Wikipedia:Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard

Welcome to the geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding ethnic, national, and cultural editing conflicts. Consider including some background information, not only relating to the specific dispute, but also the relevant ethnic or religious conflict. If you do this you are far more likely to get an effective response. Situations requiring immediate administrative action should go to the incidents noticeboard. Situations requiring immediate enforcement of the arbitration committee remedies should go to the enforcement noticeboard. Volunteers: To mark an issue resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of its section. Sections older than 7 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:CCN-notice}} to do so.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search this noticeboard & archives

Northern Ireland Demonym

Resolved

 – - Agreement reached on talkpage to remove all Demonyms from the infobox. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Stale

 – No resolution reached on which demonyms to use, demonyms removed entirely as a result WikiuserNI (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem at the Northern Ireland article over what should and should not be included in the infobox under the Demonym section. Northern Ireland has a troubled past and identity is very important. There are 3 main ways people identify themselves in Northern Ireland (some others also apply like Ulsterman), but the main 3 are British, Northern Irish and Irish. Here is a recent poll highlighting this [1]

At the moment those who view themselves as British are being discriminated against by their exclusion from the infobox, whilst Irish and Northern Irish remain. This is deeply offensive and clearly ignores one large part of the community.

I have no problem with Northern Irish being the only thing listed in that infobox, that is the only thing that applies just to Northern Ireland. Irish applies to the whole island of Ireland, a wider entity in exactly the same way as British applies to a wider entity the United Kingdom. How can it be fair to treat Irish and British in a different way?

In one of the sources used to back up use of the term Irish it states..

The United Kingdom is made up of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. While all of the people of the UK are known as British, the people of Wales are also known as Welsh, in Scotland as Scottish, in England as English, and in Northern Ireland as Irish."

That clearly says people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are known as British. It then says the people of Wales are “also known as Welsh” then does the same for the other countries of the United Kingdom. The author in this case clearly has no need to repeat saying British because it is already covered in the same sentence.

We have spent a long time on the talk page about this matter but no consensus has been found and it is a very heated debate, further input from neutral admins would be very helpful. Thank you. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the other constituent country articles, there's no reason to include British whatsoever, as the others do not. This sounds akin to wanting "American" in the infobox for Texas. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Then Irish should be removed from the infobox. Irish applies to a wider entity just like British does. The article infobox currently discriminates against a large community, it is deeply offensive. This is not a serious problem on the other country articles, Northern Ireland is different because Irish is there. If it simply said Northern Irish i would see no problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pardon if I didn't understand which you wanted ex/included, as you never said. --Golbez (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like "If I can't have the baby, no problem, but neither can she"... 68.238.21.153 (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Irish should be removed from the infobox. Just use Northern Irish & Ulstermen. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Northern Irish is something that without doubt belongs in the infobox there. If Irish is included then British must also be because both are identities in Northern Ireland and both apply to a wider area (the island/the United Kingdom). So either Irish is removed or British is added, but at present the infobox over at Northern Ireland is discriminating against a large community in Northern Ireland and it is deeply offensive considering many people died for their right to remain British. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

BW, there is also ample discussion in the article itself with regards identities which are different to the simple demonym. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

one of the sources used to justify Irish being in that infobox clearly also states people are British. If Irish can be there, British needs to be. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. If anything, the current "conflict" is caused by those who refuse to accept what the demonyms are (one even going so far as to claim the person who invented the term in the first place is not a reliable source) and insist that what they believe the demonyms are should be in the article instead. These editors do not seem interested in adding the same additional demonym to England, Scotland or Wales, only the Northern Ireland article. I find the "Texas" analogy to be quite appropriate as well. O Fenian (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a big difference between Northern Ireland and the other 3 countries of the United Kingdom in this case. Scottish applies just to Scotland, Welsh to Wales, English to England. The trouble with Northern Ireland is it includes Irish which applies to the whole island of Ireland, not just Northern Ireland. Identity has also never been as controversial in the other parts of the UK as it is in Northern Ireland.

Sorry but at present that infobox is clearly grossly offensive by discriminating against those who consider themselves British. As stated before, one of the sources used to justify Irish clearly also states British applies to each part of the UK, there was no need for the author to repeat it. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not grossly offensive, although it may be wrong. As I understand demonym it means a description of someone from a specific area. While a person from Milan, for example, may be considered a Lombard, an Italian and/or even a European, the person's demonym is Milanès. Similarly, the demonym for someone from Northern Ireland is not Irish, British or European, it is Northern Irish. Daicaregos (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I see lots of hyperbole and rhetoric and peoples' own extreme personal opinons, none of which have any place in an encyclopedia. O Fenian (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This question was brought to the reliable sources noticeboard (here) some months ago, but no-one from the noticeboard provided an answer (possibly because the noticeboard was swamped by editors from the Northern Ireland page). I recommend that the question is posed there again and the members of the noticeboard be allowed to answer without interference. Daicaregos (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It was about 2 or 3 weeks ago, nobody replied so i do not see how posting there again is going to accomplish much. It is not about if a specific source is reliable or not. It is about the point you made. "Similarly, the demonym for someone from Northern Ireland is not Irish, British or European, it is Northern Irish. " . I would not have any concern about the infobox if it simply stated Northern Irish which clearly just applies to a specific area (Northern Ireland). The trouble is with Irish included which applies to a wider area, British has just as much right to be there as its part of a wider area too. Removing Irish and leaving Northern Irish there alone would be the best compromise, rather than having both Irish and British there.

I am sorry that you do not think this is offensive, whilst it is not a big deal for the articles over on Scotland, Wales and England. The history of Northern Ireland makes identity or "Demonym" very important and serious. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I know it's asking a lot of the CCN, but can we not resort to hyperbole like "grossly offensive" and "discriminating"? I suspect Wikipedia has never actually discriminated against anyone, and most people who are grossly offended by it do so on purpose. --Golbez (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry i do think it is deeply offensive to discriminate against one community in Northern Ireland by excluding British from the infobox whilst allowing Irish to be there. It is very controversial, just putting Northern Irish there would resolve the problem but to mention Irish which represents a wider area, but not allowing British is clearly wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Discrimination is the actual behavior towards another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups." I'm not sure what opportunity is being denied here. No one is being prohibited from editing... is temporally denying a particular preferred term discrimination? Hm. Either way, if you can't express your opinions without hyperbole, that's a sign that perhaps your opinions are too hyperbolic, and need taming. --Golbez (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Discrimination is the actual behavior towards another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups" - that sounds about right. Im happy for us to focus on the issue rather than my description of the situation though.

Northern Irish applies to Northern Ireland. Irish and British apply to wider areas (the island / the country). British should not be excluded from the infobox if Irish is allowed. BritishWatcher (talk)

Please calm down. It could only offend one if they had a particularly extreme point of view. In which case they shouldn't be editing an encyclopaedia on that subject. I happen to agree with you on this point, though: The Northern Ireland infobox should have only Northern Irish as the demonym. The test is (or should be) if it can be used the other way around too. i.e. If someone says they are Northern Irish, would that specifically denote that they come from Northern Ireland? This test does not work for Irish, Ulsterman/woman or British. That is, if someone says they are Irish would you be certain they come from Northern Ireland? Obviously not. The demonym Irish means to come from Ireland - any part of Ireland, it is not specific to Northern Ireland. The question is: how to have the 'test' accepted by the wider community. I may just leave that here. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Please calm down. It could only offend one if they had a particularly extreme point of view" I think this is a very serious matter which would offend many who simply consider themselves British if they see Irish is accepted there but British is not. Identity is a big deal, our ongoing little debate about a former Deputy Prime Minister proves that.

I will try and keep more calm but i do think this is a big deal, i am glad we do agree on the issue though, that is very rare. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a long post from me on the issue. MickMacNee (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

O Fenian keeps claiming he knows what Mr Dickson's definition of a demonym is. Well, let's have it then. What is a demonym according to Mr Dickson? Seeing as you seem totally incapable of spotting what the problem is with claiming a primary source as the reliable source, then you at least demonstrating you have the first clue what his actual definition as the primary source actually is, is going to be the minimum requirement for this discussion not to resemble the usual obfuscation and gamery. And also, anybody claiming in here that the idea that people from Northern Ireland are only ever called Irish or Northern Irish is not a grossly offensive assertion to make to a huge portion of that particular locality frankly needs to do some more research, or even just start their research, period. Texas has sod all to do with this dispute, but if we must spoon irrelevant analogies like Texas into this, then the best I can think of is a Mexican nationalist claiming that Mexican is an appropriate demonym for Texas, but then not allowing American for balance, and helpfully pointing out to support his case that he has a single primary source for a sort of dictionary definition for 'Mexican', without any evidence anyone treats this source as anything other than an interesting coffee table book, let alone as a respectable third party independent peer-reviewed source like, say, an actual dictionary for example. If that theoretical stance by the hypothetical Mexican nationalist editor sounds preposterous, then you are probably realising how a great many other editors who don't happen to be ardent Irish nationalists see this particular dispute. The position of even neutrals always has been that Irish does not belong, it is a gross distortion without British if it does, and enough people were more than happy with all three when they linked to the identity section for further explanation of what is a horrendously complex issue for it to remain stable for months. That was until this single primary source was found and the gamery started afresh, but with renewed gloating vigour because it now allows the rather simplistic arguments of 'V not T' to be trotted out while people just ignore great huge chunks of other core policy, which, what with this being the ethnic conflicts board, this tactic should be seen for what it is by experienced observers, hopefully. Nobody wants British in the box if Irish is not there, but if it is, then British belongs, or the whole credibility of Dickson being used as a primary source for what the demonym of NI is needs to be addressed - and understandably, the supporters of Irish are horrified at the propsect of the discussion going that way, to the point that they become truly deaf dumb and blind to entire sections of posts on the matter when it comes to that point, although as said before, this being the ethnic conflicts board, observers should at least be a bit more streetwise as to when this is happening. And also, comparisons to England, Wales and Scotland are totally, utterly, and completely irrelevant too, unless I've missed something and Irish nationalist claims to territory extend even further than they do currently. Infact, comparisons to any other country are irrelevant that I can see - I challenge anyone to find a comparable demonym problem exactly like this, not just sort of comparable, but exactly like it. I don't think you will find it. And Korea doesn't count - if you can't see why, then get out of the discussion now, for your own sanity and time, you are already way behind the curve to be able to deal with Irish conflicts, which are at a minumum, always at least three-way in nature. Comparison of apples and oranges does not solve this dispute or make this article's infobox any more credible from an NPOV standpoint. MickMacNee (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

From Mick's (long) post; "understandably, the supporters of Irish are horrified at the propsect of the discussion going that way, to the point that they become truly deaf dumb and blind to entire sections of posts on the matter when it comes to that point, although as said before, this being the ethnic conflicts board, observers should at least be a bit more streetwise as to when this is happening". It would help if the discussion might not be dragged down into accusations of gamery or political/nationalistic editing. Mick, can you not just describe the problem without getting bogged down in what you think of other editors' motivations? WikiuserNI (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of anything not specific to Norn Irn is an abuse of the demonym box. The only term that should be there is 'Northern Irish', because it is the only term which is A) specific to Northern Ireland; and B) applicable to everybody who is from there, regardless of their political, ethnic or confessional affiliations. I believe we can agree that not everybody in Northern Ireland regards themselves as 'British', nor as 'Irish'; and the Six Counties ≠ Ulster! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC) a 32-county republican Protestant, thank you

Orangemike, it sounds like you might have conflated demonym with identity. WikiuserNI (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference? Let me guess: identity is what people call themselves; demonym is what other people call them. Is that it? Peter jackson (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In actual fact, there is a source where Dickson, the supposed singularly reliable source for demonyms, actually says himself that the word demonym comes from the idea that "people choose what to call themselves".[2]. Obviously this seems to go against this idea that British is not an acceptable demonym for Northern Irish people if Irish also is, or that there is some grand difference between a demonym and an identity. This is just one of the many things WikiUser et all keeps declining to address. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, if it simply said Northern Irish i would have no complaints or concerns. But Irish being there and clear exclusion of British is the problem. Just saying Northern Irish seems to be more accurate because as you point out its the only thing that applies specifically to NI, and its also a more neutral term. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, you suggest that "clear exclusion of British is the problem". What "clear exclusion" is there? There's an attempt to exclude Irish it seems.

Peter, demonym is a name given to a person according to where they come from. Identity goes a bit deeper, relating to someone's politics and heritage. WikiuserNI (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Identity goes a bit deeper" - Source? MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The "problem", BW & I are saying, is the inclusion of 1 & exclusion of the other. Bias, pure & simple. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

BW is suggesting we unilaterally exclude Irish to make the article fair. If you do that in the face of a citation for Irish, that shows bias. Would you have anything to suggest bias for including Irish? Those who wanted it kept have done their work by providing a cite. All we asked BW to do was provide similar. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A demonym by definition is a specific term for a specific group. "Irish" and "British" are not specific to people from Northern Ireland/the Six Counties; nor is "Ulsterman"/"Ulsterwoman". Only "Northern Irish" is specific to the area under discussion; thus, only "Northern Irish" is a true demonym, and only "Northern Irish" should be in that slot. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Northern Irish" seems specific enough, and I disagree with the argument that this term excludes "Irish". That's really splitting hairs, but the truth is more like, it does include "Irish". 70.16.239.30 (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you were to say someone is Irish, would that mean they came from Northern Ireland? If not, it doesn't belong there because it doesn't make sense - referenced or not. Daicaregos (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Orange Mike and Dai, both of your comments sound like reasonable reasoning. Only, they are explicitly contradicted by reliable sources. I might ask you to compare WP:OR and WP:V and ask yourselves which you are working from. Reliable source list, "Irish", "Northern Irish" and "Ulsterman/ulsterwoman" as a demonyms for Northern Ireland. We need look no more deeper into it.

(Also, Dai, if you were to say someone is Irish, where on the island of Ireland would that mean they came from? It is a demonym that is common to both parts. Compare with South Korea and North Korea.) --RA (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, as you are quoting technicalities, we don't know they are reliable sources as the WP:RS/N haven't ruled on it (whatever their reasons). But back to your demonym point: If you were to say someone is Irish, it means they are from the island of Ireland (or from the state called Ireland). It isn't specific to Northern Ireland. The same argument would work for European too. While everyone from the island of Ireland is European, if you were to say someone is European, it doesn't mean they are specifically from anywhere other than Europe, let alone Northern Ireland. So using European as a demonym for people from Northern Ireland would be incorrect, in the same way that using Irish as a demonym for people from Northern Ireland is incorrect. And at the other end other scale, if someone is from Dublin, they are still Irish, but using Irish as a demonym for people from Dublin would be incorrect, as Irish doesn't define where on the island of Ireland they are from. Daicaregos (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my talk. --RA (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's sourced it shouldn't matter what we think. And if there are disagreements as to use of this source then we should refer this back to the RS Noticeboard. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there an IAR noticeboard? Peter jackson (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a 'just answer previous questions' board? It's becoming beyond obvious with this further feedback that, to everybody except a tiny minority, that this 'sourced' fact is not supportable in any way except by shutting your eyes and having faith in the One True Source. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing the situation in Belfast this week, I can think of a considerable number of demonyms, none of them complimentary... -- ChrisO (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Several people here seem to agree that it should just say Northern Irish in the infobox. So what can be done about this problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"if I can't have the baby, no problem, but neither can she"... " – That about sums it up. There really is little to discuss here. We work off reliable sources. We work off them in a neutral manner. Reliable sources explicitly list demonyms for Northern Ireland (specifically, Northern Ireland) as "Irish", "Northern Irish" and "Ulsterman/Ulsterwoman". If a source can be found to support "British" as being a demonym specifically for Northern Ireland then add it but we don't delete referenced material simply pander to (invented) nationalist sensitivities.

The complications around identity in Northern Ireland are noted in the infobox. There have also been suggestions as to how to include British in a manner that is supported by reliable sources and in a manner that draws more attention to the identifies issue. The facts still remain. "Irish", "Northern Irish" and "Ulsterman/ulsterwoman" are listed as demonyms specifically for Northern Ireland in reliable sources. (Indeed as has been pointed out, in the source that coined the word "demonym".) We don't pick the demonyms we list solely to appease the sensitivities of a few. As the same editors are keen to point out elsewhere Wikipedia is not censored.

Additionally, there is now a forum shopping issue creeping into this issue. We've discssed this at Talk:Northern Ireland. It was raised at the reliable source noticeboard. And now here. Where is next? --RA (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, WP:RSN were silent on the matter - the thread being filled with editors from Talk:Northern Ireland but no one else. TFOWR 17:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to be fair, it was. I suspect this was because (a) they were scared off and (b) there was nothing to discuss anyway. The sources used to support "Irish", "Norhtern Irish" and "Ulsterman/Ulsterwoman" are perfectly reliable. For the benefits of other here they are again:

• "Irish", "Northern Irish": Paul, Dickson (1997). Labels for Locals: What to Call People from Abilene to Zimbabwe. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster. p. 220. ISBN 9780877796169. Northern Ireland: Northern Irishman and Northern Irishwoman, or the collective Irish and Northern Irish {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• "Irish": Martin, Jeanette; Chaney, Lillian (2009), Passport to Success: The Essential Guide to Business Culture and Customs in America's Largest Trading Partners, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, p. 254, ISBN 978-0-275-99716-8, The United Kingdom is made up of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. While all of the people of the United Kingdom are known as British, the people of Wales are also known as Welsh, in Scotland as Scottish, in England as English, and in Northern Ireland as Irish.
• "Ulsterman"/"Ulsterwoman": Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English (Third revised edition ed.), 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953296-4, Ulsterman (or Ulsterwoman): a native or inhabitant of Northern Ireland or Ulster. {{citation}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |publihser= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)

--RA (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The reliability and appropriateness of which have been challenged a million times without any sensible reply. All that comes back in return is this sort of classic 'there is no issue' stonewalling, interspersed with posts like this where you just turn up and 'contribute' by repeating the exact same argument from two weeks ago that people are WELL AWARE of, and have been challenging constantly with many many unanswered points. Seriously RA, if you don't want to appear like a classic TE, then it is about time you either said something novel in this dispute, or demonstrated you have ever listened to anybody not agreeing with you, or just shut up. Any of those three would be better than this tediousness. MickMacNee (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is more of a neutrality issue. Irish applies to the whole island of Ireland just like British applies to the whole United Kingdom. One of the sources above clearly states British applies to all the people of the United Kingdom, there would be no need for that source to repeat "British" after saying people in Wales are ALSO known as Welsh, in Scoland as Scottish and Northern Ireland as Irish. So that source could justify saying British still. As for the other source that mentions Irish, we can not see the whole source to put it into context, we do not know what it says about the UK.

But at the end of the day it is simply not neutral to list Irish whilst on purpose excluding British, which is blatant discrimination against a large community in Northern Ireland and it is not accurate if Demonym is meant to be about the specific area of Northern Ireland, not Ireland as a whole. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I reckon the question should be asked again at reliable source noticeboard. There's no doubt in my mind that it wasn't answered because of the stampede from the Northern Ireland page. Jack 1314 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

SO let me understand this, BW: If British is excluded, people are being discriminated against... unless Irish is also excluded, in which case no one (or everyone equally?) is being discriminated against. That doesn't seem like proper logic to me. --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If it just says Northern Irish there then that is being accurate as that is the only identity that applies only to Northern Ireland. If it also says Irish there, an identity that applies to the people of the whole island of Ireland, but fails to mention British, which applies to all the people of the United Kingdom then yes that is pure discrimination and it is unacceptable. Especially as in this case clearly many people there feel very strongly about being British. One community can not be discriminated against, which is why the more neutral and more specific term of Northern Irish should appear alone BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

BW, you've got to stop with the talk of discrimination. It really doesn't further your argument as Wikipedia doesn't take that into account. Have a look at List of national capitals if you don't believe me, where some people don't think Edinburgh, Cardiff etc belong there, even with good sources. If I were asked what the demonym of N.Ireland was I would say Northern Irish, but there is a reference that seems to say otherwise. It's the reference that you have to question and it's just a shame that everyone piled in when it was taken to WP:RSN, which in my opinion put off anyone other than those from the N.Ireland page from answering it. Jack 1314 (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If it says just "Northern Irish", aren't both Irish and British people being discriminated against? If you say that omitting British is discriminatory in one context, isn't it discriminatory in all contexts? --Golbez (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nooo! Not logic, please : ) Daicaregos (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What's logic got to do with this current bizarreness? I fail to see what Golbez's line of argument is achieving in this discussion other than trying to wind up BW. It's got sod all to do with either justifying Irish as a demonym, or justifying the exclusion of British but not Irish. If someone wants to justify Irish based on logic, I'm all ears, but that's an argument that has yet to appear. The only argument offered is this seriously dodgy defence of the reliability and appropriateness of a single primary source that nobody has apparently ever read, and is not prepared to examine beyond the fact that 'it exists'. It's BS frankly, which is why, Golbez's meanderings aside, the only defence of it is dumbstruck silence and gamery. Infact, if we are taking the 'logical' approach, then that is what exposes this 'include Irish but not British' line for the indefensible garbage that it is, there is no logical standpoint on which the argument for including Irish does not also allow British, and vice versa. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully reserve the right to wind him up. I took offense to his prattering about "discrimination" and decided to press him on it. Anyway, The answer here is, Northern Irish, if only for consistency, and in a unified work, consistency matters. If we're going to say that we're more than a list of disparate pages without any links to each other, then fine, include a half dozen names backed up by references, but consistency demands the infobox say only Northern Irish, and other names can be dealt with in the text. Despite a hundred years of bickering from both sides, Northern Ireland is not a special snowflake that gets special rules. --Golbez (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol, i feel strongly about this matter and it certainly seemed like discrimination to me. Removing Irish and only listing Northern Irish would not be discrimination because it would be on the grounds that it is the only identity that applies only to Northern Ireland. Irish and British being treated differently was always the issue because both apply to wider areas. But i am glad we agree on the solution, i can live with people winding me up if we come to the right conclusion at the end of the day. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"[it is] the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British."[3] Also see [4][5]. Most Protestants in Northern Ireland identify as "British", most Catholics as "Irish", and "Northern Irish" is a minority identification (roughly 1/4 from either community). So put both "British" and "Irish" in as well as "Northern Irish" and "Ulstermen", with footnotes explaining why. The UK and Irish governments could agree on this, so we should follow their lead. Insisting on "simple" namings by outsiders doesn't help, as this isn't a simple situation. It might offend the sensibilities of those who want to neatly categorise to have these various names in the infobox, but it doesn't help our readers to pretend that people from Northern Ireland are simply called "Northern Irish". They aren't. Fences&Windows 00:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Re: "consistency demands the infobox say only Northern Irish": "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Fences&Windows 00:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fences&Windows, I beleive there is already a section in the NI article about self identity and citizenship, which addresses those issues. We're just looking into the issue of the demonym alone. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So the infobox Demonym should just say Northern Irish but link to the section talking about identity or having a note. Northern Irish is the only identity that applies to Northern Ireland alone. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, that would be to conflate demonym and citizenship and identity. I'm still bemused at the apparent angst this is causing. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Northern Irish is the only demonym that applies only to people of Northern Ireland? True of False? Irish applies to the whole island, not all of ulster is in Northern Ireland, British applies to the whole United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You have singularly failed to demonstrate you even know what the difference is between a demonym and an identity according to reliable sources throughout this whole dispute, and you have about ten times chosen to just ignore challenges to your idea that for NI there is a meaningfull difference in the concept such that it is not a giant steaming POV violation to assert there is in the article like this, and also you have repeatedly chosen to ignore the fact that Dickson himself says the word demonym comes from what people choose to call themselves, so it's no surprise to me that you are bemused about this whole issue. I am starting to think it's deliberate, rather than just an inability to read. MickMacNee (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We have sources for Ulster(person), Irish(person) and Northern Irish (person). We seem to be doing ok with those. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair WikiuserNI, it was a perfectly reasonable and straightforward question, and one that deserves a reasonable and straightforward answer. Daicaregos (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Daicaregos, to be fair the question was worded a little oddly, and I'm satisfied that the citation provided in the article provides for the items listed as demonyms. If a source can be found for British in that section of the infobox then I'm cool with that. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no doubt (in my mind) that BritishWatcher is right here, but the source says otherwise. BW, all you're doing is banging your head off a brick wall unless you can prove it isn't a reliable source. I know I'm repeating myself here, but the only way you can do that is to take it back to WP:RS and ask those involved to stay away from it until an answer is forthcoming. What answer you would get is anybody's guess, but until then all the talk here will come to nothing. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am glad we agree on this but i dont see what the Reliable Source board will accomplish. The problem is not really the source (although there are a couple of issues with them), the problem is what we as editors decide belong in the box. If we allow demonyms that apply to wider areas or not. It would seem like most articles dont allow it, yet we list Irish an Ulster here. Ive not totalled the numbers, but i see more support for removing Irish and ulster rather than the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The RS board request is an irrelevance at best. You would no more take this issue to the RS board than you would take an editor rampaging around the pedia asserting that Jimbo was the anti-christ to the WQA board. I don't know about anyone else, but I have never disputed the Dickson source's reliability for saying what it says, as a PRIMARY SOURCE, but the issue of whether that translates to it being allowed to be used to assert on the NI article something that very clearly is a strong POV, that the ONLY demonyms are Irish and Northern Irish, is a whole different kettle of fish. I've detailed this at great extent here and at the NI talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A clear majority of people above support the removal of Irish, to leave Northern Irish in the infobox. Can someone neutral please look through this debate and suggest what action should be taken? otherwise we will simply keep going round in circles, but i count about 7 or 8 in favour of the change, only 3 strongly opposing any change at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

BW, we don't go by a simple head count. I didn't see anyone suggesting that British couldn't be used as a demonym, just that we didn't have a cite for it just yet. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I know atleast 2 editors here will strongly oppose the inclusion of British even with a source saying its the demonym because it would mean it can be added to the Scotland and Wales articles. The best solution is to simply remove Irish and leave Northern Irish as several editors above have supported. Its not a simple headcount though, an overwhelming majority support some form of change and the case for removing Irish from the infobox and leaving Northern Irish is very strong. This is why i want a neutral admin to go through the debate and suggest what we should do. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been another 3 days. What should we do to conclude this matter, from the above debate a clear majority support change. Can Irish be removed? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't work on a simple head count. There are various points of view that should be addressed and discussed before moving on. WikiuserNI (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

people stopped discussing. Simple question.. Does Irish apply only to Northern Ireland? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Then why don't you address them? You repeatedly saying nothing in response to valid points, or worse, simply tendentiously repeating the same thing you were saying two weeks ago as an argument, is not going to make this issue go away. MickMacNee (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Britishwatcher, I hope the response from both myself and Mick is evidence enough that the debate isn't settled. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Errr, no. It's settled for me, because ample time has passed for you to answer the many issues with your arguments, and nothing has been forthcoming. There comes a point when this is just simple obfuscation, and the content changes with or without your consent. MickMacNee (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Rannpháirtí anaithnid has gone through the reasons for including the current demonyms (Irish, Northern Irish, Ulsterman/woman) very well and I can't see any problems with those. Certainly if another source were found to support British in the same way, I wouldn't have a problem with it's inclusion.

I don't see an appeal to anti-discrimination or anything not supported by sources being relevant. WikiuserNI (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You must be looking somewhere else then. All I see is him listing and re-listing the sources, stating and re-stating 'V not T', and intermittently buggering off. He, like you, has singularly failed to answer any challenge to his argument that he doesn't like/understand/care to answer. You are free to 'see nothing wrong' all you like, it's not a particularly convincing assessment, particularly as plenty of uninvolved and partially involved people have seen these restatements and assertions many many times, and have still flat out said that this situation and the resulting content is unjustifiable, so this rather puts you in the box of 'ignorable' after a set period of time if you are still peddling it. Your idea that you will accede to a source 'if found', as if that is the single issue, and not instead a wholly disputed idea or point of relevance in of itself, only shows that you really have not bothered to follow any of this discussion except the tiny bit of it you agree with. MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Might it be the case that this issue just isn't as complex as you beleive? For something as simple as sourced demonyms (and there seems to be more than one source used), this is an awful lot of fuss. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not see how you can not see why some of us think this is a big issue. We all know identity matters in Northern Ireland and dressing it up as "demonyms" makes little difference. The fact is there are some people in Northern Ireland who feel Irish some who consider themselves Northern Irish but others who consider themselves British. Both Irish and British apply to a wider area than just Northern Ireland. We can not list one and not list another, it is serious discrimination and it is deeply offensive. Again i request an admin to read through the above debate, there is clear majority support for a change but someone neutral needs to do it please. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

BW, nobody is dressing up identity as demonym, they're seperate entities and have separate sections in the article. And as was said in reply to you further up; "Either way, if you can't express your opinions without hyperbole, that's a sign that perhaps your opinions are too hyperbolic, and need taming". WikiuserNI (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

other editors have explained very clearly why a change is needed. The verdict of the debate above is clear, a majority want change and yet change is not happening because of your continued opposition but you fail to accept that Northern Irish is the only fair and accurate term to use in that infobox.BritishWatcher (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

BW, this could be more productive if you'd actually see what was happening. Nobody has asked for British to be excluded, we just asked for a source as there is for the other demonyms in place at present. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am asking for Irish to be excluded because it does not only apply to Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There have been several rebuttals of this 'demonym <> identity' stance of yours in this section and before, which is one of the many things that you never seem to see or want to reply to. This selective blindess is presumably why you can't understand what 'all the fuss is about'. MickMacNee (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

BW, there's a source that says otherwise. Mick, I just didn't see anything terribly compelling about the counter arguments. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Err, you haven't even given the first indication you are even aware of them, let alone what you think of them. Go back and actually ANSWER some of the many points, and even better, REBUTT them, if you actually want your opinion to be considered. Vague dismissal of unspecified arguments as 'not terribly compelling', is simply not going to make your opinion count for anything here, given the fact that what you apparently see or don't see as an issue or a problem in this issue, is a minority view. MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't like the use of Dickson as a source and you believe those who disagree with you are Irish and therefore biased. That's pretty much the gist of it. As before, I believe RA (politely) summed things up nicely. WikiuserNI (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not even close. You clearly have not bothered to read a single thing in this debate, and thus, your opposition is simply worthless timewasting. Had you actually bothered to read anything said by me for example, you'd note that I do like Dickson as a source for some things - I like the part where he contradicts your bizarre idea about the differences between a demonym and an identity. Frankly, you don't seem to have the first idea what my objection to the source is at all, your 'gist of it' above is bloody clueless frankly. You have demonstrated you know nothing, not a sinlge thing, about how, why or when to use sources, or what NPOV requires in them for their use in particular situations. PRIMARY and other core issues seem to go right over your head tbh. And RA didn't sum up anything btw, he stated his view, then restated it, then restated it, told everyone else they were simply wrong, then fucked off. Still, at least he realised that if you don't intend on justifying you position in the face of objections, there's no point sticking around in the discussion wasting people's time. MickMacNee (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's repeated because it's all quite simple. Ulster(man/woman), Irish, Northern Irish are all cited and fine. British will be fine once cited. No fringe theories or massive insults to the British in Northern Ireland (with whom I am related and on good terms with, just incase you thought I was one of those Irish yahoos who makes Wikipedia so terrible for you) at all.

If it was such a problem, how come so few other outside editors are bothered? WikiuserNI (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, it's all 'simple'. If I hadn't said it already (I had, a million times), your perception of what is and is not simple is not exactly the same as other people's perception, going on this debate. And with you banging on about fringe theories and percieved insults, you again show that you haven't got a clue what the actual objections are, certianly not mine anyway. Frankly, 'it's cited' without further explanation or defence, is an argument of barely Wikipedia 101 standard. And it is a pathetic defence in an issue as complex as this. It doesn't touch on barely half the relevant core policies, and even on the one it does touch on, WP:V, it is inadequate in the extreme. You'd be bloody amazed at just what can and can't 'be cited' in this topic. And how many people are interested is utterly irrelevant as to whether your views are common or not, and they are certainly at odds with the few people in here who have commented. And this issue has hardly been advertised widely anyway. We can punt it to much wider venues certainly, but we will need to restate the issue properly, and get rid of the obfuscation, diversion and non-answering that has, and still is, infesting it. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it could be forum shopped some more, I'm not sure what that would do for the issue, such as it is. Perceived insult was the gist of what Britishwatcher was saying, for quite a bit. And I had thought you had mentioned WP:REDFLAG before, my bad if you hadn't. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus christ, it would not be forum shopping, certainly not if you are trying to argue here that not many people have commented. And yes, I have mentioned REDFLAG, but if you noticed that at the time, let alone addressed it, it's news to me. I will say again, 'it's not a fringe theory' is not a rebuttal. It's barely even an adequate answer, as this is not even a fringe theory in the usual sense of the term on Wikipedia, but the relevant points in RED FLAG are those ones about sourcing, and the simplistic 'it has a source' line does not cut it as a defence in that regard, not least when the single source has been challenged multiple times, and the definition of a demonym is even contradicted by the author of the one source. And the supporting source that came much much later is an absolute joke, a total pisstake, with regard to REDFLAG. Again, this is a point that went into the ether unanswered. 'Must try harder' doesn't even begin to cover it. So once again, you give me no confidence you have read anything in this dispute in any detail, let alone answered it, yet here you are, still insisting that it's all much ado about nothing and all points have been addressed perfectly adequately. It's clearly not the case at all. MickMacNee (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin please read through the above debate and give advice on what steps should be taken, or see that there is clear majority support for a change shown in the above debate, and implement that change. We can not sit around here for the next few years. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A majority who say what? Some wish to add British and exclude Irish, others wish to only have Northern Irish, some wish to have Irish, NI, Ulster kept and British added when sourced, there's not a "clear majority" for any one change. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The debate so far

Ok i have been through this list, these are the positions people seem to have taken..

BritishWatcher - Supports the removal of Irish

Daicaregos - Supports the removal of Irish

GoodDay - Supports the removal of Irish

Orange Mike - Supports the removal of Irish

MickMacNee - Supports the removal of Irish

Golbez - Supports the removal of Irish

Jack1314 - Says BritishWatcher is right (extremely rare for him lol) so i think supports removal

Peter jackson - Opposes the inclusion of one (Irish) whilst excluding the other (British)

WikiUserNI - Opposes any change WikiuserNI - supports Ulster(person), Northern Irish(person), Irish(person) as cited, would support British if appropriately cited. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

O Fenian - Opposes removal of Irish

RA - Opposes removal of Irish

Fences&Windows - All should be listed (including British), should not just be Northern Irish.

Mabuska - supports removal of Irish if British is not listed. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but to me that seems like a clear majority in favour of removing Irish. It is certainly the case a large majority oppose the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish, you have misrepresented me on that list. I never said that I opposed any change, speaking for other people on Wikipedia is uncivil at the very least. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

For further examples, Golbez stated originally; "there's no reason to include British whatsoever" and then "The answer here is, Northern Irish, if only for consistency". So, no mention of Irish, but a specific mention of the removal of British from the infobox. Orange Mike said no to Ulster/Irish/British(person) quite specifically, but you didn't care to mention that either in your "summary". Would you consider perhaps removing it completely, as it only muddies the waters. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i simply meant you oppose change (as in the removal of Irish) and you have been arguining against change for weeks on this page. I will change the wording to avoid confusion and say "Opposes removal of Irish". Golbezs last comments on this matter stated that only Northern Irish should be listed.

"The answer here is, Northern Irish, if only for consistency, and in a unified work, consistency matters. . If we're going to say that we're more than a list of disparate pages without any links to each other, then fine, include a half dozen names backed up by references, but consistency demands the infobox say only Northern Irish, and other names can be dealt with in the text."

Was the post BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As much as I dislike his 'discrimination' argument, BW has accurately represented my opinion. The box should say "Northern Irish", and anything else should be handled in the text. Infoboxes are not clearing houses for information, they are to concisely provide it. --Golbez (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No he/she hasn't, there also exists an Ulster(person) as demonym in the infobox at the moment, do you wish that to stay or go? BW was simply pulling the anti-Irish out of your comments. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he/she has. I said, just above, in the piece you're responding to, "The box should say "Northern Irish", and anything else should be handled in the text." That includes Ulsterman, Irish, British, whatever can be sourced. --Golbez (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As for OrangeMikes position, my post was focused about Irish, not everyones views on ulsterman too. OrangeMike supported the removal of Irish from the current infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to say the above response is exactly why for some time i have been asking for a neutral admin to atleast offer some suggestion about what the next step should be. Sadly there has been no response. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

BW this whole section was opened by you as so; "There is a problem at the Northern Ireland article over what should and should not be included in the infobox under the Demonym section.". That's the problem exactly, as not just Irish has been requested to be excluded from the infobox. Ulster/British/Irish have all been put up for removal/exclusion. It is you who is trying to twist this into a simplistic Irish yes/no. All comments should be put on that list, or it's useless to us. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My concern is the fact Irish is in this list but British is not. I have made that very clear from my first post here that is the issue i consider so serious that it needed to be raised here. The above summary of responses shows a clear majority have said they support the removal of Irish from the list. I avoided mentioning the Ulsterman issue, which several support the removal of too (including myself), this was simply to highlight to you a majority support removal of Irish. I am sorry if my wording has not been as precise as it should have been, like i said, this is why i have been asking several times for a neutral admin to step in and help so i did not have to do something like list positions. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Your list certainly appears less than neutral... WikiuserNI (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are the positions from where i am sitting people have taken, that is the majority i was talking about before. Like i mentioned (and should have stated at the top of the list), this is just about the issue of if the removal of Irish should go ahead, several have made comments about removing of ulsterman (a view i also take, but did not put next to my position). I want us to debate these other issues too, but the fact there is support for the removal of Irish is the important thing right now, because it is that inclusion which is causing the serious concern. And that is what the vast majority of the debate above has been over. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the removal/perceived exclusion of the term "British" as a demonym is your concern. There are a variety of opinions right now, which should all be covered in their entireity. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is a list of people who have said they support removal of Irish, oppose its removal, or think it must say everything. Clearly the long winded debate above with several editors making many posts masked just how clear a majority there is in favour of removal of Irish. The list shows this more clearly. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If British is to be excluded to cater for those who are attempting to hide the fact many people in Northern Ireland identify themselves as British - to which i have provided a source for in the past where in a Belfast Telegraph poll more people identify as British than Northern Irish - then Irish must also be excluded for fairness. Though that source despite being about how people see themselves was discounted by the anti-Brit brigade with claims its on nationality - but seeing as Northern Ireland isn't a nation i don't know how they came up with that. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

treating one wider identity (Irish) differently to the other wider identity (British) is the real problem here. I do not understand how people can not see its problematic. Personally my preferred option would be British be included on this infobox and on England/Wales/Scotland as well, but that would be disputed by quite a few editors. Removal of Irish seems the most reasonable alternative justified by the fact Northern Irish is the only specific term that applies to Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is nice to know, but your "debate so far" summary BW is simply your spin on other people's thoughts. Perhaps you might either amend the list to provide a proper summary, or leave it out altogether. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not want to have to do such a list which is why i have asked on many occasions for a neutral admin to take a look at the debate and offer suggestions or draw conclusions. However i feel my list accurately states the position people have taken on the removal of Irish. If you have specific concerns about an individual i put in the list, i will explain why i stated supports remove Irish. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You can start with me. You completely misrepresented what I've stated, why? WikiuserNI (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I explained, my post was regarding the removal of Irish> Following your concern i changed what i put for RA and O Fenian to "Oppose removal of Irish" and that is your position too. The fact remains, a clear majority support the removal of Irish. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish, which is why this request for some input into the problem (such as it is) is so hard for you to come by. The question is very simple, it's the same as on the talk page for the article, what do we use as a demonym. You can't expect to turn around and start cherry picking. I changed the list to reflect what I actually said, you might have manners enough to do the same for everyone else. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The list reflects peoples position on the removal of Irish from the infobox. If you really want, i will copy/paste the relevant comments on this page that led me to state the individual positions in question. I think you are just a little shocked at the support for removal. I was when i made the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have specific concerns about other individuals listed, then i will post a message on their talk page asking them just to clarify if they are ok with Irish being removed or not. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or a collection of misleading templates. There is no reason for any demonym to appear in any article. infobox. And especially this one when the issue is more complex than a bald statement in an infobox can ever hope to do justice to. This is the worst sort of lameness. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Assyrian - Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac

Dollareuro (talk · contribs · logs)

Dollareuro has been moving pages and replacing text to change "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" at Assyrian people, Assyrian diaspora, Assyrians in Canada and Assyrians in the United States. For a while we had cut-and-paste moves to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Genocide and Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac diaspora before they were reverted. There is a move discussion here now to talk about the moves, but the user has continued to change "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" around the place and is being backed up in his logic by one Yadamavu (talk · contribs · logs) - a user who also wears his colours on his userpage openly.

This thing has happened before, see here. here is the original ANI thread. Thoughts? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sicilians becoming Illyrians

I have to report the campaign of illyrization of unrelated matters apparently launched by ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs)

06:44, 16 August 2010 (diff | hist) Ancient peoples of Italy ‎ (top)

06:36, 16 August 2010 (diff | hist) History of the Alps ‎ (→The Eastern Alps) (top)

00:10, 16 August 2010 (diff | hist) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albania ‎ (→WPSQ's first featured article) (top)

00:06, 16 August 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Sicani ‎

00:06, 16 August 2010 (diff | hist) Sicani ‎ (top)

00:05, 16 August 2010 (diff | hist) Sicani ‎ (→History)

thank you for your attention in advance Cunibertus (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There are sufficient sources for the Illyrian origin of many people that lived in today's Italy. Not only the Sicans are thought of as Illyrians by many scholars, but also populations in Apulia are often considered Illyrian. Can you provide sources that say the opposite? --Sulmues ^(talk) 02:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Political Cesspool may be a target for meatpuppets

James Edwards, the host of The Political Cesspool (an antisemitic white nationalist radio program), has just posted a blog entry [6] in which he accuses me of being a "Zionist" and encourages his own listeners to edit the article to insert their own POV. I think The Political Cesspool (which is a featured article) could use a few extra watchers to keep any such meatpuppetry in check. I've also posted this to the fringe theories noticeboard. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Briland?

Some new conflict is arising from the separate cultural identities of Great Britain and Ireland as expressed in the new template {{Briland}} – which I will substitute below.

The conflict has evolved into a slow edit war in the article British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland and the related template {{British subjects}} as well as some hot edit warring and possible 3RR in Germanic Europe. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A few quick thoughts:

• The {{Briland}} template has (briefly) been discussed at WT:BISE; I gather the editor who created the template has been contacted but I'll chase them later today. (My thoughts on the template are that it could be useful - with a matching "consider merging them" template).
• British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland doesn't obviously fall within the purview of WT:BISE right now (at least, as far as the current dispute is concerned), but from a WP:CCN perspective the {{British subjects}} template seems logical as Irish citizens were British subjects between 1922 and 1937 (the period primarily dealt with by the article), and the template includes relevant articles such as the Ireland Act 1949.
• Including British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland in {{British subjects}} is more problematic: this edit adds Ireland to the "Commonwealth" section, which is incorrect (Ireland is not a Commonwealth member). Ireland's inclusion in this template needs to be handled carefully to ensure it is accurate (note that I am not opposed to inclusion per se, simply to inaccurate inclusion: I'd suggest a "non Commonwealth" section, if the article couldn't be added to an existing section).

TFOWR 08:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this template is appropriate, it gives legitimacy to a point of view that Great Britain and Ireland should not be grouped together, when in reality there are many occasions because of our history that this is required or at least justifiable. I will be keeping an eye on where this template gets used and removing it if added incorrectly, if it does not get used then it may as well be deleted. As for the British nationality law, i do not see why the British subjects template should not be included. Irish citizens are basically treated in exactly the same way as Commonwealth citizens, unlike any other non commonwealth nation. And of course Ireland was at one point in the commonwealth anyway. Although my real concern is the template. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Often when we speak of grouping Great Britain and Ireland together, we are talking of a political entity, so the correct term to use is "United Kingdom" and it can be linked to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". For those circumstances, the template is OK. --HighKing (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The template is an abomination. It serves no useful purpose save to reinforce an Irish nationalist POV which seeks to decouple all aspects of the strong relationship between the constituent countries of the British Isles. Its use will lead to conflict and edit warring. It should be deleted without further ado. LevenBoy (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see this being a useful addition to the encyclopaedia. The only time I could see where the islands would be included in the same area would be when the sentence/title says either Great Britain and Ireland, British Isles, or United Kingdom and Ireland. If it is the first one, and the information only pertains to one of them, the irrelevant one can just be removed. In case of the third one, the situation would have to be political, and information is likely to be included on both of them already, if not, remove irrelevant one again. In the third case, if information only pertains to one island, be it Great Britain or Ireland, then British Isles should be replaced by the island I stress heavily that this is only if the content is indisputably focused on just Great Britain or Ireland or the Isle of Man and other islands in the British Isles. In all cases, it would be easy for the editor who notices to simply fix whatever the problem is. If there is a dispute over whether both are applicable, it can just be brought up on the talk page, and WP:COMMONSENSE applied. The template seems like it will just cause trouble. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever else may be decided, the template shouldn't be substituted *unless* a corresponding category is added since it will otherwise be impossible to tell where it has been placed. But since adding the category would be unnecessary creep, better just not to substitute it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added that recommendation to Template:Briland/doc. TFOWR 10:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

help to resolve dispute

Hello. There is a problem at the Yugoslav Partisans page. We need mediation, third, fourth, fifth, however many people to help resolve the dispute between direktor and me over there. The dispute is that direktor is negating the serbian role and trying to increase the croatian role in this particular military group. He negates my sources, which for example is from a Harvard based pier reviewed journal. Please help. I hope that some sort of mediation as is going on with the draza mihajlovic article could take place here. This would allow for comprehensive improvement of the article. Regards, (LAz17 (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).

Please?? (LAz17 (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).

Kingdom of Sardinia

Seeing from the history years back in the Kingdom of Sardinia article, there seem to have been a continuing conflict between two main versions of the article. The conflcit has escalated strongly in the last months or so. As one of the involved parties once quietly noted in the talk page, it seems that Sardinian revisionist nationalists are trying to change generally accepted history (which is sourced with reliable sources such as The Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopædia Britannica and The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia - the other version is not sourced at all). It is unacceptable to have an article on Wikipedia to change fundamentally many times every day. -TheG (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Main Jehovah's Witnesses page and Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses page

We have ongoing editing disputes on the Jehovah's Witnesses page and the Criticisms page. I feel that the Criticisms page is very one-sided anti-Jehovah's Witness. Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted in many countries past, and present. And this type of thing tends to whip up anti-Jehovah's Witness sentiment. Jehovah's Witness died and suffered in concentration camps. I feel that some of what is being promoted on the main Jehovah's Witness site, particularly on the Failed Predictions section, and some other specific areas, is biased, and uses techniques such as WP:Original Research, and WP:Synthesis, which are against Wikipedia policy. It is one editor in particular who has an openly anti-Jehovah's Witness position and who is promoting what I feel are unethical methods on the Wikipedia pages. He is a former Jehovah's Witness who Jehovah's Witnesses refer to as apostates. He uses older articles in the Wikipedia Failed Prophecies section in a way that twists the original meaning of the articles and takes them to the next level. The articles are from 1959 and 1972. I don't feel that the ideas there are current and the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses from that time period are no longer alive. There have been significant changes in the thinking of JW since that time period. Most clarification that I try to make generally gets shot down by opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses who are the dominant editors. The Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses page has statements which violate the WP:NPOV policy that I have outlined on the talk page. I am requesting a warning flag on the top of the page until these issues are cleared up. I feel that there are certain senteneces in the current main Jehovah's Witnesses article which also are not in harmony with the facts, errant in their interpretation, and which reflect a strong anti-Jehovah's Witness bias. Natural (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

User:Naturalpsychology complains about POV issues raised by editors opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses, but fails to state that he is a member of that religion who has doggedly pursued a campaign to delete all sourced material critical of his religion. He has raised a host of issues on a range of forums and continues to complain of a conspiracy when he discovers no one agrees with him. I have endeavoured to work with him in the past, only to be told I'm an apostate with an anti-JW agenda. He now imagines I am responsible for articles such as Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses which, under a couple of names, has existed here long before I began editing. The articles of which he complains are comprehensively sourced, balanced and accurate. It appears nothing short of a one-sided promotion of his religion would please him. BlackCab (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my position which is innacurately related by User:BlackCab. While I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I do not desire to edit out any facts which are against Jehovah's Witnesses. The opposite is true. There are facts on the Wikipedia pages which are taken out of context and give an impression of Jehovah's Witnesses that is not based on facts, but on interpretations and viewpoint. When efforts are made on my part to clarify this information, helping the reader to understand the context, it is User:BlackCab who consistently edits these clarifications. There is no other editor like User:BlackCab who is very intent in presenting any slander that can be found and creating his own slander of Jehovah's Witnesses on Wikipedia pages.

There are several books of Jehovah's Witnesses which endeavor to damage the reputation of Jehovah's Witnesses. All of these are written by former Jehovah's Witnesses, apostates, or those who have grievances of one sort or another against Jehovah's Witnesses. Ray Franz wrote two books against Jehovah's Witnesses after he was removed from the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and after he was disfellowshipped from his local congregation. His books try to justify his own actions and point of view, at the expense of damaging the reputation of the Governig Body he used to serve on. Wikipedia relies heavily on Ray Franz's comments in the Criticims of Jehovah's Witnesses page and in the criticisms raised against Jehovah's Witnesses on the main page. If Wikipedia editors quote mainly from biased sources, then the article will be biased.

There are plenty, many, many unbiased sources of information on Jehovah's Witnesses, unbiased 3rd parties, so it is not necessary to rely on apostate writings, or even on the writings of Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. It is more convenient to do so, perhpas, but not necessary. Natural (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Franz's books meet the criterion of reliable sources. His first book, Crisis of Conscience, was widely commended and is included in many bibliographies of books about the Witnesses. Yet that book, like any other written by former Witnesses, is disparaged by User:Naturalpsychology simply because it contains material critical of his religion. In continuing to label me with the almost medieval term of "apostate" (a term used to create an almost Orwellian reaction of anger and revulsion among fellow Witnesses) and ignoring the efforts I've made to improve JW-related articles (including positive, negative and neutral material), Naturalpsychology displays a singularly bigoted outlook, evidenced by his rather sad and desperate efforts to justify and rationalize Witness practices that have attracted criticism.

I have stated many times that we are approaching the subject from different sides: he as an intensely loyal member of the religion, me as a rather cynical ex-member. What matters is that material presented in articles is well-sourced, accurate and balanced. I have always strived to achieve just that. Naturalpsychology, for his own curious reasons, makes a habit of challenging my edits as the dangerous work of an apostate. BlackCab (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of Occupation of Albania (1912–1913)‎ to Albania during the Balkan Wars

Resolved

 – Moved to less POV title Occupation of Ottoman Albania -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Article moved back, discussion ongoing Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a proposal to rename Occupation of Albania (1912–1913)‎ to the more neutral-sounding (to me at least) Albania during the Balkan Wars. Unfortunately, there is a problem of editors voting along national lines, and it would be nice if editors from non-involved nationalities contributed to the discussion. Athenean (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I opposed this move on the grounds that, since Albania existed since November 28 1912 (see Albanian Declaration of Independence), it was occupied by neighboring countries during the following year (Occupation of Albania (1912–1913)). Other editors are claiming that Albania started to exist only when the recognition of its borders were made, i.e. 1913 following the Protocol of Florence, which occurred in December 17, 1913, after the occupation in question. I disagree with that. A country exists when de facto its people are independent. Albania declared independence in 28 November 1912 and on December 4 1912 there was an acting Albanian government. We have to say the truth that Albania existed and it was occupied by Greece, Serbia and Montenegro. The Protocol of Florence stopped the Occupation of Albania, it DID NOT start the existence of Albania. "Neutral sounding" in this case would be falsifying history and hiding the truth. The starter of the article user:Mladifilozof is a well respected political analyst and has given an already neutral name. In my opinion if we really want to be consistent, we ought to rename the article into Albania under Serbia, Greece, and Montenegro, similarly to Ottoman Albania, or Albania under Italy or Albania under Germany. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Athenean for posting this here. In fact it should have been here already two weeks ago. This noticeboard is underused. I do not know if it is because it was renamed and made an Administrators' noticeboard. It might scare away people, as most issues that should be posted here do not need administrator action. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My thought exactly. This is a very underrated noticeboard, that i have always found very useful in resolving seemingly intractable disputes. Athenean (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The main point is that although we had a (one-sided) declaration of Albania at November 1912, Albania's borders were established at December 1913. So, virtually before December 1913 we had no 'Occupied territories of Albania', or in other words there were no official borders and therefore no occupation.Alexikoua (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A summary that may help

Anyone reading the full discussion may become bored before reaching the end. Many votes were taken but there were very few principles involved, I admit this myself despite contributing and openly declaring my support for the proposal. Without prejudice, or casting aspersions on the ethnic backgrounds of the voters. I would like to summarise the debate. To do this, I will refer to the Support party and the Oppose party.

• The Oppose party have derived the title "Occupation of Albania" on the grounds of Albania's declaration of independence in 1912. This clashed with the aspirations of Greece and Serbia who joined forces to divide the land between themselves. The Oppose party believe that this constitutes an occupation and that the entity in question bares the name Albania.
• The Support party point to de jure status according to wider recognition. Apart from both Serbia and Greece having defined their territories decades earlier, the Support party believes that the official recognition of Albania and the marking of its borders form the inception for the state and all that the absence of the Ottomans who had fled the onslaughts had left nominally Ottoman territory res nullius.
• The Oppose party stand by their position that a state is born when it is declared and they have cited the U.S as exemplary, and to that end hold that 1912 is the year of Albania's return to the world map. They also believe that this event outweighs international legislation as well as Serbia and Greece's own earlier declarations.

The Support party do not accept the relevance claimed by the Oppose group on Albania's unilateral declaration, and the Oppose party will not be told otherwise, and this renders the scenario a deadlock, regardless of the for/against votes.

The factors not yet mentioned that need to be considered are the following:

• 1. A state can be inaugurated in three ways, its independence can be pending and in harmony with its previous overlord (eg. Montengro in 2006) making international response fast, welcoming, and uncontroversial. It can be created following one or more international treaties, or thirdly, it can take the longwinded route such as Abkhazia and Kosovo; be refused by the (former) sovereign state and then wait and see how the world responds, but all will do so ad personam. Albania lies somewhere between the third example (own declaration in November 1912) and the second (admitted in a treaty later in 1913) making its accepted appearance on world maps a slightly difficult task. This is the case when unlike the fist example (eg. Montenegro, Slovakia), the move is condemned by some parties.
• 2. It is all or nothing. If it were Albania, then it was an occupation, if it were not Albania, then the event is marked as a scramble for lands in the West Balkan. Although I voted in support, I would be very careful in following up the whole legal argument because it would be a serious affront to the Albanian community; we will have taken it upon ourselves to deny an occupation as we also denied the state and that in turn would hamper their claim on 1912 being the birth year of the modern state. 2012 will see centennial celebrations across Albania and we here will be making divine judgements in telling them that the event is fallacious, and that is not our job. The task is very very difficult but I believe that I have summed up the arguments. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

While true, I would reject most of your argumentation as it is still only argumentation and constitutes POV. This issue can be approached from a more general point-of-view. I will quote my comment here as I believe my arguments are relevant to the general discussions on this noticeboard.

“

Occupation is one of the words to avoid on Wikipedia. One man's occupation is another man's liberation. It should only be used in the very limited context of military occupation, and never to describe the complex relations between neighboring states.

I am sure Albanian historiography has no problem in describing this period as a military occupation of independent Albania. National historiographies are however tools to be used in irredentist battles with neighboring states. Occupation theories are the worst form history tweaking – they serve as a form of hate speech directed at ethnic minorities from the “occupier”nations. I have no doubt that this particular occupation theory is used to justify the discrimination of “occupier” Serbs in “Kosova” at this very moment.

It is true, that from the point-of-view of Albanian legal fiction, independent Albania was occupied from the day of the declaration of independence. It is also true, that the neighboring countries militarily occupied large parts of Ottoman territory. Combining these two truths into the one “truth” implied by the title is a synthesis unsupported by the facts.

A POV title precludes the creation of NPOV content. If the issues described here were not central to today's ethnic conflicts, then a neutral title would not be so important. The article now seems to be saying, that Serbian rule in Kosovo was part of this occupation. This is only one of the multiple POV-issues with the article. They all seem to stem from the selection of an unsalvageably povish title.

”

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you read my entire passage. I was leaving a message on the noticeboard, it is just a summary reflecting the behaviour of all of the users that contributed to the discussion, and what their principles are, and how and why neither party will stand aside. It can go on forever and they will all still be using the same arguments and now it needs fresh insight from unaffiliated editors. That was all. Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Both factions are wrong because the geographic borders the founders of Albania claimed as Albanian weren't delineated neither when they declared independence in November 1912 nor after the treaty of London in 1913. After the capture of Skopje by the armies led by Isa Boletini the Ottoman government recognized in August 1912 the autonomous region of Albania that included the four vilayets inhabited by Albanians. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the bottom line that can be drawn from the discussion on the talk page is, that if the parties need to base their arguments on legality – however justified or unjustified – then the word "occupation" should not be used. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Altough the new title is better (there was no agreement for such move), we still have a number of problems here: what's the definition of Ottoman Albania? obviously it is geographically the same with modern Albania, and doesn not coincide with the 4 Ottoman Vilayets.Alexikoua (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Ottoman Albania was composed of the remaining parts of the 4 vilayets after 1881.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Occupation of Ottoman Albania title has neither legal nor historical backup. Albania was not Ottoman any longer when it was occupied by three armies: it was an independent country. Failure to understand that Albania became independent on November 28 1912 is making these discussions abort themselves. Again, I need to bring the example of the United States: It declared its independence in 1776, but was recognized in 1783. Guess what is the year of independence of the United States. And don't make a point that the independence of a country in a century is different from that of another century. The world has not changed that much: de facto counts, not de jure and we in Wikipedia report what happened de facto. We may say in the body of article that Albania had not been given recognition, but both the region and the political entity existed starting 1912, hence Albania existed, and it was not called "Ottoman Albania", but simply "Albania". Next question? --Sulmues ^(talk) 09:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the new name myself but for other reasons. Just thought you should know, Serbia's constitution defined itself as independent and comprising its irredentist borders from 1869 while still autonomous within the Ottoman Empire. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, apart from the quality of the arguments, the support votes outweigh the oppose. As I see 'oppose' votes were only by Albanian users (some of them in the typical pov fashion have declared their dream for the 'reconquest of the lost Albanian lands' in their userpage), what's more interesting all non-Balkan users (3) vote support. So, at this moment, it seems clear which title is far more neutral.Alexikoua (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexi, please refrain from making comments on the users and the quantity of their votes. As you yourself mentioned it is the compliance with Wikipedia rules and policies that counts more than the number of the votes. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I commented on the quality of the 'oppose' arguments, which are fueled by irredentism (lost Albanian lands etc.) something we should avoid in this project.Alexikoua (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Alexikoua please refrain from attributing motives to other users.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yogi Bhajan's Historical Relevance challenged

Please see and address the following NPOV request: [7]. Thank you. --RogerThatOne72 (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter Hart (historian)

As per this diff, User:RepublicanJacobite rv wholesale my edit, at least once as of this writing, while refusing to provide any reason or justification, although I know the reason, which is pretty obvious. I do not wish to get into an edit war with this individual, so I would greatly appreciate some assistance. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment moved from talk page. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 12:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Sunni Islam

Criticism of Sunni Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be a wee bit of too-ing and fro-ing here, and additional eyes would be appreciated. It's not a page I've been editing on, or even watching, but an editor has just brought it to my attention. I have some interest in tangentially-related topics, but very little knowledge of Islam, so I'm out of my depth... TFOWR 08:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to open up (again) discussion about the whole series of Criticism of [religions]? I cannot see the purpose of them at all. And since we already have Criticism of Islam, which can cover any issues specific to Sunni Islam and any issues specific to Shia Islam, then the only thing it would miss out is the Sunni/Shia split. Which I assume is laid out in full elsewhere. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Sunnis make up almost 90% of Muslims, I'm inclined to agree that this could be merged to Criticism of Islam. However, there is now an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Sunni Islam) at which merging could be argued for. I take no view on the wider issue ("Criticism of [religions]"): I can see some validity in individual articles, but in general they do seem to be POV magnets. TFOWR 09:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)