Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

McIlroy

McIlroy has won two majors now, so the section on golf should reflect this as it currently only mentions his US Open win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.173.97 (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess if he's there it should be more accurate but really I think Sport in Northern Ireland is the place to mention particular people. The section should just summarize what that other article says. Dmcq (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Scolaire (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Northern Ireland Wiki Meetup

A Wikimeet is proposed for Northern Ireland in the next few months. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Most take place on a Sunday afternoon in a suitable pub but other days and locations can also work. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Northern Ireland topics. Please add your suggestions for place and date to the discussion page here: Proposed Northern Ireland Wiki Meetup. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wish I could make it ! Well done PhilaFrenzy! Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Philafrenzy (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a reminder to please add any views you may have to the project page linked above. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Official Languages

The official Language of the United Kingdom is English [1] therefore it is the official language of Northern Ireland. Regards, Rob (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

True but I get the feeling you are getting the implication wrong. There are a number of officially recognized regional languages. A region is not the whole of the UK. Dmcq (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox should make this distinction clearer, it looks like they all have equal status which they don't. Irish and Ulster-Scots don't share the same status as English. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Its a list of languages for God's sake not a political statement ----Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops didn't mean to embolden that. Most things on Wikipedia have a sniff of a political statement and it wouldn't be surprising here. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Should the Good Friday Agreement be included in the "Establishment" field of the infbox?

Did the change in Northern Ireland resulting from the Good Friday Agreement constitute a change of status of the order of that of the French Fifth Republic and so should it be included under the 'establishment' entry in the infobox? If so the start of Direct Rule should probably also be included. Dmcq (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There has been a discussion above under #Silly stuff and #Establishment. Plus some indication that a word other than establishment might be okay but there is no other suitable word for the infobox as far as we know. Dmcq (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as I believe the sources I specified in #discussion above indicate it is considered a major change in the constitution and a new start for the country. Dmcq (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support However, for the sake of objectivity, I think the section should focus on the major acts of devolution. Partially to illustrate what I mean, I boldly made the kind of change I mean. --RA (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose What did it really create aside of a regional assembly and a few councils? It didn't establish the country within it's current boundaries. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  Immediately before the Good Friday Agreement, Northern Ireland was governed directly from London just like any other part of the UK. The Good Friday Agreement established a devolved legislature and executive in Northern Ireland and made devolution in Northern Ireland interdependent with institutional co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. It also repealed, in its entirety, the Government of Ireland Act that established Northern Ireland in 1922. --RA (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  On the specific objection the boundaries of France didn't change either. Dmcq (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nope. It didn't establish it, merely changed the way it was governed. — Jon C.^ॐ 19:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support It's hard to ignore the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act. That is what established Northern Ireland in 1922. The GFA created a new legislature and executive. That's a lot more than a "regional assembly and a few councils". --HighKing (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose*See: "The Belfast Agreement, A Practical Legal Analysis", Austen Morgan, Belfast Press, 2000.. Source says: “Northern Irealnd]” became a region of the United Kingdom, by devolution on the appointed day – 3 May 1921 – under the GOIA 1920”(Statutory reference SR&O 1921, No. 533). Any way, I was alive before 1998 and distinctly remember there being a Northern Ireland. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per Highking's reasons. ÓCorcráin (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Very Strong Support - I support this. Northern Ireland, as was established prior to the return to London rule, was very different. It had a full on Parliament (two chambers), a House of Commons, a Governor, and so forth. It was arranged like one of the Dominions (Canada, NZ &c.), and was an extremely autonomous body. Then, London rule returned. The Belfast agreement reestablished an entirely different governmental system, which essentially constitutes the establishment of a new political regime, just like the difference between the French Fifth Republic and the French Fourth Republic. There is no reason not to include it.RGloucester (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support* The change in Northern Ireland resulting from the Northern Ireland Act 1998 constituted a change of status of the order of that of the French Fifth Republic and so should be included under the 'establishment' entry in the infobox. The Good Friday Agreement and its referendum was, like all promises of governments and other so-called sovereigns, non-binding. But the Good Friday Agreement is recognized as a significant change in the form of government of Northern Ireland, and so something should be included in the infobox. Int21h (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Northern Ireland is a region of the UK created by the partition of Ireland, and is not a country or even the equivalent of a state or province in other countries. None of the laws relating to the administration of NI is constitutional law of the UK, and the parliament of the UK has never ceded any jurisdiction as for example the US has when it has admitted territories as states. Compare with Alaska which was a territory of the US until admitted to the Union in 1959. Before then the US Congress could change the administrative law of Alaska as often as it wished, but after that date it irrevocably ceded all authority over the areas of jurisdiction reserved for states. TFD (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Looking at the UK government website on the Northern Ireland Office they refer to the Devolution settlement and then go on the discuss the Good Friday Agreement. It is clear that the UK government thinks this is fundamental. Isthisuseful (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You can’t compare the American system to the British system. While the British parliament de jure still retains complete control over all the devolved entities, convention dictates that this is not the case. The unwritten British constitution makes it a jumble. But, de facto, Northern Ireland is a country, as much as Scotland or Wales, and governs itself on most matters. RGloucester (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The UK parliament established the first states of Australia and provinces of Canada, and has the power to establish similar divisions within the UK. However they have chosen not to do this, so NI bears more similarity to a municipality within Australia or Canada. Do you have any evidence that Westminster has irrevocably ceded its authority over NI in any area? TFD (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The UK parliament has not irrevocably ceded authority to the NI assembly. This can be seen by past example at the very least: the UK parliament abolished the original NI parliament in 1973, prorogued its successor in 1974, and reestablished an assembly in 1998.

It's not fixed. Like you say, devolution to NI is not irrevocable. Specially, NI was established (1922), re-established (1973), kind of de-established (1974), then re-established again (1999) by the UK parliament. And for that reasons, NI has not one establishment date but several. It can (and has) been established and re-established several times by the UK parliament. (And every time that it has been, it has been a change to the UK's uncodified constitution.) --RA (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It hasn’t irrevocably done so. That would violate the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Regardless, convention dictates the Westminster government’s behavior, and no one would look kindly on a sudden revocation of devolution without reason. The British constitution is fluid. In theory, the monarch has power. Does the monarch exercise that power? No, because convention dictates it should not. The British political system runs on a system of de facto assumptions and conventions, and so nothing is really ever set in stone. Anything can be changed by parliament. It really should not be compared to the Canadian, Australian or American system, where this is not the case. It can be said that Northern Ireland is functionally a de facto sub-national entity similar to a state. It isn’t de jure, but in practice, that’s the way it works out. RGloucester (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"...Parliament can do everything but make a woman a man, and a man a woman.” And even then...

But NI is not a state. Devolution does not grant independence or even semi-independence. The UK parliament has never ceded power over any aspect of NI. (Though the British-Irish Agreement complicates things with regard to NI compared to Scotland and Wales as it does bind the UK government — not parliament — to certain obligations in respect of Northern Ireland.) --RA (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

See "Abdicating and limiting Parliament's sovereignty".[2] The UK Parliament can abdicate authority, which it has down in the case of Canada and Australia, and it lost its power to legislate for the US following the 1783 treaty. NZ has ceded authority to legislate for the Cook Islands and Niue. Whether or not Westminister has this power, the fact is they did not use it. Northern Ireland btw has never ceased to exist, all that has changed is the manner of local administration. TFD (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. From my understanding, Southern Ireland succeed the United Kingdom as part of the Good Friday Agreement however Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom, continuing the Union between the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain. Just because part of a constituent country of the United Kingdom succeeds does not mean a new constituent country is established. Regards, Rob (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Legality of and Opposition to Northern Ireland

Closing as unconstructive. To fork Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking. --RA (✍) 22:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
History is written by victors not vanquished . but if Wiki claims neutrality and abides by it should'nt it be essential to represent opposite factions . Or is Wiki going way of badly written British Fiction propagated as history This is a British masturbatory article at best where the legality of north Ireland goes unquestioned.Subjugation forced colonization or Irish is completely white-washed . There is not even a single section even on countries which dont recognize North Ireland. Here is a suggestion just like Chinese Wikipedia lets make a British Wikipedia . Where Popular British History is Passed off as fact and that will allow Fish-n-Chip folk to live in is a bubble . First the quality of featured articles and now this ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.93.29 (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC) If you disagree with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, then you need to take it up on the policy pages. TFD (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Also the only two countries that matter both recognise Northern Ireland, that is Ireland and the UK. Who cares if Myamar doesn't. Anyway since it's not a sovereign country in it's own right there is no international recognition needed, everyone recognises the UK. So what's the issue? Or is this more a case of people don't know what it looks like and can pass it in the street without knowing what they're looking at? Canterbury Tail talk 17:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC) This is what I dont understand, some passerby spouting uneducated shite, cliaming a whitewash on the article, yet due to the amount of eyes on this, it is probably one of the more neutral articles on here. Annoys me to the gut, political charged POV soapboxing, wikipedia isnt here to say who is feckin right or wrong its a feckin encyclodia and there is flippin no need for someone who hasnt experienced feck all to do with the subject matter talking shite to show their lack of understand of the subject matter or what wiki is about. Rant over. Murry1975 (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Oooh, I feel like sticking in something to see if I can get you do a longer and even more vehement rant ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcq (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 July 2013

Kingdom of Ireland

I have a question: is Northern Ireland to be considered a realm like Scotland, or just a constituent nation like Wales? Because the coat of arms of the British Crown still brings the Irish's Harp; but, Ireland existed as a separate kingdom in 1921-1949 (when Éire became a republic), while Northern Ireland was part of United Kingdom. Thus, is Northern Ireland a realm, or not? Filippo83 (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is a remnant of the former (prior to 1801) Kingdom of Ireland. This can be seen in the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom, which is comprised of three legal jurisdictions with separate laws and legal traditions: England and Wales (formerly the Kingdom of England), Scotland (formerly the Kingdom of Scotland) and Northern Ireland (part of the former Kingdom of Ireland).

This is separate from the question of "nation". For example, the former realm of "England" (the former Kingdom of England) comprises what we would today call two nations: England and Wales. And Northern Ireland continues to form part of what we would today call the nation of Ireland (e.g. national sporting teams). However, that question of nation in NI is complex.

It is also different from the question of "realm". Whilst the various kingdoms that formed the UK kept their separate legal traditions, they formed "one United Kingdom" i.e. there is only one realm. So no, Northern Ireland is not a separate realm. Neither is England or Scotland today. All are today part of one realm: the United Kingdom. --RA (✍) 14:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Good answer. --HighKing (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not seen where Scotland has been described as a realm following its union with England and Wales. TFD (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for the answers: that is right what I wanted to know, whether Northern Ireland is the remnant of the old Kingdom of Ireland, or a new entity created in 1921/'22 (with the Free State becoming the only "heir" of the old realm). I beg your pardon for the unproper use of realm, but I was looking at how many "old realms" today form the United Kingdom: if England and Scotland only, or Ireland too. of course, they are not three separate crowns today. Filippo83 (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

@Filippo - As you use the Irish language name for the state named Ireland here on English Wiki, I will be consistent here and stick to Irish for the other territories mentioned. Editor RA generally got it right. Tuaisceart Éireann is not a realm. Neither is Alba. Technically I regard RA's answer as faulty in one respect. Tuaisceart Éireann was created in 1921. At that point in time the old Ríocht Éireann hadn't existed for over a century. Ríocht Éireann disappeared off the map when it amalgamated with and into An Ríocht Aontaithe. So obviously, Tuaisceart Éireann was simply carved out of a part of An Ríocht Aontaithe. It could not possibly have been carved out of Ríocht Éireann. Hope that clarifies. Best. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you @Frenchmalawi. I think that my use of the word "realm" is misunderstanding: let's then say, I refer to British Coat of Arms. It should represent the three united crowns, England, Scotland, and Ireland; and it is slightly different from England to Scotland, which can be both defined as "realms" not by myself only (e.g. get a look at this link). I think that you all already answered to my questions, but to tell the truth all started from this point. Filippo83 (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Mistake in List of Cities

Under demographics there is a list of cities in Northern Ireland. Londonderry is incorrectly listed as Derry. Whatever your OPINION is, the official name of the city is Londonderry. This is not a matter in dispute, and your use of a nonstandard name may lead readers to believe that Wikipedia is biased. And we all know that could never be true, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.165.180 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:DERRY and Derry/Londonderry name dispute. Wikipedia is not based on UK law but on reliable sources and by a wide margin they refer to it as Derry. Dmcq (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

So in other words Wikipedia is an opinion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.165.180 (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is about Northern Ireland. Talk:Derry is the appropriate page if you have something constructive to say. It currently has a section at the top where someone else has been complaining about the name. Dmcq (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ulster Scots

This must be a joke. Ulster Scots is not a language, it is at best a dialect with words of the english language spelt phonetically. It should not be there in the lede or infobox. In Scotland or England they do not include regional dialects in the lede ir infobox. What a joke, why don't we add Klingon whilst we are at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.87.164 (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's recognised as a language in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Typical ignorance of minority languages. Ulster-Scots is simply the Ulster dialect of Scots - a language taught in Scottish primary schools, recognised by the European Charter and the Good Friday Agreement. It is similar to English simply because they both descend from Old-English (Anglo-Saxon), which is no surprise as Lothian was an Anglo-Saxon area, even after the Norman invasion of England, which left Lothian part of Scotland.

Just to show a comparison: Scots-Gaelic and Ulster-Gaelic are quite similar, compared to Irish Gaelic, but they all come from the same Old/Middle Irish origin. Does that mean Scots-Gaelic isn't a language? No it doesn't. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Only because it is incorrectly termed a minority language instead of a dialect by the United Kingdom. The only reason why the UK government even toy with the idea of it being a language was because hibernophobic unionists hated the idea of Irish being given an official status and sought a means to divert resources from the Irish language, which is an irrefutable fact. How many people actually speak the "Ulster Scots language"? In fact I remember in the news when Ulster Scots signs were put up in areas only then to be vandalised by unionists because they thought it was Irish. Just says everything.

According to the 2011 census, 8.08% of people in Northern Ireland have some ability with it, compared to 10.65% with some ability of Irish. I suggest you read the Scots language article for a proper insight into Ulster-Scots's parent language. Though as someone once said, the difference between a language and a dialect is the size of the army used to enforce one over the other. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"Some ability", how deliberately vague. What are the actual numbers, how many people are actually fluent in it compared to Irish? Not many. There are far more people speaking Irish in Ireland, and in Northern Ireland alone the number is growing, the same cannot be said for Ulster Scots.

Wikipedia uses reliable sources and it is classed as a language of Northern Ireland in reliable sources, end of story. When you get your views published in a scholarly work and peer reviewed then editors will take more notice of them. Dmcq (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Here you go:

-Irish English: History and Present Day Forms, Cambridge University Press, 2007. pp.85–120,C. Macafee (2001)
-"Lowland Sources of Ulster Scots" in J.M. Kirk & D.P. Ó Baoill, Languages Links: The Languages of Scotland and Ireland, Cló Ollscoil na Banríona, Belfast, p121
-C.I. Macafee (ed.), A Concise Ulster Dictionary, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), xxxvii
-http://www.scotslanguage.com/Ulster_Scots_in_the_Northern_Ireland_Census
-http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10702890212201#.Uhz8gz8biZM
-After the Peace: Loyalist Paramilitaries in Post-accord Northern Ireland,p. 94,by Carolyn Gallaher
-Plural Identities-singular Narratives: The Case of Northern Ireland, by Máiréad Nic Craith.

As you can see they are not my "original views", as you are trying to insinuate. Hence the above list of just a small portion of the "reliable sources" and "scholarly work and peer reviewed work" that you are looking for. Not even the Good Friday Agreement referred to it as a language (but it did with the Irish language). Are you and "other editors" going to take more notice of them now, or are you just going to ignore the facts? I know these facts are a bitter pill for certain people to swallow.109.76.192.115 (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"This must be a joke. Ulster Scots is not a language" your opinion is not backed up by the sources given. Dmcq (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Then you clearly have not bothered your arse to read the sources. Away with you flegger.

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

"linguistic diversity", whatever could that mean? Close and move on. Murry1975 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting wording! I'd never noticed that before: "Irish language" and "languages of the various ethnic communities", but not "Ulster Scots language". Now, if 109.76 is proposing that we take Ulster Scots out of the article altogether, then I totally disagree, but I do think that somebody needs to do the necessary research and clarify the status of the language/dialect in the article. For instance, in the "Ulster Scots" section the terms "language", "dialect" and "varieties of the Scots language" are all used. Worse, the sentence "Under the Good Friday Agreement, Irish and Ulster Scots (Ulster dialects of the Scots language)..." makes it sound as though Irish and Ulster Scots are both dialects of the Scots language! Neither is there any discussion of the distinction between Ulster Scots and Mid-Ulster English, which, according to that section, "shows influence from the lowland Scots language." That entire section could do with tightening up by somebody who knows their stuff. The infobox should not be changed, however. Ulster Scots is recognised by the GFA and the distinction between language and dialect is too fine to merit a discussion there. Scolaire (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Dialects -> dialect done. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's a start :-) Scolaire (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No not altogether, but having the Ulster Scots "translations" in the infobox and lede as if it is of the same linguistic standard os Irish, which is an internationally recognised language, taught all over the world, with over a few million speakersm whilst "Ulster Scots" is not is absurd. People still have not given me the numbers of Ulster Scots speakers.109.76.192.115 (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

IP109. Scots is a recognised language, Ulster Scots is a dialect of this language. As for the translations in the infobox, WP:IMOS covers that. Now if you have something to discuss other than your open please add. BTW census figures show 8% with a Knowledge of Ulster-Scots with less than 1% being able to speak read nd write it (and that was easy to find). Murry1975 (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Why are you even bothering to respond to an editor who obviously has a closed mind in regards to this matter and won't be persuaded otherwise? They probably think that the most famous Irish word in the world craic is actually Irish in origin. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Because they know I am right, Ulster Scots is not a language of its own like the French language, Gaelic language or English language, anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves, it is a "dialect" of Scots, or as most rationale people would consider; the phonetic spelling of English in a Ballymena accent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.211.92 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no point trying to convince us of something if reliable sources and the government say otherwise. Dmcq (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Flag

The Union Jack is a flag in Northern Ireland. Why don't we put the Union Jack at the top of the page considering it is the only flag that is officially used and recognized in Northern Ireland.--Mick man34 ♣ (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_flags_issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.192.115 (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It is the United Kingdom flag. It isn't specific to Northern Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The Union Jack is not the flag of Northern Ireland, but it is still used to represent it, so Mick man34 is probably arguing that the Union Jack should be shown as it represents Northern Ireland, in the same way it represents some British Overseas Territories. Personally I would agree with this as this article represents a political entity that is part of the UK, not the north-east of Ireland in general. This article is not suppose to provide a flag that represents the people who live in the region, but instead provide a flag that represents a political region of the UK that does not have a unique flag. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What's the point? Wales has a flag and that's there and the Union Jack isn't. Northern Ireland doesn't have a flag so you just want to stick in something to fill a space? Dmcq (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Articles like Wales, England and United Kingdom provide the flag as it represents the entity alone whereas articles like Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha provide a flag because it represents the entity as being part of a greater entity. Although the first reason is usually preferred over the second, if the first is in absence, the second is usually used. Regards, Rob (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

So the Belfast article should have a Union Jack too? Dmcq (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyway when the UK has to stick up something alongside the other flags it puts up a St Patrick's Saltire, see Flag of Northern Ireland. It may not be the official flag of Northern Ireland but it certainly makes a mess of the idea of representing Northern Ireland by a Union Jack in the article. Dmcq (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this, but if it represents Northern Ireland as a political entity within the United Kingdom, then it should definitely be used. If it is used by the British Government, then I don't see how it's not the official Flag, as 'Northern Ireland' is a political entity of the UK, not just a region in the north-east of the island of Ireland. Regards, Rob (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And Wikipedia can't be aware of it without a source ----Snowded ^TALK 18:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Saltire is not a de jure or de facto flag for Northern Ireland. It is simply a flag that represented Ireland and was incorporated into the Union Flag (of saints), so I'm assuming as it represented Ireland and represent's Ireland (and Northern Ireland since it has the same patron saint) in the Union Flag then that is why they may fly it on occassion. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It is simply a flag that represented Ireland - nope. The Saltire was never used to represent Ireland. Read the article. --HighKing (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

How exactly is the St George cross a de jure or de facto flag for England? If it represents Northern Ireland today as part of the UK then it's the flag of Northern Ireland as much as the St George Flag is the flag of England. Anyway, I'm haven't looked for a source that says the St Patrick saltire represents Northern Ireland, although it's stated without a source at Flag of Northern Ireland. I think a source would need to be found before this is discussed as we may be wasting our time. Regards, Rob (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The only flag with any official status in NI is the Union Flag. Mo ainm~Talk 22:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is completely different than saying "The official flag is the Union Flag"... The simple truth is that there's no official "flag" for Northern Ireland (depending on your definition of "official". --HighKing (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have found a source that states that the official flag of the political entity of the United Kingdom called 'Northern Ireland' is the Union Flag here and another source here that suggests that the St Patrick flag represents the political entity of Northern Ireland. I think the current position that no flag should be listed as there legally is no official flag is incorrect. I think, by law the flag should be the Union Flag however the fact is that the St Patrick Flag represents the political entity of Northern Ireland independently and thus should be used instead of the Union Flag as it is more representative regardless of law, which Wikipedia is not a puppet of. Regards, Rob (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand that this is controversial however we must remember this is not an article about the north-east of the island of Ireland but instead a political entity of the United Kingdom which is, de facto represented by the St Patrick Saltire. Regards, Rob (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the ST.P Saltire is sometimes used to represent Northern Ireland, but so are a lot of other flags as well. For example, the Ulster Banner is used to represent NI at the Commonwealth Games, and formerly actually was a "flag of Northern Ireland" until the return to London rule. It isn't so cut and dry. That's why it is best to kibosh any attempt to put a flag in here. They all offend someone or another, and none of them are really "official" other than the Union Flag, and even that is extremely controversial among various sectors of society. Adding a flag here does nothing to improve the reader's comprehension of the Northern Ireland flags issue, which we have an article on. In fact, I suggest linking to that article in lieu of displaying a flag. RGloucester — 📬 18:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The political entity of Northern Ireland is not represented by the Ulster Banner although the Northern Ireland Commonwealth Games team is. Like I said above, the St Patrick saltire is the only flag that currently represents the political entity of Northern Ireland. It's like saying that England Team Crest represents the political entity of England. Rob (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to say that it "currently represents the 'political entity' of Northern Ireland". It is sometimes used for various reasons, by various people. But no where is it official, and even de facto it is not always used, for example, Castlereagh government offices fly the Ulster Banner. Comparing the Ulster Banner to the English team crest is a total nonsense. The Ulster Banner was created specifically for the purpose of representing the "political entity" of Northern Ireland, until the suspension of home rule. It is no longer used by the NI executive, sure. But some councils still use it, which is more than we can say for St. Patrick's saltire, which is usually used by outsiders anyway. Not to mention that SP saltire originally was used on an all-Ireland basis, and is still flown by the Church of Ireland across the island, not just in NI. The one place where the Saltire is vaguely used in an official sense with regards to NI is on the emblem of the PSNI. Nevertheless, this is not a flag, but a crest.

My point is, that arguments can made either way. Everyone prefers one flag or another, and choosing one to represent NI is reductive for an encyclopedia, and maybe offensive to some people. It makes more sense to link to the Northern Ireland flags issue article, which can explain the situation in more detail without being reductive and unhelpfully discriminatory. RGloucester — 📬 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

So compare it to the Royal Banner of England and Royal Arms of England which are still used by some councils and the England Team Crest is based on. The fact is, my source shows that the St Patrick Saltire is used to represent Northern Ireland as much as the St George flag represents England, and although controversial, the St Patrick Saltire, de facto, according to this source is the flag used in the United Kingdom to represent a political entity located within the United Kingdom and in fact, if you were to ask the majority of citizens of the United Kingdom, they would probably agree with this. I don't see why this shouldn't be displayed because people opposed to the existence of the British political entity don't think it represents the entity that they don't even want to exist. It's like British people opposing reference to the name 'Republic of Ireland' because it infers that all of Ireland, part of their country is part of another state and demanding that it is changed to the 'Sovereign Region of Ireland' or some crap. The St Patrick Saltire is the used to represent Northern Ireland as much as God Save the Queen is the anthem of the UK and the 'Republic of Ireland' is the name of the sovereign region of Ireland. Rob (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is occasionally used to represent Northern Ireland. I don't doubt that. But your same source goes on to say that the Saltire is NOT the flag of Northern Ireland. It specifies the Union Flag. And, because we must take a neutral point of view in our approach to this encyclopedic project, and since many people consider all of the various flags, from the Tricolour to the Union Flag to the Banner to the Saltire &c. offensive or incorrect, it is best to have a compromise, as we do now, whereby we do not show a flag, as no one flag is accepted or official to represent specifically Northern Ireland. To do otherwise would be to favour one point of view or another, reductive or offensive. That would be incorrect. We have no need to cause tension by placing a flag in this article (and it certainly will cause tension and vandalism). Pragmatism dictates instead that we should explain the flags issue, and make it clear that there is no one correct, official, or even de facto flag that refers to Northern Ireland. RGloucester — 📬 01:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It says, "if St. Patrick's flag for Ireland has been adopted by Her Majesty's Government as the flag for Northern Ireland", which does not mean the St Patrick Saltire doesn't officially represent Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. My source clearly suggests that today the Flag that officially represents the region within the United Kingdom is the St Patrick saltire regardless of what flag is used externally. I also don't see how the St Patrick flag is offensive, it was introduced by Great Britain to represent its client state known as the Kingdom of Ireland, which then represented Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. How does it not still represent the British part of Ireland, if it was originally introduced by the British to represent territory they controlled? And why would anyone be against its use to represent British territory, if that's what its always been used for? Regards, Rob (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's another source clearly showing that the flag used to officially represent Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue further, but I think it is obvious to anyone else that reads this why there is no flag listed in the infobox. You can be bold and place it there, sure. But it won't last for long. That's for sure. RGloucester — 📬 15:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"The Saltire was never used to represent Ireland. Read the article. --HighKing (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)" - lol your backing your stance up with an Ireland related Wiki article? Brave. That article on the flag as is quite obvious from the lede is very slanted giving only part facts. Whether it was an official flag or not, it represented Ireland, something that can be clearly seen from the fact various organisations and many town crests across the island bear the image as a symbol or as a flag. Maybe due to it's eventual close association with the Protestant Ascendancy, nationalists/republicans try to distance the flag from the island. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the article if you think it's so "slanted". --HighKing (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Even though the St Patrick Saltire obviously represents British-led Ireland and has done since the 18th century, we still wont show it, just because republicans who don't accept Northern Ireland right to self determination find representing a British entity with a English-introduced flag is somehow offensive? As I am lacking consensus, I wont go ahead and include the flag that clearly represents Northern Ireland, but this just sums up half the Irish articles on Wikipedia. While I'm in this confusing and bias side of Wikipedia, I'd like to say that the use of the term Ireland to refer to the Republic of Ireland should be banned as its wrong and confusing. Ireland is and island. Rob (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

"use of the term Ireland to refer…" and that there shows our problem here. What you are saying, that's an opinion that many would disagree with. I don't have an opinion one way or the other, and don't particularly care. We use RoI for disambiguation when it is necessary, and terms like "all-Ireland" to make things clear. But we do make sure to note the fact that the constitution of aforementioned republic makes it clear that the name of that republic is Ireland. We note this, but we also take into account the fact that Ireland also means an island, and that many people disagree with referring to the republic as "Ireland". It is just the same as with the Saltire. Your opinion is not fact. Neither is mine, nor is that of anyone else. We can't privilege one side's opinion over the other, hence we reach a compromise and note both those opinions, while making clear what the facts are. RGloucester — 📬 16:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Demonym

I'm happy with 'Northern Irish' being stuck in the infobox under demonym as it is pretty specific. However lots of people prefer to call themselves British or Irish so I think a quick check on consensus should be here to make sure there's no problems. Dmcq (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is part of Ireland and the UK, so we don't need to include 'Irish' and 'British' as they should be stated on Ireland and UK. Rob (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"so I think a quick check on consensus should be here to make sure there's no problems", one reply and one revert wouldnt show consensus, but hey consensus is here already, so gain a new one first. Murry1975 (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how this is even controversial. As I have said on the flag issue, this article is not about the north-east of the island of Ireland, but instead a political entity that is part of the United Kingdom. This should state whatever demonym is used to describe people exclusively from Northern Ireland, within the UK. I went ahead and added 'Irish' as the demonym on the Ireland article, and 'British' is already stated on the UK article, therefore these don't need to be stated here too. Rob (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No need for sarcasm. I'd forgotten about that earlier discussion and both the original editor and two editors here agreed with what was there. I've reverted so the demonym is removed in accordance with the earlier consensus at Talk:Northern_Ireland/Archive_15#Demonym, but it may be possible to get a new one here. Dmcq (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It may be possible Dmcq.

@Rob, "This should state whatever demonym is used to describe people exclusively from Northern Ireland, within the UK", why? And How did the conclusion come about? There is an ability for people from Northern Ireland to be Irish, British or Northern Irish if they wish. You cant in this exceptional instance use a demonym that applies to all. Murry1975 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Add to Rob, I have removed it from the island article, as it can be shown again, in part by yourself here, that its not an encompassing demonym. Murry1975 (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit at Ireland. People from Ireland are called "Irish". That's a fact, and has nothing to do with officialdom, citizenship, self-identification, the Good Friday Agreement or anything else. As for "Northern Irish", I'll sit on the fence for the moment and see what new arguments are brought forward. Scolaire (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw that Scolaire, my point being until we resolve here, both should be left blank. Murry1975 (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. If something is correct it shouldn't be reverted on the grounds that there's a disagreement on a different page. Scolaire (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Previous discussions on this got hung up in particular on the fact that reliable sources give "Irish" as being a demonym for someone from Northern Ireland. This caused ire for some people. So, rather than cherry pick sources, we avoided the whole demonym thing altogether. --Tóraí (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The recent 2011 census as we all know shows quite clearly that a large amount of people in Northern Ireland see themselves as Northern Irish, with most of those feeling British or Irish at the same time. That alone is good grounds to include Northern Irish as a demonym, of course alongside British and Irish. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A demonym is just the word used to describe people from that place, it shouldn't be confused with citizenship or what nationality someone sees themselves as. I think if any demonym is to be added it should just be Northern Irish as this seems to the most common term and makes more sense. The press, for example, wouldn't talk about Northern Ireland and describe the people there as "the British" or "the Irish", as this would create confusion. People from Scotland are technically British but their demonym is Scottish, likewise with the Welsh. As a compromise maybe nationalities could be added as Irish and British, and demonym as Northern Irish. Having said that, I can see how people would disagree with this and how the issue is likely to cause arguments, so maybe it's better if it's left out altogether. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It is best to sidestep this issue, and just leave out the demonym. There is no uncontested demonym for people from Northern Ireland, and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. Nationality is a separate issue, as the editor above me has so correctly stated. Both Irish and British are acceptable nationalities for people from Northern Ireland, as they are entitled to both citizenships (or one, to the exclusion of the other). Northern Irish is never a "nationality" as there is no "independent state" of Northern Ireland. At best, Northern Irish is a contrived (though logical in formation) demonym that many contest, and which avoids complicated issues of ethnicity and self-identification. At worst, it is offensive. Leave it out. If a nationality column is added, that is acceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 16:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. While the question of demonym is not quite the same as citizenship or nationality, in the context of Northern Ireland it's not so easy to extract.

As I pointed out above, when we look to books that list places and their demonyms (e.g. Paul Dickson (1997), Labels for Locals: What to Call People from Abilene to Zimbabwe), we find three common demonyms listed for Northern Ireland (in alphabetical order): Irish, Northern Irish, and Ulster man/Ulster woman.

Now, anyone is free to disagree with these and say that one or another of these is "wrong" or doesn't uniquely indicate Northern Ireland or something else. That just demonstrates the contested nature of the issue. However, when it comes to adding content, we say what sources. And we say it neutrally and without cherry picking what we believe is "right" or "makes more sense" or leaving out the bits we believe are "wrong" or just don't like.

Either go with sources, in their fullness or (given that I don't believe that's likely) sidestep the issue and leave it out altogether. --Tóraí (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Please add

Please add the following to the bottom of the Northern Ireland#External links section:

• Why is Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom? (The Economist)

Thanks. 72.244.204.199 (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, it is a blog piece, doesnt add anything to the article that isnt covered in further reading section. Murry1975 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

(Damn Murray you beat me to it. I'm going to drink Guinness just to spite you now) Agreed with the user above, though the blog is well-written it's very short and doesn't add much to what is already here. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: for the reasons stated by Murry1975 and Somchai Sun. --Stfg (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Infographic?

Hi, I’m Andrew Clark and I work at the Office for National Statistics in the UK.

We publish lots of infographics and I wonder if this one on Northern Ireland (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Profile_of_Northern_Ireland.png) would be of interest for Northern Ireland

FYI, the full gallery is here <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Content_created_by_the_Office_for_National_Statistics>

All the best

Andrew Clark (smanders1982) 10 Dec 2013

Smanders1982 (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid infographics don't tend to fare well on Wikipedia. There's a few problems, they present facts rather than illustrating the text and therefore need citations. More importantly they are difficult for editors to change and Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. The one you gave in particular would quickly go out of date. Dmcq (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If there is to be any chance of editing infographics like that they should be in SVG format not PNG. The scalable vector graphics format lets the text be changed easily and sizes of circle changed. Accessibility considerations can be tackled by having an associated image map, that doesn't have to be done immediately, someone with experience of them can add one later.. Dmcq (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Also the link to the site and the logo at the bottom would have to go if the infographic is to be usable as a basis for something in Wikipedia unless we are to be stuck with simply reproducing something on that site. If we want to link to the site that is better done by a link rather than copying images from it. I'm a bit surprised that the image is released under a commons copyleft licence. Dmcq (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The graphic entirely is not appropriate. Certain individual elements with captions included using Wikipedia formatting would be great. SVG is not a requirement, and with images like these, does not really seem worthwhile. Rob (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Rob can you point me in the direction of 'Wikipedia formatting' and Dmcq maybe the written article on our site that accompanies the infographic will be useful? Smanders1982 (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:IMGSYN. In this case, if you wanted to include the economic output chart, you should really only show the chart in the graphic, with a caption, such as "Northern Ireland's proportion of the UK’s economic output in 2011 (gross value added)" under the graphic, using Wikipedia formatting. Here's what the code might look like:

[[File:Chart of the economic output of Northern Ireland in 2011.png|thumb|alt=Chart showing Northern Ireland was responsible for 2% of the UK’s economic output|Northern Ireland's proportion of the UK’s economic output in 2011. (gross value added)]]

Which would be displayed as:

Northern Ireland's proportion of the UK’s economic output in 2011. (gross value added)

[Article text]

Note: Image is a placeholder.

Also, of course, any appropriate information provided by ONS can be included here. The economy section could do with being updated and expanded, along with Economy of Northern Ireland; if anyone has the time.

Regards, Rob (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Internet TLD

The info box lists .ie as one of the Northern Ireland TLDs, but I think this is incorrect. There's a footnote stating .ie (ISO 3166-1 code IE) is assigned to Ireland which Northern Ireland is a part of - it's actually assigned to the Republic of Ireland. I suggest either removing .ie from the list, or noting that it's sometimes used by users in Northern Ireland (but that it's not an official Northern Ireland TLD). I would make this change myself but the page is protected.

2001:470:28:103:C40:FDCB:70B6:A716 (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a discussion about this at Talk:Northern_Ireland/Archive_15#Should_.ie_get_listed_in_domain_field_on_Northern_Ireland.3F. Also see .ie. It was assigned before domains got political and now it has got stuck in a bit with the issue of identity. Dmcq (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The footnote is a bit misleading. .ie is as assigned to the IEDR, which was previously a part of University College Dublin. Since 2002, it is administered (for better or for worse) on an all-island basis.

Northern Ireland itself doesn't have a ccTLD. --Tóraí (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

How would folks feel about a re-write as follows: ".uk is administered by Nominet UK for entities connected to the United Kingdom; .ie is administered by the IEDR for entities connected with the island of Ireland; and .eu is administered by EURid for entities connected with the European Economic Area." --Tóraí (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. Dmcq (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. 2001:470:28:103:C40:FDCB:70B6:A716 (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Northern Ireland doesn't have any TLDs. .uk, .ie and .eu shouldn't be included on any of the UK's country's articles. It's like claiming .ie is the TLD of Dublin, as it doesn't have one assigned to it. It's just pointless. Unlike the calling code, +44, the domain of the UK is really not of interest to readers. That it states Northern Ireland is on Ireland, and part of the UK, which is part of the EU, should be enough for anyone to realise the domains of Ireland, the UK and the EU may be used in connection with Northern Ireland. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree but so long as England, Scotland and Wales show these things, so will this article. --Tóraí (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

England doesn't, and I'll strongly contend any change there. I will edit Scotland and Wales and see how it goes. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Same stuff different year? Wonder if that IPV6 address is that of a proxy? NI also has an Irish calling code in addition to the +44 code. There's reason that things are in encyclopedia like Wikipedia and that is because they are usually non-obvious. Either leave it as is or use Tóraí's suggestion. Things are going to become a bit more complex with the launch of some of the new gTLDs which will be relevant to Ireland and the UK. Jmccormac (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know this had been brought up before, I have never edited the page or been involved in any discussions about it. 2001:470:28:103:C40:FDCB:70B6:A716 (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

We will have to cope with TLDs like .cmyru or .eng fairly shortly so I don't think removing them will solve anything. Personally I quite like the rwrite by Tóraí above of saying who administers the domain and for whom rather than just concentrating on political matters. Culture and identity also matter, there's too much concentration in the debate on being a subject and being governed, there's more to life in a country than that. Dmcq (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between generic top-level domains and ccTLDs. 2001:470:28:103:C40:FDCB:70B6:A716 (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Noticed that now, I'd prefer that all UK country articles simply don't have the TLD field. Unless they're assigned ISO country codes and ccTLDs. See for example Åland, an autonomous part of Finland with its own ccTLD (.ax). 2001:470:28:103:C40:FDCB:70B6:A716 (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with Tóraí's proposition and not happy with Rob attempting to win an argument here by changing other articles (and then rejected a revert on each) ----Snowded ^TALK 07:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how editing an article to support an argument elsewhere, makes the valid and presented reasoning for the edit any less valid. My reasoning presented here is exactly the same as for Scotland and Wales, I made the edits to see if they would be contentious there. Apparently, I can't make the same edit to 3 articles, even though I see an issue with all three? Rob (talk | contribs) 12:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It would have been better to get your argument over first here. Trying once is okay but pushing your edits on both a second time rather than continuing with the discussion after the first time they were reverted is rather problematic. Dmcq (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you deleted the Wales one three times now. Don't you think you are entering edit war territory? Dmcq (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No. If you contended my reasoning for the edit (see the edit summary), then yes. But you didn't. Unless you have a reason for keeping the TLD, then why revert? Rob (talk | contribs) 14:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to go with .cymru and .wales for the moment, would they be listed with Wales and why would .uk and .eu not also be listed with an appropriate description of their applicability? Dmcq (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Because Wales, and the other countries are sub-divisions of the UK. We could say .uk is a TLD of every sub-division (London, Cornwall, etc) of the UK, but it's pointless. I will repeat, if someone wanted to know the TLD of the UK, they would visit the UK's article, not a sub-division of the UK. Unlike the calling code, which the reader may think is different for Wales, it's completely clear that the UK's domain may be used in connection with Wales, regardless of whether it's stated here. Do you think Wikipedia should state .ca is a TLD for Quebec also? It's just pointless. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You say it is pointless, but why is it pointless? How do they know they should look elsewhere unless they already know the answer? Dmcq (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:IBX#Purpose of an infobox. Do you think we should state .uk on every UK sub-division so readers don't have to look else where? The infobox is suppose to 'summarize key facts in the article in which it appears', and the 'less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose'. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said it is not a question of having to look elsewhere. Putting in the restricted information actually obscures the other because people think they have a full answer but they don't. At least without anything there they know they have to search. Did you know you had special rights to a .eu domain because the UK is in the EEC? Dmcq (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. However, like I said, that the articles state that the countries are part of the UK, of which most people are aware is a sovereign state (of which all have TLD), is sufficient. Besides, the UK's article doesn't list .eu, except in a note ref tag (of which at Wale's article would be appropriate for .uk and .eu). London will soon have its own domain, but listing .london without .uk also really isn't misleading. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I've stated my reasons. You seem determined to go on about it despite the previous consensus so I think your options really are to give up or raise yet another RfC on the matter and hope that this this time round it comes to a different conclusion. I really don't think your argument that people should just know without any indication that the list is incomplete and will what to do about is very convincing. Dmcq (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of an infobox. Rob (talk | contribs) 01:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm fine with having a note ref, with .uk and .eu when there is other domains stated (as done at the UK's article). So there could be some indication that there are other domains that may be used in relation with Wales and Scotland, however at England and Northern Ireland, which lack proposed local domains, listing nothing is clear enough. Rob (talk | contribs) 03:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What exactly am I supposed to be missing in WP:IBX#Purpose of an infobox? What is clear enough from listing nothing for Northern Ireland? What are the domains people in Northern Ireland have a special entitlement to use? Is it a key fact that people are interested in or not? Do you want to remove languages too, after all it has no official language and people can search for that themselves too. I think you need an RfC at this point, this talking back and forth doesn't look like it will lead to any meeting of minds and the previous consensus was a bit wider. A change would need a clear agreement, that's pretty unlikely, or another RfC to overrule. Dmcq (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

.irish

As well as .cymru, .wales, .scot and .london, 2014 will also bring us the joy of .irish.

Of these, .wales, .cymru and .london are listed as a geographic name, meaning the backing of government was required. .scot was applied for as a geographic, and has the backing of the Scottish government, but the name but was determined not to be a geographic name. .irish was not applied for as a geographic name and is forwarded as a gTLD for "the global Irish Diaspora". Nevertheless, I expect I expect there will desire to have it added here, in the same way that .scot and .wales will be added to those articles.

It will be coming on stream in 2014 (before .scot). I think we need to get ready for that. --Tóraí (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well you can probably guess I'm not in favour of that either. It refers to a language, not a region. Rob (talk | contribs) 13:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The "Irish" in .irish refers to Irish people, culture, interest, etc. not necessarily the Irish language. The Irish language isn't mentioned in the proposal. --Tóraí (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Tóraí is right. Generally only Irish people refer to Gaelic as 'Irish'. The real fun will begin if Scotland votes for Independence. This whole ie/uk NI argument seems to start up every year or so because a few people don't like reality. The past discussion was quite comical in that the proposition was voted down each time and the proposer even tried to have multiple votes when each one failed. There is no consensus for change and the inclusion of ie/uk/eu reflects the reality of the situation. Encyclopedia entries are not about imposing opinions. Jmccormac (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Eh? Do people outside Ireland refer to the language as Gaelic? I guess someone might say Irish Gaelic but Gaelic on its own as a noun normally means the very closely related language in Scotland. 16:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a lot of people outside of Ireland and Scotland talk about Gaelic. But I would think Irish is most common, with Gaelic referring to both the Scottish and Irish variant. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the stats but it's certainly a long standing complaint by a lot of Irish speakers that the language is frequently not called "Irish" in English outside Ireland itself. This may be shifting a bit these days. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Overall, I think if something is complex and contentious, such as the TLDs, why not just avoid covering them in the infobox (or have a link to a section of the article stating See below), then explain in more detail, where the issue can be covered as best as possible, rather then trying to briefly summarise it in the infobox, which is both impractical, and defeats the purpose of the infobox? Rob (talk | contribs) 17:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

WRT the current set of ccTLDs, if consensus is to remove them from ENG/SCO/WAL then I have no issue with removing them form here. If they remain at ENG/SCO/WAL then they should remain here. .uk applies to ENG/SCO/WAL by virtue of them being in the UK. .uk and .ie apply to NI by virtue of it being in the UK and on the island of Ireland.

Talk:Northern Ireland isn't the venue to achieve that consensus, though. --Tóraí (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

NI is a special case therefore they should be left here. The explanation in the text of the article (with the TLDs remaining in the infobox with the link to the explanation was one suggestion in the previous discussions. However Nominet doesn't publish regional breakdowns of registration patterns. Jmccormac (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I will start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board next week. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 21:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the NI article is not just a UK Wikipedians issue. And there is unlikely to be any people there with the expertise on domain name markets at a country level. Jmccormac (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the market for a TLD is entirely relevant. In my own country, Sweden, a lot of companies / people register domains under the .nu TLD. "Nu" means now in Swedish. There's also .st, which is run by a Swedish ISP Bahnhof, but that isn't listed either. 85.226.232.242 (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

They are not the same things. Please read the discussions in the archives to get a better understanding of why .ie/uk/eu are included in the NI infobox. Basically the .ie registrations are available to people in ROI and NI on an equal basis as is citizenship. This makes NI's position as regards domain names different. The .ie is a managed/restricted ccTLD where entitlement to the domain has to be proven first rather than an open TLD where anyone can register domain names. The .nu and .st ccTLDs are repurposed ccTLDs. Jmccormac (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Those are examples of domain hacks though, rather than intended usage. .uk is intended for the UK, of which NI is a part. .ie is intended for the island of Ireland, of which NI is a part; .eu is intended for the EU/EAA, of which NI is a part. Potentially, .irish (when it comes in) is intended for the world-wide Irish community, of which NI is a part. --Tóraí (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In a sense, .ie for Northern Ireland is a domain hack then. Because "ie" is the Republic of Ireland. That's my point. 2001:470:28:103:4183:FADD:84AD:C11A (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

.ie is administered by the IEDR. Initially, registration for the domain was limited to the Republic of Ireland only. From 2002 onwards, it has been administer on all-Ireland basis. So, it is not a domain hack for entities in Northern Ireland to use .ie. That's the intended purpose per the administrating body. --Tóraí (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither of you are referring to domain hacks. Even if .ie's administrating body didn't intend all-Ireland usage, it wouldn't be a domain hack. Neither is .nu or .st. I understand what Jmccormac is trying to say however. There isn't technically much difference between domains such as .co, .nu and .st, and .ie as both intended usages by INAN, has been changed by the administrating bodies from representing their countries. Although .ie isn't open for international registration, it's still being used for an alternative purpose then intended by the INAN. I don't really think this matters however. The significant difference is that .nu and .st are internationalised, not localised like .ie. Rob (talk | contribs) 14:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it has ever been restricted to the Republic only, it has always been all Ireland. Where did you get this business about 2002 from? Dmcq (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The .ie is not a domain hack. A domain hack is where the letter in the extension are used to spell a word (blo.gs for example). The .ie is also one of the earlier ccTLDs (26 years old this year) and it was delegated before ICANN even existed. The position of .ie with respect to the Irish internet community (North and South) was even stranger then. The E-commerce legislation was even more muddled and it took a lot of fixing to sort matters out. The .ie ccTLD applies to the island of Ireland and of course there is the whole parity of esteem thing from the GFA where not only can people choose their citizenship, they can choose their ccTLD. However many businesses in NI will have both a .ie and a .uk domain name for their business. The same applies with many ROI businesses. Initially registrations in .ie were free but much of the regulations about who could register what appeared later. The purpose of .ie remains unchanged. It is represents Ireland. The legislation even states that. The .nu, .st and .co are what are known as "repurposed" ccTLDs where they have been opened up to global registration because of the letters after the dot. Jmccormac (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe this has any relevance to the discussion, but nonetheless...

You're not exactly correct. .ie is still only the ccTLD for the Republic of Ireland, and not the entire island. The Republic of Ireland is fully entitled to take all revenue from sales of .ie domains, and can decide all rules regarding its usage, including where it can be registered. Essentially the domain belongs to the Republic of Ireland, which allows registrations in Northern Ireland also. Its intended usage by the ICANN, is to represent the Republic of Ireland only, and the Irish administrating body has re-purposed it for all-Ireland usage, in the same way Colombia has re-purposed its domain for international usage.

This is an issue I see with many Ireland-related articles. The Irish government is a foreign government to Northern Ireland. The Irish Government has no authority over Northern Ireland, and too many articles suggest otherwise. Statements along the lines of 'Irish nationality law extends across the island of Ireland' and others similar are completely false.

No legislations in the Republic of Ireland extend over Northern Ireland. They simply grant Northern Irish people elements, and Northern Irish people are entitled to accept or reject these elements. For example, people born in Northern Ireland are not born dual citizens, they are born British citizens, and granted Irish citizenship, which they can choose whether to accept or reject.

And, rant over.

Rob (talk | contribs) 19:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. Just because the Republic has deemed that something spans the island doesn't mean it has that same status in a completely separate jurisdiction such as Northern Ireland whether they wish it did or not. Having said that, by virtue that people in Northern Ireland can buy a .ie domain name, and there are those that do, there is an argument for its inclusion on that basis. We can always add a footnote explaining? Otherwise I'd back the exclusion of .ie on the basis of how it was re-purposed. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland is fully entitled to take all revenue from sales of .ie domains...

Just because the Republic has deemed...

IEDR is an independent body. No state body set it up. It grew inside University College Dublin, just as much of the internet grew from the worldwide university community.

Essentially the domain belongs to the Republic of Ireland...

No. Essentially, the domain is an entry in a database owned by ICANN. And, essentially, that database points at one managed by IEDR. The US government ultimately controls the ICANN entry, though they manage it in the public trust and in trust for the international community.

On the basis of the rant that this discussion is turning into, I suggest this discussion has reached an end once more. I think the only thing there is consensus for is to amend the footnote for clarity, which I will do now. --Tóraí (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If we're being scrupulous then...

'In the case of top-level domains that are country codes this means that there is a manager that supervises the domain names and operates the domain name system in that country... ...For top-level domains that are country codes at least the administrative contact must reside in the country involved.'

'The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global Internet community.'

The Irish administrating body must act within the interest of the Republic of Ireland, not the entire island. And countries evidently are allowed to monetise their ccTLD, so I see no reason why the Republic of Ireland is any less entitled to do so, if it wanted to.

This is clearly a re-purposed domain.

But yes, this is really irrelevant here.

Rob (talk | contribs) 21:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No it is not a repurposed domain. That phrase has a specific meaning within the domain name industry and generally refers to a ccTLD that has been opened up and often commercially licenced to a company to run as something other than a ccTLD. This seems to be a problem with people seeing domain industry terms and creating their own interpretations. Indeed much of this discussion and most of the previous discussions have been filled with such issues. Jmccormac (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This whole issue has been explained in the previous discussions. Perhaps people who are apparently new to all this should read them to get a greater understanding of what is going on here. The .ie ccTLD was not repurposed. This include/exclude .ie seems to occur every year or so and it results in the same incorrect arguments being made and no consensus to change the set of TLDs. Jmccormac (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If it isn't re-purposed then why wasn't it delegated to a cross-border body? Why does the Irish Minister for Public Enterprise have the power to make regulations regarding the registration of .ie domain names? Obviously because it's assigned to the Republic of Ireland, who have re-purposed it. It seems clear that whatever previous discussions have been had are based on incorrect information. I don't actually care in this instance, but it's another example of the Irish Government-Northern Ireland crap on portrayed on Wikipedia. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it is not a repurposed ccTLD. The reality is that .ie, .uk and .eu are (apart from the gTLDs) the most used domains in NI. NI registrations are treated on the same basis as registrations from ROI. UK (Wales, England, Scotland) registrations in .ie have to prove entitlement and substantial connection to the island of Ireland. The .ie applies to the island of Ireland and substantial numbers of .ie registrations are NI registrations. Jmccormac (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me. .ie is the ccTLD for the Republic of Ireland. Registration has been assigned to the IE Domain Registry, which allows registration for organisations and individuals in Northern Ireland with no connection with the Republic of Ireland, of who the domain is the ccTLD for, as assigned by ICANN. .ie is obvious a country code TLD, that is assigned by ICANN to a country, not an island. Northern Ireland does not form part of the country called the Republic of Ireland. This, therefore is a re-purposed domain. What is difficult to understand? Rob (talk | contribs) 22:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The .ie is not a repurposed ccTLD no more than .uk is a repurposed ccTLD. Now .nu, .st and .co are repurposed ccTLDs. The term was explained earlier. And .ie is not assigned to the IE Domain Registry. Jmccormac (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Right pal. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If it isn't re-purposed then why wasn't it delegated to a cross-border body?

Telecommunications, broadcasting and internet services are reserved matters. As such, the Northern Ireland Assembly has no responsibility for them and they cannot be delegated to a cross-border body. Furthermore, as stated repeatedly, the IEDR is not a state body.

Now, have we finished with this matter? --Tóraí (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this discussion concluded? Nope. But since really, this doesn't affect my view on whether .ie should be included (although it may affect others), I don't see any point in continuing. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 22:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Wildlife

Should "Wildlife" be included? Will have to think about this.Osborne 15:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we could have a wildlife section, though the wildlife in the countryside could hardly be called wild when you compare it to the wildlife in Stormont. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2014

include actor and model Jamie Dornan from Holywood in list of famous people from Northern Ireland. Ashcarden (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done:The page where he should be added is List of people from Northern Ireland. That page isn't semi-protected so you should be able to do it yourself. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Northern Ireland independence referendum

Is it planned or attempt?--Kaiyr (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

And anything like that should probably wait till all the current lot are old and doddery. Dmcq (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wildlife

As this is a "Protected" article I am cautious about adding anything to it. However "Wildlife" (or by whatever name) should be included. As a start:

===Birds=== There are some 264 species of birds in the six-counties, some of which are accidentals having arrived by chance from another country. Deane, C.Douglas in Ruttledge, Robert F. 1966. Ireland's Birds. H.F.& G.Witherby Ltd.Osborne 19:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

===Mammals=== Fairley, J. 1975. An Irish Beast Book. Blackstaff Press, Belfast. SBN 85640 090 4.

===Algae=== There are records for 356 species of marine algae in Northern Ireland. Morton, O. 1994. Marine Algae of Northern Ireland. Ulster Museum Publication No. 271. ISBN 0 900761 28 8.

I think this better done on an all Ireland basis as at Ireland#Flora and fauna. They are not great respecters of he border. Dmcq (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Domain name

Northern Ireland has no domain name. Evidently, not all countries have domain names. Just because the field exists, does not mean it must to be used. If it's not applicable, then don't use it.
It is informative to contrast Northern Ireland's lack of a domain name to Scotland and Wales, and therefore including different content somewhat reduces the infobox's effectiveness. Other countries' articles do not include domains of polities they are part of. .eu isn't listed at France, Spain, Germany, Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales, England, etc. Inconsistency is discouraged:

The meaning given to each infobox part should be the same across instances of that type of infobox.
–Manual of Style

Additionally, infoboxes are not the place to include information for the sake of including information:

...the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.
–Manual of Style

Why is .eu more relevant here then at any other countries' articles? Why is it a 'key fact' here?
Rob984 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

In the past, the ccTLDs were shown here because .uk was shown on England, Scotland and Wales as well. I notice that since the introduction of .scot and .wales/.cymru, only those gTLDs are shown on the Scotland and Wales articles and England shows none.

I'm ambivalent about removing it now. It is interesting that Northern Ireland is at the nexus of two ccTLDs and within the administrative area of three - but given the changes on the other UK articles, I don't think I would object to it being removed. --Tóraí (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Better then the status quo would be:

None^a
^ As part of the United Kingdom, Ireland and European Union, .uk, .ie and .eu may be used in connection with Northern Ireland.

Or:

None
.uk (UK)
.ie (Ireland)
.eu (EU)

Or less still:

.uk (UK)
.ie (Ireland)
.eu (EU)

I would like consistency between this article and England's article regardless.

Rob984 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd either go with the status quo or be consistent with England. --Tóraí (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Rob984 and User:Tóraí - I just draw to your attention that I discussed a topic touching on this at very great length previously. The central point I was making in that discussion is that there is no basis whatsoever for associating ".ie" with NI. ".ie" is the domain name for Ireland proper. Personally, I think its all very silly to list domain names for local government units like Northern Ireland...I don't think there is any reason to. Should it interest you to do so, you could review my edit history, you would find my edits don't come from any "pro British" perspective...It just so happens that ".ie" is assigned to Ireland proper....Ireland permits people in NI to use the ".ie" domain name, just as Tuvalu permits people in Zimbabwe and Aruba (and everywhere in between) to use ".tv". That doesn't mean it has any formal relation to Aruba. Rather, its a policy decision of the Tuvalu administration to do so, just as it is for Ireland to permit NI users to use ".ie". You can read at great length my arguments which were all rejected,in my view, for political reasons at Talk:.ie ...The discussion begins under ".ie is assigned to the State named Ireland". Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

So it begins wrong as they are assigned to sponsoring organisations and it was never assigned to the state named Ireland. Anyway .ie is the article about the domain. Dmcq (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It is assigned to the state:

'In the case of top-level domains that are country codes this means that there is a manager that supervises the domain names and operates the domain name system in that country... ...For top-level domains that are country codes at least the administrative contact must reside in the country involved.'
'The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global Internet community.'
–ICANN

The Irish administrating body must act within the interest of the Republic of Ireland, not the entire island. The intended use is entities connected with the state.

For example, if the Irish administrating body wanted to, they could restrict the domain to entities conntected to solely the Republic of Ireland. They could not restrict the domain to entities conntected to solely Leinster, because that would not be acting within the interest of the whole Republic of Ireland.

The Irish administrating body has re-purposed it for all-Ireland usage. It is not obligated in any way to do so.

Rob984 (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It was not re-purposed. That bit in ICANN was written long after it was assigned. Also the ISO country codes are used for islands apart from who governs them. The .uk code was chosen rather than the ISO .gb to represent the whole of the UK as a country. Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to talk about re-purposed how about talking about the Good Friday Agreement that guarantees people in Northern Ireland the right "to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both". A principal duty of internet domain registers is to reflect the wishes of their community. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Would be pretty absurd if people living on Ireland couldn't identify as Irish; it is the demonym for the island you know? "their community" is the people of the Republic of Ireland. Rob984 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the same discredited arguments being pushed again. People should really read back through that multiple threads on the NI Talk page and see how despite the consensus being against it, repeated votes were called by Frenchmalawi with some voters (Frenchmalawi and supporters) having multiple votes in the same vote but others (typically supporting the status quo) only having a single vote. The .ie ccTLD was not repurposed. Frenchmalawi is recycling the same wrong claims about open ccTLDs in an attempt to have his/her opinion accepted as fact. The GFA legislation was mentioned previously and it supports, from what I remember, the current situation. And repurposing a ccTLD is not quite the same as what some people on this thread consider as repurposing. It typically, in the domain name industry, means having an external company take over the administration of a ccTLD and the same of registrations to a global market rather than just the country or region initially envisaged. The most recent examples of this would be the .co ccTLD and the .me ccTLD. The .ie ccTLD is still a managed ccTLD and is, by comparison, quite restricted in who can register domain names under .ie. This is why Frenchmalawi's claims about repurposed ccTLDs like .tv are wrong. Jmccormac (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"Repurposed" simply means, used for an alternative purpose then intended.

It's beyond me why you would think the TLD based on the ISO code for the Republic of Ireland, was not intended for entities conntected with the Republic of Ireland. Like the other 300 countries' TLDs.

I don't really care about the state of .ie, as long as the domain of the Republic of Ireland isn't listed on an area within the UK's article.

Rob984 (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said, it has a specific meaning within the domain name business. The GFA means that it should be listed -- parity of esteem and all that. Wales has dotCymru. Scotland has dotScot. People in NI who wish to use .ie have dotIE. Next year, there will be a dotIrish. These are regional geo gTLDs. The regional gTLDs dotCymru and dotScot are mentioned on the Wales and Scotland pages. Don't see too many complaints about that. Jmccormac (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I added .ie to Ireland's infobox. I don't disagree that it's used on an all-island basis. I disagree that it was intended by ICANN to be used on an all-island basis, as implied at .ie. It's still the ccTLD of the Republic of Ireland. Rob984 (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

.ie is a ccTLD, not a geo gTLD. You don't seem to understand the difference. A domain matching an ISO code is reserved for the respecive state. Scotland could never aquire .sc, even before 1997, because it was reserved for Seychelles. Please understand the distinction. Rob984 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I do understand the distinction. I also understand that the assignment of .ie ccTLD took place approximately a decade before the establishment of ICANN. Jmccormac (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Rob984 - I 100% agree with your position. It's crystal clear. Jmccormac is running with a "it's covered by the Good Friday Agreement" arguemnt. That sounds really desperate to me. By that logic ".uk" should be listed as a domain name for Ireland too. After all "parity of esteem and all that" works both ways and the GFA was an "all Island" agreement in that sense. Any way, I interacted with Jmccormac at length on the Talk:.ie. See how he starts off with a bald assertion and a thinly veiled personal attack rather than a reasoned argument: "discredited arguments being pushed again".

User:Rob984, should you wish to read up further on the whole issue I'd again point you to Talk:.ie where I detail just how clear the relationship between Ireland and ".ie" is - the administration of ".ie" is governed by the laws of Ireland and Acts of the Oireachtas have been enacted dealing with it. Do you think any one could point me to an equivalent UK or Northern Ireland piece of legislation dealing with ".ie"....Of course not! It's assigned to Ireland proper and not an island... I will support you all the way Rob. Though my own position is that the NI page should have no domain names listed at all because it's not necessary and is rather silly as none are assigned to it (it is a UK region and doesn't have its own domain). Finally, Jmccormac was also wrong on the first things he said: I have actually never before discussed the ".ie" domain on the Talk: Northern Ireland page. Though the argument, is basically the same as that which I gave on Talk: .ie. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

How quickly people forget!

The 2013 effort: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_Ireland&oldid=561211337

The 2012 effort: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_Ireland&oldid=529828553

Jmccormac (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite following Frenchmalawi's argument about the Good Friday Agreement. It doesn't give people in ROI the right to a British passport. If t did then yes I would agree .uk would be a reasonable extra domain there but it didn't - it gave people in NI the right to Irish passports and to be treated as Irish citizens. Dmcq (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Dmcq - For one thing, whether a group of people outside Ireland are afforded rights to Irish citizenship is completely irrelevant to whether ".ie" is a domain name for a jurisdiction outside Ireland. But nonetheless, even if it were relevant, you say "It doesn't give people in ROI the right to a British passport." The GFA provides that in a United Ireland NI people (whatever that would mean then) would have the right to British citizenship. It reads "recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland." But this is all completely irrelevant in any event to the fact that ".ie" is assigned to Ireland, governed by Irish law and has nothing whatsoever to do with the UK or any part thereof. Would you like to raise some arguments countering what I have said? Please explain how ".ie" has any relation to NI, more say, than ".tv" has? Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The Good Friday Agreement is recognized by the British government and by the government in Northern Ireland. People have the right now under British law to be recognized as Irish and have parity of esteem if they are born in Northern Ireland. That is in the here and now. What would happen in any united Ireland is irrelevant to the current question. Dmcq (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that what may happen in a United Ireland is irrelevant; so too is the GFA. This is a discussion about ".ie". It is the domain name assigned for "Ireland" and not "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

The GFA doesn't change that. Your argument is a bit like saying that ".il" should be a domain name for New York because there are a lot of Jewish people there and the Iraeli law recognises their right to be Israeli....Yes Ireland affords citizenship rights to people outside Ireland in NI; that has no relevance to the ".ie" which is governed by the laws of Ireland and not by the laws of "Ireland and the UK" or "Ireland and NI" or some such. It isn't complicated. I don't think you are interested in facts here. Hmm, User:Rob984 was the person I was pitching in to support but I guess he might have got tired of this too. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The US does not have an international agreement that people born in New York may identify as Israeli and they will be recognized as such and will be afforded parity of esteem with Americans even though they don't sing the Star Spangled Banner and salute the flag. Dmcq (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

GFA doesn't give Northern Irish people the right to use .ie.

Regardless, Northern Ireland is a sub-national entity. Listing .uk, .eu or .ie is unecessary. Since people in Fermanagh can register .ie domains, should we list .ie as the TLD of Fermanagh too? I guess it's also the TLD of Belfast and Derry?

Belfast has no domain. Neither does Northern Ireland.

Infoboxes should be comparable:

"The meaning given to each infobox part should be the same across instances of that type of infobox."
–Manual of Style

Scotland or Wales only show the domains of their country. England, like Northern Ireland, has no domain, and so unsuprisingly shows nothing.

Northern Ireland has no TLD is a fact. The easiest way to convey that fact is to show no TLD.

"...the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content."
–Manual of Style

Rob984 (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The current state has been the status quo for almost two months. This infobox must be consistent with England, Scotland and Wales. If you want to change the meaning of the field here, you will have to gain consensus to change it at all four countries' articles. Have fun. Rob984 (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is about your change to remove the domain name. It has not been accepted by a consensus yet. Consistency is not a requirement in Wikipedia, see WP:CONSISTENCY. What you are stating as fact is simply your own opinion. The GFA most certainly does give people in NI the right to use .ie, they have the rights of Irish citizens if they so wish and any such rights are recognized by the British government as being equal to those got under the crown. Are you denying people in NI the right to be recognized as Irish citizens and parity of esteem? Are you asserting that the British government would be within its rights to pass a law saying an .ie domain could not be used by a person in NI as part of their identity? Dmcq (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about this question, I don't see that the TLDs have any great weight in the context of this article, so I can't really argue that they have to be in the infobox. It is just this denial of identity rights from the GFA and ancient rights of the name that irks me. Dmcq (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely deny that the GFA gives "people in NI the right to use .ie". The GFA says absolutely nothing about .ie. It didn't provide that ".ie" would be administered by one of the "North-South" bodies. Indeed, the GFA provided that Ireland would renounce all claims to sovereignty over NI and would recognise UK sovereignty over NI. It even provides that the island of Ireland has no right to self determination, although it doesn't put it that way. It was a partitionist settlement. Any such rights must be exercised separately by the two jurisdictions on the island. The Irish constitution even went so far as to provide that even if the people of Ireland proper voted for Unity, they could not legally effect it without the consent of the people in NI. Affording people the right to be "Irish" or "British", as the GFA referred to, is a right afforded to many people outside Ireland proper. People born in New York whose parents were born in Ireland have the right to be Irish. They have the right to be recognised as "Irish". But they have no more right to use ".ie" than any one else. There is a lot of rubbish about the GFA. In reality, it has a great deal in common with the agreement all sides made "united in amity" on 3 December 1925 Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I would add: what would be subject to the North South bodies was intensely argued over at the time. Had it been intended that .ie be made subject to NS arrangements, that would be very clear. Of course, it didn't. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The domain has not been subject to any laws so why should the governments discuss it? The thing you were talking about has nothing about recognition of identity never mind any shared authority. I really don't know why you bring up such irrelevancies. If a person is born in New York of Irish parents they are expected to pledge allegiance to the flag. You do know that domain names are considered an integral part of identity by many people and firms? Messing around with GFA trying to restrict it very tightly to identity only meaning a passport is certainly not what it intended. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

See Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom) about the various changes for Northern Ireland to see for example what the GFA means about identity. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"The domain has not been subject to any laws so why should the governments discuss it?" That's wrong. Just read Talk: .ie where I discuss the Acts of the Oireachtas that regulate .ie. Secondly, to take your argument to its logical conclusion: You are saying that if Ireland restricted use of .ie to Ireland based persons and stopped affording NI based persons the right to use it, Ireland would be in breach of an international agreement between Ireland and the UK, often called the GFA. You are saying the UK would have the right to sue Ireland for breach of the Agreement in international Courts and international Courts could make a judgment that Ireland should afford access to .ie to NI persons. That to me is absolute buncum, based on no sources and doesn't stand up. The GFA says absolutely nothing about ".ie". It is for the Government of Ireland alone to determine whether or not NI based persons or any other persons outside Ireland can use it. The GFA did not change that. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

And as it says there that comes under the bit of the commencement order that says 'This Order brings into operation the provisions of the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007 , except for section 21 in relation to section 32(2) and (6) of the Electronic Commerce Act 2000. The latter provisions create an offence and will be brought into operation when the necessary regulations have been made.' Since then no regulation came into effect and it has just dropped from sight. Irrespective of that if the ROI government had control it would be subject to the GFA which it has also signed so it would have to allow NI people the same use of Irish identity marks as those in ROI. Dmcq (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay okay. Anyone in the Republic of Ireland can register a .uk domain, and .uk domains are used by business operating in the Republic Ireland: kfc.co.uk, maplin.co.uk, marriott.co.uk, etc. So .uk should be listed at Republic of Ireland right? Rob984 (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Britain would be within its rights to restrict use of .uk domains to people in the uk and British citizens. Much more interesting would be if there was a case where a .uk domain was required in Britain, under the GFA I'm pretty certain they would have to also allow .ie in such circumstances in NI. I can't see the question going to court - they'd just do it, though you never know with all the stupid insults being traded back and forth in Stormont.

Anyway this is all a bit irrelevant to the article unless some other people are still wanting the TLDs in the article. Dmcq (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

But of course, the Republic of Ireland (specifically 'the trustee of the top-level domain for the nation') isn't within its rights to restrict use of .ie domains to the Republic of Ireland?

The rest of your comment is nonsense. The GFA has no affect on the allocation of .ie or .uk domains.

Rob984 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said just a little above if the ROI government had control it would be subject to the GFA which it has also signed so it would have to allow NI people the same use of Irish identity marks as those in ROI. Basically the GFA recognizes that the Irish nation is not confined to ROI, that is a state not a nation. Dmcq (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

So "ie", the iso code of the Republic of Ireland is an "Irish identity mark"? Right. Regardless, it does control it. See my comment below. Rob984 (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Internet domains refer to political entities not geographical ones as far as I am aware. Is there a Hispaniola domain for Haiti and the Dominican Republic to use seeing as they share an island? No. ".co.uk" is the only proper internet domain for Northern Ireland as it is part of the UK, not the Republic regardless of what it says. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Internet domain names are identifiers. Dmcq (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The Commission for Communications Regulation have powers of regulation over the .ie namespace. ComReg is a state agency of the Government of the Republic of Ireland. So .ie regulated solely by the Government of the Republic of Ireland, but it's supposably the TLD of the whole island??? Rob984 (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The law you're thinking of was never brought into effect, the commencement order excludes it. But as I said above that is pretty irrelevant because if it was so controlled Ireland would be constrained by the GFA just like it is in issuing passports. Dmcq (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As the matter is still under discussion here, the domain name field should be restored in the article. Frenchmalawi's arguments were discredited and shown to be merely his/her opinion. On a number of occasions, he/she has tried to impose his/her opinion on the article without it being supported by fact, legislation or, more importantly, consensus. Even with a rigged vote the consensus was that the domain name field should stay as it was. Jmccormac (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The domain names have been absent for nearly two months (that is status quo). It was agreed on this talk page between two editors prior. This is a new discussion contending the status quo. Rob984 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Infact, you're the only editor in this thread supporting adding it to this article. Rob984 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Not so:

"2000 (15,506 domains registered): The e-Commerce Act 2000 was passed giving the Minister for Communications, Data and Natural Resources powers of regulation over the .ie namespace."

"2007 – the 75,000th .ie domain is registered by themusicshop.ie: The e-Commerce Act 2007 (as amended) is passed transferring the Minister for Communication, Data and Natural Resources power’s to ComReg."

iedr.ie

It's not an "Irish identity mark". It's the iso code of the Republic of Ireland, derived from the name of the state. It's irrelevent to the GFA.

Rob984 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The IANA database lists the sponsoring organisation for TLDs. In .ie's case it is UCD. It has not changed and I think that there was some discussion about this. However this is separate from the legislative issue. Jmccormac (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, why do you think the sponsoring organisation is the regulator? Rob984 (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't and never made such a claim. The sponsoring organisation is the sponsoring organisation as per the IANA database. Jmccormac (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I have no idea why your responded to my comment about the regulator by telling me about the sponsoring organisation? Rob984 (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Because the sponsoring organisation got tied up in the governance section. You did, after all, delete the nic.uk reference in the .UK articles as you didn't know it was the .uk registry's own site. The .ie ccTLD sponsoring organisation has not been changed even though IEDR now administers the .ie ccTLD. Jmccormac (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know? I removed it because Nominet is a single organisation, and .nic.uk isn't a generic second-level domain. It doesn't matter that it's Nominet's own site. It should still be removed in my opinion. It's not a generic second-level domain. Thanks for that bullshit though. I hope you feel like you've proved yourself or whatever you were trying to do. Rob984 (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm happy enough to accept what iedr says but as I said before it really isn't very relevant. After all Irish passports are issued by ROI. A domain name is most certainly an identity mark though and people pay more for .ie over time than they do for their passport. As iedr's first bullet point in What is a .ie domain says a .ie domain name lets customers know that you are Irish. That is pretty much a statement about identity. Dmcq (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Dmcq, you seem like a nice guy but me thinks you're not one for giving logical arguments. Though I think your heart may be in the right place, you just don't advance any grounded arguments. Returning to your central assertion: that persons in NI have the legal right under the GFA to access ".ie"- Does that mean you think the UK could sue Ireland if it restricted their right to do so? I think that is a yes or no question. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I believe ROI could be sued if it restricted access to people in NI compared to those in ROI. I already said that above. Dmcq (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the GFA is original research and holds no standing here unfortunately. Rob984 (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

One Editor here reminds me of de Valera. Dev said he need only look into his heart to know what the Irish people wanted. Similarly I think of one Editor saying to himself: "sources" - who needs them! I know what I know!! Of course Rob, I got no support when I tried to raise the equivalent issue on .ie. Any way, I think this wraps up this discussion. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What you said was just as much OR as what I said. You thought what you were saying was a straightforward reasonable interpretation of the facts and I think what I have said is a straightforward reasonable interpretation of the facts. There is no document that straightforwardly states something directly relevant. Sticking in anything about the domains in the infobox is unnecessary and the consensus seems to be to not include anything. You didn't want them in and attacking people is not a constructive thing to do as far as improving the article is concerned so how about just being happy the field has gone thanks. Dmcq (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Guff about economic growth since 90s

To read some of the stuff, you'd swear the "Peace Process" or "Peace Dividend" no less was responsible for most economic growth since the 90s. Get a grip! No one would say that was why the economy of Ireland boomed during that period. NI is on the same island...Much the same reasons helped its economy grow too...Boring economic reasons. The closing down of police stations, army barracks etc. and reduction in police overtime and army spending in the Region were not drivers of growth though tourism probably helped make up for much of that. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I can agree with you to some extent but not overall. I fully expected Northern Ireland to become a bit poorer with the end of the troubles even if there would be more industry eventually because the UK would stop pouring billions into it whatever about the promises of keeping it going for a while. But surely it is better to have people working an doing things for themselves rather than depending on handouts from Britain? All that money was coming in at the cost of peoples' lives. As for ROI it has definitely gained from the peace, even though it didn't have to deal with all that terrorism it was spending proportionally more than the UK because of it as far as I can see with its extra troops and security measures and suchlike money sinks. So you can't really talk about it being growth in the region independent of the peace dividend. Dmcq (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the guff in the article completely obscures the real position. Ireland proper experienced huge economic growth during that period. I doubt 2 per cent of that growth was due to peace coming to the jurisdiction bordering it. As for NI, the percentage might be a tad higher or might not given barracks closures etc. The growth in the services sector, FDI, demographics, global economic growth and things like that explain by far the vast majority of the growth but to read the guff, you'd think it was down to the peace process. It's a problem for NI that it is so often seen through the narrow prism of its political divide. In this case, it's really silly. I'm not going to edit that stuff out because it would probably be reverted but any one who does care more about the article should give it a go. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well you might feel that it would only make a 2% difference if the businesses were still being bombed and businessmen being kidnapped or having to pay protection money and Americans being afraid to visit the place but I certainly think it all put a bit more of a dampener on business. Even with billions being spent on the place every year things like that silly DeLorean venture were as much as could be hoped for. You can only talk about the peace dividend being small if you include all that security spending and extra other spending by the UK during the troubles as an asset NI gained from people killing each other. Yes Britain is even now reducing the amount it pays, personally I'm happy about that given how the alternative was achieved. Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Any way, the guff is all unsourced; what's needed is statistical analysis of the source of economic growth in the period...not guff about peace diVidend and what we "think". Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Well then the thing to do is stick {{cn}} beside the bits you dispute and see if anyone comes up with something, or better yet look around for stuff on the subject. Please try and write it up neutrally with due weight rather than just trying to find stuff that backs up what you think. Dmcq (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll put in a couple of those. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I just did it but please could you fix the template for me as I don't know that it looks right and I am not sure how to do it. Thanks, Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. The t| in what I wrote was to produce a display of what should be written as I didn't want to actually say a citation was needed in my text. It wasn't my raw input that was to be copied. Dmcq (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; if no one bothers to add sources, we can delete the guff in a while. Frenchmalawi (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, well didn't know there was an edit war on "terrorist attacks from both sides of the Northern Irish ranks (ie Protestants and Catholics or any other way you'd like to describe them) causing economic troubles as sane people flee taking their companies with them" was something anyone with a brain couldn't figure out as common sense. So, I added a citation. The only book I have handy on the subject. Anyway, forgive my Irish wit here. Now to my question. This same book goes on to talk about the boom in the 1990s when Ireland (as a whole) was being called the Celtic Tiger. He speaks of double digit growth of the economy and a dropping of the unemployment rate. This is in general respect to all of Ireland, as near as I can tell. It does not attribute any of this to the Peace Accord. Although it should be a bit of common sense that "peace" pays a dividend in economy. That the removal of barricaded and heavily armed checkpoints encourage, rather than discourage tourism and so on. But he doesn't come out and attribute any of that to the Peace Accord. So, I'm guessing this book would not be a suitable source as a citation for the rest of the, what are we calling it, "guff"? The citation I did add was specifically for the fall in the economy, which he directly addressed. Celtic hackr (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a few references I got from a quick look on the web

Can the peace dividend and devolution transform business in Northern Ireland?. This gives a few papers which have been written on the subject and says

"In the case of Northern Ireland, there are myriad reports and academic papers examining this question (Gudgin et al, 1998; Muckley, 2011 ; Portland Trust, 2007; Besley and Mueller, 2012) among many others. In the case of Muckley, and Besley and Mueller, they investigate the impact of a peace dividend on tourism and investment; and house prices, respectively, for which they find positive effects. In the late 1990s, the level of public sector employment rose to 39% and public subsidies rising to a third of GDP in 1995 (Goreki, 1995). In essence, the economy was sustained by the state as a result of conflict. "

"It is apparent that there are production, income and consumption effects from a peace dividend, but they are variable and the time lags to return to pre-conflict trend can be considerable. "

basically what I was saying about that Britain poured in billions because people killed each other and are now slashing the budgets whatever about their promises of money if there was peace. But overall it is good for the economy. And the study of house prices shows a clear negative correlation between people being killed and house prices.

The housing one is at [3] but the others would need some academic access.

[4] has a quote from Canning Moores and Rhodes in 1987 saying

"while the troubles have led to a loss of manufacturing jobs, the net effect on the regional economy has been positive, due to the induced expansion of public sector expenditure and employment". It also has another bit where it is estimated that peace means an additional 1400 jobs per year extra. Basically it takes time, you don't the benefits overnight, whereas There is a strong incentive in Britain to reduce the subsidies as quickly as possible.

Anyway see what you think or you might spot something better. That last quote has been the closest I've seen to anything supporting your idea that there isn't a peace dividend, overall it seems the statistics since then seem to show a definite benefit. Dmcq (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"the closest I've seen to anything supporting your idea that there isn't a peace dividend"...I'm not sure if there was or was not a peace dividend. What I am sure of is that if there was one, it was not the key driver of growth. The NI economy grew hugely during the late 60s, most years in the 70s and 80s. It also grew in the early 90s. In short, it grew throughout "the Troubles". The "peace dividend" if there was one, was not the key to growth since then...There were many keys; mostly the same keys as applied throughout "the troubles". Remember what I said about the tendency to see things through some prism of "the troubles". It causes distortion. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean "while the troubles have led to a loss of manufacturing jobs, the net effect on the regional economy has been positive, due to the induced expansion of public sector expenditure and employment"? Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I mean that the "troubles" had a marginal, very marginal, role in the NI economy. I meanthe references to a "peace dividend" having driven growth since the 90s is a huge distortion of reality. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

How about following what you said about not guff about peace diVidend and what we "think" and talking about what the citations say. If you are going to dispute that NI was kept together by huge amounts of money from Britain during the troubles and was losing jobs then where is your source? In other words citation needed. Dmcq (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I never wanted to redraft the stuff about NI's economy. I made my comments and hope coverage may be improved by other editors. I'm not sure if you agreed with me in the end or not. What I was saying was very simple. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm don't see how you come to the idea that I might be agreeing with you. Perhaps you better say what your very simple point is again. If you didn't want to change the article what was the point? To ask for citations? Dmcq (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not want to change the article myself personally. I wanted to flag it as a problem and encourage other editors who have some knowledge in the topic to contribute to enhance it. That is one of the things about me. I accept I don't know a lot about everything. While I detected guff, I don't claim to be an expert on NI economics and amn't interested enough either. I think that's probably a difference between you and me. Judging from the stuff you've contributed here about ".ie", it seems you don't accept any limitations on your knowledge. You seem to think you know as much as anybody and cannot learn anything from another editor. You actually told me that the UK could sue Ireland over use of ".ie". What's more, I think you might actually believe that and are happy to believe, sources or not, familiarity with the law or not, general legal knowledge or not. Given this, you're probably interested in hearing anything further. You beat me hands down. I don't want to discuss things with you going forward. If its just you and me in a discussion, you'll beat me every time. Park reason and logic, sources and thought, at the door. Wear people down....You've beaten me. Congratulations !!! Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

So no answer to the question just a personal attack. If you think it is guff find your own sources to counter what the sources I gave said. This discussion isn't about .ie and I've said in that discussion that I'm okay with the entry about internet domains being removed from the infobox. I was answering a follow on question there on how I view its status. There's no need for you to go on about being worn down and being beaten when the article is being changed to what you want. Dmcq (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if my tone was a bit harsh and caused any offence. You seem like a nice guy like I've said before. All the best. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Northern Ireland in Ireland

It's inaccurate to describe Northern Ireland as in Ireland because Northern Ireland includes other islands such as Rathlin Island. Rathlin Island isn't in Ireland. You could change it to something like:

“ Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann [ˈt̪ˠuəʃcəɾˠt̪ˠ ˈeːɾʲən̪ˠ] ; Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann or Norlin Airlan) is a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland covering about one-sixth of the island of Ireland. ”

Thoughts?
Rob (talk | contribs) 17:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a limitation of English. It's about as close as you can get given the limitations of the language without losing information ("north-east"). It doesn't appear to prevent others from saying the same thing. --Tóraí (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a strange argument Rob is making. Rathlin Island is historically a part of Ireland. The argument being made is like saying The Republic of Irelend is not "in the north-west and south of the island of Ireland" because there are islands off the coast. I'll add this, that saying Northern Ireland is "in Ireland", it is sure to be a battle cry for debate by Unionists in Northern Ireland, and thus has deep political intonations and should be avoided. But that is not what is being said. The solution below is also inaccurate, as it still fails the point made above (i.e. that there are islands off the coast of both political entities). Indeed even Rob's own suggested fix fails of his own criteria. I see nothing wrong with the wording as it is. It clearly marks Northern Ireland as part of Great Britain, while factually indicating its overwhelming presence being in the north-east corner of the "island of Ireland". We are talking about 7 square miles of islands in total compared to almost 5400 square miles. Even this other wiki page, List of islands of Ireland, indicates the little islands all around Ireland as part of "Ireland". Ireland is an island which has always included the little offshore islands. Rathlin Island is part of County Antrim. Rathlin Island's history as part of Ireland pre-dates the Viking invasions, to state it is not part of "Ireland" is really reaching, in my opinion. Now, I'm as pedantic as the next geek, but this is pedantic even to me. Well at least on a good day, no promises on a bad day. ;) However, he has a valid point considering the article for the Republic of Ireland states "occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland". Hence an equal treatment is implied for this page, and I suggest the following change:

from "in the north-east of the island of Ireland" to "occupying about one-sixth of the island of Ireland". Celtic hackr (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Rathlin Island may be "part of Ireland", but it's definitely not "in the island of Ireland". "island of" preceding "Ireland" implies we are referring to the geographic island, not a cultural entity. I have objected to the title of List of islands of Ireland at it's talk page here. "occupying" has negative connotations in my opinion. The Germans occupied France. Israel occupies the Golan Heights. Northern Ireland is not an occupation. Not sure that term is appropriate to describe the extent of a polity. I'm not clear on what the problem with my proposed wording is? Rob984 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What about: "Northern Ireland is one of four constituent countries which collectively makes one sovereign state, the UK.. . It is located on the north/east of the island of Ireland and is about one-sixth of the islands' total land mass." Cbowsie (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Overly technical but 100% factual. Rob984 does raise a good point. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2014

Hello,

I was wondering if it would be more helpful to use an up-to-date value for Northern Irish GDP, while also displaying the value in USD. This would allow international comparison of N.I.'s GDP, bringing it into line with the United Kingdom, Scottish and Welsh Wikipedia page.

The article currently is as follows:

GDP (nominal) 2002 estimate

- 	Total	€37.33 billion
- 	Per capita	€19,603[4]

Currency Pound sterling (GBP)

I would therefore suggest the following:

GDP (PPP) 2011 estimate

- 	Total	$45.22 billion [4][5] 
- 	Per capita	$25197[4][5] 

GDP (nominal) 2011 estimate

- 	Total	$48.36 billion [4][5]
- 	Per capita	$26859[4][5] 

Currency Pound sterling (GBP)

The references used for this change are the Eurostat News Release "Regional GDP - GDP per capita in the EU in 2011, found at , and the OEDC statextracts table 4. "PPPs and exchange rates", found at .

Using the national currency of the Euro per USD (in 2011 $1 is worth €0.781835), the conversion of the Eurostat data is possible.

I hope this request has been well enough laid out as this is my first article change request.

Many thanks,

Gbrown782 (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)gbrown782

Gbrown782 (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 06:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the GDP given in the infobox should be changed to USD and updated. All the other UK articles give it in dollars, as does the Republic of Ireland article and all the other European countries I looked at (France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Finland, Sweden). Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree USD seems to be standard for GDP so the change seems reasonable. Dmcq (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see the 2002 figures from Eurostat are being used not the 2011 ones at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STAT-14-29_en.htm. I'll have a better check and see what should really be there and what are the latest available figures. Dmcq (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Just the citation pointed to the wrong place, will fix. Seems to be the latest figures. Dmcq (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Power-sharing: First Minister and deputy First Minister in Infobox

My reversion to the established position was itself reverted, as “unexplained”. This should not need explanation. However, since it has been challenged and clearly, no attempt was made to understand why that edit was reverted, here goes. Northern Ireland has a different system of government to Scotland or Wales. In this case, Northern Ireland operates a system of power-sharing, and the First Minister and deputy First Minister have equal powers. Consequently, the office and incumbents of First Minister and deputy First Minister should be shown in the Infobox. I did not provide an explanatory edit summary as I did not want to embarrass User:GoodDay by highlighting his ignorance of matters this side of the pond. The reason given for his edit (“Matching with infoboxes at Wales & Scotland, neither of wich show their deputy ministers [sic].”) is sufficiently eloquent. Some basic understanding of a subject would be useful before editing articles (or indeed, reverting) from an established consensus. As this page has 1RR editing restrictions, perhaps User:Rob984 would be so good as to self-revert. Daicaregos (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Recognising the edit as made in good faith would have been decent enough. No summary is how we respond to vandalism. I think the structure of the Northern Irish Executive falls a little outside of "basic understanding", and is not a reason to discourage editors. There's more to Northern Ireland then politics I hope. Rob984 (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If they have equal powers, then they would be Co-First Ministers. Anyways, I won't challenge your revert. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well it most certainly isn't the same relation as for other deputies! Dmcq (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay, please if making contributions to a topic, have a bit of fact about you. They do have equal powers.--Filastin (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2015

I request that under the Northern Ireland page the Union Flag (Flag of the United Kingdom) be added at the top right-hand fact box. If you visit England, Scotland or the Wales page you will notice each has the flag of each region shown. Therefore Northern Ireland should also have their official flag (The Union Flag) displayed.

51wins (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Northern Ireland doesn't have its own flag. Those other flags are of the particular area. This has been debated before but its probably long enough since the last time for it to be debated again I think. Dmcq (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2015

Delete "<tr class="mergedbottomrow">" gibberish from very top of page.

86.152.163.55 (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for bringing this up. Daicaregos (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)