Talk:Ulster

Older comments

In the Donegal Gaeltacht, Northern Ireland is referred to as "Na Se Condaetha". Not "An Tuaisceart", as the North is obviously not to their north, but their south and east. Why remove the translation?

Well, personally I'm in favour of as much Irish as possible here, but this is the English Wikipedia, so I was just worried that having more than the county names in Irish would lead someone to complain and insist on ALL the Irish names being removed. I didn't see the State names as being particularly necessary - but with the Donegal thing, I guess there is point. It's easy to forget Gaeltachts or genuine Irish speakers exist in this country!!!

Note that the Republic of Ireland is NOT "Saorstát Éireann" - that hasn't been used since 1937. It's "Éire" or "Poblacht na hÉireann". zoney ♣ talk 16:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting WehrWolf's changes and want ot explain why.

Gaelic in the context of 16th century Ireland and before was not just a language, it also referred to a people, who called themselves Gaidheail or "Gaels" and to their society and culture -Gaidhealach or Gaelic and to where they lived the Gaidhealtacht -(Gaeil, Gaelach and Gaeltacht in modern Irish). "Celtic" by contrast is an abstraction. It is a word used by the ancient Greek and Romans. The Gaelic peoples of Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man never referred to themselves in this way and nor did anyone else until the nineteenth century, when "celtic" was re-invented. Modern archeologists question whether it makes sense even in an abstract way to refer to the inhabitants of Ireland as "Celts". So celtic is going out and Gaelic is going back in.

Point two. The Irish and Scots werre not both descended from the "Gaelic Irish", I don't know how you figured this one out. If you mean that some of Scotland - the Highlands, shared a Gaelic culture with Ireland, this is true, but the settlers who came to Ulster were Lowlanders, not from Gaelic regions and did not have (in the main) a common culture or descent with the natives. That was the whole problem. The only exceptions here were the MacDonnell clan, who after several generations regarded themselves as Irish, in stark contrast to the other Scots in the province. Jdorney

History

A few new things here, have changed "Anglican" to "Protestant" in discusion of sectarian violence in the 1790s. Presbyterians were also involved in these clashes, especially in Armagh and Tyrone. Presbyterians were generally the poorer of the two Protestant groups and were therefore in more direct competition with Catholics over the linen trade. Lapsed Pacifist, please don't change this back again. Thanks. Have also added subsections and a few other bits and pieces Jdorney 15:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're blurring important distinctions that existed in Ulster Protestantism at the time. The Peep o' Day Boys were exclusively Anglican. The Orange Order that followed them remained exclusively Anglican for forty years. The Ulstermen who practised the state religion were not inclined to treat too cordially Presbyterians who looked to the revolutionary example of their American cousins. There were many clashes between Presbyterian and Catholic factions, but not the one referred to. The Orange Order's loyalism to the crown took a distant second to the economic status of its members.

Lapsed Pacifist 23:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that's a good edit. It makes a big difference when you expand the text with good information and use the talk page rather than just change a few words in the article. While we're at it, regarding the piece you've put in about refugees moving to Connacht, to my knowledge this happened in the 1640s/50s and 1790s, not at the time of the plantation. What's your information about this? Jdorney 00:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not all the Ulster planters who came in the 17th century were Lowland's Scots though. I think Monroe's army sent over in 1641 to put down (unsuccessfully) the Irish rebellion consisted mainly of Highlanders. Some Protestant-majority areas in the North were supposedly Gaelic speaking in the late 19th century. One piece of evidence of Gaelic speaking planters is the town of Lisburn. Originaly it was a village called Lisnagarvy (before the plantation) meaning "Fort of the Gamblers". Scots Gaelic planters changed this to Lisburn meaning "Fort of the Streamlet". - Peter O'Connell

• I have changed the bit about thousands of "natives" being driven off their lands during the Plantation. I have included a reference to respected (Catholic) historian Marianne Elliot stating that most Irish natives remained on their land during the plantation scheme. If anybody could fix up the reference, I would be grateful as I'm not sure how to do it.- Stephen.*

• I have changed the line to this which is also in agreement with what is stated on Wikipedia's page on the Plantation itself...

In general the "ordinary" native Irish remained in occupation of their land, they were neither removed nor Anglicised. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.140.83 (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Somebody continues changing this line back to the previous line which is simply incorrect. I have included an online reference for my line something that whoever is changing it seems unable to do. If one reference is deemed insufficient to support what I have written I can provide many more from other respected historians such as Jonathan Bardon and A.T.Q. Stewart.- Stephen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.139.249 (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to have an "edit war" over this. Could we try to reach some sort of agreement over this or could somebody explain to me how to take it to the arbitration committee?- Stepehn.

Monoglots

I'm unhappy with this sentence, it just doesn't make too much sense. "English is spoken by virtually everyone in Ulster, apart from a few immigrants living in the province, and a handful of monoglots in the Donegal Gaeltacht." It's the bit about monoglots, which in the context makes no sense because the majority of people in Northern Ireland and indeed Ulster are monoglots only speaking English. They are as much monoglots as in Donegal Gaeltacht. Ben W Bell 10:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Lapsed, that's definitely better wording. Couldn't think how to rephrase it myself. Ben W Bell 10:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

External Links

• BBC Nations History of Ireland
• The British Isles Independent view of Ireland and the UK
• Inconvenient Peripheries Ethnic Identity and the United Kingdom Estate The cases of “Protestant Ulster” and Cornwall’ by prof Philip Payton
• Mercator Atlas of Europe Map of Ireland ("Irlandia") circa 1564

Just added the following Bretagne 44 13:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I redid the link to payt.pdf which had changed.

Porthugh 09:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the bit about thousands of "natives" being driven off their lands during the Plantation. I have included a reference to respected (Catholic) historian Marianne Elliot stating that most Irish natives remained on their land during the plantation scheme. If anybody could fix up the reference, I would be grateful as I'm not sure how to do it.- Stephen.

the British Isles

Now, I don't want to open a can of worms, but i think that the claim that "the British Isles" is a geographical rather than a political one is, at the very least, open to debate. I suspect that it would not be supported by the majority of the population of the island of Ireland, but that it would by the majority of the larger island to the east. This, in itself, points towards it being at least partly political. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I give you this, from our British Isles article:

Many Irish people, as well as some Scottish, Welsh and Cornish nationalists, find the term British Isles proprietorial and unacceptable as being inconsistent with the modern meaning of the word British, and, as such, offensive. However, Unionists in Northern Ireland attach great importance to their 'British' identity.

Other people see it as a geographical term that does not imply ownership or control by the British.

Hostility to the term British Isles has often been caused by its misinterpretation; this was exemplified by an embarrassing and controversial faux pas by the then American First Lady Nancy Reagan during an Irish visit. The confusion caused by the term was also highlighted during a stop-over visit to the Republic of Ireland by then Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, when he indicated that he presumed Ireland's head of state was Queen Elizabeth II, given that she was the British Queen and his officials said that Ireland was a part of the British Isles.

The term British Isles is no longer used in Irish state documents, has been abandoned in schoolbooks in the Republic of Ireland and is being phased out of textbooks. Its usage is also decreasing in official British state documents, out of sensitivity to the concerns of some Irish, Scottish and Welsh people and the evolving geo-political relationships.

Now, until we get agreement on this, I'd rather that the term was removed. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The British Isles is a term which derives from sources going back thousands of years long before there was anything really that was 'British'. It is a collective geographic term for almost all the islands off the NW of the main European continental mass and has nothing to do with governments or people. It's a collective term just like all the land in the EU is Europe without taking any national or political boundaries or states into consideration, just like Americas. It doesn't imply political controls, national identity or any such and I suspect has only been brought up as contentious because it contains a term that is used by some as a national identifier. It's like people from Northern Ireland are Irish because they come from the island of Ireland, but are not Irish as a national or political identifier of their nationality, people from Canada and Mexico being American because they are from the Americas but not because of what political institution they are part of. Ben W Bell 10:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that it is a term that has happily existed in what is a very contentious article for almost a year, if you look through the history, without any of the politically biased sides taking issue with it. Ben W Bell 10:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologists of the term "British Isles" maintain that it has ancient origins, something to do with Ptolemy calling Ireland and Britain the "Pretannic Isles" on some map or other, completely ignoring the fact that the knowledge of the world in Ancient Greece was in many ways as patchy as our own knowledge of the surface of Titan in our own time. If Ptolemy was referring to the peoples who spoke the British Celtic language, or Prythonic language of England, Wales and southern Scotland then he was, for the most part, correct in speaking of the "Pretannic Isles" but there is no concrete evidence to suggest that this Prythonic Celtic was spoken in Ireland.

The simple fact of the matter is that the term is both politically and geographically incorrect. The idea that "British Isles" is merely a geographical term is utter nonsense. "British Isles" is an extremely jingoistic, Victorian and imperialistic term. It is immaterial that most people in Britain use it as a "harmless" geographical term. As an Irish person, I find it deeply offensive. I live in the sovereign Republic of Ireland not in just another "British isle".

The adjective "British" refers exclusively to the island of Great Britain, however, in the absence of a satisfactory term for the United Kingdom and its people as a whole, "British" is used widely to describe the people, government etc. of the United Kingdom. The term "Ukonian" has been put forward in the past as a possible alternative term to "British" when referring to the United Kingdom. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using "British" when the term is used correctly, to describe the people, cultures, geography etc. of Britain, which is an island composed of Scotland, England and Wales. This has already been officially acknowledged by the United Kingdom state in its own official title; The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If Northern Ireland were just another part of Great Britain there simply wouldn't be any need to mention it in the official title of the state.

There simply isn't any need for the term "British Isles" anyway. Can someone explain to me what exactly is wrong with the term "Britain and Ireland" or "Ireland and Britain"?? One does not refer to the Iberian Peninsula as the "Spanish Peninsula" nor to peninsular Scandinavia as the "Swedish Peninsula" nor to Corsica and Sardinia as the "Sardinian Isles", yet it seems to be perfectly acceptable to speak of Ireland and Britain as the "British Isles"!

The twenty-six county Republic of Ireland has been an independent state for almost eighty four years now, yet the British media continue to bandy this term about as though the sovereignty of this state were non-existent! It is most interesting that of the main stream British broadcasters, Sky News is the only television channel, as far as I know, which has a clear policy of not using the term British Isles in any of its reports. All weather reporters speak of "Britain and Ireland" and I've yet to hear "British Isles" on Sky News. If only this were the case for the BBC, ITV etc.

If, as apologists claim, "British Isles" is merely a geographical term, devoid of any political overtones, then does it follow that Ireland is a "British isle", that, therefore, its cities and towns are "British" cities and towns, indeed, can, therefore, people who inhabit those towns and cities be accurately described as "British" people? It is when one starts to evaluate the term in these terms, that any defence of the term begins to fall to bits.

To those who say that most of the main political parties, including the nationalist ones, raise no objections to the term, I say this: the vast majority of people in Ireland never ever use the term "British Isles" and find it repugnant. The fact that more people are not more vocal about this is that most people feel that nothing can be done about it, that the British media have been let away with this for years and can effectively use any terminology they like when referring to this state. Politicians are no different. "British Isles" is, indeed, an informal term but that does not make it any less inaccurate or patronising to Irish people.

A further argument commonly made is that Scottish or Welsh or Cornish nationalists occaisionally get hot under the collar about the term British, yet, the use of British to refer to Scotland, Wales or Cornwall is at least geographically correct. All three are physically joined to Britain unlike Ireland which is seperated from Britain by the Irish Sea.

The only fair and decent alternative to "British Isles" is "Britain and Ireland" or "These Islands". Neither side of the political fence in Ireland could possibly object to this!!

You are using the terms incorrectly. To be precise:

British Isles - this is first and foremost a geographical term for all islands in the archipelago off the northern coast of France (excluding the Channel islands, that belong to the French land mass). In fact, off the coast of Brittany, hence the British Isles.

Great Britain - the largest island in the archipelago (hence United Kingom of Northern Ireland and Great Britain - Northern Ireland is in the British Isles but is not a part of the island of Great Britain). The term 'Great' is again a geographical term, meaning the largest island (ala Gran Canaria).

Ireland - first and foremost, this is a geographical term for the 2nd largest island in the archipelago - the British Isles. It sits next to Great Britain.

In terms of geo-political terms, it is incorrect to use the term British Isles or Ireland as nation states. The correct terms are the UK (consisting of 2 countries and a principality on the island of Great Britain and a Province on the island of Ireland) and the Republic of Ireland (the remainder of the island of Ireland).

Informally, many people misuse these terms. For example, they may use the term Irish to mean someone from anywhere on the island of Ireland (i.e. 2 different political states), when many in NI would take offence and prefer to be called British (or Ulstermen or ...). Similarly Nationals in the Republic of Ireland would take offence at being called British. This is the same problem as Canadians living in North America but objecting to being referred to as American.

The point being, that you may be be Irish, living in Ireland, in the British Isles, in Europe and it's ok. I know many people in the UK who would swear that they are not European and take offence at the implication. Geography has a way of out lasting political structures and geographical reality is unlikely to be changed to suit political beliefs.

User: Ben W Bell states, 'The British Isles is a term which derives from sources going back thousands of years long before there was anything really that was 'British'.' Actually, the earliest record of the term "British Isles" is from 1621. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=British. El Gringo 01:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That may (or may not, I haven't checked) been the earliest English language reference to the British Isles, however the British Isles talk page contains references of ancient Greek and/or Roman texts from circa 2000 years ago referring to the Pretannic or Britannic isles. Unless I'm mistaken at least one referred to Britannia Major and Britannia Minor (Great Britain and what is now Ireland). beano 23:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the correct name of the UK's Olympic team?

Is the UK's Olympic team "Great Britain" or "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?

see Cfd discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Great_Britain_at_the_Olympics_to_Category:Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_at_the_Olympics --Mais oui! 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The correct name is Team Great Britain. They do not use the United Kingdom wording in their logo. Perhaps this is to reflect that athletes in NI can represent either team Ireland or team GB. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  22:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Political Parties and religion

A anon change the information on the relationship of political parties and religious doctrine. I was not a big fan of what was preiously stated, and i am no more a fan of the current changes. First off their is no information or citation that provides a number to back up these claims. Second i cant belive the claims, i am more likely to belive that their are no catholics in the DUP, due to the fact of their leader, then the idea that their are no protistants in SF, considerng the fact that the republican movement (even in it's most radical of forms) has had many non-catholics involved, many in high positions in it history, though many were pre the modern day verson of SF. Either way unless their is some kind concret source to back up the claims, and at best that is what they currently are, i will consider rewording the paragraph. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Just delete the sentences. It's pretty irrelevant information as to how many taigs and how many prods are in each party - it's also already dealt with (irrelevantly IMO) on the pages for the individual parties. There is also an awful lot of waffle in that section called "Current Politics", and wouldn't mind a lot of that was revamped and possibly scrapped too. All it seems to deal with is religion - details of numbers of catholics and protestants in each area - it's just SO cringeworthy!

This article also discusses little about Ulster culture, Ulster-scots heritige and people etc. There should be as much (if not more) of this type of info as all the political stuff. Perhaps some information should be taken from the other Ulster articles.

Jonto 12:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I might just do that, considerng the more i think about it the less relevant i see the information being to this article anyway, it better situated for the Politics of NI artile then Ulster, which is a about a province that spans 2 countries. And yeah i agree, the artile needs to get away from the political side and more on the cultire of the whole of Ulser, and not just the NI side of it. Also what is up with the advert on the bottom, i might just remove it, as it nothing but a call for a website and has really no relvance to any discussion. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a good idea to keep politics on this page down to a minumum. As a person from N. Ireland, I'm fed up with all the politics anyway, personally I'd love to have a more unified nine county Ulster with self governing in a Reunited Ireland, but that's just My personal opinion.

I have changed the Ulster flag in this article to the correct version of the nine counties Ulster flag. The previous image showed the thumb on the red hand point outwards, like on the Government of Northern Ireland Flag. On the Ulster flag the thumb doesn't point out. Seamus2602 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ulster Flag

Can I ask how certain you are that the closed thumb flag is the correct one? I ask as even the Gaelic Athletic Association uses the open thumbed one and I'd have thought they'd be correct. Ben W Bell talk 12:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be right that it does not mattter. I assumed there was a difference as on the Flag of Northern Ireland and Flag of Ulster pages it mentions a difference in thumb, but this is unsourced, so I think a tag should be put on those articles in the meantime. Jonto 16:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a GAA reference: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/Ulster_GAA.gif/200px-Ulster_GAA.gif http://www.trikotshop-grafina.de/trikots/tyrone_detail.jpg Those ones look kind of in between to be. I've also seen NI flags that look sort of in between too. Jonto 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Comhairle Uladh uses an open thumb. Tyrone use an open thumb but the Ulster Flag has a closed thumb. If you look at Flag of Ulster.svg the creator says that he used the red hand from the Government of Northern Ireland Flag. The thumb on the two flags is actually slightly different. This link is from CAIN. This shows the Ulster Flag as having a different thumb. This is the actual flag used by the GAA. Comhairle Uladh, Tyrone and Ulster Rugby use an open thumb but the flag is a closed thumb. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/symbols/flags.htm User:Seamus2602 19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

London/Derry

Seeing as this article deals with Ulster in the sense of a traditional Irish provence, should the traditional name "Derry" not be used? I'm fighting the temptation to change it myself. "Londonderry (Doire)" is inaccurate. Doire is the irish version of "Derry" alone, without the "London" prefix. Using both terms is a contradiction. - EmpComm 21:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If we are talking about the county then there is no traditional name of Derry. There has never been a County Derry as County Londonderry was formed from County Coleraine and bits of other counties. Ben W Bell talk 22:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

When I inserted a more literal irish version of the name in County Londonderry their was a bit of a hissy-fit over it. Djegan 00:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Current politics

This section primarily discusses the three Ulster counties in the Republic of Ireland. For current politics in Northern Ireland refer to Demographics and politics of Northern Ireland.

I'm confused by this section and its heading. For some reason the heading says it relates to the politics of the 3 counties in the Republic. This seems strange in an article about the whole of Ulster but actually the article talks about politics in Northern Ireland as well. I'm not sure what it adds as quite a lot is unsourced. Morganr 13:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Giant's Causeway

The article states: "..Giant's Causeway, one of Ireland's three UNESCO World Heritage Sites.". Except it is not in Ireland it is in the United Kingdom. Ireland is what the Republic calls itself and the Republic is not (currently) in the UK. YourPTR! 01:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Except it is one of the three in the island of Ireland. Ben W Bell talk 07:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Section "Current politics"

This section could do with a good rewrite. At present, it starts with the arbitrary claim that it will only discuss the politics of Donegal/Cavan/Monaghan (which it clearly should not do - I plan to delete that!) and then sort of generally waffles about it a load of opinion and original research. Can someone attempt a rewrite please. Feel free to delete and replace. --Red King 19:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I decided to Be brave and have a go! I'm sure it won't please everybody but I hope that it provides a better basis for editing than what went before. --Red King 19:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect use of Derry/Londonderry

I had to make an edit changing 'Counties Derry...' to 'Counties Londonderry...'. When are people ever going to learn to grow and stop making immature edits which devalue Wikipedia!

Wikipedia policy is call the county Londonderry and the city Derry. A semi-respectable compromise that is being ruined by those with an Irish-unifying agenda.

AlexSloan 15:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the compromise should stay and not be vandalised, however please remove bias and respect that this vandalism is occuring on both sides and not just by "those with an Irish-unifying agenda". --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick thought - UVF first Paramilitary organisation??

"This movement also saw the setting up of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), the first Irish paramilitary group, in order to resist British attempts to enforce Home Rule. In response, Irish nationalists created the Irish Volunteers—forerunners of the Irish Republican Army (IRA)—to ensure the passing of the Home Rule Act 1914."

Occurs to me - i dont know if i am mistaken - but i was always told that the IRB was the 'first paramilitary organisation' - i dont know if this is just my background of education - but i guess it worries me even that i think the IRB was the first Paramilitaries - what is a Paramilitary organisation etc - like if the UVF were but the IRB werent then what were the united irish men or the young irish etc? Kindof makes me feel that the paramilitary title is only given cause they are modern. armalite = paramilitary. Pike = rebel/loyal to the crown etc.

--82.3.69.215 (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit needed desperately - from the Current politics section

Following sentences really only has one thought in it as far as i can see...(and most of that thought only has passing interest to Ulster.)

The Republic's parties have long ceased to base their selection of candidates purely on any religious criteria. For most of the twentieth century they chose at least one candidate from a Protestant background to attract the Protestant vote, but the disappearance of a block Protestant vote (except in County Donegal) voting exclusively for a candidate on the basis of religion (with Protestant voters instead voting primarily for local candidates irrespective of religion) means that selection now depends largely on considerations of geography when electing TDs to Dáil Éireann under its Proportional Representation system. Again, County Donegal differs here in that a Protestant "block vote" continues, especially in the east of the county.

I Propose - drop most of history of block vote in ireland as whole (or link elsewhere) and concentrate on donegal.

--82.3.69.215 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Cavan and Monaghan are also part of both Ulster and the Republic, so wouldn't bits that aren't about Donegal still be applicable to those two counties?Tameamseo (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)