Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 2

NPOV

I have inserted the NPOV tag because I think this page goes too far on the Unionist/Loyalist idea that "Northern Ireland" is a legitimate legal entity. The last democratic vote in Ireland was for the Second Dail, the military occupation of the six counties is illegitimate, Ireland is one, united country, with its own army, the Irish Republican Army, who have been fighting the British occupation for decades (with other republican organizations fighting before that). Ruy Lopez 20:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your POV is not one shared by the majority of people in Ireland, irrespective of what side of the border they live on, only by Republican Sinn Fein, which refuses to recognise the Republic of Ireland, whose Constitution was amended to allow for Irish unity through consent, and was approved by a referendum in 1998. The so-called "Irish Republican Army" is banned in the Republic as well as the North, and many of its leaders were sent to the gallows by the government of Eamon De Valera in the 1940s.

Quiensabe 17:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey Ruy! Does that mean that every vote and election result held in the Irish Free State and the Republic of Ireland since 1922 is illigitimate??? Say it ain't so!

Specking as an Irishman and a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, my county is united, all twenty-six countys of it. We have no claims on any other territorys (except maybe Rockall).

The so-called army you refer do are outlawed in my country, and very few of my fellow citizens see them as anything other than the criminal scum they are. If that were not the case, the part of the UK called Northern Ireland would have become part of the (United) Republic of Ireland in the south a long time ago. It ain't, and guns and bombs are not gonna change that, so get used to it.

What you are supporting is an organisation that wants nothing less than the complete and utter overthrow of my country, her institutions and government. That sounds like terrorism to me. Fergananim

Ireland is Ireland, an island by the Atlantic Ocean, and one of the nations of the British Isles. Politically, part of that country has remained within the United Kingdom, as Northern Ireland. Another part left, and is now the Republic of Ireland. What is the problem with recognising this? It doesn't mean someone from Northern Ireland need be any less Irish (not in the sense of being of the Republic of Ireland, but in an apolitical sense of being from Ireland), regardless of their British citizenship. Anyone in Northern Ireland is in the same situation that anyone from Ireland was in prior to partition (i.e. from the United Kingdom, but from Ireland within that). Are all those born in the 800 years before partition not Irish despite having been within the United Kingdom (or subject to the monarch)?

Unfortunately because of the ROI acting as "Ireland", some people from NI may not be happy with being called Irish, in the sense that a Canadian may be unhappy with being called "American" (technically correct, but not in the citizenship sense). It could also be mistaken as someone from NI that has citizenship of the Republic of Ireland (also called Irish citizenship).

If it wasn't for politicians screwing up, it would be entirely of no consequence whether someone from the island of Ireland (i.e. an Irish person) was from the United Kingdom or not.

zoney ♣ talk 10:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"and one of the nations of the British Isles"- Well, is it now? Perhaps it is to the British, but to the Irish Ireland will never be one of your "British isles"- no Irish person uses that expression. That jingoistic, imperialist mentality really is endemic to British views on Ireland, and Ireland's British problem.

Flag

Northern Ireland is the only country/territory that does not have a flag image. While it may be a disputed point on what is the flag, at the very least, the Union Flag should be shown. What do NI football team use? Astrotrain 20:44, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

For information on the official status of the Union Flag, please see my submission on the "Flag of Northern Ireland" page. I hope it's clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Northern_Ireland - JimJim

Flag icon

I think we could do with a better one and I've proposed some alternatives at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#A_better_flag_icon_for_Northern_Ireland.3F --Cavrdg 13:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Flag icon Oct 2005 Update

Hi, I am from Northern Ireland. We do not have an official flag. The flag with the Red Hand, is now only used by extremist terrorist organisations in the region, specifically loyalist.

Please remove it.

It clearly states it is unofficial. Djegan 17:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, the coat of arms originally also said unofficial, but someone changed it to semiofficial. I'm not sure why this change was made (or why one could be considered unofficial and the other semiofficial).--JW1805 17:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It Might State it is unofficial, then if it does so, why don't we take it out. Put a link of "Associated Flags of Ulster" where you can talk of the different flags that might be associated with this province, but this flag should not be on this article. Paddy 19:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The flag is, as stated at Flag of Northern Ireland, still used as a cultural flag for Northern Ireland at events like football matches and the Commonwealth Games. --Kwekubo 21:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Kwekubo, it is still a Flag of Norther Ireland, but it is by no means an official flag of Northern Ireland politically, so then why make it feature as the main flag on this article, surely a link to Flags of Northern Ireland Should replace that flag, a link to a section where all possible flags are stated, and their history shown, Just an idea like.

Paddy :-) 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I am an Irish-American, whose family fled Ulster. The Red Hand of Ireland was created by Niall of the Nine Hostages, who won the kingship, acording to legend, in a boat race in which he cut off his hand to gain the kingship. Niall later kidnaped a boy named Patricius, who later escaped via Dublin, and eventually made it to Rome. There, Patrick became a preist and converted the rest of the country. Since then, the O'Neill Clan for the most part are still Catholics, as such, I would have to file a formal protest over the use of my clan's emblem to support the traitors who support union with Imperialist Britain. Patton 117, Historian for the O'Neill Clan in America

It's not entirely true that it is "only used" by terrorist organisations. It is used as an identification for Northern Ireland at international, mainly sporting events. It is simply has more meaning to the region than just using the Union Flag, which is the official flag of Northern Ireland. If the DUP ever get their act togeather and the assembly gets back up and running I am sure we will get a flag that everyone can relate to [rant]And also, Imperialist Britain hasn't existed for half a century, the United Kingdom would gladly give up Northern Ireland (we cost more than we are worth), except that it is a Democracy and under such Government the majority gets its way. I am quite happy to belong to the UK and own a British Passport. I could go on about Americans sticking their noses in to affairs of foreign countries but I wont.[/rant] Sorry about that last bit, just had to get it off my chest, been one of those days. :: Keith :: 18:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Some versions of the legend do have an O'Neill as the winner of the race (given that it is the O'Neill emblem), but I'm not aware of any suggestion that it was Niall of the Nine Hostages. Your clan may need to get another historian. --Ryano 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Reinstated paragraph

The following paragraph was removed.

Once established under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, Northern Ireland was structured geographically (see gerrymander) so as to provide a permanent unionist majority in key geographic areas, with predominantly nationalist areas producing unionist majorities through the granting of voting rights exclusively to property owners (where most Catholics were renting and most Protestants were owners). Local government wards (local government constituencies) also had boundaries constructed to ensure Protestants won most seats and so controlled local government in areas like Derry. Anger of local government control by Protestants, and the awarding of housing to Protestants to ensure Unionist majorities in areas with large Catholic populations, played a significant part in creating the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, with a sit-in by nationalist politician Austin Currie in a house granted to an unmarried protestant woman ahead of a large homeless Catholic family triggering off the movement.

I have reinstated it. It is factually correct. (BTW, lest anyone think otherwise, I am not a Sinn Féin-style Irish republican, nor am I anti-unionist. I have been accused on wikipedia of being "pro-British" - once a "British apologist", for refusing to write nationalist/republican propaganda into articles!) Studies by Paul Bew and in particular the universally acclaimed the late Professor John H. Whyte (Queens University Belfast and University College Dublin), whose books, notably Interpreting Northern Ireland (1990) are regarded across the political divide as the most authoritative on Northern Ireland, state categorically that local government gerrymandering did exist. It was also condemned by British politicians. Its existence has also subsequently been admitted to by leading unionists, including David Trimble, whose "cold house for Catholics" comment describing Northern Ireland, was partly in reference to the infamous gerrymandering. Indeed so blatent was the gerrymandering that one British Home Secretary called it "astonishing".

What happened was simple. In places where large nationalist majorities exist, wards were constructed to keep all the nationalists together. Some wards would be 95% nationalist, but massive nationalist wards would only produce a minimal number of seats (the maximum available for a ward). Had boundaries been drawn neutrally, that population would have been broken up into several wards because of geography, with each ward having nationalist majorities, producing far more nationalist councillors than could exist when nationalists were crammed into a couple of massive wards. Elsewhere, nationalist and unionist areas were put together in wards where it was arranged that unionists would outnumber nationalists. Derry/Londonderry was a notorious example of this gerrymander. In addition, the awarding of housing was arranged to give unionists houses in 50:50 nationalist/unionist wards, again producing over time unionist majorities.

Finally voting in local government was by means of property ownership, with in some cases the owners of properties having multiple votes and the tenants of properties none. As economic wealth in Northern Ireland was until recently years more associated with unionists than nationalists (ie, there were more middle class property-owning unionists per proportion of the population, and more working class nationalists without property per proportion of the population) a voting register based on property rights unduly favoured one class, and so the group with most members of that class, unionists. If I remember Whyte's lectures correctly (and a leading Ulster Unionist made the same point to me a couple of months ago, as did someone in the Northern Ireland Office when my group of students met senior officials on a visit to Northern Ireland - we also met the SDLP, UUP, Sinn Féin, Alliance and DUP, etc) Northern Ireland was the last part of the UK still to have a property based electoral register, such a voting regulation having been abolished in the recent of the UK in or around 1945. It was re-introduced in the North for local government by the Stormont government, against the advice of Lord Carson, who correctly predicted that any institutionalised discrimination would destabilise Northern Ireland and prove a mistake. Sir James Craig, to Carson's horror, thought otherwise. Voters by property (ie, votes for rate-payers) was one of the first things abolished by Britain when it took running Northern Ireland. The entire Northern Ireland local government system was re-organised in the 1970s, on the excuse that local government was being reorganised in England and Wales by Heath's government.

Leading unionists today regard the gerrymandering of local government has perhaps the biggest mistake ever committed by the Stormont government. They say that the whole civil rights campaign owed its origins to that mistake. Had local government not been gerrymandered so blatently Stormont could have survived. But that the entire edifice of government had been completely discredited by what was effectively rigged local elections. The gerrymandering provided the spark that brought the old Northern Ireland down. And we have all had to live, for good or ill, with the consequences. FearÉIREANN 23:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Below is a section of How much discrimination was there under the unionist regime, 1921-68? by John H Whyte.

The fate of Londonderry County Borough aroused the most bitterness. It had a substantial, and growing, Catholic majority - by 1961 Catholics were more than 60 per cent even among the adult population (Hewitt, 1981: 366). Yet unionists won back control under the ward division imposed in 1923, and when, after some years, it looked as if the nationalists might capture one of the unionist wards, the boundaries were redrawn so as to perpetuate unionist rule (Buckland, 1979: 243-6).

The stock unionist defence for the post-1922 arrangements (Walmsley, 1959: 9-10; UUP, 1969: 12) is that local government electoral boundaries were drawn so as to take account not only of population but of ratable value. This was justified on the ground that those who paid the most rates were entitled to the biggest say in the conduct of local government. Thus unionists, who were on average richer than nationalists, could legitimately find themselves more favourably represented. This, however, is a dubious defence. Democratic theory does not in general permit that the rich should be more strongly represented than the poor; the unionists themselves did not make such a provision in parliamentary elections. Furthermore, as time went by, it became less and less true that large ratepayers contributed the bulk of local government finance. Grants from the Northern Ireland government became increasingly important, until by 1969 they provided three-quarters of the revenue of local authorities (Cameron, 1969: para. 141). Thus, as the Cameron commission concluded (ibid.), 'such validity as this argument ever possessed is one which is rapidly losing any force which it mighthave had'. If electoral boundaries were drawn so as to over-represent the rich, this was not a refutation of the charge of gerrymandering: it was a description of how the gerrymandering was achieved.

In any case, attempts to defend the post-1922 arrangements crumble before Buckland's (1979) discoveries in official papers. He shows that the Northern Ireland government did not even attempt to be fair. The 'sole concern' of the Ministry of Home Affairs was 'how to give effect to the views of the Unionist rank and file' (ibid.: 233), and the reorganisation in controversial districts was 'virtually dictated by local Unionists' (ibid.: 239). The Derry redistribution of 1936 was designed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, who did the job better than the Derry unionists had been able to do it for themselves. 'Throughout the discussions between ministry officials and Londonderry Unionists there was never any question that the government should not assist the latter' (ibid.: 245). Buckland's conclusions are particularly weighty because his previous writings (on unionism in the period 1886-1921) had shown him as sympathetic to the unionist cause.

To sum up on electoral arrangements. Charges that parliamentary constituencies were gerrymandered against the nationalists have only slight validity, whatever other criticisms might be made of the effects of abolishing PR. The peculiarities of local government franchise were also of little effect. But when it comes to gerrymandering of local government boundaries, criticism is much more firmly based. Nationalists were manipulated out of control in a number of councils where they had a majority of electors. This is one of the clearest areas of discrimination in the whole field of controversy.

Overall, Whyte challenges many nationalist claims of widespread institutional discrimination against them. However in the area of the gerrymandering of local government wards (the specific focus of the paragraph I have re-inserted) he finds nationalist criticism "much more firmly based." And for those who do not who of Whyte's credentials, the late John H. Whyte was universally regarded as one of the most neutral, most independent, and most fact-based writers on the Northern Ireland problem. Unfortunately John died in 1990, so we lost the chance of experiencing his thorough objective analysis of the peace process and of the Good Friday Agreement. FearÉIREANN 23:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The word APARTHEID springs to mind....

Aparthied is very close, as the situation in Ireland is such, the Anglo-Saxon/Norman British are currently ruling over the Celtic Irish, while not allowing the citizens of Ulster to have a say in the government. Patton 117, O'Neill Clan Historian

Removed lines

A couple of lines in this article were irrelevant, or to detailed in this context and belonged elsewhere.

• Going into detail on the allegation that Adams and McGuinness are on the Army Council is irrelevant here. That has to be in wikipedia articles, but is too detailed a fact in this type of article. (In here, it is really a footnote.) All that needs to be said is that some people believe there is a shared leadership between SF and the IRA. The detail of who is allegedly on what belongs in articles on the IRA, Sinn Féin, the Peace Process, etc.

• The stuff about Sinn Féin's electoral achievements in the Republic is completely irrelevant here, let alone details of who was elected and the numbers. All that needs to be said is that SF also runs for election in the Republic and so unlike other parties is a 32 county party. Any more detail than that belongs in an article on Sinn Féin and the Republic of Ireland, not here.

Apart from that, the opening of the article was somewhat weakly written and needed tidying up. (It is rather a basic requirement to point out that Northern Ireland is located on the island of Ireland. How the heck did was that elementary fact missed?) Also talking about Ireland being ruled from Westminster post 1801 is misleading. Westminster was the location of the lawmaking. Government was carried out from Whitehall and ceremonial functions from the Palace. If you are going to be specific about mentioning Westminster, you can't leave out Whitehall. (It is a bit like mentioning Congress but forgetting the White House.) This article doesn't need those specifics. All you need to say is London. FearÉIREANN 23:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As regards the intro:

It is rather a basic requirement to point out that Northern Ireland is located on the island of Ireland. How the heck did was that elementary fact missed?

I doubt that it was. No doubt it was removed at some page. Some would like to forget that apart from the political situation, Northern Ireland is nearly exactly that (or rather, the region is Northeastern Ireland).

zoney ♣ talk 17:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is it not obvious that Northern Ireland, from the name, is in the North of Ireland? Is there a need to state the obvious? Astrotrain 13:48, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately yes there is a need. A shame really, but there you are. Ben W Bell 14:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Northern Ireland" *is* the "North of Ireland", and it is in the north of Ireland. The subtleties of the Queen's English should not need explaining.

But the northern most bit of Ireland, Malin Head, isn't in Northern Ireland. --Cavrdg 08:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

stamp?

I don't suppose anyone can find a picture of a NI postage stamp - one of the little definitives which differ from the English ones by the emblem in the corner? --Doric Loon 16:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference? I never noticed a difference between them I must admit. A standard first class stamp in England is the same as one in Northern Ireland. Unless something has changed, I admit it's been 10 years since I bought stamps in Northern Ireland. Ben W Bell 16:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

File:Stamp NI 1st.png File:Stamp NI 2nd.png Here are the 1st and 2nd ones from last year. They've been re-issued this year with a white border. Google image search will give you those and the E and top value images from the post office site. --Cavrdg 08:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Try [1] - on the bottom left - don't know about copyright though. There are many pictures on ebay. Jonto 20:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sneaked back edits

The same user has been editing this and other pages under various numbers and names, and when he is challenged disappears only to reappear as a new person and re-enter the same stuff. It looks like he has done it again. One of the things he does on all Irish articles is call Irish provinces Irish "traditional/historic provinces, as if to apply they don't exist, when anyone who has ever consulted a map can see they still do. He does that to claim that the province of Ulster (9 countries) doesn't exist, therefore implying the unionist tendency to call Northern Ireland 'Ulster' is de facto the modern correct meaning. It is a highly controversial claim. Keep an eye out for his next visit.

I also re-inserted the section about disputed geographic nomenclature. Whomever recategorised them as slightly nationalist and slightly unionist is seriously misunderstanding the strength of feeling the usage of the various terms arose. I once saw a fight break out in a Northern bar in Belfast when some loyalists over from Scotland for the twelfth went into it and began to talk loudly about "Ulster" in a pub mainly full of people who call it the "Six Counties". Some years ago when meeting members of the youth wings of the various political parties, the meeting broke up when a southerner innocently talked of the 'six counties'. The Unionist delegates walked out in protest. The next day, when meeting a Sinn Féin delegation, they made a big rumpus when some of the southern delegation talked about "Northern Ireland", hissing back at us the words "Occupied Six Counties" everytime NI was mentioned. During their presentation, they made a big point of saying "six counties" very loudly everytime they mentioned the Northern state, as if to say 'its the six counties, and don't any of you free staters forget it!" The whole trip became a linguistic nightmare, with everyone reminded not to say 'six counties' at the meeting in Stormont Castle and in UUP HQ, not to say 'Northern Ireland' in SInn Féin HQ, to use 'North of Ireland' with the SDLP, and what to say and what not to say when brought by the various delegations to loyalist, republican, nationalist and unionist areas. (It got so bad when staying one area we were warned to go to the chipper at one end of the street - nationalist/catholic - rather than the other - loyalist/protestant - because southerners with southern accents would not be welcome in the loyalist one. "But I'm a southern protestant!" one of the women announced. "They'll presume you are a papist" she was told. "Pretend to be a catholic for the weekend and you'll be safe" she was advised!!! FearÉIREANN 00:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)</font?

Hi,

I made those edits, so have no idea what you are talking about in the first paragrpah.

Sorry, but I’m going to have to disagree. I also object to you saying that my corrections were “sneaked”, and feel that this is quite unnecessary behaviour.

I think you are greatly oversimplifying nomenclature in NI. You cannot simply put terms into sectarian boxes of either “unionist” or “nationalist”. You are making some very bold statements which imply that all unionists solely use and own certain phrases and all nationalist solely use and own others, when all 4 terms could be used by anyone in Northern Ireland. Look at the Times survey 2003 table in the article – it says that 35% polled consider themselves neither of nationalist nor unionist affiliation!

You also provide a great oversimplification in saying “pro Belfast agreement” and “anti Belfast agreement” – I think these are also out of date terms considering the Good Friday “agreement” was 8 years ago and from the current situation it is doubtful that there ever was any real agreement back in 1998 in the first place. I object to including “occupied six counties” as a term in an article in an encyclopedia – the term “six counties” is already mentioned which is sufficient - adding the word “occupied” has a very rare occurrence and is simply spreading extreme republican propaganda.

I’m guessing you are from the South and don’t actually live in NI. Maybe this is just a reflection of one bad experience you had in Northern Ireland – I am sorry on behalf of my countrymen for any poor hospitality which you may have experienced. From what it sounds like you were in the company of some extreme Republicans who may have distorted your POV. I would consider myself a moderate Northern Irish unionist – however from living in NI on a daily basis I meet many people – protestant and catholic who all generally call NI “Northern Ireland”, with any of 4 the other terms being very occasionally used by all. (Admittedly, certain terms are used more often by certain elements, but this is covered in the Seamus Mallon / Ian Paisley paragraph). Maybe I’m just an optimist, but I don’t think sectarianism is actually anywhere near as grim or prevalent in NI among ordinary decent people as would be portrayed by you, certain politicians and elements of the media.

I feel that some of the writing in your section is also very poor – in one sentence you have used the term “The North” for Northern Ireland. Usually only news bulletins in the Republic (certainly not in NI or rest of UK) refer to NI as “the north” as this would only make a relative geographical sense if talking from the South. Everywhere else the sole terms used are usually “Northern Ireland” or “The Province”. “Ulster” and “Six counties” are also used by international media, however I doubt that all usage is solely due to the Unionist/Nationalist leaning like you suggest. Your understanding of the nomenclature for Londonderry is also incorrect – unionists also sometimes call it Derry for short – it is even referred to as Derry in “The Sash”!

I have removed the word "slightly" if that makes you feel any better.

Pollywolly 16:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re the 'sneaking around' bit - it is a bit suspicious how a series of 'new' users keep cropping on the same pages and make the same edits to the page and make the same contributions to the talk page. When a host of named users then point out the blatent POV in this mysterious gang of users' identical edits, the latest 'version' disappears and promptly re-appears yet again under yet another name, does the same edits and makes the same points. And hey presto, now we have Pollywolly echoing the edits of Alec, who echoed the . . . etc.

As has been pointed out numerous times by numerous users on numerous pages, the edits are every bit as POV now as the first time, the second time, the third time etc that they were made. Regarding your claims that

the Good Friday “agreement” was 8 years ago and from the current situation it is doubtful that there ever was any real agreement back in 1998 in the first place.

• You can believe that if you want. But it is a POV and wikipedia cannot use POVs. The Belfast Agreement was signed by its participants. We cannot second judge their motivation, merely state that it happened.

I object to including “occupied six counties” as a term in an article in an encyclopedia – the term “six counties” is already mentioned which is sufficient - adding the word “occupied” has a very rare occurrence and is simply spreading extreme republican propaganda.

• You can object all you want to, but it is a fact that (a) that term is used, (b) it is used in a different way by different people to refer to NI. As such under NPOV rules it has to be included. It may to you be a "very rare occurance" but there are tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland who do use it. Whether you hear it being used or not is irrelevant. We cannot censor things out to keep unionists happy, any more than we can censor things out to keep nationalists or republicans happy. If it exists, we must cover it.

As to your claim about me being in the company of some extreme Republicans in Northern Ireland, I was actually in the company of my then boyfriend, who is a member of the DUP. One close friend of mine was a young RUC officer who had his head blown off by republicans. I have friends who are loyalist, republican, unionist, nationalist. I spend a lot of time in Northern Ireland dealing with both communities. Your writings here as elsewhere suggest that, as is so often found in Northern Ireland, you hold the views of side of the community, think your side is right and immediately dismiss anything that doesn't reflect your community's perspective as wrong, just because you, in your life, haven't experienced it. Wikipedia is not in the business of reflecting either community's views but of being factually NPOV (which is why I have ended up reverting pro-IRA edits on some articles, no-loyalist edits on others, anti-unionist diatribes on some pages, anti-republican diatribes on others. FearÉIREANN 18:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many Unionists prefer to use the term Ulster, and they are both correct and incorrect to do so. If a Belfast Unionist states he lives in Ulster, this is true. If a Belfast unionist states his country is called Ulster, this is false. As all Irish people know Ulster is comprised of 9 counties, 6 in Northern Ireland and 3 in the Republic of Ireland. I do not understand why Unionists choose to usurp the word Ulster to describe the Six Counties. It is an ancient Irish word that was used long before the Planters arrived from Britain. Perhaps they wish to identify with their Irish heritage? There may be hope for reunification after all.

As someone brought up by and around Northern Irish unionists (not political, but cultural), yet actively encouraged to understand the POV of everyone else (except those choose who practice violence to forward their political aims), I also foresee reunification some day, but not under the terms of any political groups currently active in the country at this time. This is my opinion, nothing more. I hope that when it occurs, it'll make everyone genuinely happy.

That said, there were indeed traditional kingdoms of Ireland, and Ulster was one. Many sporting competitions are based upon this regionalization, and as far as I can see, no one has a problem with Ulster existing in that sense. I suspect that Ulster is better described as a cultural region, despite the attempt of many to make it a political one. I went to the University of Ulster myself! Nearside 17:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

List of people killed

I was trying to find a list of people killed during the Troubles and came across the CAIN listing for Malcolm Sutton's 1994 book "Bear in mind these dead ... An Index of Deaths from the Conflict in Ireland 1969-1993" (Belfast: Beyond the Pale Publications ISBN 0-9514229-4-4) (Out of print) ... so I added an external link to it. The listing is from "14 July 1969 and 31 December 2001" but was updated as recently as March 2004 http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/updates.html

The book "Lost Lives" by McKittrick et al provides a matter of fact account of the deaths of all those who lost their lives in the Troubles, that somehow manages to be deeply moving!

Lower/Upper Case

Why revert the U in Unionist to lower case? Gerry Lynch 19:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland/Tuaisceart Éireann/Northren Ireland/Norlin Airlann

So this is English/Irish Gaelic/Ulster Scots and what? --Audiovideo 13:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

English/Irish/Typo?/Ulster Scots --Ryano 15:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At least one of the last two variations should be struck down, use a footnote if excessive (or alternate) translations are to be provided, infoboxes should only incorporate official names. Djegan 16:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The United Kingdom infobox gives Unitit Kinrick o Great Breetain an Northren Ireland as the Scots language version, but a Google search [2] suggests that wikipedia is the only source for this. A search for Norlin Airlann shows this to be the version to go for. I will remove "Northren Ireland" --Audiovideo 01:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is that "Norlinn Airlann" is pidgin Scots, no matter how widespread it is. The equivalent in English would be something like "Northland Iarlind". Native Scots speakers generally do say "Northren Ireland". Even if we did say "Norlinn Airlann", we'd at least spell "lann" consistently. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

UTV

From the article: The regional ITV station, Ulster Television, changed its name to simply UTV so as not to offend anyone, particularly in the Republic where it has a large audience and many advertisers.

Is there any evidence that this was a consideration, rather than simply adopting the abbreviation that everybody used? --Ryano 09:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must admit that line has me going a bit. It changed it's name quite some time ago, and quite frankly the use of the term Ulster in companies and institutions only offends a very few people, but I'm not sure as to why they changed. It could be because that's just what everyone else was doing, Kentucky Fried Chicken to KFC, British Midlands International to BMI, a lot of things in the modern world have gone down the acronym route so I do actually doubt that causing offense was the reason behind it. It may well have been a factor but I doubt it was the reason. Ben W Bell 09:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey Ben. Actually, KFC changed because of a reluctance to be hit up by the state of Kentucky for royalties based upon using the name of their state. I read that the Kentucky Derby was close to suffering the same fate. Sounds like urban legend, doesn't it? Nearside 12:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and I've scrapped it pending any back-up being provided. --Ryano 10:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Demographics and politics of Northern Ireland

The contents of this section have been moved to a separate article Demographics and politics of Northern Ireland, as the Northen Ireland Wiki was over 37kb long. I have also archived previous talk (>54 kb) to talk:Northen Ireland/Archive01 wiki. It contains discussions prior to 2005.

Thewikipedian 8th July 2005 11:37 UTC+ 2

Survey Results

Lapsed Pacifist keeps removing the results of a 2004 survey [3], on how much of the population is unionist/nationalist/etc. This is valid information and should be included.--JW1805 22:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, because if political representaton were extrapolated from this survey, nationalist representation in the Assembly would be reduced from 42 to 24, and unionist representation increased from 59 to 64 (and "others" from 7 to 20). It's an informal survey, and is not reflected in voting patterns. If it's included, it certainly should'nt be given precedence over actual political representation.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Polls are perfectly valid sources of information. Especially since the NI Assembly hasn't existed since 2002, while the poll is more recent (this should probably be clarified in the article). I don't see a problem with putting both the poll results and the Assembly makeup. Any comments from other users? --JW1805 22:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist - the only reason you don't like this survey being included is because it prevents you from now claiming that a "slight majority" of the population is unionist and a "significant minority" is nationalist, thereby preventing you from furthering your campaign of spreading republican propaganda (, implying that a united Ireland is near) throughout the whole wikipedia site.

That survey has been going for a number of years, and the figures have been fairly consistent. Try replacing the "2004" in the URL with another year to see for yourself.

I have already explained the statistical discrepancy that you mention - this is because not everyone votes. Many people don't vote in Northern Ireland because they are fed up with the eternal political wranglings over the constitiutional issues rather than day-to-day politics. These type of people are more likely to support the status quo, and hence support the UK. It is also widely documented that turnout in elections is higher in nationalist areas compared to in unionist areas. Also Proportional Representation tends to favour minorities. Jonto 22:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• I added a diagram showing the survey results over the years. Any comments? --JW1805 23:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Surveys change nothing. Elections do. None of this addresses my concerns about its prominence.

Lapsed Pacifist 23:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist - people vote for political parties on all sorts of issues (and thats the way it should be in any normal developed country in the world). This is the only way we can get a reliable opinion on the single issue of the constitution. There are Catholics who vote for the SDLP (a nationalist party), but yet would support the union - these are often deemed "soft" unionists. Another example would be if, for example, I was a nationalist, but felt that the Ulster Unionists were doing a better job on certain local issues in my area, then I might vote UUP because I felt they represented the majority of my opinions more accurately. This is exactly why precedence cannot be given to election results over a poll on the single issue in question.

JW1805 - I like the graph! Perhaps try to get in to fit in so that it doesn't mess up the formatting so much. I also would suggest changing "reunify with Ireland" to "unifying with the rest of Ireland" as that makes more sense. There is also a debate as to whether "reunify" is an accurate statement (see united Ireland) as many argue that Ireland has never been united in the politcal sense, and often "united" is used (though "reunited" is used in the survey, so maybe you should leave it in!!) Jonto 23:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

JW1805 - I think it also needs to be stated somewhere around the graph that those polled were from around Northern Ireland (maybe stating the obvious though!)Jonto 23:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"Normal developed country". Good for you, Jonto.

Lapsed Pacifist 00:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Poll inclusion

I see no reason why a single poll should be picked out as a definitive gauge of public opinion in Northern Ireland towards Unionism/nationalism. The election of representatives however is a clear indicator of people's preferences, as the parties are clearly nationalist or Unionist.

Any poll as to Unionist/nationalist leanings is not going to get an accurate response anyways, as moderate nationalist will more likely say no preference than support those lunatic extremist Republicans with their private army.

Nationalists are clearly under-reported in the poll included. 22%? Are you stark raving mad?

zoney ♣ talk 00:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to the graph created by JW1805, now moved under Demographics_and_politics_of_Northern_Ireland because it messed up the Northern Ireland page layout. This is not the result from a single poll, as evident in the graph (perhaps we should average the results). This poll is conducted by Queen's University Belfast and the University of Ulster and is widely respected.

Your reaction of "Nationalists are clearly under-reported in the poll included. 22%? Are you stark raving mad?" clearly demonstrates the great effectiveness of the modern Sinn Fein PR machine - a party who also receives an extremely large amount of press coverage.

There may be issues on how people answer the questions (as there issues on the way people vote), but this is the only way we can obtain information on opinion on the single constitutional issue. I have also explained above the most likely reaons for discrepancies with voting patterns.

Jonto 01:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jonto. The best way to ascertain what people think about a single issue is to specifically ask them. People vote for various parties for any number of reasons. The poll numbers should be included. The alternate version ("an annual survey gives a different view") is extremely vague and misleading. Just put the numbers from both the survey and the elections. I don't see what the problem is with that. --JW1805 01:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It hinges on definition. If by Nationalist one means someone who defines themselves as Irish as opposed to British, then it is wrong. However in this context nationalist = someone who would vote in a referendum tomorrow for a united Ireland. In that context it is correct. Support for a united Ireland, contrary to Sinn Féin spin, is around 1 on 4 of the population. Remember over 30% of Catholics also oppose a united Ireland — some because they think economically their interests are better served in the UK, because the UK can subsidise NI, whereas even Celtic Tiger Ireland couldn't. Others fear the power of the Catholic Church (even if these days it really has none) down south. Others have other fears).

A personal angle: one thing I found astonishing when I first began visiting Northern Ireland was how few "nationalists" would vote for a united Ireland. Chatting to people in a bar during an SDLP conference the number of people who said "but if there was a vote on it, I'd vote to stay where we are" (ie, in the UK) was mindboggling, as was the sheer numbers who said "but why would we want to join you lot? Why would we want to have your Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, the Irish language pushed down our throats, crooks like Haughey, etc." Even SDLP concillors said that. - So did a Sinn Féin guy btw, who then said "Oh Christ. Don't say I said that." I mentioned the observations my professor, who had written extensively about the North, and who said it was typical. A large chunk of SDLP voters, and even Sinn Féin voters, in polls show that they they would vote for the status quo in any referendum on Irish unity. They 22% is consistent with other polls and with practical on-the-ground attitudes. If anything, the number will probably go down rather than up if the Belfast Agreement actually works. International experience shows that agreements like it tend to make people want to change less, not more. People develop an attitude of 'if things aren't broke, why fix it?'. Some academics and politicans privately suspect that as the reason why the IRA have been slow to disarm, as they had promised to do in the Belfast Agreement. They wonder if it is in Sinn Féin's interest for the agreement to exist but not to work. Its existence has established principles (the equality agenda, police reform, powersharing, etc) that cannot be gone back on. But if it actually worked, it might undermine the support for moving onto what SF sees officially as the next stage: unity. (That is what happened with partition in the South. Once its state ran successfully, real support for unity, as opposed to lipservice, died away, producing some classics as Ray Burke in the Dáil slamming Fine Gael for running for the presidency Austin Currie, someone from "outside the country". Or the number of people who come south from the North and are horrified at the hostility the south shows to both sides in the North. The attitude was one of "our government works. Why risk it by landing ourselves with "that lot" and having our taxpayers foot their bills."

I don't agree with you that SF voters in NI aren't for a United Ireland. All the polls of SF voters where a straight Yes/No to a United Ireland is asked show that around 98% of them would vote Yes. Interestingly, the SF vote in NI is almost exactly the same % that say in polls they would vote for reunification. Also, the poll referred to here about 22% in NI wanting a United Ireland is misleading because the poll in question was multiple choice as opposed to a simple Yes/No to reunification. About 11% of Catholics say in this poll that they want an independent NI. I agree however that those Catholics who are unenthused about a United Ireland would nearly all be SDLP voters. There is also an age gap with younger Catholics being for a United Ireland compared to the older generation. I would add too that SF gets the majority of the Catholic vote and that a much more recent poll by the ESRI found 65% of NI Catholics in favour of a United Ireland, with 21% for staying in the UK and 11% in favour of an independent NI state. On the question of why the IRA took so long to decommission I would put it down to the refusal of the Unionists to go into government with SF until near the end of the 2 year period by which decommissioning was supposed to have finished. I personally as a Southern Irish person envisaged that the executive would be set up, and that had this happened immediately with a prolonged period of stability then the PIRA would have disposed of their weapons earlier. Peter O'Connell

I'm not sure if I fully buy into this argument as to why the IRA has been so slow in delivering on its guarantees. From my experience senior republicans actually believe that the Agreement will make unity the next logical step. It is an elementary error: international experience shows the exact opposite. If the half-way house works, people decide it is too risky to move away from it, given that it is working, to something else that way be a gamble and might not work as well. That was Trimble's reckoning, and it is the view of researchers and academics who have studied agreements. Indeed historians argue that if the UUP in the 1920s and 1930s had followed a different policy other than a "protestant state for a protestant people" Irish unity as an option would have off the agenda in a generation. But by not bringing the minority into their Northern Ireland, they left them alienated and so fatally undermined their own state. That is the thesis of Hume, Trimble, of renouned academics who wrote about Northern Ireland like Professor John Whyte, Paul Bew, etc. Many believe that the Agreement was a victory of Unionism because if it works it will kill off chances for Irish Unity.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

"Chatting in a bar", rock-solid sourcing at its best. If the Daily Mail were to publish a poll indicating a significant amount of support for repatriating immigrants, should we conclude that a large proportion of British people are "soft" BNP supporters? Would this then be presented as fact in Wikipedia? The idea that tens of thousands of people would vote for politicians who want the exact opposite in terms of the region's constitutional future of what they want is insulting, to say the least.

Lapsed Pacifist 04:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It is quite common to find people voting for parties because they see them as the natural representatives of their group in society, regardless of the voter's and party's position on a "nation question" - in Wales Plaid Cymru attracts voters who see it as a specifically Welsh party that Welsh voters can support regardless of whether or not they are espousing independence/recognition at the UN or whatever this week. The Scottish National Party similarly seems to attract a good portion of voters who believe in Scottish autonomy, doing things for Scotland not London and so on but again not automatically translating into support for an independent Scotland.

Furthermore the results from election overlook a significant portion of the electorate who do not vote. The 1998 Good Friday Agreement saw about 140,000 people turn out who don't normally vote (the comparison is with the Assembly elections two months later, though these too were on the upper side of average turnout) and concentrated especially in the areas where nationalist parties poll the weakest. It seems most likely that they were primarily Protestant but further information is unclear, although many believe them to be the "garden centre unionist" that gets talked about a lot. It is not unreasonable to assume that a border poll will similarly attract people who don't normally vote in elections. If we're talking about the proportion of opinion in Northern Ireland as a whole then the non-voters need to be considered and surveys seem about the only way of getting any data beyond heavily circumstantial evidence (for instance average turnout in North Down has not noticably risen because the SDLP and Sinn Fein started contesting the seat, nor does Sinn Fein's vote since 2001 there suggest that the non-voters before that were just waiting for an SF candidate to vote for). Timrollpickering 14:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I however believe that only votes matter. Like it or not we all live in a democracy. Yes it's true non-voters may have an opinion on the matter, but in the end only people who go out and vote will count, such is the nature of democracy. If people feel strongly about it then they should vote. Surveys are also so wildly inaccurate no matter what they are measuring unless you survey the entire population, results are always skewed in areas, income brackets, religion and by everything else. I think we can only take actual votes as an indicator. Ben W Bell 10:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

True but the election is an election and not a single issue referendum. The non-voters don't vote in the election but the 1998 precedent suggests many will vote in the referendum. Only a border poll with decent across the board turnout (not the mass nationalist boycott of 1973) will give a clear answer on this one. Timrollpickering 10:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems logical to me to extrapolate from current voting patterns, which does'nt necessitate the exclusion of the poll from the article.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that would only be logical if:

1. Everybody voted. (Obviously, not true)
2. Every vote cast was based solely on that party's position on union/united ireland. (Also, obviously not true, although maybe this is where you would disagree?)
3. The number of seats that each party received was exactly equal to the percentage of the vote that they received (Not true for various reasons, the obvious one being that there must be an integer number of seats).

All the current version says is that, according to a recent poll, a certain percentage of people are unionist/nationalist. That's it. That's a fact, the poll really does say that. And polls are an accepted tool to gauge public opinion. --JW1805 18:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes cast are an even better tool for gauging public opinion. That is why many countries have elections. No-one is disputing the inclusion of the poll. Whether or not it should be considered definitive is, however, another matter, as is the blanking of election results that tell a different story. It's possible that many people in the region vote for politicians that they disagree with on the issue of the region's future, but I doubt very much that the figure is over 100,000, as the poll results would indicate. If you're unhappy with extrapolating from the seats gained, I'm prepared to give percentages based on votes cast. To sum up, the secret ballot is a fundamental premise of western democracy, and I don't think the survey offered the same level of privacy. Guessing the political aspirations of people who are'nt bothered to vote is a mug's game.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "blanking of election results". The election results are in the sentence beginning with "The make-up of the Northern Ireland Assembly..." I've said all along to put both results (poll and election). Your premise that opinion polls are worthless just doesn't hold water. They are a well established and useful tool for examining public opinion. --JW1805 21:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Who said the survey is worthless? The blanking I referred to concerned the results of the latest election, in 2005, which I entered and which have subsequently disappeared. Currently, only the 2003 Assembly election results are mentioned.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that edit was reverted since you had attempted to obscure the poll results as well. By all means, put in the most recent election numbers (indicate that they are from the 2005 election to avoid confusion).--JW1805 22:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There was no such attempt on my part, unless you consider placing the election results after those of the poll similarly "obscuring".

Lapsed Pacifist 22:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course there was. You took out the numerical results from the poll, and wrote "An annual survey gives a different view." (and said that a slight majority of the population favor staying in the union). All precisely calculated to obscure. --JW1805 01:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no great faith in the survey, but I shan't remove it again. Nothing concrete indicates to me the majority is more than slight.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Coat of Arms?

I note that on this site that there is a picture of the Northern Ireland coat of arms (the one with the stag). Since I'm relatively new to editing here, I'm not too sure as to the copyright rules for images etc. Does anyone know where a colour version of this could be obtained that would fit the fair use poilicy, and could be placed in the "Symbols" section. The Northern Ireland article is the only part of the British Isles articles without a coat of arms!! (even though I understand that the Stormont parliament was abolished, but think it should be included anway) Jonto

The coat of arms featured is DEFUNCT. Nobody uses it, least of all the UK government - while Scotland does have its own version of the British coat of arms, Northern Ireland doesn't. The flag (which is a banner of the arms) is still used sometimes, but the coat of arms itself is not used any more, unofficially, semi-officially, or officially. Quiensabe 2005-10-13 04:00 UTC

The arms featured are defunct and incorrect. The lion supporter is not crowned and should look to the arms and not the viewer. The compartment was added in 1971 as including 2 flax plants with three flowers each, but no motto was drawn onto/around the compartment. In fact the Home Office even queried if it was correct. 82.24.32.135 16:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I tried to correct ist, I think it's better now, but not good. I know the head is worse, but it looked like copied from that page.--Hun2 16:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This article has become crap again

Somehow, this article has become, once more, crap. Too many things which should be in the main politics and history articles. Also the structure is way out of kilter with most other country articles. I'd suggest first of all taking most of the tedious )(and often inaccurate) nomenclature stuff out into a separate article.

Can we try and make it more readable and legible regardless of our POVs, please? Gerry Lynch 15:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I seriously agree - their is a point at which it is time to "cull" an article heavily - topical news items can be particularily in this category where they become a "dump" for every side in a npov-perversion. In particular the section on geography has become large, compared to others. A good article should be factual, to the point, have flow and balance - it is going to be a difficult job identifying what is to be culled here as it has seriously been fought over in revert wars recently. Djegan 18:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The nomenclature section is perfectly correct and needs to be in to explain to readers outside Northern Ireland why certain words are used. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I think it's excessively detailed for a main article, it can be put in a linked side article. It's also riddled with value judgements, urban myths and straight out inaccuracies. Gerry Lynch 12:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - the nomenclature section is very poor. Full of PoV and too focused on Nationalist/Unionist divides. Words are used for many reasons and not simply for those stated. And where's "Norn Iron" on the list!!?Jonto 20:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear.

Lapsed Pacifist 05:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't resist it

This article sucks and is way in need of attention. Please improve it in any way you see fit.

Gerry Lynch 12:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Survey

Why is a 2004 Survey being used, instead of the 2005 elections? According to http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/ 51.4% of Northern Ireland voted for DUP or UUP for westminster, and 49.3% voted for the 2 unionist parties in district councils. While 42 and and 41.1% voted for the SDLP or Sinn Fein both of which believe in a united ireland 100%. An election is a far better sample then a small (comparitively) survey, am I wrong? SCVirus 00:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right.

Lapsed Pacifist 00:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Totally wrong. Data analysis over and over again shows a significant minority of SDLP are not in favour of a united Ireland but simply a just Northern Ireland. Elections are not voted on policy, but policy, regionalism, candidate appeal, even alphabetical location of a candidate on a ballot paper has an impact. (Remember some Catholics voted for Trimble and even for Paisley. Protestants voted for Durkan. Bizarrely in some European polls some even voted DUP number 1 and Sinn Féin number 2!) The survey focused not on such issues but exclusively on policy. All the evidence of all the surveys suggest unambiguously that the survey accurately represents popular support on the issue of a united Ireland versus the union. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright I realised that since there was a link to a main article, that is where I should of been mentioning this, but when I took a look at that article, I noticed that the statistics were different. On the 'main' article it says in a 2003 survey Unionist 38% Nationalist 24% Neither 35%. Whereas in this article a 2004 survey says its 59% unionist and 22% nationalist. That sounds like a pretty big difference/margin of error. Surveys are not definitive, they sample a small number of people and have a wide margin of error. I agree that probably alot of people vote for parties that they don't agree with all the policies of, but those are atleast a reasonable representation of the entire population. These surveys are even from the same source. Somehow I don't think one year created a 21% increase in unionism. SCVirus 01:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The survey results are all over the place. Jtd, concerning "a significant minority of SDLP". 22%, the figure given for those in favour of unity, is just slightly more than half the entire nationalist vote. Even if not one unionist voted for a nationalist politician, and assuming that Sinn Féin voters are more likely to want a united Ireland than SDLP voters, 22% of the total population would indicate that no SDLP and only some Sinn Féin voters favour a united Ireland. I would have some difficulty swallowing that.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The first point is the distinction between Big U Unionists & Big N Nationalists - i.e. people who identify as part of the "Unionist community" or "Nationalist community" respectively - and small u unionists & small n nationalists - i.e. people's position on the border. There are many who would not call themselves "Unionists" and be associated with Orange Orders, Paisley and the like but who would vote for the union come a border poll. I'm not sure if the first survey you cite is seeking community identity or position on a border poll.

Second point is that the survey is giving results for Northern Ireland as a whole and not just the turnout in elections. This is a crucial distinction because whatever some parties may say, the elections are not a referendum on the border - does anyone seriously go to bed on results night and worry that they're going to wake up in a United Ireland? People who are happy with things as they are or who don't see a need to express a preference in an election for a representative body tend to be less inclined to vote than those who want to see significant change - and this is reflected in the way that turnout is traditionally higher in staunch Nationalist/Republican areas than in staunch Unionist areas. The Good Friday Referendum, with something like an extra 140,000 voters (mainly in the east) suggests that on a major single issue itself many more will turn out to vote. I'm also not sure what percentage of non voters (whether under age, non registered or what) come under the auspices of the survey. Does anyone have the numbers to hand to indicate what the number of people who voted for SF & the SDLP are as a) a percentage of the total electorate and b) a percentage of the population as a whole. Whilst some have suggested that those who don't vote in elections shouldn't be counted "as they chose no to have their say", I disagree as I don't see the election as a definitive border poll.

Thirdly the SDLP's position on Irish Unity has historically been all over the place - Fitt & Devlin tried to keep the focus on social democracy; Hume in the later years talked about "post nationalism" and so forth. Equally a lot of studies indicate that there are many Catholics who would opt for the Union in a referendum (even the 1973 border poll indicates that the number of people voting for the Union was above the regular number of voters for Unionist parties) but who feel alienated from all the parties with "Unionist" in the name given the community divide and are more likely to vote for the representatives of "their" people than for a party they happen to agree with on an issue that is not the primary point in the election at hand. So where are they likely to go? Timrollpickering 14:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

To answer your first point, the descriptions with capitals don't appear to me to be anything more than shorthand for Catholics and Protestants. As for your second, "Northern Ireland as a whole" was'nt being asked, only a number of people the pollsters believed representative. As for the difference in voting patterns across the communal divide, I believe this is informed more by the quality of political leadership being offered to unionists at present, rather than complacency. Regarding your third, I won't argue about the SDLP's frequent repositioning; however, recent election results indicate to me that many SDLP votes in the past were from nationalists who could'nt bring themselves to vote for a party that condoned the IRA's excesses. As the IRA has wound down, Sinn Féin is picking up those votes. Surveys are by necessity blunt instruments. A person may favour closer integration with the Republic, without the region leaving the UK altogether. Another may favour joint sovereignty, yet feel strongly attached to their association with Britain. The SDLP's position at the moment seems to be that the Belfast Agreement should continue even in a united Ireland, meaning a separate political system for the region would continue either way. The UUP seem more amenable than the DUP to the Republic exercising influence, but not too much. While these nuances seem to slip through the net, I'm not against including the surveys. But I feel they should be qualified, and should'nt be given prominence over election results.

Lapsed Pacifist 15:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The SDLP's decline seems to be a number of factors - the withdrawal of Hume and his replacement by frankly far less inspiring leaders (it was once said the SDLP's problem was that it was a two-man show of Fitt & Hume - and they solved that the wrong way), Sinn Fein offering more dynamic alternatives, older voters dying off, younger voters agreeing with Sinn Fein more than the SDLP on a number of issues including social ones, a past surge in the Catholic birthrate now reaching the ballot boxes, Sinn Fein proving that they are the party to keep the Unionists out in the Westminster seats in the west, a desire to keep Sinn Fein/IRA wedded to the political process, a near thoroughly effective Sinn Fein electoral machine, (if one internal document is to be believed) even complacency leading to voters to leave the ballot box behind and become the mirror of the Garden Centre Unionist that the UUP seems to have spent the last seven years chasing and perhaps a more general malaise of being a predominantly middle class party with a few good issues that are popular but overall not really offering a great package and once those issues are implemented the party is left floundering (this also seems to be affecting the Alliance).

Surveys aim to be representative and true they don't always succeed, but they are one of the few instruments in use that has actually asked the border question, rather than crudely translating headcounts into the division of opinion.

As for the differential turnout, I'm not so sure. Some parts of Northern Ireland have always had rotten turnouts (e.g. North Down) and others have consistently seen the turnout at high levels. Yes the leadership currently offered isn't the most inspiring but given that several different leaderships have been on offer over the years and this has not noticably varied the outcome, it seems likely to be a stronger trend. When there has been a high turnout amongst the Unionist community it's often been in tightly fought marginal seats (e.g. Fermanagh & South Tyrone) in a desire to keep Republicans or Nationalists out. In the Unionist-Unionist contests in the east this isn't a fear - look also that the turnout gap between referendum and assembly elections was strongest in the areas where nationalists are weakest.

There's one simple solution to this - let's have that border poll. Timrollpickering 09:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland naming dispute

The article Northern Ireland naming dispute has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Ireland naming dispute. Djegan 21:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

If the outcome is deletion, then kindly reintegrate its content into the parent article (viz this one), and also transfer its talk page here. //Big Adamsky 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. That article should not be deleted, but renamed to something like "Terminology for Northern Ireland". As discussed with what looks like consensus under "This article has become crap again", most of that nomenclature section is woefully long and inaccurate. I propose to scrap the majority nomenclature stuff from this article and link to the mentioned article instead. Jonto 18:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Decolonizing Occupied Ulster

Decolonization has been adopted by the U.N. as official policy, and has even been forced - such as for example, in the case of Guine Portuguesa ("Guinea Bissau"), where the U.N. 'denounced' the Government of Portugal for 'aggression' against the rebels! Let us also not forget the Pied Noirs of Algeria, who were left with no other option than to repatriate to Continental France. Why are the Anglo-Scotch colonists in Occupied Ulster an exemption to this? The Occupation is justified only on the basis of these colonists, who have no moral right to remain in Eire in this day and age.

If colonism is immoral, it is immoral everywhere, and by whomever practised. And colonists do not have a moral right to carve out bantustans for themselves on basis of pretended colonist-majority districts!

Why is it that the English imperial fiction of "North Ireland" is considered moral and legal, but the bantustan carved out of Romania-Moldavia by Russian-Ukrainian colonists as the "Republic of Trans-Dniestria" or the Turkish bantustan for Turkish colonists in North Cyprus considered illegal? Hypocrisy? Double standards? Englishmen have a right to rob and impose themselves on others, while Russians and Turks don't?

One can argue about the morality and honesty of Robert Mugabe, his tactics, personality cult and his cronyism, but one can hardly argue with the fact that if colonists are uncomfortable with their host communities, it is time for them to repatriate. Or, perhaps, a la "North Eire", the English should invade Zimbabwe to carve out a "Free Rhodesia" for English colonists there?

Can colonists pretend to a right to democracy where they do not belong? Englishmen and Scots have rights to democracy in England and Scotland, not in Occupied Eire.

Today, in Eire, we see an effete and compromised Irish people willing to sell their birthrights to the colonists and their imperialist masters in London in exchange for an illusory peace. That is the greatest monument to the success of the centuries-old English program of terrorism of and genocide directed against the Irish, and it would seem, that this "success" will present the world with a fait accomplii.

As a citizen of another occupied territory (Goa), I appeal to Irish patriots not to join the bandwagon of the complacent traitors but to pursue justice unalloyed and true. Freedom is always worth the sacrifices involved. There is no real liberty without winning one's right to it. It is high time to compel England, whichever way, to recall its colonists from Ireland.

WikiSceptic 18:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Great Idea! - we will start re-patriation of Irish colonists from England immediately. Irish nationalism has more in common with BNP than it has ever been prepared to admit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.18.57 (talk • contribs) .

I trust you don't really think that the above ill-informed rant by WikiSceptic is characteristic of mainstream Irish nationalism. --Ryano 21:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think twice already that comment was blanked, Wikipedia is not a soapbox; as a matter of course i dont believe their is any policy that states an off the topic comment must stay. Djegan 22:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't see any reason to blank that particular comment if the rest of the comments in this section are to stay. There doesn't appear to be any discussion about the article in this section whatsoever. --Ryano 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank You my good sir, First High King Niall probably looks down with pleasure. As his descendent, I thank you for promoting the full withdrawl of the British Pupeteers from the place that Nial ruled from. As a member of the Irish community in the United States, I too call for the total and complete removal of the British from the Sacred Hills of Erie. May our Lady of Knock Queen of Ireland look with favour upon the devout who support a peaceful withdrawl of the british from the Emerald Isle. Patton 117, Historian for the O'Neill Clan

I too wish to see all 32 counties free of British control, but if that includes expelling "Anglo-Scotch colonists in Occupied Ulster" then we would also have to consider the position of "the Irish community in the United States ... [including] Patton 117, Historian for the O'Neill Clan" as some of the many colonists of Native American territory82.24.32.135 16:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

BBC Newsreport: British govt mulled 'relocating' Irish out of Occupied Ireland - WikiSceptic 20:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine if you want to decolonise Northern Ireland then I'll go for it, but you also have to decolonise other areas. Everyone in North American who is not a blood descendant of the original natives must leave, same with Australia. Israel must be handed back to the Palestinians who must then hand it back to the Jews who must then hand it back to the Eqyptians/Sumarians/whoevers. Southern Spain should be handed back to the Moors, half of France should be returned to the English and then back to the Francs. You cannot keep going back in time as ultimately we should all retreat to a small pocket somewhere in Africa and then rid the world of the human species. Ben W Bell 08:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL! If you want to "decolonise" Ireland, then where do you draw the line Wikisceptic? Not only should we remove our English and Scottish cousins, but we should also remove surely all of our Muslim and African etc fellow humans. And let's go further back in time, why not.. we should remove also the Normans throughout Dublin and the Pale and the rest of Ireland, remove the Gaels and the previous Celts too. After all, what "moral right" do any of those peoples have to remain in Ireland?

As for an "English imperial fiction of 'North Ireland'" .. I've never heard of North Ireland before. I am aware of Northern Ireland though, but its certainly not a "fiction". As for imperialism - this is the 21st century: welcome.

Englishmen and Scots have right to democracy across the United Kingdom. The individual regions do not matter so much: a Scot can live and work in England and is free to vote in elections for his English constituency. An Englishman may live and work in Northern Ireland and will be afforded the same rights. They are not, as far as I know, automatically granted these same rights in "Occupied Eire".. assuming by that phrase you're talking about the Republic of Ireland.

"Illusory peace"? LOL! "Terrorism and genocide"? LOL! I suggest you read a history book and stay away from romantic idealist notions.

As you are a citizen of Goa, I suggest you stick with what you know.

Yours sincerely, A free Irish patriot. --Mal 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Confusing sentences

These two sentences had me scratching my head:

"Although Protestants are a clear majority, the largest religious denomination of Northern Ireland is the Roman Catholic Church, followed by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and the Church of Ireland, with the Methodist Church of Ireland coming fourth. These two views are linked to deeper cultural divisions."

What on earth do they mean? Do "practising" protestants outnumber "practising" catholics? Or the other way around? Which "two views" are being referred to in the second sentence? Robertbyrne 15:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It means that in terms of the Protestant-Catholic division there are more Protestants than Catholics. But in terms of a detailed breakdown of individual religions, Catholicism is the largest one, then Presbyterianism, then the Church of Ireland, then Methodism. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I guessed this around the time "plurality" was substituted for "majority" on the 20th October. Not sure the wording is clear yet though. By the way, what does "fear eireann" mean? (Should I fear Ireland? :) ). Robertbyrne 04:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous history

Ulster's Unionists, though generally opposed to the introduction of Home Rule to Ireland as a whole, were willing to accept a divided Ireland, with the nine counties of Ulster remaining under direct rule from London. Not true. Unionists did not want partition. Some were willing to accept it tactically in the belief that Britain would not partition the island. Most Unionist leaders like Carson were appalled at the very idea of partition.

Frankly the entire section was barely pass standard. If written in an essay it would get a "must try better" note from a teacher. It was way below basic encyclopædic standards.

To put it bluntly, this graphic sums it up:

This article sucks and is way in need of attention. Please improve it in any way you see fit.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

County Derry/County Londonderry

I do not agree with "County Derry" being given prominance as of late in the article, "County Londonderry" should be given first prominance as it was the official name of the administrative county whilst it existed and today it remains as the name used for the Lord-Lieutenant title for the county, County Derry has no official status. Introducing information on what each community uses only introduces clutter in an already large and overbearing article (this is already a big issue in all Northern Ireland articles where every opinion has to be pandered to), and as it was largely agreed that the compromise was for "City of Derry" and "County Londonderry" then I think its only a matter of time before its open day on this question again. Call it dumbing down if you want, but simplicity rules. Djegan 23:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

County Londonderry is the legal name for the county, as created for local government purposes, in British law. But the article isn't talking just about the legal name of the county in that section. Geography doesn't use Londonderry but County Derry. That section needs to cover the variants. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Where is the term County Derry used geographically? Counties are nothing but political entities. The name of the county is County Londonderry, that is straight forward fact no matter the opinions of either side. Should we change the Republic of Ireland article to the name Down South as that's how many people in Northern Ireland refer to it? Of course not, so why should County Londonderry be changed to something it is not? Hell even the infamously unbiased source of the CIA Worldbook lists it as County Londonderry. Ben W Bell 08:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but like it or not Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and the official name in the UK is County Londonderry. I see no problem with recording its alternative name as well, but its official name in its own country comes first. And what do people mean by 'geographical' name? It is (or was) a county. A county is purely an administrative unit. Geography has nothing to do with it. Its name may be County Derry in the Republic, but it's not in the Republic, whether some would like it to be or not! -- Necrothesp 13:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The term County Londonderry is always given prominence in any map\atlas, it is the Official name of the county, which has never had any other name. It was created when the County of Coleraine and parts of Tyrone, Donegall and Antrim were formed to make County Londonderry, this is when Derry town (as it was then) was renamed. The GAA use the term County Derry because it is a Catholic association where the term Londonderry is not accepted. :: Keith :: 15:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to this discussion, but I hope you'll excuse a pedantic point on your comment: it's not fair or accurate to call the GAA a "Catholic association". --Ryano 18:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

County has a number of meanings:

• a geo-political unit as defined in law — the name of that is County Londonderry, but not everyone in that context calls it that.
• the historic county as used since the layout of Irish county boundaries by the Ordinance Survey. There the law and common usage diverged frequently. Sometimes County Derry is used. Sometimes County Londonderry is used.

In most states the name of a county is easy to use. Not so in Northern Ireland where law, ordinance survey usage, cultural usage, and geo-political usage diverges based on the the competing demands of two rival communities that their choice be picked as a zero-sum game to say 'we beat you on that one' to the other commmunity. (Both communities pay that zero sum superiority game. It is pain in the butt to the rest of the planet.) Not to use Londonderry, or not to use Derry, when both are used widely, would be POV and guaranteed to trigger endless edit wars as people from either community come on. If we were just talking about the constituency, or only about the legally defined geo-political unit, then only one name would suffice. But the article isn't doing that. It is using terms that are more than simply legal formulaic and have to recognise and deal with the rival usage of names. BTW catographers very rarely use Londonderry is practice when discussing the county. Broadcasters face a similar problem to us here and they always use both names, usually Londonderry in the heads and Derry in the text. Using one alone is not an option however much one community's supporters might demand it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The news report thing (BBC I believe) is only in reference to Derry City not the county, it is, and always has been Londonderry, County Derry would only be seen in a news report about a GAA game. Cartographers generally, unless is is different in the Republic of Ireland as it is here, use County Londonderry. Usually the city is printed as "Londonderry (Derry)". I can assure readers that any maps I have used or own have the county written as County Londonderry as it would be expected to be. :: Keith :: 22:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have worked with the BBC. That is incorrect. It is heads LD, text LD 1st, D 2nd and on. With county LD is used as primary, D as secondary. And you are misrepresenting OS and geographic usage. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay Jtdirl, back up your claims with evidence, I personally have never seen County Derry on a map that wasn't from a Republican source. The county has only one legal name and has only ever had one name. Ben W Bell 07:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl - this reminds me of when I posted a comment on the Londonderry talk page (Talk:Derry) about this very issue. You tried to claim than the name for the city was "Derry" on most maps. Now you are claiming the same for the county. This is complete nonsense, unless you are talking about maps produced in the Republic. Again, can I suggest that you do a google image search on maps from around the world and report back your findings? IMO the only place where the term 'Derry' should correctly be used is in reference to the administrative council area or airport.

IMO the overly PC BBC NI is not a good reference for this issue.

Also, I note that through the edit history on Ulster that you also try to claim Ulster as a geographic region - this is another highly dubious claim. Jonto 17:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Plebiscite

I note that a figure of 57% has been given for the plebiscite in the 70s withiout a source. I remember thinking that this was much higher. Anyone got a source? Jonto 17:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

West midlands influence?

Could someone explain how the Norn iron accent is influenced by that of the brummys, or where this came from? Jonto 17:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea where someone got that idea, the accents are totally different. Also there isn't really such a thing as a Northern Irish accent, it varies so much from place to place more so than in many countries for some reason. Ben W Bell 19:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The article refers to dialect not accent! Can't be arsed explaining it but since the majority of English Planters came from the West Midlands (not the same thing as contemporary Brummy) a result is that the dialect shows influence from their speech habits (not the same thing as sounds the same). Hope that wasn't too difficult to understand.

Ken Mair 10:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The Map

The map "Northern Ireland's location within the UK" does not show remote parts of the country, namely the isles of Scilly and the Shetland Islands. On the other hand, some of the neighbouring countries and territories are outlined (in white), namely the isles of Man and Ireland, whereas nearby France and Belgium are not shown at all... --Big Adamsky 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The Republic is presumably in outline as it shares the UK's one and only land border. The omissions, however, should probably be corrected, as should the similar pictures at Scotland, England, Wales etc. Try leaving notes on the images' talk pages, or adapt the pictures yourself if you have the graphical knowhow. --Kwekubo 12:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I would do it myself if I had the technological means... For now all I can do is "complain", as it were. But at least it's a start. 8-] --Big Adamsky 13:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)