Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

demographics and religion

Why does 'demographics' not include religious demographics? Why is there no 'Religion' header like in other country articles? --85.146.181.187 (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

UK formation date

I would like some input at List of sovereign states by formation date where there is a disagreement over the UK formation date. It appears there are a couple of editors who believe the date should be 1689 and not 1707. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The United Kingdom didn't come into effect until 1800 with the appriopriate act of parliament. I don't know where 1689 comes from - King William III ruled that year after taking over from his uncle King James II, yet he was officially known as the king of England, Scotland, and Ireland - not Great Britain (as one entity) and Ireland. Mabuska (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

1800 was the year of the second Act of Union by which Ireland became a part of the United Kingdom; the first Act of Union occurred in 1707.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry was going by the Wiki page on the two acts of union. The first one just states Kingdom of Great Britian not United Kingdom of Great Britain. However just looking there is a source used in the article Jack forbes wants discussion one that makes it clear its 1707 anyways. Mabuska (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Before 1707 the union between England and Scotland was a personal union of the crowns of the 2 countries. Ireland however existed as a separate Kingdom until the second act of union in 1801. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Basicly what I mean to say is the formation of the UK was 1801 as Great Britain (not the UK) was created in 1707, while the UK was created in 1801 so it should be 1801. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The website for Parliament says that the Act of Union on 1 May 1707 united the kingdoms of England and Scotland together thus becoming the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The second Act of Union occurred in 1800/01, by which Ireland was united to the already existant United Kingdom. The UK's formation date is 1707.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been the United Kingdom since it was the UNITED KINGDOM of Great Britain. --Kurtle (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Demonym issues again

There has been a revival of the campaign to remove the term "Northern Irish" from articles about Northern Irish football clubs. The latest campaigner is User:Iamstiff, which appears to be an account recently created primarily for this purpose. As I understand it, the consensus when this was discussed here was that "Northern Irish" was an acceptable demonym. Considering that football clubs are not people, and therefore no BLP issues arise, and considering there appears to be no consensus that "Northern Irish" is unacceptable, I see no reason why the Northern Irish football club articles should stray from the WP football club manual of style, according to which articles on clubs should refer to "X is a X-ish football club". I reverted Iamstiff's edits to all the relevant articles, but he reverted me in turn. I didn't make any further edits, but when I sought advice about the appropriateness of a Check-user on Iamstiff, I was accused of edit-warring. Any views, please, on how to handle this? Just give up and allow Iamstiff to get his way? Mooretwin (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominem. Play the ball, not the man. Thanks! --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Iamstiff's contributions he wasn't removing relevant information. To say something is from Northern Ireland when it's from Northern Ireland seems fine to me. Besides, shouldn't a discussion about a general pattern of editing take place on the other user's talk page or on the talk pages of the articles in question? Alastairward (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should also remember to WP:AGF. It wouldn't be polite to suggest something as outlandish as, say, the ID Mooretwin looking like an ID that was set up for the sole purpose of making controversial edits on divisive issues in Northern Ireland related articles. Would it? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The choice of words around these things can be a very sensitive matter for many people. Trailing through the 'pedia changing them from one to the other - or back again - is not wise.

Eamonnca1, I don't see any ad hominem arguments in Mooretwin's comments above. Concerns expressed over User:Iamstiff's choice of username and editing patterns are not baseless either. Do please play the ball.

My personal view is that "from Northern Ireland" is neutral but let's at least appreciate that others hold a different (and also valid) view that there is nothing wrong with describing a football club as being "Northern Irish". Changing article text from "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland" can be seen a provocative in their eyes. As this is a collaborative project we need to bear those considerations in mind. --RA (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If (a) the consensus established here is that "Northern Irish" is an acceptable demonym for Northern Ireland, and (b) the football club manual of style provides for clubs being described using a demonym; what possible reason is there for changing all the football club articles? Under WP:BRD, the onus is on the person changing the article, once he is reverted, to discuss and seek consensus for his changes. Iamstiff did not do this. To avoid an edit war, I brought the discussion here. Mooretwin (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not criticising you for reverting a change. I'm just saying that having one editor on a mission to change X to Y is bad enough. Having another trailing off after them changing Y back to X is the stuff that escalates to the cross-article edit warring we've seen in the past.

BRD is not policy. It's an essay. And a good one too. (See also what BRD is not.) But I think, on this sort of occasion, "BDR" the wiser approach. The sky is not going to fall in if we discuss the merits of "Northern Irish" vs. "from Northern Ireland" for a day or two before reverting. There was no actual damage done.

That's not saying that you were wrong to do what you did. I don't think that you did anything "wrong". Just that it is wiser (I believe) in these cases not to run off to changing things back as quickly as they happen.

With respect to the actual changes, the MOS for football clubs is not policy. There is no definitive demonym for Northern Ireland. For instance, another valid demonym for a person or thing from Northern Ireland is "Irish" - see the ref on this page, which comes from the very source that coined the word 'demonym'. Unlike other places, what to call things from Northern Ireland is not an uncontroversial matter. It stirs passions on both sides and the MOS for football clubs does not trump NPOV issues of those kinds. In my opinion, "from Northern Ireland" is neutral and I would favour that. --RA (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Either the demonym is acceptable or it is not. Discussion here has concluded that it is. There are no NPOV issues of which I am aware relating to the description of football clubs. Iamstiff has failed to raise any. The term is used by UEFA, the governing body for football in Europe: 1 and 2, and by ESPN. Mooretwin (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It always amazes me the things people will argue over. I know there is a political debate over this. Some people from N.Ireland consider themselves Irish, some Northern Irish, some British, and some all of the above. If, as RA says, there is no official demonym for Northern Ireland then as he says, why not use "from Northern Ireland"? Isn't that descriptive enough? Jack forbes (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not use "Northern Irish", if it has been agreed here that it is acceptable, and if others such as the governing body of European football find it to be acceptable? Why accede to the whims of political crusaders? Football clubs are not people, so how "some people" "consider themselves" is not relevant. They are clubs in Northern Ireland, a recognised member country of UEFA and FIFA. Mooretwin (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not one to go against consensus if the consensus version is the correct one. You put up a good argument for "Northern Irish", but perhaps the discussion could go on a little further to see if there is any more input. Also, would any consensus here affect other articles relating to this or would it have to be an article by article discussion. Perhaps a centralised discussion would avoid this happening. Without that this discussion could continue over many article for perpetuity. Jack forbes (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. This is intended to be the centralised discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, there doesn't appear to be anything here to indicate that the consensus that Northern Irish is an acceptable demonym has changed; and as Iamstiff has declined to participate, it would not seem unreasonable not to accept his mass-drive-by edits. I'll leave it a few days, though, before reverting the articles their previous state. Mooretwin (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The only possible and logical demonyn for someone who comes from Northern Ireland is Northern Irish. The alternative is Ulster Irish, which is not satisfactory as Ulster originally had nine counties. Even author Dervla Murphy describes Northern Ireland as a place apart.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"OK, there doesn't appear to be anything here to indicate that the consensus that Northern Irish is an acceptable demonym has changed;.." Eh ... ? Eamonnca1, Alastairward, Jack forbes and myself have all said that "from Northern Ireland" is not only acceptable and accurate, but more neutral than "Northern Irish". You don't see the problem with "Northern Irish" (which is valid view point) but don't want to pander to "campaigners" (is that a fair summary?). Jeanne says "Northern Irish" is "the only possible demonym for someone who comes from Northern Ireland" (although, as I've pointed out above, the source that coined the term "demonym" says differently and in this case we are talking about football clubs, not people).

If we did straw polls, I'd say the "from Northern Ireland"s had it. We don't. So, at best, I'd say there is no consensus, which is a true reflection of reality IMHO. --RA (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if there's no consensus, then there's no basis for Iamstiff's mass of edits, and there should be no issue with them being reverted until such time as a consensus is achieved. The onus, after all, is on him to establish consensus, not on others to establish consensus for the original text. Mooretwin (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is no consensus one way or the other then there is no consensus one way or the other. Consensus is not a kind of tyranny.

You invited opinion on the edits. Almost all, here at least, have said his/her edits were an improvement. No-one, I can see, says any of the edits were "wrong" - all of the teams are "from Northern Ireland", no? I'd suggest leaving them alone or establishing a new consensus. --RA (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My pennies worth...I think the "from Northern Ireland" implies that the entity was originally from NI but is now somewhere else. So I don't agree that the edits improve the article and if anything introduce confusing. Language used in a encyclopaedia should be tight. I would revert them. Bjmullan (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We have one editor in favour of Iamstiff's edits, three opposed, and two who don't feel strongly. The onus is on those seeking to change text to establish consensus, not the other way around. WP:BRD. RA also dismissed the football club MOS as not "policy" - so what? We use guidance unless there is good reason not to. Where is the good reason not to in this case? Has this good reason been established by consensus? Mooretwin (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

...from Northern Ireland is the only neutral way IMO, Northern Irish implies something that the other doesn't. Who is to say that Mooretwin is not pushing a political agenda with the use of Northern Irish as said above a little assumption of good faith goes a long way. Mo ainm~Talk 12:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, is it that "Northern Irish" implies? What "political agenda" might I be pushing? And I note the irony of promoting good faith while suggesting bad faith on my part. Mooretwin (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see "from Northern Ireland" as being an improvement. The two terms mean the same thing, one is a more neutral way of saying it, I cannot think of why anyone should wish to waste so much time over this. O Fenian (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And why is it "more neutral"? Mooretwin (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Because, as you know, there are tensions around the idea of "Northern Irishness" (for example, M. M. Ladrón, Postcolonial and Gender Perspectives in Irish Studies, 2007). I'm not saying whether either side - those that forward the concept of "Northern Irishness" or those that resist it - or neither is correct; merely that there are tensions around the concept.

"from Northern Ireland" is more neutral because it side-steps those tensions whilst still giving the same information.

For similar reasons, we don't describe these football teams as being "Irish", even though that is an equally-verifiable "demonym" for someone from Northern Ireland (see P Dickson, Labels for Locals: What to Call People from Abilene to Zimbabwe, 1997). It would not be neutral to do so. --RA (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mooretwin I didn't mean to imply that you weren't showing good faith, I was just pointing out that the same accusation you made could have been put on you, also I agree with the above post by RA. Mo ainm~Talk 14:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What are the "tensions" around "Northern Irishness" and how do they apply to football teams? On your other point, the football teams are from the Northern Irish football jurisdiction, hence "Northern Irish" is appropriate, rather than "Irish", even though Irish is correct. Just as Manchester United is described as "English", even though British would be correct. Mooretwin (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was a "Northern Irish" FA ... actually, isn't it called the Irish FA? :-p

You know the tensions I mean. You refer to them (granted, obliquely) above. There is no need to stir up those tensions when a neutral wording exists (not "British", not "Irish", not "Northern Irish", or "Ulster", simply "from Northern Ireland"). --RA (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've got no idea where you got this idea that Wikipedia is supposed to craft its content so as not to stir up real world tensions, but it is a fantasy. NPOV does not mean that at all, NPOV means you tell the truth of the matter fairly and neutrally representing all viewpoints fairly and accurately. Making this article, or any other, pretend that 'everybody just says from Northern Ireland' to not offend others, is not doing that in the slightest. It is infact an improper attempt at using Wikipedia as some mechanism of social engineering that pushes a rather obvious improper agenda. MickMacNee (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair enough. These either/or situations present impossible choices - no matter what road is chosen one "view" is put forward and other views are hidden. Personally, I'd say leave it to each article to decide.

I do believe that "from Northern Ireland" is more neutral but, to be clear, I'm not advocating a wiki-wide ban on "Northern Irish" or one use of "from Northern Ireland" above all other alternatives. I'm saying I'm opposed to mass changes one-way-or-the-other (or back again) or for a "consensus" that we use one or the other of the alternatives out there. See the top of the discussion, where this is probably clearer. We've since got into the nitty gritty where Mooretwin wants us to choose one or the other. Thank you for drawing my attention to the fact that I had been suckered into that row. My initial message had been lost in doing that - but I'm not on for choosing one or the other and I see no good coming out of changing one to the other or changing them back again. It only stirs up tensions, is a waste of good wiki time and (like you say) does not benefit NPOV. --RA (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's not beat about the bush here, we all know what's going on. "From Northern Ireland" is correct. But "Northern Irish", while also correct, implies that there is a national identity of "Northern Irish", a view that would be held by some unionists and bitterly opposed by nationalists. Since "from Northern Ireland" is more NPOV, that is what I think should be used in this case. It would help if peoples' views on this were respected, not dismissed as a 'campaign' or the people referred to as 'political crusaders'. Ad hominem gets you nowhere; play the ball, not the man, remember? Now there's a lot of talk here about consensus, and oftentimes it seems to boil down to one editor claiming that his personal view is the consensus and anyone who disagrees with him doesn't count, or that the consensus in a discussion elsewhere (which conveniently coincides with his own view) should be the consensus that prevails on this page. Let's see what the real consensus is on this particular page. I'm proposing that we change "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland." Please say below whether you agree or oppose: --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You could always go with the citations, its a simple way to resolve it. --Snowded ^TALK 10:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree - 'Northern Irish' is politically loaded, 'from Northern Ireland is not.' --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose If you are inventing phrases that ignore real world usage, which uses Northern Irish all day every day, then like it or not, you are conducting an improper campaign. MickMacNee (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I find it freaking hilarious that the removal of 'British' as a demonym [1] is being justified to be consistent with the other countries of the UK, when the very same editor not a few months ago argued over and over that NI could not be described as a country because consistency with other countries of the UK was not relevant to this page. If this page were deleted and rebuilt, but only by editors who have never touched a British or Irish article in their lives, it would look totally different. Unrecognisable. MickMacNee (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mick, I've no bones with "British" being in the demonym section apart from: 1) it's not listed in any source I can find as a demonym for Northern Ireland; and 2) the past consensus was to not list citizenship here. "Irish" was similarly was excluded, despite being a citizenship of someone from NI, until a source was found that positively listed it as a demonym for Northern Ireland. (Additionally, whatever about Northern Ireland being a "country" or otherwise, citizenship is a straight-forward UK-wide thing, so IMHO it would be odd to list citizenship here only and not at England, Scotland and Wales.)

"British", rather is a demonym for the United Kingdom or for the island of Britain, not Northern Ireland. We don't list "British" or "English" as demonyms over at Manchester or London for the same reason. --RA (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The people who have a problem with the term "Northern Irish" are those who have a problem with the term "British Isles" covering the island of Ireland and have a problem accepting anything that could mean there is internet acknowledgement of a seperate different identity or hint of nationality native to Ireland thats not Irish Gaelic. Recent polls have shown that a quarter of people in Northern Ireland now see themselves as "Northern Irish" as oppossed to "British" or "Irish" - so it is growing in popular usage. There is nothing wrong in using the term Northern Irish to describe someone as being geographically from Northern Ireland - it doesn't have to signify a nationality but can signify someone from a place. I'm European but there is no such thing as an actual European nationality.

Wikitionary defines the term as an English adjective that means: "of, or relating to Northern Ireland or its people, language or culture".

I'm Irish as i'm from the island of Ireland. I'm Northern Irish as i'm from Northern Ireland. And i am British as i am from the British Isles and also the UK. Its all a matter of perspective on politics and geography. Mabuska (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Some responses to the comments above:

• Agree with Mick McNamee.
• RA says "I'm opposed to mass changes one-way-or-the-other (or back again)", which makes no sense. If he is opposed to mass changes, yet opposed to them being changed back again, then he is effectively supporting the mass changes. The effect of this position is to support the recent mass changes by (probable sockpuppet and POV-pusher) User:Iamstiff.
• Eamonnca1 says that "Northern Irish", while also correct, implies that there is a national identity of "Northern Irish". No it doesn't - does "Northumbrian" imply a national identity of "Northumbrian"? Whether there is a "national identity", or what "national identity" even means, or your or anyone else's own personal view on "national identity" are subjective matters which should have no bearing on thes encyclopaedia articles. In any case, what we are discussing here is football teams and, like it or not, Northern Ireland is a separate international football jurisdiction, and the governing body of the European football association UEFA has no difficulty in describing Northern Irish teams as "Northern Irish".
• Snowded says "always go with the citations" - there are, of course, citations for both, for some clubs, and citations for neither for others.

We've had discussions about "Northern Irish", and the term has been removed from descriptions of individuals, but the arguments for removal in such cases do not apply to football clubs. A single-issue possible-sockpuppet has performed mass drive-by edits of football articles to remove the term "Northern Irish", without seeking consensus, and then repeated the same mass edits when his edits were reverted. I elected NOT to revert again, but rather to come here instead. Iamstiff was notified but has refused to engage in the discussion. I still see no consensus for Iamstiff's edits, can we agree that his edits be reverted and that he, or anyone else, is required to seek consensus for them on each article? Mooretwin (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

His edits are wrong and should be reverted. I propose that only long-term established editors of good public standing should be allowed to even seek consensus for such a hotly debatable change to prevent the use of sock-puppets and bad-eggs etc. from causing more trouble. Mabuska (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you be prepared to revert them? I have already done so, and risk being accused of edit-warring (ironically by those content to reward Iamstiff for edit-warring). Mooretwin (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We can all agree his/her edits were without consensus. My point, Mooretwin, was that either way (be it "from Northern Ireland" or "Northern Irish") this is not a thing to go making mass edits across the 'pedia over. It is a topic that stirs the blood and mass changes to vocabulary like this across articles (like "Stiff" did), whichever way you do it (like you or someone else is going to do now), is a bad idea.

That said, it looks like "Stiff" was an SPA, so (on that basis at least) I won't stand in your way if you want to revert his/her changes - and think your suggestion of requesting another editor to do it for you is a good idea. --RA (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted all of Iamstiff's changes - i feel almost disappointed my local club wasn't one of the ones he did seeing as he did every other team in their division lol Mabuska (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with RA, and a pity that Mabuska went on a revert rampage using an edit summary that at best is very weak and at worst a lie, what consensus? Because their certainly isn't one here. Mo ainm~Talk 21:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone revert his reverts? Does he have the last say on this? 86.179.90.197 (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well seeing as no more votes were cast on the Northern Ireland/Northern Irish vote with the oppose outnumbering the agrees (2-1) i take that as concensus, admitably a weak one. So now i'm in the wrong for reverting mass edits by a possible sockpuppet (Iamstiff) who won't even get into the discussion about his changes and reverts? I returned the pages to the way they were before he altered them without discussion - thus shouldn't they remain the way they were before he altered them whilst the whole thing is discussed?? I personally feel i have done no wrong and to 86.179.90.197 i reiterate... whilst a debatable change is being discussed the article should retain what was already there beforehand so there is no case for my reverts to be reverted. Mabuska (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity used as synonym for Race

I searched the archives, and as this has only been indirectly alluded to, it may my only chance to be the first to say something controversial about the Northern Ireland article (yay me!)

Joking aside, I see a problem with the way "Ethnicity" is used here - and I appreciate it may be used elsewhere in this manner, but that's really not an excuse...

"Ethnicity", properly understood, refers to:

1. of or relating to a human group with racial, religious, and linguistic characteristics in common, 2. characteristic of another culture, esp. a peasant one, ethnic foodstuffs, (Collins Dictionary)

I appreciate that the root is from the Greek "ethnos" which is "race"; but firstly, there is already a perfectly good word for that in English, namely "Race".

Secondly, the general overall meaning which we have from "Ethnicity" refers to cultural and social aspects, rather than the arbitrary physiological markers we usually associate with "race". Even if you want to focus on that one aspect of the old Greek word, it's pretty clear from the general overall meaning, that this refers to heritage rather than genetic markers (e.g. "The Story of the Irish Race" by Seumas MacManus).

E.g. "White" is not a free-standing ethnic or cultural group in any part of Ireland - this is a somewhat useful categorisation on identity documents etc., based on a relatively arbitrary set of genetic markers, or race.

I'm sorry, but this is more than annoying - it's a complete misuse of the English language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oisinoc (talk • contribs) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

To which specific references are your comments directed? Mooretwin (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think its just the ethnicity section, which Oisinoc would like replaced with a "race" section. I can see the term race being viewed as a little controversial in that case to say the least. Alastairward (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There is total lack of understanding in this page, particularly by british speakers,get your facts right before you talk down to the Irish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.112.24 (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland not a country

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The section "Descriptions for Northern Ireland" reads that "There is no generally accepted term to describe what Northern Ireland is: province, region, country or something else ... Owing in part to the way in which the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland came into being, there is no legally defined term to describe what Northern Ireland 'is'." The first line of the Northern Ireland page reads "Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom.". It does not appear that both of these sections can be correct. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know were all this confusion of what Northern Ireland is arises from. Northern Ireland like Scotland, Wales and England is a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which is the name of the country these constituent countries form. Simple enough. However Northern Ireland is also called the Province by many for a reason - it is territorially a province of the United Kingdom, which is a more accurate description of its direct status within the UK - just like Wales is a Principality and Scotland a Dukedom. Mabuska (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

When did Scotland become a Dukedom then? Jack forbes (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought Scotland sent their King down to London to become King of England...

I wonder if this is confusion arising from this guy's title...?

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 12:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Who has previously and erroneously tried to claim that the Queen is the head of the Kirk...

Alternatively, perhaps it's this guy who is causing the confusion. Jack forbes (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never in my life heard Scotland called a dukedom. Sometimes Wikipedia can be a totally bizarre experience.......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is a dukedom, then the Kingdom of Fife didn't get the memo. "Dear Fife: please to now being less than a dukedom. "Kingdom" in particular is not so good. Thankyouverymuch, Britain." TFOWR^propaganda 12:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That would make more sense, yes! For some reason I thought he had an alternative title up here, you know, because "Edinburgh" isn't Scottish, or something... Some days my brane worries me... TFOWR^propaganda 12:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an interesting post. Assertions about stuff you aren't too sure about lose their credibility when assertions about the stuff you are sure about are complete fantasy. The Principality of Wales has not existed since 1542, and even then it related to only part of the area of modern Wales (about two thirds, at a guess). Scotland a Dukedom - good one. Daicaregos (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Dai, as I said, Wikipedia is bizarre. Soemtimes coming here is like Alice in Wonderland, except it's more woeful than wonderful!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what England is. Anyone like to take a guess? Might as well folks, it seems to be the fashion around these parts. Jack forbes (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

An oversized Robin Hood film set?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mate! It's Pomland, eh! TFOWR^propaganda 14:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I know what my hometown is: Land of the flashy, rich movie star--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland, Scotland, England, Wales, Channel islands & Ise of Mann make up a Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither the Channel Islands, nor the Isle of Man, are part of the United Kingdom. Also, shouldn't it be duchy, rather than "dukedom"? Mooretwin (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry CI & IoM. Got it all confused with British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's just another name for Duchy. [2] The title Duke of Edinburgh is bestowed on members of the Royal family but this does not make Edinburgh a Duchy. The article states it is a Dukedom associated with Edinburgh. Go figure, I can't. Jack forbes (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops my bad, made a total big boob on the Scotland bit - got it mixed up to the dukedom associated with the Duke of Edinburgh, same for the Pricipality of Wales which i forgot exists only in association with title of the Prince of Wales. So i accept my grevious errors which i am actually amazed at myself. Having said that, Northern Ireland is still a province territorial unit of the United Kingdom. Mabuska (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We all have our bad days, Mabuska. I've had a few in the past myself. :) Jack forbes (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Mabuska, if only my past mistakes were that minor?! Don't worry about it. Honestly, it's no hanging matter, it's no capital crime.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

On reflection maybe it is. Mabuska seems to have a lot of Scottish ancestry. How could you get it so wrong! We may have to bring this to trial. A jury of twelve should do I think. :) Jack forbes (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And what if there's a hung jury with a hanging judge?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If we take it to Scotland he'll be alright as we have the Not proven verdict up here. He'll be home free! Jack forbes (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Here, even if you are guilty, you'll just be sentenced to house arrest-at a luxury condo by the sea.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Really! You're not just pulling my leg? I think I'll go there and commit a crime. Of course, if I am put in leg chains and thrown in the gaol I'll be asking for some explanations from you. Jack forbes (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, there was a guy who drove while drunk, mowed down and killed 4 teenagers on their scooters and after he was found guilty of murder, the judge sentenced him to house arrest at a condo by the sea, and he even came out with his own line of sunglasses. I kid you not, Jack!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing this guy was well connected? Jack forbes (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No way, Jose! He was a homeless gypsy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair play Mabuska. You held your hand up to that one. As the others have said, we all have our off days. If only all my (legions of) cock-ups had been as insignofocant :) Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That was my first real bad off day i think lol. Hmm you never go to jail for long these days anyways no matter the crime - though what if a jury of twelve reaches 6 for and 6 against? Do i go Scot free anyways? Yes shameless pun hehe ;-P Mabuska (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem with the intro. It doesn't read as "Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom.", but as "Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom." There's a wikilink to take the reader to an article at which it is perhaps more appropriate to raise the issue of whether or not Northern Ireland is a country in any way, shape or form. Alastairward (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that it's well sourced as a country of the United Kingdom and as you say, on this article it is linked to Countries of the United Kingdom. I can't see any problems with the intro either. Jack forbes (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wholly agree that use of the term "country" for Northern Ireland in any definitive way in poor and lacking NPOV.

The sources for "country" are weak, usually indirect and contradicted explicitly both other sources that specifically address the question of 'what is Northern Ireland'. There is no consensus in secondary sources as to what Northern Ireland is. "Country" is likely to be misunderstood by an international readership, the sole context in which it is meant being exceptional and germane only the United Kingdom. "Country" is also probably the most incendiary, and least common, word for 'what Northern Ireland is'.

Northern Ireland is defined as a "province" in the UK's submission to the UN Conference on the Standardization of Geographic Names. That it is a "part of the UK" is merely a prosaic description of it's political/territorial status. For that reason, IMHO are "province" or "a part of the UK" are superior to alternatives.

@Alastair, we really shouldn't be relying on wiki-links to explain what we mean by terms. The words we use should be able to stand on their own without relying on tricks to explain the context in which we mean them. Particularly where the term is controversial, such a in this case. --RA (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to concentrate on the sources and cites than suggestions that it is an incendiary or controversial term or assumptions on what international readers might think. If its removed from that other linked article due to the lack of good cites etc, then, fine by my, remove it from the intro. Alastairward (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources are good. Balanced treatment of sources is better. There are plenty such sources in the Descriptions for Northern Ireland section, including those that explain that the choice of word (any word) is likely to be controversial and to reflect one's political perspective. It also includes sources that flatly refute the assertion that Northern Ireland is a "country", some in derisory tones. Other terms, such as "province", "region" and "part of the UK" are not refuted in reliable sources, though, as noted, any term is described as likely to be controversial and to reflect one's perspective.

As with the original posters, I too feel that there is a contradiction between the definitive statement in the introduction and the not-so-definitive reality of how the question is answered in secondary sources. So let's concentrate on sources.

"If its removed from that other linked article due..." Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. --RA (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Since there is not definitive answer to 'what Northern Ireland is' in secondary sources, and since secondary sources say that any choice will likely be controversial and reflect (only) one perspective or another (see WP:NPOV), I suggest we avoid trying to label Northern Ireland as one-thing-or-another. I think we should particularly avoid doing so in the introduction, where such statements should be definitive.

There is plenty of scope to peel back to simple statements of fact without *having* to use one word or another according to our tastes or POV and without losing any meaning with respect to the topic and article. A suggested wording is:

Northern Ireland (...) is a part of the United Kingdom situated in the north-east of the island of Ireland. It shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west. At the time of the 2001 UK Census, its population was 1,685,000, constituting about 30% of the island's total population and about 3% of the population of the United Kingdom.

--RA (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not just state at the start that Northern Ireland is a province of the United Kingdom then? Seeing as technically thats what it is Mabuska (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Mabuska is right as that's how Northern Ireland is usually described in the media, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I wholly agree that that is how NI is usually referred to. Personally I would have absolutely no problem using "province" to refer to Northern Ireland in general.

I have a small problem with the exact wording that you suggest: secondary sources are not explicit as to what Northern Ireland is a province *of*: of the United Kingdom or of Ireland. Either it is left unstated or some references explain that "province" in this context should be understood as meaning that Northern Ireland is a "a province" of both the United Kingdom and of Ireland (either an equivocal sense or depending on context).

There's also the fuss about NI being a part of a province.

"Part of" of course open to much the same criticism (i.e. Northern Ireland is a "part of" Ireland also) but I feel it is a less charged as a word. I do think that "province" is excellent in casual contexts though (e.g. "the population of the province is...").

All that said, if there was general agreement to use "province" I would support it as I feel it would be an improvement on the current wording and is better supported by sources (i.e. NI is explicitly and specifically referred to in reliable source using that term, including by the UK government who define NI as being a "province"; the context in which it the term is meant is explicitly discussed in multiple secondary sources; it is the common term for NI in books/the press etc.; and while it has its short-comings and detractors, as with all terms for NI, it is not flatly refuted in reliable sources as is the case with "country"). --RA (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Adds: just to be explicit, if you are suggesting the following then I support it:

Northern Ireland (...) is a province of the United Kingdom situated in the north-east of the island of Ireland. It shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west. At the time of the 2001 UK Census, its population was 1,685,000, constituting about 30% of the island's total population and about 3% of the population of the United Kingdom.

The UN geographic names' convention reference would explicitly support this. --RA (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I support your wording, RA. It looks good now, and defines for readers precisely what Northern Ireland is rather than the vague part of......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

RA. You say there are plenty of sources that explain that the choice of words (any words) is likely to be controversial. Is province any less controversial than any other term? Jack forbes (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources say that any choice of word is likely to be controversial. That does not mean that every choice of word is equally controversial. So much as controversy surrounds "province" it is that, to some, the province is properly Ulster.

"Part of" (in terms of definitive statements) is for that reason by far my favourite but "province" is a (the?) common term and at least not dismissed out of hand like "country" (it also discussed as being being equivocal in the way I describe above). Anyone from NI/IE would be familiar with it given BBC/UTV/RTÉ and press use. --RA (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with part of is that it does not explain what exactly Northern Ireland is within the United Kingdom. Scotland, Wales, and England are countries, but Northern Ireland is left with being described as a mere part. If a student was doing research for school and he or she needed to know how to decribe the status of Northern Ireland, this article would not be helpful, as the teacher might well demand an elaboration for part of.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Equally, using province may well dupe the student into thinking Northern Ireland alone is the province of Ulster. As for the BBC there is no doubt the use of the word province is not unusual, though the BBC editorial policy also states "The term province is often used synonymously with Northern Ireland and it is normally appropriate to make secondary references to "the province." " [3]. As I said, the BBC do use the term but are sensitive to the use of it. Jack forbes (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne, we agree (sort of) - but I just think that it is a good thing not to define Northern Ireland as this-or-that since there no consensus in secondary sources as to what NI is.

"Part of" is bland and vague (qualities not enjoyed on Wikipedia) and "province" is IMHO as close to consensus in secondary sources as it gets (it being used so frequently in the press etc.). For that reason, I'd support it. (And personally I'm not anti it as a term, which helps!)

Jack, I think you're reading negativity into the BBC style guide. It says, "The term 'province' is often used synonymously with Northern Ireland and it is normally appropriate to make secondary references to 'the province'." That sounds positive to me. It is also sums up my position here (i.e. don't define it as anything, but call it a province as we go along) but I'm happy to go with the flow if "province" is acceptable to others in first sentence. --RA (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

RA, if we don't define it as anything how would you word the lede without the use of 'part of', 'country' or 'province'? I'm wondering if we could describe Northern Ireland in the lede without these terms. Jack forbes (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

We can't. We'll just have to take the plunge and describe it as either province, country, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a good exercise to think of other ways to say it. Think outside of the box a little. I can't think of anything, but will mull over it.

TBH I'd say "...a part of..." because that doesn't actually "define" what NI is - but for the same reasons that I'd say that (i.e. because it doesn't 'define' what NI is), I can see why other's would dislike it (i.e because it doesn't 'define' what NI is).

But I will try to put thought into other ways. --RA (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If I can skip back up a little bit, RA; "Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources." Who said they were? What's the point in wikilinking if everything has to be fully defined in each article. There are sources in the other Wiki article, that's sort of the point.

Something other than "part of" would be nice though, while factually correct its a bit vague. Alastairward (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside issues of reliability, the point of wiki links is not to support or explain assertions made in an article.

At a very fundamental level, we cannot assume that wiki links will exist in every circumstance that someone consumes our content. Books, for example, do not contain wiki links. Neither do spoken word versions of our content. And we have no idea if an article linked to here will even exist in third-party distributions - never mind if it can or will be linked to.

Making content that can be disseminated away form this website effectively is a fundamental aspect of our mission statement. Replying on wiki links diminishes the range of contexts and media in which our content can effectively be disseminated. Each article should be able to stand on their own two feet. --RA (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland as a province of the UK has nothing to do with it being part of the province of Ulster - it is mere coincidence that Northern Ireland is both a province of the UK and part of the province of Ulster. However only one of them is a real political entity and that is the province of the UK. The reason why Northern Ireland is refered to as the province in media is due to that being its position within the United Kingdom not the fact it forms the bulk of the historical province of Ulster. Mabuska (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oxford Companion to Irish History - Northern Ireland, a province created by the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, made up of the six Ulster counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry, and Tyrone, and retained within the United Kingdom after the rest of Ireland achieved dominion status by the Anglo-Irish treayy of 1921.

Can you beat a resouce commissioned by the highly respected Oxford University as being biased and unreliable? I think this should settle what Northern Ireland should be described as. Mabuska (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No, because we do not ignore what other sources say in order to promote a Unionist viewpoint. O Fenian (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a good solid reference. I don't think it "settles" it because, like O Fenian says, there are other sources and there are many perspectives on what Northern Ireland is. I do think that it is superior to "country". Would we be OK to make a change so using that ref and the UN conference of geographic names ref possible? I suggested once before to also add an note explaining the problems around what to call NI. That suggestion didn't go down too well at that time however. --RA (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely object to the change. It is a major breach of WP:NPOV to present that opinion as the correct one, and relegate every other term to a "note" at the bottom of the article. I would agree that the current wording could be improved, but the suggestion is simply changing the "country" point-of-view to the "province" point-of-view, we would be back here again within a week. O Fenian (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too sure on the use of "province" either, given that it might confuse readers with the historic provinces of Ireland and that might stray into the use of Ulser.

The UN ref does also provide for "constituent part", but again I'm not sure how that would stand with regards neutrality. Alastairward (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The UN ref also calls Wales a principality, and quite obviously, that is not going to fly over there as the encyclopoedic lede quality definitive answer to 'what Wales is'. There are clear, reliable sources, calling all four places, the countries of the United Kingdom, in the actual proper context of answering the question, 'what is NI?', in terms of the sovereign power's perfectly valid opinion. NPOV is not, and never was, about not offending people who don't like this, and NPOV is not, and never was, about writing essay long footnotes in the lede, to replicate what is already present in the main article satisfying the requirement to reflect all viewpoints neutrally and in the appropriate weight (although that section is still a pile of total agenda pushing synthesis by and large). Having text in the main article that slyly insinuates there is something wrong with there not being a legal definition of what NI is, or seeks to draw conclusions from random Google searches of government domains, or seeks to cobble together a couple of books from wildly different eras and with zero attribution, to support the legendary abusive "some writers" phraseology, represent far more serious violations of policy, than this non-issue, which as ever, is not going to be solved if people keep turning up here with zero new facts, sources, or insights or interpretations of policy. MickMacNee (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@Alistair and Fenian, I don't think there is any neutral wording as there is no definitive answer. Secondary sources explain that there is no consensus as to 'what NI is'. They point to the problems in labeling NI in definitive terms and warn that any choice of term is likely to be controversial and reflect one POV or another. (Such sources are listed in the article.) We see that being lived out in this discussion.

For that reason, I don't think we should present anything as definitive (be that "country", "province" or anything else). None are neutral (according to the sources) and none are definitive. Hence my preference to simply say "a part of" and let the reader decide what Northern Ireland "is" from their reading of the article.

@Mick, I think intransigence is a greater issue that lack of sources. --RA (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The current lead is already a compromise from the previous, and well referenced, "Northern Ireland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom". Is this a war of attrition? For the record, I oppose any further change to the lead. Daicaregos (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Another editor brought it up, not me. This is not a battle ground. Please assume good faith. The previous version was contradicted out-of-hand by secondary sources. The editor who raised a concern this time pointed to contradictions between the lead and the (sourced) content of the article. --RA (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Quoting O Fenian "No, because we do not ignore what other sources say in order to promote a Unionist viewpoint. O Fenian (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)"

Don't start labelling peoples opinions and statements as being of a particular viewpoint i.e. as you did with me - that only starts trouble and tries to label my opinion on this into a particular camp so that those who disagree with Unionist viewpoints will oppose it or trying to make mine seem as biased and non-NPOV and thus disregardable. Its not about our personal perspectives - if it was i'd be calling for Northern Ireland to be declared as a constituent country of the UK, however i am accepting and calling for it to be called what it technically is; a province of the United Kingdom.

Its hardly promoting a Unionist viewpoint and breaching NPOV to declare what Northern Ireland technically is and using a reliable published NPOV source to back it up. The arguement that people will get confused with the province of Ulster is also a pretty lame counter as it wouldn't be too hard to add in a line making it clear that the province of Ulster and the province of Northern Ireland are two entirely distinct entities - one a historical region/over-kingdom and the other a political/territorial entity of the United Kingdom. For example it wouldn't be hard to add "Not to be confused with the province of Ulster, which is a seperate entity". Mabuska (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree too that there is no benefit to labeling people. --RA (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Where was anyone labeled? It is a verifiable fact that "province" is a Unionist term, and an inaccurate one. O Fenian (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Thanks for the reference, it's a good one and aptly explains the problems with that term. At the same time, there is another sense in which "province" is meant and understood. That other sense is explained by Michael McGimpsey (yes, a unionist) so: "Northern Ireland is not a country, Northern Ireland is a province of Ireland and it is a province in the UK..." That is the sense that I (a nationalist, should it be a concern) understand "province" to mean with respect to NI.

That of course doesn't negate in any way the validity of the sense of the word (or of objections to it) that you link to above. They are two parallel sense in which the word can be understood. --RA (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

History

Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 8#"Country" (no doubt discussed before) should be required reading before any changes can possibly be agreed. While consensus can change, it will take more than one person proposing a change and another asking if it can be done to change the previous consensus in my opinion. O Fenian (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur, no case has been made for a change --Snowded ^TALK 22:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any source is outstandingly better than any other source, which makes the decision to use a source to change the wording very difficult. This, in my opinion, means that consensus will always be the deciding factor. Jack forbes (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

We have to be cautious not to confuse "consensus" with merely the most the most numerous or tenacious grouping. That is more tyranny than consensus. In a case like this, where the sources say there is no definitive answer and all choices will be represent POV (to the exclusion of other POVs), we need to walk a finer line to reach NPOV than simply assuming that "might is right". --RA (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus changes. No "case" needs to be made for it. It simply changes. Particularly when there is healthy dialog as the above discussion mainly is. --RA (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In this case where there are plenty of sources isn't the most numerous view a consensus, RA? If by tenacious you mean someone who feels strongly enough then that's not a bad thing. As`for grouping, what is a grouping? People who have similar views I would imagine. Though if I decide to !vote on anything on wiki I do so as an individual, no matter how many agree with me. This would not make me part of a group. Jack forbes (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the sources. Just because more sources may back up a statement over another doesn't mean that they are correct especially when dealing with internet sources. On the internet there are many articles based on one page that if incorrect makes them all incorrect. Mabuska (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

By "grouping" I mean people who hold the same position on this-or-that (not necessarily all of the time or even for the same reasons). No more, no less. Don't read anything else into it.

About "numerous" and "consensus" - If you mean it in terms that the most numerous opinion among editors (what I mean by "group") forms consensus then you really need to read WP:CON and Wikipedia is not a democracy. (I don't think this is what you mean.) I think you are you suggesting that we count how many sources say X and how many sources say Y? That has been done in the past, as you might know, and it is not an appropriate way to treat sources. It is in effect original research dressed up as looking to sources i.e. it is an original quantitative analysis of literature to determined 'what NI is' rather than simply reading the same literature find out 'what NI is'. The reality is that secondary sources themselves say that there is no consensus as to 'what NI is'. Conducting an original quantitate analysis on secondary sources will not change that. (I also doubt that such a study would be conducted with a rudiment of scientific method so the results of it would not even be a valid head count of views.)

Finally, by "tenacious" I mean "tenacious", not "someone who feels strongly enough". --RA (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already stated that there are good sources on both sides which is why I believe that consensus is the only way to decide it. You say the reality is that secondary sources say there is no consensus as to what NI is. You have already said that you would agree with 'province'. Wouldn't that be as wrong/right as any other wording? I asked you earlier if it was possible to have a lede without using 'province', 'country' or 'part of'. Probably impossible, even if it could be done, to get a consensus from that. Who knows though! If there is no one description which suits everyone, where do we go from here? Go with consensus perhaps? Jack forbes (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

First what is consensus? Is it the majority view? No. Is it something that can be maintained by editors diggings their heels in? No. It is something that can be achieved by tenacious argument? No. Unless we all agree, or agree to agree for now, then there is no consensus.

About "province", you ask, "Wouldn't that be as wrong/right as any other wording?" All options are controversial for one reason or another according to reliable sources - but that does not meant that all are equally controversial. I would agree to "province", particularly if others went with it (it was proposed by Mabuska and seconded by Jeanne) because I see it as least worst of a bad lot. I think that that term enjoys the closest thing to consensus among secondary sources (but no term has consensus). There are problems with it as I have pointed out and as Fenian's reaction to the proposal demonstrates.

From my point of view, "country" is much more inappropriate - a view supported by references that dismiss the idea of NI being a "country" out of hand. We can, for example, imagine a sentence that says that "the population of the province is X" when speaking writing about NI in the 'pedia. A sentence that read that "the population of the country is X" would be much more difficult to imagine staying for too long.

Maybe I'm too influenced by the approach of those who (as with the BBC style guide) describe NI as a "province" in secondary references but not to commit to it being anything in the first reference. That is how I would do it. It helps too that NI fits the dictionary definition of "province".

For those reasons, I would support "province" in the lead but "part of the UK" is really the only lead sentence that I can see as representing a definitive statement that reflects consensus among secondary sources. The current text is far superior to the previous version (which simply stated that NI was a "country") but I still think it is an inappropriate treatment of the question of 'what NI is' to pick one option and to just run with it for the sake of picking something, the issue raised by the original poster. It is also further from consensus among secondary sources and NPOV than other alternatives IMHO. --RA (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Adds: Maybe it would positive if others explained why they think one or the other (or none) is the better option for the lead - then we can more easily judge which is the better reason and possibly then reach a consensus among ourselves from all of the option, like you suggest. --RA (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't this been discussed to death before, and the current text represents consensus? Mooretwin (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (and its not often you and I do!) --Snowded ^TALK 11:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We are discussing it again because an editor raised an issue with the current text. The question of a new text was raised by as part of the ensuing discussion and gained some support. Why the rush to close off an otherwise positive discussion with negative comments like the above? --RA (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason not to advise an editor raising a frequently asked question that it has been discussed before (and quite recently), and to do us the courtesy of reading previous discussions on the subject before adding new argument. This is often done on other issues. It means we don't have to read the same argument over and over. The majority of editors here seem to be content with the current lead, which was agreed by most current participants after extensive previous discussion. Daicaregos (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I was replying to Mooretwin and Snowded, not Fenian who did the courteous thing and pointed editors to a previous related discussion.

With regards to "the majority of editors", that doesn't make for a consensus and it doesn't hurt to discuss anything in a civil manner. It can sometimes throw up new ideas. This discussion, for example, has taken the fresh approach of considering alternatives and looking to find a consensus among secondary sources. You don't have to participate if you find it tedious. --RA (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not a fresh approach, it is a tedious rehasing of the same discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, no-one is making you read it. Personally, I found it much more positive this time around (the occasional negative comment aside). The original poster's, Fenian's, Alastairward's, Mabuska's, Jack's and Jeanne's comments in particular were positive and open IMHO. --RA (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You are making me read it RA, because of your classic WP:TE behaviour by re-appearing every few months with the same argument. We can make an arbitration case out of it if you want, turn it into another case of something with a two year lock on it because people just won't let it go, but personally, I would hope you just had more sense. I promise I'll be super-positive, if/when you bring a single new argument, a single new piece of evidence, or a single new interpretation of policy, for this to be worth spending another ten pages on. Because we've all seen how these things play out if you don't. It's beyond a joke. As I said about a year ago, you yet again haven't told me anything I didn't know or haven't heard on Wikipedia already. If others are seeing new avenues or reasons not to shoot themselves in the head reading this yet again, they haven't been reading long enough. Consensus only changes with new evidence or new policies. It's that simple. Anything else is game playing, or worse. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

\*shakes head*\ I brought the issue up once before (in the archives). A few months later, another editor brings up a related issue. And you say that this is evidence that I'm "re-appearing every few months with the same argument"?

This may be a discussion you (and others) don't want to participate in. If not, that's fine you don't have to. But please, less drama. --RA (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to join this discussion as it is merely a retreading of old ground, but I fear that failure to comment may be viewed as not opposing change. For the record, I do oppose the change being suggested. The onus of proof lies with those proposing change - if nothing new is being offered, the previous conclusions will continue to apply. (Now that I've said that, I'll go on to find something constructive to do...) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)