Wikipedia

Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 15

< Talk:Northern Ireland
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Jmccormac in topic Should .ie get listed in domain field on Northern Ireland?
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

Yet another poll

Latest comment: 11 years ago26 comments9 people in discussion

Put your name against every option you'd be okay with having in the article. A quick way is to use ~~~ (Three tildas). We can then figure out if there is a reasonable majority for one or whether we can leave out others. Dmcq (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Show .uk only - Other articles on countries don't have numerous Internet TLDs listed. The Scotland, England and Wales articles don't have .gb or .eu listed, only .uk. The United Kingdom article has just .uk listed, not .eu or .gb. Articles on countries on Wikipedia have just the one standard Internet TLD listed otherwise there's an almost infinite number of Internet TLDs you could include, such as .com, .net, .org, .gov, .biz, .tv and so on. Quite vivid blur (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Basically it is due to the Country Template having an entry for the relevant TLD and that's generally a country code TLD. As I mentioned above, most of the domain footprint of a country will be concentrated on the ccTLD/.com axis with the majority of domains being registered in these two TLDs. With NI, the main spread of domains is over .uk/.com/.ie with .net/.org/.biz/.info and .eu having subtantially smaller shares. The single TLD entry in the Country Template does not reflect the reality of each country or territory's domain name footprint. For example, there are more .uk domains hosted on Irish webhosters than .net domains. With the UK's .eu count, a lot of the registrations that Eurid claims are UK owned may be owned by US and Canadian cyberwarehousers using UK front companies (the same applies to the Irish .eu count where the number of .eu domains on Irish registrars is approximately 9K as opposed to the 27K that Eurid claims are Irish registrations). However most Wikipedians may be unfamiliar with the domain name/webhosting industry and this leads to prolonged threads like this one. Jmccormac (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you ignore the real "geographic spread" - which is the official spread. The country domains are assigned by ICAAN/IANNA to represent actual countries...where the domains get hosted or who uses them is irrelevant. ".uk" is for the UK; ".ie" is for Ireland proper (and not NI)...! How they arrive at these decisions was illustrated in the Montenegro report I provided. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
QuiteVividBlur - As per the above, I entirely agree with you. It's all been discussed ad nauseum on this page. My own theory on the inclusion of ".ie" is pure Wiki politics. I am entitled to hold that view. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
@Frenchmalawi - I don't ignore the real "geographic spread" - something that is nebulous enough to mean anything. For people involved in the domain name/webhosting industry, search engine development or mapping domain name usage and internet development it may mean something different. IANA assigns ccTLDs. If they were simply assigned to countries, as you think, then the .ps ccTLD for the Palestinian Territories does create some problems with your theory. The .me report is simply the report for a delegation request. As to the politics of the situation, you seem to be pushing an agenda to have .ie dropped from the NI page even though the reference to .ie and .eu have been there on the page for years. Most of us here are trying to be apolitical. The first and second (I think) polls did not reach any consensus for change and now another poll has been introduced. I suppose there will be another poll if this effort fails. Well at least you are probably going to unite people of Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland and the UK in sheer exasperation with your obsession. :) Too many polls! Jmccormac (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd say that your post above was more in the line of an attack on me/my integrity rather than dealing with the issues. "If they were simply assigned to countries..." They are most definitely assigned to represent countries/territories. In the case of .PS, read the IANA report. It represents "Palestinian Territories, Occupied". As to "The .me report is simply the report for a delegation request." Of course it is....but what does it say...It says ".me" represents the country of Montenegro...not somewhere else! Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I think your posts here do raise questions as to your integrity and civility. You have an obvious political agenda (see your reference to the Union Jack above), you don't address the Good Friday settlement and you have attacked individual editors. Here again you are making irrelevant comparisons and generally creating more and more noise - its lame. Given that I have little sympathy with your complaint ----Snowded TALK 20:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you are engaged in a nasty personal attack on me Snowded. I think it is bang out of order. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
You feel free to dole it out, but can't take a return? Sorry but I think your behaviour is an issue here, and a growing one. You obfuscate with long repetitious posts, you make (or support) politically provocative comments. If someone has the temerity to disagree with you then you attack or claim grievance (see your response to Jmccormac. ----Snowded TALK 22:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, I think you are engaged in a nasty personal attack on me Snowded. I don't know what your motives are. Please drop it. Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Motive is very simple - to try and get you to stop what is a disruptive, aggressive and clearly politically motivated pattern of behaviour on a minor issue. Somehow I don't think I will succeed ----Snowded TALK 12:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't seen any of these apparent personal attacks or disruptive behaviour. Could you point to some? — Jon C.ॐ 13:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I too am struggling to find them. The Roman Candle (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Dismissing other editors as not being "serious editors" because they disagree with him/her? Dismissing facts and reasoned arguments as "jibberish" or "pathetic"? Not exactly best Wikipedian behaviour. When no consensus for change was established, persisting with the same arguments and suppositions used prior to the poll. Not respecting other editors - there's a quote there earlier where Frenchmalawi claims not to have respect for some other editors but this thread is so long that it is hardly worth scrolling back to find it. If one wasn't assuming good faith, it would seem that given the volume of posts here on this thread that that the Frenchmalawi account was set up with the aim of having .ie removed from the NI page. But then we must assume good faith. Jmccormac (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
When FrenchMalawi first appeared on the scene a few weeks ago, I asked on his Talk page if he'd ever edited before, since he exhibits a fairly good knowledge of WP rules and editing technique. He didn't provide a satisfactory response - nor did he deny editing previously. He subsequently blanked the page. His editing style is most familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on it.... --HighKing (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree, I've been trying to remember where I have see that style before. ----Snowded TALK 20:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the reamrks highlighted above by jmccormac, maybe you've got a point, but there's also a fair bit of baiting going on here. What concerns me is that whatever expertise is put to this issue, it's ignored by the majority of editors who, let's face it, are here to push their pov rather than ensure accuracy. I'm sorry to have to say this, but to me it's very clear. Maybe the matter should be taken away from here and put to some other Wiki Project to be sorted out. We then might get some NPOV into the situation. Is there a WikiInternet project or something similar? The Roman Candle (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Well I was thinking that once the options that had half a hope were settled on we could raise a general WP:RfC and decide the matter that way. I don't think we can say any of the arguments here are overwhelming in their logic or that any of the policies determine the result so I think it'll just have to come down to that. Dmcq (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Before Christmas, I ran a web mapping survey of about 12.5 million UK and UK hosted websites so it gave me a bit more of an insight into domain registration and usage patterns for websites and domains associated with the UK than the average Wikipedia editor. I've been trying to explain how the Irish, NI and UK markets are heavily interlinked and that the TLDs that apply to countries are not simply the assigned ccTLDs. It is a very specialised area and bouncing the issue off to some Wiki Project with minimal traffic and the odd editor is not really going to create a new consensus. The big problem with applying expertise to such a problem is that most editors don't have any great expertise in the field. The expertise tends to be limited to those in the domain name/webhosting industry, the registries themselves and the search engine companies. While legislation may sometimes be cited, the reality is that registries tend to each have their own set of registration conditions and these are often arrived at through consultation between the registry, the relevant governments and the local internet community and stakeholders. Jmccormac (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(1) About the personal attack on me:

  • Whose really doing the personal attacks here? (1) Jmccormac has said that I am on a “crusade” (repeatedly) and a “political agenda”, a “campaign”, that I am “throwing reports and comments around” and has suggested my comments are “insane”; (2) Snowded has claimed I am on an “obvious political agenda”, have made “politically provocative comments” (this is from an Editor who has repeatedly referred to the Good Friday Agreement, as if it was relevant here); that I have “attacked individual editors” (spot the irony), that I generally create “more and more noise” and I am “lame”; and (3) High King started posting comments on my talk page questioning me about myself as if he had some right to do so. He now appears to be trying to use the fact that I deleted his (what for me were nasty innuendos) from my talk page against me.
  • Jmccormac in trying to justify this personal attack on me has given some very selective quotes such as my reference to “serious editors” (are you seriously suggesting all Editors make an equal contribution and actually are serious and address issues? Of course they don’t); calling arguments "jibberish" or "pathetic" – I did say that once and perhaps I could be more delicate but I never did anything like you and Snowded did – singling me out and questioning my motives, labelling them “political” and part of a “crusade” etc. If I have somehow attacked an editor here, it is a very pale attack compared to the nasty one being perpetrated on me.
  • I appeal to every one to put aside all this nasty personal attacking and get back to our simple topic – whether “.ie” the domain name assigned to represent Ireland should be listed on the NI page. An earlier attack on BritishWatcher (who supported my view) was also launched. We can all (including me) try to be more respectful of each other too (for what its worth, I am not the sensitive type so as long as your arguments are based on reasoning, I won’t mind if you harshly condemn anything I say as long as its reasoned and not a personal attack).

(2) About the latest comments on issues: I want to respond here without being accused of “personally attacking any one”....It’s not always easy to strike that balance but here goes. Jmccormac. You seem to have quite a bit of industry expertise. You refer to a mapping survey etc you were involved in, that the Irish, NI and UK markets are heavily interlinked”. You mention that “the big problem with applying expertise to such a problem is that most editors don't have any great expertise in the field” and “the reality is that registries tend to each have their own set of registration conditions” etc. Frankly, I don’t disagree with a word of that. I also would be the first to admit I have no industry specific knowledge whatsoever. I sense you are some one with some expertise but that you have got lost in the detail. What we are talking about is really a very simple black or white issue. All the matters I quoted you on in this paragraph are 100% irrelevant in my view. That is because “.ie” is assigned to represent Ireland; “.uk” is assigned to represent the UK. That doesn’t mean the Government of Ireland or the UK own those domain names. It means simply just what I said. The are special domain names specifically created and assigned with the intention to represent specific countries. You’ve repeatedly referred to what the “registration conditions “ of registries are etc. Sorry, in my respectful opinion, that is simply irrelevant to what we are discussing. You also, in my respectful, humble, modest opinion ignore Wikipedia precedent: we don’t include “.jp” on the China article, we don’t include “.tv” on the USA article, etc etc. Why, in this case, are you and others arguing that all that should be ignored and Northern Ireland is some extraordinary exceptional case. Is my suggesting otherwise a “political crusade”? Of course not.... Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Now lets see. You are a new editor with detailed knowledge of how Wikipedia works who refuses to answer questions about prior editing history (or is at least evasive). This on a page with a very long history of politically motivated sock puppets. You ignore arguments about the GFA and constitutional changes that followed, supporting editors who are concerned about progressive "loss" over the Belfast City Hall flag issue. You make a series of aggressive statements about other editors over a period of time. Finally after a period of giving you the benefit of the doubt several experienced editors start to call you out over the behaviour issues, the obvious political slant and the very long repetitious posts on what is a lame debate. You then play the innocent. Sorry some of us have seen this pattern far too many times before as, I suspect, you have----Snowded TALK 07:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Give it a rest will you thanks. This page is supposed to be about Northern Ireland, not a reenactment. Could everyone with a grievance about everyone else follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE or just go to WP:ANI or some such place. Otherwise just comment on content not people please and anyone who goes around the place insulting others and being completely ignorant or trolling will be recognised for what they are anyway once the debate cools down. Dmcq (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously?

Latest comment: 11 years ago28 comments12 people in discussion

All this rubbish and diatribe over an internet domain (.ie), people's time wasted and bytes of data dedicated to this petty squabbling perpetuated by a very select few individuals with certain political affiliations over two letters. If people make an issue over something like this no wonder northern Ireland is a shitpot. Grow up and stop making pathetic political statements and accusations of political bias over something so inconsequential, grow up and do something more productive instead of this bullshit. The fact that there are multiple polls because people did not like the first results and that this has gone on for almost a month now is really astounding. This is so fucking beyond ridiculous, it is unbelievable. ÓCorcráin (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the last speaker, Mr Chairperson. Brocach (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem with the first polls was that multiple combinations were being shown together with multiple votes and the conclusions being drawn were very problematic. At least now it is starting to look like we can probably ignore the .uk and .eu only and the .uk only options. I'm a bit surprised there aren't more people saying they would be happy with a .uk only option but perhaps it is early days. Anyway the debate has not come anywhere near being long enough to become an entry in WP:LAME, wouldn't it be better to pick some of those and convey your constructive comments to them and then maybe they will all see the light and become sensible editors? ;-) Dmcq (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Quote "All this rubbish and diatribe over an internet domain". Is it rubbish to insist on some objectivity, integrigy on WP. I don't think so. It's been a worthwhile discussion, whatever the outcome is. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Imagine if editors put ".jp" beside ".cn" on the China article...! Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I mostly agree with ÓCorcráin, and I'm the guy who originally added .ie to the infobox. It was supposed to be a trivial little edit, I didn't expect it to restart the troubles. It's not that big of a deal weather the infobox lists .ie. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for chipping in...Though you haven't given any reasoning for why you "mostly agree" with the other editor. So we can only speculate! Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Mosley the same reasons as ÓCorcráin, it's kind of stupid to have this huge mouth-long discussion over something so inconsequential. That the person who added .ie in the first place thinks that this has gotten ridiculous should be a hint. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't wp:BRD have applied to this case and the contentious material have been removed until a consensus was achieved on this talk page? I also would like to say that I see some here saying that Frenchmalawi is being disruptive and offensive, yet I can't really see any evidence of this. In fact, I see more evidence of this by those making the accusations. The bottom line is the Internet TLD section of the infobox is supposed to contain the Internet TLD for that country, not all of the possible Internet TLDs available within that country. .ie and .eu are the Internet TLDs the Republic of Ireland and European Union respectively. The England, Scotland and Wales articles only include .uk, and not .gb or .eu. The United Kingdom article only includes .uk, the Republic of Ireland article only includes .ie, the France article only includes .fr, the Germany article only includes .de and the European Union article only includes .eu. As for pushing a political agenda and being disruptive, what's more politically biased and disruptive than including the Internet TLD for the Republic of Ireland on the Northern Ireland article? Quite vivid blur (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really, and you are missing the point that Frenchmalawi is deliberately ignoring. The citizens of Northern Ireland can choose between two nationalities (hence by reference to the GFA which set that up). So the box reflects that both of those are in operation. Excluding that for Ireland is thus to take a pre GFA Unionist position. Given Frenchmalawi's support for an editor who said this is like the flag issue on Belfast City Hall and other comments that appears to what is is going on here----Snowded TALK 07:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing some common sense to this discussion, Quite vivid blur. We need some more outside editors' opinions on this whose judgements aren't clouded by all that's gone on here before. — Jon C.ॐ 09:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
If you're saying 'Internet TLD' means 'what country TLD was assigned by IANA to this country' then 'Nothing' would be the proper choice I think. That would exclude .cat (have a read of that article) being used by Catalonians also I believe and in fact looking at Catalonia I see they do not have any internet TLD listed which is consistent with that. Dmcq (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly .cat is mentioned on the Spain article as is .eu ccTLD. The .eu ccTLD is also mentioned on the UK article. Jmccormac (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
.cat is not mentioned in the Catalonia article info box, nor in the article, other than as a 'See also'. The Roman Candle (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
.cat is also mentioned on the France article as are the ccTLDs of some of France's overseas departments and territories. It also mentions the .eu ccTLD. The USA page mentions .us ccTLD, .gov, .mil and .edu TLDs in the info-box. Jmccormac (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
But only as a footnote to the .fr entry, which remains the only one diectly specified in the infobox line. I get the impression that most editors who want to remove .ie would be happy with a similar note; I certainly would be. Is anyone objecting to this option? The Roman Candle (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
.ie is more than a footnote; it is applicable in Northern Ireland in precisely the same way as .uk.
Those who say that the non-inclusion of .cat is an argument for removing .ie from Northern Ireland may not have grasped that .cat is a generic domain available far beyond Catalunya. It presumably isn't shown at Catalonia because it's not specific to that region, though I think that it probably should be listed there as the majority of the 62,000 .cat registrations are likely to be there. Brocach (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone was suggesting that .ie should be included in the UK article which would be the analogous case of including .cat under France. Dmcq (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I hope you didn't think I was, Dmcq - what I meant above could be more clearly expressed as ".ie is applicable in Northern Ireland in precisely the same way as .uk is applicable in Northern Ireland". .cat should be footnoted in France, Andorra, Italy and other places where Catalan is a minority language, and should arguably be listed at Catalonia alongside .es. The likely reason it isn't is not, as my last suggested, its non-geographic status, but the fact that the infobox used is for "settlement" rather than country. No doubt that will be corrected after a referendum or two. Brocach (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The official site for Catalonia is a .cat site rather than a .es site. Jmccormac (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
It isn't a country TLD so by some of the arguments above it isn't any more than .com is. Dmcq (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
.cat is different from .com in that it is a sponsored TLD (sTLD) and it has a sponsor representing the specific community served by the TLD. In .cat's case it is the Catalan linguistic and cultural community. Jmccormac (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Nonetheless, Catalunya (line Northern Ireland) does not have an allocated ccTLD. .cat is a generic TLD which could equally be used for tabby cats and persian cats. People in Catalunya may chose to use it, but that doesn't make it the domain for Catalunya. The situation closely parallels that in NI. It does not matter which domains people in a territory chose to buy (eg .ie, .tv, .ni, .eu. .me, .md) but only which domain has been alocated. That is the purpose for the template field and all this kaffuffle arises because some bright spark thought it would be a good idea to use the international sovereign state template for the constituent countries of the UK. We should not be showing any ccTLD for NI but if we must have one then it has to be .uk. --Red King (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely right and very clerarly put, but you are banging your head against a brick wall on this one, as I'm sure you know. The Roman Candle (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
It isn't right. The .cat domain was allocated for the specific purpose as you can read at the .cat article and it is strongly controlled like .ie is. The basic question you really should be thinking of is whether for instance you would allow .scot in the internet TLD entry for Scotland when it is set up? Dmcq (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course. Why on earth would you not? Daicaregos (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
It won't be a country tld like the UK or the Isle of Man, it will be a culture one like .cat. Theoretically it could even be based in some other country altogether like America or Russia. Dmcq (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
No. The .cat TLD is a sponsored TLD and that's a different thing to a generic TLD. As I explained above, the .cat is intended to serve the Catalan linguistic and cultural community. So while your idea that it might equally be used for tabby and persian cats is not exactly accurate and technically the .eu ccTLD also applies to NI. Jmccormac (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia being political

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

On a purely factual basis, there was no such thing as "the troubles". It was an urban warfare situation. If someone from Wikipedia can point out how "the troubles" didn't amount to an urban warfare situation, please do tell. Otherwise it's Wikipedia engaging in politics, which I thought was the very thing that Wikipedia was supposed to steer clear of? The term 'troubles' was simply used to trivialize the situation by a lazy media / biased parties and was also an attempt to make a war situation look like a fight after a night in the pub among a few people. It's propaganda, basically. Wikipedia should not be engaged in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.57.247 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

- I would like to see your evidence for this being true, and the proof that this is political AND shouldn't be worth a mention on Wikipedia. Whether or not the article or parts of it needs to be rewritten is another matter. If you have concrete proposals for what's to be added, removed or changed, please propose or change those things as well, after having thought it through. Sincerely, Bjørnar Munkerud; the 18. of January 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.247.145.184 (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi

I was doing a bit of college work and was using wiki, however i noticed that the section on citizenship and identity, specifically the bit on the survey/poll was a coulple of years out of date. I only realised this after clicking on the footnote......any chance of an update?

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.160.243 (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Disputed cctld

Latest comment: 11 years ago48 comments11 people in discussion

I have added the disputed tag to the infobox after .ie. This article is continuing to state factually inaccurate and biased information. This is not a minor issue that should just be ignored, there is a serious problem with the current version that must be addressed one way or another. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You will notice above that the .uk and .eu domains are also under discussion. I have moved your tag accordingly. Brocach (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly there is a consensus to leave the situation alone. Jmccormac (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Again with what could be called an ultra-nationalist obsession to remove (.ie) but not (.eu)? I do not understand the logic of some people, just leave it alone. Drop the stick, take a deep breath and calmly back away. ÓCorcráin (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Only one editor has endorsed that option as okay so I don't think one can say that and by their ideas that sovereignty and regulation is all that matters it is a reasonable position and they seemed to think .cat was no more relevant than .tv is. Dmcq (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course it has to be disputed. Dot ie was not allocated to Northern Ireland and so should not be shown. Actually .uk should not be shown either, for exactly the same reason. Dot cat is for cats, but people in Catalunya have chosen to buy it. Dot tv is for Tuvalu, but people in the telly industry have chosen to buy it. Dot fm is for the Federated states of Micronesia but radio people have chosen to use it. Big deal. --Red King (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I was talking about the .uk and .eu combination. The domain .cat is not and never was for cats though some people have managed to get one like that for cats. One can never underestimate the determination of cat lovers. In fact looking at their terms I see they encourage people to tell them about sites that don't comply and after a warning will deregister them i.e. they will remove sites about cats. Dmcq (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
dotCAT is not for cats despite what you may think. It was set up specifically for the Catalonian linguistic and cultural community. The .tv ccTLD is a repurposed ccTLD as is .fm and they are intended to serve a wider market than just the original country level market. Is it time for another poll yet as the last one did not generate a consensus for change? Jmccormac (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you would ever get such a poll on Ireland-related matters. We just have to put up with pov-slanted articles. The Roman Candle (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
What would you think about a section on domain usage in NI explaining the issues? Jmccormac (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, a brief section - no detailed technical stuff - would be fine, but I'd be surprised if, on the back of it, you secured agreement to take .ie out of the infobox. It seems obvious to me, but that's just me I suppose, that the solution is to remove that line from the infobox from all UK constituent countries. Such a move could be coupled with a mention in the text of each article, but again, we're up against the Irish angle here, so I won't be holding my breath. The Roman Candle (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course we're "up against" the Irish angle - it's an Irish article... But what we're really up against is the usual name-calling, lack of good faith, toys thrown out of prams because of not getting own way, etc. Not finger pointing, but the archives show that it's usually the same crew who engage in this behaviour, over and over again. That's the real problem here... --HighKing (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It unequivocably can't be .ie -- that's the ISO 3166-1 ccTLD allocated to the Republic of Ireland, as opposed to .uk, the legacy ASCII ccTLD which is allocated by common convention to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of which NI is currently a part, not just by the fiat of the UK government, but also by all the usual objective standards -- territorial recognition by other countries, de-facto administrative control, etc. etc. This is also understood as de-facto reality by the goverment of the Republic of Ireland -- the nation that also calls itself Ireland -- regardless of its consitutional territorial aspirations. Following some hypothetical re-unification of Ireland into a single Irish state, it would indeed be .ie -- but, much though Irish nationalists would like that, that hasn't happened yet, and looks unlikely to happen in the next fifty years to a century. If it happens, people will be welcome to make the edit to update the page, among the complete refactoring of the Ireland and Northern Ireland pages that would follow. -- The Anome (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've just read up the page, and all thse arguments have been made very clearly by other editors, higher up this talk page, with authoritative references and clear reasoning. I can't see any wiggle room here. -- The Anome (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
For you, The Anome, ze vor is over. Brocach (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
You want to bring up World War II and the Nazis in a discussion relating to Ireland? That really is a hostage to fortune. -- The Anome (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Ireland? Ermahgerd, I thought we were talking about Her Majesty's loyal fifth of it. Brocach (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
And therein lies the problem. When it is something potentially bad, it is *all* Ireland. It does get a bit confusing. Jmccormac (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Evidently the whole Good Friday Agreement didn't make much of an impact. Neither did the poll above where the consensus was effectively for no change to the current situation. The problem with reading back up the page is that one tends to arrive at the initial disagreement rather than the agreement.Jmccormac (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The avoidance of the Good Friday Agreement is interesting and is part of the timing link of the lame dispute to the Belfast City Hall Flag Controversy - acknowledged by some of the participants. Given that The Anome has just joined the conversation I'd be interested to see how he deals with the fact that the UK Government has acknowledged the right of people in Northern Ireland to take Irish Citizenship? Its unique and is reflected in the presence of the two codes. Without new arguments its over anyway and the disputed tag can be removed ----Snowded TALK 09:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
What does citizenship have to do with an internet ccTLD? — Jon C.ॐ 10:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll [WP:AGF|assume its a serious question]]. You have two internet addresses which apply to two nation states. We have an article about a country which is a part of one, but for which its citizens can choose to be a part of the other. A fact which was recently agreed by by both governments. So we list both ----Snowded TALK 10:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
You are still confusing 'ccTLD allocated' with 'ccTLD used'. No one is challenging the right of Northern Irish people to use whichever ccTLD they like and will accept foreign registrations. The infobox does not support that option, although some people here want to misuse it to do so. --Red King (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC

The dispute isn't quite over. The poll showed more for the option of keeping the box as it is but only by 7 to 6 over removing the line completely. I think we should have an RfC on just those two options saying a poll and discussion has shown them to be the two viable options. And yes we should have a small section in the article about it whatever happens to the info box. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I support an RFC. --Red King (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
So even though there is a consensus here on the Talk Page for no change to the current situation, you want to try another way? The most logical alternative (not particularly needed given that the poll resulted in a consensus for no change) would be to have a section in each of the articles on TLD usage with the TLD reference in the infobox pointing to that section in each article. The Country Template was obviously created by people with limited real-world knowledge of how domains and TLDs are used within countries or even geographical regions/territories. Jmccormac (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
What a strange statement. So you know more about the domain naming system that the guys at IANA who devised it? Let's just go to RFC since you won't accept that its not a bug. --Red King (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I was talking about the Wikipedia Country Template which was apparently formulated with a limited view of how TLDs are used in various countries/territories. Jmccormac (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I oppose an RFC at this time. I suggest everyone leave it for a period of time, calm down, and if required we can come back to the issue later. Asking for an RFC at this stage just looks like sour grapes because some editors don't like how the discussion went. We've all been there, and I've learned the value of stepping away, taking a break, and coming back later. --HighKing (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The most recent vote above hardly had a clear majority in favour of the status quo, the vote appears to be 7-5. Considering this is not merely about personal choice/style, and is infact about a significant number of editors believing this article is currently presenting misleading and inaccurate information. We should not just sit by and leave such information in the article, a RFC will bring additional views and help settle this matter. If a RFC found most saying the current version is fine, then whilst id bitterly disagree and view it as in accurate.. id accept that is the will of the community and not raise this matter again. But at present i see a small majority preventing what is clearly inaccurate information from being removed. When questioned about why its justified, we hear things like NI citizens can be Irish, or the authority that runs .ie encourages people in NI to use the domain two. These matters are entirely irrelevant and do not justify claiming .ie is a top level country domain of Northern Ireland. We need more uninvolved editors coming at this situation from the tech/internet side of things, not from the NI / UK / ROI side. Im still waiting for someone to provide any evidence at all that a top level country domain .IE was assigned to an island or two states.. rather than to the Irish republic. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
This discussion was widely advertised and others joined in. Asking for an RFC right now, will just cause those already participating to simply reiterate the views everyone here has already expressed, and I sincerely doubt that any/enough new voices will be found - certainly not enough to change the consensus. The best bet would be to wait a while and put forward the suggestion to remove the line from the infobox and add a section. I believe that has some chance of winning support. And btw, your response to me above simply reads as nationalistic drum banging and sour-grape-whining. Using statements such as "significant number of editors believing this article is currently presenting misleading and inaccurate information", "whilst id bitterly disagree and view it as in accurate", "i see a small majority preventing what is clearly inaccurate information from being removed", "we hear things like NI citizens can be Irish, or the authority that runs .ie encourages people in NI to use the domain two. These matters are entirely irrelevant", etc, etc, is disrespectful of other editors, and shows a nationalistic bias which has no place in writing good articles for WP. Just my 2c. --HighKing (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not being disrespectful of editors, im stating the arguments some editors have used are totally irrelevant to this debate. That is not unreasonable. I am not proposing biased or "nationalistic" content be added to this article. Quite the opposite infact, im supporting the removal of content that is misleading, inaccurate and could be viewed as "nationalistic". By putting .ie in that infobox, it is pretty much claiming Northern Ireland belongs to the republic of Ireland. It is totally unacceptable and clearly wrong. There is a legitimate secondary debate about if .uk and .eu belong in that infobox or not as they are not strictly "NI", but clearly NI is part of both the UK and EU. The only odd one out here is .ie, which is a top level country domain of a foreign country, and yes i find its inclusion extremely offensive and provocative, along with being inaccurate, biased and misleading. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
You are I'm afraid and not for the first time. Saying that something you find to be an "inconvenient truth" namely the GFA is irrelevant is disrespectful to other editors and does smack of drum banging. ----Snowded TALK 12:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The GFA argument was a straw man the first time you wheeled it out. Where in the Belfast Agreement does it mention internet TLDs? This is nothing to do with citizenship, identity, nationalism or anything else, it's simply about which ccTLD applies to Northern Ireland. — Jon C.ॐ 12:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh but it is to do with that. Thanks to the GFA agreement citizens of NI can choose, so it makes sense for the domains of both countries to be included. It means that NI is not the same constitutionally as England, Wales, Scotland etc. Suggesting that it should have included TLDs to be relevant is pretty far fetched. Whatever I think it pretty much disqualifies you from drafting a neutral RrC ----Snowded TALK 12:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. That residents of NI can choose to become citizens of the Republic doesn't automatically mean the South's TLD applies to the North. I don't know how you're making that connection. Do they use the euro in NI, too? Maybe the GFA says something about it... — Jon C.ॐ 12:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Not that its relevant, but I have used Euros in Belfast and Sterling in Drogheda but that is as red herring. Nationality is tied into identity, and there are two national identities available to the citizens of NI. Part of identity is the suffix you use on your web site, so .ie is legitimate in NI as a part of exercising identity rights under the GFA ----Snowded TALK 13:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
This has absolutely nothing to do with nationality... this is not an article on people from Northern Ireland and what domains they may or may not use. This is about Northern Ireland and if it has a top level country domain. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and it is part of the EU. it is NOT part of the Republic of Ireland, and inclusion of .ie which is the top level country domain of the Republic of Ireland clearly implies that it is part of ROI. This constant reference to the GFA has nothing at all to do with it. The GFA recognised that NI is part of the UK until such a time as the people of Northern Ireland choose otherwise. Please provide evidence that a top level country domain .ie was assigned to the island, and not a country as the name implies? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I do find it ironic when you say its nothing to do with nationality, but then make the specious statement that putting .ie in the information box would be to say that NI is part of Ireland (the country). Looks like its the key issue for you. My previous comments stand, I am not sure if you don't understand them or don't accept them, but its the same difference anyway. ----Snowded TALK 12:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I fully support a RFC and think it is probably the best way of solving this matter to get additional input. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Support an RFC too. We could do with some neutral voices here. — Jon C.ॐ 09:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Like to put one in then? We need something reasonably neutral at the top or it will just be a mass of recriminations. Think you could summarize the question and the main arguments in say four lines? Dmcq (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Support an RFC, but is such support needed anyway? Can anyone raise an RFC at any time? If so, maybe someone knowledgeable in the process should do one straight away. The Roman Candle (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose an RFC. This issue has been done to death here, and those who didn't like the outcome just want another forum. Brocach (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC).

Oppose. Per Brocach. Just drop the stick and move on. ÓCorcráin (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment What is the point of this discussion? If someone wants to raise an RFC they can do so. I'm not sure of the format of these things, but I would urge a more experienced editor to go ahead. There is no consensus here on the way forward. At most there's a vote with a small majority, but I don't regard that as "consensus". The Roman Candle (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

True, there's certainly no consensus right now. Not sure what people hope an RFC will achieve either - it will probably also lead to no consensus unless a different argument is put forward or a different proposal is made. My reasons for not dragging this out any more is that without a different argument, it will only result in editors "digging in" to their respective positions. The usual method is to keep talking. But to reach agreement, points must be agreed and eventually, concessions made or compromises reached. It seems to me from reading back this long discussion that very few editors acknowledge points made by other editors, agree and concede points, and offer compromises. Therefore we're stuck, and I don't see how an RFC will further progress since we already have more than 10 editors actively involved here. --HighKing (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have decided to WP:Be Bold and announce an RFC. --Red King (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the ccTLD field in this 'Infobox Country' be shown at all when it describes a part of a state; if so what should it contain.

Latest comment: 11 years ago29 comments15 people in discussion

Extensive discussion above has resolved to three incompatible positions:

  • (a) Northern Ireland is not a sovereign state and does not qualify for a ccTLD. None should be shown.
  • (b) Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, so [only] the ccTLD for the United Kingdom, .uk, should be shown.
  • (c) According to the Belfast Agreement, people in Northern Ireland may identify as Irish or British, so the domain for the Republic of Ireland, .ie , should be shown alongside .uk..

Advice from disinterested wikipedians is welcome. Red King (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

The problem with A is that it's WP:Local Consensus. Other articles such as England and Scotland don't treat TLD's that way.
  • A local poll above showed the following support in decreasing popularity order of the various options in the sense that people wouldn't complain about them so some people supported more than one option. This RfC has to decide on a particular option so only option should preferably be chosen.
  1. Show .uk and .ie and .eu - 7
  2. Show nothing - 6 (two said it should be in parallel to removing the entry from England Scotland and Wales - just show for the UK)
  3. Show .uk only - 5
  4. Show .uk and .ie only - 4
  5. Show .uk and .eu only - 1
Thus just removing .ie is not generally supported, both .ie and .eu should be removed if the .uk but not .ie option is chosen and we shouldn't just remove .eu on its own either. Dmcq (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (a) show nothing. Well I'd also support keeping as it is but if I have to go for one then (a) is my choice. I would also support not having anything for Scotland rather than showing .the new .scot TLD and the same with Wales and its .cym or whatever when it is approved. They are cultural and linguistic TLDs not country TLDs and so by the arguments against .ie shouldn't be included with them either. The situation can be better explained by a small section in the article itself. Dmcq (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Technical clarification: dot uk, dot ie, dot fr etc are [[country code top level domain]s], delegated to the national government but typically outsourced. On the other hand, dot scot, dot cymru, dot cat etc are in the category of 'generic' top level domains, like dot com, dot net, dot jobs etc, where a private organisation is licenced by ICANN to operate the domain. --Red King (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Not quite what 'generic' might imply or is as done for .com etc. Checks need to be in place like .cat or .ie have, see Community TLD under Registration policies. Dmcq (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The .cat would be a Sponsored TLD in that it serves a community as do .museum and .aero sTLDs. From what I remember, .cymru is a new gTLD with Nominet backing it [1]. Many of the same arguments are going to play out on the UK country pages over the next few years. Jmccormac (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

C, but for the various reasons discussed at great length on Talk:Northern Ireland rather than the one presented above by the proposer. This issue has been talked to death, and is now being forum-shopped. Brocach (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

C per Brocach, the GFA is only one argument for this option, and its forum shopping bordering on disruptive behaviour ----Snowded TALK 10:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
B. I can't support "A" as the England, Scotland and Wales articles all have the UK's TLD. As an aside, I do love the attempts from the posters above to shut down any discussion that might change a status quo they're in favour of. How long before someone whips out the "drop the stick, back away from the dead horse" quip? We've already had "bordering on disruption"... — Jon C.ॐ 11:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO,whatever position is reached here could be expected to be taken into account in another place. --Red King (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Although I don't agree with that opinion, the possibility that any consensus achieved here may affect other pages means notification of this discussion should be made there. Daicaregos (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

B - Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, ".uk" is Northern Ireland's only country code top-level domain. ".ie" is the country code top-level domain of the republic of Ireland. It is misleading, inaccurate and offensive to include ".ie" which implies Northern Ireland is part of the Republic of Ireland. The key is in the name " country code top-level domain", the UK is a country, ROI is a country, under some definitions NI is a country.. but the island of Ireland is NOT a country and it does not have a " country code top-level domain". Reference to the Belfast agreement is completely irrelevant, the belfast agreement allowed people in NI to be Irish citizens, it did not cede Northern Ireland to the Irish republic, quite the opposite.. the agreement recognised that Northern Ireland was entirely part of the United Kingdom until such a time as the people vote to change that relationship. The body that assigns internet codes bases domains on ISO 3166-1 which clearly applies to sovereign states like the Republic of Ireland / United Kingdom. NOT to an island. No one arguing for ".ie" to remain has provided ANY evidence that ".ie" was assigned to the island, merely that the body responsible for the Irish domain allows people with a connection to NI to get a domain (but they do not have to be in Northern Ireland, they could be anywhere in the world), and people in NI can use many domain names. This is strictly about is ".ie" Northern Ireland's country domain... it is clearly not so its inclusion is wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

C per previous comments. --Eamonnca1 TALK 23:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

NOTE - IANA (the authority responsible for assigning Country code top-level domains) says - "2) Country Codes - The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which entities should be and should not be on that list." - See the ISO_3166-1 for what countries are on the list and look at the map. It quite clearly shows IE is the Republic of Ireland, not the whole of the island. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

B .uk as Northern Ireland is within UK. Simple. My friend is from carryduff and he has a .cx web address. If we are including .ie then I propose also using .cx, .nu, .fr to represent all domains used by anyone in NI. Using '.ie' just seems to be appeasing the easily offended.Factocop (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Viewpoint (c)?

The introduction to the RFC suggests that something to do with the Belfast was put forward as the primary reason to maintain both .ie and .uk in the info box (viewpoint C). In the lengthy discussions, the primary reason to maintain the status quo was because the .uk domain is administered on a UK-wide basis (by Nominet UK) and the .ie domain is administered on an all-Ireland basis (by the IE Domain Registry). So, both domains are shown because Northern Ireland overlaps with the geographic area of two ccTLD: .uk and .ie.

I therefore support the status quo (C?), so long as ccTLDs are shown in the infoboxes of UK constituent countries (see England, Scotland and Wales). Otherwise, I support the removal of all ccTLD from all. --RA (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything said by RA. I would also agree with Snowded and Brocach that this forum-shopping we are seeing here by the same constant select individuals is bordering on disruptive.ÓCorcráin (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
"both domains are shown because Northern Ireland overlaps with the geographic area of two ccTLD: .uk and .ie." - A ccTLD is assigned to a country. There is no overlap. The only Country code top level domain in Northern Ireland is .uk, because Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom. It is not in the Republic of Ireland, which is assigned the IE code. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
By ICANN standers there is no overlap. By IE Domain Registry standers and actual use there is overlap. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
That's it basically, it is to a very large extent a de facto community TLD and the question is equivalent to whether .scot should be shown under Scotland when it is approved. Also whether .uk should just be listed against the UK or how far down the hierarchy it should go in info boxes. Dmcq (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
p.s. I notice there's an application for .london so the question about community TLDs and how far down the hierarchy one goes gets quite relevant. I suppose .eu would then be considered one level up again. Dmcq (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a guideline or policy anywhere that deals with "community TLDs", like sco., .ie in NI, etc.? — Jon C.ॐ 11:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
They are only being generally rolled out this year so along with how .cat has been handled this could well be taken as a precedent in other cases that arise. Guidelines on Wikipedia are suppose in general to be reactive rather than proactive so they can describe what is agreed as best practice. Dmcq (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

C – the .ie TLD is clearly relevant to Northern Ireland and should be shown in the infobox. The same goes for .uk and .eu. Daicaregos (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

C It is the closest to reflecting the reality of the situation. With more regional and community TLDs such as .cymru and perhaps .scot and .england on the way, it might be better in the future to have the TLD reference in the infobox point to a section in the main articles dealing with TLD usage. The USA infobox includes .us, .mil, .gov and .edu. The .mil, .gov and .edu would effectively be "community" TLDs each with their own registration requirements and as such, multiple TLDs in the TLD entry for an infobox are not unknown. Jmccormac (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

C - For the myriad reasons above. The tendentiousness of some editors blinds them to the reality that .ie is for anyone on the island of Ireland. This has already gone past the point of being disruptive - this is forum shopping on a bigger scale, with the addition of trying to turn it into a nationalistic Ireland vs UK debate, and therefore get editors !voting along national lines. Thankfully most editors have passed that point. Hopefully the few left will in the near future. But I'm getting tired of every debate constantly turning into a nationalistic anti-Irish or anti-British rant.... Something should be done about that if it continues. --HighKing (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I thought RFC was to collect opinions from disinterested parties. All we've got here is more of the same. The same old arguments from the same "old" users, and getting nowhere. The Roman Candle (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It would have been nice to have people who might be worried about the use of the new TLDs elsewhere but I guess they think they might just land on a nest of vipers at this talk page. Maybe they just don't know the story about Saint Patrick ;-) Dmcq (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Demonym

Latest comment: 11 years ago28 comments11 people in discussion

There seems to be a disagreement about demonym wiith three basic choices

A. Get rid of the line altogether as there's strong disagreement
B. Have it say Northern Irish as that's where they are
C. Have it say the various things people in Northern Ireland would describe the people there overall as, i.e. that they're British, that they're Irish, or that they're Northern Irish

So if we're going to get some peace on this issue can we state our preference and/or reasons here and perhaps not change the article quite so frequently before settling on something

  • C list the main choices as listed in the census. I'm pretty certain there are a lot of people who would describe the people in Northern Ireland as Northern Irish, but there are an awful lot of people who would vehemently deny that also. Dmcq (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way I'd say 'from Northern Ireland' rather than 'Northern Irish' myself. Dmcq (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • C as the term "Northern Irish" is only one of the three most popular descriptors of identity among those who live in the region. Brocach (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • B. There are British people elsewhere and Irish people elsewhere, but Northern Irish is the only demonym unique to Northern Ireland. There's a ton of people in the Irish Republic that would identify as Polish or Lithuanian – should those go in the ROI's infobox? — Jon C.ॐ 11:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes that's an important point I tried to emphasise when I said 'would describe the people there overall as' above. I interpret the question as would you describe people in general from Northern Ireland as British, Irish, or Northern Irish? Dmcq (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • A: Very few would describe themselves as Northern Irish (exclusively at least). We would have to add "Irish" and "British", however I don't see any good case to list demonyms in the infobox. How would it help? The infobox is for quick reference. I go to Denmark and see that Danish people can be described as Danes. I go to Northern Ireland and see three possible demonyms - which do I use? Clearly there's no identifier unique to Northern Ireland. Keep it in the article. --
Very few Californian would identify exclusively as "Californian", most would also identify as "American" but that does not make "American" the demonym of California. See my below vote — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 23:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • A or B: The demonym for Northern Ireland is, by definition, a word to identify its inhabitants, i.e. distinguish them from people who don't live in Northern Ireland. "Irish" is the demonym for Ireland and "British" is the demonym for the United Kingdom. -- Dr Greg  talk  20:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's the case that we would default describe a person from Northern Ireland as "Northern Irish". Martin McGuinness would never be described as "Northern Irish". Likewise the media would, if forced to use a nationality, call Ian Paisley "British". Clearly it's misleading to use option B and doesn't reflect actual usage. People from Northern Ireland are never called "Northern Irish" by default. If we're to keep the parameter I'd side with option C. -- Hazhk Talk to me 21:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
How about we have another option
problem solved? Dmcq (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
No, because that's not a demonym. -- Hazhk Talk to me 22:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
In what way is person from Northern Ireland not a demonym and Northern Irish is? I don't see how it fails the definitions I've looked at. Personally I'd like to be able to just use Northern Irish generally and am happy with Northern Irish and I hope the current path leads that way, but at the moment applying it in general would I think often feel a bit like saying an apple or orange from a basket is baskety fruitsh rather than is an apple or an orange or is a fruit from the basket. Dmcq (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • A - including simple information for things that aren't simple is just misleading. C seems OK as well though. I like D but fear it may be going too far in the direction of asking people to think for themselves for an encyclopaedia that prides itself on a neutral point of view. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
A - the issue is too contentious to simplify with one demonym. Even on the South Korean page, it lists "South Korean, Korean." The term "Northern Irish" would be disputed by few, I would presume, but I could imagine the writing style would be disputed ("Northern" as opposes to "northern.") I'm sure many (both Unionist and Nationalist alike) would also define their N.I identity as "Ulsterman/woman" and their national identity as Irish or British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.88.137 (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
A or C The consensus to get rid of the line before was a good idea IMO. Otherwise, per policy (WP:NPOV), all verifiable demonyms should be shown fairly and without bias. I've updated the template with verifiable demonyms:
  • Irish and Northern Irish per Dickson, Paul (1997), Labels for Locals: What to Call People from Abilene to Zimbabwe, Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, p. 138, ISBN 9780877796169, Northern Ireland: Northern Irishman and Northern Irishwoman, or the collective Irish and Northern Irish.
  • Ulsterman (or Ulsterwoman) per Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English (3rd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953296-4 {{citation}}: Text "quoteUlsterman (or Ulsterwoman): a native or inhabitant of Northern Ireland or Ulster." ignored (help)
What ever is decided, cherry picking and ignoring sources is a definate no, no. --RA (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
NILT 2010 only has 4% supporting Ulsterman/Ulsterwoman in question 'Do you think of yourself as British/Irish/Ulster/Northern Irish?' but I guess it is actually one of the four options listed there and a third of people agree they are that if only secondarily. The highest percentage 37% considered themselves British. In the 2007 results for 'How strongly do you feel yourself to be Northern Irish?' 50% agreed very strongly which was the highest, but 15% said 'Not at all' which means there is a problem with just sticking in 'Northern Irish' and such a large number of people something they don't agree with. Dmcq (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
But "demonym" does not mean "what the inhabitants describe themselves as"; it means a word or phrase to identify the inhabitants to the exclusion of all other places. E.g. the inhabitants of Lancashire might describe themselves as "British", "English", or "Northerners", but none of those are the demonym for Lancashire, which is "Lancastrian". Sources would be good, but those sources actually need to use the word "demonym" otherwise we're making up our own meaning for the word. -- Dr Greg  talk  03:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
What I said is it is like somebody saying they are Lancastrian and a big percentage of them said no I am not. That is a big problem. Would you support me saying you were something that you denied you were? Dmcq (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
"...to the exclusion of all other places ... those sources actually need to use the word 'demonym' otherwise we're making up our own meaning for the word." - Greg, the sources above are for demonyms. The source that gives "Irish" and "Northern Irish" as demonyms for Northern Ireland is in fact the source form which we get the very word "demonym". It is the one that popularised the term. See the article "Demonym". As you say, sources are good. --RA (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
B. Northern Irish is the only denonym specific to Northern Ireland. If you were to say someone is Irish, it means they are from the island of Ireland (or from the state called Ireland). It isn't specific to Northern Ireland. Similarly, if you were to say someone is British, it means they are from the UK. Again, not specific to Northern Ireland. The same argument would work for European too. While everyone from the island of Ireland is European, if you were to say someone is European, it doesn't mean they are specifically from anywhere other than Europe, let alone Northern Ireland. So using European as a demonym for people from Northern Ireland would be incorrect, in the same way that using Irish or British as a demonym for people from Northern Ireland is incorrect. And at the other end other scale, if someone is from Dublin, they are still Irish, but using Irish as a demonym for people from Dublin would be incorrect, as Irish doesn't define where on the island of Ireland they are from. Daicaregos (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
"If you were to say someone is Irish, it means they are from the island of Ireland (or from the state called Ireland). It isn't specific to Northern Ireland." - And it isn't specific to the island of Ireland (or the state called Ireland) either. Who says demonyms have to be specific or unique? Referenced sources for demonyms give "Irish" as a demonym for Norhtern Ireland. We work of verifiable sources, not original thought. --RA (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hardly original. I take your point, but we need to use common sense here. 'Irish' is not meaningless, is it? If it has a meaning, 'is from Northern Ireland' is not it. Daicaregos (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Yet reliable sources that list demonyms give "Irish" as a demonym for Northern Ireland. That's hardly surprising. If East Germany still existed, I'm sure "German" would be given as a demonym, just as "Korean" is given as a demonym for North Korea.
I too believe there is a case for IAR in this instance, however. For example, I'm fine to either leave the demonym section out (like was agreed last time). Or to keep "Brirish", even if it cannot be sourced (becasue it makes sense in the demography and politics of Northern Ireland). However, I'm not on for cherry picking some demonyms and ignoring RS on others. --RA (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Picture the scenario. A keen Wikipedia reader meets a fellow traveller in (or visitor to) a far-flung country. “Where are you from?” he asks, “I'm Irish.” comes the reply. “Oh,” he says, remembering the useful details given in the NI infobox, “What part of Northern Ireland are you from?” “Cork”. My vote remains at B. Daicaregos (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Not a very keen reader. Did he never come across the Republic of Ireland article?
Anyho, picture another scenario. A keen Wikipedia reader meets a fellow traveller in (or visitor to) a far-flung country: "Where are you from", he asks. "I'm Irish." comes the reply. "Oh," he says, remembering the useful details given in the ROI infobox, "What part of the Republic of Ireland are you from?" "Fermanagh". ;-) My vote remains for WP:V and WP:NPOV. --RA (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It is one of the 4 million-odd pages he hasn't read, and may never ;) Daicaregos (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see there's slightly more support for A than either of B or C. In that case we should just remove the line I think. I think there's enough in the lead and citizenship and identity already so I'll just remove the line. Dmcq (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

disputed-discuss tag.

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Should this be removed now? I see the discussion/argument about the domain names or whatever (lol seriously I was so confused by that, and I didn't even partake in the discussion!) seems to be over. Does that mean it was...resolved? :D --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The current list seems to have had the most support. Not my choice but yes I guess the subject has been done to death and the tag can be removed now. Dmcq (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Have removed it. No point keeping dead disputed tags whatever my feelings about the matter. Dmcq (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanking you! I was about to but you beat me...it's funny too as you removed it on Saint Patrick's day lololol --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Economy

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The points made regarding the economy, are unreferenced, untrue and say the complete opposite to those of the economy of Northern Ireland article. Northern Ireland has not enjoyed a peace dividend, its economy is still very weak and heavily dependent on the public sector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.44.4 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly about citations that is true. I think though you are misreading both this article and the economy of Northern Ireland articles. That there was some peace dividend doesn't mean everything is rosy nor do I see anything about the economy not growing since then. Possibly it should be rephrased to be more clear as well as better cited and made a better reflection of the economy article. Dmcq (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The Flag

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

There are a gazillion references out there that say the current flag of Northern Ireland is the Union Jack. The only reason it isn't shown in this article is because of disgusting Irish nationialist opposition to everything British. Their current excuse being it is not a "unique" flag to Northern Ireland. A fatuous reason if ever I heard one. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

As you clearly understand, the Union Flag is the flag of the United Kingdom. Scotland, Wales and England have flags that represent them as distict entities: as there is no flag that represents Northern Ireland as a distict entity, none is given. This has nothing to do with Irish nationalism or anything else - just the fact that Northern Ireland does not have a flag that represents it as a distinct entity. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
You mean like Chad/Romania? Utter rubbish, as I said above. Yes, it is not a "distinct flag" to the province, but it IS the flag used to represent it. Therefore it should be shown here. It's only the nationalist tag teamers preventing it. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Personally I agree with the IP that the Union Flag should be used as it looks out of place not having one. Granted the Ulster Banner is used as the de facto flag by the majority, I think that since the Parliament was dissolved in 1972 the Union Flag became the flag of NI by default as there would have been no other official flag to represent NI. The only other thing that could possibly be used would be the St. Patrick's Saltire as that was used to represent NI in The Queen's Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland#Union Flag vs St Patrick's Saltire in the lead about the question of even what should be in the lead there. As to this article we should not start filling in blanks in emplates just because of ants in the pants about things missing. We're allowed to leave boxes empty and discuss the business in the text of an article, it is not up to us to decide the truth of the world - only report on what's out there. And there is no simple answer about what should be in that box. Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Out there you'll find the Union Jack is the flag of Northern Ireland. Only at Wikipedia is a biased account given, suggesting that Northenr has no flag, which is a downright lie. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
You will win over no-one with that adversarial tone. If you have discovered that Northern Ireland now has a flag of its own, as opposed to the Union flag which is the flag of the United Kingdom, all you need to do is find reliable sources. Brocach (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ulster

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm not British or Irish, but I enjoy learning about foreign cultures. I think the article should specifically state that Northern Ireland is entirely located within (but not coterminous with) the traditional Irish province of Ulster. Though Ulster is referenced several times in several different locations, this fact isn't flat out stated, and I think it should be. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact is noted in the section 'Partition of Ireland'. And as to the fact itself - you should say why you think something is worth noting rather than just asserting it, and a citation where something is presented in that light is particularly useful. Dmcq (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, forgot about this. The reason I think it's important is because I've heard people refer to the UK part of Ireland as "Ulster." I thought, "Did the British flat out say we're keeping that whole province? Or, does NI include counties from other provinces? Are NI and provincial Ulster coterminous, or are parts of Ulster outside of NI? And does NI include counties from another province?"
The answer appears to be that all the counties of NI are part of ceremonial Ulster. None of them came from Connaught or Leinster. But at the same time, not ALL of Ulster became part of NI, as three counties of Ulster became part of the Republic. So, all of NI is part of Ulster, but not all of Ulster is in NI. As someone who doesn't know a whole lot about these countries and their history, I thought such clarification would be worth noting. You may know this instinctively, but this is an encyclopedia. Does that answer the question? 98.221.141.21 (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
As you are Dutch you come from a nobel yet liberal viewpoint and may find this hard to understand, however the geopolitics of the British Isles can become something of a hotbed when nationality is brought into the discussion (whether it be Irish, English, Welsh, Scottish, Manx, Cornish etc.) Unless you understand this AND have serious intent to grind your axe (whether your axe be Irish, English, Welsh, Scottish, Manx, Cornish etc.) it is definitely not worth getting involved because the only black-and-white views exist in the eye of the beholder/axe-grinder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.135.253 (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

I think that second paragraph has been made rather too stark about religion. Yes the majority of nationalists were catholics and unionists protestants but it was less divided along those lines then than now, and even now you have quite a few catholics who identify as British and protestants who stand for Irish nationialism. I think the old paragraph being a bit less dogmatic about the identification was far better in that respect so I'm reverting. Dmcq (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Are there any high profile, medium profile even really small but public profile protestants who are Irish nationalists...and live in NI? Any examples? Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Billy Leonard is probably the most recent example who served at Stormont; he stood down in 2011. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Second para looks nearly spot-on to me; it doesn't conflate religion and politics, merely notes the (incontesable) fact re most of A being 1 and most of B being 2. My only quibble is with the absence of any suggestion that those "state forces" were not aligned with one of the two main camps. Brocach (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I think saying involving state forces rather than that they just helped keep the peace between the communities covers that adequately without pushing the point too much here. Dmcq (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks User:Timrollpickering...Billy Leonard has never been elected by the people (rather than nomination) to a position beyond local councillor... I think it means in answer to my question that there are no "high profile [or] medium profile" protestant Irish Republicans....Only, at least one,really small but public profile protestant so far. Interesting to find out about. And my question still stands for any one else who has examples in mind. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
There articles about this, they have problems I think but anyway Protestant Irish nationalists and Catholic Unionist might answer your question. It takes quite a bit of courage for people to raise their heads this way. Dmcq (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks DMCQ but those articles have nothing relevant to what I've asking about. [[Protestant Irish nationalists deals basically with historical stuff - agreed neither article is much good either. Low brow. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I've made a minor correction to the paragraph. The GoI act didn't partition NI from the rest of Ireland, it created two parliaments in Ireland: Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland. Indeed, the GoI act envisioned the "the eventual establishment of a Parliament for the whole of Ireland". Specifically, the act provided that:

"...on the date of Irish union ... all the powers and duties of the Parliaments and Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland [shall also be transferred to the Parliament and Government of Ireland] ... and, unless any powers and duties are retained by the Parliaments and Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland under the constituent Acts, those Parliaments and Governments shall cease to exist..."

History turned out differently, but NI it is not accurate to say that "Northern Ireland was partitioned from the rest of Ireland in 1921". I've changed it to read that Ireland was partitioned on that date in Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. --RA (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
"The creation of Northern Ireland was marked by violence between these two main communities and involving state forces, which occasionally resurfaced over the following decades..." This was in the context of the Irish War of Independence. Otherwise, the creation of NI was relatively to the rest of Ireland NI was quite quiet and remained so until the late 1960s. --RA (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
'Relative' is the operative word there. There was quite a bit of trouble with a number of deaths and hundreds of the IRA were interned both north and south and there were even bombings in Britain. The IRA only ended it in 1961, unfortunately their disposal of weapons then seems to have been a contributory factor at the start of the troubles allowing the burning out of nationalist areas as in the 'I ran away' business. As to state forces you have heard of the B Specials? Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure, the border campaign, etc. but the sentence reads, "The creation of Northern Ireland was marked by..." The border campaign was thirty-five years later. Likewise, the B Specials were only really active in the context of the war of independence and, decades later, from the border campaign onwards. There were occasions in between when they were called out but nothing that to do specifically with the "creation of Northern Ireland".
I added "including state forces" to the following sentence. --RA (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
On the creation of Northern Ireland see History of Northern Ireland#Early years of Home Rule. It was not anything like plain sailing early on. Dmcq (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this edit and the summary that "excision of this sentence implied that there was no violence from partition to 1960s". I agree with the edit summary but not with the text that was returned.
The incision states that, "The creation of Northern Ireland was marked by violence involving state forces and armed groups". That was not really the case. The creation of Northern Ireland was a relatively peaceful affair. Contrast, with the creation of the Irish Free State for an example of something whose creationwas marked by violence involving state forces and armed groups.
We should mention tensions between the two communities prior to 1960s. Particularly the "Protestant state", "cold house" and civil rights elements, which were notable features of NI. But violence wasn't really notable compared to the rest of Ireland before the outbreak of the Troubles. --RA (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
After your change it looked like there was conflict between the communities but no actual thing to point ot before he troubles except the political and religious differences. I don't think that is a reasonable description of the state. We should try hard to keep it down to one sentence but something based on the history of Northern Ireland before the troubles is really needed there I think. The discrimination and gerrymandering and the fight for civil rights might be more relevant perhaps. Anyway if you'd like to try and phrase something else that would be good I think. Dmcq (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we should keep the line: "The creation of Northern Ireland was marked by violence ... and this occasionally resurfaced over the following decades". In Northern Ireland, the years 1921 and 1922 were just as violent as 1971 and 1972. A similar number of people were killed in shootings, bombings and riots. The only big difference is that the first 'Troubles' were mostly bound to Belfast. This violence was going on while Northern Ireland was being 'created' (i.e when its institutions were being set up, power was being transferred from Westminster, and so forth). After that there were the 1935 riots and of course the yearly violence that usually goes with the marching season. If we leave it out it implies that Northern Ireland was peaceful until the late 1960s. ~Asarlaí 23:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I'l make a stab at another wording.
  • "After your change it looked like there was conflict between the communities but no actual thing to point ot before he troubles except the political and religious differences." I agree.
  • "Northern Ireland, the years 1921 and 1922..." There may have been violence on those two years, but that wasn't a "mark" of the creation of Northern Ireland. It was Ireland that was "marked" by violence in those years.
  • "If we leave it out it implies that Northern Ireland was peaceful until the late 1960s." I agree. And that's what we should be saying.
--RA (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk: Good Friday Agreement

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Only 2 editors (me and RA) are participating in a discussion on the above talk page. The discussion is about "Why can't we say who signed GFA?". Because this is the NI page, and is more active with other editors here. This is a "Request for Comment" I suppose but I don't know how you do that officially - I probably don't konw the code for doing that. I am raising this hoping for wider participation, as RA and I have reached a deadlock. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any UK law governing ".ie" domains?

Latest comment: 11 years ago27 comments5 people in discussion

Above is the question. I would love to hear Editor's thoughts. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The assignment of internet suffixes to countries is ultimately overseen by the U.S. government. TFD (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. Reliable sources assert the IEDR administer the .ie ccTLD on a 32-county basis. The IEDR are an ICANN delegate, sponsored by University College Dublin. ICANN operations are ultimately overseen by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce. --RA (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a .GB country code for the UK based on the ISO country codes. That would have excluded NI as GB is an acronym for Great Britain. Jmccormac (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
GB is the ISO code for the United Kingdom. The apparent inconsistency arises from the fact that the .uk domain was created before ccTLDs were standardised. --RA (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
In this case it is short for the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." See ISO country codes. And it is "GB" not ".GB". TFD (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Force of habit - those of us in the domain name business often include the dot (either the word or the '.') when talking about country code TLDs. The .UK ccTLD appears to have been created a few months before .GB ccTLD. In any case, all this timewasting is down to Frenchmalawi's attempt to have his/her opinion that .IE does not apply to the 32 counties of Ireland accepted as fact even though reality and reliable sources state that .IE applies to the 32 counties of Ireland. Jmccormac (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. --RA (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I repeat, is there or is there not any UK law governing ".ie"? That's the question I have addressed. Any one care to answer? Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Not as far as I know, because the assignment of internet suffixes to countries is ultimately overseen by the U.S. government. TFD (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
TFD - You are the only one who came close to answering. But then, to my mind, you shied away. Are you seriously suggesting that there are not national laws governing country domain names? Are you saying that the only laws on domain names are U.S. laws. Really? If you are not saying that, what are you saying? Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
When the .ie .uk .gb domains were handed out it was a research thing and handed out to universities and research bodies and governments weren't all that interested in it. Comms then were pretty slow and unreliable and making a connection was a chore with sticking in lists of numbers and trying to establish a route through the system with people always taking the routing computers down and up. Few people could be bothered to even try an ascii graphic.
The handing out was by an agency under the control of the US government. They have an agreement now to be hands off and let it be run by the committees of interested parties, one of those committees is representatives of governments. Otherwise I guess the UN would try and make a grab for it. It wasn't political when it was set up even if the origins were in the military, it was research people and industries all talking to each other.
So overall I think the question is a bit wrong because it makes rather a lot of implicit assumptions. I guess the real question is whether ICANN is now a political organization and whether the old registrars have had their status changed by them being given new directions they must conform to? Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the potted history of the Internet, which certainly added nothing for me. There is nothing wrong or inaccurate about my question. Is there or is there not UK law on ".ie" domain names? It's a yes/no question. Once we have an answer to that question, we can move on and understand what its implications are. Why are you afraid to just answer it? Appreciate you are probably not a lawyer. If you don't know answers to things, its always ok to say "I don't know" (just thought I would mention as much). Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Is any one going to step up to the mark and answer the question! Please? Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I answered your question - I don't know. This page btw is for improving the article. TFD (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
You should ask questions at one of the reference desks not on talk pages. Dmcq (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
As I said earlier, this is all just more timewasting. Frenchmalawi did not get his/her opinion (that .IE does not apply to the 32 counties in Ireland) accepted as fact six months ago and this, it would seem, is just another attempt to impose that opinion. The same question about which UK law applies to .IE domains was also posted on the UK law talk page. The allocation of country code TLDs predates ICANN and .IE ccTLD, like .UK ccTLD is over twenty five years old. The legislation governing ccTLDs is a relatively recent thing. In terms of telephone numbers, NI has its own Irish dialing code (048) whereas telephone numbers in Scotland, England and Wales are dialed using the international +44 code. People in NI can choose to be citizens of the UK or the Republic of Ireland and can also chose .IE and or .UK domains. The accessibility of .IE domain name registration to people in NI (on the same basis as people in the other 26 counties of Ireland) does not apply to people in the UK. Some ISPs in Ireland operate North and South of the border and web hosting and domain registration companies also operate in a similarly integrated market. The ccTLD with the highest number of Irish registrations on web hosters in Ireland, after .IE, is actually .UK ccTLD. Perhaps .IE's coverage of the 32 counties of Ireland on an equal basis is an Irish solution to an Irish problem. However the people in Ireland, North and South, who register both .IE and .UK domain names have no such problem with it. Jmccormac (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only relevant thing you said was:

"The legislation governing ccTLDs is a relatively recent thing."

So you clearly accept that there is often national legislation governing ccTLDs. Obviously it's recent - this is the Internet we are discussing. I already knew this. Most people do. The question is, has the UK passed any legislation concerning one such ccTLD - ".ie". The Irish Government certainly has. Would you like to address the question? Thanks. Of course, the answer feeds into article content so is relevant here. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should just make your proposal for a change rather than asking questions on an article talk page. As obvious from the above no one here at the moment thinks what you are saying is particularly relevant but there might be others who think like you do around the place. At the moment this just strikes me as a bit of incomprehension on your part but I guess you have the same opinion about the other people here. Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I still think that Frenchmalawi is just trying to have his/her opinion accepted as fact and having failed six months ago, is now trying a different tack with the UK legislation angle. However he/she is not going to like this answer. Section 19,20 and 21 UK's Digital Economy Act 2010 (which amends the Communications Act of 2003 and the 124 subsections/paragraphs are to be inserted into that Act) does, arguably, cover domains other than .UK in that no specific domain names or TLD is mentioned. Sections 19,20,21 relates to registry operations. Section 21 124 O.8 states that "An internet domain is 'UK-related' if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the last element of its name is likely to cause users of the internet, or a class of such users, to believe that the domain and its sub-domains are connected with the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom." While this applies to registry operations and the right of the Secretary of State to deal with problematic registries, it does not make any provisions for specific domain names and thus it is, depending on the interpretation, quite wide ranging in that it could equally be applied to the new gTLD registries specifically targeting a the UK market or even at an extreme stretch, the .EU ccTLD. This legislation applies to misbehaviour or failures by the domain name registry rather than the TLD. I don't think that Frenchmalawi quite understands the concept of how legislation followed (sometimes decades later) the creation of most ccTLDs. The reality is that .IE applies to the 32 counties of Ireland equally and that has been demonstrated by reliable sources and thousands of .IE domain names registered by people in NI. Even the Irish E-Commerce Act 2000 (amended 2007) states that the .IE domain applies to Ireland. The Electronic Commerce 2000 Act specifically mentioned the State (Republic of Ireland). The amended Act no longer specifically mentions the State. Comreg, in consultation with the Minister and others considered appropriate, now decides policy on .IE ccTLD. And reliable sources have stated that .IE ccTLD applies to the 32 counties of Ireland. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on facts rather than opinions. Jmccormac (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

These are your words again:

Comreg, in consultation with the [Irish Government] Minister and others considered appropriate, now decides policy on .IE ccTLD.

I said this long ago but am glad you are saying as much too. So we agree, .IE is governed by Irish law and the Irish Government regulates it. There is no UK involvement whatsoever. If there is, please provide a source? Indeed you don't seem to be suggesting that any UK regulators have anything to do with it at all. How can you reconcile that with the notion ".ie" is under some joint administration? Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, you are just grasping at straws because it was shown, using reliable sources, that .IE applies to the 32 counties of Ireland. You brought up the Good Friday Agreement to see if that angle would work. It didn't. This UK legislation angle is just another attempt to have your incorrect opinion accepted as fact. The UK legislation has been cited and it didn't agree with your opinion so you are now ignoring in much the same way as you ignore the reality that .IE applies to the 32 counties of Ireland. The Irish legislation has been cited and it didn't agree with your opinion so you ignore that too. Six months ago, you were wrong. You are wrong now. Six months from now when you try to get things changed again to impose your opinion here, you will be wrong. You seem to have united Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland, Scotland, England, Wales and a few other countries in complete boredom with your crusade against reality. The matter is sorted. The .IE ccTLD applies to the 32 counties of Ireland. People in NI can and do register .IE domain names on the same basis as those in the Republic of Ireland. Hopefully this quote might even get the point through to you "The IEDR (www.iedr.ie) is an independent not-for-profit organisation that manages the .ie country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) namespace in the public interest of the Irish and global Internet communities." See that word 'Irish'? There's no 'Northern' or 'Southern' before it. Just to state it again because you are going to try ignoring it again: .IE applies to the 32 counties of Ireland. Jmccormac (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to query this statement:

The UK legislation has been cited and it didn't agree with your opinion.

Please explain what you mean by this. How does UK legislation regulate ".ie"; you seem to be backtracking from your earlier statement that:

Comreg, in consultation with the [Irish Government] Minister and others considered appropriate, now decides policy on .IE ccTLD.

If UK legislation in any way regulates ".ie", please explain how (and what source) and how that can be reconcilled with your description above. I honestly am not clear what position you are taking. Perhaps you are taking your former view, that "ie". is just regulated by Irish law; or perhaps you are taking a new view that UK law somehow regulates the registration of domain names by IEDR, which is not even located in the UK. Please do explain. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

What he was saying is that the legislation is more concerned with websites than domain names. Domain names aren't of that much concern to the government. Dmcq (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Frenchmalawi, what does this have to do with the article? TFD (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
@TFD - nothing to do with the article but everything to do with Frenchmalawai's crusade to have his/her opinion accepted as fact despite it being wrong and proven so by reliable sources. Frenchmalawi tried the same thing six months ago. In the latest round, the Good Friday Agreement angle didn't work. Then Frenchmalawai tried the UK legislation angle. That didn't work out because the UK and Irish legislation didn't agree with Frenchmalawai's opinion. Frenchmalawai was asking the same question about UK legislation on the UK talkpage and on the UK Law talkpage. Dmcq has it right above. Many governments are leaving the running of the ccTLDs to official organisations, the registries and the local internet community and just include legislation to provide for situations where the registry misbehaves or fails. It is a waste of time showing reliable sources and citing the relevant legislation because Frenchmalawai thinks that his/her opinion is right and all that is wrong. Jmccormac (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
@TFD and All: Hope you have patience to read this. Hope you are open minded and not closed to any ideas I give you. You raised a perfectly valid question. In essence, you asked "What does it matter if Irish law is the only law governing ".ie"." It matters a lot.
*(1) Background - The article says that ".ie" is assigned to the "island of Ireland". That's right. The article contends that, uniquely among ccTLDs, a domain name was assigned to represent a "geographical landmass" (an island) and was not assigned in this case in accordance with normal IANA procedure. The normal IANA procedure, being that "Country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) are two-letter top-level domains that are derived from the ISO 3166-1 standard." (Quote is IANA).
*(2) I never agreed with this contention as it was flatly contradicted by all sources.
*(3) See ISO Guide. Look at how it describes the geographical units represented by "IE"; it is 26 counties.
*(4) Despite all of this, the article continues to pretend that "IE" represents a landmass. I should not have to go further than that....But the previous discussion failed to move on so now I am further attacking this on the basis of further sources.
*(5) The article says that ".ie" is somehow assigned to the island and represents NI just as equally as it represents IRL. This isn't true.
*(6) The relevance of law is to add a further tranche of firm sources backing up the idea that ".ie" is the ccTLD representing the ISO defined territory of the Irish state (i.e. 26 counties and not Northern Ireland). How is it relevant. It is relevant because I have demonstrated beyond any doubt that Irish law is the only national law governing the ccTLD "ie" domain name. If the other editors had been able to show I was wrong and the UK was somehow involved, it might have helped their argument (somehow....can't imagine how given how clear the ISO/IANA picture is). But none of the editors could do so. Even JMcCormac (I quote him above) admitted ".ie" is regulated by an Irish Government Minister and ComReg (an Irish State agency).
Finally, I am a good faith editor and I don't deserve to be somehow targetted in the terms JMcCormac is doing. I found a statement in the article that was wholly untrue and I have dedicated some time and provided tonnes of sources to back up that the article is wrong. I then asked for a change. This is what the WikiWay is all about. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Establishment

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

I'm aware that I'm coming late to the party, but I've just discovered the above discussion and I find myself in agreement with Frenchmalawi on the question of the 1998 "establishment" date. The GFA, momentous as it was, was an agreement between hitherto irreconcileable parties on, among other things, the governance of the existing polity. It did not purport to establish a new one. The old Stormont parliament and government were abolished in 1973 but the polity (state, statelet, province, constituent country or whatever) was not abolished or superceded either then or at any time since. A change in the way a state is administered does not constitute the establishment of a different state (any more than the abolition of the Seanad would mark a new establishment date for Ireland). Indeed, the reason for the split in the Republican Movement was the decision by the Sinn Féin leadership to take part in the institutions of the existing state. Frenchmalawi's distinction between Northern Ireland and the Fifth Republic is entirely valid, The Fifth Republic cannot be called the "Fourth Republic" or the "Third Republic", while Northern Ireland is still Northern Ireland. Thre was a substantive legal change in one case, not in the other. The quotes that have been produced referring to a "new Northern Ireland" are of the same nature as references to "[http://www.amazon.com/Barack-Obama-New-America-Election/dp/1442222646 Barack Obama and the New America]". I'm sure there were similar "new Americas" in the time of JFK and FDR, and one or two Republican presidents too. But even as the US has grown from thirteen to fifty states, even after the Civil War, it has never been "established" anew. The importance of the GFA should not be underestimated, but it does not belong in the infobox. Scolaire (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A different word besides establishment might be okay because the name was kept and the date can be debated but having devolved rule is most definitely of a whole different order from dissolving the Senate however much I oppose that. I fail to see the difference from the Fifth Republic that you see. The name of the country is the same, it was brought around by a failure of the system before, it brought in totally new system of government, everyday life was very much affected, in fact in the Northern Ireland case it also was accompanied by changed external treaties. If you are arguing against this I don't see why you aren't arguing against the Fifth Republic being included. When those politicians said new you might think they were just waffling but that is exactly what they said and you really need a bit more before dismissing what they said and putting in your own interpretation. And by the way did he say it was a new America and in what context? Dmcq (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Just looked and all I can find is where he said "Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here at the Call to Renewal's Building a Covenant for a New America conference." Dmcq (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. On examination I found that it was added on 4 April by Mick man34, all of whose other edits (including the addition of the Union Jack and the Ulster Banner to the infobox) were speedily reverted. The author of the book I linked to said "new America". The word "new" is commonly used, as it was by the politicians you quoted, to indicate that society has changed in some way. I'm not "dismissing" it (or calling it "waffling"), and the interpretation is hardly peculiar to me. But such statements are not official announcements of the creation of a different entity; different words are required for that and it has to be done in a formal way. The formal position is, according to Annex A of the Good Friday Agreement, "that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom", in other words, that its constitution has not changed and will not change except with the consent of the majority in a referendum. A different word from "establishment" would make the whole thing moot: there is no field in the infobox for a "totally new system of government". Scolaire (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There's more to a constitution than remaining part of the UK. You haven't pointed out to a case of new being used in a similar way the quotes I gave.
I've set up an RfC below since now it isn't just one person opposing the inclusion so there is some debate over it. Dmcq (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
On the constitution: Peter Mandelson page 120 of "The Long Road to Peace in Northern Ireland": "but the Belfast Agreement does more than create the constitutional architecture of a new Northern Ireland because it builds respect for rights and the principle of fairness into the very fibre of the new Constitution"
On new, the Good Friday Agreement first paragraph: "We, the participants in the multi-party negotiations, believe that the agreement we have negotiated offers a truly historic opportunity for a new beginning." Cameron on the 15th anniversary "The Belfast Agreement was the platform to build a new, confident, inclusive and modern Northern Ireland". As for the assembly "The Assembly was elected on 25 June 1998 under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998. It was called the New Northern Ireland Assembly to distinguish it from the Northern Ireland Assembly for which legislative provision remained at that time under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973." Dmcq (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, those are the quotes I was referring to. They don't amount to more than a puff of air. Nice move opening an RfC! It means that the infobox can't be edited for the next thirty days until somebody removes the template. Well, I'm not going to be on tenterhooks. I've said my say, I'll leave my !vote and be on my way. I'm glad you put the words "silly stuff" in the template, though. Scolaire (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
How about Representing a new Northern Ireland "This project, which received substantial funding under the ESRC Devolution and Constitutional Change Research Programme, will explore attempts to represent or imagine the new political dispensation in Northern Ireland through rituals and symbols" from QUB? How many things saying it is new and that the constitution has changed do you need to acknowledge that somebody else's opinion might be better than yours? Dmcq (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
None. I acknowledge and have always acknowledged that somebody else's opinion might be better than mine. I merely state my opinion. Goodbye and happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Well there is the bit in the BIA saying the status has not changed but that seems to be explicitly about as a part of the United Kingdom. If you can find something more about Northern Ireland itself that would be a good counter. Dmcq (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You really don't hear a word I say, do you? :-) I have no interest in finding out something else or making a good counter. I've said my piece and I'm gone. I'll leave it for consensus to decide. That's if anybody else even cares. Scolaire (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to get it more towards citable sources since you'd quoted the book about Barack Obama but I didn't see him actually saying the relevant words. Dmcq (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Silly stuff

Latest comment: 11 years ago36 comments7 people in discussion
  • ".ie" assigned to represent the Irish state continues to be listed; and we have a crazy statement ".ie is assigned to Ireland of which Northern Ireland is a part". It is not 1999; Articles 2&3 are gone; there is not even the slimmest grounds for this silly statement. Domain names aren't assigned to represent islands. It's laughable and sets a bad tone. There was a long discussion about this but still no fix.
There was a bit discussion about this 6 months ago with an RfC and a poll. I don't think anything has changed so I guess you just think that six months is long enough to leave it and then you'd come back to worrying your bone. I really don't think you'll get a different result in this time, in fact I think all you'd do is reinforce the decision. Dmcq (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I participated in the earlier discussin so know where we are at; your comments above on WP process don't address the content issue. I don't know what your view is. Do you actually think these references are appropriate? Frenchmalawi (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "Good Friday Agreement" (or Belfast Agreement, whichever) is listed under the "Establishment" section in the info box. The GFA did not establish NI! What a silly suggestion. Moreover, legally, it did nothing at all until it was given force of law so the dates are wrong. Inconsistent too as we give the correct date for NI's legal establishment on 3 May 1921. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Taking your name as a guide I had a look at France and it lists the last date under that as 4th October 1958 for the Fifth Republic. I thoroughly agree and on the same reasoning I fully support this article listing the Good Friday Agreement as the start of the current state of Northern Ireland. If you want to change the date from agreed to introduced to be in line with the France article be my guest. Dmcq (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Dmcq - Was a new legal jurisdiction founded when the GFA was signed? No. NI has continually been in existence since 1921; In contrast, a new French Republic was founded in 1958. There is no paralell there. Frenchmalawi (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
NI is part of Ireland, it is just not part of the Republic, hence it is called Northern Ireland. TFD (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi TFD, nice to interact with you for the first time. Where country domain names are concerned,they relate to states - not islands. ".ie" represents Ireland, as in the Irish state. NI is not part of it. The sentence suggests ".ie" somehow represents NI because NI is on the same island. But the island does not have a domain name, just as Borneo, a much bigger island, doesn't have one either. Frenchmalawi (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
An even easier example than Borneo is the island of Saint Martin. It is partitioned. One part is a separate legal jurisdiction. Because it has this status, like Ireland, it has been assigned its own domain name, .sx. Yet no one pretends that this has a formal connection with the whole island of Saint Martin. The French Saint Martin article doesn't list .sx as a domain name for the territory. It's the exact same for .ie with respect to NI. But the article pretends it is otherwise. By your logic, if I understand you, you would include .sx on the French Saint Martin article because .sx reprsents Saint Martin and French Saint Martin is on Saint Martin too... Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
It could be poor wording. We need to say that NI can use three domain suffixes - for Europe, the UK and Ireland. The island of St. Martin is not a country, while Ireland is. But the main reason not to include .sx for (French) St. Martin, is that the suffix is not used there. TFD (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
To me these seem like bald assertions, not backed up by fact. (i) you say - "The island of St. Martin is not a country, while Ireland is." This implies that you think the position ofthe island of St Martin is different to that of the island of Ireland. You seem to be saying Ireland and Northern Ireland are one country. Pretty controversial. How do you back that up from any legal perspective? I'd like to hear the reasoning here. (ii) you say ".sx" is not used in French St. Martin - If it was a test of usage, ".uk" and ".tv" and ".de" could be used for lots of countries. There are significant numbers of these domain names registered to persons located outside UK, Tuvalu and Germany. Usage is not relevant. Any one in NI can register a .ie or a .tv. or a .uk or, I think, a .de. That doesn't mean they have any formal relationship with NI. ".ie" is the domain name of a neighbouring country and no doubt is used in NI but is not assigned to represent NI, only the Irish state. Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Same windbaggery about ccTLDs six months later? All those questions and more were answered last time around. With .de domains any registrant outside Germany must have a local German contact for the domain. This is quite different to the situation of NI registrants of .ie domain names. People in NI are permitted to register .ie domains on the same grounds as people in the South. It seems that having failed to have things changed to suit your point of view, you are now trying to reopen the debate for another attempt. Jmccormac (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
"windbaggery", I think your tone is out of line.
This is Wikipedia; content is always up for discussion. I don't like that agressive tone.
Any way, I did say I wasn't sure about the .de domain name. Is ".ie" any different to ".tv". Or does a NI person opening registerin a ".tv" have to have a local contact in Tuvalu? Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, are people in NI allowed register a ".tv" in the same way as a person in Tuvalu? Struggling to understand your logic here. ".ie" is assigned to represent the state named Ireland. There is no basis for it being listed here for a UK region. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Frenchmalawi, the assignment of domain names with the suffix ".ie" is made by the IE Domain Registry for sites "situated in the 32 counties of Ireland" or where there is "a real and substantive connection with Ireland."[2] There is no reason to conceal this information. BTW in case you were unaware, Ireland was part of the UK until the 26 counties left, with 6 Irish counties remaining in the UK. The 6 counties never left Ireland. TFD (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

We went through all the stuff six months ago, Frenchmalawi isn't saying anything new and neither has anyone else here but they want a different result from the long discussion and poll and RfC last time. If they want to do that they should raise another RfC and we can have the poll again.
The new thing they have brought up here is the assertion that there is some big distinction between the start of the French Fifth Republic and the new Friday agreement. Perhaps Frenchmalawi could explain the difference in greater detail. Why is the 1958 business in France eligeable to go in as establishment and yet it is 'silly suggestion', 'no parallel'. Somehow the referendum in Northern Ireland, the ending of direct rule and the establishment well whatever it was of the Northern Ireland Executive and the various North/South councils etc do not constitute any sort of change of political regime, we're just in same old same old Executive Committee of the Privy Council of Northern Ireland whatever that says about it being superceded. Do others agree with that assessment by Frenchmalawi or what am I missing in this picture? Dmcq (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ditto. .ie is administered on an 32-county basis. I'd add too that neither .uk nor .ie relate specifically to Northern Ireland. There's a degree of liberalism taken in giving ccTLDs in the case of UK-constituent articles.
WTR the establishment dates, the gist is correct. Those are the major events in creating NI. Maybe the title could be changed. I see, for example, on UK, France and Germany the term "formation" is used instead of "establishment". "Formation" would be incorrect in this case, but it shows that another term can be used. I also suggest we add Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 to the list. --RA (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I can agree with that addition. It was the other major change in rule in Northern Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This statement struck me (1) that “.ie is administered on an 32-county basis.” This is absolutely untrue. The Government of Ireland, through a State agency (ComReg), in turn through an Irish company controls “.ie” and ultimately sets policies on it. It even has legislated around all of this. The NI Executive or any other UK institution has no role whatsoever with respect to “.ie”; There is no “32 county basis” administration. The Irish authorities have picked a policy to permit registration of “.ie” domain names to persons in NI. The government of Tuvalu has permitted “.tv” domains to be registered by anyone in the world. If people claim that there is a “32 county” administration in respect of “.ie”, please explain what legal or governmental institutions in the UK have any input whatsoever on “.ie”. This is an important question which no one has addressed here.

Separtely, some one asked “perhaps Frenchmalawi could explain the difference” between the significance of the Good Friday Agreement and the founding of the Fifth French Republic. There are several. Here are some: (1) In terms of actual dates, the signing of the British Irish Agreement on the GFA had no immediate legal effects; none. It had to be ratified by parliaments and legislated for etc. So the actual date included is silly for that reason alone. (2) the founding of a Fifth French Republic involved the founding of a new French Republic with a new constitution, separate and distinct to the former constitution – in the ROI article, the equivalent would be 29 December 1937 when the current Irish constitution was adopted. NI is part of the UK; its constitutional position was not changed by the GFA; there was no Second United Kingdom or the like; just as there was no “Second Northern Ireland” either. The jurisdiction was not somehow refounded. New local government arrangements were adopted, there was no constitutional revolution marking a change with the past. It was a piece of reform and evolution. (3) NI was established in May 1921. That’s it; there is no other relevant date. Lots of things have happened since then but has never been altered. If people want to list various dates, silly as a list would be, then the word “Establishment” should be changed t o “Significant Dates”; if so I suggest the date that the Ni/UK/Irish Free State agreement confirming the border be added in. Frenchmalawi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Be careful not to set up a straw man, Frenchmalawi. The .ie domain name isn't administered by the Irish government or any branch or agency thereof. It is administered by the IEDR, an independent not-for-profit. They administer it on a 32-county basis.
WTR the 1920 Act, Sunningdale and the GFA, the position of NI within the UK was not changed (but confirmed) by the later acts. However, the constitution of NI certainly did change. Indeed, it changed dramatically between the three. Take for example your question about regulation of internet services in Northern Ireland:
  • Under the 1920 Act, that would have been a matter the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
  • Under the 1973 Act, telecommunications was reserved matter, a matter for UK central-government
  • Under the 1998 Act, telecommunications remained a reserved matter, but now, through the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, UK-central government must make "determined efforts to resolve disagreements" with the Republic of Ireland and a cross-community delegation from the NI executive must attend meetings of the BIIC when reserved matters are being discussed.
So, yes, these were major constitutional changes to Northern Ireland. --RA (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty plain. Northern Ireland was established in May 1921 and has continued in existence since that date; the GFA is not an establishment date. There isn't much more to say about it really.
In terms of ".ie", I am fully aware that it is administered by a company established under the laws of Ireland. You'd hardly expect the Cabinet to sit around administering it? What Government in the World does that. ".ie" is regulated by the laws of Ireland - example section 31 of the ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ACT, 2000. Simple question, you assert it is administered on a joint Ireland/Northern Ireland (or '32 county') basis: please therefore identify the equivalent UK(UK/NI) legislation that purports to regulate ".ie". Plain and simple quetsion deserves a plain, unambiguous answer. This is the second time I have put the question. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This is just rehashing the previous discussion. Nothing new to consider, no new facts, same editor making the same point. This was discussed in depth and in detail at the time, and unless you're testing to see if consensus has changed, my advice is to give it a rest. --HighKing (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
HighKing - Content is always up for discussion on WP; would you care to point me to UK or UK//NI legislation dealing with ".ie" please? Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Frenchmalawi, you're a devil for the stawmen. Listen, the IEDR exists. It's a private company established by University College Dublin (see here). And it administers .ie on a 32-county basis. You've been pointed to these references before, but here you go again:
--RA (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
An I think when there is a major change in the constitutional status of a country like there was in France or Northern Ireland it is entirely appropriate to list that event as establishing the state. To quote Frenchmalawi, it's pretty plain - there isn't much more to say about it really. Dmcq (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Any one who thinks Northern Ireland was established on a date other than in May 1921 is deluding him/herself; the info box should reflect this.
On ".ie", to back up the unsourced assertion that ".ie" is run by Ireland & Northern Ireland on a joint basis or somehow assigned to the island of Ireland, one editor referred me to a website article (Silicon Republic. 17 December 2002). The very same article included the following...."The next problem looming is that... Minister for Communications and Natural Resources and Marine, Dermot Ahern TD, is actively considering using his powers under The E-Commerce Act, 2000 [wait, of IRELAND], to remove the domain registry function from the IEDR by ministerial order." Hmmm, very interesting stuff. How can an Irish minister do that if this domain name is under "UK/IRL" or "IRL/UK(NI)" "joint administration". Guys, answers please? It was your source! Please point to the equivant UK statute!! Come on! Show me how the UK/NI has any legal role whatsoever with respect to ".ie". Please? I've asked several times. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
You must suffer greatly from selective reading, Frenchmalawi. To quote from the Silicon Republic article you cite above: "The .ie domain covers the island of Ireland." Can't get plainer than that, can you? --RA (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
As to establishment could you go through exactly what is the big difference between the situation of the Fifth Republic and Northern Ireland. I don't see any particular change to boundaries or movement of people or anything like that, it was just a constitutional change. The changes in Northern Ireland have been described as major constitutional changes and I certainly wouldn't dispute that. The French article has many different establishment dates so wanting just a single date isn't the difference. Is it that you dispute that for instance the Good Friday Agreement signalled a major constitutional change? Some rationale for the difference please rather than just the assertion we are deluding ourselves thanks. Dmcq (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
RA-For me, your suggestion that I am being selective is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Your own source illustrated better than I ever had just whose jurisdiction governs ".ie"; that jurisdiction is, of course, Ireland - and only Ireland. Are you saying I am wrong? Please answer! If you are saying I am wrong, explain why.
".tv", the domain of Tuvalu, is arguably administered on a worldwide basis as any one around the world can register a ".tv"; in that sense ".ie" is administered on an island of Ireland basis because as a matter of policy, the Irish authorities have decided persons in NI can register a ".ie". That does not change the fact that ".ie" is the domain name that Ireland and Ireland alone (no joint UK/NI-IRL administration or the like administers). Please challenge me on any of this. I would like to hear the reasoning.
DMCQ - On the establishment of NI thing, it was established in May 1921. Adding another date in there suggests it was somehow re-established or the like. It wasn't. On a personal note, I was alive before 1998 and have distinct memories of there being a NI. I lived right through 1998/99 too and no official source once said NI was being re-established or the like. I think this is all plain silly talk. The GFA date was undoubtedly an important date but its not the date NI was established. The French comparison, I've said before, that was the establishment of a new French republic with a new constitution - it just isn't comparable at all. I think you are ignoring reality. If you are going to put in the GFA date, it would be silly and incorrect but you may as well add in lots of other dates like the Sunningdale date and other dates....The list could get a bit long. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The Sunningdale Agreement was as that article says an attempt which didn't succeed. If it had succeeded then yes it would have been of the type I would say was eligible to be put in that list. I believe there was a France before 1958 and a Spain before 1978 as well. Dmcq (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

However you like it Dmcq; you're argument that there is more than one Establishment Date for NI has no logic. The rest is nonsense. I can refer you to the Austen Morgan Belfast Agreement book in terms of a source for my position that NI was estabilshed in 1921. What source would you refer me to for your assertion it was established in 1998? Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well can I refer you to Cameron's speech on its 15th anniversary in [3] "The Belfast Agreement was the platform to build a new, confident, inclusive and modern Northern Ireland". Doesn't sound like the same old one to me. Or Peter Mandelson page 120 of "The Long Road to Peace in Northern Ireland": "but the Belfast Agreement does more than create the constitutional architecture of a new Northern Ireland because it builds respect for rights and the principle of fairness into the very fibre of the new Constitution" Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I was specific enough in my question. What I am asking you to do is to identify a formal source, citing law, and stating that NI was established in 1998. If you cannot do that, admit as much and say why you think you cannot.
For my part, here is my exact source from the Austen Morgan book: "It became a region of the United Kingdom, by devolution on the appointed day – 3 May 1921 – under the GOIA 1920, a normal act of the Westminster parliament."
I think that is crystal clear - so how about your source?
Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The agreement starts with the words "We, the participants in the multi-party negotiations, believe that the agreement we have negotiated offers a truly historic opportunity for a new beginning." I think I go with the parties who agreed it, the governments that signed it and the people who ratified it in agreeing it was a new beginning. If you want to raise an RfC on this be my guest but currently the consensus is to keep that date under that heading. On the basis of the current consensus I think I'll just ignore you unless you raise the RfC or someone else comes along to side with you. This discussion does not seem to be advancing anywhere and the consensus does not seem to agree with you so I shall not be participating further unless you raise an RfC or someone else comes along to support your view. Dmcq (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
My interpretation of your response is that you could not come up with a source. So you said "I'll just ignore you unless you raise the RfC or someone else comes along to side with you." That is as high brow as this discussion has got. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Have rephrased that. To elucidate, the purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. IF a discussion is obviously not going to change the article there is no purpose in continuing participating in it. Dmcq (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The naming issue needs a point of reference on Wikipedia as there isn't really a good point of reference outside it. It cannot be made into an article, as there is scant good point of reference outside, for either the naming or the argument, but each kid who knocks a head in some debate on Northern Ireland politics is going to give a cry out about "It's an island, it's a state" and get into a big titter when they are trying to discuss other stuff. Confusion is reasonable and expectable on an ongoing basis. 5-10% of this debate has been about what region Ireland is. Not an isolated incident, I point out with a bit of a LOL. ~ R.T.G 17:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Should .ie get listed in domain field on Northern Ireland?

Latest comment: 11 years ago36 comments10 people in discussion
  • Oppose - All sources show that "IE" is the ISO code for the sovereign state named Ireland. That doesn't include Northern Ireland. All sources show that Irish law, not UK law, regulates ".ie" domains. Yes, Irish authorities permit people in NI to register ".ie" domains. So what? Tuvalu authorities permit registrations of ".tv" domains. Let's be objective. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Not this drivel again, just accept it and move on.ÓCorcráin (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed Editors ought to accept reality and move on. Could you join me in opposing! Thanks.

Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@Frenchmalawi The .ie ccTLD is administered on a 32 counties of Ireland basis. People in NI register .ie domains on the same basis as people in the Republic of Ireland. The .ie ccTLD is a managed ccTLD for which certain requirements have to be met before domains can be registered. It is not an open ccTLD like your flawed examples of .tv, .co and .me ccTLDs. That is the reality. Now please leave us all in peace, Frenchmalawi, and move on. Jmccormac (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
@Jmccormac Let's explore your logic. Lets say ".us" (for the USA) could be described as a "managed domain name". Let's say its administrators require some link to the USA. If its administrators decided tomorrow that a link with the USA or Canada was enough, you say we would have to list it in the domain field of the Canada article. That is exactly your logic. My logic is administrative practice is irrelevant. Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Another example illustrating how you don't understand ccTLD administration and ccTLDs in general. The .US ccTLD has requirements that have to be met for registrations. From the Wikipedia page: "Under .US nexus requirements .US domains may be registered only by the following qualified entities: Any United States citizen or resident; Any United States entity, such as organizations or corporations; Any foreign entity or organization with a bona fide presence in the United States." The .US registrations policy page: http://www.neustar.us/the-ustld-nexus-requirements/ Rather than spoofing about ccTLD policy issues with spurious hypotheticals, please go read their policies. There is no "let's say" about it. This is what current .US registry policy says about foreign entities "Prospective Registrants will certify that they have a “bona fide presence in the United States” on the basis of real and substantial lawful connections with, or lawful activities in, the United States of America. This requirement is intended to ensure that only those individuals or organizations that have a substantive lawful connection to the United States are permitted to register for usTLD domain names.". People and businesses in Ireland (North and South) are not considered to be foreign entities as .IE ccTLD is administered on a 32 counties of Ireland basis. People and businesses in Scotland, England, Wales and elsewhere are considered as foreign entities when it comes to registering .IE domain names and are subject to restrictions (they have to prove substantial connections to Ireland or trademarks) that do not typically apply to people and businesses in Ireland. My logic is that of applicable legislation, administrative policy, statistics and reality. Jmccormac (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
You are not engaging with the issues. A registry's administrative practice does not and cannot change what a domain name means. Its meaning derives from the ISO country codes. "IE/.ie" is the ISO code for the Republic of Ireland. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It stays! The .IE ccTLD is administered on a 32 county basis. This has gone way beyond faulty interpretations of legislation, being unaware of the applicable legislation, citing the wrong legislation, a complete misunderstanding of how registries and local internet communities decide policies and a complete unawareness of the reality that people in NI register .ie ccTLD domains on the same basis as people in the Republic of Ireland. It seems that Frenchmalawi has an agenda to have .IE ccTLD removed from the NI page. The GFA, the applicable legislation angles were all unsuccessfully tried by Frenchmalawi to have his/her opinion imposed as fact and now we have yet another vote despite a multitude of previous votes? This is an article's talk page not some web forum. Jmccormac (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that is a highly personalised and unfair attack. You never bothered to address any of the salient points made. Most notably that "IE" is the ISO code for Republic of Ireland, that ccTLD are delegated in line with the ISO code. Or the fact ".ie" is exclusively governed by Irish law. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes it should. The .ie domain name is specifically intended for all-Ireland and not for anywhere else. UK law does not forbid the use of the .ie domain name, although HMG must surely be aware that it exists and what its scope is, therefore the law is irrelevant. And .ie is used in Northern Ireland. Therefore it fulfils the criteria for inclusion. Scolaire (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes Reliable sources say quite specifically that .ie applies to Northern Ireland. Opposing arguments don't seem anywhere near direct enough to be grounds for overriding verifiable sources. Dmcq (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes per reliable sources. The IEDR is the ICANN deligate who administers the .ie domain. Since 2002, they have administered .ie on an island-of-Ireland basis. The application of the .ie domain to the island of Ireland is supported both by the IEDR's own documentation and secondary sources. For example:For want of a practical example, take http://www.wikimedia.ie. A number of people in Ireland are interested in establishing a WikiMedia chapter here. As part of providing assistance to that effort, WikiMedia UK registered a .ie domain on our behalf. They could do so because of their connection with Northern Ireland. --RA (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have no axe to grind one way or the other, but note that the footnote about .ie usage in the infobox is at odds with the .ie and ISO_3166-2:IE articles which both state that the code is for Ireland. The IANA statement on .ie does not attribute a country, nor does the [registry]. Claims are made here about strong references, but none are given. Adding a reference, which states explicitly that .ie includes Northern Ireland, to the infobox footnotes would make the case for its inclusion irrefutable. Usage does not infer assignment: the note above referring to other country codes such as .tv, .co and .me is pertinent. Bazza (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    The Information Technology Law reference states that in 2002 application of the .ie ccTLD was extended to included (explicitly) Northern Ireland. Before 2002, the source additionally says, Northern Ireland was excluded from registry of .ie domains. --RA (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
ISO3166-1 applies to countries, regions and territories. ISO3166-2 applies to subdivisions. Referring to ISO3166-2 was an attempt in yet another earlier discussion to muddy the waters. There is a very important difference between .ie and .tv/.co/.me. The .ie ccTLD is run on a managed registry basis where some level of entitlement has to be demonstrated before a .ie domain can be registered and registrants outside of 32 counties of Ireland (NI and the Republic of Ireland) have to show a substantial connection to Ireland or a trademark. Registration in .tv/.co/.me have very few restrictions and are considered to be open or repurposed TLDs. This is why they are not an accurate comparison with .ie ccTLD. Jmccormac (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
@RA and Bazz – RA, you mention The Information Technology Law reference. You state that in 2002 application of the .ie ccTLD was extended to included (explicitly) Northern Ireland. This doesn’t address Bazz’s point. Bazz’s point is that the question is not about whether the administrator permits registrations in Northern Ireland or not. The .tv, .co and .me administrators do too. That doesn’t mean they get listed in the domain field. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
@ Jmccormac and Bazz– (1) ISO3166-1 applies to countries; AGREED. How can we know what territorial units are in a country without looking at ISO3166-2? Please explain. By looking at ISO3166-2, there is no doubt whatsoever that “IE” means the Republic of Ireland. I would be fascinated to have you explain in detail how you disagree. (2) You don’t address Bazz’s point. You refer to the different manner in which .ie and .tv/.co/.me are administrated. Again you are talking about administrative practice, not who what State is represented by “IE” (only the Republic of Ireland). This is consistent with all your previous input.
@ Bazz– You say "I have no axe to grind one way or the other...". Bazz, I am not grinding an axe either. If you look at my edit history you will see I am not some pro-Brit/anti-Irish type. I am a sincere editor whose identified a really obvious error and am appealing for people like you to actually take a stand. Hope you will. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
@Frenchmalawai It has been explained to you many times that .ie ccTLD is a managed ccTLD where specific requirements have to be met before a domain can be registered and thus it is not the same as .tv or .co or .me ccTLDs. They have no such restrictions. The fact that you are repeatedly ignoring this critical difference shows that you are ignoring reality in pursuit of your agenda to have .IE removed from the NI page. Even the GFA (the whole parity of esteem concept) can be used to back up the inclusion of .IE on the NI page. You tried a number of angles, (legislation, GFA etc) to have your faulty opinion based on a very limited understanding of how ccTLDs operate imposed as a fact. You are ignoring how ccTLDs operate and how the registries and the local internet communities in conjunction with others considered appropriate set ccTLD policies rather than simply governments. Your arguments about governing legislation (for which you didn't even know which legislation applied and then cited the wrong legislation) fell when it turned out that the applicable UK legislation had to do with failsafe conditions if the registry for a TLD associated with the UK misbehaved. Your argument that ccTLDs are the same as ISO3166-1 codes was wrong. That ISO3166-1 codes are not the same as internet TLDs has been pointed out in this latest thread. Even an important RFC states that they are used as the basis for ccTLDs rather than being directly equivalent. And of course you are still banging on about .IE ccTLD (a managed ccTLD) being the same as the repurposed, open and largely unrestricted .tv, .co and .me ccTLDs. Being objective, one would have to conclude that you are ignoring the wealth of sources (showing conclusively and reliably that .IE is administered on a 32 counties of Ireland basis and that it is used and registered by people in NI and the ROI on an equal basis) that disagree with your opinion simply to impose your opinion here as fact. Jmccormac (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bazza 7. Since .ie is the ISO for the republic of ireland, it should not be included in Northern Ireland since they're two completely different countries. It does appear to suggest a POV if it is left in it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    Write a strongly worded letter to the IEDR and ICANN. They are the folks administering the domain. They are the folks that include Northern Ireland in its application. --RA (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    IEDR is just an administrator fort the .ie domain; Tuvalu's ".tv" administrator permits registrations in Northern Ireland too....how is the administrative practice relevant? "IE" is the ISO code for the Republic of Ireland, and ".ie" is that state's ccTLD. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep IEDR specifically calls out it's allowance for Northern Ireland as well as Republic of Ireland. This isn't a national state extension, but an island covering extension. Domain extensions have no connection to ISO code standards for countries. Canterbury Tail talk 18:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    IEDR is just an administrator fort the .ie domain; Tuvalu's ".tv" administrator permits registrations in Northern Ireland too....how is the administrative practice relevant? "IE" is the ISO code for the Republic of Ireland, and ".ie" is that state's ccTLD. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    Please explain, and backup with a reference, that states that TLD equate directly to ISO codes and in fact are one and the same. Just because two things use the same letters doesn't make them the same thing. Canterbury Tail talk 00:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    The list of ccTLDs is derived from ISO 3166-1. However, the relationship is imperfect and the two do not equate directly to each other. The most obvious example is where ccTLDs and ISO 3166-1 codes don't match up. For example, the ISO code for the United Kingdom is GB (and UK is specially reserved). The ccTLD, however, is .uk (and .gb is deprecated). Another example is EU, which is not part of the ISO (but is specially reserved). Nevertheless, .eu is a registered ccTLD and administered as if referring to the European Union.
    More significant to this discussion, however, is the misunderstanding that ccTLDs are "assigned" to countries. They are not. ccTLDs are entries created in a database upon the request of a sponsoring organisation. If ICANN is satisfied with the sponsoring organisation and the two-letter code exists in the ISO at the time then the entry is created. After that, the ccTLD takes on a life of its own under the management of the sponsoring organisation, independent of the ISO.
    So, for example, it is still possible today to register a domain under the .su (Soviet Union) ccTLD even though the Soviet Union hasn't existed for over two decades. Why? Because the database entry still exist and the sponsoring organisation still gives them out, only now as if SU referred (broadly speaking) to Russia. That is why the Russia article lists .su as a ccTLD. Likewise, a ccTLD database entry exists for .ie. In the ISO, IE refers to the Republic of Ireland but the sponsoring organisation treats .ie as referring to the island-of-Ireland. Hence, why it appears on this article alongside .uk. --RA (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Since it is specifically included and ISO codesTLD's aren't always connected to political entities. --HighKing (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do enlighten us on a source for the assertion that "IE" is not assigned by ISO to represent the Republic of Ireland. I have given an ISO source showing conclusively that it represents the Republic of Ireland. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The field is 'internet TLD' not 'ISO code'. Dmcq (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - meant to say TLD, not ISO codes. --HighKing (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you guys understand the relationship between ISO country codes and ccTLD country codes? If you do, you will understand that "IE" is the country code for the Republic of Ireland and ".ie" is the domain name for the Republic of Ireland. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Result : 7 Keep - 2 Remove The result, so far, is 7 votes in favour of keeping .IE on the NI page and just 2 on removing it, one of which was from Frenchmalawi the proposer. Jmccormac (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Why did you say "one of which was from Frenchmalawi"? Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Just stating a fact. Jmccormac (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Including the proposer is probably a better way of putting it. Dmcq (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Amended. Jmccormac (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_Ireland/Archive_15&oldid=1144394248"