Talk:Northern Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Northern Ireland was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Northern Ireland in Ireland[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Domain name[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

In the past, the ccTLDs were shown here because .uk was shown on England, Scotland and Wales as well. I notice that since the introduction of .scot and .wales/.cymru, only those gTLDs are shown on the Scotland and Wales articles and England shows none.
I'm ambivalent about removing it now. It is interesting that Northern Ireland is at the nexus of two ccTLDs and within the administrative area of three - but given the changes on the other UK articles, I don't think I would object to it being removed. --Tóraí (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Better then the status quo would be:

^ As part of the United Kingdom, Ireland and European Union, .uk, .ie and .eu may be used in connection with Northern Ireland.


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

Or less still:

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

I would like consistency between this article and England's article regardless.
Rob984 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd either go with the status quo or be consistent with England. --Tóraí (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Irish administrating body must act within the interest of the Republic of Ireland, not the entire island. The intended use is entities connected with the state.
For example, if the Irish administrating body wanted to, they could restrict the domain to entities conntected to solely the Republic of Ireland. They could not restrict the domain to entities conntected to solely Leinster, because that would not be acting within the interest of the whole Republic of Ireland.
The Irish administrating body has re-purposed it for all-Ireland usage. It is not obligated in any way to do so.
Rob984 (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It was not re-purposed. That bit in ICANN was written long after it was assigned. Also the ISO country codes are used for islands apart from who governs them. The .uk code was chosen rather than the ISO .gb to represent the whole of the UK as a country. Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
If you want to talk about re-purposed how about talking about the Good Friday Agreement that guarantees people in Northern Ireland the right "to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both". A principal duty of internet domain registers is to reflect the wishes of their community. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Would be pretty absurd if people living on Ireland couldn't identify as Irish; it is the demonym for the island you know? "their community" is the people of the Republic of Ireland. Rob984 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the same discredited arguments being pushed again. People should really read back through that multiple threads on the NI Talk page and see how despite the consensus being against it, repeated votes were called by Frenchmalawi with some voters (Frenchmalawi and supporters) having multiple votes in the same vote but others (typically supporting the status quo) only having a single vote. The .ie ccTLD was not repurposed. Frenchmalawi is recycling the same wrong claims about open ccTLDs in an attempt to have his/her opinion accepted as fact. The GFA legislation was mentioned previously and it supports, from what I remember, the current situation. And repurposing a ccTLD is not quite the same as what some people on this thread consider as repurposing. It typically, in the domain name industry, means having an external company take over the administration of a ccTLD and the same of registrations to a global market rather than just the country or region initially envisaged. The most recent examples of this would be the .co ccTLD and the .me ccTLD. The .ie ccTLD is still a managed ccTLD and is, by comparison, quite restricted in who can register domain names under .ie. This is why Frenchmalawi's claims about repurposed ccTLDs like .tv are wrong. Jmccormac (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
"Repurposed" simply means, used for an alternative purpose then intended.
It's beyond me why you would think the TLD based on the ISO code for the Republic of Ireland, was not intended for entities conntected with the Republic of Ireland. Like the other 300 countries' TLDs.
I don't really care about the state of .ie, as long as the domain of the Republic of Ireland isn't listed on an area within the UK's article.
Rob984 (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
As I said, it has a specific meaning within the domain name business. The GFA means that it should be listed -- parity of esteem and all that. Wales has dotCymru. Scotland has dotScot. People in NI who wish to use .ie have dotIE. Next year, there will be a dotIrish. These are regional geo gTLDs. The regional gTLDs dotCymru and dotScot are mentioned on the Wales and Scotland pages. Don't see too many complaints about that. Jmccormac (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I added .ie to Ireland's infobox. I don't disagree that it's used on an all-island basis. I disagree that it was intended by ICANN to be used on an all-island basis, as implied at .ie. It's still the ccTLD of the Republic of Ireland. Rob984 (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
.ie is a ccTLD, not a geo gTLD. You don't seem to understand the difference. A domain matching an ISO code is reserved for the respecive state. Scotland could never aquire .sc, even before 1997, because it was reserved for Seychelles. Please understand the distinction. Rob984 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I do understand the distinction. I also understand that the assignment of .ie ccTLD took place approximately a decade before the establishment of ICANN. Jmccormac (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Rob984 - I 100% agree with your position. It's crystal clear. Jmccormac is running with a "it's covered by the Good Friday Agreement" arguemnt. That sounds really desperate to me. By that logic ".uk" should be listed as a domain name for Ireland too. After all "parity of esteem and all that" works both ways and the GFA was an "all Island" agreement in that sense. Any way, I interacted with Jmccormac at length on the See how he starts off with a bald assertion and a thinly veiled personal attack rather than a reasoned argument: "discredited arguments being pushed again".
User:Rob984, should you wish to read up further on the whole issue I'd again point you to where I detail just how clear the relationship between Ireland and ".ie" is - the administration of ".ie" is governed by the laws of Ireland and Acts of the Oireachtas have been enacted dealing with it. Do you think any one could point me to an equivalent UK or Northern Ireland piece of legislation dealing with ".ie"....Of course not! It's assigned to Ireland proper and not an island... I will support you all the way Rob. Though my own position is that the NI page should have no domain names listed at all because it's not necessary and is rather silly as none are assigned to it (it is a UK region and doesn't have its own domain). Finally, Jmccormac was also wrong on the first things he said: I have actually never before discussed the ".ie" domain on the Talk: Northern Ireland page. Though the argument, is basically the same as that which I gave on Talk: .ie. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
How quickly people forget!
The 2013 effort:
The 2012 effort:
Jmccormac (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not quite following Frenchmalawi's argument about the Good Friday Agreement. It doesn't give people in ROI the right to a British passport. If t did then yes I would agree .uk would be a reasonable extra domain there but it didn't - it gave people in NI the right to Irish passports and to be treated as Irish citizens. Dmcq (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Dmcq - For one thing, whether a group of people outside Ireland are afforded rights to Irish citizenship is completely irrelevant to whether ".ie" is a domain name for a jurisdiction outside Ireland. But nonetheless, even if it were relevant, you say "It doesn't give people in ROI the right to a British passport." The GFA provides that in a United Ireland NI people (whatever that would mean then) would have the right to British citizenship. It reads "recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland." But this is all completely irrelevant in any event to the fact that ".ie" is assigned to Ireland, governed by Irish law and has nothing whatsoever to do with the UK or any part thereof. Would you like to raise some arguments countering what I have said? Please explain how ".ie" has any relation to NI, more say, than ".tv" has? Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The Good Friday Agreement is recognized by the British government and by the government in Northern Ireland. People have the right now under British law to be recognized as Irish and have parity of esteem if they are born in Northern Ireland. That is in the here and now. What would happen in any united Ireland is irrelevant to the current question. Dmcq (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed that what may happen in a United Ireland is irrelevant; so too is the GFA. This is a discussion about ".ie". It is the domain name assigned for "Ireland" and not "Ireland and Northern Ireland".
The GFA doesn't change that. Your argument is a bit like saying that ".il" should be a domain name for New York because there are a lot of Jewish people there and the Iraeli law recognises their right to be Israeli....Yes Ireland affords citizenship rights to people outside Ireland in NI; that has no relevance to the ".ie" which is governed by the laws of Ireland and not by the laws of "Ireland and the UK" or "Ireland and NI" or some such. It isn't complicated. I don't think you are interested in facts here. Hmm, User:Rob984 was the person I was pitching in to support but I guess he might have got tired of this too. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The US does not have an international agreement that people born in New York may identify as Israeli and they will be recognized as such and will be afforded parity of esteem with Americans even though they don't sing the Star Spangled Banner and salute the flag. Dmcq (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
GFA doesn't give Northern Irish people the right to use .ie.
Regardless, Northern Ireland is a sub-national entity. Listing .uk, .eu or .ie is unecessary. Since people in Fermanagh can register .ie domains, should we list .ie as the TLD of Fermanagh too? I guess it's also the TLD of Belfast and Derry?
Belfast has no domain. Neither does Northern Ireland.
Infoboxes should be comparable:
"The meaning given to each infobox part should be the same across instances of that type of infobox."
–Manual of Style
Scotland or Wales only show the domains of their country. England, like Northern Ireland, has no domain, and so unsuprisingly shows nothing.
Northern Ireland has no TLD is a fact. The easiest way to convey that fact is to show no TLD.
"...the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content."
–Manual of Style
Rob984 (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The current state has been the status quo for almost two months. This infobox must be consistent with England, Scotland and Wales. If you want to change the meaning of the field here, you will have to gain consensus to change it at all four countries' articles. Have fun. Rob984 (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is about your change to remove the domain name. It has not been accepted by a consensus yet. Consistency is not a requirement in Wikipedia, see WP:CONSISTENCY. What you are stating as fact is simply your own opinion. The GFA most certainly does give people in NI the right to use .ie, they have the rights of Irish citizens if they so wish and any such rights are recognized by the British government as being equal to those got under the crown. Are you denying people in NI the right to be recognized as Irish citizens and parity of esteem? Are you asserting that the British government would be within its rights to pass a law saying an .ie domain could not be used by a person in NI as part of their identity? Dmcq (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thinking about this question, I don't see that the TLDs have any great weight in the context of this article, so I can't really argue that they have to be in the infobox. It is just this denial of identity rights from the GFA and ancient rights of the name that irks me. Dmcq (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

I would add: what would be subject to the North South bodies was intensely argued over at the time. Had it been intended that .ie be made subject to NS arrangements, that would be very clear. Of course, it didn't. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The domain has not been subject to any laws so why should the governments discuss it? The thing you were talking about has nothing about recognition of identity never mind any shared authority. I really don't know why you bring up such irrelevancies. If a person is born in New York of Irish parents they are expected to pledge allegiance to the flag. You do know that domain names are considered an integral part of identity by many people and firms? Messing around with GFA trying to restrict it very tightly to identity only meaning a passport is certainly not what it intended. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
See Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom) about the various changes for Northern Ireland to see for example what the GFA means about identity. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Britain would be within its rights to restrict use of .uk domains to people in the uk and British citizens. Much more interesting would be if there was a case where a .uk domain was required in Britain, under the GFA I'm pretty certain they would have to also allow .ie in such circumstances in NI. I can't see the question going to court - they'd just do it, though you never know with all the stupid insults being traded back and forth in Stormont.
Anyway this is all a bit irrelevant to the article unless some other people are still wanting the TLDs in the article. Dmcq (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
But of course, the Republic of Ireland (specifically 'the trustee of the top-level domain for the nation') isn't within its rights to restrict use of .ie domains to the Republic of Ireland?
The rest of your comment is nonsense. The GFA has no affect on the allocation of .ie or .uk domains.
Rob984 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
As I said just a little above if the ROI government had control it would be subject to the GFA which it has also signed so it would have to allow NI people the same use of Irish identity marks as those in ROI. Basically the GFA recognizes that the Irish nation is not confined to ROI, that is a state not a nation. Dmcq (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
So "ie", the iso code of the Republic of Ireland is an "Irish identity mark"? Right. Regardless, it does control it. See my comment below. Rob984 (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

The law you're thinking of was never brought into effect, the commencement order excludes it. But as I said above that is pretty irrelevant because if it was so controlled Ireland would be constrained by the GFA just like it is in issuing passports. Dmcq (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
As the matter is still under discussion here, the domain name field should be restored in the article. Frenchmalawi's arguments were discredited and shown to be merely his/her opinion. On a number of occasions, he/she has tried to impose his/her opinion on the article without it being supported by fact, legislation or, more importantly, consensus. Even with a rigged vote the consensus was that the domain name field should stay as it was. Jmccormac (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The domain names have been absent for nearly two months (that is status quo). It was agreed on this talk page between two editors prior. This is a new discussion contending the status quo. Rob984 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Infact, you're the only editor in this thread supporting adding it to this article. Rob984 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Not so:
"2000 (15,506 domains registered): The e-Commerce Act 2000 was passed giving the Minister for Communications, Data and Natural Resources powers of regulation over the .ie namespace."
"2007 – the 75,000th .ie domain is registered by The e-Commerce Act 2007 (as amended) is passed transferring the Minister for Communication, Data and Natural Resources power’s to ComReg."
It's not an "Irish identity mark". It's the iso code of the Republic of Ireland, derived from the name of the state. It's irrelevent to the GFA.
Rob984 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The IANA database lists the sponsoring organisation for TLDs. In .ie's case it is UCD. It has not changed and I think that there was some discussion about this. However this is separate from the legislative issue. Jmccormac (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Uh, why do you think the sponsoring organisation is the regulator? Rob984 (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't and never made such a claim. The sponsoring organisation is the sponsoring organisation as per the IANA database. Jmccormac (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Well I have no idea why your responded to my comment about the regulator by telling me about the sponsoring organisation? Rob984 (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Because the sponsoring organisation got tied up in the governance section. You did, after all, delete the reference in the .UK articles as you didn't know it was the .uk registry's own site. The .ie ccTLD sponsoring organisation has not been changed even though IEDR now administers the .ie ccTLD. Jmccormac (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know? I removed it because Nominet is a single organisation, and isn't a generic second-level domain. It doesn't matter that it's Nominet's own site. It should still be removed in my opinion. It's not a generic second-level domain. Thanks for that bullshit though. I hope you feel like you've proved yourself or whatever you were trying to do. Rob984 (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm happy enough to accept what iedr says but as I said before it really isn't very relevant. After all Irish passports are issued by ROI. A domain name is most certainly an identity mark though and people pay more for .ie over time than they do for their passport. As iedr's first bullet point in What is a .ie domain says a .ie domain name lets customers know that you are Irish. That is pretty much a statement about identity. Dmcq (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Yes I believe ROI could be sued if it restricted access to people in NI compared to those in ROI. I already said that above. Dmcq (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Your interpretation of the GFA is original research and holds no standing here unfortunately. Rob984 (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
One Editor here reminds me of de Valera. Dev said he need only look into his heart to know what the Irish people wanted. Similarly I think of one Editor saying to himself: "sources" - who needs them! I know what I know!! Of course Rob, I got no support when I tried to raise the equivalent issue on .ie. Any way, I think this wraps up this discussion. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
What you said was just as much OR as what I said. You thought what you were saying was a straightforward reasonable interpretation of the facts and I think what I have said is a straightforward reasonable interpretation of the facts. There is no document that straightforwardly states something directly relevant. Sticking in anything about the domains in the infobox is unnecessary and the consensus seems to be to not include anything. You didn't want them in and attacking people is not a constructive thing to do as far as improving the article is concerned so how about just being happy the field has gone thanks. Dmcq (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

Guff about economic growth since 90s[edit]

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

Well I can agree with you to some extent but not overall. I fully expected Northern Ireland to become a bit poorer with the end of the troubles even if there would be more industry eventually because the UK would stop pouring billions into it whatever about the promises of keeping it going for a while. But surely it is better to have people working an doing things for themselves rather than depending on handouts from Britain? All that money was coming in at the cost of peoples' lives. As for ROI it has definitely gained from the peace, even though it didn't have to deal with all that terrorism it was spending proportionally more than the UK because of it as far as I can see with its extra troops and security measures and suchlike money sinks. So you can't really talk about it being growth in the region independent of the peace dividend. Dmcq (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the guff in the article completely obscures the real position. Ireland proper experienced huge economic growth during that period. I doubt 2 per cent of that growth was due to peace coming to the jurisdiction bordering it. As for NI, the percentage might be a tad higher or might not given barracks closures etc. The growth in the services sector, FDI, demographics, global economic growth and things like that explain by far the vast majority of the growth but to read the guff, you'd think it was down to the peace process. It's a problem for NI that it is so often seen through the narrow prism of its political divide. In this case, it's really silly. I'm not going to edit that stuff out because it would probably be reverted but any one who does care more about the article should give it a go. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Well you might feel that it would only make a 2% difference if the businesses were still being bombed and businessmen being kidnapped or having to pay protection money and Americans being afraid to visit the place but I certainly think it all put a bit more of a dampener on business. Even with billions being spent on the place every year things like that silly DeLorean venture were as much as could be hoped for. You can only talk about the peace dividend being small if you include all that security spending and extra other spending by the UK during the troubles as an asset NI gained from people killing each other. Yes Britain is even now reducing the amount it pays, personally I'm happy about that given how the alternative was achieved. Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Well then the thing to do is stick {{cn}} beside the bits you dispute and see if anyone comes up with something, or better yet look around for stuff on the subject. Please try and write it up neutrally with due weight rather than just trying to find stuff that backs up what you think. Dmcq (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll put in a couple of those. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I just did it but please could you fix the template for me as I don't know that it looks right and I am not sure how to do it. Thanks, Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. The t| in what I wrote was to produce a display of what should be written as I didn't want to actually say a citation was needed in my text. It wasn't my raw input that was to be copied. Dmcq (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

OK, well didn't know there was an edit war on "terrorist attacks from both sides of the Northern Irish ranks (ie Protestants and Catholics or any other way you'd like to describe them) causing economic troubles as sane people flee taking their companies with them" was something anyone with a brain couldn't figure out as common sense. So, I added a citation. The only book I have handy on the subject. Anyway, forgive my Irish wit here. Now to my question. This same book goes on to talk about the boom in the 1990s when Ireland (as a whole) was being called the Celtic Tiger. He speaks of double digit growth of the economy and a dropping of the unemployment rate. This is in general respect to all of Ireland, as near as I can tell. It does not attribute any of this to the Peace Accord. Although it should be a bit of common sense that "peace" pays a dividend in economy. That the removal of barricaded and heavily armed checkpoints encourage, rather than discourage tourism and so on. But he doesn't come out and attribute any of that to the Peace Accord. So, I'm guessing this book would not be a suitable source as a citation for the rest of the, what are we calling it, "guff"? The citation I did add was specifically for the fall in the economy, which he directly addressed. Celtic hackr (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is a few references I got from a quick look on the web
Can the peace dividend and devolution transform business in Northern Ireland?. This gives a few papers which have been written on the subject and says
"In the case of Northern Ireland, there are myriad reports and academic papers examining this question (Gudgin et al, 1998; Muckley, 2011 ; Portland Trust, 2007; Besley and Mueller, 2012) among many others. In the case of Muckley, and Besley and Mueller, they investigate the impact of a peace dividend on tourism and investment; and house prices, respectively, for which they find positive effects. In the late 1990s, the level of public sector employment rose to 39% and public subsidies rising to a third of GDP in 1995 (Goreki, 1995). In essence, the economy was sustained by the state as a result of conflict. "
"It is apparent that there are production, income and consumption effects from a peace dividend, but they are variable and the time lags to return to pre-conflict trend can be considerable. "
basically what I was saying about that Britain poured in billions because people killed each other and are now slashing the budgets whatever about their promises of money if there was peace. But overall it is good for the economy. And the study of house prices shows a clear negative correlation between people being killed and house prices.
The housing one is at [1] but the others would need some academic access.
[2] has a quote from Canning Moores and Rhodes in 1987 saying
"while the troubles have led to a loss of manufacturing jobs, the net effect on the regional economy has been positive, due to the induced expansion of public sector expenditure and employment". It also has another bit where it is estimated that peace means an additional 1400 jobs per year extra. Basically it takes time, you don't the benefits overnight, whereas There is a strong incentive in Britain to reduce the subsidies as quickly as possible.
Anyway see what you think or you might spot something better. That last quote has been the closest I've seen to anything supporting your idea that there isn't a peace dividend, overall it seems the statistics since then seem to show a definite benefit. Dmcq (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
"the closest I've seen to anything supporting your idea that there isn't a peace dividend"...I'm not sure if there was or was not a peace dividend. What I am sure of is that if there was one, it was not the key driver of growth. The NI economy grew hugely during the late 60s, most years in the 70s and 80s. It also grew in the early 90s. In short, it grew throughout "the Troubles". The "peace dividend" if there was one, was not the key to growth since then...There were many keys; mostly the same keys as applied throughout "the troubles". Remember what I said about the tendency to see things through some prism of "the troubles". It causes distortion. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You mean "while the troubles have led to a loss of manufacturing jobs, the net effect on the regional economy has been positive, due to the induced expansion of public sector expenditure and employment"? Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

How about following what you said about not guff about peace diVidend and what we "think" and talking about what the citations say. If you are going to dispute that NI was kept together by huge amounts of money from Britain during the troubles and was losing jobs then where is your source? In other words citation needed. Dmcq (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I never wanted to redraft the stuff about NI's economy. I made my comments and hope coverage may be improved by other editors. I'm not sure if you agreed with me in the end or not. What I was saying was very simple. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm don't see how you come to the idea that I might be agreeing with you. Perhaps you better say what your very simple point is again. If you didn't want to change the article what was the point? To ask for citations? Dmcq (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I did not want to change the article myself personally. I wanted to flag it as a problem and encourage other editors who have some knowledge in the topic to contribute to enhance it. That is one of the things about me. I accept I don't know a lot about everything. While I detected guff, I don't claim to be an expert on NI economics and amn't interested enough either. I think that's probably a difference between you and me. Judging from the stuff you've contributed here about ".ie", it seems you don't accept any limitations on your knowledge. You seem to think you know as much as anybody and cannot learn anything from another editor. You actually told me that the UK could sue Ireland over use of ".ie". What's more, I think you might actually believe that and are happy to believe, sources or not, familiarity with the law or not, general legal knowledge or not. Given this, you're probably interested in hearing anything further. You beat me hands down. I don't want to discuss things with you going forward. If its just you and me in a discussion, you'll beat me every time. Park reason and logic, sources and thought, at the door. Wear people down....You've beaten me. Congratulations !!! Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
So no answer to the question just a personal attack. If you think it is guff find your own sources to counter what the sources I gave said. This discussion isn't about .ie and I've said in that discussion that I'm okay with the entry about internet domains being removed from the infobox. I was answering a follow on question there on how I view its status. There's no need for you to go on about being worn down and being beaten when the article is being changed to what you want. Dmcq (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry if my tone was a bit harsh and caused any offence. You seem like a nice guy like I've said before. All the best. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2014[edit]


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

The article currently is as follows:

GDP (nominal) 2002 estimate

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

Currency Pound sterling (GBP)

I would therefore suggest the following:

GDP (PPP) 2011 estimate

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

GDP (nominal) 2011 estimate

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

Currency Pound sterling (GBP)

The references used for this change are the Eurostat News Release "Regional GDP - GDP per capita in the EU in 2011, found at [1], and the OEDC statextracts table 4. "PPPs and exchange rates", found at [2].

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

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

Many thanks,

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

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

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 06:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the GDP given in the infobox should be changed to USD and updated. All the other UK articles give it in dollars, as does the Republic of Ireland article and all the other European countries I looked at (France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Finland, Sweden). Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree USD seems to be standard for GDP so the change seems reasonable. Dmcq (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)