Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Northern Ireland is NOT simply a sectarian carve-up as this terrible article suggests

Over time I have witnessed this article de-generate from something respectable (maybe back in 2005) into a terrible sectarian carve-up whereby absolutely anything about Northern Ireland has to be discussed in the exaggerated, overly-simplistic and divisive bipolar terms of "Unionist" and "Nationalist". I would like to point out to those editors who are not familiar or never lived in Northern Ireland that it is nowhere near as terrible a place as this article would suggest. There are many people in Northern Ireland who neither consider themselves as "Unionist" or "Nationalist". Results from the latest 2009 iteration of the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey show the following:

Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a unionist, a nationalist or neither?    
 Unionist	32%
 Nationalist	24%
 Neither       43%
 Other	        1%
 Don't know	0

The point I am trying to make with this data is that the plurality of the 43% of "Neithers" is constantly ignored on Wikipedia. The system of trying to reach "consensus" on Wikipedia is problematic because the demographic of editors who come on here is usually biased towards the zealous few extremists who still want to use Wikipedia to "fight for the cause" (often Irish Nationalist due to Nationalists wanting to change the status quo in NI). Therefore those editors from outside Northern Ireland who try to moderate always attempt to reach consensus with these extremes and hence end up with a horribly fragmented article where the non-sectarian commonalities throughout Northern Ireland get ignored.

The whole article just stinks of division. In my opinion in needs a serious re-write. The problem is that to do that there would need to be some sort of campaign to get enough moderate users would need to get involved to prevent the zealous few from turning it again into the fragmented mess that it is. One particular section which causes unnecessary division is the "Variations in geographic nomenclature" section which at least 4 terms which are in either the "unionist" or "nationalist" section could appear in the "Other". Jonto (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Jonto. When I tell people in the UK that the reason the people first when on the streets of Northern Ireland to protest it was about their basic civil rights and that all they wanted was one man one vote and equal housing and opportunities for all, they just couldn't believe me! Bjmullan (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

To that end I think we should have sections dedicated to both the civil rights moment of the late 60's and the failures/downfall of the NI government of the early 70's (both of which are glaring absent from the current article) Question's like why did the British government pass a law removing total political power for the NI government and also the wide spread use of Gerrymandering by the Unionist politicians to hold onto power. Also no mention of the 'B' Specials. Bjmullan (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If the article stinks of division then that's likely a byproduct of the nature of Northern Ireland. If a place is for all intents and purposes founded out of conflict between two sides, has politics dominated by an extremely small number of parties aligned with one side or the other, and witnessed military conflict in the way that Northern Ireland did, it is probably going to impossible to write an article about it that doesn't "stink of division" to somebody. Any section on history, politics, culture, or demographics is going to inevitably be dominated by division. McDowney (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Gaelic Language Section Cleanup

Does anyone else think that the Gaelic language section is a tad too long especially when it has its own article which is linked at the top of the section? The English and Ulster-Scots sections are far smaller and more to the point. The Gaelic section has six meaty paragraphs, whilst Ulster-Scots and English have one each. Definately looks very unbalanced and possibly not needed to be so big for this article which i thought was a general overview. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Definatly, it has to be cut down for balance. Gaelic should only just have 1 paragraph like the rest, more maybe if it was the major language spoken but it's not. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the section if you want balance add more to the other languages. Mo ainm~Talk 14:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the section? Look at the obscene length of it. It's a sub-section that is longer and/or has more paragraphs than several of the other sections/sub-sections in the article (more than some put together even) - and unlike some it also has an even longer article dedicated to the language in Northern Ireland. Some of the information doesn't seem to be in the parent article, so i think we should look at ways of streamlining the section in this article and ensuring that information that is here but not on the main article is also stated in the main article. This sub-section has definately been given a lot of undue weight compared to the other languages and even other sections of the article. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

IF Ulster Scots is allowed a paragraph, maybe the Derry accent and Belfast accent should have a paragraph each too! If we really want to be fair, we could give English and Irish a paragraph and Ulster Scots a line? No? --NorthernCounties (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess, since we have a separate article, we could use it's lede as basis for paragraph in this article, per WP:SUMMARIZE. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The information is well presented and sourced, and the language probably needs a certain amount of attention in that sub-section as the use of Irish has some controversy attached to it. "Ulster Scots" of course has similar historical and political associations but is not universally considered a language (whereas Irish is native to Ireland and it's status as a language is not disputed). All of the Irish subsection is relevant also, and only the second-to-last paragraph could do with being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McDowney (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur with above comment by McDowney Mo ainm~Talk 10:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

@ NorthernCounties - thankfully Wikipedia doesn't work on the lines of "i don't recognise it so it doesn't exist". The Good Friday Agreement and European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages both recognise it as a language so the issue is settled that its a language unlike "Derry" and Belfast accents. Personally i feel that it is more a regional dialect of Scots than a distinct language of its own but none the less it fully qualifies for inclusion.

If "controversy" is the reason to have an overweight and undue-weight Irish section then Ulster-Scots deserves twice as much space as its more controversial than Irish with all the nationalist detractors of the language/dialect. Argueing that Ulster-Scots isn't native to Ireland is also a poor reason as Ulster-Scots over the course of 400 years whether or not its a language or a dialect has developed seperately from its parent Scots in Scotland making it a native to Ireland language/dialect.

@McDowney - it doesn't matter if its relevant to the topic or well presented and sourced. The sub-section as it stands gives far too much undue weight to one language over others, and has an article all of its own which more than covers it. As AgadaUrbanit suggests - we should use the lede from the main article as the summary in this article. Any info here thats not there can be transferred over to make the main article more richer.

NC and Mo ainm you have both failed to provide any valid reasons for preventing a trimming to meet Wikipedia:SUMMARIZE and well as Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight. Why should one language get such bias towards it? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually McDowney the section isn't well presented and sourced. It lacks a lot of sources for verifiability and looks like it consists of mostly original research. Even more reasons to streamline and tidy this section up. THe other languages needs sources fullstop and the English section could also do with more. The only sub-section in the languages that is well presented and sourced is the Ulster-Scots section. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are some obvious points original research in the article. They should be deleted. That wouldn't massively shorten the Gaelic section however, and I don't think clean-up necessarily means a great reduction of useful information. It is probably to be expected that Irish would have a longer sub-section, given that it is the island's native language, has its own local dialect(s), and has political controversy attached to it. And just for the record, claiming that Ulster Scots is more controversial is very subjective and not provable or disprovable. McDowney (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of anyone denying that Irish is actually a language. The definition of Ulster-Scots as a language is far more controversial than anything Irish has to contend with. The existence of Irish as a language has been long assured and known. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nor have I. What I'm saying is that whereas Irish actually is a language, Ulster Scots is not universally considered so, and hence Irish is likely going to have a greater amount of detail within its sub-section. Regarding controversy, again you have possibly misunderstood what I was saying. Irish is controversial in Northern Ireland due to ethnic/religious/political associations, which Ulster Scots also has, but given the undeniable status of Irish as a language, their situations are vastly different. McDowney (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the GFA, St. Andrews Agreement, and the EU recognise it as a language - seeing as the GFA and SAA involved the nationalist parties as well as unionist parties that near enough indirectly or directly declares they have accepted its status as a language - whether or not they personally accept it.

Also how does being more controversial allow for it to have an overly obese and undue-weight sub-section? It does have its own article afterall. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ulster banner

With regard to the article's claim that the Flag of NI has no longer any official status, it is worth noting that it is still used as that state's flag at the Commonwealth Games. Acorn897 (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The article itself mentions the flag is used for the commonwealth games and football, it is certainly the closest thing Northern Ireland has to a national flag, aside from the Union flag of course. Was nice to see the Ulster banner as it came in a moment ago :) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not even allowed to be flown on government buildings so I wouldn't call it anything near official. Just a symbol from dark days that are well in the past. Bjmullan (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. Do try to keep your comments in support of an argument accurate.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Certain local councils do fly the flag Jonto (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should take some initiative, and implement something similar to what is seen here,I jest naturally! --NorthernCounties (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not true? Have a look at The Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 Act - Regulation 9 Bjmullan (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Which bans all flags except the union flag and royal standard (oh and the europe flag), if we are going by legal status then the union flag should be considered the flag of Northern Ireland. However the ability to fly a flag on a building does not dictate what is the flag or not, the Ulster banner is used to represent Northern Ireland at the commonwealth games and football, its considered by many to still be the flag that represents northern Ireland, something NorthernCounties link shows with the guys comment about not knowing. Terrible regulation that though, what a price to pay for peace. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

BW that is just a POV. And the reason that the Union flag (other than the EU flag) is the only one allowed is because NI is not a country, the UK however is. Bjmullan (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No the reason is not Northern Ireland's status as a country or not, it is simply appeasement to bring about peace. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you seeking? GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Never got an answer, yet. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

To use the commonly adopted policy that certain editors here have used to back up things that have no legal status or officiality - the Ulster Banner qualifies for usage on the grounds of "common usage". If "32 counties" can be forced upon NI county ledes with "common usage" as the backup for it - then why can't the Ulster Banner be used to represent Northern Ireland? Some may say its a controversial flag but then again so is statements such as "32 counties". Mabuska ^(talk) 11:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This divisive sectarian flag is not the flag of NI and I oppose wholeheartedly any implication that it has some kind of official status or that it should be used on this article to portray it is the flag of NI. Mo ainm~Talk 12:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Your description of the flag as "divisive and sectarian" is a very loaded description that many people in Northern Ireland will find extremely offensive. Irish separatists may not like the flag, but they also don't like Northern Ireland to even exist in the first place. Many people in Northern Ireland simply see this as the flag of our wee country and nothing "sectarian" about it. Trying to portray the "Ulster Banner" as a flag only for "Loyalists" is like trying to portray the Irish Tricolour as only the flag for IRA supporters or trying to portray the Union Flag as only the flag used by BNP supporters. Jonto (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course we should explain it does not have official status since 1972, but it is the most common flag used specifically for Northern Ireland. Use of the union flag which has official status within Northern Ireland would of course be suitable too if the ulster flag is problematic, but it would be better than noflag. I do think it is a bit of a problem at the moment that the symbols section treats the union flag, Ulster banner, Coat of arms the same way as it treats the flag of the Republic of Ireland. Two have at some point had official status in Northern Ireland, one continues to have official status, and the other is simply used by a minority and represents a separate country. There is a difference, but by giving the images equal status like that you could easily overlook that fact. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The flag is covered in the article and explains what it is so not sure what the new account is trying to suggest or in fact what BW proposes to do. Mo ainm~Talk 12:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for us including the Ulster banner to be used to represent NI. I am aware that it isn't official but if we used it as the de facto flag it would be fairer. It is also the most commonly recognised symbol of NI as it is used to represent the country by many major organisations, eg. Ryder Cup, Commonwealth Games, FIFA and UEFA to name a few. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well at the very least we need to address the symbols of Northern Ireland section. The flag of the Republic of Ireland should not be given equal status to a former official flag which remains in use and is without doubt the most common flag associated with Northern Ireland, a former coat of arms and the flag with official status, the union flag. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say move the tricolour to the bottom or below to show it never had any official status in NI ever or prehaps a better way would be to create a new section below the symbols one with the title "Other Symbols used". The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Historical or otherwise, the Ulster Banner is closer in relationship to the topic of this article than the tricolour or union flag. Maybe remove the union flag and the tricolour altogether? And/or maybe put the Ulster Banner image into the history section for the 1922-1972 Government of Northern Ireland (please don't read too much into that, yes it is still used by some organisations on occasion, and that should be stated)?

However, whatever approach we taken, can we avoid painting kerbstones? --RA (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that does seem a good idea. I feel we also need to avoid leaving NI's flag area blank around Wikipedia as it looks awful and ruins the format if for example we have a nice row of international flags and suddenly there's one entry without one. While I certainly admit it is not the official flag, maybe we could use it to represent NI on Wikipedia as the De Facto flag and note clearly it as such to avoid misinterpretation. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

At present there is no flag for (the island of) Ireland and no flag for Northern Ireland. This is sad, but true. Some organisations, on certain occasions, use certain flags to represent Ireland or to represent Northern Ireland. For example, the tricolour is used to represent Ireland at International Rules Series and the Ulster Banner is used to represent Northern Ireland at the Commonwealth Games. If so, use that flag to represent that team, etc. at those specific events. Otherwise, use none. (See WP:IRISH FLAGS.) --RA (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose the use of the Ulster Banner for the NI article but have no problem in it's use in sporting events/people where that sport officials uses it, but only when it is used by the sporting authority. Golf, soccer and commonwealth games come to mind. Bjmullan (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, leaving the country aside. We're all in agreement that every sport that NI can compete separately at, will use the UB? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

CofE it would only apply if the official authority for that sport used the UB to represent NI and I'm not sure if that is the case. Bjmullan (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As the introduction makes reference to symbolism and there is a debate above about adding information about other descriptions for Northern Ireland there maybe we should mention the Ulster Banner/union flag there, because this is very odd being the only country without a flag being shown. It would fit in with part of the text that is already there. It mentions "citizenship and identity", and the debate above is about adding details of the name for Northern Ireland, so that just leaves symbolism, highlighting there is no official flag of Northern Ireland since the ulster banner in 1972 but still remains in use and that the union flag is used on official occasions. Seems notable and useful to the reader. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

We certainly should mention the Ulster Banner in all that you brought up, BW. Aside of us adding it in the main box and mentioning it's the de facto flag (like English is the de facto language of the USA) I think that's looking good. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So by the same token does that mean we use the tri-colour to represent NI Gaelic football and Hurling events? --84.51.191.217 (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

GAA is organised on an all-Ireland basis isn't it? There's no NI national GAA team. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If those teams use that flag, yes. --RA (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As CoE said - there is no NI GAA teams - its based on provinces, and they have their own flags. The only team that uses the flag to represent it that i'm aware of is the Ireland GAA team itself.

Maybe remove the union flag and the tricolour altogether? - doesn't sound too bad. The Ulster Banner is unique to Northern Ireland and represents it alone and nothing else. The tricolour is used by some to represent all of Ireland, the Union Flag represents the whole UK - the Ulster Banner represents Northern Ireland and nothing else.

(please don't read too much into that, yes it is still used by some organisations on occasion, and that should be stated) - on occasion? That statement tries to imply it is a hardly used flag and only used rarely. "32 counties" is occasional. How many towns and villages in Northern Ireland that you drive through have an Ulster Banner flying? How many rural and urban football teams, bands (traditional and loyalist), associations (Orange Order, Apprentice Boys, Royal Black Institution, NISC), rugby teams, political parties (PUP amongst other former and present parties whereas the UUP and DUP make sparing use of it), paramilitary groups etc. make use of the Ulster Banner? How many tens of thousands (hundreds of even) of people are involved in those organisations combined? The Ulster Banner hardly qualifies as (to paraphrase) "used by some on occasion".

I think the Ulster Banner should be used to represent Northern Ireland on Wikipedia, in sports or otherwise. I find statements that only if "official" organisations use it then it can be used for that contrasts sharply with the arguements given for the inclusion of the outdated "32 counties" which has no official or legal status in Ireland at all outside of the GAA. Common usage i believe qualifies the Ulster Banner for use if it qualifies "32 counties".

I still find it funny how many tourist information and council libraries in Northern Ireland still sell keyrings and collectable spoons etc. that bear the former Northern Ireland coat of arms which bears the Ulster Banner. Does that grant it some form of officialness?? lol ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 17:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing the UK/ROI flag seems like a good idea from the symbolism section, leaving just the Ulster banner (and possibly the coat of arms) as they are the only specific ones for NI. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wierdly enough according to Coat of arms of Northern Ireland - the NI Coat of Arms which bears the Ulster Banner hasn't been rescinded meaning that it has never been nullified or revoked. We could use it instead to represent everything NI on Wikipedia? Mabuska ^(talk) 17:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm that may be a solution to the problem, although a note would have to be provided with its use. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to use the ulster banner or union flag, otherwise it will confuse people more with the coat of arms no longer in use like the ulster banner which is clearly still used for major sports like football and commonwealth games. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't agree the Flag of Ireland is a symbol that can be found in the many parts of NI the same as the Ulster Banner, the Union Flag could be removed as it is the official flag of NI. Mo ainm~Talk 17:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion is to remove both the Union flag and Flag of the Republic of Ireland, because both represent wider areas. Only the Ulster banner/coat of arms are NI specific. Of course the other flags will still be mentioned in the text, theres just no need for the images to be there. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the Union flag which is the only official flag for the region. There maybe many UB flying in NI just as they are Purple Stars and tricolours but they do not represent the whole of the people of NI. Next you will be saying the because all of the kerb stones are painted red/white/blue we should use that. That certainly seems like the most common vandalism symbol in the province. Bjmullan (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the union flag certainly has the most official status today, however im prepared to see it removed if it means the Irish tricolour can also be removed. That flag has no status in Northern Ireland and never has, unlike the other 3 shown. We should simply show the flag specific to Northern Ireland and the former official coat of arms used. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The flag of Ireland has the exact same status in NI as the Ulster Banner which is it has none. The section is on symbols used in NI and they are both used, the section doesn't pretend that any of the flags have any status but states the fact that they are used. Do you dispute the fact that the Flag of Ireland can be seen flying in NI?Mo ainm~Talk 19:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The section heading clearly states that these are "Symbols" used in NI. It clearly states which are official and which are not. Why are some editors here trying to remove some of these symbols? Smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --HighKing (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It smacks of "I'm going to win a victory for my political viewpoint on Wikipedia, take that other side!!". This is a problem that plagues NI articles. If you suspect, even slightly, that you are making a proposal to "win" some sort of political point rather than adding information, then please don't make that proposal. Fribbler (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not about winning political victory. Im not proposing the Irish flag be removed and not the Union flag as well. At the moment we give equal status to 4 images, which are in no way equ al in relation to Northern Ireland. That is a problem. The section itself is overloaded with images, one of them looks like its part of the section below. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Then it's a formatting issue. Flag-flying in NI is a major thing, and I think it's a topic that should be covered. The point of this aricle is to give people who know nothing about Northern Ireland information about it. Someone who visited from, let's say Germany, after reading this article would be informed about the ubiquitous use of different flags in NI. Why would we remove information that informs the reader? As long as the role of each symbol/flag is explained, there is no "equality of status". Fribbler (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well perhaps it would be better if the flags were grouped together. Union flag-Irish tricolour. And Ulster Banner-Coat of arms clearly separate highlighting the difference in their status in relation to Northern Ireland. one block of 4 flags given equal status to unequal flags is does not seem neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Some comments here are going down the route of kerb-painting and zero-sum games. That wasn't what I intended when I suggested the tricolour and union flag be removed.

@Mabuska - "That statement tries to imply it is a hardly used flag and only used rarely." I wasn't trying to imply anything. --RA (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well i never said they should be removed at first, what i did say was the 4 should not be given equal status, when they clearly do not have equal status. 1 is an official flag (union flag), 1 is a former official flag which remains in use for some sporting events such as football and the commonwealth games (ulster banner), 1 is the former official coat of arms used. The Irish tri colour has absolutely no status in Northern Ireland, it is simply used by a minority. The Union flag and ROI flags which are not Northern Ireland specific should be removed so it focuses on NI flags. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Look guys, we do need to sort this out, I think we do have to be magnanamous here as the UB is the most commonly recognised symbol for NI as this does attest (Thank you for providing it, NC!) the UB is mainly recognised as the flag of Northern Ireland so I think what we should do is either use the UB but make it very clear that it is the de facto flag not the official flag or maybe we could find a way of using the coat of arms (which if what Mabuska says is true and it's never been rescinded) as the representation for it (as well as include it in the main box.) As for the other note I like the idea of BW's plan. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oooppps. All I'm getting now is Cannot play media. Sorry, this media is not available in your territory. But it looks interesting. --HighKing (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are some editors trying to turn the section into "Flag of Northern Ireland". This is about symbols currently used in Northern Ireland. All of the flags depicted, are used, either officially or within sections of the community. The section is actually pretty well written from that point of view. I'm still trying to grasp exactly what the problem is (besides the editors trying to create an "official" flag, or peg one symbol higher in the pecking order than another). BTW, the link in the previous posting doesn't work. --HighKing (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And should it be just about symbols currently used in Northern Ireland? Why should a flag that is simply used by one group of people which has never had any official status be given equal status to an official flag, or former official flag that is presently used to represent Northern Ireland at sports? There is a big difference yet use of images simply gives them equal status. . BritishWatcher (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The tricolour and the UB are both used in Northern Ireland by different communities and often in a sectarian way. Neither can be used to represent Northern Ireland. They are both symbols and in use and can be listed as such. Combined flags don't work, unofficial symbols of one community don't work either. --Snowded ^TALK 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

But the UB is used to represent Northern Ireland at both the commonwealth games and football. 3 of the 4 flags have some official status or had official status. Only one flag there has no status at all and we should not treat all 4 in the same way. Removing the UK/ROI flags would allow the images specific to Northern Ireland to remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with BritishWatcher - it is highly offensive to many in Northern Ireland to be describing their only de facto flag as "sectarian". If people like Snowded actually lived in Northern Ireland (instead of just getting your info off Wikipedia) they might realise that many people just consider themselves part of the "Northern Irish" community and not of overly-simplistic concept of "two communities" that this terrible Wikipedia article tries to reinforce. Trying to claim the "Ulster Banner" to be the flag of "Loyalism" is the same as claiming the Irish Tricolour to be the flag of the PIRA or the Union Flag to be the Flag of the BNP - utter logical fallacy. Jonto (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you dispute the fact that the Flag of Ireland can be seen flying in NI? - no-one is disputing that i think but you'll find many more Ulster Banners flying than tricolours. Not because of demographics but because loyalists like going over the top in plastering places with flags :-P

Though if i'm being honest i'm actually lost as to what we are actually argueing over. I see mention that its on about the flags section - i thought this was about the mini-flag that is used to represent NI in articles? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, Mabuska, I'm not sure what's going on either. The flags "issue" in NI is important and quite fascinating. The existing section does a good job, in my opinion, of summarizing the situation. Have we all been trolled by the OP? Fribbler (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I think we've been trolled. TBH we're all singing - more or less - from the same hymn sheet or close to it. Unless there is a specific proposal/concern, I think we should wrap this section. --RA (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, as I've yet to understand what's being proposed for this article. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You are not being "trolled" - the point is that the "Ulster Banner" has more legitimacy than this article would suggest. The article implies that the Ulster Banner / Union Jack / Irish Tricolour are equal for NI and this is totally not the case at all. The "Ulster Banner" is the ONLY symbol that currently represents NI uniquely - it also unequivocally does have SOME status. There seems to be consensus here to remove both the Union Flag and the Irish Tricolour from this article and I have put a more detailed proposal for this below. Jonto (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I may as well make a proposal out of this. I thought this was about using the Ulster Banner to be used as the mini-flag for Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. I think it already is in football articles, however does it deserve merit for all NI articles? Mabuska ^(talk) 23:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland hasn't had an official flag since 1972. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You are opening Pandora's box! The flag is controversial, if you haven't noticed. If it exists/doesn't exist in articles, then leave it be. No good can come of reopening the debate. Fribbler (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

@Mabuska except in the limited circumstances that the UB is used at present I would be firmly against using this unofficial flag to represent NI. Mo ainm~Talk 08:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. Reminder. See Northern Ireland flags issue. Let's not reinvent the wheel. --Red King (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with not re-inventing the wheel - that's why we should NEITHER the Union Flag nor Irish Tricolour in the Northern Ireland article - these are already discussed in detail in the appropriate flags articles. Jonto (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "official"

Here is a definition of the word "official" from the OED:

adjective

   relating to an authority or public body and its activities and responsibilities
   having the approval or authorization of an authority or public body
   employed by an authority or public body in a position of authority

We could define all of the following as "public bodies":

• Northern Ireland Assembly (doesn't use a flag)
• Some Local Government Bodies (use the "Ulster Banner")
• Sporting Bodies for every sport in which Northern Ireland competes as an entity internationally (use the "Ulster Banner")

The whole "official" vs. "unofficial" debate in relation to the "Ulster Banner" is therefore a red herring. It's officially the flag used to represent Northern Ireland internationally in any sporting events in which Northern Ireland compete. It's still officially used by certain local government authorities in Northern Ireland. The argument that since the NI parliament ceased in the 1970s meant that the flag also disappeared is a nonsense. Scotland and Wales didn't have regional Assemblies/Parliaments in the 1970s either - yet no one would have claimed that their flags are "unofficial". The the UK has no written constitution therefore in British contexts many things are used in a de facto nature. e.g. English is the de facto language of the UK - it's not even the "official" language!!

The "Ulster Banner" is the de facto Northern Ireland flag. (I actually am in favour of a new flag by the way, but until that time comes the "Ulster Banner" is still be the de facto flag). Jonto (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: remove Union Flag and Irish Tricolour from body text

Proposal:

• Leave Info box blank as it is;
• Only NI-specific symbols within the article;
• Remove Union Flag and Irish Tricolour from body section.

Reasoning:

• Discuss only NI-specific symbols - all other symbols are already discussed and displayed in the relevant articles on flags.
• The "Ulster banner" is the only flag that exactly represents Northern Ireland (de facto). It still has some semi-"official" status for international representation. Irish separatists may not like it, but these same people do not like the concept of "Northern Ireland" to exist either.
• The Assembly's non-endorsement of a flag is reflected by a lack of flag in the info box.
• None of the England/Scotland/Wales articles have a Union Flag within them.
• The placement of the Irish Tricolour implies status on par with the Union Flag/"Ulster Banner"/Northern Ireland arms This is completely not the case - all of the latter have official/semi-official/de-facto status that the Irish Tricolour in no way has. In fact St. Patrick's Cross has more status in Northern Ireland than the Irish Tricolour (St. Patrick's Cross and the Union Flag for example are flown from Belfast City Hall on St. Patrick's Day, used on the emblem of the Police Service etc.). The Irish Tricolour is also extremely disingenuously described on a Northern Ireland article as the "Flag of Ireland" - that is completely unacceptable.

Jonto (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This whole article is also WAY too divisive - it focuses far too much on divisions rather than commonalities that are present in Northern Ireland. I think that we also need some non-political imagery like that of the thistle on the Scotland article and daffodil on the Wales article beside the symbols section.

I would suggest a picture of a flax flower beside the symbols section, mentioning in its caption that the flax and shamrock are Northern Ireland's Floral emblems. Jonto (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Great idea and as well as AgadaUrbanit adding the above image I have also added a lovely pic of a shamrock. Bjmullan (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

While I like the idea of the flowers in there. I must request that the flags be included too as it's under the symbols section which covers both. As for the issue of removal. I think that we should have included; the symbol that was never discontinued (the coat of arms), the symbol that was once the official flag and current de facto (the Ulster Banner) and maybe (I'm open on this one) the de jure flag (the Union Flag) and remove the one that never had any offical status (the tricolour). The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess curious reader could click all the mention flags/banners wikilinks, since we still provide those. I hope all the sides could live happily with Flower emblems, let's try to be apolitical. Let me quote: Throughout this paper, the names Ireland, Northern Ireland, Irish, UK, the province of Ulster are sometimes used without clear distinction. The authors are aware of the modern-day political entities, but try to avoid any political discussion of these entities here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I never knew the flax flower was a floral symbol for Northern Ireland but it makes sense. I also agree with Jonto's statement above the proposal on the "Ulster Banner". As i've previously argued it also meets "common usage". Though just because the NI Parliament ceased to exist back in 1972, it only left the Ulster Banner without an official government body using it - it didn't mean the flag was instantly made redundant and unofficial - and just as the flag of Scotland, Wales and England - non had regional assemblies or parliaments and had their own flags. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, then I think someone should put the UB and the coat of arms back in the symbols section as I dont think there was any consensus to remove all the flags and have the flowers replace them. the article would be fine with the Ulster Banner and coat of arms in the symbols with the flowers. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And I don't believe there is the consensus for the addition of the UB either. Bjmullan (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well you seem to have Jonto, myself and Mabuska who are in favour of including the Ulster banner in the text against what I see seems to be AgadaUrbanit and yourself who just want the flowers. That seems fair as the original question was that the Union Flag and the tricolour be removed but the Ulster banner and the (unrevoked) coat of arms remain. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The section is about symbols that are used in NI the Flag of Ireland is one such symbol if the UB is going back in then so is the Flag of Ireland. And the rubbish about it once being official is a red herring it is no longer official and has the exact same status as the Flag of Ireland which is none. Mo ainm~Talk 12:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That could be beside the point as the Ulster Banner was once official and sometimes classed as historical and used by many in the country while the tricolour was never offical. You can't deny though about the coat of arms as that was never revoked and is still technecally offical and should definatly go in at least. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The section is called Symbols used in NI, are you saying the the Flag of Ireland is not a symbol used in NI? Mo ainm~Talk 13:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Irish tricolour (official Flag of the Republic of Ireland) is has never in any way had anything like the status of the Ulster Banner in Northern Ireland. Yes, it is flown by some nationalists, but it is in no way UNIQUE to Northern Ireland. Since there are so many symbols, we should only show symbols that are UNIQUE to Northern Ireland. All other symbols are mentioned and discussed in detail in the linked articles about flags etc. Jonto (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

While I did propose the addition of the flowers, I did NOT propose to remove the "Ulster Banner". The Ulster Banner has just been used to officially represent Northern Ireland at the Commonwealth games. It has also been used officially by the Northern Ireland government in the past.

My proposal was just to show symbols which are UNIQUE to Northern Ireland. That meant to just show the Ulster Banner and the flax flowers beside the symbols section. The Union Flag is NOT unique to Northern Ireland. The Irish Tricolour in NOT unique to Northern Ireland and shamrocks are NOT unique to Northern Ireland (though should also be mentioned in the caption as one of the floral emblems alongside the flax). Jonto (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Making a proposal is one thing. Doing the edit without consensus is quiet different. You have no consensus for this change. Bjmullan (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly. The Ulster Banner, the Union Flag and the tricolour were removed before we even got a consensus. In my opinion we should put them all back until we have consensus. Leaving out one of the major symbols of NI would be damaging to the page if we tried to replace them with flowers which I don't think that there'd be many outside the British Isles who know that the flax and shamrocks are symbols for NI. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with The C of E. Bjmullan, you have tried to revert my edit claiming no consensus. There was more consensus for my edit than there was for the version which you reverted it to! There was NO CONSENSUS to remove the Ulster Banner. The growing consensus was to remove both the Union Flag and the Irish Tricolour.Jonto (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to the inclusion of only the sectarian Ulster Banner, since it is clearly not neutral to do that. Making up your own inclusion criteria does not change the fact that all three flags are used in Northern Ireland, and only including one is hopelessly non-neutral. O Fenian (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The one thing I have is people throwing around the word "sectarian" at something they dislike to further their own sectarian agendas (WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT). I strongly object to the removal of the verifiable flag used as the official symbol of Northern Ireland in the 2010 Commonwealth Games. It has also had official status with the regional government and the caption clearly stated when. The other flags are not symbols that are SPECIFIC to Northern Ireland - there are NO other flags specific to Northern Ireland apart from the Ulster Banner. Irish Republicans/separatists were given there own state (Southern Ireland, now Republic of Ireland) and Irish Unionists were left with Northern Ireland in the 1920s - that was the whole point. To Irish Republicans/separatists like O Fenian here NO symbol that represents Northern Ireland specifically will ever be "neutral" in his opinion - actually the whole concept of "Northern Ireland" itself is not "neutral" to an Irish Republican, because the agenda of such separatists is the destruction of Northern Ireland and any unionist link. Jonto (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot argue points other than by attacking other editors, this is pointless. The section is about symbols used in Northern Ireland, so attempting to subdivide that to come up with an image inclusion criteria that deliberately excludes flags you do not like is point-of-view. O Fenian (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think he made a good point, he said the Ulster Banner is the only flag unique to NI (which it is, official or not) and so should be the only flag in the symbols area. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Jonto, I liked your floral approach generally, I also like UB design. Though we should address issues of symmetry and balance, while assuming other editors good faith. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I do apologise it that seemed harsh. The proposal I made was already an attempt at balance and compromise (e.g. I was not proposing flags in the info box like England, Scotland and Wales) and is very difficult to "assume good faith" when there seem to be those that want it their extreme way or the highway.

The problem of "symmetry and balance" is that due to the nature of the partition of Ireland the southern state, now called Republic of Ireland, is by definition nationalist (became a separate independent state) and Northern Ireland is by definition unionist (remained in the union), therefore, certain overly-sensitive/aggressive people will interpret symbols of such states as belonging to a particular "side" - their problem is actually not really with the symbol but with the state itself. Attempting to censor the symbols of the state in discussion by introducing total and utter "symmetry" into something that is not symmetrical is effectively censorship of the present constitutional reality in order to suit a minority political agenda.

This is equivalent to someone trying to insert the Union Flag into the Republic of Ireland article because the Union Flag contains the St. Patrick's Cross which represents the whole island. Editors there wouldn't accept that - the problem is that most of the moderate editors who are actually from Northern Ireland and understand the complexities are scared away here by the constant bickering from the extremes (mostly not even from NI), and therefore we lose all form of common sense, creating the current pigs-ear mess of a Wikipedia article Jonto (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could use something like this ? ~Asarlaí 00:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine if this was the "British Isles" article, but it is not. This is the "Northern Ireland" article and only one of the flags in that image specifically represents Northern Ireland. Jonto (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant we could make one specific to NI. ~Asarlaí 14:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There is only one Northern Ireland flag so that would be pointless. All the other flags relate to other entities which are not Northern Ireland. Jonto (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

True, if we did that it would only have the Ulster Banner and maybe the unrevoked coat of arms and the flax as they are the only symbols exclusive to NI. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The section is called "symbols used in Northern Ireland" not "symbols exclusive to Northern Ireland". This means that the Ulster Banner, Union Flag and Irish tricolour would have to be included in the montage. ~Asarlaí 17:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The section should be renamed then - this is completely inconsistent with England/Scotland/Wales which have "Naitonal Symbols". I would suggest "Northern Irish Symbols". It's all about creating a summary (Wikipedia:SUMMARIZE), giving precedence in the limited space to those items which are more legitimate (the inclusion of the Irish Tricolour is certainly not legitimate - it use in Northern Ireland is EXTREMELY controversial).

If you go to an article on Northern Ireland you'd expect to see the Northern Irish symbols highlighted here. Similarly, If you go to an article on Germany you expect to see the German Flag, you do not expect to see, for example, a giant European Union Flag plastered in the centre because some euro-supporter put it there (contrast to the Union Jack on this article). If you go to the article on Belgium(a similarly diverse region) you do not expect to go there to see a giant Dutch flag plastered in the centre of the article just because a zealous group of Dutch supporters who want northern Belgium to be part of Dutch territory thought they'd try and push it there (contrast to the use of the Irish tricolour on this Northern Ireland article). Jonto (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus version

If editors want to add the UB back to the article claiming that we had no consensus for its removal the revert back to the earliest version before the flowers were added and also please don't try to invent criteria for admission to the article just to suit a POV. Mo ainm~Talk 10:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine then, but we should get back to the main question which is that should we only include symbols unique to NI in the symbols section, which would include the UB and the unrevoked coat of arms. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No as it is a made up criteria that is POV. Mo ainm~Talk 10:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is titled "Northern Ireland". It isn't titled "Ireland", nor is it titled "United Kingdom", nor "Northern Ireland Flags Issue". It is just a wee bit obvious that the symbols that are shown should be the ones that specifically represent Northern Ireland. Trying to make prominent other wider symbols that are already discussed in their own articles (and even linked to in the body text of this article) is merely a form of censorship (censorship by attempting to dilute the prominence of symbols which actually are specifically Northern Irish). Jonto (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland specific symbols makes more sense as its dealing with symbols that represent NORTHERN IRELAND not IRELAND the island or foreign state. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally liked it without any of the flags but if we are going to include flags then the current version gets it about right. To only have the UB, the symbol of a failed and sectarian government would be total wrong and fail NPOV big time. Bjmullan (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree to just show flags that are representative of the Unionist/Loyalist community is POV. And by trying to add a new criteria for inclusion of flags is doing just that representing one community and not the other. Mo ainm~Talk 15:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Ulster Banner" isn't *only* representative of "Unionists" - you are attempting to over-simplify things into a highly exaggerated bipolar sectarian viewpoint. Many people in Northern Ireland simply see it as the flag of Northern Ireland and nothing more. The more extreme types of Irish nationalists/separatists do not like it because they do not like Northern Ireland full stop. If Irish Nationalists had a separate Northern Ireland flag you could include it, but the fact is that the "Ulster Banner" is the only flag that exactly represents the 6 counties of Northern Ireland Jonto (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree reverting to this version possibly made more sense, and again state that it has to be an all or none approach with the flags. There is no point arguing for different inclusion criteria from what is actually in the article. O Fenian (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Bjmullan's description of the Northern Ireland flag as "the symbol of a failed and sectarian government" shows a very biased, simplistic, and poorly researched one-sided view which doesn't seem to take into account the complete picture of the complexities Ireland shortly after partition. Remember that the Irish Nationalists got their own (often hostile) government in Southern Ireland and the whole point of the Northern Ireland government was to represent the interests of the non-Irish-Nationalist Unionist minority on the island of Ireland that was concentrated in the north-east of the island.

Firstly, it is not simply "the symbol of a government". Earlier this month sportsmen and women from both unionist and nationalist backgrounds competed for Northern Ireland in the Commonwealth games under this flag. It is verifiabily used by several NGOs throughout Northern Ireland. It's centre-piece, for example, is also used by Northern Ireland Fire Service. Many of us in Northern Ireland simply see it as the "flag of our wee country" and nothing else. Maybe the flag should be changed in the future, but until that point comes it is still the flag of our wee country! Wikipedia shouldn't be being used as a propaganda platform to force the flag to be changed.

Secondly, one could also equally have described many of the governments in the Republic of Ireland as "failed and sectarian governments" (a state almost entirely ran by the Roman Catholic church, a state which often did nothing to prevent (and some may say encouraged) many of the cross-border IRA attacks on Northern Ireland originating in the Republic ever since the start of partition in the 1920s, and a state which only dropped its territorial claim to Northern Ireland in 1999). Does this mean that Bjmullan will be requesting that official state symbols of the Republic be obfuscated as well?

Supporting the symbols of the Irish Nationalist state (Republic of Ireland), but requiring that the symbols of the Irish Unionist state (Northern Ireland) to be diluted/obfuscated/censored by *also* making them more Irish Nationalist hardly seems like a fair and NPoV position for Wikipedia to be taking.Jonto (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Without going into terminology wars, naturally I prefer no flags/floral version. All those flags are confusing. I guess it got to be this way while editors tried to balance. Well, the result, while being symmetric, frankly sux ;). Why does it have to be this way?

A gentle floral approach works OK for other 3 countries:

1. Scotland
2. Wales
3. England article adds also Royal Arms of England in addition to their flower.

And to remind everybody, using neither (a) floral nor (b) flags/coats of arms version of this Wiki article symbols section would not change the status of NI country and would not make NI less UK-ish or more I-ish in the real world for sure. And (a) seams to be a UK standard, after all. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I do think you need to have the unique flags to that country in there as when it refers to the Ulster Banner for instance, people may not know what that is so and the fact that it is used as the de facto flag of NI that it should be included in any symbols section. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The C of E, thank you for your comment. I realize that UB is a major issue for both supporting and opposing editors. I personally do not have any sentiments towards this flags. However:

1. It is not an official NI flags, for some time now, whatever angle you look at this. You, for instance, use de-facto lingo and I tend to agree.
2. We should not discriminate NI comparing to other UK countries and should treat it the same. Please see again S, W and E. It works OK there, so why not here?
3. Putting UB image, instead of wikilink (why is not it enough?) opens a door to wonderful NI-unique tradition of kerbstones painting, which according to WP:RS here is still manically maintained. I guess I do not want to see red-white-blue or green-white-orange marking of territories also here. It is not appropriate.

I guess editors should consider those points. Maybe over a pint or two of cold Guinness in chilled out and relaxed fashion ;) Hope it helps, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, some time has passed, Would it be OK, now, to go without flags? We do not want to spark another silly festive war here. And I personally would put only flax flower there, with all my love to beautiful shamrock, generally. How does it sound? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you AgadaUrbanit. Bjmullan (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

While I have no problem with the addition of flowers, I do feel that we do need the flags in there as they are more common symbols used (you don't see Unionists waving flaxes often, for example). I think maybe the best course of action would be have a policy here of Status quo ante bellum but add the flowers too. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The C of E, thank you for your comment. No argument, we should mention the flags, no one suggested removing wiki links. However, user BW was very convincing on the point of importance of cross-UK-countries consistency. I personally disagree with Status quo ante bellum, WP:CCC is more relevant, imho. Hope you see what I mean. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The C of E, I respect your opinion but I do hope that we can convince you that the way forward is to remove all flags (which can be controversial) and go with same format as the other parts of the UK. Please...pretty please :-) Bjmullan (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Very well. But I do think the Ulster Banner needs to be in the page, at least in a historical context as the former flag of the country. So maybe include that and the coat of arms into the history section? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The C of E, I guess inclusion of UB, would lead again to editors arguing that some "balancing" is due and we will go back again to red-white-blue and green-white-orange marking. So we should be really careful about it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I didn't really word that very well, let me try again. What I actually would like is the Ulster Banner not used in the symbols or touted as a symbol but have it included in the history section in a historical context as the only former flag of the country. 19:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Civil rights

I think many people do not understand that the "Troubles" were born out of the civil rights movement of the 1960s and I think that not enough of this important part of NI history is not covered in the history. Perhaps a new section is required? Bjmullan (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats a subjective viewpoint on what the Troubles where born out of. The underlying problems long precede the civil rights movement. Sure was it not Ian Paisley that kicked the whole off taking a tricolour down in the Falls?? ;-)

A mention of the civil rights issue should maybe be put into the article, does it have its own article that can be linked too? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. It could also do with expanding as well. Bjmullan (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be mentioned that today's "Troubles" are nothing to do with civil rights, just flat out terrorism with no main stream support any more. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, although I would reject any suggestion that "The Troubles" exist to this day, if that is what you were implying. ★KEYS767★ ^talk 00:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Downfall of the 1972 NI Government

Little is made of the downfall of this government (pre 1972). The British government had so little faith in it's governance that it passed a law in 1972 to suspend it's powers for good. Perhaps we need to expand this into it's own section?

Why the un-named comment? Was Stormont not prorogued in 1972 and formally scrapped in 1973? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

I changed Monarch to Monarch of the United Kingdom, so nobody would mistake the Queen for Monarch of Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How could anyone do that when the infobox already says Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Stirring the pot again GD?Bjmullan (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Is she not monarch of Northern Ireland? Seeing as the fill title would be something like Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? ;-) Don't know if there was much need for the change. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

She's not Monarch of Northern Ireland, just like Cameron isn't Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. Elizabeth II is Monarch over Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales & England. Thus Monarch of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no need whatsoever for the change as it's clearly stated in both the lead and infobox that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. I really do not believe anyone would honestly think there was a separate monarchy comprising solely Northern Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What of the UK Prime Minister entry? GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I request that Bjmullan remove his ABF comment. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay has posted identical questions on Talk:Scotland, Talk:England, Talk:Wales and Talk:Northern Ireland. As debate is already in progress on Talk:Scotland, I suggest that interested parties comment there. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups Statistic in Sidebar Shows a Poor Understanding of Northern Ireland

The religious groups in Northern Ireland are really ethnic groups. So (in the broadest brush) Irish-Catholics and Protestants are two ethnic groups that have been strangely left out of the statistics. There are also some sub-groups on the protestant side. The term "White" is almost irrelevant in Northern Ireland as there is little Black-White history in the last thousand years and nearly everyone is "White". In fact almost no one would use the term "White" in Northern Ireland to describe most of the people there. However the Irish-Catholic and Protestant(some would call themselves British-protestant) ethnicities are significant and should be described in the side bar and elsewhere in the article. This is not to disparage either group but it's a major fact of life there, and very strange to leave it out.205.169.70.175 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No doubt about that. Settler/British/Protestant/unionist and native/Irish/Catholic/nationalist are definitely two dichotomous ethnic identities. 86.42.16.3 (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That is where you are wrong. Many Protestants and unionists in Northern Ireland descend from Gaelic Irish just as many Catholics and nationalists descend from Old-English, Scot-Gaels and other immigrants over the centuries from Great Britain. Just because both sides by on large ignore this fact and embrace one side of their joint-heritage over another doesn't mean that you can simply state both are simple ethnic groups on those lines. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's true. I read an article how an entire village in Northern Ireland became Protestant by default in the 17th century due to the lack of a Catholic priest in the area. One only has to look at Lenny Murphy, Terence O'Neill and Danny Morrison to see the veracity of Mabuska's statements. And weren't the Picts originally from Ireland and the Gallowglasses Scottish? Then we have the Norman connection such as the de Burghs.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct, and i've read where many people converted simply because they where an isolated minority where they where at and wanted to fit in - Protestant and Catholic. Also ethnic wise add in those that are of Viking origin (for example names such as McIvor, McKeever etc.), and French Huguenot, Palatinate German and many others who have graced our shores. The Irish surname Walsh/Welch actually derives from the Middle-English Walsche and Gaelic Breatnach both meaning Welshman so they are of Welsh origin. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity is cultural, so it doesn't matter if one of an Ulster Protestant's sixteen great-great-great grandparents was an Irish Catholic - he or she is almost certainly an Ulster Protestant in ethnic terms. Mooretwin (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Mooretwin. By the logic of the other posters, nobody is ethnically anything if the qualification for ethnicity is in effect that they emerged from the ground/had no ancestors from another tradition/are pure blooded whatever. They just haven't thought through the subject. 86.42.16.3 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment on the content not the editor please. My statements were based on the way your comment came across - "Settler/British/Protestant/unionist and native/Irish/Catholic/nationalist" - sounded a lot like to me as "All these come from these, and all these come from these and never have they blended" and i responded in kind to refute the suggestion. Jeanne boleyn also took it that way as well going by their response.

On ethnicity itself that statement by the IP is far too simple a way of trying to categorise it. Not all Protestants identify as unionists or British. Not all Catholics identify as nationalists or Irish. Some are the opposite of what you'd assume. Some are none of any. It would be extremely gross and hideously incorrect to assume that statement is true for all Protestants and Catholics. A majority maybe, but not all. It would be far better and safer to use the ethnic groups as defined by the UK government in the 2001 census which is fully sourced and from which all the stats in the article come from. Far safer than a suggestion that would need quite a lot of original research and synthesis which are not allowed on Wikipedia - especially as the 2001 UK census didn't collect information on nationality, and in regards to NI and Scotland didn't give specific white identity (i.e. White British and White Irish), which means it can't be accurately correlated to religion by anyone unless they somehow managed the mammoth task of doing a religion, expanded White ethnic descrption, and nationality census on the entire population of Northern Ireland.

In response to Mooretwin, ethnicity also includes heritage not just culture. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Then again they might for this 2011 census this month, but then again we won't get any good results from it for another 2 or 3 years. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Northern Irish

Further to this ongoing discussion, it should be noted that "Northern Irish" is now recognised by the UK Government as a national identity: Northern Irish given as option for "national identity" question in 2011 UK Census. Mooretwin (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Good. I just hope the Wikipedia community recognises this so we can describe people as Northern Irish instead of Northern Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Or would that be "northern Irish" instead of "Northern Irish"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Capital "N", its not a republican census form lol. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wonder if this was an option on the Irish census form? --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

See question 10 here http://www.census.ie/The-Census-Form/Each-question-in-detail.109.1.aspx --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well I believe they've only just allowed you to list your place of birth as Londonderry if you wish so maybe it's too soon for them? I don't know, I don't fill in Irish census forms. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see where Mooretwin's claim comes from. There is no evidence of the British government recognising anything, only that a civil servant added something to a form. O Fenian (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow, really. MickMacNee (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it must be difficult to argue with facts. How about another fact? The Good Friday Agreement reads "recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.", voted on both in the British parliament and by referendum across Ireland. I do not see anywhere in the news report linked to that says it has been revoked or amended.

Of course those wishing to label people without knowing their preference can always wait 100 years for the census to be released in full, then they will know what any particular person's preference is. O Fenian (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

None of that alters the fact that "Northern Irish" is now recognised as a national identity. (Incidentally, although it is not relevant here, there was no referendum on the GFA in the Republic of Ireland - only on a proposal to change the Southern constitution.) Mooretwin (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The usage of Northern Irish is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 30 March +2011 (UTC)

Who is the Irish nationalist that your spitting your vitriol at Mick? Or is it an undirected rant at the state of Ireland and it's failed politics. Mo ainm~Talk 20:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Calm down Mick before you give yourself a coronary! At least you can now put Londonderry on the Irish Passport! Btw, on question 10 of the census you could easily tick other and write Northern Irish/British or if you really want... Ulster. NorthernCounties (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The "country" controversy

I know this has probably been discussed in the archived threads but since I can't edit them I'm posting my thoughts here. The argument I hear is that Scotland is a country, England is a country, Wales is a country, ergo Northern Ireland is a country. My response to that is as follows: Scotland is popularly referred to as a country even though its boundaries do not coincide with those of an independent sovereign state, and there is nothing controversial about this. England is popularly referred to as a country even though its boundaries do not coincide with those of an independent sovereign state, and there is nothing controversial about this. Wales is popularly referred to as a country even though its boundaries do not coincide with those of an independent sovereign state, and there is nothing controversial about this. Northern Ireland, on the other hand, is referred to as a country, a province, a state, a statelet, and probably a lot of other names, all of which are hugely controversial. Ireland (the entire island) is popularly referred to as a country even though its boundaries do not coincide with those of a sovereign state. This may be controversial for some, but nonetheless there are people who consider the whole island to be a 'country' even if not in the strict political sense of the word, just like Scotland isn't. So if you're one of these people who insists on saying that the island of Ireland is not a country because it isn't a sovereign state, then I'm afraid you'll have to apply the same standard to Northern Ireland and stop referring to that entity as a country too. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh not again! There is an open discussion on it at Talk:United Kingdom but you'd best be quick, it looks like it's closing soon. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Eamonnca1 should post the one thing in one central place rather than reposting the exact same thing in several articles. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. See Talk:United Kingdom. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Continued

To Tharky, Kb & RA. I'd rather have constiuent country in the intro of all 4 articles. But, trust me guys, your method of accomplishing that feat, will likely be un-successful. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see "constituent country" on all 4 articles, but its totally unacceptable just to have it on this one. All are simply called countries of the United Kingdom, in this case the article says one of the four countries of the UK. Seems reasonable and the only reason it says that was a compromise for those who wanted to avoid a separate "country that is part of the United Kingdom" line. No justification for just changing this one article. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I wish I had remembered the 1RR for this article. I'm likely to be blocked soon, for my 3 reverts within 24hrs. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

All in good faith and well meaning. I reverted twice myself. Forgot. --RA (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any argument with respect to the topic of this article as to why one wording would be better than another? We are writing about Northern Ireland here, not anywhere else, and should keep our focus on this article, not our battles elsewhere.

One that I would offer for a change is that reliable sources explicitly state that there is no consensus term as to what Northern Ireland is. In fact, every wording is said to carrying some POV. Of all potential words, I would feel that "country" is the most totemistic. In fact, several reliable sources explicitly refute that Northern Ireland is a country. (Blah blah blah ... we've all been over this before but unfortunately it needs to be restated from time to time so long as the current wording persists.) Therefore, with respect to Northern Ireland, any wording is better than mere "country" in my opinion. --RA (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on RA - who was it that scrolled-up and pretty-much hid from sight the list of examples at Countries of the UK? You know, the one that took people ages to compile? Was it you by any chance, wikilawyering over 'suitability'? You didn't leave much of a link to it originally did you? The UK government and now the 2011 consenus too both explicitly call Northern Ireland a 'country', and last time I looked it was still a British country. Irish nationalists (or even UK ones) do not get a say in this specific matter - certainly not on Wikipedia. Matt Lewis (talk)

No one is denying that the term is used with respect to Northern Ireland. It is one of many terms that are used to describe the place. The issue is not that it the current wording is not supportable by reliable sources but that it lacks NPOV: it doesn't treat all sources fairly or in a balanced manner. It leans on a selected set of sources and requires that we flatly ignore others. That is the exact opposite of NPOV on what is a charged issue.

With regard to the number of sources that support any particular view on a question like this, given time, energy and a desire to "prove" a fact, any editor can find thousands of examples to bolster up one position or another. And that is what makes that kind of source work original research: it is based on the number of sources a determined editor seeks out to "prove" their position, not what a balance of sources say. It is akin to saying that, "80% of sources say X and so X is the most common term", but no sources actually saying that "80% of sources say X". The "fact" is arrived at through (original) research done by an editor. In the mean time, with respect to this question, sources that discuss the question of what Northern Ireland is (a province, a region, a country, a state, etc.) say the question is complex and unanswerable and that many terms are used. They also say that the choice of term can imply a position on the politics of Northern Ireland to one degree or another.

Finally, it is hugely disingenuous to say that the UK government use one term or another. The UK government uses several terms for Northern Ireland (and "country" probably least of all when speaking about Northern Ireland separately from the other constituent parts of the UK). The Northern Ireland Executive uses other terms ("province" or "region", mainly in my experience — just as with the UK government — I don't ever recall an example of the NI executive using "country", though at the same time an a few examples wouldn't surprise me). However, it is that kind of disingenuity that is the hallmark of one side of this debate — or, if not disengenuity, a determinedly (consciously or otherwise) blinkered approach to use, non-use or discussion of these terms.

I'm not arguing that we need to choose "country", "province" or "region" (or any other term) alone. Rather, if we draw our horns in, give the question some imaginative though (and stop worrying about what the consequences will be for England, Scotland and Wales), we can do better than the current than the current wording for Northern Ireland. --RA (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

All sources? That's not for the introduction, though is it. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and simply needs strong usage guidelines, like all other encyclopedias have. And they always involve a principle definition in matters like these: they have to for the sake of uniformity. Same for British Isles, same for here. It is madness otherwise, and all the explanations can come after. If only people would stop stonewalling such guidelines from happening. Respecting sovereignty as a rule is essential as far as I'm concerned - and using 'constituent' should be no obstacle to that. But you know the difference of opinion you have with your nationalistic cousins: they don't like it. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is for the introduction. The introduction should be NPOV too. NPOV refers to the balance given to sources. A principle definition is preferable (though not actually necessary) but we can do better that the one we have now. Admittedly, a balanced one would be difficult to hammer out succinctly.

Some examples without saying one is better than another:

• OED: "a province of the United Kingdom" (Scotland and England described as "countries", Wales as a "principality")
• Webster: "a division of the United Kingdom" (other parts same as with OED)
• dictionary.com: "that part of the United Kingdom occupying the NE part of Ireland" (varied for other parts of UK)

I don't follow your later comments. --RA (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

All sources on this are not for the introduction - don't be so silly. The NI and Wales introductions did used to mention 'province' and 'principality' lower down - but I'll tell you this: some people here are so obsessive about cramming the troubles into the Northern Ireland article it's probably simply been lost. I noticed today that the introduction no longer shows that protestants are a majority in Ireland - and can easily give the impression that the (leading) catholics are. I'm trying to put it back in, but BJmullan is being funny about it. Why don't editors like him help with inserting important new (or lost) text, rather than just deleting it claiming it is "unsourced"! It's being placed in the intro, and the source is in the main text FFS. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate: no terms (whether province, part etc) preclude the term country. They can't, and they don't: and country is used consistently. WP has to choose the best one, and then mention the others somewhere too. Aside from anywhere else, the UK government (and NI is part of the UK in case anyone does forget this) uses the term "country" in the places where it talks to the public (ie the census and its public website): that is good enough for me. NI is a UK country, and the UK are happy to call it a country. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to the sources here. O Fenian (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll deal with them below (where you link to). Matt Lewis (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 UK consensus used 'country' for Northern Ireland

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

I don't have it. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you actually mean census, rather than consensus? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

... and UKCOUNTRIES rather than UKCOUNTIES? Daicaregos (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Assuming that you mean census, that's probably not so remarkable. It is my understanding that "Tick which country you are from: England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland" is one of those contexts where it has always been acceptable to refer to Northern Ireland as a country, simply because it stands in for Ireland after the rest of Ireland left the union. Whereas "Northern Ireland is a country" is not acceptable. To take an unpolitical analogy: "Tick which kind of chair you prefer: stools, office chairs, armchairs, sofas." There is nothing wrong with that, but "A sofa is a chair" is very jarring. Hans Adler 21:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course I meant 'census'. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This site has an "official" reference to NI as a country, though it may be relevant that the ONS is not a UK Government body - it is an independent publicly-funded body that reports to the UK Parliament, not the same thing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it has no such thing. You failed to understand my distinction. It just says the UK consists of four countries, then lists them and quietly includes Northern Ireland. That's like listing chairs and quietly including a sofa. Perfectly normal thing to do. What you won't easily find is a text speaking specifically about Northern Ireland that says specifically that it is a country. One of the four countries of the UK, that's rather easy to find. A country of the UK is slightly harder but should still not be hard at all. But a source calling it a country without somehow making it clear that it means country in the sense that it plays the role of a country in an internal UK context – that will be harder, and most such sources will be of generally poor quality. Hans Adler 22:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I confess that the logic of that defeats me. If a sofa is not a chair, it is equally not a "kind of chair". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

It has nothing to do with "kind of". The problem is that it may be wrong to say "A is an X", but correct to put A on a "list of Xs" so long as there are enough proper Xs on the list and A is sufficiently similar to them. That's because when you make a list of Xs it's natural to use a more inclusive definition, while statements of the form "A is an X" are read to say that A actually has all the important characteristics of an X.

You can observe this phenomenon everywhere in Wikipedia. It's why Offa of Mercia and Egbert of Wessex are on List of English monarchs, even though their articles don't really describe them in this way. And that's in spite of Wikipedia's tendency to be hyperprecise for such things. See List of Presidents of the United States#About the list to see what kinds of people could reasonably have been included in a "list of US presidents" but were left out because they don't fit the strictest criteria and so are not called US presidents in their respective articles. Tomato is on List of culinary vegetables with no comment, but the explicit claim that it is a vegetable is carefully phrased and explained in its own article. Hans Adler 09:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans' should take a look at that list and note how many reference refer to NI as a country to those that state its not a country. Hans' objections to NI's status as a country here is acknowledged, however doesn't overrule the consensus reached that is backed by the vast majority of sources - and many don't put it into the context Hans is saying needs to be provided either. Census form states country, and with or without context, still lists it as a country. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You are misreading and overinterpreting the sources. They support putting Northern Ireland on a list of countries because they do that. They do not support saying that Northern Ireland is a country because they don't do that. Hans Adler 09:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What Hans means is that talking about the four constituent parts of the UK as being "countries" is common place (and relatively uncontroversial). Whereas describing Northern Ireland, specifically, as being one is contentious and highly charged.

If you are looking for a language that is wholly logical, I suggest you quit English and take up C. --RA (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And right here is the problem lies: oblique references to Northern Ireland on a census form are lorded about as divine proof whereas submissions by the UK government the United Nations are push away as inconclusive. Why not when source that directly discuss the question are put turned away from in favour of lists compiled by editors as evidience of their position?

It's a situation that should make anyone who has read WP:NPOV weep, or laugh or both. --RA (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If Her Majesty's Government decides that the 4 parts of the United Kingdom are called countries then that is what they are. Id rather they were all just called "Nations of the United Kingdom" or something even less divisive than that, but if the 4 are called countries then theres no reason not to call it a country on this article in line with the other articles. If Scotland is a country, then so is Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

BW, in your absence you may not have caught up with the fact that the 10 Downing Street website no longer uses the term "countries within a country" or - so far as I can tell - describes NI as a "country". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

To call Northern Ireland a country is "highly charged"? Only to extremists surely! This is Wikipedia for crying out loud. Everyone here knows what sovereignty is - and beyond that it is all semantics. Northern Ireland was not 'borrowed' from Ireland, it remained British.

RA, nobody is “pushing away” alternate uses of the term, but you trying to claim that they somehow exclude the definition of 'country'! They simply don't. You did this over British Isles re the Channel Islands too. Alternative uses do not cancel out principle uses! You can find sources on anything, but it is essential to settle on the most authoritative definition. It is obvious with NI what that definition is, and I'm telling you now: there are young people there who would simply say, just let us be a country and fuck off: to both of you super states. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt, that's an interesting and worthwhile political ambition. However, Wikipedia is no place for you to pursue it.

What is required here is balance and neutrality with respect to sources (and "country" is a part of that mix). The current approach is selective and lacking neutrality (it represents one subset of sources as being definitive at the neglect of others). For example, even if we are to look to the UK government (which I presume you mean when you refer to an "authoritative definition"), we should ask ourselves why we are taking definitions from oblique references on census form and not explicit definitions in submissions by the UK to the United Nations?

It is that selectiveness in our approach to sources — even "authoritative" sources — that is the issue for me. (Aside from which I truly wish you well with your politics.) --RA (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You can put your 'politics' back in your scabbard and undue weight till tomorrow for a reply, I'm off to bed. As I noticed someone opine when I looked here last year sometime - this is an article about the troubles. More than anything else, I find that deeply sad. If you are truly insisting on the terms 'province' and 'principality' (for NI and Wales respectively) based on that UN document, which itself claims it has decided to follow a single source due to no 'constitutional authority' - the OS - a mapping agency(!), then you are simply playing games. But that's what you've always done on WIkipedia imo. THERE SIMPLY CANNOT BE ANY NEED FOR IT OTHER THAN NATIONALISTIC ONES - AND IN YOUR OWN WORDS - WIKIPEDIA IS NO PLACE TO PERSUE THAT. For God's sake man, give it up. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think (hope) that the point is not to push these seldom heard terms into Wikipedia but to actually follow the sources and not push "country" in ways that the sources don't use the term. Some people are inclined to engage in improper synthesis and assume that simply because Northern Ireland is listed as one of four countries it's OK to say vehemently that it is a country. That would be true if there were no contrary evidence and if there were no reason that almost all reliable sources intentionally refrain from doing that. Reliable sources are doing some very subtle things with language when talking about Northern Ireland, and if we don't follow them in this then we will either have to make everything totally explicit and treat everything as contentious (in fact turning this article into one about the conflict around Northern Ireland rather than about Northern Ireland itself), or we will have an article that uses strongly POV language in one direction or the other, conceivably even in both. Hans Adler 00:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I wasn't aware that we have such a phenomenal source that explains the situation. "The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy consisting of four constituent parts" – listed as "2 countries", "1 principality" and "1 province". The point concerning the "province" Northern Ireland being, of course, that it's all a big muddle as in some sense it belongs to the UK and in some sense it belongs to Ireland and sort of represents Ireland in the UK because it has taken its former place. The "4 countries" language must have come up when there were 3 countries and 1 principality. Maybe the language wasn't 100% pedantically correct at the time, but it was good enough. Then one of the countries left and only a fraction of it remained in the union. Almost all the old laws and rules in the UK that talk about Ireland are still in effect and are interpreted sensibly as applying either to the entire Island (e.g. some things about the right to live anywhere in the UK) or just to Northern Ireland (probably most of them), as appropriate/politically desired. By now, "4 countries" is even less precise than it was before, but nobody is bothered by the fact because there is all this re-interpreting going on anyway. So it should really be "2 countries, 1 entity that is kind of like a country, and 1 strange thing that is only part of a country or maybe of two". Or "4 countries, principalities and provinces". But that would never do as a succinct formulaic statement, and so it never got changed. I guess politicians are simply afraid of touching this sentence because once you look too closely at it it becomes so messy and it's not at all clear what to do with it. Hans Adler 00:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Exactly. There was a consensus on the wording based upon the weight of sources available and we have quite a big section dedicated to the issue in the article which more than suffices. Personal agendas aside, can you say that that is not the fairest way of solving a troublesome issue? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The only problems with the above are that, 1) GoodDay needed to break 1RR and has been reported for doing it, and so could get into trouble, and 2) people will assign different weight to different sources in these cases (whether thier decision is guided by emotion or not) - and WP offers no guidance on this regarding national status.

The UN source is weaker than the UK ones in part because it self-admittedly settled on a map-making company for guidance (and naturally doesn't claim the term 'country' is invalid, as do none of the non-polemical sources), but if it didn't have the caveats and was more assertive, there would be real problems here. Many nationalists (for want of a better word) are bound to regard the UN and the EU-especially with higher authority than the offending state (often blindly so, like many people see in some of the arguments for independence it perhaps could be argued). Wikipedia really does need to offer guidance on this.

The pipe-linked 'country that is part of the UK' compromise was a genuine solution I agree, but things never properly settle on WP when they are based on compromise alone. If I remember it there only 10 or so editors involved - though that's not unusual on WP I accept. And it is a long-standing solution, but that in itself means little in some areas, esp when other factors stop people getting round to it (the diagram of the British Isles is a perfect example - which is still the Channel Islands-included version, and not the eminently more sensible duel-definition version.) Fear of punishment, escalation and ultimately wasted time often leads Wikipedia to be a weaker place, and only strong guideline guidance can stop that from happening surely. When things are properly settled, the article itself can move on. The arbcom solution of 1RR is just a plaster on maladjusted bones, and is actually cynical towards editors in my opinion.

In short, adherence to the state-related UK sources on these questions of UK nationality need to be in the UK MOS. I personally think that Wikipedia should have a guideline on national sovereignty in general for 'full-wiki' guidance, but each individual MOS can suffice. I know that it may lead on to other issues, like the Derry or Londonderry title question, and even (perhaps?) on to neutral and guideline-bolstering 'disambiguation pages' for multi-meaning terms like British Isles and Ireland - but be that as it may, should it happen. IMO, stong guidelines will lead to a stronger Wikipedia, and people with nationality concerns can continue to write them into the text, and simply accept that you cannot re-label status on Wikipedia, only explain any issues that may surround it. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you misread the source completely. It's not a document from the UN, it's an official submission by the UK government to the UN. And none of the information in this submission appears to be based "on a map-making company for guidance", whether self-addmittedly or otherwise. The UN asked what the national names authority for the UK is (for geographical names), and the UK answered that there is no such thing and that they are just using Ordnance Survey maps instead. (Ordnance Survey isn't a random "map-making company". According to Wikipedia, "Ordnance Survey, an executive agency and non-ministerial government department of the Government of the United Kingdom, is the national mapping agency for Great Britain".) There is no indication that Ordnance Survey was responsible for any part of the response, although even then it would still be an official response by the UK government because Ordnance Survey is an organ of the UK government.

Almost all serious non-partisan sources choose their language carefully and avoid saying explicitly either that Northern Ireland is a country or that it isn't. "Country" is a concept that just doesn't fit very well in this situation, and there isn't really any point in trying to decide this either way unless you want to make politics through language. Binary thinking of the type "either it is a country or it isn't, and we must take a position" is the problem here. Hans Adler 12:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That source was previously discussed and weighed along with multiple other sources when the previous consensus was reached. There are many cases where sources can support several wordings and in this is one where the community spent a lot of time working through an approach which has stood for several years (like the Derry compromise). No substantive new material or argument is being introduced here. --Snowded ^TALK 14:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans, you say "Almost all serious non-partisan sources choose their language carefully and avoid saying explicitly either that Northern Ireland is a country or that it isn't.". That is a serious exaggeration, and I'm wondering how much knowledge you have on all this. The UK government consistently uses the term "country" for Northern Ireland and Wales, whatever the UN has documented in 42355435, or whatever it's called. The term 'Principality' certainly doesn't preclude the word 'country' (Wales was considered thus before 'annexation'), and neither does 'province', which was just a term they used when the Irish republic became independent. Neither Principality or Province has any solid official definition. The reality for Ireland as that they created two countries out of one country, and NI was (naturally given its proximity) always the most devolved in the union. The UN document is not intended as a 'statement of general use' - that is just your own reading of it. It's just a topographical standardisation document. Do you expect every country in the world to follow them? It clearly doesn't happen, especially with countries. You have to respect the work people have put into this in the past, and read up on all those many sources yourself: they were compiled to find a solution, not to prove a point. You cannot just cherry pick a single source and interpret it according to what you'd like to see.

BTW, I notice that the UN document is linked through Wayback Machine - isn't there a real-time link out there? Matt Lewis (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt, it is certainly not the case that "The UK government consistently uses the term "country" for Northern Ireland". It doesn't - as Hans says, it often finds a form of words that enable it to avoid using the term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This is just wikilawyering. There usage of "country" seems pretty damn consistent to me - most certainly in the context of replying to Hans Adler's hugely exaggerated claim. I'm not denying that the other terms are not used am I? I am saying that THE UK GOVERNMENT CONSISTENTLY USES THE TERM 'COUNTRY' FOR NORTHERN IRELAND. And they do. I didn't say they did it at the exclusion of any other terms, so please don't suggest that I did. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Which is why we added text to Northern Ireland to make the controversies clear. People have put a lot of work in here over the years to create something that is sustainable.--Snowded ^TALK 16:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

[The following is a response to Ghmyrtle in which I agreed with Ghmyrtle. Less than 2 hours later, Matt Lewis changed the indentation level to create the impression that I was instead agreeing with Snowded. [1] User warned. Hans Adler 10:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)]

Yes, I was about to write that. I mean, I am willing to be proved wrong when I am actually wrong, but I have looked for evidence that I am wrong and I haven't found any. I went through the sources on this list which supposedly call Northern Ireland a country – until it really got too boring. Some of them don't even mention Northern Ireland but just say that the UK consists of 4 countries. One is the ONS glossary, which says: "In the context of the UK, each of the 4 main subdivisions (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) is referred to as a country." (My italics.) But the context of an article on Northern Ireland, in an international encyclopedia, is not a UK context. It is in part an international context (where "country" implies sovereignty, which none of the 4 countries currently has, even though I have had nationalists here on Wikipedia try to prove the opposite to me) and in part a Northern Irish context (where one needs to be more pedantic than in the general UK context). One listed Northern Ireland among "the [3] devolved nations" in a UK/Scottish context. So far I haven't seen one that goes into some detail about Northern Ireland and calls it a country in close proximity.

To be clear: I am not arguing for any change in the lead text. The current reading "one of the four countries of the United Kingdom" is acceptable. The other reading "a constituent country of the United Kingdom" is also acceptable. (The argument that the four UK country articles must use exactly the same wording makes no sense, though, since the situation of each of the four countries is unique.) Hans Adler 16:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do find your remark about "too boring" a little off-putting, especially after the time you've spent arguing this - not the mention all the time people put into those lists! Unfortunately, the internet is not the super-sourcable 'bible' of human existence that Wikipedia likes you to believe it is, but the lists were compiled none the less: and can still be added to. As a Brti living in Britain, I'm telling you now - the UK government consistently calls Northern Ireland a "country". So does it's mouthpeices, like the BBC - but perhaps that's an (unecessary) argument too far.

OK. So the UK Gov have use other terms too (province, principality, part etc). As I've demonstrated in a comment above, those other terms do not (and cannot) preclude the term 'country': they are too ill-defined, and barely official at all, and we cannot assume anything in their use.

The most recent source we have is the 2011 census, which was recently posted out to every household in the United Kingdom. Does anyone here really think they simply 'outsourced' it and never seriously checked it over? The UK Government public website is another place where they would want to get it right too, don't you think? They expressly used "country" on their website too. Those are places that can truly be called "the Government", and not various employees using the English language in a way that personally suits them, or contexts where the UK and Ireland are presented as states - so 'country' (in the sovereign sense) is deliberately avoided. Terms like "part of" often seem to be used in those kind of situations I found.

Wales is still referred to as "The Principality" by some older rather-conservative government individuals, while it is simply referred to as "the country" by others. It is just wrong to assume that either of those people would argue that Wales isn't really a proper country. Many people favour using the term "nation" to describe us all (including the UK) - which tells us nothing other than they favour the word "nation" does it? It is actually Original Research (WP:NOR) to assume that other terms are used to deliberately avoid the use of "country". Matt Lewis (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the use of other terms can preclude the use of country. A strong term should only be used if it is almost universally accepted. A less strong term has greater acceptance, 'part of' or component is perfectly accurate. You can say that these terms have no meaning, but self governing component seems fine to me and the question of whether that component is a province or a country can be dealt with in the text. I don't think the census form is of any importance, terms used there are designed to fit on a form, not create definitions. Ardmacha (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Census form is just one of a number of sources and the idea that its "just a form" is a rather dubious approach. --Snowded ^TALK 21:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't merely 'think' that "part" precludes "country" - it's not about opinion here - it's about logic. Work it out - terms like that do not preclude anything - FULL STOP. I've given examples above, but as usual they are wasted on people who think everything is about opinion. You have an interesting first edit btw. Care to answer the question Snowded asked you about IPs and the like? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

One of a number of number of sources, sure. But, what's incredible is that it would be given more weight on the question of what to call a constituent part of the UK than the UK's submission to the UN body on geographic names that explicitly defines the terminology to be used for the UK's constituent parts. It's not "just a form". It's an example of what makes this debate so absurd. --RA (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The only way you could even link to that form was via the 'WayBack Machine' - a website that stores various pages that can no longer be seen! Don't you think that is a bit absurd, given your arguments of 'weight'? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:DEADREF on Wikipedia:Citing sources. --RA (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick search on Google would have shown you that the document is no longer available on the web - which is kind of my point. That's a bit of a misuse of the Wayback Machine imo, esp given the context here. I can't find it on the UN website either, though seem to be re-assessing this whole area at this jucture. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This has all been gone over before and (no more than last time) I see no progress or willingness to enter a genuine discussion — just a rehash of the same disproven arguments ("It what the UK government uses.") or the usual stonewalling ("This has been discussed before."/"It's consensus.").

@Ghmyrtle, thanks for your honesty. The disingenuity — and actually explicit cherry picking of sources — shown by some editors with respect to the vocabulary used by the UK government is one of the most galling aspects of this recurring issue for me. I'm grateful to at last hear someone who supports the current wording contribute honestly on this question.

@Matt, I don't even want to begin commenting on your last post (except to suggest a Google search for site:gov.uk "Northern Ireland" province). However, with regard to your last point that, "It is actually Original Research (WP:NOR) to assume that other terms are used to deliberately avoid the use of "country", here are some example reliable sources:

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

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

Anyway, time to step away and stop flogging this horse for now. --RA (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And that is in no way actually explicit cherry picking of sources, of course. Also, please explain what is meant by "for now" (which is explicitly not Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass). Daicaregos (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Relpy to @Matt: Excuse me, I said "It is actually Original Research (WP:OR) to assume that other terms are used to deliberately avoid the use of 'country'" - so why on earth are you throwing me a quote from a 1979 polemic on NI identity? My meaning was obvious if you bothered to read my whole comment, and read the example I gave that showed how "part" does not have to preclude a definition of "country". I don't think you usually bother to do that do you? (though I suppose in the scale of things you don't really need to).

And why are so many of your blockquotes polemics? As I've told you scores of times in the past now, they are just not as impressive as you think they are. You keep quoting this one (D. Murphy, 1979, A Place Apart, Penguin Books) and as much as anything, it's from 1979. The other is a booklet from Lampeter. Neither bear any relation whatsoever to the point I made - that you cannot just make assumptions. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that if a quote from 1979 is to be diminished in importance, some significant change since then would need to be identified. There were substantial changes to arrangements for NI in the meantime, despite great deliberation on what should be said in documents such as the Good Friday agreement, none of these identified NI as a country. But then everyone knows that. The reality is that while NI is often grouped with the other countries of the UK, it itself is rarely seen as country, for instance in this UK government embassy website states that "The Northern Ireland Courts Service is responsible for courts in the province". But then everyone knows that too. Ardmacha (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"The reality is that while NI is often grouped with the other countries of the UK, it itself is rarely seen as country" - totally original research not backed up by the amount of sources compiled here. We have far more sources that state it as a country compared to those that don't or those that call it something else. We have some government departments calling it a country with others calling it something else - quoting one or several specific government sources for a term is pointless as others will and have contradicted it. Thats why we all went for the term with the vast amount of sources backing it which is the fairest way of doing it in my opinion- country.

Daicaregos, RA says "for now" because this is an issue that according to RA himself if i remember correctly, it gets him riled up, as he can't accept Northern Ireland being called a country. So regardless of consensus or others opinions they will continue to voice dissent to it when the discussion arises. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska ^(talk) 10:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"We have far more sources that state it as a country compared to those that don't or those that call it something else." Answered before: "You are misreading and overinterpreting the sources. They support putting Northern Ireland on a list of countries because they do that. They do not support saying that Northern Ireland is a country because they don't do that. Hans Adler 09:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)"

Reading sources correctly and in context is not, and has never been original research. And simply repeating false claims about sources after they have been corrected is disruptive. Hans Adler 14:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The irony of the comment above is that it's such a mesh of someone's own personal opinion, that someone could - by the same token - easily call it 'disruptive' itself! It's also 'reversal' in terms of the previous claim (and simple fact) that you cannot just assume terms like "part" etc preclude (ie disallow) a separate definition of "country". Matt Lewis (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me Hans, but we had a long drawn out mediated process on the issue; forgive me but I take that more seriously that your assertion (and that is all it is) that people are misreading or over interpreting material if they have temerity to disagree with you. --Snowded ^TALK 16:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A "long drawn out mediated process" is no excuse for misrepresenting sources. The sources at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs that supposedly say "Northern Ireland is a country" do no such thing. They say that the United Kingdom consists of four countries, then list the four countries, and Northern Ireland appears among them. I have explained above why that makes a difference. If Northern Ireland were actually a country, or were actually routinely called a country, then you would have no trouble providing a big heap of sources that say explicitly something like "Northern Ireland is a country". (In fact there are a number of sources that get close. They say it is "a beautiful country" in the same way one would say that Yorkshire is a beautiful country. But surely that's also not enough to state in the lead of an article that it is a country. And these sources tend to be not interested in politics or fine points of geography at all.) You can't find such sources of sufficient quality, and so you just claim that the fact nobody actually calls Northern Ireland a country in public writing is completely meaningless and it appearing on a list of four countries is sufficient proof that there is no problem.

This is a perfectly standard case of proper evaluation of sources. Once you see A on a list of Xs, you are justified to assume that A is an X – unless and until someone points out that there is so much material out there that some of it would have to say "A is an X" explicitly, but none does. Add to this a few sources that directly contradict the claim that A is an X, and it is absolutely clear that we can't state in the voice of the encyclopedia that A is an X. What we can still do is put A on a list of Xs – which is precisely what all those sources out there do. Hans Adler 17:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you are cherry picking. Basically the mediated process listed virtually everything, then it was gone through to evaluate and agree a position. Subsequently the controversy over the use in Northern Ireland was raised, and an agreement made to make that controversy clear while keeping the common phrase for all four country articles, and thus end years of edit warring. I would also note that the use by the British Government (the census being the most recent) is a comparatively modern phenomena compared with the use for England, Scotland and Wales. In part this follows the changes in the constitutional claim of Ireland (the country) --Snowded ^TALK 18:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And that's only the Government's use. Wales has called itself a 'country' in Welsh since it actually needed to self-define itself (ie just like many of the world's countries) - at some point after it defined its borders I imagine. To the people on the other side of (what became) the border with England, what else could the 'others' of Welsh-speaking Wales have been I wonder? Aside from the circular and decidedly-weak wikilawyering, we are always left with the actual definition of 'country' - which is ultimately defined per level of use, not by sovereignty or by alternative terms. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What is infuriating about your above comment by Hans - and I personally now consider it trolling sadly, whether you can see it or not - is that it ultimately just makes all the debate here unreadable. And in 'x' amount of time it starts all over again, as RA basically acknowledged above in his comment about leaving it a while. What beats me is that you are a 'Member of the Logic Task Force'! Your logic here has most the faults it could have imo. Comment like "the fact nobody actually calls Northern Ireland a country in public writing" really is a trolling comment, you know. You have a responsibility to do better than that. I can see you have interest in Irish nationality (re British Isles and Sarah? Correct me if I'm wrong) - if you want to be as logical as you can, I would suggest that you take out what you may want to see out of the 'equation'. And read other's comments too. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in Irish nationality whatsoever. I got involved in this topic when there was a huge, widely advertised, RfC about the title of the RoI article. I had to invest a lot of research to understand some of the things that would have been obvious to someone from Britain or Ireland. (I could not, and still cannot, really see the point of not calling it just RoI, by the way.) The closest I have come to sympathising with Irish interests was living in England for a total of three years and liking some kinds of English cider (but not any of the Irish cider I tried). It is true that I am more impatient with UK nationalists or UK separatists than with Irish nationalists, but that's simply because for numerical reasons they tend to be on the losing side even when they have a valid point.

I will not comment on the other personal comments, as they are simply too silly. I note that you still haven't provided a handful of strong sources that call Northern Ireland a country other than in a list context, which is all it would take to attack my line of argument properly. Instead you are resorting to desperate rhetorics. Hans Adler 20:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Desperate measures! After all of those links! I've actually decided to get on Google and add to them, as it has been a couple of years now. To be honest Hal, you seem to have fallen for Sarah's naive idea that the Irish on Wikpipedia are always out-voted by some kind of "British POV". As much as I grew to actually like Sarah, it was always paranoid nonsense from her (though I could never convince her it was even unfair), and she forever crossed the line with her hugely-damning "British POV" label - which she gave people simply because they were British, and had a real habit of equating with Nazism too (as if it wasn't daft enough). It's what the 'racism' block was all about - though that perhaps wasn't the best word of the admin to use. So don't fall for Sarah's nonsense there, whatever you do - you will be tarring yourself with her warped logic. Be careful with this: Being British does not make you biased againt the Irish, let alone anything else. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

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

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

Firstly, Hans Adler had not made several well-argued points. That's just too easy for you to say. It's not a case of me lacking AGF - he just hasn't made well-argued points here. Secondly, the results I get are:

• Northern Ireland is a country site:gov.uk 1 result
• Scotland is a country site:gov.uk 30 results
• Wales is a country site:gov.uk 14 results
• England is a country site:gov.uk 4 results

It looks like you forgot the "is a country" when querying Scotland and Wales. Try being more careful. Given the size of each country, these results are broadly in line with each other (except that you would expect England to perhaps have more like 40, not 4). But then, it's not such a clever exercise really, because "is a country..." is not a phrase you'd have a right to actuall expect someone to use in most circumstances. And NI has always been more devolved too, so would probably have less immediate comparisons to the other UK countries (should they themselves be of quantity in this form), which are always dealt with on the British mainland of course. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case the only hit for "Northern Ireland is a country" on gov.uk is the following: "[...] There are some very major and affluent countries connecting onto Jutland, which are looking for high-quality merchandise. Northern Ireland is a country on the periphery, and there are two stretches of water to cross before reaching Europe. There are difficulties. [...]" This was said by on Mr D. Lamont of the Northern Ireland Textiles and Clothing Training Council as a witness to the Committee for Employment and Learning of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [2] But this kind of search is not particularly helpful, as people don't usually have reason to say "the United Kingdom is a country" or "France is a country", either. Hans Adler 10:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Using my new Credo account

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

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

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

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

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

I am not going to do the same with the other three constituent countries as the first hits tend to be much less relevant. However, I just looked at the first ten hits for Scotland and found the following:

• Many of the most relevant sources do not call Scotland a country at all, let alone a "nation", which is really a body of people.
• None of the sources I have seen define Scotland as a "country", although some define it as a "constituent country" of the UK and some refer to it as a country casually, after having defined it as a "constituent part" of the UK.

This suggests to me that the "country" meme is also being pushed more than it's worth for the other 3 constituent countries, and that the reason it is being pushed so vehemently here is really to protect reality from molesting the other articles. Hans Adler 21:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be the case. The frequent argument is that all four articles need to be "consistent" (or similar), which totally ignores that sources treat Northern Ireland differently from the other three. Any attempt to change this article to be neutral is stymied by a "no consensus to change it" attitude, which ignores that consensus cannot override the neutral point-of-view policy. O Fenian (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The 'cross-UK consistency' argument is basically about whether to append "constituent" to them all, or use another form of "country" (like 'that is part of' linking to Countries of the UK). If you want to push for using "constituent" on all of them (or even just here) - and look - I would honestly go for either: they both mean 'country' as far as I'm concerned - then do it in a sensible and appropriate way - at a RfC (plus vote). The quality of discussion here is unacceptably poor, and it simply discourages sensible adults from coming here. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

England, Scotland and Wales are just as much countries as Northern Ireland is. Either they are all countries or none of them are. Quite frankly id prefer none of them, the only real country by most peoples definition and understanding is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But if we have to call England, Scotland and Wales countries then Northern Ireland has to be branded in the same way no matter how inappropriate some may find it. People should remember the current setup is far far more down to Welsh and Scottish nationalists getting their own way on these things than some form of British unionist/nationalist plot to annoy Irish Republicans who dont like the idea of Northern Ireland being described as a country. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I always remember your first edits when I see your name pop up. What was your preceding account again? You never said. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with the neutral point-of-view policy, and please stop using talk pages as some sort of blog for your own opinions. Sources make it quite clear that Northern Ireland is not a country, you do not get to simply exclude them because you do not like what they say. O Fenian (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No source (other than the polemical texts) "makes it quite clear" that NI is not a country - not one of them. You are simply absusing logic to say as much. No other term that has been used precludes the definition "country", or indeed cancels-out all the existing uses of "country". Matt Lewis (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I really have to post these every time we have this discussion for people in total denial?

1. "One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." - S. Dunn and H. Dawson, 2000, An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Edwin Mellen Press: Lampeter
2. "Next - what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? 'Province' won't do since one-third of the province is on the wrong side of the border. 'State' implies more self-determination than Northern Ireland has ever had and 'country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd. 'Colony' has overtones that would be resented by both communities and 'statelet' sounds too patronizing, though outsiders might consider it more precise than anything else; so one is left with the unsatisfactory word 'region'." - D. Murphy, 1979, A Place Apart, Penguin Books: London
3. "Although a seat of government, strictly speaking Belfast is not a 'capital' since Northern Ireland is not a 'country', at least not in the same sense that England, Scotland and Wales are 'countries'." - J Morrill, 2004, The promotion of knowledge: lectures to mark the Centenary of the British Academy 1992-2002, Oxford University Press: Oxford
4. "Not a country in itself, Northern Ireland consists of six of the thirty-two original counties of Ireland, all part of the section of that island historically known as Ulster." - J V Til, 2008, Breaching Derry's walls: the quest for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, University Press of America
5. "Northern Ireland is not a country in itself, but a small fragment torn from the living body of Ireland where now the last act of its long struggle for independence is being played out." - W V Shannon, Northern Ireland and America's Responsibility in K M. Cahill (ed), 1984, The American Irish revival: a decade of the Recorder, 1974-1983, Associated Faculty Press
6. "Northern Ireland (though of course not a country) was the only other place where terrorism can be said to have achieved a comparable social impact." - M Crenshaw, 1985, An Organizational Approach to the Analysis of Political Terrorism in Orbis, 29 (3)
7. "The study compare attitudes in Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, the UK, Holland, Ireland, Italy and West Germany. It also includes Northern Ireland, which of course is not a country." - P Kurzer, 2001, Markets and moral regulation: cultural change in the European Union, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
8. "As I see it, I'm an Irish Unionist. I'm Irish, that's my race if you like. My identify is British, because that it the way I have been brought up, and I identify with Britain and there are historical bonds, psychological bonds, emotional bonds, all the rest of it you know. ... Bit to talk of independence in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is not a country, Northern Ireland is a province of Ireland and it is a province in the UK and I think that the notion of a national identity or group identity or racial identity or cultural identity here is a nonsense." - Michael McGimpsey quoted in F. Cochrane, 2001, Unionist politics and the politics of Unionism since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Cork University Press: Cork
9. "Moreover, Northern Ireland is a province, not a country. Even before direct rule, many of the decisions affecting the economy, labour law, and wage bargaining were in reality taken in London, thereby diminishing the importance of local control." A Aughey, 1996, Duncan Morrow, Northern Ireland Politics, Longmon: London

Why do you wish to exclude those? O Fenian (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No-one is 'excluding' them are they? They are polemical texts (not examples of use), and have been weighted in. But clearly, they are not suffient to replace the actual UK Government uses of "country", especially the public uses, like on their public website, and in the 2011 UK census. The sources you give however can always be used elsewhere in the article. They are clearly more suited to a 'naming dispute' than merely showing actual uses of 'province' etc: no text making polemical claims can outweigh multimple strong examples of serious use. Why don't you get them in somewhere, anyway? Or can't you fit them in with all the troubles stuff. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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

A scientist wishing to disprove a hypothesis may seek evidence to the contrary, and this should not be unwelcome to anyone interested in the truth. Nor does the production of evidence imply that those arguing the contrary is a fool. There is no reason to suppose that the UK is composed of equal parts, there is no law or constitution suggesting this. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have different histories and different modern political structures. None of them may be countries, some of them may be countries, or all of them may be. But they is no reason to suppose that they stand and fall together and it would be misleading for Wikipedia to imply a measure of symmetry that does not exist in reality. This is the Northern Ireland talk page, and it is NI that we should be concerned with. Ardmacha (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

In the context of all the above, that was an absolute nothing statement. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ardmacha is trying to latch onto O Fenians arguement on the four parts of the UK not being equal. This has nothing to do with the issue and is an attempt to steer it down an avenue that'll back up the anti-country position better. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

They are not equal, according to reliable sources. Why do you wish to exclude those sources? O Fenian (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Those Reliable sources (ie the polemics that are dime-a-dozen in IRE/UK related issues) do not represent any kind of WP-recognisable 'truth'. WP is an encyclopedia that needs at least some term-standardisation based on balance and weight, and if those other terms have gone missing in the article, get your pen out and add them back in. There is no reason to remove the term "country" too. And why not create a 'naming dispute' article while you at it if this means so much to you? Wikipedia has plenty of them. Matt Lewis (talk)

If you do not even understand the meaning of "name", I share Hans' opinion. O Fenian (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing removing the word country. Some of us are proposing amending the elevation of country in the lead above other more acceptable descriptions. BritishWatcher introduced the concept that if England, Scotland and Wales are countries then Northern Ireland has to be branded in the same way. It is not a question of whether someone finds this appropriate, the question is whether it is an accurate description of the situation. There is no symmetry of terminology in law or usage and Wikipedia should reflect this. Ardmacha (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is introducing any new concept, believe me. Do you really want the Northern Ireland article - troubles-saturated as it is - to be introduced by "Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom that is situated in the NE of the island of Ireland that has no official title, although 'country', 'constituent country', 'province' and 'part' have all been officially used."? It would last about 30 seconds I would say. If the UK Gov publicly uses country, then why not use it here and just mention the others somewhere below? Is this because none of you people can write? Wikipedia needs to build-in sovereignty into its guidelines anyway. These articles will just remain mayhem until they do. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Just making the point (again) that the ONS which runs the Census is not in any sense "the British Government" - it is a publicly-funded organisation that advises Parliament. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"Not in any sense the British Government"...."advises Parliament"! What on earth do you think the Government actually consists of? Sorry, I have to say my mind absolutely boggles at what you just wrote (even repeated). How do you think people like Major, Cameron etc got into their jobs? MP's vote in commons and return home to their consituencies - they don't write things like this, advisors and think tanks etc do it. The Government (usually in the shape of the office of the cabinet member in charge - which is full of advisors) watches over them, then ultimately signs them. They are always written by professionals. How can the way the Government runs be "in no sense" the Governemnt? Matt Lewis (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt, please there is no need for that language. Ghmyrtle, the ONS is an agency of Parliament and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is (to quote its own web site) a non-ministerial department which reports directly to parliament. --Snowded ^TALK 09:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. So, it's not a "Government source". Matt, there is a big difference between "the Government" and Parliament. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well last I heard Parliament did have some role in Government --Snowded ^TALK 10:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, but the point is that it's inaccurate to refer to the ONS (or a Census form) as a "Government source", when it isn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

While i don't agree with everything Matt says above, the census is very much a part of Government. The fact that it has now started to use country is significant. Whether it is a Government Form or not is subject to debate, the fact that it originates from Government is not. --Snowded ^TALK 10:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't originate from Government, it emerges from the ONS which is not part of Government - it is an independent publicly-funded body. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I repeat the ONS "a non-ministerial department which reports directly to Parliament". It does not call it self an agency --Snowded ^TALK 10:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is an "official" source, it is a "Parliamentary" source, but it is not a "Government" source. So, it is incorrect to assume that, because it has issued information referring to NI (or anywhere) as a "country", that is necessarily the position of the UK Government. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the Executive with Government and that is an interesting debate maybe for another occasion. For the purpose of this discussion Parliamentary Source is fine in terms of authority.--Snowded ^TALK 11:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this discussion is that the absence of something is difficult to weigh. If I call a spade a spade, but everyone else deliberately avoids calling a spade a spade, then you can argue that a spade should be called a spade as there is no evidence of it being called anything else. Important legislation and political documents relating to NI quite deliberately avoid calling it anything and I do not believe that the NI government would issue an authoritative document stating that NI is a country. The UK government is fully in agreement with the NI government and generally avoids calling Northern Ireland anything. But less authoritative sources may well imply that NI is a country when grouped with ES&W. Because these less important sources actually declare NI to be something, editors here are suggesting that they trump other sources which do not actually declare NI to be anything. This is quite wrong in my opinion, a place that is not clearly anything may be untidy to describe in an encyclopedia, but it is not the place of Wikipedia to give NI a definite identity which governments have deliberately not given it. NI has emerged from a profound process of building of political structures, where great care has been given to how things are organised, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to ignore or diminish the importance of this in favour of convenient standardisation which simplifies something that is not simple. Ardmacha (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Its your view to call UK Government sources "less important". Yes its complex, yes we need to recognise that, but we need to understand the diversity of language which include "country" and increasing levels of devolved power. I wouldn't call that "convenient standardization" but rather a recognition of change. I've suggested one way forward and we can also use footnotes (see previous discussions)--Snowded ^TALK 09:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I support Snowded's suggestions. The discussion on this page cannot be permitted to last as long as "The Troubles".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages include states, provinces etc. that are defined by law and constitutions internationally. The NI page should not give a definition based on a census form and elevate this to similar authority to other Wikipedia pages based on laws. As for change, if NI was not a country but became one recently I would be interested in the decision that determined that and would expect that decision to be reflected in parliamentary debate or legislation. Ardmacha (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that is a whole new issue and really misses the point of all the various discussions over what is or is not a country. That is not determined solely by legislation. Neither by the way is anyone advocating a definition based on a census form, that is one supporting citation.--Snowded ^TALK 09:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

ie the census is only the latest source. I'm going to try and update the list later today, I's been a couple of years now. We'll see what else is out there. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Any analysis of sources which seems to support the idea that 'NI is a country' is a wholly fringe/minority POV, that also comes to the same conclusion for Scotland, is I would have thought, already completely debunked, without need for further debate rehasing the same old same old. Anyone who thinks that 'Scotland is a country' isn't the majority opinion in all sources, is dreaming. And as we all know, the idea that 'country=sovereign state' is not remotely accurate, not in the world context, and most certainly not when used in the UK context. And on the issue of same old same old, why we keep having to be subjected to O Fenian's tendentious copying and pasting of sources on this talk page that he never even researched in the first place, is beyond me. These came from RA, and he knows nothing about them beyond what he copy-pastas here repeatedly. His knowlwedge of the proper use and weighting of sources to divine the NPOV should be seen in light of his attempts to paint the contents of both the British and Irish censuses that go against his personal political views as the mere scribblings of single civil servants. This, in a terminological field he is asserting using these same sources, is a hotbed of disputed nuance where it pays people to double and triple check such things for 'accuracy'. Go figure. MickMacNee (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The question of whether Scotland is a country is not the issue here, but if it were then Scottish official documents exist which have the phrase Scotland is a country in the United Kingdom (UK), providing Wikipedia with justification for using the same terminology. NI is indeed no longer wholly run from Westminster and has its own assembly and institutions, and due weight must be given local forms of description, which do not include country in official documents. Ardmacha (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Pelé is the world's greatest footballer

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

What absolute nonsense is that? Such an opinion (whether a label in itself or not) is does not become a label for something else, like a country! And by the way, Q) who did Pele think was the greatest footballer of all time? A) Northern Ireland was for years the centre of the bloody... Matt Lewis (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course it does. You have been provided with many sources that state Northern Ireland is not a country. So why does this article ignore those and state as fact that Northern Ireland is a country? O Fenian (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That's enough, O Fenian. Not one non-polemical source has claimed that NI is not a country: they cannot and they do not. Your staccato repetitions won't look good lined up together. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Your so-called arguments are becoming more ludicrous with each posting. Feel free to go and ask if academic works published by university presses are reliable sources, you will get laughed at. O Fenian (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Look you turnip, a polemical text is not a term in use: I am not saying (and obviously never have said) that they are not 'reliable sources' - I am trying to get you to understand things like balance and weight, and how encyclopedias sometimes need to choose a principle definition (chosen on balance and weight), and that it is obviously necessary to deal with the other definitions too. The way you deal with Wikipedia is like a caveman dealing with rocks. And you are using this method of posting little lines everywhere to avoid my answers and to repeat yourself. I am then forced to repeat myself, to stop you from spinning off. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool it please, late night editing on British and Irish issues is always hazardous to WP:AGF! Iits not the best of analogies but lets restate it a bit. If the historically Pelé had been regarded as the worlds greatest footballer, but more recently the International Football authorities had started to say it as Maradona, but the Pelé name was still around then that would be closer. --Snowded ^TALK 05:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right of course, frustration set in and I should have put my night cap on. That said, I thought my George Best point was quite apt - and there is a huge lack of irony and thought in this topic. How can you talk about Pele in a Northern Ireland article and not even think of Best? I think that's what got me there. I personally wouldn't even bother trying to force sense into such an unsuitable and over-basic analogy, but yes - it is simply logical that the actual usage of the term "country" naturally became increasingly used over time since the creation of Northern Ireland, and has no-doubt picked-up quite a lot over the last 10 years (and they are over 10 years now, though still not fully behind the tragedies alas).

It's worth watching what that Geographical commission do at the UN: as I said, they seem to have removed that document which RA 'wayback machined', and are assessing the area as we speak. Of course they may not touch the UK, but we need to keep an eye on it all the same. It might not be a bad time to get in touch with them for clarification - esp over principality, the other decidedly non-technical term which I hear used even less than province now. I hadn't realised they both vanished from the articles in terms of alternative title use though. I don't know why people just don't put them back in somewhere, instead of fighting for the premium line all the time. It's that endless battle for space where is where it gets so silly for me. Wikipedia in a sense has infinite space (though is admittedly is full of all kinds of all kind of troublesome articles as a consequence). I don't think it's clever to entirely remove such information from the main articles though, and I think that's clearly happened at some point (despite that new defining statement from the Welsh Assembly). Matt Lewis (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If we're following the model of how we do NPOV as it's applied to the British Isles dispute, I'd say the solution here is to present viewpoints favourable to Maradonna/Messi in the Maradonna/Messi articles, and not mention Pele at all, and we'll allow the Pele viewpoint to be present in the Pele article, as long as its suitably 'balanced' with equal weight with the Maradonna/Messi viewpoint. And in all other articles, rather than simply leave in peace the many thousands of editors who understandably introduce the Pele viewpoint in their writing about football as the almost universally accepted situation in the footballing world (especially given the true balance of sources over the issue, and the context of how the contrary Maradonna/Messi views are often presented) we as self appointed football experts shall invent our own rules and contexts about the precise situations where Pele may or may not be described as such. And of course, we shall leave the systematic 'correction' of these 'mistaken' pro-Pele edits all over the pedia to the one or two editors who are totally committed to neutrality, but by complete coincidence, also happen to really like Maradonna/Messi as footballers. Or, if this was an actual real example, we could just ask O Fenian who he copied all his football sources from in the first place, and talk to that person instead. MickMacNee (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Footnote proposal

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

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

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

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

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

I'm happy with that --Snowded ^TALK 12:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

We already have a big section in the article that details the issue, but if you want to stick a footnote in then i'll back it. However instead of adding in tautology we could mask a wikilink to that section to appear as a footnote as such: ^{[note 1]}. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't do that. There is already such a wikilink with full contextual information further on in the lede even. MickMacNee (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Footnotes are not for balancing POV, but for explaining minor things not needed to be explained in main text. Whatever happened on the UK article to come up with such a solution (and I can guess) is irrelevant - we do not identify good practice using other crap examples. Your sources are in the article already, still largely in the state in which you unilaterally inserted the whole section way back when, and still presenting various positions to a lesser or greater extent of truthiness. A proper incorporation of them will have to wait until such time as anyone bothers to commit themselves to giving this article a proper, neutral peer review for true and balanced treatment of all available sources, with the goal of ever calling this a quality body of work (fat chance). The current opening line is in no way innappropriate or pushing a minority viewpoint, and it is as ever not meant to embody the whole topic, but merely outline what someone is about to read about. Anyone here who want's to claim that NI doesn't have many of the traits of a 'country' (not state), and is not considured as one of four in the UK context, sufficient to support such an opener, is clearly the one pushing a minority POV. The foreign territorial claims that used to exist contradicting these general descriptions no longer exist, and the histroical context is already more than catered for in the article without misleading footnotes. NI is no longer an occupied province governed wholly from Westminster, and it has as much 'national identity' as it ever had, which is ever increasing. To call it a region today, on a par with the other UK regions, is frankly absurd. We aren't going to pullute this article further than it already has been by using unreferenced POV footnotes which intentionally mix the present day situation with the historical one, and worse, direct people to other garbage on Wikipedia as if that's where they're going to find some balanced further info on the subject. MickMacNee (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Who says we don't do that MickMacNee? At least provide the Wikipedia policy on it to back yourself up, and if you can, i'll refute you with WP:NORULES which can be adhered to if it improves the article. If a footnote (or link to section as i've suggested above) helps fix a troublesome issue then its improving the article and who can argue against that? Mabuska ^(talk) 14:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

First line of WP:Manual of Style (footnotes): "Wikipedia footnotes serve two purposes: to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article...(and to act as in line citations)". This first purpose, combined with WP:NPOV and the rest of the MoS, is generally understood by most people to mean that something is not considered to be 'distracting material' if it's inclusion exists to balance the text and thus present the NPOV. The case for it being needed to be 'explained' in a footnote so as not to distract the reader is further weakened by the fact the controversy this footnote purports to explain is already directly referred to later on in the lede, in standard text, with a pipe link to a whole article section going into minute detail. To pretend that in that situation, we would still then choose to 'explain' the controversy using a footnote, as an 'improvement', is absurd. MickMacNee (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a perfectly reasonable approach Mick and it resolved the issue on the United Kingdom article (although I notice you jumped in there as well). The full controversy is also described later as stated. None of this is "pullution" or "garbage" or whatever other invective you choose, in your own inimitable style, to throw around. --Snowded ^TALK 14:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What part of 'other crap elsewhere' is not relevant is not understandable here? And on this proposal for this article, I'm not in the least bit surprised to see that this was exactly what I said the last time RA came up with this footnote proposal 6 months ago. He quietly dropped it then after half-heartedly trying to invoke IAR as some sort of rebuttal. When are people going to accept that for the puroposes of IAR, the NI topic area is by no means special or unique. We have plenty of controversial topics, and as such, we now have plenty of established policies and practices for this sort of shit. The time for inventing new ways just for this article is over, certainly unless or until new technical methods become available. If you or he now has a way to justify this sort of use of footnotes within policy, I'm all ears. No more IAR nonsense, and no more pretences that we look to other shitty articles which have also probably had 'IAR' invoked on them as a replacement for policy and common sense ways to justify it here. MickMacNee (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

RA should of included the rest of the "controversial" quote along with the source for verification, however Matt i don't remember RA even being involved in that discussion or consensus, so he didn't exactly bring it right down to the mire with his proposal as he is just basically cutting and pasting most of what other editors came up with. Also note that the quote in the above and RA's proposal says "can be controversial", it doesn't say that it is de facto controversial all the time. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that. I'm consciously not looking at United Kingdom article at the moment, as I realise things are going on all around at present. To help this along I'm going to remove the "can be controversial" line from it right now, and I don't think a proposal first is necessary in this instance - so I'll be bold in this case and see if anyone can possibly object. Obviously I'll keep the following "province" line. I genuinely don't think it is a suitable comment at all, whether is actually says "can" or not. My point is that it is inappropriate and unnecessary to mention it at all. Regarding RA, well okay (assuming he was not present in any way - he was an IP for a long while remember), but 'cutting and pasting' is no great defence when you have a history of mentioning these things. But it's a strange thing anyway - the truly sad thing here is that 'the troubles' are probably so ingrained in our collective psyche that people simply overlook the poetic injustice of forever-making sectarian politics the flagship 'factoid' of Northern Ireland, always mentioned whether it is necessary to do so or not. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)