Talk:Northern Ireland

---

Open Ireland page move discussion

After a two-year ban imposed by Arbcom, a page move discussion for the Republic of Ireland can be entertained.

• (Discuss)–Republic of Ireland →Ireland (republic) Kauffner(talk) 08:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Article Map.

Why is it shown where Northern Ireland is in Europe? It gives the erroneous impression that Northern Ireland is independant. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you denying that Northern Ireland is located in the continent of Europe?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I saying that showing Northern Ireland location in the United Kingdom, is sufficent. Only sovereign states should have their locations shown in their respective continents. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Why?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Because the current way, gives the impression of sovereignty for Northern Ireland. PS: I've little more to add, so others can view my concerns. NOTE: I haven't edit warred (for those who wanna run to Snowded's sandbox). GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: It's the little map in the bottom right corner, that I'm complaining about. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Its GoodDay's latest little campaign - raising it on other articles in parallel. Suggest its ignored --Snowded ^TALK 19:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm speaking of the World map. Please ignore Snowded, he's merely trying to bar me from these articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's been a while SD. Hope you're well. I tend to agree about the World map insert. The map package is a bit like a Russian doll.Leaky Caldron 19:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly on the World Map, but that is not how GoodDay started - see above and on Wales where he wants the map to be UK only then switches his stance to just removing the world map. Contradicting himself within a single screen. Trouble making (which is what I want you to stop GoodDay) --Snowded ^TALK 19:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant the World map all along. Holy smokers, I was a main proponent for the Europe map. I'm not perfect, Snowded. PS: You shouldn't be attacking my motives on these articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A sudden change of position after a provocative opening. Typical. Suggest the discussion takes place in one place rather than four articles (or ideally just stops). I have responded to GoodDay's sudden change of position after a provocative opening in the talk page of Wales --Snowded ^TALK 19:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with centralizing the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been 8 days & there's no consensus for deletion of the inserted World Map. Proposal is withdrawn. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How many Irish(ethnic) in Northern Ireland?

--Kaiyr (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The article has a demographics section.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Irish pronunciation

I'm not too familiar with language tags, if anyone could fix the Irish pronunciation recording link for me and tell me where I'm going wrong. Hoping to roll this out across the counties and Gaelic place-names. Míle buíochas / Many thanks! Filastin (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Good man/woman/dog, Filastin! You may be interested in the Irish-language task force, which has a number of templates used for place names in Ireland (which give translations and meanings). You may also be interested in the manual of style entry for Irish place names. Best regards, --RA (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ISO definition and first sentence

In discussion with another on Talk:Wales, I was pointed to ISO definitions for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom (ISO 3166-2:GB). These are presumably based in some way on definitions of the United Kingdom Permanent Committee on Geographical Names.

In 2010, the ISO defined the UK as follows:

• England: country
• Scotland: country
• Wales: principality
• Northern Ireland: province

(Changes in the list of subdivision names and code elements (2010))

In 2011, this was changed as follows:

• England: country
• Scotland: country
• Wales: principality country
• Northern Ireland: province

(Changes in the list of subdivision names and code elements (2011))

What I suggest is that this ISO gives us a standard (also reflected in common speech) upon which to refer to the different parts of the United Kingdom and to have consistency across articles. For this article, I suggest a change to the first sentence so that it is closer to the other articles and reflects the ISO (and common practice):

• England ⁱ/ˈɪŋɡlənd/ is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.

• Scotland (Scottish Gaelic: Alba ([ˈalˠ̪apə]  listen )) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.

• Wales (/ˈweɪlz/ ( listen), Welsh: Cymru; pronounced [ˈkəm.rɨ] ( listen)) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.

• Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann pronounced [ˈt̪ˠuəʃcəɾˠt̪ˠ ˈeːɾʲən̪ˠ] ( listen), Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann or Norlin Airlan) is a province that is part of the United Kingdom.

--RA (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

In perspective: the reason you were “pointed to ISO definitions for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom (ISO 3166-2:GB)”, was because you cited outdated ISO definitions to assert your POV that Wales is a principality. No-one else thinks the ISO are the ultimate authority on the subject. I see no reason to change this article based on a single source that self-evidently makes mistakes. Daicaregos (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Dai, it's not my POV that Wales is a "principality". It never has been.

With regard to "mistakes" in the ISO standard, obviously any standard that deals with language use changes from time-to-time. In the case of ISO 3166-2: "The changes are based on information obtained from either national sources of the countries concerned or on information gathered by the Panel of Experts for the Maintenance of ISO 3166-2."

In the case of the United Kingdom, this is the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use, an interdepartmental service which advises and represents the British Government on such matters. Furthermore, BS ISO 3166-2, from the BSI, which the PCGN liaises with, is said to be "identical" to ISO 3166-2.

Thus, the ISO reflects:

• Official British Government use
• International (ISO) standards
• British (BSI) standards

It is good IMO that the standard has been updated to describe Wales as a country. I hope the BSI standard is updated shortly to reflect this. But why should Northern Ireland still not be called by its standard designation? Province is how the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive describe it. That has long been the ISO standard (and presumably the BSI standard also, since the BS is described as being identical to the ISO one). It is how other sources describe it too. What's the problem? --RA (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Despite the fact i agree that Northern Ireland is a province of the United Kingdom, i see no reason to change from what we currently have in the articles. The issue has as far as i can tell been stable for a long time now so i see no need to re-drag up an issue that can become heated and drag on for ages. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, if the article is stable, IMO, it is through POV pushing by a small number of editors across several articles. Rather than a genuine consensus, I feel it is more a case of a forced consensus arising from a dispute in which the content of this article was an afterthought.

Why I raised it again is because the source above has been changed to refer to Wales as a "country" rather than a "principality". I hope that that will allay fears that calling Northern Ireland anything other than a "country" will have a consequence for the Wales (or any other) article. So, I am hoping, the issue does not need to become heated or long and drawn out this time around as Northern Ireland can be described as a "province" and Wales (and other places) can still be called a "country". --RA (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing by a small number of editors? Would you like to name names RA? If you can't you should have the common decency to delete that piece of nonsense. We've already changed this article once after you didn't like it and you were content at the time. For God's sake there are enough disputes on wikipedia and the whole country/BI debates have been quiet for some time. Why are you stirring them up? ----Snowded ^TALK 18:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"We've already changed this article once after you didn't like it ..." I think this says everything. WP:OWN much? --RA (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It says that we have discussed and responded to your concerns before and reached agreement, and agreement which you now seem to want to challenge. I can't see any way that pointing that out reflects an ownership issue. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"We"? Who is "we"? It's clear you don't see me as being a part of "we", whoever they are. So, who should I go to if I want to edit the first line of this article? Who owns it? That is the ownership issue that I am referring to. --RA (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"We" clearly did include you when the current wording was agreed. If you want to edit the first line of the article then I suggest you make a concrete proposal here. You know that its a controversial issue so I hope, given your experience and position as an admin, that you would have the common sense and decency to propose changes here first for discussion. Oh and you still haven't named those "POV pushing" editors or withdrawn the comment ----Snowded ^TALK 21:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"It says that we have discussed and responded to your concerns..." In that sentence "we" does not include "me". See examples of ownership behavior. You are demonstrating them.

"...I suggest you make a concrete proposal here." Facepalm Look above (hint: it's the first post in the thread). You don't even read these threads before responding to them, do you? --RA (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And you are denying that you raised issues and were part of a consensus to make a change to the lede? You are however right that in this case you did make a concrete proposal, my apologies for that, my frustration at your interminable lectures and insults without a proposal elsewhere got to me so for that I apologise ----Snowded ^TALK 05:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am glad this issue has been raised here. I too participated in the discussion on Talk Wales where this point arose first and I wanted to raise it here myself. I fully agree that it is not appropriate to describe it as a "country" in the way it is when the UK Government indicates to the ISO that it should be describd as a "province". I think the ISO is a pretty important source - it is international, reflecting a world view. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You can't argue the source as critical on one article, but deny it on another (Wales) ----Snowded ^TALK 05:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I do have to say that i find it wrong and slightly POV (no offense) to suggest that because the description of Wales has changed that that means Northern Ireland's article must be changed under the pretense there will be no argueing from Welsh-orientated editors. Despite RA's concerns, as far as i am aware there was a general consensus that was backed up by the majority of sources - what was that sub-article page that contained the mass list of descriptions and attached sources? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is Countries of the United Kingdom, the refs are here. A word of warning: that article, and the table of sources, were created to support the argument that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern were "countries" and to reinforce use of that term for those places. Indeed, originally the table of refs use to appear actually on the article page itself!

On the reliability of the table, I don't have much faith in it. The collection of sources to "prove" one thing or another through number of sources alone is bound to be intrinsically biased. No one can really suggest that the collation of these sources was approached as a rigorous scientific exercise. More than anything else, all the table demonstrates is the greater determination of one group of editors to search the web for sources that "prove" their point of view over others.

About the link to Wales, the desire for "consistency" across the four articles was a major component of drawn out discussions (and a failed mediation) that led to "country" appearing on all four articles. Previous to that, they were all treated independently. The introduction to this article has since been changed. However, the motivation to ensure "consistency" in terminology across the four articles in use of the word "country" was still important. One reason for doing so was to because if a word other than "country" appeared on one article, it was believed it would lead to "instability" on the other three. Wales, in particular, was open to being described as "principality" rather than a "country".

Now, I appreciate that raising that might seem as being an expression of bad faith in the editors who took part in those discussion. It's not. Those editors acted in good faith for what they thought was best for the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean that they were right, however, or that what followed represents a NPOV.

On whether use of the word "country" is consensus: Since the introduction of this article was changed to say "country" in 2008, the issue has been raised on the talk page 13 times. (I opened two of those threads.) Before then, it was only been raised 4 times.

What I want to see (and have wanted to see for a long time) is a reasoned discussion on 'what Northern Ireland is' as a case by itself — and not wrapped up with what people want to see England, Scotland or Wales described as. I don't believe that if we approached this topic on its own would we come up with the current wording. --RA (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Is having consituent ahead of country in the intro, an option for this article? GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As I remember it, the argument for consistency was in part due to consistent treatment by the UK Government. Changes were made to this article when you last raised it and you agreed with those changes. I think your description of the past by the way is a failure to WP:AGF. You talk about a failed mediation as it it somehow or other challenges the validity of the researched compromise, a process led by an experienced admin. A formal mediation was rejected by a couple of editors and so it became a task force. Editors from both sides of the argument were involved in drawing up the table and simply saying that because the result did not support a position you now wish to adopt that it was a result of a more determined effort by one group over another is dubious to say the least. It might be worth your effort to look at the number of now banned editors or sock puppets involved in some of those disputes before you use a somewhat spurious count of 'number of times raised' as evidence of a lack of consensus. Now as it happens I think that the position on Northern Ireland is different in one significant way from the others in that its status as an independent political unit is more recent, and its independence was in dispute until the Good Friday Agreement. It does however have an assembly, and is one of the three legal systems in operation in the UK. Overall nothing has changed since the last time this was discussed. The ISO document said province back then as well. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The consensus reached on the Talk: Wales page was that the ISO source was critical. The suggestion that Wales not be referred to as a country did not receive consensus support. It seems to me the corrollary if we want to be consistent here is that NI should be described as a province. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. The ISO source when it said "Principality" was taken into account when the decision was made for country. The fact that it was changed by ISO when questioned confirmed that earlier decision. It was not critical and attempts to reopen discussion were not supported by editors on that article. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Snowded says "attempts to reopen discussion were not supported by editors on that article" - a more accurate statement would be that they were not supported by some editors. Some others thought it an interesting discussion worth having, despite being told it was causing huge grief, etc. (Other than the potential grief of having to talk about it, it was hard to see what the grief was.) If Snowded means that there was no consensus to change from Country in that discussion, that's correct, but the usage of Principality in parts of the article text is still under discussion. I would be interested to see the old archived discussion Snowded alludes to where he states that ISO was fully considered and rejected as a guide - rejected by people of a particular view presumably, since it does appear from the case-building that RA has helpfully provided that the ISO definitions do in fact reflect official government views. As for Northern Ireland, the best we can say about it overall is that the status of the (province/country) is in fact under dispute and has been left vague by the governments concerned, presumably deliberately. It isn't a country and the current "one of the 4 countries of the UK" thing is a little misleading. If ISO are to be trusted as an official source, we could say something like "whilst contested, the view of the UK government is that NI is a Province (and the ISO source)" but of course it will be fiercely battled here in WP, which alas is not always accurate when the battleground is thick with POVs. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A majority of editors did not want to reopen a discussion resolved ages ago James. Please try and avoid hyperbole (grief, battleground, thick with POVs). I haven't seen any proposals for change in respect of mentioning the use of "Principality" beyond the references already made there. When they are I am sure editor will be happy to examine them. As to Northern Ireland I think the question is if people want to re-open a discussion that was previously resolved with RAs agreement or not. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying it can never be re-opened then? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Read my last sentence above ----Snowded ^TALK 12:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that given a well-constructed and thought-out proposal from RA, we shouldn't be using arguments about process to attempt to block discussion. Those who are opposed should be talking about the facts of the case and not raising arguments about former procedures. The simple fact is that the UK government appears to still regard it officially as a Province and that's worth putting in the article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but if the ISO definition is the last word, why wasn't Wales referred to as a prinicipality on here before its status was changed by ISO to a country? JonC^Talk 12:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the ISO itself is the last word. It is a very significant source when to defining 'what' the different parts of the UK are. However, it should be seen alongside other sources. If we did so, I believe, "country" is the last word we would choose in the first line of this article.

Hitherto-fore, the desire to have have (and maintain) consistency of the use of the word "country" across the four articles determined what appeared here, regardless of whether it was the best choice of word here or not. With respect to Wales, there are NPOV issues there. A thread is open on it on Talk:Wales. What I hope the ISO re-definition will allay concerns that just because Northern Ireland isn't referred to as being a "country" that it will open the door to changes in other places.

The insistence on a false "consistency", a cornerstone of the change in 2008, is why there have been 13 threads opened on this issue on this page. Before then there had only been four threads on this issue. Far from the issue being resolved, it has been made worse by arguments brought here from other pages. Furthermore, the efforts to cut short discussion on this issue, and present reasonable attempts to open discussion on it as disruptive, is why the issue remains unresolved. --RA (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's obviously right about the disruption part. On the facts themselves, I would slightly query one of your assertions at the start of this tread RA - you mentioned that the ISO rulings "reflect Official British Government use" as you put it. I'm not certain this is correct - they certainly must contribute but has HMG issued a definitive ruling? The Permanent Committee says on its website that its principal function is to advise the British Government on policies and procedures for the proper writing of geographical names - this is not quite the same as governmental ruling. [1] I know you mentioned on Talk:Wales that it is regarded as the authoritative source, but it still appears to be a bit debatable what the actual import of an ISO ruling on names is. I doubt for example that if they declared the Falklands to be the Malvinas it would be accepted as such at the UN by Britain. Most government published sources like for example the website of the Northern Ireland Office are very deliberately completely silent on the subject of status. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Quickie observation and question then. It's been mentioned that the ISO isn't the last word. I disagree and would observe that ISO is the most official source there is from an NPOV international context. In my opinion, when data on Wikipedia differs from ISO, what we're usually dealing with nationalistic POV. As editors, we should be big enough to see and admit that, and decide on content from that standpoint. --HighKing (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Do the rulings of the UK ISO branch (and by reflection the Permanent Committee) get projected up internationally then and treated as global rulings? If so, you are right if its the most "official" global ruling on names, then it must also be the most internationally NPOV one presumably, unless there is some other listing used at the UN or something. Is there a definitive list of regional elements of nation-states in use at the UN, and do they use the ISO names? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, James (that "this is not quite the same as governmental ruling"), but I tend to lean towards HighKing in that it is the most authorative source we have. The ISO source gives the Permanent Committee as the source of the change, but even leaving its UK origins aside, it is an international standard i.e. the international standard term for Northern Ireland is "province".

The best equivalent for the UN that I can find is here. It also draws on the Permanent Committee and describes Northern Ireland as a "province". (Wales is given as a "principality", I presume because it pre-dates the change in the ISO.) That report is among a series of "Reports by Governments...". The report itself is entitled the "Report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The author is given as "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". (It is prepared by the Permanent Committee and the Ordnance Survey, however.) So, quite authoritative :-) --RA (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should just call Northern Ireland (and England, Scotland, Wales) simply a "....part of the United Kingdom" & thus avoid country, constituent country, province etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Part is vague, insufficient and does not impart any information to the reader regarding Northern Ireland's status.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be workable for all 4 constituent parts, though. In otherwords - "when in doubt, throw it out". GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to agree to a standard the could be used here at other articles dealing with NI and I would support the NPOV view of the ISO standard. I also think that the opening should be changed to support this. Bjmullan (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

@Jeanne, "part" is a bit vague, but what is Northern Ireland's "status" ("largely autonomous region"?)? We could fill it out by describing what sort of "part" of the UK Northern Ireland is e.g. "...a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland that is mostly self-governing since the partition of Ireland in 1922."

In the wider picture, I think there is a perspective on the word "country" that has caused problems. It is (for reasons that I can appreciate) a cherished status symbol of sorts for people in England, Scotland and Wales. That might be the case in those places, and in some aspects of NI life (e.g. "Our wee Country" in soccer), but in general "country" in NI is Ireland or the UK.

@Bjmullan, that is my believe too. Now that Wales has been fixed up in the ISO, it is a reasonable standard which we can follow for these terms. --RA (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if ISO is the standard for the Wales intro, then ISO should be the standard for Northern Ireland's intro. In otherwords, go with province. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't find it curious at all that any editor who you could label as possibly being of Irish nationalist viewpoint backs the change ;-) (thats a joke in case anyone misinterprets it) However Snowded's point is still extremely valid - what makes this ISO have anymore authority than the one that called Wales a principality? We still called Wales a country regardless of it. Just because the ISO now calls Wales a country why does that mean that everything has to change despite all the other sources on that collection page? I find a change based on that notion very troubling regardless of the fact i accept that Northern Ireland is a province of the UK regardless of the ISO. In fact i have a concern in regards to this comment of yours RA - "Now that Wales has been fixed up in the ISO, it is a reasonable standard which we can follow for these terms." - that reads to me as if your saying that because the ISO now reads as to how you like it too (and also for Welsh nationalists) that we should now follow it? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"…what makes this ISO have anymore authority than the one that called Wales a principality?" — They are both the same ISO. The ISO was changed in 2011 following the intervention of a Welsh politician after prompting by a Wikipedian.

"... because the ISO now reads as to how you like it too (and also for Welsh nationalists) that we should now follow it?" — In fact, quite very opposite. The ISO source came to my attention recently on Talk:Wales when I argued that the article lacked NPOV because it failed to fairly represent the view that Wales is a "principality". In that thread I argued against attempts to cut short discussions where contributors sought to change consensus with respect to how Wales is described in the first line (i.e. as a "country").

The United Nations document, which is identical to the former version of the ISO and was prepared by the same Permanent Committee as the ISO, was brought to my attention in 2010. I immediately argued that it was an authoritative and reliable source and added it to this article a day or two later. The source however met with great resistance on Talk:Wales. I argued for use of the source (and wanted to see it used in the article) but it's inclusion was was reverted. Indeed, if you look through Talk:Wales/Archive 11, you will see the same consistency in my argument for fair balance sources that described Wales as a "principality" and those that describe it as a "country" now as then. --RA (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's only fair and appropriate to point out that the use of the term "Province" for Northern Ireland could be seen by some as an extra-territorial claim on the whole of Ulster. But a fair and balanced article should still highlight the official terminology in the lede where it is conspicuously absent. The article should also reflect the balance of reliable independent sources, which at the moment it doesn't. --HighKing (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not so happy with the proposal "Northern Ireland is a province that is part of the United Kingdom". "Province" usually only means something as a territorial division of a country, but the United Kingdom does not have any other provinces. Ireland does have provinces, but Northern Ireland isn't one of them. "Part" seems better to me, but to be both more informative and neutrally descriptive, how about something like "Northern Ireland is an autonomous [or: partly autonomous] territory made up of that part of the United Kingdom located on the island of Ireland" (or, to put it the other wat round, "that part of the island of Ireland which remains part of the United Kingdom")? "Territory" is a neutral term which doesn't make any assumptions or privilege any particular view as to the status of Northern Ireland or the preferred term to use for it. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's just a different way of describing the underlying purpose of this thread - should we use "Province" because that is the accepted definition the UK Government use? I think what you're talking about there are the views of others in Ireland and segments of opinion that don't like the term - fine - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't say "this is what the UK government call it, etc..." - we could also allude to "what people of different views think about that" with sources. There have been efforts before in these articles to obtain the official view for example of the Irish Government, but they also seem to studiously avoid defining Northern Ireland by a particular phrase. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current wording, although not perfect, is best. Whether or not Northern Ireland is normally described as a country in its own right (although it certainly is for sporting purposes; "provinces" don't have national sports teams), it is undoubtedly true that the four parts of the UK are called constituent countries, not "three constituent countries and one constituent province". What to call Northern Ireland has been a point of contention for many years, and the majority of sources – including those of the Northern Irish Assembly and Executive – appear to deliberately leave the question unanswered. Leave it as it is. — JonC^ॐ 11:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much store in that table of references, or what it purports the "majority of sources" say. The case is more that the question is deliberately left unanswered because there is no satisfactory answer. In which case, we shouldn't be forcing an answer. That would be truer to a neutrality position.

On the point that this question has been "a point of contention for many years", yes it has. "Country" was introduce in 2008. Since then there have been 13 thread on the issue. Before "country" was used, there were four threads. That would suggest that rather than addressing a point of contention, the change made it worse. --RA (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The view among reliable sources that discuss the question of 'what is Northern Ireland' is that there is no answer to that question and that all answers are unsatisfactory to one degree or another. I think if we were to be neutral with respect to reliable sources we wouldn't use any of these terms in the first sentence (and use some non-definitive term instead, like as "part" or "territory", instead).

The section dealing with this question could be moved up (and revised) into an etymology section. We could still respect "province" elsewhere in the article, and across Wikipedia, as a sort of MOS decision (e.g. refer to it as a "province" when avoiding repetition of the word "Northern Ireland") - and use "countries of the United Kingdom" where talking en masse - but avoid suggesting a definitive answer to 'what Northern Ireland is' in the first line. --RA (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @ HighKing - "It's only fair and appropriate to point out that the use of the term "Province" for Northern Ireland could be seen by some as an extra-territorial claim on the whole of Ulster." - Only by a few who don't know the difference that Northern Ireland is a province of the UK and Ulster is a province of Ireland. @ComhairleContaeThirnanOg - "Province" usually only means something as a territorial division of a country, but the United Kingdom does not have any other provinces. - there is no law that states that a country must be divided up into provinces for it to have a province. Provence in France gets its name from the fact it was created as a province of the Romans, who used the term to refer to administrative and territorial units of the Roman Empire outside of Italy. Just as you could argue that Northern Ireland (until the abolition of the NI parliament) was an administrative/territorial province of the United Kingdom outside of Great Britain. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with High King where he said "In my opinion, when data on Wikipedia differs from ISO, what we're usually dealing with nationalistic POV"; I also agree with GoodDay that we should go with "province". Wikipedia should reflect the position; not try to shape it. NI's status per the ISO is "province"; we should accept that and incorporate it into the article. It's also consistent, rather than hotch potch politics. 86.42.178.193 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Only a few who don't know the difference" - I'd say it's more logical that it's the vast majority of readers who don't know the difference, especially as provinces are unknown in the rest of the UK, and given the history of that part of the world. Where did you come up with the statement that it was only by a few? Any refs? --HighKing (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you refs to the contrary that state the vast majority don't know? It's more a lack of logic if you can't tell the difference between a province of the United Kingdom and a province of Ireland. Also read my comments in full as your "provinces are unknown in the rest of the UK" is already answered in my previous statement. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't have refs. But then I didn't phrase it as fact, as in Only by a few who don't know the difference that Northern Ireland is a province of the UK and Ulster is a province of Ireland... --HighKing (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what you two were arguing about. From where I am sitting, I think that the fact that "Northern Ireland" is the only province only makes that unique entity even more unique....it could well be mentioned in the article. 86.42.178.193 (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a 'country' (obviously)

This is about the most political claim I've ever seen in Wikipedia. The Six Counties is no more a "country" than is eastern England, or any other part of England. This is just a pathetic attempt to give historical legitimacy to the gerrymandered entity which is 'Northern Ireland'. Any honest person can see that. If anything, it's currently a region of the United Kingdom. 'Currently' being the operative word. It never was a country, or a province. It's a remnant of British colonial rule over the entire country. No more. 109.76.237.38 (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should preserve this comment as an example of WP:POV. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite of intro

Maybe a kitchen sink approach but here's a stab at rewriting the intro. A new feautre would be a new paragraph dealing with ... wait for it ... non-political matters ;-D This is something that there have been sporadic comments about: that reading the article, one would think there is nothing in Northern Ireland except for history and politics.

I haven't written this section, I'm not sure what to include. Some obvious things are music, sport (golf, soccer, and include all-Ireland aspect), and economics.

Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann pronounced [ˈt̪ˠuəʃcəɾˠt̪ˠ ˈeːɾʲən̪ˠ] ( listen), Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann or Norlin Airlan) is a part of the United Kingdom 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. Northern Ireland is largely self-governing and co-operates with the the rest of Ireland, from which it was partitioned in 1921, on some policy areas. Other areas are reserved for the Government of the United Kingdom, upon which the Republic of Ireland may "may put forward views and proposals".

...

[INSERT NEW PARAGRAPH DEALINGING WITH NON POLITICAL THINGS HERE — E.G. SPORT, MUSIC, ECONOMY, GEOGRAPHY]

...

Northern Ireland was for many years the site of a violent and bitter inter-communal conflict — the Troubles — which was caused by divisions between nationalists, who are predominantly Roman Catholic, and unionists, who are predominantly Protestant. Unionists want Northern Ireland to remain as a part of the United Kingdom, while nationalists wish for it to be politically reunited with the rest of Ireland. Since the signing of the "Good Friday Agreement" in 1998, most of the paramilitary groups involved in the Troubles have ceased their armed campaigns.

Owing to its unique history, the issue of the symbolism, name and description of Northern Ireland is complex, as is the issue of citizenship and identity. In general, unionists see themselves as British and nationalists see themselves as Irish, though these identities are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Additionally, people from both sides of the community may describe themselves as Northern Irish.

--RA (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point unless England/Scotland/Wales also have their intros changed to state "a part of the United Kingdom". If they were also changed to match i'd support this proposal. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why Northern Ireland should be treated as if it were identical to England, Scotland or Wales. That may be an ideal some may have but it isn't a fair reflection of a neutral point of view on the subject. Anyway, the introduction here is already different from England, Scotland and Wales for that reason.

In any case, there's more to the rewrite above than just the first sentence. --RA (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's the closest thing to NPOV I've seen in a long time, although (question) could it be said that you should also mention "country" and "province" in the intro? I wouldn't even attempt to craft a sentence but I'm thinking "Northern Ireland is sometimes referred to as a Province (ref) or a Country (ref)". And dag-darn it but I really hate to see "Republic of Ireland" all in caps like that but that's a different discussion. --HighKing (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looks bett6er to me, after a small correction. Since the status of Northern Ireland is treated very differently by reliable sources to those of England, Scotland and Wales I don't see that argument holding water. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks better to me - I've never adhered to the "one description fits all" idea. Clearly some sources support that line, but this appears more neutral to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Also looks good to me. Since when has NI ever been treated the same as the rest of the UK in any respect. One size doesn't fit all in this case. Bjmullan (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The UK is not symmetrical, so NI should be considered on its own merits. Having identical wordings in England/Scotland/Wales implies a symmetry which does not exist in reality and Wikipedia should not give the impression that it exists. Perhaps a wording could be used that NI is part/component of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so indicating clearly that it is a significant part. Ardmacha (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is an improvement. I also agree that if one particular phrase has been agreed for use in the opening sentences of the articles on Scotland, England and Wales, that is not in itself a particularly strong argument for its use in the opening sentence here - all the more so since, as pointed out above, it is controversial and there's a very strong case that presenting it as an uncontested "definition" of Northern Ireland does not reflect the usage of the Northern Ireland authorities themselves. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've only noticed this now, due to my recent diminished editing this past week or so - "re-write into pro consensus on talk page; using suggested non-political paragraphs per WP:SILENCE;" - i take it you didn't notice my comment on 23:17, 22 February 2012 so there is no silence on it. Also this so called consensus is based essentially on a restricted vote of mostly republican orientated editors (Irish and Welsh) who object to any mention of NI and country together. Per the Troubles Restriction outside opinion should be sought to avoid such bias - hence you should ideally have notified editors of this at the NI, UK, and Ireland WikiProjects and opened an RfC.

Whilst consensus does not have to be unanaminous, Wikipedia clearly states that consensus is not the result of a vote but decision-making that involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitmate concerns. I have listed concerns several times in the various sections of this debate and as far as i'm aware they haven't been adequately addressed. I also find it perplexing now RA that you have abandoned your arguement of using the ISO standard to list Northern Ireland as a province. So a politically-biased vote in a restricted discussion on a Troubles Restricted article that didn't seek outside opinion won't suffice as far as i'm concerned.

The following section to this which is the last thing i seen when i last visited this page is also quite misleading as when i last seen this talk page i assumed that your re-write of the lede was ignoring the description part at the time without reading the rest of the preceding section (due to time constraint). I now realise my error in not checking the above and raising these concerns earlier.

Also i find it leaning towards subversive that you link the "part" is this article to Administrative geography of the United Kingdom whilst England/Scotland/Wales all link the "part" to Countries of the United Kingdom which includes Northern Ireland. That does little to garner good faith along the above restricted biased vote called a consensus. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to add HeroicSandwich below summed it up perfectly: "One might think such mistakes would be avoided if changes like this to top level articles were advertised to a wide audience for review, but that appears not to have happened here, with these changes being discussed by what appears to be a group of mostly regulars to this article, and some wandering over from Wales till they got bored, and then ushered in under the fallacy that silence is presumed consent." Mabuska ^(talk) 00:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"I also find it perplexing now RA that you have abandoned your arguement of using the ISO standard to list Northern Ireland as a province." — It's called discussion. It's not about getting one's own way or having entrenched positions. It's about developing the article in a way that a consensus of people feel is neutral towards the topic.

Additionally, there was no "vote". We don't vote on Wikipedia. A vote also implies that a new version is definitive and cannot be altered without a formal procedure to propose and adopt another version to replace it. That's simply not how things should work (although a culture has developed around that). The article was not now bound to some new version and still isn't. It should be developed further, improved and change over time.

Reverting, en masse simply because you don't like a particular aspect of a version is no way to achieve that. We should be developing articles instead of always pulling them down into entrenched on talk page discussions. Or reverting to a "stable" version; as if "stable" meant "better" or "consensus".

I'm going to enquire with ArbCom about removing the Troubles restrictions altogether. I think they have outlived their purpose. (There is a question if they every existed at all too BTW.) In the mean time, can I ask that you revert and develop the article? Not because I think the content should look a particular way but because I think editing should happen in a particular way: the normal way.

Overall, the rewrite was seen above as being an improvement but of course it's not perfect and can be improved and improved and improved. Eventually those improvements will mean the content will look nothing like the version above. But we'll never get there if we always revert to a "locked down" version and return to entrenched discussions. Rather than reverting, change the bits you don't like about the new intro. Improve it. That's how things get made better. --RA (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

New intro paragraphs on economy and culture

This is quite alien territory, so I don't expect to get it right first time, but here's a stab at "non-political" content to go with the suggestion above. I suggest that rather than working out details here and binding ourselves to some "agreement", that once a generally acceptable idea for the text is found that the details be worked out, over time, in the usual fashion, in the article itself:

Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann pronounced [ˈt̪ˠuəʃcəɾˠt̪ˠ ˈeːɾʲən̪ˠ] ( listen), Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann or Norlin Airlan) is ...

Northern Ireland has the smallest economy of the twelve statistical regions of the United Kingdom. Traditionally the most industrialized region of Ireland, the economy of Northern Ireland declined as a result of political and social turmoil in the second half of the 20th century. The economy grew significantly since the 1990s, in part due to a "peace dividend" and in part due to links with the Celtic Tiger economy of the Republic of Ireland, with which trade grew substantially.

Northern Ireland has a vibrant cultural scene that has produced world-renowned artists and sports persons such as Seamus Heaney, Van Morrison, Rory McIlroy and George Best. Cultural links between Northern Ireland, the rest of Ireland and the rest of the UK are complex, with Northern Ireland sharing both the culture of Ireland and the culture of the United Kingdom. In many sports, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland field a single team, a notable exception being soccer. Northern Ireland competes separately at the Commonwealth Games and people from Northern Ireland may compete for either Great Britain or Ireland at the Olympic Games.

Northern Ireland was for many years...

--RA (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing I'd object to would be the use of the slang term of soccer in there. Association Football please if you must! Other than that this seems ok to me. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The new opening

While it's odd to see that somehow describing NI as "part of the UK" in the very first line isn't considered by those above as advancing a unionist point of view over and above the prior way of describing the place as a country in its own right, separate from the rest of the UK and inclusive of all communities, I just wanted to ask in what universe was it that Northern Ireland was partitioned from the "the the rest of Ireland"? While that sentence might make sense if it was referring to the geographic island, or even the rebel Irish Republic pre-partition, the use of an underlying link to Government of Ireland makes this wrongly refer to the 1937 republic. It's a simple fact that even the Irish Free State wasn't established until after partition, albeit very close to it. This article is not in good shape if errors of basic fact like this occur in the very first paragraph. Worse, most uninformed readers probably wouldn't even notice this subtle error, and it's those people who are supposed to be learning something from it.

I hope this was just an innocent mistake, easy to make in the complex world of Irish history, but this is not the only part of this new introduction that puts certain republican views above or before unionist ones or simple factual context. And while the aim seems to have been to expand what was already a woefully inadequate introduction, as far as politial history goes, it's all Troubles and post GFA co-operation, put above and before any of UK's role or viewpoint, while the entire period of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland doesn't apparently warrant a single mention, nor does the Kingdom of Ireland either, which by the by is presumably not what is being referred to when this current introduction talks of the nationalist wish for political "reunification" rather than the logically correct "unification" (albiet seemingly a mistake carried over from the previous poor version). You can't reunify what was never unified in the first place (and if this is intended to refer to a restoration of some pre-UK Irish political entity, I'd say that's pretty nonsensical).

Also, as far as "the smallest economy of the twelve statistical regions" of the UK is concerned, if Northern Ireland cannot be described as a country or home nation or whatever out of concern for republicans, can it at least be affored the dignity of being referred to as the place that is considered equal to Wales, Scotland and the 9 Regions of England? As far as I know, nobody in the UK has ever even heard of a NUTS Level 1, so let's keep it simple for those outside the UK who have even less chance of understanding such things.

One might think such mistakes would be avoided if changes like this to top level articles were advertised to a wide audience for review, but that appears not to have happened here, with these changes being discussed by what appears to be a group of mostly regulars to this article, and some wandering over from Wales till they got bored, and then ushered in under the fallacy that silence is presumed consent. Even after changing it, if someone has supposedly vested a lot of time in rewriting it I would hope they would want to put this new version out for peer-review from Wikipedia's established quality writers and readers with truly no opinion on the subject except except quality and utility. I fear this is never going to happen, but that's Wikipedia I suppose. It can only seemingly go the whole nine yards of writing, reviewing and approving decent and neutral articles on tiny niche topics nobody really cares about. When would this article ever make it onto the front page in this state? I don't think so. HeroicSandwich (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny. I hadn't considered how the link may have been used to infer that with regard to "from which it was partitioned". Of course, it was just an innocent mistake. I've removed the link altogether as a quick fix.

You are right about some historical perspective being lost in the rewrite and I don't entirely disagree with other points you make. How could we address them? Can I suggest that we be bold and go ahead make changes that are needed to make the article better (while assuming good faith of course). There should be no need to discuss or announce changes before making them.

One thing you may notice is that Talk:Baker Street and Waterloo Railway is empty. Not once did anyone contributing to that article see the need to discuss a change they made or feel obliged to get consensus first on the talk page or announce their intention to do so. That's how great articles are made. The people who made Baker Street and Waterloo Railway a Featured Article did so by simply going ahead and editing it in a spirit of collegialism and cooperation. Granted, that's probably not wholly possible with respect to the topic of this article, but we should still strive for it. --RA (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The so called consensus is flawed in various aspects HeroicSandwich and i've raised why above. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I restored to the stable version. Van Speijk (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also make the point that there is no comparison between articles on railways and those on politically contentious issues, and its not a comparison I would expect from an experienced editor. The need for consensus before making controversial changes is one of the only ways to manage articles where there are strong feelings and multiple ways of expressing facts, with sensitivity as to language used. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

See the last sentence: "Granted, that's probably not wholly possible with respect to the topic of this article, but we should still strive for it." Additionally, while discussion is good when needed, the primary means to develop consensus is through editing. --RA (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a fair point. However, maybe th edit was just too big at this stage. Can we break it down and consider it point by point? And let's start with the issue of whether or not NI is a country. Let's consider that point on its own. Van Speijk (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw the last sentence and it was a redeeming but weak qualification to the earlier and main part of the statement. The simple fact remains that controversial issues should be discussed first. Doing this by direct editing always results in edit wars etc. etc. Otherwise I agree with Van Speijk, break down the issues and resolve them, then edit. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a moot point anyway, Snowded. The "controversial" edit in this case was proposed on the talk page and left to achieve consensus for two weeks before the article was changed.

Van Speijk, OK, but the ball in is your court. The text you reverted read:

"Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann pronounced [ˈt̪ˠuəʃcəɾˠt̪ˠ ˈeːɾʲən̪ˠ] ( listen), Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann or Norlin Airlan) is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland."

Personally, I see nothing controversial or open to dispute about that statement. What do you disagree with about that text? Or how can it be improved? --RA (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to see reference to NI being a country in the first sentence, but I'm not aversed to the assertion being qualified somehow or other. For example "NI is one of the four countries ... but is often referred to as a province". Or "NI is a province .... sometimes considered as one of the four countries ..." just a couple of suggestions, not meant to be taken word-for-word. Van Speijk (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources, over several decades (for example, Whyte and FitzGerald:1991; Dunn and Dawson:2000; Morrill:2004; etc.), that deal with the question of 'what Northern Ireland is' state that calling Northern Ireland a "country" is incorrect, misleading or controversial, even "absurd" (Murphy:1979). In contrast to England, Scotland and Wales, ISO 3166-2:GB (2011) defines Northern Ireland as a "province" (England, Scotland and Wales are defined as "countries"). However, regardless of the choice of term, "̉[t]hese names can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences." (Whyte and FitzGerald:1991)

Therefore, let's leave all of these loaded terms out of the introduction. They add nothing, anyway. The question itself is dealt with further down the article.

(Incidentally, policy is that, "The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever [in deciding consensus].") --RA (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Virtually any name is (per the reference above) controversial. We therefore need a wording which reflects the sources and as far as possible covers off the various options. Per Van Speijk. RA I am not sure you really have much engagement for making a change, indifference more than agreement explains the lack of response. Bundling too many things in one set of edits is always a mistake. Regardless of the "country" word we need to be clear that NI has is up there with Scotland and Wales in terms of Governance (and in respect of Scotland legal systems). So there needs to be some reference to the fact that it is one of four "somethings". The word "province" is also well supported so should be there. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, look above! There was a four week discussion! The rewrite was proposed on the 22 February 2012, people supported it, the change was made. Wholesale reverting of content over individual concerns is unacceptable behavior.

Editing policy is to WP:PRESERVE content and move forward. In contrast, your habit is to revert content you dislike and draw things back to filibuster until others are exhausted and your preferred copy remains. That is unacceptable and disruptive behavior and it is your persistent modus operandi across multiple articles for an extended period of time.

The new intro is not written in stone, nothing is, but it is written and has agreement. Move on from there. That is how articles are developed. Now, do you have something to propose? --RA (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I see some agreement, some dissent and more recently a revert by another editor suggesting that we discuss the issues. Otherwise I suggest you remove the personal attacks, they ill befit an experienced editor let alone an admin. You also make a false assumption or two but not to worry about that for the moment. Strike the personal attack please. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The issues were discussed three weeks ago and consensus was that the new introduction was an improvement (not perfect, nothing is, and not set in stone). Yet, the entirety — including the new paragraphs on the economy and sports and culture and grammar fixes — is being reverted apparently for a single issue. That is no way to improve articles. Ironically, HeroicSandwich's criticisms, which are much broader in their base, are not being addressed by reverting to the old introduction.

Now, you want to add something "to be clear that NI has is up there with Scotland and Wales in terms of Governance (and in respect of Scotland legal systems)." That sounds like an additional one liner, not a wholesale revert. However, it is not clear to me what you mean exactly.

The United Kingdom is not a symmetrical. For example, we can say that governance in Northern Ireland is devolved like Scotland and Wales, but not England (but also not like Scotland or Wales in further respects). We could say that Northern Ireland is a distinct legal jurisdiction, like Scotland and England and Wales, but not like England or Wales individually. We could say that England, Scotland and Wales ordinarily compete as separate sporting teams, but Northern Ireland ordinarily competes as part of an all-Ireland sporting team. Thus, a particular problem is that Northern Ireland is not "one of four 'somethings". Looking at the England, Scotland and Wales articles, they don't try to it make out that they are.

If you do want something added, how do you suggest it be addressed? And why are you reverting everything over one issue?

I'm going to act on HeroicSandwich's suggestion and invite an outside view. --RA (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I am waiting, without that much hope, for you to strike the personal attacks. If you are not prepared to do that I really think you should consider your suitability to be an admin. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Then prove me wrong. Let's see you work constructively towards a consensus, here and now, rather than reverting and then filibustering. If you can do that, I'll strike it out. Nine editors expressed support for the new introduction. The onus is on you if you want to revert to explain why and reach a consensus. I've asked you twice to suggest a way forwards and you haven't done so. --RA (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Not impressed RA, you were reverted by another editor on the basis that there was not a consensus. You promptly restored your version. When I reverted that in support I got subject to the little diatribe above which made general accusations. We've had this once before on the Wales article where you lashed out with personal accusations when you were not (as we discovered) even proposing a change. Its inflammatory, unnecessary and unworthy of an experienced editor, let alone an admin. Even now you can't simply delete it. As you should know a personal attack is not acceptable, and the onus on me is not to prove it wrong. You made it, if you think its true you should be raising at ANI for sanction, if not you should withdraw it. As to your final comment suggestions were made for point by point discussion and I made a response to that. Try and get your facts right ----Snowded ^TALK 21:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm with RA on this. There was a clearly expressed view by most editors that the wording of the opening sentence needed to be improved and made more balanced, and I see nothing wrong with how that change was made. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm open to the argument on that Ghmyrtle, I saw RA revert an editor who had asked for discussion and supported them. A short discussion could resolve that one way or the other. I am not open to the generalised personal attack evidenced above ----Snowded ^TALK 21:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Look:

• HighKing, ONiH, Ghmyrtle, Bjmullan, ComhairleContaeThirnanOg, Ardmacha, RA spoke for the new introduction.
• Mabuska spoke against it.

Mabuska's arguments were directly refuted by several participants. That's consensus. So, after two weeks the new introduction was added. (See diff of the discussion.)

Since then, CofE and Mo Ainm have also expressed satisfaction with it. HeroicSandwich criticisms, which are fair and well expressed, apply to both introductions (he described the old introduction as "the previous poor version" and "woefully inadequate"). Yet, Van Speijk reverted saying there is "absolutely no consensus for the changes". And you reverted "per Van Speijk".

There clearly is consensus. Of course the new text is not perfect. That's OK because all articles are WP:IMPERFECT. It needs to be developed further, and it will over time (including integrating some of HeroicSandwich's criticisms, I hope). The important thing is that it is not set in stone; but we can't hold everything up every time someone shouts 'stop the world'. That's why I am calling you on WP:FILIBUSTER. Things move on. --RA (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I don't see clear consensus on the wording. I do see general consensus to change. I also see Van Speijk reverting your wording asking for more discussion and you reverting that without discussion. Then I see you lashing out with personal attacks (although very selectively). Sorry RA I know you are on a campaign to get direct editing of articles preferred over using the talk page. If you get community agreement to that fine, but you should have shown more respect for the Van Speijk revert and you should strike those personal attacks. I realise you are probably going to carry on prevaricating on that but best just to admit you were wrong (you may have been right on the content issue) if you want any credibility if you use your recently acquired mop for WP:AGF violations. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"Umm, I don't see clear consensus on the wording. I do see general consensus to change." Snowded, seriously, the exact wording was proposed and agreed by a consensus three weeks ago. I linked to the diff above for your benefit (and here again). The community has agreed.

It is of course WP:IMPERFECT and it is not set in stone. It will develop over time and the issues raised by HeroicSandwich and Van Speijk (and others to come), what ever they are, will be integrated through consensus one way or another. --RA (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well lets see, you propose the wording 2305 22nd Feb. HighKing, Ghmyrtle & Bjmullan agree. Ardmacha agrees NI should be treated on its own merits but does not agree the text per se. Comhariie... agrees its an improvement but no more. Mabuska opposes but at this point you institute it anyway. Heroic Sandwich then expresses concerns. Hans Speijk reverts on the basis it needs more discussion but you reinstate anyway. I revert and get subject to one of your little tirades. So that is 4 four, one sort of, one against and three thinking it needs more discussion. Get the point yet? ----Snowded ^TALK 15:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So discuss... --RA (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So strike the personal attack(s) ----Snowded ^TALK 17:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Where I'm coming from is that there are a number of terms used to refer to Northern Ireland. Country and Province being fairly common, but with multiple referenced sources pointing out problems with these terms. RA's suggestion appears NPOV and still leaves room to discuss terminology within the article or even the lede, while still remaining within "official" nomenclature. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"HighKing, ONiH, Ghmyrtle, Bjmullan, ComhairleContaeThirnanOg, Ardmacha, RA spoke for the new introduction. Mabuska spoke against it." - quote a politically biased "consensus" don't you think? Where is the wide spectrum of viewpoint? The moment you made the change someone complained about it. The so-called refutes on my points were illogical disagreements from nationalist editors that could't be substantiated - i.e. using "province of the UK" could "be seen by some as an extra-territorial claim on the whole of Ulster".

I agree with you that it's not a country in the same sense as England/Scotland/Wales. I back calling it a province (in fact when i first raised the issue way back and argued for calling it a province - you hijacked that discussion and got shouted down), however i disagree with your methods and general willingness to disregard any points that you can't work with to achieve your goal.

Just to sum up these are my main concerns with you on this issue:

• Your continual re-raising of this issue under whatever pretense you can over the past few years despite the resolution or death of previous discussions.
• Your continual disregard of any points that you can't work with to achieve your goal and willingness to accept an end result as long as it removes "country" in regards to Northern Ireland from the lede of this article.
• You re-raised this issue after it had laid low for a while under the pretense that because the ISO has changed in its description of Wales from "Principality" to "Country" (which made it acceptable to Welsh nationalists) that it is now the unrefutable best source on what Northern Ireland is called. You then without any real logical discussion on it abandon the "province" and ISO arguement and adopt on board all nationalist concerns and create a proposal they couldn't possibly refuse.
• The lack of any wide-spread discussion on this highly controversial topic with editors from a wide range of viewpoints from across the relevant WikiProjects and an RfC.
• Failure to abide by the Troubles Restriction of seeking outside input for controversial topics and your present belief that the restriction should be removed.
• The alleged "consensus" which is heavily biased when editors viewpoints are taken into account - editors who'd rather have anything that they can call neutral or better as long as it doesn't result in NI being called a "country", "state", or what it actually is; a "province". Such arguements that it is neutral does not mean that the comments are being made for a neutral purpose.
• Your eagerness to accept such a narrow politically biased head-count as a basis of "consensus" and then try to enforce it by reverting a revert of your edit. Such a narrow biased head-count is hardly the basis of a stable, defining and acceptable consensus - but then again the less editors from other viewpoints who know about it...
• Your willingness to disregard Talk:Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom/refs, but any wonder seeing as the vast majority of sources so far back the usage of "country". Just to point out in the past i added three sources to it for province.
• Your unexplained piping of "part of the United Kingdom" to "Administrative geography of the United Kingdom" whilst England/Scotland/Wales all pipe to "Countries of the United Kingdom" which still lists Northern Ireland. Wouldn't all four be better linked to adminstrative geography or was it the fact it stated "countries of" the problem?
• Your lack of neutrality and objectivity on this issue which is backed up a comment you once made to me that Northern Ireland being called a country gets you riled up. Once i manage to find this comment i will provide it here.

Obviously you will disagree with all of that and you are entitled to, just like i am entitled to my concerns. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Extra point:

• You where quick enough to post notifications here, here and here for input on rescinding Troubles Restrictions but you still have failed to on this issue. You were however able to start an RfC with quite a biased synopsis of the situation. Why might i ask?

Encompassing my above concerns i must quote a very recent comment you made to me RA: That's not the way to develop articles.. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Outside view

I'd like to seek outside views on the introduction. The old version of the introduction can be read here. The new version, agreed above (7:1 in support), can be read here. A couple of days after the new introduction was added, HeroicSandwich posted a criticism of it above (as well as criticizing the old introduction: "already a woefully inadequate introduction"). The new introduction was reverted and a series of reverts between the two versions followed (including two new editors expressing support for the re-write and two new editors opposing it).

As well as concerns about broadening the introduction beyond the Troubles, a particular issue is how to describe Northern Ireland. This is a particular problem that is specific to Northern Ireland, as described in the following sources:

Reliable source dealing with the question of 'what Northern Ireland is' 

"One problem must be adverted to in writing about Northern Ireland. This is the question of what name to give to the various geographical entities. These names can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences. ... some refer to Northern Ireland as a 'province'. That usage can arouse irritation particularly among nationalists, who claim the title 'province' should be properly reserved to the four historic provinces of Ireland-Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connacht. If I want to a label to apply to Northern Ireland I shall call it a 'region'. Unionists should find that title as acceptable as 'province': Northern Ireland appears as a region in the regional statistics of the United Kingdom published by the British government." - J. Whyte and G. FitzGerald, 1991, Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford University Press: Oxford

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

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

What are outside view of the two introductions (strengths, failings of each, etc.)? What are outside views of how we could approach the 'what Northern Ireland is'? What is outside view of the process to develop the new introduction?

--RA (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out RA'a alleged agreement of 7:1 is politically biased and from a far too narrow range of viewpoints for such a contentious topic that they have continually raised over the years to no avail. RA also failed to abide by the Troubles Restrictions and seek outside opinions on the matter for example by raising it at the relevant WikiProjects and by RfCs. There are also other concerns that they have disregarded as being irrelevant such as this compilation of sources. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've read over both leads, the discussion leading to the change, and the discussion above. My first note is that the new lead is a paragraph longer than guidelines suggest, but I agree the addition of a section on things not to do with politics and the history of that politics can only be a good thing for the lead. In regards to the first line, and the main question here. Normally I'm quite insistent on reflecting the actual facts on the ground, calling spades spades, so to speak. However, I don't think that there's an exact spade to name here. We all know the UK as a whole has a unique history with unique domestic politics. This causes issues on wikipedia, as many here know. Northern Ireland takes these initial problems and compounds them. In Northern Ireland's case we actually have sources which discuss and debate what Northern Ireland is, it's very obviously not just a wikiproblem. The sources also say that the names people use can reflect on political beliefs. I think it's fair to say that in many cases the meanings of the words used to describe Northern Ireland, country, province, region, nation, are meanings which the people who use the words (and by the same note the people who refuse to use a certain word) give to them. If that's the case with our sources and editors, it's quite fair to say a reader will face the same issues. With this in mind, I don't think choosing one possibility is the right thing, but at the same time, using multiple words in the lead (very simply eg. "...is a country, or province, of...") is in my opinion just going to confuse any reader unfamiliar with the subject. Because of this, I support the second leads explicit sidestepping of the issue, a nifty move that avoids a real world discussion and follows in the footsteps of the NI and UK governments, who seem equally eager to just not address the situation. However, I think that there is room to describe the debate in the lead. I note the last two paragraph are the same in both. I suggest that a sentence is added to the last one, which describes the difficulties of symbolism etc., about the different descriptions used by various people. This would be informative for readers, and perhaps clarify why we haven't used a particular term at the very beginning.

Non-first sentence stuff (with bold for tldr purposes): Mention of the split from the rest of Ireland in the first paragraph is I think unneeded. It was a historical inter-UK action, which can be left to the history section. Information about the Good Friday agreement, cooperation with the rest of Ireland, and the reserved powers of the Uk should be moved to the second last paragraph, as it fits in with the theme of the troubles and their ending. There's a "since 1998" in both paragraphs, so it's easy to see where they would go together.

I share the feeling about statistical regions being quite unknown. There's nothing intrinsically notable about saying NI is the smallest anyway, it has a small population and not a large area, so you wouldn't expect its economy to be that large. Drop that first sentence, the rest is a nice summary of the economy. As for Culture, I don't think we should list any specific people in the lead, and don't see any need for the first sentence really. The following sentences make a concise summary of the complexity of the culture there. CMD (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to rescind Troubles restrictions

A proposal to rescind Troubles-realated restrictions has been made here. --RA (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Assocciation Football

Northern Ireland were also at the 1986 world cup finals. can someone with access edit this and then they can delete this message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.47.242 (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Added. Thanks, --RA (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Governance section

The Governance section doesn't actually give much detail on how Northern Ireland is governed (e.g. devolution, NIE departments, the role of UK parliament, north/south co-operation, etc.). It spends most of it's time discussing views on constitutional question.

I'm going to boldly split into a "background" section (which I think may benefit from being reduced in size, but won't do) and begin work on a genuine Governance section. --RA (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Pity you are using that to yet again change the lede after you have been reverted ----Snowded ^TALK 13:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please strike that attack. Is it any wonder people are driven away form here when honest attempts to improve articles are thrown back in people's faces like that? It has been a long time since a comment truly disgusted me. That did. There isn't one drop of good faith in it. --RA (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool it RA, you were reverted and just restored your position its a factual comment, your response isn't----Snowded ^TALK 16:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"Pity you are using that to..." — If don't you have the decency to apologize, at least have the dignity not to deny it. Anyway... --RA (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Another editor reverted your change to the lede. The then reverted that in a body of other edits (which I left alone by the way), per my above comment its a straight comment, your personal attack is not ----Snowded ^TALK 21:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)