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

Most of the settlers who came to Ireland from Scotland in the 16th and 17th centuries were Lowlanders, but a significant proportion were from the Highlands. In any case Gaelic language, culture, customs, heritage etc had spread to almost all of Scotland by the 12th century; to the extent that it was an entirely Scottish Gaelic speaking country, bar the area within approximately 20 miles radius of Berwick Upon Tweed, which only had a Gaelic speaking minority. Gaelic survived throughout most of the western Lowlands well into the 16 century and was spoken in northern areas of Ayrshire up until the early 18th century. More information on this subject can be found in numerous publications from the University of Aberdeen and Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, as well as Aithne na nGael, Gaelic Identities by Gordon McCoy and Maolcholaim Scott. Plus, information regarding the historical linguistic divisions of Ulster (including the surprising broader use of Gaelic in the province than many would have us believe) can be found in Hidden Ulster, Protestants and the Irish Language by Pádraig Ó Snodaigh, and also in Prebyterians and the Irish Language by Roger Blaney. D.de.loinsigh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

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

The Orange Order were not "exclusively Anglican" for forty years. The first ever lodge (Dyan in Co. Tyrone) was in fact Presbyterian.

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?- Stephen.

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)

The Irish nationalist view above is the common position Ireland. It is considered offensive and is not used. However the views expressed above, while mainstream in Ireland are simply wrong-headed. The term is geographical, ancient and well attested. This is not to say that the phrase has no jingoistic sense, it clearly did in Victorian times. I have used the phrase in Ireland, and the reception was hostile (I'm Irish but was raised in England and have that accent). We do ourselves no favours by getting so chippy over this sort of thing. The rational position is to not use the phrase if you dislike it, but also not get priggish with people who innocently use the phrase that they were brought up with as simple geographical shorthand. The rant above simply makes us seem to have a massive inferiority complex. To demand that it be expunged from an encyclopedia is the worst kind of political correctness. The rant above demonstrates an emotional response to the phrase which is completely over the top. We have an unfortunate need to deal with our history by scraping insignia from postboxes and blowing up statues. Attacking the language is just another form of this infantile approach. The phrase is valid, verifiable and well used. This unfortunate tendency to get snotty with the English over trivia does not say well for us.

As to the comment on the names of the states, this is incorrect. The name of the nation is simply Ireland. Republic of Ireland is not official, but descriptive. Its a common misconception. Look at the front of a passport. Éire is the Irish name for the nation. Again this is wrongly used to mean the 26 county state, particularly in England. Both names refer to the entire island, not to the 26 county state. This is still the case after the state dropped its terretorial aspiration over unification in the Good Friday referendum some years ago.

The statement that people and things in Northern Ireland should not be called Irish is really very silly. Northern Ireland has only existed since 1922, the idea that my grandfather stopped being Irish on that date is not serious. Its is true that some Unionists may object to 'Irish' but some do not. They certainly did not object to being called Irish when Ireland was in the union. Peers in the House of Lords in Britain are called Irish peers, the UK army has the Irish guards. Twisting the language into knots to suit the political needs of the most extreme voices in the north is not going to work. The more sane among UUP members say they are Irish and British. That shows sense, even Ian Paisley says he is comfortable with being called Irish and British, and frankly if you are going to out-unionist Paisley on the issue then you are out on a limb. Bushmills is a protestant town, and the distillery was set up by protestants with a charter from an English king. It still says 'Irish Whiskey' on the bottle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.85.88 (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd note that Spain and Portugal are actually called the Iberian Peninsular, though Iberian is often used in Spain to refer to Spanish things. The main island of the British Isles is actually Great Britain - meaning the big island, technically the other islands are other bits of Britain. The fact that the British Isles were all a United Kingdom for only a period of a century or so does not detract from their geographical nature. Gymnophoria (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This topic is discussed and more properly belongs to talk:British Isles and talk:British Isles naming dispute. It is not appropriate to reprise it here. Ulster is a province of Ireland (or of the United Kingdom, for those with the 'Ulster = NI' worldview). It is not an isle and is thus irrelevant to that debate. Please don't drag it in by the ears. --Red King (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2010 (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)

The offical UNESCO website doesnt actually list it in Ireland, instead it properly lists it under United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It would be better so say: ..Giant's Causeway, one of the UK's twenty-eight UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/ (Alanewing1 (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

I don't see how that's better. It merely diminishes the Giant's Causeway. The article makes clear that it's one of the three in Ireland (the island). ~Asarlaí 16:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the original was better. This article is about Ulster, which spans 2 countries. As a result the article is discussed in relation to Ireland (island) as a whole. Best to keep that consistent in the article rather than start breaking it up into the constituent states on an ad hoc basis. The main article itself makes it clearer that it's in the UK, doesn't need to be explicitly stated here. Canterbury Tail talk 17:21, 10 May 2011 (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)

Actually there is no such city as Derry. The charter creating the city, granted ny the present monarch was for Londonderry. Acorn897 (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is where Wikipedia fails as a serious and respectful encyclopedia - the failure to adhere to the legal names for cities. Just like Gdansk versus Danzig. It is the City of Londonderry, it is County Londonderry, the only semi-legit use of the term Derry is in Derry City Countil. And seeing as the Irish burnt down the original Derry in 1641 and the English established a brand new settlement on the other side of the Foyle which they named Londonderry - Irish nationalists and republicans have no cause for arguement for the Derry they refer to they themselves destroyed. Mabuska (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that it is a failing. Factual accuracy has been compromised for the sake of cordial relations amongst editors. That said, you'll have a tough time if you seek to overturn the existing consensus. --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Couple of points to Mabuska:Mabuska, acorn 897 and breadcheese. In my Irish opinion,where Wikipedia fails is when people ignore other perspectives. Legally in the Republic of Ireland, Derry is called Derry, please dont discount our opinion. Wikipedia if it is to be a tool for civilisations (not just Unionists) must be able to see other opinions. As for Derry coming into exisitence only after its charter this is inaacurrate it existed prior to its commercial conquering by the London trading org, Cork for instance recieved a charter over 800 years ago but existed prior to that. Are you trying to state that history only begins once a city is imperialy occupied? Derry from Irish meaning place of Oaks is a beautiful preplantation name; adding Latin Walled city detracts astetically. User Alexsloans comments above "When are people ever going to learn to grow and stop making immature edits which devalue Wikipedia!" reminds me of the comment in Gladiator at the start of the movie "When will people realise they are conquered"! This is not a matter of "Irish Unifying" commenters it is factual representation of what Irish users call it. Please be more respectful of opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.113.10 (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you call it, because it's OFFICIALLY called Londonderry, therefore, the OFFICIAL name is correct, and is what it should be referred to in this (and indeed every) article. Bmuni (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2011 (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)

Good point. The Fenian rebellion was 1867 - somewhat earlier than 1913! Mooretwin (talk) 07:46, 17 October 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)

Languages accurate?

File:MidUlsterEnglish.png

White and blue: Ulster English
Orange: Ulster Scots
Green: Irish
Yellow: Hiberno-English

Is the image in the language sections accurate? It looks very wrong to me.--Theosony (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that you mention it I've never really looked at it before and what it represents. It implies that North Down (for instance) speaks Ulster Scots and not English. You're right, it's not accurate at all. It was user created, but has no sources listed for it and doesn't seem verifiable. Maybe it should be removed, and just leave the section text. Canterbury Tail talk 12:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... probably. The caption doesn't even explain why it's there. It also looks like it's been scanned from a sheet of paper, and the author hasn't said anything about it. I'll remove it now and keep an eye on the talk here.--Theosony (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A high concentration of Irish speakers occurs in Belfast and in part of Fermanagh, and Ulster Scots, like the Irish language, is mainly rural...--Theosony (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'd go with that. Also a lot of Irish speakers around the Derry area that aren't represented here. Canterbury Tail talk 14:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No one has posted an argument about keeping the article, and it is completely inaccurate. To me it is a consensus giving that the talk on this image began over 6 months ago.--Theosony (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at Talk:Mid Ulster English.

Theosony, if you cut and paste my comments again you will be reported for vandalism. ~Asarlaí 15:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am now awaiting your input... sometime...--Theosony (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The languages section is wrong. English is the most widely spoken language in Ulster, however to assert that one can speak some Irish does not mean [a] that you can speak Irish [b] that you do speak Irish. If Ulster Scots exists at all it is the second most widely spoken language in the historical province of Ulster. Lord Laird claimed when he was Heed o tha Boord ae Ulster Scotch that 100,000 people speak Ulster Scotch every day. If Ulster Scotch actually exists then most people who speak don't know they speak it and they certainly are not going to lie about it like purported speakers of Irish do. 10% of the population of Ulster is 200,000 Irish speakers in Ulster more people than actually speak Irish on the whole Island! USER: Mountainyman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainyman (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

While as you say I suspect a significant proportion of those people contributing to the way-too-high figures (in the Republic' census in particular) who tick the box saying they speak Irish in censuses would find it difficult to carry on the most basic of conversations in the language, it is silly to claim that there are under 200,000 on the island who have any actual ability to speak Irish. Although it would be true for native speakers. 109.79.82.112 (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia can only relay the data in the census. We have no survey data about how many people lied or exagerated. --Red King (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrectly used as a synonym for Northern Ireland?

Isn't it illogical and possibly POV to state that Ulter is inacurately used as a synonym for Northern Ireland? Who is to say it is inaccurate when it is widely used, including by reputable sources? Also, I think it is illogical because it implies that the fact that Ulster is a historical (9 county) province of Ireland means it can't also be the modern (6 county) UK province. The two aren't mutually exclusive. By the same logic "California" can't be a state of the USA, because it is also a historical region covering a wider area of modern Mexico and the USA. What about "Poland is incorrectly used as a name for the country in Central Europe, but in fact Poland refers to a larger historical country that includes territory of the present Belarus and Ukraine"? Booshank (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed it. The reference given was a dictionary page that didn't say anything about it being "incorrect", it said "informal" and "often used". You can't give something as a reference but write something that the reference doesn't contain. Booshank (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The only people who have referred to Northern Ireland as Ulster are unionists. Ulster is still a nine-county province of Ireland. Therefore it's totally inaccurate to use that name for Northern Ireland, because it covers only six counties. Also, Northern Ireland is a "constituent country" of the UK, not a "province". I'm removing that sentence from the introduction, since it's repeated in the terminology section. ~Asarlaí 21:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I took it back again. It is incorrect to call NI Ulster, but a lot of people do it (not just unionists). If people are unhappy then lets reach agreement here on any change --Snowded (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the given reference http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Ulster has the following definitions for Ulster:

"a former province in Ireland, now comprising Northern Ireland and a part of the Republic of Ireland"

"Informal. Northern Ireland. "

"A historical region and ancient kingdom of northern Ireland. Largely annexed by the English Crown during the reign of James I, it is now divided between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is often called Ulster."

Nowhere does it say anything about it being incorrect. If it is "often" and "informally" used, that doesn't make it incorrect. What's the point of having a reference if it doesn't actually support the information in the article? I could write "the sky on a clear day is green" and give a reference to a source that only talked of a blue sky. Neither do you seem to grasp the fact that the two uses of Ulster are not mutually exclusive. As for "province" or "constituent country", both seem to be used, neither is strictly defined and therefore they don't seem to be mutually exclusive either. Booshank (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's incorrect because Ulster consists of nine counties. Three of those counties –Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan– are not part of Northern Ireland. Therefore it's incorrect to say that Ulster = Northern Ireland. Very simple. ~Asarlaí 23:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather than "incorrectly" (the nationalist view) or "informally" (the more unionist position), how about something along the lines of "somewhat confusingly", which would (IMHO) be more neutral, and reflect something closer to common ground? And/or spell it out more fully (perhaps not in the lead) that group A finds this usage unacceptable, whereas group B uses it commonly. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Calling it incorrect isn't simply "the nationalist view" – it's fact. Furthermore, its usage among unionists appears to be rare these days. ~Asarlaí 12:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly decided it was a fact and incorrect? It's purely POV. If a large number of people call Northern Ireland Ulster, including reliable sources, then it is called Ulster. University of Ulster, Radio Ulster, until recently Royal Ulster Constabulary, Ulster Unionist Party, mainstream media etc etc and I don't think any were laying claim to Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan. Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is verifiability not truth, and this usage of the word "Ulster" is certainly verifiable. That includes the dictionary source given for the supposed "incorrectness" which didn't actually say anything about it being incorrect!

It is quite possible for a name like this to have more than one meaning. In fact it is almost the same as "Ireland" which can refer both to the whole island of Ireland and also to the Republic of Ireland. This argument is rather like saying the Republic of Ireland can't be Ireland, because the ROI doesn't include Northern Ireland. Booshank (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How many times must I repeat myself? Ulster consists of nine counties; Northern Ireland consists of six counties; Northern Ireland covers only two thirds of Ulster. That is an indisputable fact, no matter how many people want to think otherwise. Also, where is this slew of neutral and relible sources proving that "large numbers of people" call Northern Ireland Ulster? ~Asarlaí 17:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point so there is no need to repeat it, but repeating it doesn't fix its faulty logic.

By the same logic:

"Ireland consists of thirty-two counties; the Republic of Ireland consists of twenty-six counties; the Republic of Ireland covers only 80% of Ireland" (true). This 'logic' would dictate that the country with Dublin as its capital can't be called Ireland (because Ireland has 32 counties).

Here are some reliable sources for Northern Ireland being called Ulster. Remember, we're interested in whether Ulster is used for Northern Ireland, not whether you or I like that usage or opinions about it.

"Ulster a former province of Ireland, in the north of the island; with Leinster, Munster, and Connaught one of the original four provinces, the ‘four green fields’ of Ireland. The nine counties of Ulster are now divided between Northern Ireland (Antrim, Down, Armagh, Londonderry, Tyrone, and Fermanagh) and the Republic of Ireland (Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan). The name is also used generally for Northern Ireland, particularly in a political context." ELIZABETH KNOWLES. "Ulster." The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Oxford University Press. 2006. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O214-Ulster.html

"A historical region and ancient kingdom of northern Ireland. Largely annexed by the English Crown during the reign of James I, it is now divided between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is often called Ulster." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

"1 region N Ireland (island) comprising Northern Ireland & N Ireland (republic); ancient kingdom, later a province comprising nine counties, three of which in 1921 joined Irish Free State (now Ireland) while the rest remained with United Kingdom 2 province N Ireland (republic) comprising counties Cavan, Donegal, & Monaghan area 3093 square miles (8042 square kilometers), population 246,714 3 Northern Ireland —used unofficially." "Ulster." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online. 21 April 2009 <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ulster>

"Shoppers are pouring into Ulster border to buy supplies [from the Republic of Ireland, not into Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal], devastating the retail industry along the borders." Daily Telegraph (broadsheet newspaper with the highest circulation in the United Kingdom - many references to Northern Ireland as "Ulster") http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5121728/Ireland-imposes-emergency-cuts.html

"Every week while DUP MPs are at Westminster leading for Ulster on the issues that matter to Northern Ireland, they are also meeting Government Ministers, Departmental Officials, Statutory Agencies and helping hundreds of constituents across Northern Ireland." Democratic Unionist Party http://www.dup.org.uk/pdf/DUPServingYou05.pdf I don't believe DUP MPs are representing Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal at Westminster!

So there we have three dictionaries, a major mainstream media outlet and the largest political party by number of votes in Northern Ireland giving Ulster as a synonym for Northern Ireland. Booshank (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

First, "Ireland" is both a political and geographic entity, whilst "Ulster" is only a political entity. Second, those sources don't change anything. The article already notes that "Ulster" is sometimes used in place of "Northern Ireland" (although I've only ever heard unionists and foreigners doing so). It's still incorrect, and always will be incorrect. ~Asarlaí 00:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So you don't regard dictionaries, mainstream newspapers and major political parties as reliable sources? Well that's fine but it isn't how Wikipedia works. Who are we to believe, Asarlaí's personal opinion or the Oxford English Dictionary? Booshank (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There perhaps lies the root of the problem - learning your history from 'dictionaries, mainstream newspapers and major political parties'. I'm with Asarlaí here - firstly no-one ever gained a meaningful insight into politics, history or geography by reading a dictionary. Secondly the opinion's of journalist's and policitians are pretty much irrelevant unless backed up with meaningful facts and neither has a reputation for producing anything reliable on that front. History books with no partisan axe to grind will tell you Asarlaí is infact absolutely correct in his/her assertions. I do find your forelock tugging deference to your percieved 'betters' as quaint though. Who are we to believe? Why not find out for yourself and form your own opinion?

I too think Booshank has got it wrong. In a similar error, people often refer to The Netherlands as Holland - when Holland is only a constituent part of The Netherlands. Is Booshank saying that if enough people repeat an error such as this over time then it becomes correct? There are ample freely available, neutral historical sources stating the correct status of the 6 counties of Northern Ireland within the 9 counties of Ulster. The fact that some still refer to to it incorrectly can only mean that they have either never read any neutral text or choose to deliberately ignore the facts for their own purposes. Either way Booshank - "it isn't how Wikipedia works." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.97.85 (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I also think it is quite PoV to imply that the ulster = NI usage is solely unionist - this usage is wider than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.47.171 (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Which republican/nationalist groups call Northern Ireland "Ulster" then? ~Asarlaí 11:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is widely used in the UK press (a headline works much better with one five letter word than two 7 or 8 letter words). If you are annoyed by it, then sauce for the goose re 'Ireland'. --Red King (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Red King just because it is used by some lazy British Empire press personnel doesn't mean it is correct or in any way, shape, or form, a representation of reality, however if you wish to get fairy tail news then you're on the right track. Your argument is also destroyed by Reductio ad absurdum, as text speech may work better as it takes up less space on a page, in some peoples opinions, but the vast majority of educated people reel from the sight of it, and if I'm not mistaked a respected encyclopedia should reflect the reality of things rather than what a group of misguided people believe. Remember Northern Ireland may make up 6 of the 9 Counties of Ulster, but by land mass, it is just over 55% of Ulster. If you wish to claim Ulster as part of the British Empire then I'm sure a referendum of the people of Ulster would quickly force you to change your minds and again claim only Northern Ireland. Boundarylayer (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be your view that it is incorrect to use Ulster to refer to Northern Ireland, but you are not a reliable source. If there are sources to say that Ulster is sometimes used as a synonym for Northern Ireland, then the article should mention this, and let readers make up their own minds as to whether or not such usage is correct. Mooretwin (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Divided Province

I have added the key-word Divided Province to this article showing that half of Ulster is in Ireland and half in the UK Mr Taz (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure the divided keyword is needed, as the sentence goes on to explain this fact. Canterbury Tail talk 18:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding "divided" is simply pointless, and could be seen as inflammatory. That is why it is unhelpful. The sentence already explains perfectly clearly that 6 counties are in the Republic and 3 in Northern Ireland. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

:-)))) Well said, Snalwibma. Dunlavin Green (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Dubious religious data

"Across the nine counties, according to the aggregate UK 2001 Census and Irish 2002 Census, there is a very slim Catholic plurality over Protestant (49% against 48%), but not an overall majority (people of "no religion" or those "not stating" religion making up the balance[dubious – discuss])."

Really? Nobody's Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Jedi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

49 + 48 = 97, so presumably 3% "other"? Ausseagull (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad! I have added "neither religion". best, Sunil060902 (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

New Demographics Map

I removed the new demographics map that was added, not because there is an issue with the map itself, but because it isn't clearly labelled and described. It's not clear from the caption which way the colours refer, Catholic% or Protestant%. Also describing the colours for each percentage isn't very clear, not everyone can make those colour distinctions. Would be better if it had an actual colour box key rather than a Dark Orange etc. Some people are colourblind, some just can't make out what is being referred to by each colour description. Feel free to re-add with an improved caption. I would have done it myself, but as I said it's not clear which is which, though I could take a guess. It's a great map, well done, just needs to be clearer in it's description is the only reason I removed it. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Plantation of Ulster

What was incorrect with my edits of this Sectarian and biased section? The current body of writing is tantamount to Historical revisionism (negationism). I hope the delusional peoples who continue to distort facts to be in line with their own political agendas acquaint themselves with some of the unbiased references I added to the section. Perhaps even reading the dedicated Plantation of Ulster page might help. 15:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs)

Londonderry vs. Derry

I see that someone has been changing the name of the county in this article from Londonderry to Derry. I personally couldn't care tuppence what name people use, and consider arguments about the subject to be childish in the extreme, but my understanding was that a consensus had been reached somewhere to use "Derry" for the city and "Londonderry" for the county. I'm not going to get into a revert war over a playground fight, so I'll leave it to others watching this article to sort things out. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you are correct but one thing I've noticed is that the Irish name for it has been set a Doire (irish for derry) while surely it should be Londaindoire. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In Irish, the city's name is Doire or Cathair Dhoire and the county's name is Contae Dhoire. Londaindoire may be a more direct translation of Londonderry, but it's just not used by Irish speakers. ~Asarlaí 01:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Kingdoms of Ulster

There's very little on the early history of Ulster, in comparison to history from c.1600 onward (very well done, I might add). I'll list a few pointers:

1 - No distinction is drawn between the original kingdom of Ulster (Ulaid, which compromised Antrim, Down, Armagh, along with parts of Coleraine and Magherafelt in Londonderry) and the rest of the province. How its name came to be applied to all of the north (see John de Courcy needs to be explained.

2 - Ditto on the Airgíalla and In Tuisceairt (later called Aileach), to name the other two main overkingdoms in the middle and west.

3 - A brief mention of who were the Ulaid, and their political/ethnic divisions, with regard to Dál Riata.

4 - Late pagan/early christian era.

5 - Rise of the Uí Néill in the west and south-west.

6 - High Kings of the north, division of Aileach into Tír Eóghain and Tír Chonaill

7 - Fall of the kingdom of Ulaid to John de Courcy) and the Anglo-Irish colony.

8 - Gaelic-Irish reconquest of what was by then called east Ulster.

9 - There are excellent maps showing the extent of kingdoms such as Tyrconnell and Thomond. Same could be made for at least the main Ulster kingdoms.

I realise some of these really need their own articles, but some pointers in the main article would suffice. The rest of it up to the present day is worthy of FA status. Fergananim (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This should definitely be mentioned under the Early History section of the Ulster article, but I think the best bet is for you to create a separate page on the Kingdoms of Ulster and reference your new page under the Early History section.Boundarylayer (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ulster/NI

Despite what seems like a reasonable consensus against stating that calling Northern Ireland 'Ulster' is incorrect, the present form of the article seems to do so by implication. Moreover, to exclude the issue from the lead - when the division between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is mentioned, seems ludicrous: whether agreed with or not, the Northern Ireland meaning of Ulster is quite probably predominant. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Proof by consensus is not supported by wikipedia. However it may be a fair idea to note in the article that there is a naming controversy as some refer to Northern Ireland as 'Ulster' but that its use can be insulting to those from the other Ulster Counties Donegal Cavan and Monaghan and therefore 'Ulster' shouldn't be used when one means Northern Ireland. But the article at present does suffice in educating readers that Northern Ireland is not Ulster.Boundarylayer (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as the use of "Ireland" by the Republic of Ireland is insulting to those living on the island of Ireland that aren't part of that state? JonChapple^Talk 17:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Only an insult Jon if you are one of those ultra-nationalist freaks.Sheodred (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct. I can't see many reasonable people getting offended by either issue. JonC^Talk 22:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of "claimed" in relation to people speaking Irish

I am unaware of anywhere else on Wikipedia where any other data from the UK census is reported as a "claim, be it age, gender, religion and so on. Thus I see absolutely no reason why "claimed" should apply to whether people speak Irish or not. If a reliable secondary source has cast doubt on whether people were honest in relation to this there may be a case for further discussion, but right now it seems clear cut to me? O Fenian (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Cinnte! Agreed! there seems to be a pervasive passive aggressive attempt at undermining people of certain cultures in this article, your point being an example of that.Boundarylayer (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it a Former Province?

Shouldn't Ulster be described as a "former" or "historic" province? The current wording is in the present tense, which seems confusing. A province is "a territorial unit, almost always an administrative division, within a country or state". None of the four traditional "provinces" of Ireland are administrative units, and have not been since the Norman Conquest! It's akin to insisting on referring to Wessex and Mercia in England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymnophoria (talk • contribs) 10:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The provinces are still used in sporting contexts. --Red King (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that the "former", "historic" or "traditional" qualifiers would be needed. The OED describes Ulster as:

• a former province of Ireland, in the north of the island. The nine counties of Ulster are now divided between Northern Ireland (Antrim, Down , Armagh, Londonderry, Tyrone, and Fermanagh) and the Republic of Ireland (Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan).
• (in general use) Northern Ireland.

Officially, Ulster is a "former province". The sporting contexts are more for the sake of tradition. 86.171.183.252 (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How can it be "officially" a former province if it has never been abolished? ~Asarlaí 07:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Ulster is very much alive and well across all Irish cultural and sporting organisations. This doesn't suit British nationalists so they're trying to change the definition. A simple Google search will show Ulster being used by the GAA (far and away the most important and popular organisation - sporting or otherwise - on this island), rugby, music and much else. 86.41.15.114 (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the four traditional "provinces" of Ireland are administrative units, and have not been since the Norman Conquest! - prior to the Normans, the provinces were over-kingdoms NOT administrative units. Also a forgotten fact in Irish history is that the provinces were used as divisions by the English, and the current provincial borders were defined by the English.

As an administrative unit they were never used as such by the English or British, except for a couple of exceptions such as short lived provincial governments centuries ago, so in technicality they can't be abolished.

Politically however Ulster is historical. All the provinces in a political sense are historic as they no longer have real political relevance as they once did when they were over-kingdoms with their own over-king and composite under-kingdoms. The Earldom of Ulster is also historic as it no longer exists. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dubious Geography - the numbers don't add up

County	Area
County Antrim (Aontroim)	2,844 square kilometres (1,098 sq mi)
County Armagh (Ard Mhacha)	1,254 square kilometres (484 sq mi)
County Cavan (an Cabhán)	1,831 square kilometres (707 sq mi)
County Donegal (Dún na nGall/Tír Conaill)	4,841 square kilometres (1,869 sq mi)
County Down (an Dún)	2,448 square kilometres (945 sq mi)
County Fermanagh (Fear Manach)	1,691 square kilometres (653 sq mi)
County Londonderry (Doire)	2,074 square kilometres (801 sq mi)
County Monaghan (Muineachán)	1,294 square kilometres (500 sq mi)
County Tyrone (Tír Eoghain)	3,155 square kilometres (1,218 sq mi)
Total	21,432 square kilometres (8275 sq mi)

As you can see, the total here is significantly less than the 24,481 square kilometres (9,452 sq mi) quoted on the main page - and repeated across the internet.

Can anyone provide an explanation? Is Lough Neagh not included in the county areas? Even so, at 392 km² this does not explain the discrepancy of 3,000 km² (approx). Jynxboy (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just realised that there is a discrepancy in the population figure too. The total quoted is 1,993,918, while a sum of the counties gives 1,846,381.

Am I missing something here?Jynxboy (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly somebody has used different sources for the totals and their constituent parts without checking that the data sets corralated, this would explain the discrepencies between totals, and between quoted total and the sum total of the parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.148.242 (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"

We don't use the full name of the United Kingdom in other articles, so why should we use it in the "Ulster" article? It makes it look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabav12 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the rest of the island is named "Ireland". See Belfast Agreement. --Red King (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)