North-East Ireland (Oirthuaisceart Éireann) - to emphasise the link of Northern Ireland to the rest of the island, and so by implication playing down Northern Ireland's links with Great Britain." I'm now contesting your edit; how do you justify that "implication"? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded - you need to be much clearer about what you are saying. Are you saying what is there is actually wrong or are you asking for a citation or are you trying to say something else? Dmcq (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It's wrong, yes; how does it play "down Northern Ireland's links with Great Britain"? It's also introducing an unhelpful theme of ascribing intent that is noticeably absent from the previous section, on unionist terminology. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The section is on language used within Nationalist communities so it is right to use language in conformance with that community. I suppose we should be grateful that you finally outlined your actual question, more or less a first so well done. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "language in conformance with that community"? Gob Lofa (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Language in conformity with that communities use; does that make it any easier for you to understand? ----Snowded ^TALK 09:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we get back to basics? If the statement that it "emphasise[s] the link of Northern Ireland to the rest of the island, and so by implication play[s] down Northern Ireland's links with Great Britain" can be supported by reliable sources, it should stay in, with a citation. Otherwise, even if appears to some to be an obvious and helpful clarification, it is essentially original research, and so should not be stated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any sources for Gob Lofa's disputed change. The nationalist community emphasise language which plays down the GB links and emphasises those to Ireland (the state). So this section will reflect that. Similarly the Unionist section will reverse that. We are talking here about sections on the use of language by different communities, not the main body of the article. I'm sure we can find references to support all types of language use :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 10:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Works for me, Ghmyrtle. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm more than open to changing the explanatory statement by the way, but there needs to be an explanation. The use of sectarian language in the republican community is designed to reject the existence of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom (the most basic of searches on google scholar provides multiple references to support that). So we have to help other editors understand the use of various terms. Six Counties, because there are nine in Ulster, North or North-East makes a clear geographical point. Personally I think the current wording is fine and not original research. A change to say it involves a rejection of the existing of Northern Ireland as a separate body could get direct citation but would not be as helpful. None of the language there is derogatory by the way (to return the the opening phrase of his exchange) ----Snowded ^TALK 12:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not wholly inaccurate, but the converse is that "use of sectarian language in the" loyalist "community is designed to" emphasise "the existence of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom", and I don't see you helping "other editors understand" this in the section on unionist terminology. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm dealing with a change you made (well three in this case we are only talking about one of them). I'm open to changes in other sections ----Snowded ^TALK 12:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I reckon my way's easier but if you believe you can do it, get to work and I'll have a look after you're done. If you don't, the current loaded version can't stand. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Its not loaded Gog Lofa, there is an explanation which can change. If you want to make other balancing changes fine ----Snowded ^TALK 12:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I've no intention of balancing bias with more of the same, and happily it looks like you're coming round to see that for the dead-end it is too. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Bias? honestly, an explanation is not bias. The use of 'North-East' is not obvious to a reader without local knowledge to say it relates to either a focus on Ireland or a rejection of Northern Ireland is not to comment on the validity or otherwise of such use. The current form is more explanatory. I'm less sure an explanation is needed in the other section as it is pretty self-evident from the text but if someone felt strongly I would be open.----Snowded ^TALK 13:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm totally confused here. The section is about a bias. Is the objection that the language describing the bias is biased? Or that we shouldn't describe the bias? Or what exactly? Dmcq (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was just me... Catfish Jim and the slapdash 17:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I've got no idea why the word bias has been introduced. All we have is a sensible description which helps readers which for some reason Gob Lofa has taken objection to ----Snowded ^TALK 20:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's my answer to your original question again: It's wrong, yes; how does it play "down Northern Ireland's links with Great Britain"? It's also introducing an unhelpful theme of ascribing intent that is noticeably absent from the previous section, on unionist terminology. Gob Lofa (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think that it is unlikely to be true or cannot be cited then put a {{cn}} citation needed tag on it challenging its WP:Verifiability. As to arguing that there is a POV because one section explains something and another doesn't, that is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Please see WP:NPOV. Neutral point of view is not about balancing things like some American chat show, it is about reporting straightforwardly what is the sources. Citation needed is what one puts in to say that something does not reflect the sources. Helpful is also an irrelevant notion in Wikipedia, see WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it here to disseminate knowledge, not to patch up the ills of the world. Dmcq (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. See my "I've no intention of balancing bias with more of the same" comment above. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Then what was the relevance to what you are saying of pointing to what unionists call Northern Ireland? I read your comment as saying you wanted to remove what you saw as bias in the description of what nationalists say so that neither would have this bias you perceive. Dmcq (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I want. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Then WP:NOTCENSORED is applicable. Dmcq (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Anyways, it's not just loaded, it's also wrong; how does "North of Ireland (Tuaisceart na hÉireann) or North-East Ireland (Oirthuaisceart Éireann)...emphasise the link of Northern Ireland to the rest of the island" and "by implication" play "down Northern Ireland's links with Great Britain."? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Those may not be the best words, but "North-East", "Six Counties" etc. need some explanation if readers not familiar with The Troubles are to understand their significance. A refusal to acceptance to existence of Northern Ireland as a legislature might be an alternative wording. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest where the idea that it is wrong comes from. Republicans have stated quite clearly for instance that they refer to Northern Ireland as the six counties and the Republic as the 26 counties because they don't recognize the states and that they consider the areas to be part of a 32 county Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't my question. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let's break down the sentence that Gob Lofa has a problem with:

• North of Ireland (Tuaisceart na hÉireann) or North-East Ireland (Oirthuaisceart Éireann) - to emphasise the link of Northern Ireland to the rest of the island, and so by implication playing down Northern Ireland's links with Great Britain.[82]

There are a number of claims here:

1. Northern Ireland is sometimes called North of Ireland
2. Northern Ireland is sometimes called Tuaisceart na hÉireann which is Irish for North of Ireland
3. Northern Ireland is sometimes called North-East Ireland
4. Northern Ireland is sometimes called Oirthuaisceart Éireann which is Irish for North-East Ireland
5. These four terms emphasise Northern Ireland's geographical status as a part of the island of Ireland.
6. These four terms de-emphasise Northern Ireland's status as a constituent unit of the United Kingdom.

Are these six claims correct? My feeling is that if 1, 2, 3 and 4 are accurate, then it probably is because of 5 and 6. However, we should only voice this in the article if we can reference it, otherwise we fall foul of WP:OR.

Is the current reference sufficient to cover the six claims? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

1-4 are definitely correct; 5 and 6 are dubious. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll expand; 5 is definitely out. Whether it's 'Northern', 'North of', or 'Northeastern', all of these terms reference Ireland and Northern Ireland's geographical position within it. None emphasise it. 6 has slightly more going for it but is still wrong. It'd be more accurate to say that they're used in defiance of a perceived British right to decide what a part of Ireland ought to be called. 'Northeastern' is also for the more geographically-inclined. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're getting somewhere. Catfish Jim and the slapdash 14:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is that they emphasise the geographical position within Ireland, to emphasis a view that Ireland as an island should be entire as a state. So I can't see how 5&6 are in any way dubious, but they could without a doubt be better phrased. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

How, exactly? Unless you believe that the term 'Northern Ireland' does the same, I don't see how you can argue that. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is the British (UK) name for the country/province comprising the six counties of Ulster that are not part of Ireland (the state). It is now accepted as a name by the Irish Government as well, but was controversial. So over the years multiple ways have evolved of avoiding the controversial name. I'm surprised I have to explain that ----Snowded ^TALK 15:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you believe you've explained, but you certainly haven't answered my question. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well given I am not the only one who is having a problem understanding just what question you are asking maybe you should try again? I'd recommend formulating a question related to content as well, not a request to confirm or deny some view that you have ascribed to other editors. It might help ----Snowded ^TALK 15:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Put into another context, do you believe there is no difference between saying the north of Korea and North Korea? And are you saying because you believe there is no difference other people think the same as you and see no difference? Dmcq (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Snowded, my question is at 15:31. Dmcq, I believe there's a difference. One refers to a state, one refers to the north of a peninsula. Now if I thought that Korean nationalists used 'North of Korea' to refer to the state, I'd give you a different answer. But if someone asserted that one of those terms emphasised Korea rather than 'North of' or 'North', I'd have to ask; how? And how would 'North of' play down North Korea's links with, say, China? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Your 15:31 questions was answered above. You may not accept the answer, but that is not the same thing as it not being answered. Interesting as you say (in respect of Korea) one refers to the state the other to geography. That is the point ----Snowded ^TALK 16:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What time was it answered? My answer was qualified. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

1524, clarified 1534. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not very well, I'm afraid. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Irish nationalists are referring to the northern part of an area of what they think should be the state. It coincides with the area known to others as Northern Ireland but they are not referring to the state as such. It is not a name of the state Northern Ireland in their minds - it is a reference to that part of Ireland which is currently occupied by a foreign power. They are denying the legitimacy of the state or any possibility of it being a part of the UK. As one Sinn Féin TD said "In the republican political tradition, to which I belong, the State is often referred to as the 26-County State. This is a conscious response to the partitionist view, prevalent for so long and still sadly widespread, that Ireland stops at the Border. The Constitution says that the name of the State is Ireland, and Éire in the Irish language. Quite against the intentions of the framers of the Constitution, this has led to an identification of Ireland with only 26 of our 32 counties in the minds of many people". Dmcq (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about "...denying...any possibility of it being a part of the UK" - most Irish nationalists mightn't like the situation but they don't pretend it doesn't exist. But the rest is a fair enough summary. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

So what is it you think is wrong with the wording in the article? Dmcq (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we're actually all broadly on the same page. Would changing the wording slightly help matters?

• North of Ireland (Tuaisceart na hÉireann) or North-East Ireland (Oirthuaisceart Éireann) - subsituting alternative geographical descriptions, disacknowledging Northern Ireland's political status as a constituent unit of the United Kingdom.

Something like that? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Remember the Scots translations.Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 13:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok with me ----Snowded ^TALK 20:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me Dmcq (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Me too. I'd like to lose the hyphen in northeast, though. Gob Lofa (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't see the need for the Irish translations; while it literally means 'North of Ireland' and not 'Northern Ireland', 'Tuaisceart na hÉireann' is the offical Irish translation for the polity (on both sides of the border), even though the British term is always used in English. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Coming late to the party

Coming late to the party, but it would not be true to say that "Northeast Ireland" is used to any significant extent to refer to the state of Northern Ireland. I've heard Sinn Féiners say "the six northeastern counties of Ireland" all right, but never "Northeast Ireland" on its own. A Google search gives me nearly 6,000 results, but out of the top 40, only one – "six counties in Northeast Ireland" on the IRSP website – refers to NI. Googling "Oirthuaisceart Éireann" mostly directs me to a book by Nollaig Ó Gadhra: Guth an phobail: teip an daonlathais ar oirthuaisceart Éireann, which may or may not refer to NI (I'd never heard of it before) but certainly doesn't count as significant use.
As for "north of Ireland", my understanding is that it is not used to "emphasise" a geographical link, but merely to indicate a refusal to use the name "Northern Ireland", i.e. a refusal to recognise its existence as a separate entity.
Whenever somebody says "this needs to be supported by reliable sources", it needs to be supported by reliable sources. In this case Ghmyrtle said it, but nobody seems to have even tried to find the sources, instead relying on a Wayback archive of a dead larkspirit.com page that happened to be headed "History of the North of Ireland" (and doesn't say "northeast" anywhere). What's needed here is not to tweak the wording, but to do the research, see what has been published in reliable sources on names and their meaning, and summarise it in the article. Failing that, "north of Ireland" should be left on its own, without "northeast Ireland" and without unsourced commentary. A third alternative is to do away with all of those sub-sub-sections, which are without exception OR, the only "citation" being "see here for an example of its use". Scolaire (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I've changed the wording for the moment, but it needs RS. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Mostly covered at Alternative names for Northern Ireland anyways. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And I've removed "North-East Ireland". I still have a problem with the wording, though. "North of Ireland" doesn't "substitute alternative geographical descriptions" any more than "the Six Counties" or "Ulster" do. And maybe it's just me, but I find "disacknowledging" a really ugly word. Scolaire (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not wild about it, 'thus not acknowledging' might be better. Maybe make the explanation once for all those names? ----Snowded ^TALK 16:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well Ulster doesn't substitute a geographical description but the other two do even if North isn't exactly accurate. Ulster would include nine counties. Ulster and the Province are what are used by unionists to claim a historical separate identity from the rest of Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course "Ulster" is a geographical description. The provinces of Ireland is part of geography. Unionists use the geographical term "Ulster" the way nationalists use the geographical terms "six counties" and "north". Scolaire (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well Ulster is political as well as geographical, but we can still cover the explanation that way ----Snowded ^TALK 07:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made some changes - Tuaisceart na hÉireann is the sole Irish language term for the polity used by the British government (not all of whose members are Irish nationalist), and na Sé Chontae is the most common term for the polity in Irish language broadcast media, not all of whose broadcasters are republicans. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

We should only stick in Irish language terms when they are quite commonly used in English language documents. Being commonly used in English language Sinn Féin documents for instance would be good enough for that I think. Dmcq (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Language map colours

@Thisisnotatest: I agree that the previous wording of light blue and green for the map colours is not the best, but I think the new caption is a bit long and awkward. Would you be open to a shorter alternative? The actual image description is:

A map showing the English and Scots dialects spoken in Ulster.

• Turquoise: Ulster Scots
• Light blue: Mid-Ulster English
• Purple: South-Ulster English
• Pink: Southern Hiberno-English

I wouldn't call Mid-Ulster English light blue though; maybe light purple. Sarah-Jane (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107: I've just now made it less wordy in response to your comment. I'm in agreement with you on the colours. On the other hand, making the description spatial makes the map accessible to those who with colour-blindness, so I'm a bit biased toward a colourless solution. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please be so kind as to see that I haven't destroyed the meaning in the process. Thisisnotatest (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it has made it meaningless in places. "In three areas, Ulster Scots is no longer spoken in those entire areas" makes no sense whatsoever to me. Scolaire (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It's better now it has been shortened but I agree that the Ulster Scots part doesn't make sense. What about "and the three traditional Ulster Scots areas", which is similar to the wording in the caption of the same image on the Ulster Scots dialects page. I don't think it should say Ulster Scots is no longer spoken in these areas as this contradicts what is written in the Ulster Scots section. Sarah-Jane (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Scolaire (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107 and Scolaire: Thank you for your review. I was afraid of that. Here's the not-my-wording prior to my edits:

Ulster Scots (green) is no longer spoken in that entire area.

What does that even mean? Ulster Scots once covered that area but has been eliminated from that area? Ulster Scots was used to cover that entire area but now it's spotty? Was that sentence incorrect before my edit? Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure but it might mean that it was once spoken by everyone in that area but now only a small number of people speak it. This is supported by the data on %speakers. The original wording was added with the image in 2012 by Tóraí, maybe they could take a look to make sure the original meaning isn't being lost if it's changed. Sarah-Jane (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all very woolly. That's why I didn't either revert or re-phrase. It says in the Ulster Scots dialects article that the map is based on a 1972 book, so it was already out of date when that article was created. As far as I can see, what the caption is trying to say is that the turquoise area is where Ulster Scots is to be found, but that the majority language there is English, and has been for centuries. "Spotty" is probably a good, if unencyclopaedic, way of saying it. That's why I favour Sarah-Jane's "three traditional Ulster Scots areas". It's suitably vague, but less confusing. Scolaire (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sarah-Jane's proposal is good for me too. The starting point, unfortunately, was the map (which is from more than 40 years ago and I suspect imprecise even then) and the label work backwards (or forwards?) from there. --Tóraí (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Northern Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/9th-UNCSGN-Docs/E-CONF-98-48-Add1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

NOI

Murry, what POV are you referring to? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Your North of Ireland in Irish edit, it is already source in the lede. Murry1975 (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not a POV. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a working link? What do the European Union translators use? BushelCandle (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Links dead :( New link coming. Murry1975 (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

In an EU report if that is good/better. Murry1975 (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/publications/c%C3%B3ras-oifi-gi%C3%BAil-na-sl%C3%A1nr%C3%B3da%C3%ADochta-do-thuaisceart-%C3%A9irann spells it "Thuaisceart Éirann" (with an h) so things seem complex. Presumably the Irish spelling changes according to grammar? BushelCandle (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The h adding is explained here if that helps. Of or the being place before the article would be examples of what can add this. I hope I have help there. Murry1975 (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed that does help, Murry1975 - thank you!

[Your helpful link explained that the additional aitch is there because of lenition - "a fancy way of talking about aspiration of consonants. The H is used in modern Irish spelling" whereas "in older Irish (called Ogham script), the same effect was noted by putting a dot over the letter." since otherwise, writing with all sorts of lines and dots and acute accents over the letters might get confusing to read. Consequently, modern written Irish uses the convention of using H to show aspiration.] BushelCandle (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be an impression that one of these Irish language terms means 'Northern Ireland' and another means 'North of Ireland'. That's not the case; both translate to 'North of Ireland'. The literal translation of Northern Ireland would be 'Éire Thuaidh'. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Well Lapsed Pacifist, you can talk to the DFA about that. Murry1975 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Please strike this comment if it is unwittingly provocative or denigratory: I'm curious, Murry1975; why do you call Gob Lofa "Lapsed Pacifist"? Was this a former account name of Gob Lofa or is User:Lapsed Pacifist an omission from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gob Lofa ?

Is LP an omission from GL? Maybe it's the other way around... Mabuska ^(talk) 21:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The DFA is the governmental organisation I linked as a reference. Murry1975 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

And thats Ireland North literally. Murry1975 (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. You're using 'North' as an adjective, when in the Irish you're purporting to translate, it's a noun. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ireland, North sounds like a very good translation to me, the sort of thing one would put on one of the maps in an atlas like Europe, East as opposed to Eastern Europe which was part of the Soviet bloc. Anyway we're supposed to go by sources rather than by editors own thoughts and the cite above to nidirect.gov.uk sounds good to me it just is in the genitive case. There's variations like Tuaisceart na hÉireann which might have an even better claim as it is used by the NI Assembly in various laws. Dmcq (talk)

Why do you believe it's good to translate nouns as adjectives? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Eh? Wouldn't it be more that I was treating an adjective as a noun if anything in saying Éire Thuaidh sounds more like Ireland, North to me? Anyway that is irrelevant to the article. Dmcq (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

In Irish, the noun precedes the adjective. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice the little comma I stuck in. And as I said before Wikipedia goes by sources so this is irrelevant. Dmcq (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Status of NI

The status of Northern Ireland in the infobox reads 'constituent part' and 'jurisdiction'. Could 'constituent part' be changed to 'constituent country', and could 'province' be added? Based on this and this. Thanks. 86.162.161.144 (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/ from the first link as it messed it up. Not certain what this was supposed to be about.

I'm a bit pro this this but I think I'll leave it to see if there is a bit more support as the terminology is disputed. Dmcq (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The terminology isn't overly disputed. Northern Ireland's status as a country has been established in UK law since it came into existence (i.e. by the Government of Ireland Act 1920), the qualifier of 'constituent country' is widely understood to differentiate it from sovereign states. The title 'province' is established officially by the ISO standard, and popularly recognised as an appropriate descriptor for Northern Ireland, arising from its conflation with the historical Irish province of Ulster. The only disputes I can imagine which anyone could put to this would be politically motivated in nature. 86.148.31.168 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I've changed it to 'constituent country'. The descriptions section of the article has a ton of citations for the various descriptions so we can't make a definitive decision, constituent country seems a description that someone new to the topic might understand. If you stick in province as well you really have to put in everything. Dmcq (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It was Constituent Country for a long time, didn't notice it getting changed to Part. Canterbury Tail talk 15:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

We did this to death years ago, initially in the context of Wales, but then it extended to all four countries of the UK. Links is here. The pipe link takes people to an elaborate description of what is to say the least a complex issue. I'd argue for consistency on the treatment of Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at what you pointed to and it was about how to phrase the start of the Wales article. I really don't see what it has to do with the contents of the infobox in the Northern Ireland article. Nor in fact do I see any requirement for consistency if even different parts of the goovernment call it different things and call the different pparts oof the uK differentt things. Where is the place where it was extended in a talk about United Kindom articles thanks? Dmcq (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It says "It also provides 72 such references for England, Northern Ireland and Scotland." and in the table itself you would see that constituent country is hardly ever used in the sources for any of the four. Although the dispute on title started in Wales the mediation (and the prior edit warring) extended to all four country articles). I am not sure what has happened to that table (it is now a red link) but the administrator who mediated the whole process is still active so could be invited to comment. It ended a very long running series of edit wars and a devious cause of many a sock puppet creation. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It was a discussion about the start of the article, not about the infobox. The start of the article has more words to describe more exactly whaqt it is talking about.. In the infobox just relying on a blue link is not informative for someone new coming along to the subject. Please address the issue rather than just pointing to a heavily contested consensus about a different matter affecting a different subject. Dmcq (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't heavily contested once it was mediated as the overwhelming evidence was for country rather than constituent country. In the case of Northern Ireland the evidence for Country was weaker, but even weaker for constituent country. Given that reference to the four countries of the UK is common this is not just a one article issue. it is neither a different matter, a different subject. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Dare I mention it again. Constituent country, should be used in the intro & infobox of this article, as well as the intros & infoboxes of England, Scotland & Wales. Why? Because it's the most accurate description for those 4 parts of the UK. The definition of Constituent country, is a -country, within a country-. GoodDay (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about the lead as there's more room to explain there, so I'm sure there's other ways to put the information over as well. The problem with the infobox is it is supposed to be a short summary, and saying country there without mentioning the UK there or beforehand can give the wrong idea to people. In most lists of countries of the world Northern Ireland is not mentioned, only the UK, so saying country is wrong in the open context where it is. It would be okay if the infobox had a title like 'Countries of the UK', but it doesn't. I'm sorry that Snowded just wants to quote some consensus without showing where this consensus was achieved or the evidence for it or explaining why what was pointed at is relevant and in that situation. Without a bit more evidence of a consensus on the infobox or even any need for one or for consistency or anybody else asking for it I think we should just wait to see if more evidence is produced and if not just change it to constituent country. The alternative I can see is to put a list of common descriptions there. Dmcq (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay you argued this before the the citation evidence did not support you. Continued attempts to insert your preference was one the factors in your enforced absence. Once something is resolved on the basis of evidence then changing it without evidence is just to open a can of worms long closed. Dmcc If you check out you will find the EU designates as country (and that came after the original work on all available citations). I've linked to the page and offered to pull in the admin who managed the process if you really think this is important enough so please don't say that I haven't created the link. Further the points you raise above were raised by other editors in the previous mediated process. The solution of that created long term stability on several articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been attempting to edit constituent country into this article or the other 3 articles, for quite a long time. This topic always has & always will come down to editors choice. If enough editors show up & support using constituent country, then it will be implemented. Otherwise, it won't be. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of majority use in citations GoodDay, please ----Snowded ^TALK 16:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It comes down to editors choice, in this matter. AFAIK, a majority still prefer to use country, for the 4 articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not a matter of preference it is a matter of sourcing. Sorry but you were involved and you know how much effort went into resolving this and things like the naming convention for Ireland, I was happy with one, unhappy with the other but we eventually resolved the issues and created a stable state on the BI articles which has stood for some time. If you or another editor wants to raise that issue again then it is beholden on them to look at the evidence base not just say "I prefer this". That sort of comment got you into trouble before, its disruptive. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq, can decide for himself on what course he chooses to take, if any. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I choose to change it to constituent country. This consensus about the infobox may be obvious to Snowded but it most definitely is not to me from what I've seen. No relevance to the infobox has been shown and I'm not sure what all these references that are talked about are supposed to show. It would have been nice if there had been some talk about the actual problem but this might bring along someone who can actually describe the reasoning or citation support for this 'consensus' or point to where it is written down. Dmcq (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I just had a look at some of the other articles about semi-autonomous parts of sovereign states. Aruba, Faroe Isles, Cook Islands, Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and many others simply leave out the status field, in fact the UK countries seem the odd ones out. I'll see if it is possible to simply leave out the field though it would have been nice to have something meaningful there. Dmcq (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Total removal is acceptable. Would also recommend it for the infoboxes at Wales, England & Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to change a long established consensus (and you have been given the link) then raise it and put a notice on all four country pages. If there is a agreement from all involved editors fine. Per the sources (including the EU) the four countries of the UK are called countries not semi-automimous parts ----Snowded ^TALK 19:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you can't be bothered to engage properly in a discussion, and I find now you never bothered to figure out what this 'status' you are so interested was in aid of. The documentation says it means 'status of a country, particularly useful for micronations'. Not too informative so I looked up a list of micronations including various fantasy ones. Most of them even didn't use it but of the few hat did I found the values 'active', 'current', and 'government in exile'. Now can you tell us a good reason to stick 'country' in as status of country? Dmcq (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I engaged fully in the extensive discussion on this matter years ago, along with other related ones, to stop the edit warring and constant disputes. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you go and get someone who actually can make a good case to come instead of engaging in this stupidity please. Otherwise I'm afraid this is going to be an edit war with you saying no reason but reverting a good edit. Dmcq (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the status field in the Wales infobox in the hope that someone there can give some actual reasoning since the lead of that article is what the debate pointed at above was about. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The stupidity if any is to raise a long settled issue then extend your personal preference to another article. I've reverted you there and you need to respect WP:BRD. See if others agree with you.----Snowded ^TALK 14:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

At this point, it's likely best that we await further input from other editors :) GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep I'm mainly waiting there as it was where this discussion Snowded pointed at was about, but I reverted Snowded as no reason was given besides this old dispute that never mentioned infobox or the status field in it. I put a note at the UK Project page but there's just crickets so far.. Dmcq (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

the note on the talk page of the Wales page makes it clear that there should be no change to the country status without consensus on the talk page. You've done the right thing in posting a notice for more editors to get involved. But you can't decide if another editors reasons are adequate or not. Your own opinion does not justify you in removing long standing text when that removal has been disputed. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no dispute if no reason is given for a dispute. There is simply someone troublemaking without reason. Dmcq (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Cities and towns by population

Us second class citizens can't edit everything so can some remove the Londonderry link from the subheading "Cities and towns by population" as per WP:DERRY. Can't imagine a link lasting that long for County Derry..................Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.202.171.146 (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

No takers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.202.171.146 (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I've asked Canterbury Tail to sort this and I'm sure it will be done in line with guidelines ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.57.162 (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the last place that incorrectly links to L'Derry. FIX IT..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.57.162 (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I've just corrected that. The problem with Londonderry to Derry for the city is that it's actually difficult to identify cases where it's been changed, whereas finding references to County Derry is pretty easy. It's a limitation and complication of searching unfortunately. However it's been corrected now that it's been pointed out. Canterbury Tail talk 11:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

IRA terror campaigns against Northern Ireland prior to 1960s

It is rather odd that these events are not to be mentioned on any summary of Northern Ireland history. The narrative simply skips over these and give no context at all to the security situation faced by the Northern Ireland state. Namely the attacks during the Irish War of Independence#North-east, Northern Campaign (Irish Republican Army) and Border Campaign (Irish Republican Army).

Apparently even mentioning these warrants a "PoV edit" by the dominant Irish Nationalist contributors here (and the bias in the narrative in any of the historical sections really shows). IrishBriton (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Very true. BushelCandle (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Very good points, and events that truly do need detailed as they threatened the security and foundations of the state. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Odd edit

Mabuska, why have you piped the soccer team? What's the point? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The only edit that is odd and defies Wikipedia standards is your own Gob Lofa. You reverted my alterations to your subtle POV pushing, as well as my removal of tautology which you seem happy to insist enforcing on the article. It is no skin off my nose so I have made no fuss about my alterations being reverted, however I reverted your imposition of your alterations as you have no agreement for them and are simply POV pushing and slow edit-warring.

On those points, the very basis of this topic is redundant and utterly pointless and serves no purpose. Maybe discuss your own odd edit... Mabuska ^(talk) 11:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions. What point of view do you believe I pushed? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Your job to make the case for change Gob Lofa ----Snowded ^TALK 12:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. I'd like to unpipe the link to the soccer team. I can't see why it ought to be piped. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You'd like to, Mabuska prefers the existing wording and on the face of it so do I. But I'm open to an argument to change it. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I support the pipe linking. We don't need to mention Northern Ireland more than once in a sentence. The full team article title feels clunky when used in the sentence, the piped version flows better and doesn't feel like it's an easter egg link as it's obvious what it's discussing. Canterbury Tail talk 15:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Why describe Best as a Northern Irish footballer rather than a Northern Ireland footballer? Many Northern Irish footballers play for the Republic, so I find your wording confusing. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Redundant argument. The few not many Northern Irish footballers that play for the Republic have chosen Irish as they identity and nationality. All that is needed to state for them is that they are Irish footballers from Northern Ireland. Northern Irish clearly suggests Northern Ireland. Simple. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Neither of you seems to have thought this through. Try to avoid this next time. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually Gob Lofa it is you who hasn't thought this through. My original edit which you reverted with your spurious "?" edit summary, a revert where you restored your edit that was objected to and duly reverted again by myself by restoring the article to the stable version before yours or my contested version. I never yapped or complained about your revert, and my original post in this topic stands as true as the day I typed it.

But seeing as we're here "discussing", clearly explain what was wrong with my original edit? Where are the exact problems? Or was it simply as always... a knee-jerk revert hoping to entice an adverse reaction? You claimed the edit was odd yet the edit smmary for it is as descriptive as you'll get for most edits on this site by many editors. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not just 'Northern Ireland', then there's no confusion? Your opposition seems unusually staunch. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If there is confusion prove it. Your bias and POV on the issue of the term Northern Irish amongst other terms describing Northern Ireland is well known and only detracts from your arguments.

Also you have failed to respond to the question I posed... what was wrong with my edit? Nothing. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Northern Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107220447/https://www.detini.gov.uk/economic_overview___8211__october_2014.pdf?rev=0 to http://www.detini.gov.uk/economic_overview___8211__october_2014.pdf?rev=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101122114013/http://www.nidirect.gov.uk:80/index/government-citizens-and-rights/living-in-northern-ireland/bank-holidays.htm to http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/index/government-citizens-and-rights/living-in-northern-ireland/bank-holidays.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/uk_countries.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2010/december.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016

I am requesting that the following be changed:
People born in Northern Ireland are, with some exceptions, deemed by UK law to be citizens of the United Kingdom.
to
People born in Northern Ireland are eligible to become British citizens, subject to British nationality law.

The current wording is extremely unclear. British nationality law is strict and simply being born in Northern Ireland does not grant you British citizenship. It depends on your parents and their nationality or residency status. 'With some exceptions' is extremely vague and this should be amended. Most people in Northern Ireland who claim a British passport are entitled to one because their parents have the legal right of abode there or are permanent residents.

159.92.238.60 (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The next paragraph explains the exceptions pretty clearly - "Neither government, however, extends its citizenship to all persons born in Northern Ireland. Both governments exclude some people born in Northern Ireland, in particular persons born without one parent who is a British or Irish citizen. " The current wording is fine, I don't think it needs to be changed. I'm also not sure about the phrase "eligible to become"; as someone born in Northern Ireland, to Northern Irish parents, I am a British citizen, I'm not "eligible to become" one. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem with both the current and suggested replacement wording is that they imply that the place of birth is a highly relevant factor. But this is not true, because the majority of people born in NI have two UK citizen parents and would therefore be UK citizens no matter where they were born in the world. – Smyth\^talk 20:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2016

2A02:C7F:8616:7300:915D:4C45:5A04:DA28 (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No is not protected, you're asking for a request on the wrong article, and the request is blank. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Maps

Doesn't this article need both a political map, as well as a topographic map? The current map shows only the location of Northern Ireland within its position in Europe - nothing more. Wouldn't it be useful to have a map that is informative of the towns and political subdivisions that comprise the political construction of "Northern Ireland." Also, is Northern Ireland simply a flat land with no bodies of water? If it is then, of course, there would be little use in a topographic illustration of any sort, however, if that is not the case, than it may be informative for those perusing the article to see an illustration of its surface or terrain...Just a thought. Regards. Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Euro

in the infobox. NI uses the £, so why is the Euro being used?  — Calvin999 11:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably to give an easy point of comparison between other countries. Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless I'm going mad, the infobox says NI's currency is the pound sterling. Mooretwin (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe they mean for the GDPs. Those values come from an EU source so the values are in Euros, which is the reasoning there. Canterbury Tail talk 13:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I see. I had a look at Wales it uses £. The England and Scotland articles use $. Not sure what to make of that. Mooretwin (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

They are British subject articles so all of them should be using the £. The Euro and Dollar should be stated in brackets if necessary. I can't imagine United States having the Euro or £ in its infobox. Someone would probably say there should be a protest march lol  — Calvin999 11:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well you'll need a source that quotes the figures in £s then. Canterbury Tail talk 13:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Political point of view?

It says in the lede that "Ireland was partitioned". Isn't this statement a political viewpoint? An alternative viewpoint (and no less a fact) would be that the United Kingdom was partitioned. A more neutral viewpoint would perhaps be that Southern Ireland sought independence, which it eventually gained in stages when it created its parliament, created its constitution in 1937, and became a Republic in 1948/9. --24.182.92.247 (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A fair point. For good or ill the term 'partition' tends to be used in a pejorative sense. That said, I suspect 'partition' is a term used by most secondary sources, and I think it will be difficult to come up with an alternative form of words that avoids the term while maintaining brevity. Mooretwin (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It is accurate in the sense that it refers to the island of Ireland. Any island with more than one country can be refered to as partitioned without any POV on whether it should be or not. Perhaps adding in the words 'island of' could help clarify. Eckerslike (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"Top-level constituent unit"

What happened to "part"? Way to confuse everyone before they've even reached the second sentence. — Jon C.^ॐ 13:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That is the technical and best possible neutral legal term given historical context. "Part" can be perceived as Unionist or Nationalist depending on the reader. Not the best solution, but we're talking about a territory without a flag or currently even an assembly--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 16:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"Top-level constituent unit" is an horrendous phrase which confuses rather than clarifies. It does not help non-native speakers and those just learning about Northern Ireland's status. Yes, "part" can be "perceived as Unionist or Nationalist" but "part" is also true. The debate is not whether Northern Ireland is part of or a country of the U.K. (Does anyone dispute that? Please provide the WP:Third party source.) but whether it should be. The current confusing euphemism should be replaced with either "part", which is the term that the citation uses, or with "country of the United Kingdom" which is the title of the linked article and which is the term in the infobox. "Top-level constituent unit" is a phrase that only a bureaucrat can love. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"part" is the most neutral whilst factual way of putting it. It is also a country/nation of the UK as the UK government frequently refer to it as such but "part" saves arguments with those that can't accept that fact. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Iloilo Wanderer: and @Mabuska:, I agree that the phrase is clunky and weird and smugly bureaucratic. The citation for it is the Encyclopedia Britannia page which is the subtitle of the page, although it also describes NI as "part" of the UK. Is there any document by Her Majesty's Government or otherwise on what NI is specifically designated as? Otherwise yeah, part is fine.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 14:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The online version of Britannica leaves a lot to be desired and even calls its own integrity into question. In all technicality Northern Ireland is designated as a province of the United Kingdom, however it is often called/referred to as a region and country as well as other terms. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I see....gah, this is annoying, I hope there is a clarification soon when/if the Assembly finally gets in order. Thanks for the edit.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 17:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The term "part of..", should be used in the intros of England, Wales & Scotland as well. Good luck with that. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The long standing agreed text was " It is variously described as a country, province, region, or "part" of the United Kingdom, amongst other terms." which was informative, accurate and pretty neutral. I don't see any real consensus or discussion to change that other than a legitimate horror of "Top-level constituent unit" There is no question that country, province and region are all supported by citation. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That's correct and so it should be returned to. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Just looking and what you say Snowded is still there in the following sentence. I have also fixed the text in question to what it was before silly addition of top-level, I.e. "constituent unit", which also matches what the infobox uses for "type". Mabuska ^(talk) 18:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I've restored "part" & made adjustments to following sentence. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

My initial change to part was based on a misunderstanding of what used to be there. The long standing term used is constituent unit not part as I assumed and thus fixed it. Also as Snowded said their is also no concensus to change the following sentence. I expect you to not reimpose the change once I revert it, but instead discuss it. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

How about using "constituent part"? GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That's simply splitting hairs. There is no need for stating anything other than constituent if we wanted. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Irish

please change ((Irish)) to ((Irish language|Irish)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:C70:B458:692A:7973:44F (talk • contribs)

Already done by BD2412 (talk). regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Status and type

It seems a bit pointless to have a Status and type parameter saying Country and constituent unit in the info box?  — Calvin999 11:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Flag Issue ----- Proposal

The official flag of Northern Ireland is the Union Flag and the Ulster Banner flag is consistently used to represents Northern Ireland.

Could we perhaps follow the New New Caledonia format: showing the Official flag of France and then the Independence (though not official) flag of New Caledonia.

In following this format, this article can show the official flag of Northern Ireland (Being the Union Flag) and then showing the Ulster Banner next to it. I suggest this because despite it not being the official flag, it 'represents' Northern Ireland in sports and so on, as stated in the "Flag of Northern Ireland" article.

Could this be possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean Frankling (talk • contribs) 11:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

What's the point of showing a flag if it doesn't have its own flag and showing one will just cause a dispute? The article Flag of Northern Ireland covers the topic adequately if people want to know about it. Or you could try and get the people there or at Northern Ireland flags issue to come around to your point of view :) Dmcq (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Considering the Union Flag is the official flag for Northern Ireland disregarding sport and non-official use, it could hardly cause a dispute on its own. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd support this. The Ulster banner is easily as official as the flag of New Caledonia, as well as lots of other territories' articles: cf. Labrador, Benelux, Wake Island, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, etc., etc. — Jon C.^ॐ 13:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd also support this as per the reasoning above. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. I think it's due time that this article show some sort of flag, and the de facto usage right now is the Union Jack, and the Ulster banner should be added below. @Jon C.:'s examples also reinforce this, and for my own recent work I would like to point out Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Although the situation is slightly different and doesn't necessitate putting that militaric territory's unofficial flag below the Jack, the UK flag is the de facto banner of the Sovereign Base Areas. I would support using the Union Jack and Ulster Banner for NI with a sufficient note or clarification added to bolster NPOV.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 14:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

How about just the Union flag then if you're really desperate to show a flag? That might about work but putting in the Ulster banner is just asking for sectarian trouble on the page. Dmcq (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Enyclopedia Britannica and Google (search Northern Ireland and see box on right) officially use the Union Jack and the Ulster Banner respectively to represent NI. Although they aren't government institutions, hey are more than respectable enough as internet titans (and appeared to not have caused any notable controversy against them over the years) to further bolster the case for using both flags in the infobox. Although if the Ulster Banner is that controversial (though controversy shouldn't be an argument, see WP:CENSOR), I suppose just the Jack would be sufficient. Something is better than nothing.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 14:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert @Sigehelmus: I checked Encyclopaedia Britannica, and unlike their articles on England, Wales and Scotland, their article on Northern Ireland does not include a flag in the infobox. Also, Google does not 'officially' use the Ulster Banner; the Google Knowledge Graph uses data automatically collected from many internet sources, and sometimes this data is inaccurate.--Coyotecymraeg (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's there, look at the bottom of the article and you'll see a big Union Jack. As for Google, it's been there a long time and not a single user seems to have complained about it from my searches. You don't think at least one ardent Nationalist would have seen the Banner when searching for his homeland on the universal search engine? And Google is known for being *remarkably* PC, if there was so much polemic potential it would have been removed a long time ago.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 02:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica has claims to be a reliable source while a Google info box doesn't. The fact that the Union Jack is at the bottom of the EB article is irrelevant - it is another media resource. Both the Union Jack (possibly) and the Ulster Banner (certainly) should appear in the body of the article with proper context ----Snowded ^TALK 07:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have edited in both the Union Jack and the Ulster Banner in the infobox, with footnote for clarification. Is this design alright? I tried to do the best I could with the infobox template's limitations.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 14:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good.Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've reworded the footnote a bit. I'm not sure "brandished" is a particularly good term here (brings to mind someone waving a knife around) and made clear the banner is especially used in sporting contexts (Fifa, Commonwealth Games, etc.). See what you think. — Jon C.^ॐ 15:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the term brandished however disagree with your amendments Jon. It makes it too vague and with the article link provided in the original readers can find out more about who specifically uses the flag. What is there is good now and does the job. Further changes I think should be discussed first. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Had one more go. It was still pretty clunky. If anyone reverts again I'll of course bring it here. Cheers, — Jon C.^ॐ 15:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with it as it over complicates it but will not violate 1rr over it, though in a way you have violated it. Considering three editors like what was there if you ignore the brandished word then you should discuss it first especially after getting reverted. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Self-rv'd (even the grammatical fixes). — Jon C.^ॐ 15:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your revisions @Jon C.: and @Mabuska:, I just have one quarrel: Is the Ulster Banner really the de facto flag? I'm not sure, it seems like its use is scattered among so many things and that term might be contentious suggesting like it is near-universally used in reality. I'm not totally sure insomuch as it's almost like it has a unique status; that's why I just put it as "Ulster Banner". What do you think?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 15:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree de facto is not the right description.Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted it back to "Ulster Banner" for now to keep NPOV (I think).--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 15:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It can be considered de facto however there will always be those who disagree because of the de jure or personal antipathy, so best keeping it as neutral as possible to avoid arguments. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Well they seem to have stayed there for a few days without trouble. It looks like I just drove down Newtownards Road and I'm not keen on it but all that flags business seems to have died down quite a bit now thankfully. Dmcq (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Melodramatic much? Some editors always seem to hype up an edit-warring apocalypse that never materialises. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It isn't right or logical to have the Ulster Banner where it is. Further down the page where it's controversy can be explain would be more appropriate. Then, there already is an article on that. Articles relating to Northern Ireland should always reach a fair factual consensus; like with the Derry~Londonderry argument. Skyifictionable (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What constitutes a "fair factual consensus" to you? Do you not see the massive discussion right above your post? The current alignment was agreed upon as the most NPOV configuration; Northern Ireland's flag issue is sui generis and showing the de jure flag alongside the flag that is considered de facto (and is still not called such for neutrality's sake) by a large portion of the population and is dear to them as their identity is what was agreed as optimal. Is it perfect? No, but the same can be said for many other nations and territories. If anything, your suggestion would lean more towards a bias (at least to some groups). The Ulster Banner displayed equally with a sufficient footnote is the best solution that has reached consensus IMO.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 01:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought we weren't gonna use any flag, like at Countries of the United Kingdom. Anyways, whatever. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Not quite sure about these flag additions. We need some veteran British editors views & I think @Snowded:, @Daicaregos: & @Ghmyrtle: are the ones. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Um I think it's a little bit more than a coincidence that the specific users you invited, at least 2 of them would seem to be against the Ulster Banner displayed looking at their flags and userboxes...I'm not suggesting anything per se and I despise ad hominem attacks, but considering your own page as well I don't think it's fair that you pinged users who will probably decide in a certain position. 99 times out of 100 I would never say something like this but it's in bad taste here. Again, nothing personal but a bit unfair. Please address my and others' points specifically instead of calling in friends because the sight of a neutral infobox irks you so.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 20:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

They're the only British editors that I know. I don't presume to know what stance they'll take here. FWIW, I've often been at odds with the 3 individuals-in-question in the past, concerning British articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

What specific problem do you have with the current setup? Every territory — even every unrecognized territory — has a flag of some kind. For all intents and purposes, Northern Ireland's official flag as it stands now is the Union Jack. However, the Ulster Banner has presence and favoritism by many groups, entities and organizations, including groups that aren't even necessarily Unionist. Both are notorious flags and Northern Ireland's political case as it has been for decades and especially in recent weeks has been precarious and unique, and as you see above the present setup doesn't seem to slant bias one way or the other. Having just the Union Jack would appear biased and insufficient if not "home rule-ist", and having the Ulster Banner itself would of course be controversial. The current infobox explains everything there needs to be known fairly efficiently. If you could please show how having no flag whatsoever in the infobox would be optimal, please feel free to explain here. Many sources currently choose one flag or the other, including titans such as the Encyclopedia Britannica and Google (Jack and Banner respectively), and I've seen little to no outcry about it. I don't see how much more neutral we can get without becoming reductionist.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 22:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I had the page under watch anyway but have kept out of the issue for some time having had just about enough of it being raised again and again. But if you want a view then you now have two flags which are liked by one section of the community and largely despised by the other. The note that explains the use of the Ulster Banner mentions no controversy whatsoever. Some recent use is a few sports doesn't justify the use. Also most of the arguments above are synthesis or opinion not based on sources. There are no reliable sources that establish a specific flag and the best solution remains to leave it blank. If you are going on use then you should show three - add in the tricolour. Oh, and GoodDay is allowed to ping editors who have previously taken part in debates and have a longer history of editing it. I've criticised GoodDay enough in the past that supporting him on this one is an exception :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 04:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Culling the use of the Ulster Bannerto "in a few sports" is disingenuous on a good day. There are many organizations and the entities discussed above that use or display it. The controversy is also implicitly directed by linking to the Flag of Northern Ireland article in the footnote. That's not even an issue as it can be easily fixed. The current beauty of the iconic is that it displays the Flags of that as used in official diplomacy and administration, the old Union Jack, and the Flag used many groups and people majorly but not even necessarily Unionist, and even then it is not claimed as the de facto flag. I see absolutely no case for synthesis here, any accusation of that is frivilous. Please tell me how Encyclopedia Britannica and Google are somehow not WP:RS as well. There is no case to be made here except restoring the blank status quo which was needlessly ineffectual and taking neutrality to ridiculous extremes. The Flags must stay.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 05:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Revert Why is the flag of the United Kingdom in the infobox of this article? It doesn't appear in the articles on England, Scotland and Wales.

And why is the Ulster Banner shown? Even the accompanying footnote even says that flag has no official status and its use is charged and contentious. The argument that it is used by "some sporting organisations" is immaterial to this article. Many flags are used to represent Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland in sport. During opening ceremony the Olympic Games, for example, Saint Patrick's Saltire was used to represent Northern Ireland. Where sporting organisations use those flags, we use those flags. Where they do not, we do not.

I'm sure the OP was acting in good faith, but everybody here knows about the Northern Ireland flags issue and there's no need to go stirring the pot or stirring up nationalist (British, Irish, or any other) emotions. It doesn't benefit the article. The previous version lasted well enough for years. There's no need to kick that hornets' nest now. --Tóraí (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that England, Wales and Scotland have their own flags that have been used through custom and historically for years. NI is the only one that had theirs revoked legislatively. Therefore by de jure their flag is the Union Jack, as with the Flag of Akrotiri and Dhekelia where the Union Jack is used by default where there is no other flag used. The Ulster Banner is used in there as per the argument that New Caledonia uses the flag of the parent nation and the flag that is used by the majority of the people as a de facto flag to represent them. Whether its the legal flag or not is not a matter, if by common custom and popular demand it is recognised as their flag by the majority of people there, we should reflect that as such. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the flag of the United Kingdom is the flag of the United Kingdom, and not of Northern Ireland, no matter where you are in the UK. If we're not showing it for England, Scotland and Wales then we should not be showing it here.

The fact is that England, Wales and Scotland have their own flags that have been used through custom and historically for years [whereas Northern Ireland does not].
— User:The C of E

...if by common custom and popular demand [the Ulster Banner] is recognised as their flag by the majority of people there, we should reflect that as such.
— User:The C of E

There is a contradiction between these two sentences.

The first says that Northern Ireland does not have a flag through custom and therefore the UK flag should be shown. The second says that the Ulster Banner is the flag of Northern Ireland through custom and therefore it should be shown. It cannot be both. --Tóraí (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

agree, both should be removed per long standing consensus, there wasn't really a consensus when they put in with some editors opposed, now more are getting involved. Should be reverted ----Snowded ^TALK 11:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems that most of the reasoning behind bringing back the blank infobox relies upon argumentum ad antiquitatem. Just because it's been that way "for years" is a fallacy. So what if it "stirs the pot"? That's hardly with the spirit of Wikipedia. The Union Jack is the flag used to represent NI by law. The Ulster Banner represents NI for many by tradition and usage. Practically every other site besides us acknowledges this reality. Besides perhaps slight revision of the footnote, there is no reason to provide no flag whatsoever.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 13:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because a space is blank doesn't mean it has to be filled. That's like the people on Wikipedia who keep sticking in a religion for a person into their infobox even if it has precious little to do with them. The general agreement now is not to stick in fields like that unless they are relevant or notable for them in some way. Perhaps you'd like to put down that it is a protestant country because most of the inhabitants are protestant? Dmcq (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not comparable...what other contemporary territory or state's article lacks a flag?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 16:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Northern Ireland has many characteristics not shared by other countries. You seem to want consistency over sources which is really not wikipedia policy. If the Ulster Banner is there then any flag ever used to represent Northern Ireland needs to be, The facts are simple - there is no unique Northern Ireland Flag, unlike the other three countries that make up the UK. That the UK has constituent countries is also pretty unique. Once upon a time there was a flag, but it was sectarian and linked to a particular community. For that reason it is no longer the flag. As far as I can see a majority of editors are for the long standing 'no flag' position, there are insufficient editors for a flag (or flags) to justify a change to a long standing stable aspect of the article ----Snowded ^TALK 16:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Just on a point of information, it is not true that there is no longer a flag because 'it was sectarian and linked to a particular community'. The reason that the Ulster Banner no longer has official status is because it represented the Government of Northern Ireland that ceased to exist in 1972. Since that time, the flag has had no official status, though it continues to be used in unofficial and semi-official capacity for some purposes. Mooretwin (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Does Northern Ireland have a flag, in the manner that England , Scotland & Wales does? It appears not. Thus it's best to remove the Union Jack & Ulster Banner. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I see the point of @Snowded: and you. But by law and purpose the Union Jack is used for various purposes when Northern Ireland needs to be represented. Similar for the Banner. Should the visitors to this site just be forsaken the chance to know this without directly searching for it?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 16:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It isn't similar or the Banner, it was used then its use was abandoned as it represented a sectarian perspective. The text of the article has always made this clear so the information is there. But the banner is not the flag of Northern Ireland, it does not belong in the information box. The Union Jack is used generically for the United Kingdom so its a fall back - again that can be easily accessible with a proper explanation in the main body of the article Its use in the information box is misleading ----Snowded ^TALK 18:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Again on a point of information its used wasn't 'abandoned as it represented a sectarian perspective'. Rather, the Government that the flag represented ceased to exist. Mooretwin (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The template infobox country has a Religion field. Why should people have to search for the main religion of the population? Why exactly should it not be set but the flag field should be set? Dmcq (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Because the lack of a filled religion field implies secularism? That's enough false equivalencies for noe, you're not making a point.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Not what I meant but good enough. Voting for the DUP or UUP is no more an indication of a majority support for the Ulster Banner than it is evidence that a majority of the population is Protestant. And in fact the article says 41.5% identify with some Protestant denomination as opposed to 41% as Catholic - so neither is an overall majority. And a lot of people [1] are sick and tired of the flags. As to your 'Because the lack of a filled religion field implies secularism?' - what does an empty flags field imply except perhaps an absence of a specific widely supported flag - which is true. Dmcq (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The Ulster Banner must go, as it's not the flag of Northern Ireland. As for the Union Jack? that's the UK flag & unless we're going to put the Union Jack into the infoboxes at England, Scotland & Wales? then it too must be removed. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

In fairness, Sigehelmus, the argument for inclusion appear to be argumentum ad infobox placeholder.

The reality, complex as it is, is that Northern Ireland doesn't have a definitive or agreed flag at the moment. If it did, the civil administration in Northern Ireland would fly it, just as the civil administrations in England, Scotland and Wales fly their respective flags. And just as the civil administration in New Caledonia does.

Northern Ireland is not unique in this. The island of Ireland doesn't have a definitive or agreed flag either at the moment, despite it also having sporting teams that are represented by various flags, just like Northern Ireland teams are.

This is why the placeholder was left empty for so long, not argumentum ad antiquitatem.

As for the Union Flag, do you have a reliable source to say that it is the flag of Northern Ireland? Because as we all know, even its flying is restricted by the civil administration in Northern Ireland. And it would seem strange that the civil administration in Northern Ireland would restrict display of the flag of Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland. --Tóraí (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As there have been claims about the de jure and customary practice of flags in Northern Ireland, here is the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000: http://legislation.data.gov.uk/nisr/2000/347/made/data.htm?wrap=true

The regulations describe the days on which the Union flag, Royal Standard and European flag (only) may be flown at government buildings in Northern Ireland. "Except as provided by these Regulations, no flag shall be flown at any government building at any time." --Tóraí (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I see, after reading these and quickly skimming your links but I will look more deeply right after...what you are saying is the reality is by both law and practice there is effectively no vexillogical standard for Northern Ireland? I would be open to this, but I just can't get over the old blank infobox. Is there anything at all that can be put in its place to direct and clarify readers?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 20:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

We can simply put in text to the effect that following the GFA the Flag Regulations Act states that .... ----Snowded ^TALK 03:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

As you say, the reality is that there is no "vexillogical standard for Northern Ireland" so I've restored the long standing position that reflects that position. Change requires consensus ----Snowded ^TALK 07:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There is also nothing in law to say the St George's Cross is the flag of England, or indeed any legislation cementing the Union flag as that of the UK.

However, as Tóraí has pointed about above there are flag regulations as regards NI, which state that only the Union flag may be flown (as well as the EU flag on Europe Day). So we need to decide what criteria we're using here – if we want the de jure flag to represent Northern Ireland it's the Union flag, and so should be shown in the infobox.

If, however, we want the de facto flag almost universally used to represent NI when a unique flag is needed, it's undoubtedly the Ulster Banner – see for example Northern Ireland's team bus from Euro 2016…

So which is it to be? — Jon C.^ॐ 09:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Firstly there was clearly no real consensus to put flags in there and most editors are opposed so I think you were wrong to reinstate a very recent change, but 1rr applies to this article. The Flag regulations are very specific and create a different context from the St George's Cross - there is not the same history, Ignoring original research or synthesis of selected sources what evidence do you have that the Ulster Banner is the "de jure" position? ----Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think most editors are opposed. I count you, Tóraí and GoodDay.

It's not the de jure flag – it isn't official – but its use as the only flag to represent Northern Ireland when one is needed is ample evidence of its status de facto. Failing that, we stick the Union flag in there on its own as the only 'official' flag for NI. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

And three for inclusion with Sigehelmus starting to look at the evidence. You know that is not sufficient to change a long standing position on a controversial subject. Otherwise I am more than happy to accept that you believe that there is more than amble evidence, unfortunately in wikipedia such a view from an editor is insufficient without sources. If you are right then reliable sources should make the claim. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Is the Royal Mint a reliable source? — Jon C.^ॐ 09:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see multiple points made above. There is no dispute that it has been used in some cases, as has St Patrick's Saltire. The point is if it represents Northern Ireland. For that you need a reliable third party source. 101 Wikipedia ----Snowded ^TALK 09:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's have both in the infobox then, with explanations. St Patrick's saltire was used for the Diamond Jubilee. Maybe you could also see multiple points above how officialdom isn't necessary to have a flag in an infobox on Wikipedia, merely common use. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Starting to think we're going to need an RfC on this one. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

They should all be in the body of the article with explanations as to their use, but you have to have a third party source or two to put it int he info box as representing Northern Ireland. We've been through this on Wales, Scotland and England and sources could be found. So why not here? ----Snowded ^TALK 09:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have had it all from canvassing to trolling to outright hypocrisy and closet bigotry. Firstly GoodDay is simply a troll in this discussion who blatantly canvassed 3 of the most nationalist editors they could under the claim they where the only 3 British editors he knew which is complete balderdash. 3 editors who he knew would back up the against view if they all responded. Secondly the hypocrisy of editors who cite flag legislation to state there is officially no NI flag yet at the Londonderry article ignore officialdom when giving their undivided support to Derry. Snowdeds entire argument about needing sources on Wikipedia is completely at odds with the fact there is no sources that state that the official name of Londonderry is anything other yet look at the article title. Then you have editors who are simply objecting because of their own personal ideology. Next you have the red herring of long standing consensus, which is pointless as we all know consensus can change and is a cop out for those scared it might change. The entire discussion is a mess and a joke, just like the recent addition of "dubious" tags. Sky is blue anyone? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

In fact we could even put (1953 to 1972) under the Ulster Banner to state when it was official, which sorts out the entire issue. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I should say 'Melodramatic much?' about all that like you said to me above. How about just notifying people in the relevant projects if you want less biased canvassing? Or raise an RfC like Jon C said? Dmcq (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Difference is at least what I said has substance and is pretty evident unlike your continued expectations of an edit warring apocalypse which have still failed to materialise. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

A requirement for sources is standard in Wikipedia Mabuska and we went through this (as i said) when flags were dispute in Wales and England. If you are right on the subject then there will be sources, find them and please stop the personal attacks it really doesn't help ----Snowded ^TALK 11:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Me a troll? Mabuska, I'd throw Northern Ireland's flag at you for that personal attack, if they had their own flag, but they don't. It does indeed appear as though an Rfc will be required. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a personal attack if true and you are being a troll in this discussion. And NI does have its own flag, just because its not official in government and opposed by a minority doesn't mean it doesn't have one per common usage, unless hundreds of thousands of people who use it in Northern Ireland as well as various organisations don't exist. Keep telling yourself that. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Open an Rfc on this topic, please. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding flags as far as I am aware the only constituent country flag that is officially adopted is that of Scotland, with Wales I don't think the Welsh flag has officially been adopted although I may be wrong and the England flag has definitely not been adopted as the official flag of England. Nevertheless all of them are featured in their respective articles at their flags admittedly its much less controversial than Northern Ireland however I would still say that the Ulster Banner is what most people would associate with being the flag of Northern Ireland. C. 22468 Talk to me 23:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Those questions were asked on the Wales and England pages and sources were found which established their status - de facto in the case of England and official in the case of Wales. The simple question here is to ask for similar sources. If as advocates claim the Ulster Banner (despite its historical associates with one side of the conflict) is the de facto flag then it will be fine to include it. Without such sources it is just the opinion of editors and/or original research and synthesis. It is a very simple request ----Snowded ^TALK 06:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the point about the Union Flag being unsuitable as it is the flag of the United Kingdom as a whole not Northern Ireland as a regional entity. Northern Ireland does have no de jure regional flag at present, even though the Ulster Banner more than qualifies due to wide common usage within Northern Ireland if you ignore the complaints of a minority. If it was a sectarian banner then why does Rory McIlroy a Catholic drape himself in it? May as well state the Irish tricolour as being the bloody flag of terrorists due to the IRA.

Having said that there is a place for the Ulster Banner in the infobox if we simply add in the years it was Northern Ireland's de jure flag as I suggested above but everyone seems to have willingly glanced over. Here's how it looks on my sandbox. Maybe make the text bigger if possible or whatever but there is nothing inaccurate or controversial about it as it is the only specific distinct regional flag Northern Ireland has ever had so there can be no arguments over what historical NI flag to use. It is a perfectly reasonable compromise. Though as the flag was granted in 1924 it maybe should be used instead of 1953?

Just a pity [2] is no longer up due to copyright violation. From 59m:50s onwards what do we see at the Queen's official 90th birthday celebrations on 15th May 2016 broadcast live on TV? On that's right the Ulster Banner flown on horseback alongside the flags of England, Scotland and Wales. Good enough for the head of state of the UK to use it to represent NI.... Mabuska ^(talk) 14:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the Union Jack should be deleted as it is the UK flag. We don't have it in the infoboxes of England, Scotland & Wales, therefore it shouldn't be in this infobox. There's no Canadian flag in the Canadian provinces/territories infoboxes or American flag in the American states infoboxes, etc etc. As for the Ulster Banner, it does appear to be the main issue here. Again best we have an Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I must commend @Mabuska: for his idea of showing the Ulster Banner itself with proper note and clarification...perhaps the Jack is a bit extraneous.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 17:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Sigehelmus. At GoodDay, what's the point of a RfC if editors already involved don't bother responding to arguments and compromise solutions? Not once in your reply did you even make mention of what you thought of the compromise so what was the worth of the response? RfC's aren't to help create for or against headcounts, its for external views from hopefully NPOV editors but at the end of the day it is still up for consensus to move forward and that means the editors who are contributing before the RfC such as yourself needing to find some form of compromise or agreement. But if you aren't even willing to discuss or give a view on a compromise or possible solution but just continually provide virtually bare objections then what's the point. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No sources then Mabuska? You observe that the Ulster Banner is used at a historical pageant - I doubt the Queen designed that and you have no idea of context of use. You are observing a couple of uses and from that drawing conclusions - original research or synthesis We don't respond to arguments we respond to sources, especially when the use of the Ulster Banner is considered sectarian by a substantial proportion of the Northern Ireland population. Sources can be found for Wales and England and state their flags are official or de defect. If the Ulster banner is to have either status it must be sourced, not just based on synthesis Time we got objective I will make an attempt below ----Snowded ^TALK 20:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The British flag should not be in the infobox, for the reasons I gave in my 'edit summary'. As for the Ulster Banner? if the required sources are presented, then have it. Remember though: We shouldn't have any flag in the infobox, just for the sake of having a flag in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree no flag, but having the Ulster Banner on its own implies it has status which it doesn't. Of course neither flag should be there pending agreement but wee have few edit barriers here ----Snowded ^TALK 06:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Flags would it be a good idea to do a similar thing to do what happens with Akrotiri and Dhekelia and previously Ascension Island where neither of them had an official flag so the flag that is used to represent the territory is used which in both cases was the United Kingdom flag. C. 22468 Talk to me 09:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems quite clear some editors don't want to seek a compromise solution. That's two objectors (GoodDay twice and Snowded) who clearly failed to once remark on my compromise solution, which can be easily sourced fulfilling Snowded's precondition. Need I say anymore about editors intentions but then again a look through the archives at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland shows Snowded to be one of the biggest objectors to the Ulster Banner on any grounds possible. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

When did you get so fired up about adding the UB? GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Coolguy22468: I'm unfamiliar with the example of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Can I ask, is the flying of the UK flag from government buildings restricted in Akrotiri and Dhekelia as it is in Northern Ireland? --Tóraí (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to follow the example of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Dmcq (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It does seem strange, however, if the Union flag is the flag of Northern Ireland, that its display from government buildings in Norhern Ireland would be restricted to a set number of days under Northern Ireland law. And is there any source that says the Union Flag is used to represent Northern Ireland, as opposed to the UK? --Tóraí (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Akrotiri and Dhekelia and Ascension Island (2010) what I was on about was as neither had an officially sanctioned flag they just used flag used for official purposes within the territory as the flag for the infobox rather like how Johnston Atoll uses the United States flag as that is the official flag of the territory. Regardless of regulations and how controversial it is in Northern Ireland though the flag of the United Kingdom is still the official flag. C. 22468 Talk to me 16:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of regulations and how controversial it is in Northern Ireland though the flag of the United Kingdom is still the official flag.

Of the United Kingdom. But this article is about Northern Ireland. And the prohibitions on the display of even the United Kingdom flag on government buildings in Northern Ireland should rings bells that this is not a situation like others.

The previous situation was to show no flags on this article. That would appear to be closer to the official position also. --Tóraí (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)