Talk:Northern Ireland

---

Archives

1 2 3 4 5

GA delisted

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of September 19, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R.

• Every statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.
• References should state the author, publisher, publishing date and access date if known.

Regards, Epbr123 12:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Same thing happened to Dublin - yer just not gettin' yer act together folks! Too much bickering. (Sarah777 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

Ulster Banner straw poll

Hello there,

A straw poll has opened at this section of the United Kingdom talk page regarding the use of the Ulster Banner for that article's circumstances only. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. Hope to see you there, Jza84 22:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Count this up

Republican paramilitaries have contributed to nearly 60% (2056) of these. Loyalists have killed nearly 28% (1020) while the security forces have killed just over 11% (362) with 9% percent of those attributed to the British Army. That comes to 108% it's meant to be 100% so who added on the extra 8% ? - Culnacréann 18:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did you go to school 60+28+11=99 the 9% figure is taken from the security force 11%, which would mean the other 3% of that would be attributed to the RUC/PSNI.--Padraig 18:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why quibble? Surely Loyalist/RUC/BA killings should just be bundled together as is done with "Republican paramilitaries"? Then when we look at civilian deaths the British side emerge as the champs. (Sarah777 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

The Army and NI Police are not paramilitaries. Astrotrain 20:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Prior to the GFA they were just that. (Sarah777 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

no they wern'tDionysus99 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Described at [1] as "Paramilitary designates forces whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military force, but which are not regarded as having the same status". Thus the Army are not a paramilitary- whereas the terrorist organisations can be decribed as such. Astrotrain 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

They were not terrorist organisations. You shouldn't use meaningless words. BA and RUC were trained killers. Fact. Loyalist/RUC/BA killings; all the same. (Sarah777 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

It is rationale to list them by Republican terrorist killings, Loyalist terrorist killings, Police and then Army. They are all independent of each other. And I suppose the Army are trained killers, it is their job!

Astrotrain 23:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And one they did rather well when it came to Catholic civilians, but weren't so good at killing freedom fighters. Paid killers. It is rational to have only two main lists: Freedom Fighters and British Murder Gangs. Why over-egg it? All else is bull. (Sarah777 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

And btw Astro, you are transparent; but you'll never make a charge of "anti-Britishness" stick when you are actively making provocative statements. Try it and see! (Sarah777 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

I haven't made any charges against you. And I haven't made any provocative statements (most people would not be offended by referring to IRA/UVF etc as a terrorist organisation in line with how the British and Irish governments do). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotrain (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You know you can't call folk terrorists on Wiki. And you have to be very careful who you accuse of genocide or Nazi similarities too. (Sarah777 23:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Do we really have to have this political propoganda pushed onto wikipedia. The official forces of any state are never viewed as paramilitary organisations by any neutral party. Sarah777, I think you should really consider what you want to acheive on this encyclopedia. Trolling is not the purpose of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 10:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the separation should be

• British Army (the 2 legal militaries involved on the island of Ireland)
• RoI Army (yes, I suspect they didn't shoot anyone but I include it for completeness)
• RUC/PSNI (the 2 legal police forces involved on the island of Ireland)
• An Gardai Siochana/RoI police
• Loyalist paramilitaries (the 2 illegal groupings)
• Nationalist Paramilitaries

This way, each of the armies, paramilitaries and police are listed. We must remember that the violence occurred on both sides of the border. As many Loyalists distrusted Westminister and the IRA was equally in favour of destroying the pro-Treaty RoI for their new Communist state, the divisions are hardly that easy. As for Sarah777, she might want to continue the fight that her ancestors sacrificed their children and their children's children to, but the rest of NI want to keep their knee-caps in their knees, thanks. Wee Jimmy (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland in the UK

Added to opening line constituent country, which Northern Ireland is, matching it with England, Wales and Scotland. GoodDay 20:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed that. Please don't include controversial terms which are still under discussion. There is no agreement on this. (Sarah777 20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

If it is sourced to Downing Street website, it can be used. As usual, Irish Republican editors only want to use sources if it suits their own POV. Astrotrain 20:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've run into a similiar complaint at Scotland, concerning my recent changes. GoodDay 20:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with using constituent country if it is supported by a WP:V and is a WP:RS.--Padraig 20:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Does one reference on a Downing St website make it legal? Make it a fact? And as for reliable sources a political website??! (Sarah777 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Seems everybit as illigitamite as calling Tipperary or Dublin counties! Fasach Nua 21:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hardly, as NI is clearly not a country. "County Dublin" would imply that it is indeed a county, the hint is in the name. But my objection is to using a political website as a reliable source, especially as it seems the only source. If we can do that it opens up a vast range of possibilities for those of us seeking to balance rampant British pov in Ireland related articles. If some Irish Government website remarks that "British Isles" is an incorrect term for these islands, do we change the article name? (Sarah777 21:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

But we're talking about Northern Ireland, not the island of Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. GoodDay 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We are taliking about wikipedia, which unilaterally made Tipperary a county, regardless of the opinion of the Republic of Ireland government, what is to stop WP unilaterally making NI a country, regardless of the UKs view on the matter? Fasach Nua 21:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you'd find many people in Tipperary (or on Earth) who would agree that wikipedia unilaterally made Tipperary a county!! You will find literally zillions of references to attest to the Tipp is a county - you certainly won't have to depend on a single political website! (Sarah777 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Do these literally zillions of references [2] make it legal? Fasach Nua 22:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about "legal" in ref to Tipp? NI is neither legally a country nor does it have any verifiable references that it is widely regarded as a country. In the link you give I was questioning the implication that the Downing St website implied some legality. The "zillions" for County Tipp are contrasted with the "1" for "NI is a Country". (Sarah777 22:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Nobody said Northern Ireland was a country, it's a constituent country. GoodDay 22:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So, a red rose is not a rose?! (Sarah777 00:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

And is a Koala bear not a bear? Fasach Nua 08:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In fhírinne a Koala bear is not a bear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.249.174 (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

But constituent country has "no defined legal meaning" according to the article in Wikipedia. You could argue that the Republic of Ireland is a constituent country of "the Home Countries" with regard to rugby just as easily. Coolavokig 09:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Downing Street website is not definitive, but unsourced republican ideology is? The basis for this discussion is patent nonsense.Traditional unionist —Preceding comment was added at 11:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree this discussion is nonsense as NI is blindingly obviously not a country, red, Koala, constituent or otherwise and there are no independent or reliable sources to support such a ridiculous claim. As for "unsourced republican ideology" - can't see any in this article - where is it? (Sarah777 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

You are stopping the term being used based on unsourced republican ideology. Encarta for one disagrees with you.Traditional unionist 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Though it probably won't be added, Northern Ireland is a constituent country. However, if it's gonna be banned from this article? Northern Ireland should be omitted from Constituent country and from United Kingdom. We can't have it both ways, enough of this double standard. GoodDay 14:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed from the article Constituent country. The Encarta ref is useful but certainly not enough to set against the overwhelming references to NI as a "province", "statelet", "entity" and so forth. As I said that would be akin to removing the name "British Isles" if we could find a few references to say that Ireland isn't included - which we can. (Sarah777 15:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

This is a very Lame as content disputes go, if Downing street say its a constituent country of the UK and a WP:V has been provided to support that then it should be included, if anyone can find other sources to dispute this then that can also be mentioned, but we can't censor an term just because some may not agree with it.--Padraig 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Its good to know some republicans have some common sense.Traditional unionist 15:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No10 is a political website; not a reliable source. Also the uttering of a single website cannot over-ride mass usage. The sources to "dispute" this usage are the vast array of times in print where NI is referred to as a "province" for example. Or a "failed entity" even - probably a more common usage than "country"; after all that is how an Irish Prime Minister (your No10 equivalent) described it. What is important about this is that the very same editors who insist on the term "British Isles" are reversing all the arguments top claim NI is a country. Let us have a SINGLE standard to apply to articles relating to these islands. (Sarah777 15:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

What sort of evidence do you require Padraig to counter the No10 political website? Maybe the Sinn Fein website? If I can muster 5 references to NI as a "province" rather than a "country" is that enough for you? (Sarah777 15:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Sarah the British has always refered to the north as a province not a country, the term constituent country dosent alter that or make it a country as its a meaningless term to start with, and the Downing street website is a British government website, therefore its content is the opinion of the Prime Minister and his government. As for sources on it being refered to as a province, I give sources to support its use in a discussion either in another section of this page or on the United Kingdom talk page, if you want to dig them out, then you could add that it is also regarded as a province. But either way the term cannot be excluded.--Padraig 16:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No wish to exclude and certainly not to censor. But the article should call NI a constituent part or province, not a country. We can refer in a footnote or some such that some very limited sources call it a "country" - much as we'd have to do with a claim that the tricolour represents NI in some folks opinion. (Sarah777 16:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Sarah we can use constituent country and add the reference to the Downing Street website, then add the use of the term province also with references.--Padraig 17:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

But that would be like putting the tricolour in the NI box with a ref to the SF website and then adding references to support the use of the Union Jack lower down. My point is that "country" is (almost) original research with very little usage compared to other terms; plus it is inaccurate. (Sarah777 18:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Presumably that means that FIFA has got it wrong all these years – calling Northern Ireland a country ‘n all? And PRONI (a Northern Ireland 'non departmental public body' refers to the 'country of Northern Ireland' on it's first web page, And Britanica.com refer it to a country. Perhaps somebody had better tell the Northern Ireland tourist board is isn't a country as they seem to think it is -. Oh yes and the UK National Statistics call Northern Ireland a country too - but heh! what would they know .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionysus99 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(Deindenting) It seems to me that 'country' is fairly non-specific and uncontentious. It doesn't imply statehood or the like, it's just a place. I think there would be grounds for complaint if it said "constituent nation"! I don't think that Sarah's complaint is well founded. --Red King 20:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in the least bit uncontentious. NI is simply not a country, by any measure. Redking7 might even agree - it seems he is the chap I thought was you in the Inis Mor affair. (Sarah777 20:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Well ok, maybe it is not a Country! (but then neither is England, Scotland or Wales by the same definition!). --Red King 20:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No Red, I would argue with you on those three despite my not being much given to argument.(Sarah777 21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Consistancy folks - It's either re-add constituent country here OR remove the term from United Kingdom, England, Wales and Scotland. The current status among these articles are unacceptable. What's it gonna be? GoodDay 21:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Important Surrender Announcment: notwithstanding the obvious fact that I am entirely right (as usual) in a spirit of Wikiness, and in the absence of any visible support, I hereby withdraw my objection to describing NI as a "constituent country". (This was in no way related to the fact that Googling "NI is a country" threw up 35,000 hits). (Sarah777 21:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is one country consisting of four parts. The island of "Great Britain" has two constituent countries (Scotland and England), and one principality (Wales). "Northern Ireland" is a province on the island of Ireland. Jnthn Rsh (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland only covers about two-thirds of the "province" of Ulster and therefore is only part of a province, not a whole province. The United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland consists of two parts, not four. Just look at the full name and you see both of the two parts named, "Great Britain" AND "Northern Ireland". Great Britain may consist of three parts - England, Scotland, and Wales - but the United Kingdom is a union of the two enitities named in the full title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.197.241 (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct - but emotions trump facts all the time on Wiki so long as the emotions are in the Anglophone mainstream. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Archive

Could some soul with technical knowhow archive the older threads on this page, its getting unwieldly, thanks Fasach Nua 22:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, I was going to say exactly the same thing. So we agree on something? (Sarah777 00:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Done.--Patrick Ѻ 16:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ireland vs Republic of Ireland

The edit made is fine, but just to clear up the edit summary, the EU website has around 4 and a half thousand references to the Republic of Ireland, and the UN website also refers to it, but a number is hard to find, as google throws up Iran (Islamic Republic of) Ireland as a hit. Which isn't correct. My point is that the term is widely used throughout the world to refer to the Country just as there is a vernacular for the Republic of ChinaTraditional unionist 15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to this edit, then I, personally, think it's quite puerile. I've warred over "Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland" on the "Ireland" side in the past, but when drawing parallels with Northern Ireland, and speaking in terms of the island, then it's obvious that "Republic of Ireland" is the clearest way of putting it. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it was puerile if it was anywhere other than the intro. It's probably worth the clarification there.Traditional unionist 16:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The intro states "officially named Ireland", this is not the case, in UK law (Ireland Act 1949), the name of the state is "The Republic of Ireland", and therefore in NI it is officially called the Republic of Ireland Fasach Nua 10:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

At the time of the British-Irish Agreement (not part of the agreement itself) both governments agreed to use the official names by which each state describes itself (see here). If anyone knows where exactly they agreed this, I'd appreciate it. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, it did contain some interesting information, but as you say it was an agreement between Govenments, the question would be how this agreement was implemented, was the Ireland Act 1949 ammended or revoked as a result. In theory the government should opperate within the law, not that I could imagine the UK govenment behaving dishonesty in its foreign relations! Fasach Nua 11:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"dishonestly in its foreign relations" - ah, but RoI is "not a foreign country" under the 1949 act :) --sony-youth^pléigh 11:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed the un-needed (possibly contraversial) info. It's covered at Ireland and Republic of Ireland (as it should be). Let's avoid the potential for political fighting, shall we? GoodDay 20:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The cure was worse than the disease. So I've removed the sentence completely as it doesn't need to be in the intro and it certainly can't be expressed in a ten words or less sentence. --Red King 22:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Partition of Ireland, partition of Ulster"

Before I changed it (possibly for the worse!), the last sentence of Northern Ireland#Partition of Ireland, partition of Ulster said The Council of Ireland provided for in the 1920 Act, and in the Treaty, to link Northern Ireland eventually to the Irish Free State within 50 years was removed. Does anybody know what this is supposed to mean. The Council of Ireland article doesn't mention it. I've tried to rephrase it and put a fact tag on it. --Red King 22:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Council of Ireland article does mention it, but it applied to "Southern Ireland - Northern Ireland" not to "Irish Free State - Northern Ireland." A rewrite would be: "The Council of Ireland provided for in the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was intended to rejoin Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland under a single parliament within a 50-year period. However, events in the south over took this provision, and many others, from the 1920 act, so that with the Anglo-Irish Treaty, and the establishment of the Irish Free State, the Council of Ireland was non-operational and no formal structures existed to facilitate future Irish unity." --sony-youth^pléigh 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the Government of Ireland Act 1920 been repealed then? What replaced it? (anything before 1948?) I see for example at Boundary Commission (Ireland)#Dáil Debates on the Commission, 7 - 10 December 1925 a complaint from Professor Megennis that the clause hadn't been referred to in the agreement. This would have just been 'comfort wording' if the provsion remained in British Statutes. It was certainly my impression that there was some talk during the time of the Belfast Agreement that the Council of Ireland should meet (and David Trimble called for a counter-balancing "Council of the Isles". --Red King 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

From recollection the "Council of Ireland" was the title of the All-Ireland body in the Sunningdale Agreement, which some attribute as one of the main reasons for the Agreement's ultimate downfall (and also Gerry Fitt says it was the SDLP's insistence on it that made the party a nationalist party not a socialist party). Was this a new body explicitly legislated for or was it the 1920 body finally being activated under legislation that was never repealed? Timrollpickering 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Black North

Is this a spoof? I've heard of the industrial north of England as "the Black North", but not NI. Just because somebody may have used it in jest a couple of times doesn't make it widely accepted. I've also heard the expression "the frozen north", but wouldn't dream of listing it. I don't think this one deserves a citation tag. If no-one objects in the next 7 days, I'll delete it. --Red King (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was used to describe the high proportion of our protestant brothers in the north.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Black Preceptory = the most anti-Irish/Catholic of the anti-Irish/Catholic organisations; the Orange Order are Catholic communists compared to them. Hence the use of the word Black as in Black North and Black Bastard while not nice, is most likely not unwelcome to members of that institution. 213.202.184.252 (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship

The annon may well have a point. Question number one before I go on, is citizenship registered on a birth certificate?Traditional unionist (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't, it just gives details of parents, place and date of birth.--Padraig (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then logically, one would have to renounce British citizenship if born in Northern Ireland and the birth was registered in Northern Ireland. Perhaps people don't know this and and are carrying duel nationality without knowing, but as I recall, the Northern Ireland Act didn't amend the Nationality Act.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect I was born in Northern Ireland and hold an Irish Passport an I am a Irish citizen, I never had or was I required to renounce anything.--Padraig (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WHich could mean you're a duel British and Irish citizen and don't know.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No it dosen't the GFA makes it clear that you can adopt either British, Irish or Duel citizenship, the choice is up to the individual.--Padraig (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

1st, im willing to bet you were born before 1998, 2nd I don't recall the NI Act amending the Nationality Act, which it would need to to make effect to that section of the agreement to become law.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was born a long time before 1998 :), its immaterial what the Nationality Act says or not the GFA is a binding agreement :::::::::::between the two governments, the political parties of Northern Ireland and its population.--Padraig (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't matter diddly squat wat the belfast agreement says. If it's not in the Northern Ireland Act of 1998, it's not law therefore it doesn't exist. The agreement was a legal framework that the Northern Ireland Act and the referendum in the Republic put legal power into.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The election in the north and the referendum in the south was based on the content of the GFA, that is what people voted for, we can't now decide to ignore the parts that one side or the other don't particulary like, its the whole package or none.--Padraig (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not the politial system we live under. Parliament is soverignb, not the people. If its not law, its not so.Traditional unionist (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Traditional unionist is correct the GFA is not binding, only the legislation used to implement it is. Sinn Féin took some government body to court on the ground of breach of GFA, but the judge through it out, as it is not a legal document (does anyone have a ref for this). Citizenship is ill defined in the UK, there was a discussion at Talk:Ruairí_Ó_Brádaigh regarding RoI citizenship for NI born people, which is an opt in system. (could someone post the edit that started this thred) Fasach Nua (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I must say this is something that has always bothered me. Born in the UK you must have British citizenship from birth and have a right to RoI citizenship. But the British one comes automatically, the RoI one is optional. Normal citizenship laws still must apply. People born in NI should technically be British citizens whether they like it or know it or not. Many probably don't apply for a passport, or do anything that requires citizenship identification but they must surely be British citizens in the eyes of the law plus whatever they choose on top. A baby cannot choose their citizenship. I know people say otherwise but I cannot see how it can possibly technically be otherwise, even if it isn't technically enforced. Ben W Bell talk 14:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so, on any census form you have the option of giving your nationality as British or Irish etc, there is no automatic adoption of Britishness at birth, that maybe the case in the rest of UK, but not Northern Ireland.--Padraig (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are more than just people born in NI who live in NI! The only definitive proof would be the Nationality Act mentioned above, I have never seen it never mind read it, so I dont know what the situation is, having EU citizenship makes the thing redundant in most instances, so I have never seen the need to investigate. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If two Polish people have a child in Northern Ireland, do you say it is automatically British, with an option to be Polish? Someone needs to look at the act! Fasach Nua (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If they're just Polish citizens, child will be British if one parent is a "permanent resident" (which means 5 years U.K. residence, for EEA member state citizens). Otherwise child can be registered as British once parents reach 5 year mark. Interestingly, child would be Irish if parents had lived in Northern Ireland (or ROI) for at least 3 years, but unlike in the U.K. there is no way to get Irish citizenship for the child if parents reach the 3 yr residence mark after child is born. JAJ (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

this is excellent on the subject.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Published by the Reform Movement in Dublin. Seems pretty clear to me. Born before 1983 in NI you are British. Ben W Bell talk 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was born after 1983 in NI, and trust me, I never opted into British citizenship. Padraig, strange request, but it might be helpful if you called the Home Office and asked to renounce your British citizenship, see what they say!Traditional unionist (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

very informative, thankyou TU Fasach Nua (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would I have to renounce something I never was to begin with, I was Born in Ireland and hold and Irish passport.--Padraig (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Some things are worth doing just for the craic :=D Fasach Nua (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As the source says, if you were born in Northern Ireland before 1983, you're a British citizen regardless of your knowledge or usage of that fact.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The source also says If you are a British citizen or subject and don't want to be, what can you do?

You can either ignore the fact, and just use your Irish citizenship, or you can formally renounce British nationality at the British Embassy. Very few people do this.

So although you may believe we are all British, I don't.--Padraig (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that says that you are a British citizen, but choose to ignore that fact. You are still a British citizen all the same though. WHich leads me back to the origional point, the annon is substantivly right, if not in the detail.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you post the a link to the post that started this thread please? On a seperate issue, as much fun as this discussion is, this page is about discussing the article, and how to improve it, can we keep it on topic? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

TU, a large minority of the population of Northern Ireland do not and never have regarded themselves as British, they are Irish, and no matter what the Unionists or British say that is the way it is. The Irish government accepts them as Irish citizens and give them the right to hold an Irish passport.--Padraig (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The second part of your statement is not in question. But the law is the law regardless of what people believe, think or want. The fact is that you and everyone born in NI is a British citizen until this is renounced, as the annon pointed out. Ignoring this is perfectly acceptable, but does not alter the fact of the matter.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My wife and I are citizens of one country, but our son was born in a different country. Our son is automatically a citizen of my home country — by law of that country. He is obviously also a citizen of the country he was born in. Interestingly, neither country actually recognizes the concept of "dual citizenship", but he has that status regardless. From each of those countries' perspective, either you are a citizen or you are not. They don't care if you hold additional passports, and don't make you renounce or surrender them. He may never actually even set foot in my home country in his life, and yet, he will be a citizen of that country all his life! This little anecdote may be irrelevant to this conversation, but from what I read, the concept of people born in N.I. automatically having UK citizenship, whether or not they want it and whether or not they actually get a UK passport someday, sounds perfectly legitimate to me. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

They also have Irish citizenship as well, a fact recognised in the GFA.--18:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't. They are entitled to apply for it, but they don't automatically get it. Ben W Bell talk 21:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If they want it. I'm entitled to it,but don't have it. You are in a different boat, you can renounce British citizenship if you want, but are by birthright a British citizen.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone born in NI wishes to be a citizen of the republic of Ireland, then they can choose to take this citizenship, it is not automatically thrust apon them (Michael McGimpsey learnt this the hard way).

The GFA is irrelevant, it is as binding as a political parties election manifesto, but even if it was it gives people the right to define themselves as Irish, British or both British and Irish, how an individual defines themselves does not mean that is how the state legally defines them. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

this is the diff in question. I think we have found that the annon is in fact correct.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the anon mentions the home office, but the reference you gave said to renounce citizenship at an embassy, which would seem to suggest this was in the remit of the Foreign and commonwealth office, but the rest seems correct Fasach Nua (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the difference would be someone resident in the UK (ie Northern Ireland) and someone living abroad (ie the Republic)Traditional unionist (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

British citizenship (including renunciation) is the responsibility of the Home Office. Applications for renunciation from a person in Northern Ireland would be made direct to the HO, outside the UK (eg ROI) would be sent to the British Embassy for forwarding to the Home Office. JAJ (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course if you choose to ignore the fact you have British citizenship that's perfectly fine. For most people this will be enough, and no one will ever bother about it. However the one time it could be an issue is if in the incredibly unlikely event that the UK introduced conscription, if you hadn't renounced the citizenship whether you acknowledge it or not you'd be eligible for the draft. Just ignoring the laws of the country you were born in won't protect you in that case, hideously unlikely as it is to occur. Ben W Bell talk 21:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit is more or less correct. It should be expanded by explaining that anyone born in Northern Ireland is by default an Irish citizen (ref). If they wish to renounce their Irish citizenship, they may do so by applying in writing to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (ref). Some common-sense restrictions on renouncing Irish citizenship apply. The restrictions on jus soli described in the text for Irish citizenship similarly apply for British citizenship. The common-sense restrictions on renouncing Irish citizenships also apply for renouncing British citizenship.

(Ben, we've already been through the conscription debate on this island. If it didn't happen 1914-18 or 1939-45 then it's never going to happen.) --sony-youth^pléigh 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship General Information from sony-youth link above.

Article 2 of the Irish Constitution says:

“Every person born in the island of Ireland, its islands and its seas, has an entitlement and birthright to be part of the Irish nation”. That entitlement and birthright translates, in terms of citizenship laws, into an entitlement to be an Irish citizen2.

Every person born in the island of Ireland 3 is entitled to be an Irish citizen. If you were born anywhere in Ireland, it is open to you to choose to exercise that entitlement.

If you, as a person born in the island of Ireland do an act which only an Irish citizen is entitled to do (for instance, applying for an Irish passport), the law regards that as an exercise of your entitlement to be an Irish citizen, and you are accordingly an Irish citizen from birth. This also applies to persons not yet of full age (i.e. those still under 18 and not married) on whose behalf such an act is done.

If you were born in Ireland, the mere fact that you have not done (or if under age have not had done on your behalf) such an act does not on its own mean that you are not an Irish citizen. Nor does it mean that you are presumed to be a citizen of another country. --Padraig (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

From the same document

I was born and am living in Northern Ireland. I don’t hold any passport. Am I an Irish citizen?

You are if you want to be. As a person born in the island of Ireland, you have an entitlement to be an Irish citizen. You don’t have to obtain an Irish passport in order to be an Irish citizen (though having an Irish passport is of course a convenient way of showing that you are an Irish citizen).

I was born and am living in Northern Ireland. I hold a UK passport. Am I an Irish citizen?

You are if you want to be. As a person born in the island of Ireland, you have an entitlement to be an Irish citizen. That entitlement holds even if you have obtained a UK passport. You don’t have to obtain an Irish passport in order to be an Irish citizen (though having an Irish passport is of course a convenient way of showing that you are an Irish citizen). As far as Irish law is concerned, there is no difficulty about holding Irish citizenship and at the same time citizenship of another State such as the United Kingdom.--Padraig (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Those quotations are badly worded, but don't reveal anything particularly new, we seem to have arrived at what the situation actually is.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Quotations are taken from the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, leaflet, so that you think its badly worded is neither nor there, it is clear that anyone in Northern Ireland is entitled to Irish Citizenship.--Padraig (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes - that everybody born in Northern Ireland is an Irish citizen in exactly the same way as a person born in the Republic unless they renounce it (that includes you, Trad.). And that everybody born in Northern Ireland is a British citizen in exactly the same way as a person born on Great Britain unless they renounce it (that includes you, Padraig). --sony-youth^pléigh 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[3] 7-1 would suggest otherwise Fasach Nua (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no evidence, but strongly suspect that has since been amended,Traditional unionist (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I already hold a Irish Passport, and have done for a long time.--Padraig (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Which isn't the point. The point is that you are presently, and have been since birth, legally a British citizen.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Padraig, I mean renounce your British citizenship otherwise you are still a British citizen in exactly the same way as a person born on Great Britain - or just ignore it as it makes no difference. (Just as Trad would have to renounce his Irish citizenship or still be an Irish citizen in exactly the same way as a person born in the Republic - or just ignore it as it makes no difference.) --sony-youth^pléigh 00:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I reckon the only difference is that Padraig has been a British citizen from birth, while I have been an Irish citizen from 1998. Which is a stupid way to run your citizenship laws (even after the amending referendum), but thats neither here nor there.Traditional unionist (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

TU that predates 1998, I think it dates to the Adoption of the Irish Constitution in the south, actually my brother-inlaw is a staunch Unionist, born in Belfast and he holds a Irish Passport.--Padraig (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course he does, its daft not to hold all passports you're entitled to regardless of how stupid the rules are in whatever jurisdiction. Anyway, the above source indicates it doesn't predate 1998.Traditional unionist (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to add he dosen't hold a British passport, and the information I posted above comes from Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2001 which updates the previous act.--Padraig (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be under the delusion that holding Irish citizenship precludes you from holding any other nationality. The references you are using to refer to Irish citizenship only. It does not affect the application of any other citizenship. The fact is that practically everyone in NI holds dual British/Irish citizenship. The only ones that don't are the ones that have renounce one or the other. josh (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is what the GFA states that anyone born in Northern Ireland can hold either British, Irish or duel citizenship, it is apersonal choice.--Padraig (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a personal choice, but you are still legally a British citizen until you exercise your personal choice formally and renounce it. You can happily decide I'm not a British citizen, or I'm not an Irish citizen and that is your choice and up to you, but legally you still will be unless you formally renounce it. It's not an issue, not likely to be an issue, and holds practically no consequence whether you do or not, but on the papers of the legal states you are still that citizen until you say otherwise. I can only see a couple of real advantages to holding a British passport over an Irish one (or as well), and that's mainly evacuation should you find yourself in a warzone, the UK has more capacity to airlift or sealift its citizens out of there (see Lebanon or the like), but the chances of that are slim anyway. You can self identify as whatever you want, no one can take that away from you.Ben W Bell talk 14:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You never know Ben. It's always best to hold all passports you're entitled to just in case. A friend of mine holds 3.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. I'm entitled to four different ones, though currently only have 1. Never seen a great reason to have one other than my British one. I'm not above applying for one if I think I'll get into a situation where I think it would be useful though. Am working towards entitlement of a fifth one as we speak as well, one I will apply for. Ben W Bell talk 19:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Which means that everyone in NI is a duel citizen until they choose renounce to either Irish or British citizenship. josh (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, like I keep saying, the Belfast Agreement is not a binding legal document. If the law wasn't changed it's not binding.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Duel citizenship" - Freud would have a field-day. I've collected the relvants acts from the Dublin side: Constitution of the Irish Free State Act 1922, Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1935, 1956, 2001 (1986, 1994 are irrevelant from our persepctive).

First for jus soli:

• The post-2001 scenario seems to be that everyone has dual citizenship and can renounce one or the other if they wish, and that this is retrospective as far back as Fionn mac Cumhaill but with Irish citizenship "from birth" being only for those born post-2001. Those born pre-2001 are "entitled to be an Irish citizen" without the "presumption that the person is not an Irish citizen" until they do "any act which only an Irish citizen is entitled to do" whereupon they become an Irish citizen "from birth" (relevant sections of the 2001 act are here).
• Before then, from Fasach's 1956 ref above, a person born in the six counties after independence had the option on Irish citizenship only upon making a declaration (relevant section is here).
• From 1935 to 1956, a person born in the six counties after independence was not an Irish citizens by jus soli. However, for one month after independence, Northern Ireland was a part of the Irish Free State. Those born in Northern Ireland during that time were born in part of the Free State and thus jus soli applies to them (relevant section of the 1935 act is here).
• Anybody who was alive and residing in Ireland (including Northern Ireland) at independence is/was an Irish citizen. From independence to 1935 these were the only people, north or south, who were Irish citizens as no other citizenship law except for the Free State constitution existed (see article 3 here).

Now for descent:

This is a bit mad ... Since everyone living in Northern Ireland at the turn of 1922/23 was in law an Irish citizen (see article 3 here), presumably this would have had a knock on effect for their children - and their children's children - under the 1935, 1956, 1986, 1994 and 2001 acts.

The 1935 act explicitly lists registering a birth at with the Northern Ireland births register as all that was necessary to be a "natural-born citizens of Saorstát Eireann" if a person was born to a father who is an Irish citizen. Since virtually every male in Northern Ireland who was over 12 years of age in 1935 was an Irish citizen owing to the Free State constitution and that month in 1922/23, that would make basically everyone in Northern Ireland born between post-independence an Irish citizen under the 1935 act by reason of descent. This would have a knock on effect for the 1958 act ("Every person is an Irish citizen if his father or mother was an Irish citizen at the time of that person's birth ...", from here) and subsequent acts. The Irish nationality law article says that the 1986 act put a limit on citizenship by descent, capping it at four generations from jus soli but I can't see where in the act. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I just interject with the text from the GFA itself?

(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

You can "identify" and "be accepted" as Irish OR British or both. The only thing the GFA says about citizenship is that you can hold both. It doesn't specifically say you are entitled to hold either on their own. However as the law is worded, almost everyone born in NI is a British citizen. According to Irish [sic] law, for those also holding or entitled to another nationality (e.g. those born in NI), citizenship is conferred automatically as soon as you do something that only a citizen can do (eg apply for a passport) and is then backdated to your birth. So if you never use your citizenship of the Republic then you don't actually have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beano ni (talk • contribs) 13:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. What you say is true of Great Britain, Spain or the Galapagos Islands. It is not true of Northern Ireland. The Irish nationality law says that anyone born in "Ireland" has Irish citizenship by birth (with some exceptions since 2004). Since the law cannot over-ride the Constitution in constitutional democracies, "Ireland" in this case is the island, not the jurisdiction of the state. Of course if as a Norn Iron resident, it only matters when you come to assert your right to a passport (since dole money is contingent on residence in one or other jurisdiction). The Belfast Agreement merely accepted and regularised the status quo ante with respect to both citizenships. Very convenient to have two passports - one of Cuba and one for the US, one for Israel and one for Saudi (or do they still refuse entry if you have the 'wrong' stamp in your passport?) --Red King (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And not not quite. Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 states that someone born in Northern Ireland has a right and entitlement to Irish citizenship by birth, but they aren't automatically Irish citizens unless they exercise the right. Right and entitlement isn't the same as actual is. Canterbury Tail talk 23:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact isn't it illegal under international law to impose nationality upon persons outside the territory of jurisdiction? It's one thing to make the option of citizenship freely available to all people in territory the state doesn't control, it's another thing altogether to automatically impose it upon people and I suspect demands based on it (e.g. in the hypothetical case of conscription, demanding the handing over of "Irish citizens" from Northern Ireland who have travlled to third countries) would not get far in the relevant courts. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Some" again

Which NI sports teams do not use the UB? I feel sure we have discussed this before, but what the hell, bandwidth is free...--John (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe there are any teams that represent Northern Ireland exclusively that do not use the Ulster Banner. There are several all-Ireland teams that use alternate flags (rugby, cricket, field hockey, etc.) Therefore, I think the confusion about the word "some" depends on how you read that disclaimer in the infobox. Only "some" sports involving Northern Ireland athletes use the Ulster Banner. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But as far as I know too, all teams representing Northern Ireland (the subject of the article) do, so in the context of the flag note, having 'some' seems wrong. --John (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

John in cases of say for example Snooker tourments where you may have a number from Northern Ireland players playing but not as a team but individual competitors playing against each other and players from other countries. That is why some sports is used in the text, there are other sports that play as a team that don't use the UB--Padraig (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's understood. I don't know much about snooker; is there a Northern Ireland team that plays other countries' teams, like in football? If there was, and it (verifiably) didn't use the UB then I could go with the wording we have. --John (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of flags in sport in Northern Ireland.--Padraig (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

John is owned!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Taunting aside, I think John is correct. Can anybody name a single sport where Northern Ireland is distinctly represented apart from the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland, and/or Wales where the Ulster Banner is not used? I'm not talking about all-Ireland representation, or "GBR" representation (Olympics etc.), but specifically that situation I describe. Where NI and ROI have distinct representation, and/or the four constituent countries are uniquely identified, the Ulster Banner is universally used for NI, from what I have seen. Padraig's reference agrees with this, mostly pointing out that the large majority of sports use all-Ireland representation. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrwsc, the reason some was initialy added was that some editors where adding the UB to infoboxes of northern Ireland based sportpeople using the excuse that it stated in this infobox that it was used in sport. We have already had this discussion where it was agreed the the inclusion of some would prevent this and resulting edit wars on other articles, now the edit wars over the UB have stopped, so why drag the issue up again.--Padraig (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So you would prefer to make the infobox inaccurate in order to make your life a bit easier. josh (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not inacurate, the UB is only used in the Commonwealth games and International football to represent the teams.--Padraig (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not "only". The netball team uses it in World Championships outside the Commonwealth Games, and various individual athletes in sports that distinguish NI athletes from ROI, English, Scottish, and Welsh athletes also use it. Golf is the most visible example of that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Got a ref for its use in netball and golf.--Padraig (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For netball, the NI netball association does not have a website yet. The International Federation of Netball Associations website doesn't use flags. The ROI netball website (here) clearly states that there are distinct NI and ROI teams, and this is one sport that does not compete on an all-Ireland basis:

Netball Ireland first applied for full membership to the International Federation of Netball Associations in 1974. Some delay in processing the application ensued, mostly due to the fact that the netball representatives from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland were engaged in preliminary discussions regarding the feasibility of merging the two Associations. However, the terms were difficult and it was felt that more people could be included if the two Associations were to hold onto their own identity.

I did find an "unofficial" site here that shows the UB for NI netball. I don't think there are going to be too many sources available to me where I live for a fringe sport in a fringe country....

As for golf, I've provided those sources several times already and I'm not going to waste time repeating them again here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The netball site is an not an offical site and not been updated since 2005, as for Golf IIRC you provided a link to some American news/sport site and said they used it in broadcasts of golf events, hardly reliable.--Padraig (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The wording in the infobox says "in an unofficial manner", so what is wrong with unofficial websites? I knew you would jump all over that! And how are ESPN, Sports Illustrated, the Professional Golfers' Association, etc. "hardly reliable"? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem, as John pointed out, is that the statement isn't correctly precise as written. It could use some word-smithing to express the concept properly. I defer to someone who is strong at writing brilliant prose to figure out how to do that... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And the current ref, as well as not backing up the current wording, gives: "FOO: Union Jack/N Ireland flag/Other[UEFA/FIFA]". What "other" flag is ever used in football, besides the Ulster Banner (or the "N Ireland flag" as Padraig's ref calls it)? --John (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was quite amused to see it called the "N Ireland flag" in that document, considering all the disruption caused by renaming Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg to Image:Ulster banner.svg on Commons! I have yet to see anything outside Wikipedia that calls it an "Ulster Banner". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[4] --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the 'Ulster Banner' being the actual name is pretty much a Wikipedia invention. On nowhere on the crwflags site is that said to be the absolute name - they could have just as easily used Ulster Banner / Ulster Flag / Red Hand of Ulster / Northern Ireland Flag. I have seen 'Ulster Banner' used on other websites, but these have only popped up after the term was spread by WikipediaJonto (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If Padraig was consistent, he'd jump all over that for being an unreliable reference... But I thank you for pointing that out. It had seemed to me that the term was a Wikipedia invention, so now I've learned something new. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Read The Union flag and flags of the United Kingdom p.7/8 that makes the issue very clear, the Ulster Banner is the correct name, also sometimes mistakenly refered to as the Ulster flag, but at no time was it ever refered to as the flag of Northern Ireland.--Padraig (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Typical obfuscation. Nowhere in that entire document is the phrase "Ulster Banner" used, so why bring that reference into this discussion? The phrase "Ulster flag" (note the lower-case "f") is used once, so perhaps that's the term we should use. But why Ulster Banner? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The unofficial netball website is hardly WP:RS looks like a member of the team made it up I could do one like that in 10 minutes and put the stars and stripes on it. BigDunc (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We have been through this all before, why start it all up again? Now what happened to WP:V, and as mentioned above by Dunc WP:RS? --Domer48 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that netball site was a great source... But I can't find anything either that says they don't use that flag. My position remains that I have yet to see any counter-example that refutes this statement: The "N Ireland flag" is used to identify teams from N.I. and individual competitors from N.I. in all sports and games in which Northern Ireland is distinctly represented separately from the Republic of Ireland and/or England, Scotland and Wales in international competition. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I read that as saying "the sources do not agree with my POV on the subject, so I'll rubbish the sources". Correct me if I'm wrong. --John (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are 3 sports I found on a quick search of NI sport teams snooker and billiards and Karate and ten pin bowling so "some" seems correct. BigDunc (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well done for finding those websites; however they are not germane to this discussion which concerns the flag teams representing Northern Ireland use in international competitions. --John (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are relevant they are the NI governing bodies of the respective sports.BigDunc (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Irish FA] doesn't use the NI flag either. Nither does the FA, RFU or ECB use the English flag. We are discussing the representive teams not the governing bodies. In order to claim that only some representive teams use the flag you have to find a ref that proves that. It is imposible to prove that all teams use the UB. No matter how many teams are produced you could say "well is that all of them". The ref currently used on the page proves that all known NI teams use the UB. This has to be contridicted in order for the word some to be justified. josh (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you have failed to provide and ref or links, to show its use outside of the commonwealth games and international football, so the some is justified in the text.--Padraig (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

References and links have been provided; you just choose to disregard them. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, it should be mentioned, that there are very few sports and games in which N.I. is distinctly represented in international competition, with association football, Commonwealth Games teams, and golf being the most obvious. After that, it's pretty much just fringe sports, I think. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So will we change some to very few then.--Padraig (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"All" says the same thing in fewer words. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If your talking about the netball ref it is hardly WP:RS--BigDunc (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ignore them, the netball one links to a fansite that deals mainly with school competitions, what links have you provided for golf.--Padraig (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A few minutes on Google gives us a few:

• SI.com (CNN owned website) — leaderboard from 2007 Arnold Palmer invitational
• United States Golf Association — 2007 US Open leaderboard
• PGA Tour — profile of Darren Clarke
• ESPN.com — another Clarke profile

Many, many links like these are trivial to find. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One leaderboard showing the UB for one golfer, and two profiles on commerial sites for the same person. The wikipedia link mean nothing, where is a source that a Northern Ireland golfing team played and used the UB.--Padraig (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And...? What is your point? My point is that the flag is frequently used to identify individual golfers from Northern Ireland, and no other flag is used. Those references support that point. You seem to consistently think that unless there is an official government declaration stating "X", then "X" cannot be written in Wikipedia. At no point am I claiming that there is any "official" policy about flags and golfers; I am merely pointing out multiple independent sources that reflect common practice. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The book chapter on the CAIN website is about as solid a source as you will find. According to it angling, badminton, basketball, bowling and one of the cycling associations compete as "Northern Ireland" but do not use the Ulster Banner. In fact from that document only boxing, soccer and the second cycling association use the Ulster Banner in any context. "Some" therefore seems an understatement. Really it should be "a minority". --sony-youth^pléigh 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumably then you reckon boxing, football and cycling constitute minority sports when compared to the overwhelming popularity of angling, badminton, basketball and bowling (or did you mean bowls?) as competitive sports in the context of Northern Ireland? In all seriousness, can you provide a reference for these "sports" verifiably having international teams which play as "Northern Ireland" yet do not use the UB? --John (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not what Sony said and you know it, he is sying that a minority of NI teams use the UB. BigDunc (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for translating what he is sying for me, BigDunc. What about Subbuteo? Perhaps you're too young to remember the Undertones' 1980 single "My Perfect Cousin", the cover of which featured a Subbuteo figure in the colours of the band's hometown team, Derry City F.C. That has to count for something, surely. --John (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dont be so patronising john your comments are not helpful. BigDunc (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Golfers in my opinion do not represnt their countries they are playing as individuals it is not a team game on the PGA tour or US open.BigDunc (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions are noted, bigdunc. What would be even more helpful than your unsubstantiated opinion would be a verifiable source that backs up the wording the article currently contains. This, so far, I have not seen. --John (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And I have not seen any ref that states that the UB is used by every NI sports team. If it is not used by all then some is correct. BigDunc (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

John, I didn't know that I needed translating. As Dunc explained, the contested text is "such as some sports teams". The reference is the book chapter on the CAIN website that Padraig references above (here). It lists the context in which sports associations field teams and the flags that they use. According to it the angling, badminton, basketball, bowling and one of the cycling associations compete as "Northern Ireland" but do not use the Ulster Banner and that only the boxing, soccer and the second cycling associations use the Ulster Banner in any context. "Some" therefore seems an understatement. Really it should be "a minority".

(Yes, I meant lawn bowls, which is an outdoor variant of bowling. I presume that you thought that bowling always meant ten-pin bowling?) --sony-youth^pléigh 21:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sony. I don't think you needed translating, that was BigDunc's contention. I had already read the reference Padraig provided (and indeed referred to it myself above). Interesting point of view. However it seems to be based on a survey (inherently unreliable) and to date from the bad old days of 1995. I request a more up-to-date source which states authoritatively that there are (in 2008) sports teams representing Northern Ireland which do not use the Ulster Banner. I'll leave my opinion that angling is not even remotely a sport aside; however, I would certainly ask that you not include tiny minority sports in this, which was the intention of my Subbuteo comment above. Sorry if that was not clear. --John (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

John if you want to dismiss that source, then provide sources to contradict it that show they do use the UB.--Padraig (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

John, a survey, far from being inherently unreliable, is the perfect method for collecting data of this kind: in which the population is of a small and known size (sports associations in Northern Ireland), in which the data to be collected are two perfectly quantifiable variable (in this case of the nominal sort: yes or not to competing as "Northern Ireland", and what flags do they compete under), and the purpose is to analyze the data using the most basic of descriptive statistics (i.e. who competes where and under what flag). In fact, using any other method would be insane or just plain stupid. As for being from 1995, that's only 13 years ago. For someone who can remember Subbuteo and the Untertones, surely it's not "soooo 20th century"? For the purpose of the supporting "some" in the text, it as solid as they come ... unless you're seriously suggesting that all of those associations suddenly switched to using the Ulster Banner in the intervening years?? --sony-youth^pléigh 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The CAIN document isn't as clear as it ought to be, and I can't find sources to back up some of those claims. I have no idea about angling! (This is a sport?!?) As for the others, badminton, basketball, bowls and cycling are all Commonwealth Games sports, and so NIR would apply in that context (of course). Outside of the C.G., I don't think N.I. competes as a distinct team internationally, which would appear to contradict Sony's conclusion from the CAIN document. All these sports seem to have all-Ireland representation:

• According to the Badminton World Federation, there is no Northern Ireland association. Badminton Ireland link seems to imply it has all-Ireland representation internationally.
• Accoding to FIBA, there is no Northern Ireland basketball association. According to Basketball Ireland (link) the Association has responsibility for the promotion, development and administration of all basketball activities in Ireland and Northern Ireland.
• For lawn bowls, information is difficult to find for international competition. There is a Northern Ireland Bowling Association (link), but they don't seem to compete internationally. There is a Irish Bowling Association (link) which is a member of the British Isles Bowls Council (link) and competes in a "British Isles" tournament. I presume it is an all-Ireland team because they seem to compete under St. Patrick's Saltire per the BIBC website. I also found a British Isles Indoor Bowls Council (BIIBC) website here that shows the "N Ireland flag" for The Association of Irish Indoor Bowls. Beyond the home countries, I found a World Bowls webiste (link) that shows the Irish Bowling Association as a member, again with the Saltire, implying all-Ireland.
• For cycling, all the results I found on the Union Cycliste Internationale website (link) show "GBR" or "IRL" for individual cyclists, so I don't know where "NIR" would be used for cycling outside of the Commonwealth Games.

I also looked up some of the other team sports that are competed at the Commonwealth Games, such as water polo and rowing. FINA governs water polo and uses GBR and IRL. FISA governs rowing and does the same. Therefore, the conclusion to be drawn is that the "N Ireland flag" is used to identify teams from N.I. and individual competitors from N.I. in all sports and games in which Northern Ireland is distinctly represented separately from the Republic of Ireland and/or England, Scotland and Wales in international competition. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In conclusion?,you mean in your opinion, yet have failed to prove it.--Padraig (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What part of that statement has not been proven? Which sport uses another flag? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrwsc, the question asked in section 3.1.3 (International Competition) is whether the associations fielded teams as "Northern Ireland". Sections 3.2.1 (Flags) asked the associations what flags they fielded teams under. Apart from not being original research, this is clearly a far more accurate method for knowing what teams compete under what flag as opposed to reading this that or the other based on what you see or do not see on some website or another. The association may be all-Ireland or all-UK, but the team fielded is Northern Ireland (this is a complexity of the British and Irish situation). Where do you get your quote from (or is it a quote? - "the 'N Ireland flag' is used to identify teams ...") or is this based on your original research as opposed to the reputable published secondary source that says otherwise?

I don't think there is anything I have said that is inconsistent with section 3.1.3. That is, the only team sports that NIR competes in distinctly from IRL/ENG/SCO/WAL internationally outside of the Commonwealth Games (the "World/Olympic" column) is football ("FOO" in Table 6) and netball (not in their survey). Within the Commonwealth Games, NIR competes distinctly from ENG/SCO/WAL in every event (some of these are shown as "N Ireland" in the "C'wealth/Home Int" column of Table 6; not all Table 6 sports are Commonwealth Games sports, and not all Commonwealth Games sports made their survey.) As for the quote, that is mine, but it's not something I'm suggesting go into the article as written with a reference after it! It is intended for communication on this talk page.

You really want to say that all teams form Northern Ireland compete under the Ulster Banner, don't you? And remove all mention of the contrary? It is not true that they do. A reputable published source says that some do, while others do not. Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. I just don't want to hide the fact that multiple, reputable media and sporting organizations use the "N Ireland flag" to identify Northern Ireland competitors. I'm not trying to promote the flag for political reasons; in fact, as I've stated before, I think it affords us an excellent opportunity on Wikipedia to point out the flaws in that approach. But ignoring the situation is not a neutral point of view. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, don't assume that the Ulster Banner is the correct flag in the context of the Commonwealth Games. From the CAIN document again: "In basketball, for example, the Tricolour is flown at world level and for events staged in locations such as West Belfast; the Union Jack is used for home international fixtures; and the Ulster provincial flag for commonwealth championships."

Basketball was not a Commonwealth Games sport until 2006 (and netball not until 1998), so the CAIN document predates that. Outside of the Commonwealth Games, N.I. basketball players would have to compete internationally for one of the two FIBA sanctioned teams: GBR or IRL. And I am certain that the "N Ireland flag" is flown at the Commonwealth Games, as the photo of this smiling guy would clearly show.

We are not discussing what flag is flown at the Commonwealth Games or what flag the man in that picture is carrying. The the question is whether "all", "some", or "none" sports teams from Northern Ireland compete under the Ulster Banner. The published verifable source plainly indicates that "some" do while others do not (including at Commonwealth level). --sony-youth^pléigh 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may reply to your question on behalf of Padraig ("What part of that statement has not been proven?") No part needs to be "proven", it needs to be sourced. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess this will remain a problem. I think it will be virtually impossible to find any peer-reviewed journal, textbook, etc. that describes textually what major media organizations use on their contemporary websites and broadcast productions with respect to the "N Ireland flag". I think the best we can do is list the set of links of reputable websites in support of any statement that those organizations use the flag. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Media organisations, what have they got to do with this issue, I wouldn't regard them as a reliable source on any subject, find sources from the sports organisations themselves to support your claim.--Padraig (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If the statement that needs a reliable source is about what media organizations display on their websites or broadcasts, what sporting organization would have authority over that? If the statement is as specific as "the PGA uses the "N Ireland flag" to identify golfers from Northern Ireland on it's website", then surely a link to that identified website is a sufficient source. It seems like you want an indirect statement from somebody else that says what the PGA does, instead of a direct link that demonstrates what the PGA does. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a problem, Andrwsc. The document we are discussing here is a published textbook (Sugden, J. et al (ed.s), 1995, Sport and Community Relations in Northern Ireland, Centre for the Study of Conflict, University of Ulster, ISBN 1859230911). It says quite plainly that some teams representing Northern Ireland are fielded under flags other than the Ulster Banner. If major media outlets make the mistake of thinking that all teams representing Northern Ireland compete under the Ulster Banner then that is not our concern - except to not allow Wikipedia to make the same mistake. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how that book says "quite plainly that some teams representing Northern Ireland are fielded under flags other than the Ulster Banner". It's not plain to me at all. Can you point out the specific sentences where you draw that conclusion? If you are referring to the basketball-specific quote (In basketball, for example, the Tricolour is flown at world level and for events staged in locations such as West Belfast; the Union Jack is used for home international fixtures; and the Ulster provincial flag for commonwealth championships.), then I interpret it as follows: Table 6 says that teams are all-Ireland at the "World/Olympic" level and N. Ireland at the "C'wealth/Home Int" level. We know that FIBA recognizes an all-Ireland team (IRL) that uses the tricolour internationally. This is consistent with the first clause of the sentence. As for the second clause ("home international fixtures"), I presume this is a purely amateur home nations thing, as I can't find any other evidence of a Northern Ireland representative basketball team playing any other nation outside the UK. Some might say this is not really "international" in the same sense as FIBA's scope. I guess the bottom line for me is that I think this book is actually pretty piss-poor, as it is not clear at all what the real situation is. It doesn't mention any of the actual organisations they surveyed, nor did they identify any of the competitions where N.I. competes internationally. I do not believe this source ought to be held up on a pedestal as the definitive source on this issue. Granted, it's the only academic publication we have on this topic, but it is vague and outdated.

My point about "major media outlets" is that I think Wikipedia ought to document this common practice — and describe why that is incorrect. A common theme that I have been promoting is that I think the "N Ireland flag" is frequently enough shown by multiple reputible organizations that we should not pretend on Wikipedia that it doesn't exist. We should document what they do, and explain the inaccuracy of their actions. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) And would you say that the Northern Ireland situation has changed in any way since 1995? With Andrwsc, I'd rather use contemporary sources than a survey quoted in a book from 13 years ago as guides to the current situation. --John (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What changes have there been in sport in Northern Ireland in that time, the only major change I know of is the GAA dropping it ban on members of the PSNI from being members and letting football to be played in Croke Park, so unless you can point to any others then the information in that book is as relevent today as it was then. In reply to Andrwsc point it is not WP role to use mis-present flags just because of misconceptions by media organisations that are to lazy to research facts. The use of the UB in sport is limited to a small number of sport organisations in a international context that is fact.--Padraig (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting we mis-represent the usage of the flag; I am suggesting we document the existing mis-representation.
• You say that usage is "limited to a small number of sport organisations in a international context". I say that the flag is used for the large majority of instances where Northern Ireland competes distinctly apart from the rest of the UK and/or the rest of Ireland; it just happens that there are very few sports and/or multi-sport events where Northern Ireland doesn't compete as part of an all-Ireland team or as part of a GBR team. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is why the word some is used because it is not used all occassion and not by all sports.--Padraig (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't be bothered reading all of this, but I did notice the other the other that competitors competing under the name Northern Ireland use the St Patrick's flag in World's Strongest Man of all things. Derry Boi (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

John, do I think that the Ulster Banner has become any less contentious since 1995? No. Do you? Really? We know what the situation was in 1995. If you think attitudes to the Ulster Banner have changed so dramatically since then, produce a source.

Andrwsc, I'm replying down here to your comments above. RE: discussing the 'error in their ways' of media outlets using the Ulster Banner in inappropriate ways - wonderful, but the info box is not the place for that kind of discussion.

RE: whether you think the books chapter is "piss poor" or not, frankly it beats inferring this that or the other from the graphic design of one website or another. The simple fact is that it's a published source from a reputable organisation and we have absolutely no reason to doubt it's veracity. As for how plain it is, table 6 lists that the angling, badminton, basketball, bowls and one of the cycling associations field teams specifically for Northern Ireland (as distinct from UK/ENG/SCO/WAL/IRE/ROI or anywhere else). Table 7 shows the responses of these associations when asked to identify the flag or flags used by their sport for the purposes of international competition. None of these association listed the Ulster Banner despite fielding specifically Northern Ireland teams for commonwealth and home nations competitions. We don't need a directly quotable piece of prose to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. It's plain just from reading the source. Nothing is being inferred or deduced.

As for your "read it this way" of the basketball quote, really Andrwsc, it's quite simple. Northern Ireland fields a basketball team. Depending on circumstance it competes under the tricolor, union jack or ulster flag. The only teams mentioned that participate under the Ulster Banner are the soccer, boxing and one of the cycling associations. --sony-youth^pléigh 01:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not really concerned about the use of "some" or "all" in the infobox. "Some" is just as much a weasal word as "all" (probably more so, since it is imprecise with respect to the quantity), but at least we can tag a reference to it. However, I think "most" is a more accurate word in this situation. My participation in this spirited debate was to serve as a counter-point to the attempt by some editors to marginalize the "N Ireland flag" through comments that it is "used by very few sports". There is evidence that it is used in most every context in which Northern Ireland is represented independently — but as I've pointed out, there are few situations where that happens! The full situation must be described if any of these comments are to be put in the article.

With respect to the CAIN document, I am baffled how you reach the conclusion that "Northern Ireland fields a basketball team. Depending on circumstance it competes under the tricolor, union jack or ulster flag." The report says no such thing!! Section 3.1.3 describes the international and/or regional team(s) which their top sportsmen and women were eligible to compete for. That does not imply a single team — note that it says "team(s)" (possibly plural). For basketball, there is no "Northern Ireland national basketball team" that could ever compete in Eurobasket, for example. There is an all-Ireland team that competes under the tricolour, so presumably that's what the CAIN document refers to by showing "Ireland" in Table 6 and listing the tricolour in Table 7. Next, Table 6 does not distinguish between Commonwealth participation and home nations participation, lumping them together as one. We can't draw conclusions from that about what kind of team(s) competed where, especially in 1995, when basketball was not a Commonwealth Games sport. I can tell you that prior to the 2006 Commonwealth Games (when basketball was first introduced), there was a European qualifying round in which England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Malta, Cyprus, and Gibraltar competed. I haven't yet found results for that, but we know that England and Scotland qualified on the men's side and England and Malta qualified for the women's tournament. Presumably, had Northern Ireland qualified, they would have marched behind the guy carrying the "N Ireland flag" in that BBC photograph. As for home nations competitions, you might say that isn't really "international" anyway, so the Union Flag would apply to any of those competitions. That might or might not be the same team as competed in the Commonwealth qualifier, but the CAIN document doesn't help answer that question. Finally, Table 6 has "Provincial/Regional" listed as a type of "International Competition", I suppose because competition between a UK territory and the Republic of Ireland is international. Anyway, I had thought that Northern Ireland (6 counties) doesn't compete in those types of tournaments, but Ulster (9 counties) does — and Table 6 says "Ulster" for that column. That would explain the "Ulster Provincial" flag reference in Table 7. The bottom line is that the CAIN document is very sparse on details, so it is easy to draw incorrect conclusions through careless reading and interpretation. If any part of this document is used as a reference, we cannot infer any meaning from those tables, but only quote passages directly. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, you claim that "the only teams mentioned that participate under the Ulster Banner are the soccer, boxing and one of the cycling associations." I hope you are not suggesting that the swimmers, track & field athletes, badminton players, boxers, cyclists, gymnasts, lawn bowlers, shooters, squash players, table tennis players, and triathletes that the Commonwealth Games Council for Northern Ireland sent to Melbourne for the 2006 Games didn't participate under that flag! That would clearly be another incorrect conclusion to draw from the CAIN source. I am certain that when David Beattie won his silver medal in trap shooting, and when the men's lawn bowls team won their silver medal, that the "N Ireland flag" was hoisted along with the flags of the gold and bronze medal winners. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying nothing, the verifiable source is doing all the talking. The source lists various sports associations that supply players to compete on behalf of Northern Ireland at "commonwealth/home nations internationals". It further reports what those association said were the flag or flags used by their sport for the purpose of international competition. Some of those associations listed the Norhtern Ireland flag as being used to represent their sport at internatinoal level. However, most of those surveyed reported using a flag other than the Ulster Banner for the purpose of international competition.

It is not the case that only those associations that are organized on an all-Ireland or all-UK used flags other than the Ulster Banner. Nor is it the case that only those associations that supply players in compete in competitions on behalf of Northern Ireland at events other than "commonwealth/home nations internationals" that report their sport as using the Ulster Banner. Boxing, for example, is organized on an all-Ireland basis and only supplies sportsmen and women for Northern Ireland for "commonwealth/home nations internationals" only. It uses the Ulster Banner for the purpose of international competition. The second cycling association is organized on a UK basis and only supplies players to compete on behalf of Northern Ireland only for "commonwealth/home nations internationals". It reports uses the Ulster Banner for international competition.

The angling, badminton, basketball, bowling and one of the cycling associations report flags other than the Ulster Banner being used in their sport for the purpose of international competition despite listing Northern Ireland as being a team that they supply sportsmen and women to (competing at "commonwealth/home nations internationals" in each of their cases). About basketball, the source explicitly says "the Ulster provincial flag [is flown] for commonwealth championships."

If you refute this please provide a source. If I have made an error in reading, please explain where. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't refute anything you said in these comments, because here you are not (mis)interpreting what is written in that document. Yesterday, you wrote Northern Ireland fields a basketball team. Depending on circumstance it competes under the tricolor, union jack or ulster flag, and that is what I refuted. Nowhere in the document did it make that claim, and for good reason — it isn't true. Do you still believe that statement? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think you are reading too much into your one source here. I think too that Andrwsc has made some compelling arguments and done some good research to provide (more recent) good sources which disagree with your 1995 one. The world of competitive sport has indeed changed significantly in the last 13 years and we should definitely not be relying on such an old source to comment on the contemporary status quo. I could probably live with "most" in the infobox too. Finally, can we rule out angling in this debate? I really don't think it is a sport, more of a pastime. If we're going to debate angling then we almost may as well bring Subbuteo into it too. We should stick to the major sports which attract the most participation and spectatorship, in my opinion. --John (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Where am I reading too much? It's black and white. What is convincing about Andrwsc's arguments? To me, with due respect, they sound like (poor quality) original research?

(Also, on a note of humour, don't put down angling. Please, there's not many events that Ireland has a world champion in - from Irish Times in 2006: "Ireland has a new World Cup champion. Philip Rooney, from Rossinver in Co Leitrim, took the crown after five days of competitive angling at the World Cup Trout Fly Angling Championships at Lough Mask, Ballinrobe, Co Mayo, the weekend before last." More seriously, it is considered a sport by the UK government and received £352,112 in lottery funding in 2005 in Northern Ireland alone. See here.) --sony-youth^pléigh 00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gosh! One learns something new every day here. The idea of competitively catching fish, for your country, seems ludicrous to me but I hear what you are saying. On a more serious note, I would seriously like to see more up-to-date research on who uses which flag. There are a number of flaws in the report you're quoting, and it's more than possible that some sports which previously competed as NI (with or without a flag) now operate on an all-Ireland basis. I would genuinely be very interested to know, and it'd be surprising if there weren't good refs on the subject. Now, as for Subbuteo...--John (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a sociology lecturer who always reverted to the "martians landing on earth" analogy: if martians landed on earth and saw men competing over who was the better at catching fish, and men competing over who was the better at kicking a bag of wind around a field, who would they think were the more ridiculous? Subbuteo, I think, would come somewhere in the middle.

As for the source. Yes, a more up-to-date (or even better written) one would be better, but it trumps inferring this or that from an association's website. "... that some sports which previously competed as NI (with or without a flag) now operate on an all-Ireland basis ..." - I doubt this. Northern Ireland still exists, and will for the foreseeable future, and thus will continue to field teams for Commonwealth and Home internationals. The same, of course, goes for all-Ireland teams which have continued to compete more or less as if partition never happened with a few notable exceptions. The two aren't mutually exclusive, it's a complexity that people just get along with. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a WP:V and WP:RS source used to back up the statement in the info box if editors want to change it they will need to supply a contradicting ref. BigDunc (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Edit

Could editors not remove ref material while an ongoing disscusion is taking place. BigDunc (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, reversion to a version of the article not backed up by the sources is always good when in doubt. --John (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Protestant is... ?

I can't find what is meant by Protestant in this article. The definition of Protestantism is the Christian faith that originated from the Reformation - but that's the definition. To what church or denomination do Protestant Northern Irish feel affiliated with? Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism - or Presbyterian, Methodist? Even Jehovah's Witnesses are Protestant by definition. --Soetermans (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite a mixture is the answer. Protestantism in Northern Ireland is heavily divided with no one denomination having an overall majority. There are large numbers of Presbyterians, of Church of Ireland Episcopalians and many others, Ian Paisley is the founder of the very small but prominent Free Presbyterians and there are numerous others. Hence the particular importance of organisations that transcend this divide like the Orange Order. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an important question and a good answer to it might help a lot of people understand the political Catholic/Protestant divide in Northern Ireland. Personally, I'd start with explaining the "three groups": Anglican, "dissenter" and Catholic, of which only "dissenter" refers to true "protestants" in terms of reformed Churches (as Soetermans points out).

A run-down from the reformation might explain how initially Britain and Ireland, under Henry VIII, declared Catholic but then split with the Roman Church over the rights of the king, forming Anglicanism (but how theologically this differed little from Catholicism though over the five hundred years since has been spiced by Protestant influences as it developed independently). How Scotland reformed thus creating the bulk of "Dissenters" in Irish terms (mainly through migration during the Plantation of Ulster?). From here we get "Dissenters", broadly meaning anyone who did not belong to the established Church (i.e. Anglicanism), but more casually meaning Protestant, as opposed to Catholic, "dissenters". This created the "three groups": in respective size throughout the island: Catholic, "Dissenter", Anglican. Both Catholics and "Dissenters" were disenfranchised at one time, and thus shared a common cause. Following the Act of Union, by which time much of the disenfranchisement against "Dissenters" had been relaxed, "Dissenters" moved closer to Anglicans as a social group through involvement in organisations such as the Orange Order, which initially excluded both Catholics and "Dissenters" but later allowed "Dissenters" in. Thus forming the typical religious/political divide: Anglicans and "dissenters" in one group representing the "Established" community; Catholics in another representing the "dis-established" community. This rule of thumb doesn't hold true any more in the 26-counties, but became frozen in Northern Ireland.

Thus in Irish terms Protestant = Anglicanism + "dissenter". (Deft mention of the maxim that it was safe to say that every Irish gentleman was a Protestant, not ever Irish Protestant was a gentleman might be useful too.)

Does this sound like a fair summary? --sony-youth^pléigh 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is. Now my question is, is it worth adding into the article? --Soetermans (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not really relevant or appropriate for the top level article, maybe in a sub-article. In fact that could be said for a lot in the article which concentrates on stuff that really should be in sub-articles rather than the main country article which should only be providing an overview of everything. Ben W Bell talk 02:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox redux

Every time I come back to this article, I cringe at the infobox. Since there seems to be some weak consensus to not have any flag in the standard infobox, I scratch my head at the insistence of having a caption for a missing image. It's one of the silliest things I've seen on Wikipedia. Can we agree to remove that part of the infobox altogether, since it is all described quite well in the "Symbols" section of this article and that section's "see also" link to the Northern Ireland flags issue article? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Howzat? --Vintagekits (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, well, I could have been just as bold and done something like that myself, but this article seems to be patrolled intensely by "revert happy" editors and I thought prior discussion was always necessary here... Anyway, I meant just using the standard Template:Infobox Country minus the flag related parameters, and minus any inline HTML "hack" to put a pseudo-caption there, as I removed with this edit. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that there is a 'weak consensus not to have any flags'. Removing NI flags from a prominent position at the top is completely in line with nationalist tactics to undermine any northern symbols, in order to attempt to dilute any presence of a border between north and south. By NOT having any flags the article has an in-built nationalist bias not based on the realities. The only way to be non-partisan is to show the flags that represent the area in line with the other UK regions, but also to have a clear caption stating any of the flag statuses or controversies. This approach was used in a version of the article that was stable between 2005 and 2007Jonto (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only reason I called it a "weak consensus" is that the article has been relatively stable for a few months in that state. I am perfectly happy to restart the discussion — my immediate concern was only to address the aesthetics of the infobox as it has existed during this "ceasefire". It really looked shabby with the bold, small font, imageless caption. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Prominence of flag of Republic of Ireland

I understand the 'flag campaign' from Padraig etc. has gone on for too long, and many are sick to death of it and the persistent campaigning by some people with too much time (it would surprise me if they weren't employed full time, by Sinn Fein for example, to perform such a task!) and many people don't want to keep things stirred up so no longer want to interfere and contribute. However, the current state of Northern Irish articles is completely partisan beyond belief, and I have gone without comment for too long.

There is no need for the flag of the Republic of Ireland to be placed so prominently on this article. It is placed above symbols that have been (in official governmental contexts) and are still are currently officially used for Northern Ireland (officially used in unique international representation of Northern Ireland in sport). As the article stands it is extremely partisan.

Whilst the article should portray the current era and the right to open freedom of expression in Northern Ireland, the article does not portray the reality that as things stand Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom, and not in any way politically connected to the Republic, despite the aspirations of a minority for the latter to be the case. The notion that symbols of Irish nationalist aspirations should somehow be given an 'equal' status to symbols of unionist realities is a complete nonsense and utterly ludicrous concept - one that has spread throughout this website due to the zeal of some nationalist editors, and for no other reason.

I will continue to oppose any presence of an Irish tricolour on this page, as long as the actual symbols of Northern Ireland are tucked away in the middle. However, I can accept Irish tricolour on this page only if both of the following conditions are met: 1. That the Northern Ireland flag with an optional Union Flag displayed prominently at the top, with a sub-note clearly explaining any flag statuses. 2. That it is highlighted very clearly that the Irish tricolour is used to represent a minority aspiration, that this is clearly stated as only an aspiration, and that it is nowhere near the top of the page. Anything less is simply obfuscating aspirations with realities for political means. A 'non-NPoV' warning tag should be placed at the top of this page, should the current ludicrous situation continue for any longer. Jonto (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Paramilitaries and security forces vs "combatants"

Was a consensus reached over the use of the term "combatants"? There doesn't seem to be a correlation between the article on combatants and paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. It seems to be a technical distinction, does the army, the police and paramilitaries all have the same status in law? Alastairward (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Paramilitaries are terrorists, thats why they go to jail.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just like Lee Clegg. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not for membership of the British Army was it?Traditional unionist (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, I was simply asking if a consensus had been reached over the term, if not I was suggesting splitting the two (security forces and paramilitaries) Alastairward (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. One set of people acted completely outside the bounds of the law and civilised humanity - the vast majority of the other did not.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just remember your audience in this. The RUC were a paramilitary force. Paramilitary doesn't mean terrorist, doesn't mean illegal. The use in Northern Ireland doesn't always gel with its use in the work at large. Canterbury Tail talk 13:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, purely on the definition by the WP article. Notwithstanding the fact that the police are armed in Northern Ireland. There is a much better case to be made that the USC was paramilitary.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that the comment above "Paramilitaries are terrorists, that's why they go to jail" isn't terribly clear in the world view where paramilitary is often quite legitimate. The RUC is often described (though not in Northern Ireland) as a paramilitary force, just like the Royal Hong Kong Police which was based on the RUC model. All I'm saying is that because this article will be read by people from all over the world, to be careful of the use and definitions of paramilitary within the article least it be misinterpreted. The general NI usages doesn't always gel with worldwide accepted dictionary usage. Canterbury Tail talk 13:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I was never suggesting that should be included in the article!Traditional unionist (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, just making sure there was no confusion. Continue the work. Canterbury Tail talk 14:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't looking to stir, the article on parmilitary specifically mentions the use of the word in Northern Ireland, so if we include that link, it should be ok Alastairward (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Motto

I have removed the motto, which was tagged, the ref TU provided is not a reliable source to support the claim.--Padraig (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that website has been used as a reliable reference before. Why is it not reliable?Traditional unionist (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Google search is interesting. That site says it's the royal motto, yet that site and Wikipedia and mirrors are the only people that agree. WP:REDFLAG comes into play here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Google isn't going to be very good on such a niche topic. Am making inquiries.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Niche topic?! You think the royal motto of an English speaking country would be capable of being sourced from something other than a self published source. Do some Google searches on just the allaged motto and Northern Ireland, you'll find plenty of reliable sources that say it's the UDA's motto and make no reference to it being the motto of Northern Ireland as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because a group of thugs hijack a phrase doesn't make it their invention. The motto seems to only have been added in 1971, which is a pretty short window.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware it wasn't their invention. However the fact remains that when sources mention it's the motto of the UDA while neglecting to mention it's also the motto of Northern Ireland, you really wonder whether it is or not. As if it is the motto, surely you'd expect to be able to verify the claim on various official political or royal sites? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't come as any surprise that the UDA has been studied much more than the heraldry of Northern Ireland.18:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional unionist (talk • contribs)

The motto belongs to The Most Illustrious Order of St Patrick,[5] it also appeared on the Coat of Arms which was granted to the former Government of Northern Ireland in 1924/5, which has not been officially used since 1973 as the body it was granted to no longer exists, and although the Royal warrant still exists under which the CoA was devised it has never been transfered to the current government or executive.--Padraig (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So we've been here before, and we still have no references for your inferences from the facts. Still making inquiries.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if you can provide references to support that it is the motto of NI today feel free to provide them.--Padraig (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Scotland straw poll

A straw poll has opened at this section of the Scotland talk page regarding the use of the term "nation" to describe Scotland in the introduction of that article. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. -MichiganCharms (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

SDLP Question

Normally I'd ask this on the SDLP page, but it's unlikely to be replied to there until months from now... so I'll ask it here: Since the SDLP sit in Westminster, how do they reconcile taking the Oath of Allegiance? There's no mention of it anywhere on Wikipedia. -MichiganCharms (talk) 10:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I presume because they're constitutional nationalists who wish to change things within the existing structure, the same as the Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru (when the pro independence crowd have the microphone). The non-taking of seats is a complicated issue with some seeing it as being rather more about whether or not the legitimacy of Westminster (and, in the past, Stormont) to govern the province is acepted than whether or not an oath is given to a monarch - note the refusal for decades to sit in the Dail either. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, I never quite fully got the not taking seats... seems like an awfully hard way to make the changes you want or indeed any changes, it's like accepting taxation without representation... but that aside, do you think it deserves a mention in the SDLP article? -MichiganCharms (talk) 11:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A while ago there was a judicial review into the refusal to give SF policy development money availaible to parties with 2 or more MPs. I'm certain that i remember Michelle Gildernew stating then that even if the oath was changed or abolished they still wouldn't take their seats.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Some SNP MP'S crossed their fingers whilst taking the oath!Sorted!!!--Jack forbes (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox footnote

I have removed.

Norlin Airlann is a neologism which was not used by Scots speakers historically, but which has some official usage. The spelling Norn Iron is often used by indigenous speakers as an affectionate phonetic spelling to reflect local pronunciation.

Why is any of that necessary? The Norn Iron thing is surely far too colloquial to be in an encyclopedia entry. Re: the claim that Norlin Airlann "was not used by Scots speakers historically" - if the state is only 80 years old, surely that's a given! Has the Gaelic Tuaisceart Éireann any more historically accurate? (I only ask because I recall a discussion, possibly on this page, from a Gaelic speaker arguing that nobody speaking Irish uses the term so the Gaelic for "6 counties" should be used instead, because that's what everyone calls it - so the argument went). I get the impression that both Norlin Airlann and Tuaisceart Éireann have simply been extrapolated by using existing translations of the 2 words in the name given to the (country/province/state/region/(bastard) statelet/bastion of colonialism) in law.

beano (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that both the words "Norlin" and "Airlann" are neologisms dating from the 1990s, along the same vein as "Ullans". --sony-youth^pléigh 11:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

userboxes

Hi there, I was looking for a userbox to put on my userpage when I noticed the code for one of Scottish ones was "Talkstosocks" which is an obvious slur on Scots(sweaty socks),so I decided to delete it! Also noticed the same words on a N.Ireland userbox. I would'nt want to delete it as you may not feel the same way as I do (am I being too sensitive? I don't think so!) I thought I would give you a heads up and leave it to the N.Ireland wikipedians whether they want to do anything about it! I was not sure if this was the right pages to bring this up, if not please let me know! Thanks!--Jack forbes (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

National Anthem

So Northern ireland has a national anthem: "God Save the Queen" and the "Londonderry Air" (de facto)...where did this idea come from? I thought that the UK anthem was "God Save the Queen". As regards the "Stroke Derry Air" when did this become a de facto anthem.....was it perhaps during Barry McGuigan's world title fight? Has County Down a national anthem as well..de jure or de facto?Eog1916 (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of it being used as the de facto anthem either, so I tagged it for a reference Alastairward (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say both need sourcing. GSTQ is the national anthem of the UK, not Northern Ireland. Look at the kerfuffle when people tried adding GSTQ to the Scotland article, it isn't the national anthem of any of the constituent countries. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the infobox which covers all of these points. Bettia ^(talk) 14:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not even close to being a reliable source, in fact it's a mirror of an old version of a Wikipedia article. Not only that, it didn't even say GSTQ was the national anthem of Northern Ireland. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit where this source was being used to source GSTQ at the National Anthem of Northern Ireland, when the source states "Unlike the Olympics, however, where England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland compete together as the United Kingdom (whose national anthem is God Save the Queen)". I will re-iterate that the National Anthem of the United Kingdom is not the National Anthem of Northern Ireland, it is the National Anthem of the United Kingdom only, in the same way that it isn't the National Anthem of England, Scotland or Wales either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If the anthem that is used when Northern Ireland athletes compete in the Olympics is not acceptable, perhaps a qualification of "(Protestants)" and the reference from The Uncivil Wars: Ireland Today by Padraig O'Malley (1997) (reference pp. 9-10) would be acceptable: "The million Protestants of Northern Ireland(for the most part) ... regard themselves as ethnically British, ... their anthem is 'God Save the Queen'." Then you could add a third anthem for "(Catholics)" because O'Malley goes on to say, "...the half a million Catholics in Northern Ireland are, for the most part, ethnically Irish ... and their national anthem is 'The Soldier's Song'". Perhaps that would resolve it (with an acceptable reference). --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"If the anthem that is used when Northern Ireland athletes compete in the Olympics is not acceptable" - Northern Ireland don't compete at the Olypmics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland compete at the Olympics. As above, the anthem of the UK is not the anthem of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. GSTQ is not the national anthem of England. GSTQ is not the national anthem of Scotland. GSTQ is not the national anthem of Wales. GSTQ is not the national anthem of Northern Ireland. GSTQ is the national anthem of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What people regard as their national anthem doesn't come into it, either Northern Ireland has its own official national anthem or it doesn't. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)Huh. And I had always assumed it was "Suspect Device" by Stiff Little Fingers... --John (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it utterly ludicrous that the infobox claims a de facto national anthem, supported by a source that primarliy refers to the usage of the song at the Commonwealth Games, but when the same de facto rationale is applied to the Ulster banner to justify it's placement in the infobox, there is much objection. There has to be some consistency here! Either we remove the anthem section, or we add the flag(s).

On a related note, some of the other {{infobox country}} parameters would seem to be inapplicable here, using the same logic as the flag and the anthem. For example, Northern Ireland doesn't have a currency — the United Kingdom does. The monarch and prime minister are also "inherited" from the UK.

I realize that the UK's constituent countries are not precisely equivalent to other sub-national entities, but just as we don't list the euro in the infobox of Catalonia, or list the US president in the infobox of California, perhaps we should limit infobox fields on this article to items that are strictly from Northern Ireland. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

{{infobox UK constituent country}}, anyone? --John (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a strong idea. I note that it ought to be built on top of {{geobox}} instead of starting from scratch, as some other "political subdivision meta-templates" are constructed. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove the unofficial anthems, similarly to England, Scotland and Wales. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a country

Country can ether mean a soverien state or a nation. It's not a soverien state because it's not independent, and its not a nation because not everyone there would share the same identity. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Belfast Agreement has quashed the idea of UDI for Northern Ireland and has accepted that it is part of the country called Ireland. Eog1916 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So what? it's a admin. division of the UK. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a Constituent country, that article has a note on the appropriateness of the term country when applied to Northern Ireland. Also, there is no country called Ireland, just an island upon which is located the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Alastairward (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a country called Ireland. The Republic's constitutional name is 'Ireland' not 'Republic of Ireland'. 'Republic of Ireland' is technically only a 'description' not the actual 'name' and is used to avoid confusion with the island of Ireland. Tameamseo (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am arguing that it is inappropriate. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The article describing it as a Constituent country is the best place to argue that, if you are successful you can remove the link here Alastairward (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say that? 122.105.217.71 (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The article describes Northern Ireland a constituent country because of the reasons set out in the article on Constituent Country, please address the appropriateness of the term there and if you can argue against successfully, remove the link here in this article Alastairward (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussions opened by 122.105.217.71

An identical discussion doubting the "country" likeness has been opened by the same anonymous 122.105.217.71 for talk:Wales#It is not a Country, talk:England#It is not a Country, talk:Northern Ireland#It is not a Country as well as talk:Scotland#It is not a Country. The focus has been on the "definition" according to the wiki article and has sparked extended debate. As the law of the UK clearly states these regions are countries I would strongly suggest to close it here, as no argument on Wikipedia is going to change UK law. Arnoutf (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely 'the right of national self determination' pertains to a country by the UN Convention.

No such right has been granted to Northern Ireland and the Belfast Agreement has settled the issue. Eog1916 (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can Arnoutf give a reference for the law saying that. 122.105.216.1 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Scots Dialect

Ulster Scots is a variety of the Scots Language, therefore it is not THE language, rather is it the dialect of the Scot's language. If Scots was a variety of Ulster Scots..then Scots would be a dialect of Ulster Scots! Which is it then, the cart before the horse or the horse before the cart? One cannot have it both ways! You can say that people speak the same language -- or a dialect of the same language -- if they understand each other. One of the tests people use to differentiate "language" from "dialect" is mutual intelligibility. It is obvious to all that Scots and Ulster Scots are mutually intelligible. Many would go even further and argue that English and Scots (including its varieties) are mutually intelligible. So one can say that people speak the same language -- or a dialect of the same language -- if they understand each other. Max Weinreich said that; "A shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot" (A language is a dialect with an army/navy" ). We know that the Scots had such an army and navy, so I guess they win the argument as far as Ulater Scots is concerned! Eog1916 (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just taking what I see on the section itself, which goes both ways. While it remains like that, its best to leave the article section as is Alastairward (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Gaelic Dialect

The Gaelic language has historically been part of a dialect continuum stretching from the south of Ireland, through the Isle of Man, to the north of Scotland. Classical Gaelic, was used as a literary language in Ireland until the 17th century and in Scotland until the 18th century. To argue that Ulster Gaelic is Ulster Irish is to divorce it from its roots, which belong on either side of 'Sruth na Maoile' (North Channel or Straits of Moyle). Ulster Gaelic is a variety of Gaelic, therefore it is not THE language, rather is it the dialect of Gaelic. If Gaelic was a variety of Ulster Gaelic..then Gaelic would represent a dialect of Ulster Gaelic! Which is it then, the cart before the horse or the horse before the cart? One cannot have it both ways! You can say that people speak the same language -- or a dialect of the same language -- if they understand each other. One of the tests people use to differentiate "language" from "dialect" is mutual intelligibility. It is obvious to all that Scots Gaelic and Ulster Gaelic are mutually intelligible. Many would go even further and argue that Irish Gaelic (the modern standard form or Caighdeán) and Scots Gaelic (including its varieties) are mutually intelligible. So one can say that people speak the same language -- or a dialect of the same language -- if they understand each other. Max Weinreich said that; "A shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot" (A language is a dialect with an army/navy" ). We know that the Gaels did not have a navy or army in the modern sense, therefore all the dialects of Gaelic have / should be treated on a par, they simply represent varieties of Gaelic! After all, this concept is not new to the Gael, an old Gaelic saying has it that "languages live in their dialects". Eog1916 (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

NI doesn't have an anthem, it shouldn't go in the infobox for NI.

Who can argue!Eog1916 (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but now that I comment I see that it has been removed from the infobox, its better listed in the main body of the article as it is now Alastairward (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Something amiss in Scotland

A conversation about the current maps used to represent the constituent countries has been started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Something_amiss_in_Scotland. This discussion is hopefully to resolve issues that have been raised and to try to set a standard within the UK. For all those that wish to comment on this, your input is requested. Thank-you :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

the Map

Seeing as Scotland doesn't shade the rest of the UK on it's map, should this article do the same? GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is planning on creating a new map, a neutral colour for Northern Ireland wouldn't go amiss either! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My question doesn't matter anymore. I've given up on the Scotland article; too much group ownership issues there, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

New Map

I like it, cool. This map has been adopted at England and Wales (currently being rejected at Scotland). -- GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have created the map currently on the main page Image:Uk map northern ireland.png. I hope you all dont mind that I was WP:BOLD and added it myself. I really don't want to create any edit wars I just want to see what others think and hopefully bring this to a nice consensus on what to use. I hate the idea that other countries seam to be more organized then us with these things, so I hope you think the new one looks professional... I'm actually kinda pleased :-) Please voice your opinion over at Talk:Scotland#Straw_Poll I know I'd personally love to hear your opinions! Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I loathe it. Besides, I fully support Ben W Bell's edit. The broader European context is more useful than a British Isles context.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country

OK 78.16.122.227, Why do you wish to say NI is a constiuent part? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it creates confusion that NI is a country which it isn't.78.16.122.227 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You're correct NI isn't a country, it's a constituent country, just like England, Scotland & Wales; there's a differance. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge there's a slight difference but take note of this from constituent country's page: Use of the term constituent country is sometimes regarded as inappropriate when applied to Northern Ireland because some do not regard it as a country. Instead, some regard it as a province of the UK while others regard it as part of an Irish nation. So constituent part directing to constituent country is the appropriate thing to use in this case.78.16.122.227 (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to wait and see what others think. This discussion occured before & the choice was to go with constituent country. Remember it's not entirely up to us. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear 78.16.122.227 (can't you register here?) on the article on provinces, it is noted that Northern Ireland has changed politically and is no longer as autonomous as it once was and today has only a limited degree of self rule. I would keep it as constituent country, with a link to the article to let others make their own mind up on the issue. Alastairward (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

But if they have even less self rule then surely the term country should be avoided? Using the term constiuent part linking to constiuent country would make more sense.78.16.176.146 (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Being a consistancy buff, I prefer all UK components being called constituent country. Also, constituent part just doesn't sound encyclopedic. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but reality trumps consistency. There's no point in having 'consisency' if it's not correct.78.16.176.146 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the change proposer. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just given proof in the article.Check it out.78.16.176.146 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I still prefer constituent country, however I'm not gonna revert your sourced edit. Wow, I must be getting tired of these disputes or perhaps I'm feeling wore down; interesting. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The source doesn't use the term "constituent region" (which ludicrously links to constituent country anyway). In addition there's ample proof of constituent country - [6] [7] [8]. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term 'country' or even 'constituent country' is misleading. It is noteworthy that Wales ( and Northern Ireland) were not offered a Parliament in the devolution process. Wales has long been part of Britain (NB: not Great Britain), in Gaelic we know Wales as 'an Bhreatain Bheag' ( English = Little Britain). I think there was a regiment in the British army called the 'Ancient Britains' which consisted of mainly Welsh recruits. As far as Northern Ireland the Belfast Agreement has stated clearly that it is not eligable for 'self determination'. Before Partition, many protestants and most catholics considered themselves as Irish and their their country to be Ireland. Ireland was then a constituent country of the United Kingdom, just like England and Scotland. Ever heard of the triple crowm? Munster still has the flag!Eog1916 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Again it's probably most simple to direct viewers of the page to the constituent country article, if they disagree with the inclusion of Northern Ireland as such, let them hash it out there Alastairward (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Remembering that Wikipedia is not an appropriate source, why if it would be inappropriate to refer to Northern Ireland as a constituent country in the Constituent country article would it be okay to do so here? --sony-youth^pléigh 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It just seemed that if we're linking to the constituent country article to explain why NI is a constituent country, using its sources, then that article is in a way the root of the argument. Instead of repeating an argument in two different places, it would save time to provide sources etc in the root article, and if its decided that NI is not a constituent country then link to that article to say why here. If its not the way things are done in wikipedia, then ignore that obviously, but it just seemed at first the most logical way to do it. Alastairward (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship 2

Here is the previous discussion. The current wording reflects both consensus and reality.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged your edit, please provide a RS to support that.--Padraig (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sony and Ben, your expertise would be useful here. This discussion only provides references on the Irish side, not the British.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tagged un-referenced claim.--Padraig (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Anoter proposed guideline for "the British Isles"

I have numerous concerns about the current proposal for a guideline for the use of the term British Isles and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

NI disambig

I think the following disambig at the top of the NI artilce looks really silly and should be removed. Does any one really look up NI thinking they'll go straight to an EP constituency page? Heres the disambig:

This article is about the constituent country. For the European constituency, see Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency).

Does any one else support deleting this disambig? Redking7 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the hatnote is appropriate, particularly if you're looking for the European parliament constituency and are not sure what to search for. I'll add a comparable hatnote to that page linking to this one. WLU (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Any one else have any view on the "hatnote"? I still think it looks really silly and out of place. The following is the "hatnote" User WLU has added to the constituency page:

"This article is about the constituency in the European Parliament. For the United Kingdom constituent country, see Northern Ireland."

—

I can't help but find it amusing that any one would think that any one would look up Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency) and expect to read about NI!

Still, if no one speaks up to support removing the "hatnotes", I will leave these edits as is. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reproduced this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northern Ireland as that appears to be a more active forum. Redking7 (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Better link: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Northern_Ireland#NI_disambig. Will comment further there. WLU (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hatnotes exist for a very specific reason, how would anyone otherwise expect to be able to find the Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency) article? The two things have the same name, therefore "(European Parliament constituency)" is the disambiguation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A hatnote 'looking silly' isn't really a reason to remove it as it's just an opinion; my opinion is that it is a useful means of distinguishing between closely named articles that does not look silly at all and increases the ease of navigation between wikipedia pages. The hatnote I added was based on the {{otheruses}} template, standard for all wikipedia articles. I think it's an appropriate use of a hatnote per Wikipedia:Hatnote#Two articles with the same title. It's possible that Wikipedia:Hatnote#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous applies, but since both pages are about political and geographic divisions that have the same name but within different systems, I think that the hatnote is suitable. WLU (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In reply to the above:

• “[hatenotes are a] useful means of distinguishing between closely named articles”. Couldn’t disagree with that! However, why is the Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency) page being singled out? There are numerous “closely named articles”. Examples: Northern Ireland peace process; Northern Ireland Executive; Northern Ireland Tourist Board...the list could go on for a while;
• If Northern Ireland becomming a disambiguation page is in fact what is desired, this could be proposed and if a consensus backed it, put in place (I wouldn’t support it). To me the “hatnote” is very silly and that is a perfectly good reason to remove it!; and
• Next, we need to think about consistency. This is the only page where such a “hatnote” features. There is no such hatnote on the London article (even though there is a London (European Parliament constituency) – just a general hatnote advising people that London has other meanings. As an alternative to NI becoming a disambig page, this could be added to the NI page. The disambig page the NI hatnote would lead to could include all of the above-mentioned similarly named articles. I don’t think it's necessary but I wouldn’t object to that. That might be the appropriate comprise.

Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Both are political constituencies and linked geographic areas; I don't see much chance for confusion between the other uses of Northern Ireland. I don't see a need for a NI DAB page either, but it's a possibility. Note the hatnote at the top of the London page, which links to the London (disambiguation) page, which has in it London (European Parliament constituency); there is no equivalent DAB page for NI. If you're really concerned, we could get a WP:RFC on it. Irrespective I don't think the hatnote should be removed. WLU (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be (re)moved. Neither the Germany page nor Germany (disambiguation) mention Germany (European Parliament constituency). Same goes for Luxembourg and Malta. Cyprus, Denmark and the Czech Republic, like NI, don't have a disambiguation at all and none of these have an ugly hatnote to the EP constituency of the same name. The best place for it is in the "See also" section. Crazy Among (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Since they don't have an appropriate hatnote and neither do the disambiguation pages, I'll add them. The hatnotes being 'ugly' isn't really a reason - they are functional choices, not aesthetic ones, and the constituencies have exactly the same names. Based on WP:DAB, WP:WPDAB or MOS:DAB is there a reason to remove the link? Lacking a NI disambiguation page means the hatnote is appropriate. If a NI disambiguation page is needed, then I, or you, can create it. I'll bring this up at the wikiproject to see if there's a reason to remove the hatnote. WLU (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ick, the Germany disambiguation page was terrible. Since wikified. This is part of the reason why using other pages as examples isn't usually an unambiguous solution - pages can be edited by anyone, including vandals, and there's no guarantee the page is in keeping with the suitable wikiproject, policy, guidelines or manual of style. WLU (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks ridiculous and it's relevance and/or usefulness is extremely suspect! beano (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't consider 'looks ridiculous' to be a valid objection. There should be some link between the pages, and the hatnote is the standard means. I've posted the question on Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Northern_Ireland, if that doesn't garner much interest I'll try another venue. Also note that all the pages cited above have been adjusted, so possibly there'll be more input from people on those pages. WLU (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to legitimise the hatnotes by adding them to the articles then you'd better go through all the other regions with the same name as a European Parliament Constituency... Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Île-de-France. The rest need the constituency added to their disambiguation. I really don't think people go to Northern Ireland expecting the EP constituency for the same reason they don't expect it at Finland, Cyprus or Slovenia. I really think the best place for this is in the pages 'see also' section or even the Politics of Northern Ireland article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy Among (talk • contribs) 22:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I added that hatnote, on 30 Jan 2008, and am glad to have found my way to this discussion. At the same time I added hatnotes, or entries in dab pages, for all the UK Euroconstituencies (some were already there), to provide a route for someone who knows the constituency name but not the Wikipedia convention for Euroconstituency names, to find the article. For Scotland, there's a link on the dab page. For Northern Ireland, as for Yorkshire and the Humber, there is a hatnote. The Euroconstituency is very different from other entities such as Northern Ireland peace process etc as listed above, because it's an entity named called "Northern Ireland", the "(European Parliament Constituency)" being to disambiguate it. Please leave the hatnote, unless you're going to create a dab page for NI which can include this among other items, with a hatnote pointing to the dab page. (I notice that the Scotland (disambiguation) includes various national teams etc, so that a parallel NI page could reasonably be created.) I agree that a "For other uses see Northern Ireland (disambiguation)" would look slightly more sensible than the existing hatnote, but it requires the dab page to exist! PamD (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that: Both Northern Irelands are likely to be searched with the term "Northern Ireland" and you need to be able to find both. If there are other items that will be searched for with (just) "Northern Ireland," then we need a dab page. If there is no dab page and we have two items like this, the hatnote as-is is the appropriate solution. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and pointing out the pages that need to be corrected Crazy Among, I will try to get to all of them. If I do not, then feel free to correct the pages yourself. I may not be watching the page in the future, so feel free to drop future comments on the European Union Wikiproject where a more comprehensive set of editors can address them. WLU (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, if any other exist the otheruses templates are easy to copy, paste and adjust. The Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency) incidentally, should not really be in the see also section (see also sections shouldn't really exist, I see them as a failure to fruitfully integrate a relevant link into the body text), if there's a section on politics of Northern Ireland the parliament constituency link should be in the body text there. If there's a main page, the link should be duplicated there as well. The point isn't to link to the pages only once, it's to link wherever it makes sense. WLU (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would not have bothered with the hatnote on the "X (European Parliament constituency)" pages. If they had been looking for the country X, they would probably never see the hatnote. My comments were about the "X" pages only. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

I disagree about the see also section. Not violently, but you may be more interested in one of those topics but not be able to find it via WP search any more easily. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the discussion is taking place here already... I think the links simply don't fit into the head of the article. There is a better way to find the articles, like EU parliament article or appropriate sections in countries articles. --Tone 08:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the hatnote issue. What I describe how it is handled in most WP articles and the way most readers will expect to find the article. If you wanted to find the NI EU article, how would you expect someone to find it? (John User:Jwy talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Either a NI disambig page is create or the hatnote stays I also find it odd that some people find the hatnote extremely suspect! the constituency has the exact same name how else is one going to find it. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just created dab pages for some other EU countries whose names are the names of their Euroconstituencies, but wouldn't dare to try to do so for NI. I've added a "See also" to the equivalent of Category:National sports teams of Northern Ireland in each case, as those teams are known as "[country name]". (And, in passing, I've made that NI category appear under "National sports teams by country", as the Scotland and Wales ones did, as well as appearing as a subcat of "... of the UK".) I suggest someone assembles a nice dab page for NI, then everyone will be happy. PamD (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(copy of comment I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northern Ireland)

The hatnote is clumsy and doesn't seem to fit the spirit of WP:DAB. The constituency article is about NI, so it should be summarised in Northern Ireland#Demography and politics of Northern Ireland and linked from there. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

PamD: I don't see the benefit of a disambiguation page. In my experience, good dab pages list dissimilar topics, not overlapping ones. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The constituency article is not about NI, but about the European constituency called NI, which represents the country. It is part of a whole pattern of articles about Euroconstituencies, which have a wide range of names: "London", "Yorkshire and the Humber", "Pomeranian", "East", etc. If someone is looking for info about this Euroconstituency, but doesn't happen to remember the exact formula of "(European Parliament constituency)", they will type in "Northern Ireland". They deserve to get a link to it, either direct or via a dab page linked from the top of the page. (I tend to agree that we don't need the reverse: anyone typing the whole rigmarole to get to the article about the Euroconstituency will not be looking for an article about the country). Good dab pages help people find what they are looking for. I'll put one together for NI: I was hesitant because of the toes to be trodden on around NI, a country with which I have no connection, but here goes. PamD (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I hope most people are happier than with the previous hatnote, and that no-one wants to delete the dab page as being too small. The only acceptable alternative, to my mind, is to go back to the cumbersome hatnote directing to the Euroconstituency. PamD (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

PamD wrote They deserve to get a link to it, either direct or via a dab page linked from the top of the page.

They emphatically do not deserve any such thing. How do we know what they want to know about the constituency—its population, its climate, its economy, its national politics? None of those are in the constituency article. If they are searching for the name of the MEP, or an election result, then Google or MediaWiki search or any other search engine will get them the constituency page, or they can scroll down Northern Ireland to the link. UK parliamentary constituencies do not follow that pattern, neither do US senate seats or English counties. If a few European countries and regions have dab links, then they are the exception, and their editors have not paid any attention to WP:DAB, or think that European constituencies have more political and encyclopedic importance for that country than they really do.

The constituency article is not about NI, but about the European constituency called NI

Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency) is about Northern Ireland. Repeating it a hundred times does not make it about some other topic. —Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the creators of Northern Ireland (disambiguation) and the hatnote were unaware of the 2006 guideline at WP:RELATED. I was! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

First Minister over Prime Minister?

I would like to suggest Placing the First Minister's name over the Prime Ministers as the article is about N Ireland. Looking at articles on Australian states, US states and Canadian provinces there is no mention of Presidents or Prime Ministers. I am not actually suggesting removing the PM's name, just swapping the names over. I wonder if anyone would be interested in this proposal? --Jack forbes (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would find this acceptable. However, since England doesn't have a 'First Minister'? It's best to keep the UK Prime Minister above the 'First Ministers'. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay but not for any reason concerning the England article. QE2 appears at the top so it looks like a hierarchial order is to be followed. I think the Australian states are different too because they have Governors who are QE2's representatives etc. I don't think the four UK regions have that (although NI [uniquely?] did have a Governor until the 1970s). Regards. Redking7 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

England not having a First Minister is irrelevant to this discussion not sure about the queen she appoints the Welsh and Scottish ones but I think the situation is different in NI --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Gavin Lisburn (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Could someone amend the post nominal letters of Robinson & McGuinness from MLA to MP, MLA as I am not too sure how to do it?

Motto

I have deleted this from the "info box":

Motto: Quis separabit(Latin)"Who will separate us"

This "motto" has no official status as a "motto" for NI nor is it used by the UK or NI government etc. It featured on the old coat of arms of the Executive Committee of the Privy Council of Northern Ireland, long since abolished. It may be the motto of the UVF and other groups - but not of NI. As everything - even pure accuracy points like this - tends to be controversial, I would ask that before any Users re-insert this "motto", they provide UK/NI Government sources authenticating its official status today. I have found none. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

H (pronounciation)

There are supposedly some minute differences in pronunciation between Protestants and Catholics, the best known of which is the name of the letter h, which Protestants tend to pronounce as "aitch", as in British English, and Catholics tend to pronounce as "haitch", as in Hiberno-English. -- thats not a proven fact. im from northern ireland thers no difference whether they be catholic or protestant. like it says on the other part of the page "the war is over" people arent segerated anymore 81.157.242.82 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Country within a country" wording proposal

Come look see here and vote. MickMacNee (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors need to be aware that a consensus is being built on Talk:United Kingdom to replace reference to Northern Ireland as a constituent country with "Northern Ireland is a semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the north east of the island of Ireland"--Snowded (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of Border article

At Talk:Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border, I have proposed that the name be changed to comply with diplomatic protocol. Please comment there. --Red King (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-22 United Kingdom

I hope ya'll can give us your imput. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Map

Considering that the previous discussion of the map here ended without an agreed consensus... would anyone be in favour of changing the map to bring it inline with the one at Scotland and (one of the maps at) Wales?-MichiganCharms (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, whatever ya like. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lives lost and injured in "the Troubles"

I've removed references to "combatants" in this section. Language such as this is highly controversial, implying as it does that the Troubles was a "war" and thus giving legitimacy to paramilitary organisations and creating equivalence between paramilitaries and the police and armed forces.

The whole article actually requires a re-write.

It is also necessary to clarify what is meant by "civilians". Ordinarily, police, prison warders, etc., are considered to be civilian occupations and if such persons are not considered as "civilians", then this must be stated for clarity.Mooretwin (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Combatants is what secondary sources use. Either they are civilians, or they are combatants, you can't have it both ways. Inventing labels of "other" is not acceptable. Also please stop labelling the defunct Ulster Banner as the "Flag of Northern Ireland", that is loyalist POV. BigDunc^Talk 17:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And what "secondary sources" use "combatants"? "Combatants" is the term preferred by Provisional Sinn Féin, the political wing of the main terrorist group - it is clearly not a neutral term. It attaches legitimacy to terrorist groups and implies equivalence between terrorist groups and security forces. It is unacceptable terminology. "Others" is unsatisfactory, but preferable to "combatants" until such time as a re-write is performed in more suitable language. It is not a case of "either civilians or combatants" - that is a false dichotomy. A civilian is someone who is not in the military. The police are not in the military. Nor are prison warders. Being in the military does not make one a "combatant" unless there is an armed conflict in the legal sense, which was not the case in Northern Ireland. As for the flag, it is not a "loyalist POV" to refer to the flag of Northern Ireland. The flag in question is de facto used as the flag of Northern Ireland. To use your language, it is a "republican POV" to insist that the flag is NOT the flag of Northern Ireland. Finally, please stop referring to the "Constitution of Ireland" in an article about Northern Ireland - it makes no sense to refer to the "Constitution of Ireland", when said constitution is a 26-county constitution - the name is a misnomer and therefore confusing. "Republic of Ireland" is a neutral term and avoids ambiguity.Mooretwin (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good to see a new editor independently coming to the same conclusion over the flag that many of us were at months ago. I'm inclined to agree on combatants being a POV term too.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Under most definitions I'm aware of civilians would not in this case include police officers. Compared to the army yes police are civilians, compared to the rest they are not. I think most sources lump police officers into non-civilians categories. Canterbury Tail talk 11:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've re-written this category using purely factual information and avoiding biased and controversial terminology such as "combatants". I take on board Canterbury Tail's point about civilians (although in the legal sense, police officers are certainly civilians) and have retained use of this term, albeit with a definition after the first reference.Mooretwin (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone - Pureeditor - is simply reverting the edits made to this article without engaging in discussion. Although I have received a threat from BigDunc, I am replacing the edited text. If Pureeditor wants to discuss the article, let him do so here.Mooretwin (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a poorly formatted section using boxes is any replacement for the previous prose, and I have reverted. Also that the Ulster Banner is not the flag of Northern Ireland is not republican POV, it is backed up by government legislation. If you object to the term Constitution of Ireland I suggest you complain to the government of Ireland and see if they will change it, or failing that attempt to move the corresponding article. Until then, it will be called by its official name, and the same applies to the Flag of Ireland. Please seek consensus for these controversial changes, as more than one editor objects to them per the discussion below BigDunc^Talk 17:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the replacement section certainly was better than the highly-partial article that precedted it. If it is poorly-formatted, then feel free to improve the formatting, but the article to which you reverted is unacceptable in its use of language and the biased emphasis it places on its interpretation.Mooretwin (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. the flag of NI, pray tell what legislation you refer to. In the real world, the flag is used de facto as NI's flag.Mooretwin (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally, whether or not the "Constitution of Ireland" is the official name is not the point - the point is that the name is ambiguous and misleading, just like the name of the state. In an article on one part of Ireland, it does not make sense to refer to the constitution of the other part as though it were the constitution for the whole island. If "Republic of Ireland" is acceptable terminology elsewhere in the article, then it is acceptable in this section. Ditto with the "Flag of Ireland" - it is not the flag of Ireland, merely the flag of the Republic, notwithstanding the "official name" of that state.Mooretwin (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:Summary style, the tables with death statistics are too much detail for this article. The section on "The Troubles" should simply be a one or two paragraph summary of the main article at The Troubles. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

History

Have corrected date of Larne gun-running from 1912 to 1914. And removed reference to Lord Randolph Churchill as this relates to a previous anti-home-rule campaign and not the one being discussed. Mooretwin (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship and identity

The relevant law is section 6 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (as amended by the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2001).

6.—(1) Every person born in the island of Ireland is entitled to be an Irish citizen.

(2) (a) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person born in the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth if he or she does, or if not of full age has done on his or her behalf, any act which only an Irish citizen is entitled to do.

(b) The fact that a person so born has not done, or has not had done on his or her behalf, such an act shall not of itself give rise to a presumption that the person is not an Irish citizen or is a citizen of another country.

(3) A person born in the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth if he or she is not entitled to citizenship of any other country.

As you can see, subsection (1) refers to an entitlement to be an Irish [sic] citizen.

Subsection (2)(a) provides a criterion for being an Irish [sic] citizen. It is not clear, however, what acts this refers to. The obvious one, however, would be applying for a passport (or possibly voting in a Dáil election?).

Subsection (2)(b), however, states that, even if one has not done one of these acts, one is not presumed not to be an Irish [sic] citizen. This is a strange construction, which falls short of saying positively that someone who has not performed one of these acts is assumed to be an Irish [sic] citizen. Hence there is room for manoeuvre in that someone who has not performed such an act, while not presumed not to be a citizen, equally may surely not be presumed to be one either.

Hence my edit to say that people from Northern Ireland MAY BE regarded as ROI citizens from birth.

I'm therefore making the edit again. If anyone disagrees, please enter into discussion rather than simply reverting.Mooretwin (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes people born in NI are not automatically Irish citizens, but are usually automatically British citizens. They can choose to become, are are generally entitled to, Irish citizens, but it isn't usually automatic. Canterbury Tail talk 13:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - hence the edit.Mooretwin (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made the minor revision to state in less certain terms that NI people "may be regarded" rather than "are regarded", as currently this is the consensus here. BigDunc made a reversion without discussing first.Mooretwin (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted a few colloquial terms of 'The Republic' being used to refer to the state called Ireland. As an encyclopedia colloquial terms should be avoided and common and official names should be used instead. The official name of the state portrays everything in a more international NPOV. I also fear the term Irish will soon be substituted with 'Southern Irish' the way things are going, but please don't. If we keep everything to the official name then this article will be better for it.Pureditor 14:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As previously discussed, references to "Ireland" when meaning the Republic of Ireland are ambiguous in this particular article. "Republic of Ireland" is used elsewhere in the article and therefore is appropriate throughout.Mooretwin (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As previously discussed? Where is it? There is no consensus on it. This is an encyclopedia, colloquial names have to be avoided. The term is not used elsewhere. Its use is justified in the opening two lines but after that differenciation has been made, so therefore the official name should be used for the rest of that article as it has been before edit wars started happening.Pureditor 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the "Ireland v Republic of Ireland" discussion! Also read the article - Republic of Ireland and "the Republic" are used throughout. These are perfectly acceptable terms and the most sensible terms to avoid ambiguity. Please stop reverting to "Ireland" which doesn't make sense when referring to one part of an island on an article about the other part! Your "argument" about "colloquial names" is a red herring. And "Republic of Ireland" is actually the "official description" of the state and therefore perfectly acceptable. Mooretwin (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That is your interpreation of a primary source, please stop adding it to the article, and please read the messages at the top of this very talk page, as most of your edits are unsourced and POV. BigDunc^Talk 14:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the above is addressed to me, I have read the messages at the top of the page, which advise one to see if the topic has already been discussed. Indeed, this had, and the previous discussion concluded that it was not necessarily the case that citizenship of ROI was automatic for people from NI. Hence, it is safer to say "may be" rather than "are".Mooretwin (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Tentative Proposal

I wonder if it would make sense to reference material in The Troubles rather than repeat it here (casualty figures etc. I did think about being bold on this but given the recent edit skirmish decided to raise it here first. --Snowded (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly preferable to the highly partial article that preceded my edit.Mooretwin (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. But any proposed deletions should be proposed here and then given a proper edit summary. Unlike the one I've just reverted. --Red King (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Those casualty tables should most definitely not be in the main article on Northern Ireland. In The Troubles yes, in the article on the country no. Canterbury Tail talk 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Red King (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree (as the one who clandestinely removed said list, before Red King reverted it, sorry). A dedicated subsection in the history section should be devoted to the troubles though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William.mu (talk • contribs) 17:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(indent) OK I made the change as people seem in agreement. The section needs more work though to make it more of a summary - too much detail in other areas, the civil rights movement and other key events omitted for example. --Snowded (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I did, but now there has been a mass revert which leave the history section giving the same prominence to broadband adoption as to the troubles. Can we have less drastic action please. I have to get a flight so can not do anything now, but this is nonsensical --Snowded (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

BigDunc's out of order with his last edits85.210.78.70 (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

PETS

is it true tht because of a loophole in the law you can own any animal as a pet,coz ive seen it on ALOT of tv shows Luke12345abcd (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)