Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 4

"Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a unionist, a nationalist or neither?"

• Unionist 38%
• Nationalist 24%
• Neither 35%

First, please cite your sources, and don't just delete them. Second, I interpret this as 38% in favour of unionism, 24% in favour of nationalism, and 35% not expressing a preference. This is not the same as wishing to remain part of the UK. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re the claim that a "majority" of 38 support the union with the UK, that falls into an easy mistake to make. Those who analyse polls are very careful never to interpret a poll that way. The actual question was about definitions: do you regard yourself as Unionist, Nationalist or other? Those sort of questions are used to establish numbers on definitions, but invariably, as pollsters know, the numbers are nonsense. The reason is that a large group of each community will define themselves in a misleading way, either deliberately or accidentially. For example, middle of the road citizens in a divided society invariably give a definition that says "I'm not part of either extreme". But when the numbers on specific issue questions are asked, you find they do actually belong to one or other camp. The odds are, for example, that most Alliance Party members will have put themselves in the third camp, but when questioned about the respective merits of union versus unity, the overwhelming majority will be in the union camp. Similarly, detailed surveys of Nationalists show a surprising number are actually pro-union. Polling done after Paisley's electoral triumph showed a drop in the "unionist" category, because moderate unionists interpreted "unionist" as indicating support for the main campaigners for the Union, the DUP, and they wanted to have no association with that party. Ditto in Nationalism. If electoral swings produce a swing towards Sinn Féin, moderate nationalists tend to define themselves as "other". Self-categorisation is always a weak point in polling. It is usually done by pollsters do answer the question "what do you think you are? What are you really?" with the latter question answered in detailed questions of the sort "if a referendum was held tomorrow, would you vote for Irish unity or maintenance of the Union?". Professional pollsters regard the latter as more reliable that self-definition questions, which are only used to establish the degree of definitionary distortion voters possess.

Anyone who understands polling would not use the figures you use in the context in which you use them. It is called definitionary distortion, the tendency of people to categorise themselves in a false way. (See above). Your analysis in that paragraph is fatally flawed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so it is certainly wrong to suggest that 66% are in favour of the unionist position, which is why I added the correct figure and source for your edit which said that. I suggest this section says exactly what is referenced - that 38% describe themselves as unionist, 24% describe themselves as nationalist, and 35% describe themselves as neither. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the paragraph??? Your edits suggest you haven't. It doesn't say that x number defines themselves as such and such. It states that "A majority of the present-day population (number) wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, but a vocal minority (number) want to see a united Ireland." That is not what the survey says. Surveys show that people who define themselves as "Unionists" when questioned in detail don't all fit the category, while those who define themselves as Nationalist don't all fit the category either (some "Nationalists" favour the Union over Unity!) And by the way 38% is not, under any definition, a majority. All you simply did was crudely edit a paragraph to change its meaning with different numbers without knowing that you were using the wrong survey question. You didn't even see the clanger that resulted in you describing a minority result as a majority!!! Please be more careful. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to say 66% wish to remain part of the UK?. Do you have any sources which say that 45.5% of the population are Protestants? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I noticed you changing the number first, marking the edit as minor (which it certainly is not), and not using an edit summary. Looking through the page history the source used until fairly recently was this survey - which says 59% think the long term policy for Northern Ireland should be... - however again this relates to the government's policy, and not their personal preference (in favour of...). I have no idea why you removed a valid source, or why you later removed the template saying that the statements are unsourced. The Protestant figure is still wrong, and I encourage you to acknowledge both statements are still unsourced. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the Ark surveys, as opposed to misrepresenting them. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, no sources then? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the Ark surveys, as opposed to misrepresenting them. The answers are all there. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 13:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

northern ireland is an illegally occupied part of ireland .the northern irish statlet encourages sectarianism Bouse23 14:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'm troubled (pun intended!) that on reading the Northern Ireland page, I find that the first line is:

"Northern Ireland is one of the constituent countries (disputed — see talk page) of the United Kingdom. "

How can this fact be disputed? Regardless if individuals or organisation's political stance, the fact that Northern Ireland is a member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is undeniable (as of 4th May 2006).

Perhaps the first line of the article needs to be more carefully worded to avoid the ambiguity of the "disputed" reference.

Come on people - the clue is in the name: United Kingdom of Great Britain '''and Northern Ireland''' ItsGrimUpNorth 08:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but the fact that its a part of the UK isn't the disputed part, it's whether or not Northern Ireland is actually a country that is the disputed fact. Thing is Northern Ireland's international status is very odd and unclear. I consider it a country, but many don't, and there's not a clear cut answer. Ben W Bell 08:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair play! Perhaps the use of the word country (or rather countries) should be reconsidered, to avoid such an ambiguous opening line to the article. Perhaps the article should open with:

"Northern Ireland is one of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom." and later have a reference to "The matter of whether Norhern Ireland holds true country status is a matter of some discussion..." ItsGrimUpNorth 08:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "Thing is Northern Ireland's international status is very odd and unclear", the contrary is true. Only sovereign states have "international status" and Northern Ireland has no status in that respect. The international community in its entirety recognises - and has always recognised - that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. JAJ 03:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to be the fairest and most NPOV way of doing it. Orderinchaos78 11:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed claim is centered on the constituent country status not on Northern Ireland been part of the United Kingdom. Its a matter of terminology. Djegan 18:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from article: "This is as a result of the Republic of Ireland extending its nationality law on an extra-territorial basis in 2001 about as a result of the Belfast Agreement of 1998, which stated that:"

Did the RoI not issue Irish passports to NI citizens prior to 1998?

Jonto 23:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until quite recently it was not assumed that someone from Northern Ireland was an Irish citizen automatically (unless they or a parent where an Irish citizen), instead they had to complete a section of the passport claiming the entitlement to a passport. Typically this involved stating that they or their parent where born in Ireland prior to 1922. Been born in Northern Ireland alone was not enough. Djegan 18:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there ,well I was Born in Northern Ireland and a Number of years ago Before the Good friday agreement I was going to apply for a Irish Passport but was put off doing so (i already have a UK Passport) ,as you had to prove that your grandfather/grandmother were born before 1921/1922 this was all done away with in the Good friday agreement all we Northern Ireland people whom apply for Irish Passports now do is just send in Our Long Birth certificate showing that we were born on the Island of Ireland .....before 1998/1999 you had to send in your and your parent(s) and Grand parents Birth Certificate to get a Irish Passport , but now its much much more simple !!! so in answer to your question Jonto yes before 1998 yes we could apply for Irish Passports but it was a hard to get all the Proof etc but not now all you do is get a application for a Irish Passport fill it out and pay you fee (in UK pounds in a UK post office here in Northern Ireland ) and they send it to Dublin for processing ...

You sure about that? I was born in 1978 and my parents had the option of selecting British or Irish citizenship for me. My parents were both born in Belfast. Orderinchaos78 11:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite sure, unless you were otherwise an Irish citizen (i.e. by birth, decent, naturalisation or marriage) then Section 7(1) Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956 would of applied to you if you were born in Northern Ireland.

Perhaps one of the most formost examples of Northern Ireland and Irish citizenship is McGimpsey v. Ireland (1990) in which two brothers from Northern Ireland challenged the legality of the Republic of Ireland to approve the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Whilst it was assumed the two were indeed Irish citizens they had not proven this by actually making a claim or statement under Section 7. Thus it was determined that they did not have locus standi and the action was dismissed in the Supreme Court.

Djegan 12:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to : "I was born in 1978 and my parents had the option of selecting British or Irish citizenship for me. My parents were both born in Belfast." There is nothing optional about British citizenship, in this case British citizenship is acquired at birth. It's optional about deciding whether or not to apply for a British passport, but holding British citizenship is not contingent on that. JAJ 03:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My ma and da both have always had Irish passports, years and years before the GFA. While my mother's mother was born in Wexford, both my father's parents were born in Derry, post-1922. In fact I'm pretty sure I got my first passport around 1996 or 97, and I had no problem obgtaining it. So are you sure you couldn't get Irish passports pre-GFA? (Derry Boi 08:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There's a lot of debate on this subject, little of it fact based. The bottom line is that Irish passports were generally available in Northern Ireland from 1956, subject to a little extra paperwork. The evidence for this is the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (original version) JAJ 01:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the third paragraph, it read:

Northern Ireland was for many years the site of a bitter ethnic/religious campaign of violence between a minority of Nationalists (who wanted it to be reunified with the Republic of Ireland) and a majority of Unionists (who wanted it to remain part of the United Kingdom). The campaign was known popularly as The Troubles.

I think that's worded badly, as there has been fighting in that way for hundreds of years in Northern Ireland. Thoughts? (Also, first talk page comment. :) ) --Pauric 03:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There can't have been "fighting in that way" for "hundreds of years in Northern Ireland" as Northern Ireland has only existed for 85 years. --Mal 13:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has there not been sectarian strife of one form or another in Ulster long before the advent of Northern Ireland? Also, the passage makes it sound as though only a minority of Nationalists want a United Ireland, and a minority of Unionists want to remain part of the UK! Martin 21:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is getting a bit messy. Again. I would suggest moving the lists of towns and places of interest to the bottom of the article (it looks very broken up and bitty atm), and also paring the politics/demographics section back to what it was a year or so ago - there is an extensive specific artile on the subject. Also, the flags controversy is waaaay to prominent. Most people in NI/Ulster/the Six County pseudo-statelet never fly a flag in their puff. If it needs to be in the article it can go down a bit. Gerry Lynch 12:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added a cite on "Some Unionists argue that any discrimination was not just because of religious or political bigotry, but also the result of more complex socio-economic, socio-political and geographical factors" Dont know what it means or who it refers to. Added detail on the arsenal of loyalist paramilitaries and link to IICD. Cleared up some grammar. Shame there is no economy section yet, or immigration section. Good work otherwise, tricky subject. Fluffy999 20:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fluffy,

What don't you understand? Here's definitions on the words which might be confusing. No offence quoting just don't really see what is confusing unless it's terminology.

socio-economic

socioeconomic adj : involving social as well as economic factors; "socioeconomic status"

so·ci·o·po·li·ti·cal adj. Involving both social and political factors.

The point of the sentence is that discrimination is not a black and white issue. It is argued that discrimination occured for other reasons than bigotry or prejudice.

"A debate about the nature and extent of discrimination has been going on for many years. There are many in the Unionist community who maintain that there was no systematic overt discrimination against Catholics and any observed differences between the two communities were the result of structural factors such as geographical concentration. An example of this debate was found in the pages of the British Journal of Sociology."

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/sum.htm

Don't think I managed to add the citattion correctly so any help would be appreciated.

I thought that the Assembly has been un-suspended... Am I wrong? - File:Icons-flag-scotland.png calum 10:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has only been semi-un-suspended, it still can't do anything theoretically. It has still no powers, they are still with the Secretary of State. But in Northern Ireland getting a group politicians to sit in the same room is seen as a huge achievement. theKeith 11:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very long and uninteresting piece on [[1]] explaining the difference between the 'assembly' and the current assembly of memebers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.12.249.63 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I presume you're referring to the debate on the 16th of May. What we have now is "the Assembly", not the "Northern Ireland Assembly". --Kwekubo 17:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the two new names to the names section.Ive included that they are not serious but they are used so please dont delete them.Dermo69

Well Norn Iron is very common usage but I've never heard it used specifically only related to the football team. It's an exceeding common phrase for the country that plays on the Northern Irish tendancy to drop parts of words when increasing the spoken speech. As for the Not Brazil, I think that should go as it's very specialised and I've never actually heard it used. Ben W Bell talk 13:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you entirely. The "We're not Brazil" chant is already explained at Northern Ireland national football team. --Kwekubo 17:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed 'official languages' to 'spoken languages', as they aren't official. No language is official anywhere in the UK. Maybe 'spoken' isn't the quite right word, but it is more right than 'official'! Source:

http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/FAQs/FAQs.asp?ba=teanga says: 'Níl teangacha oifigiúla ar bith i dTuaisceart Éireann. Is é Béarla an teanga is mó labhartha ann. IE: There are no official languages in Northern Ireland, English is the most widely spoken language'

Idunnomeself

English is the language of government and the law, and hence is the "official" language in all of the United Kingdom. Despite the fact there is no Official Language Act in the UK. JAJ 03:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this, as I can find no mention of it in the English translation of the page. "Spoken" languages doesn't make it any clearer, as there are way more than three different languages spoken in Northern Ireland (I would imagine there are many more people who speak Chinese than there are who speak Ulster-Scots).

You have made me curious though: if you're trying to claim that Irish is not an official language in NI, why are you quoting Irish language NI government documents in order to do so? Rather self-defeating, no? Martin 12:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done a bit of a re-shuffle regarding the language section in the info box; I hope the current version is more acceptable to those who were raising objections to the previous one. Martin 14:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but why this obsession with 'official' languages? there aren't any in the UK, can't we just leave it at that. 'Official' status for a language means something to most people around the world (EG in Canada, Ireland, South Africa), and it is quite different to the situation in Northern Ireland or the UK. If you look at the Welsh langauge act you'll see the tortous circles that Parliament went into to give Welsh a status equal to English, without saying that either of them was 'official'

Irish and Ulster-Scots are 'officially recognised minority languages', in that they were recognised by officialdom, not that they are used by officialdom..

Incidentally the page i linked to gives figures for Ulster-Scots and Chinese speakers- and there aren't more Chinese speakers than Ulster-Scots speakers.

Martin- I thought the point of this was accuracy, just because I KNOW that Irish (or indeed Ulster-Scots or English)isn't an official language doesn't mean I don't support it, or I can't read it a bit! (and I noticed that the DCAL site says different things in different languages, it just ignores the issue in English)

Idunnomeself

Hi, Idunnomeself (btw, why don't you register?), I was simply following the convention used in the info-box at United Kingdom (one also shared by Wales). Scotland and England simply have a "Languages" section in the info-box. Perhaps this might be a better idea, then we could avoid the whole notion of official languages. My main objection to your edit was the use of the term "spoken languages". I mean to say, why stop at the three, unless they have some sort of special status (which they do)?

As for number of Chinese speakers vs. Ulster Scots (or Irish for that matter), I'll wager my granny that Chinese is actually spoken more frequently by people in NI. I passed several people in the street today holding conversations in Chinese, and I have not once overheard people talking in Ulster-Scots (although, there is a blurry line between speaking English and speaking Ulster-Scots, IMHO). I'm sure you're aware that there is a certain proclivity towards claiming to have some Irish/Ulster-Scots in certain groups, even though the person's grasp of the language is tenuous at best (this happens on both sides of the border). As a result, I would be slightly dubious as to the accuracy of self-reported figures in this area. Martin 20:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've just changed it to "Languages". Martin 20:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, thanks, logged in now, last edit was at work and it wouldn't let me you see. Re Ulster-Scots/ Chinese, I supose it matters which street you walk down. In Bushmills or Stranmillis? There are likely more Chinese about since the census in 2001, but on the other hand the survey DCAL cite was taken before Ulster-Scots was widely known about/ heavily politicised. I'll let you keep your granny either way! Idunnomeself

I've just removed the following from the article and replaced it with {{Fact}}, although it seems a valid point: [is there a citation for this, the 2001 census didn't record language speakers other than Irish] --7segment 04:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the passage in question. After having looked through the NI census available here, I can find no mention of the Chinese language. If I've missed it, or if anyone finds a reliable source for this, they should feel free to put it back in. Martin 12:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did "Ulster Scots" even become a language? Not ten years ago it was firmly a dialect, and just as firmly unheard of. Not bad going wee Nelson McCausland. 193.1.172.138 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you agree with it or not Ulster-Scots was recognised by the UK government under the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Martin I'm 100% sure that the 2001 census didn't have a question about Chinese or any languages other than Irish. I know this because in their consultation for 2011 I asked them to put one in! Idunnomeself

It is standard in articles here and everywhere to assess physical attributes by means of physical landmass and (if one exists) archipelago. It is perfectly normal and standard to state that Lough Neagh is the largest inland lake on the island of Ireland as well as on the British Isles, just as it is perfectly normal to state whatever is the tallest mountain in Scotland is the tallest mountain in Scotland, not to delete Scotland just say how tall it is in relation to the British Isles. It is that sort of amateurish POV-pushing that undermines WP's credibility. After all, if the British Isles are part of Europe, should we then delete the British Isles and just assess everything in terms of Europe? Of course not. The same is true. It is standard writing to state something's relationship to (1) landmass, (2) archipelago, (3) geopolitical or political entity. Not to do so is pure amateurish POV-pushing. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amateurish POV pushing? And here was me thinking Wikipedia had some kind of rule about assuming good faith. I guess I must be mistaken. Regardless, the biggest x in the British Isles is by definition, ipso facto, the biggest x on the island of Ireland. Mont Blanc is the highest mountain in Western Europe, and so it goes without saying that it is also the highest mountain in France and Italy, as both those places are in western Europe. If Lough Neagh was the biggest lake in Europe, are you telling me that you would be insisting on saying that it is "the biggest lake one the island of Ireland, in the British Isles, and in Europe"?

I shudder to think of the contorted phraseology you'd be using if it was the biggest lake in the world (the biggest in Northern Ireland, Ulster, the island of Ireland, British Isles, Europe, western hemisphere, Eurasia, northern hemisphere, on and on and on....). ;) Martin 00:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete garbage. It is absolutely standard if a lake is the biggest on an island to say that. It is less standard to also state its relationship on an archipelago. And it is patently absurd and amateurish in the extreme to remove a mention of its relationship to the island it is on and regard an archipelago as more important. The British Isles, as anyone with a passing knowledge of geography knows, is very much secondary in usage. (People do not define city size by British isles, transport infrastructure by British Isles, language usage by British Isles. Actually they define next to nothing by British Isles.) It is normal and standard to judge geographical features primarily in relation to their landmass, whether that be the island of Great Britain or the island of Ireland. The standard revelant reference is landmass in the island, in this case, Ireland, so its inclusion is obligatory, just as the relevant area with Ben Nevis is Great Britain. British Isles is an optional extra detail. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to side with Martin on this one, it's preferable to use the largest geographical area possible for assertions of this sort. Lough Neagh's relationship to whatever subdivisions you care to use can be inferred perfectly well. --Kwekubo 01:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, "complete garbage", "patently absurd" and "amateurish in the extreme"! Please tell me you'll write my eulogy. A lesser man would have said they disagreed with me. Kudos to you for taking a brave stand against Wikipedia's civility policy!

Meanwhile back at the ranch: how does saying that Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the British Isles "remove a mention" of the relationship to the island it is on, when "British Isles" implicitly includes the island it is on? Martin 02:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that now all of a sudden it being the largest in the British Isles has become an issue, since it's always been that way in Wikipedia until recently. If it has been accepted for so many years why is it suddenly wrong? It is the largest lake in the British Isles. It's in Northern Ireland and the largest in the British Isles, Northern Ireland is on the island of Ireland so it is easily inferred that it is the largest lake in Ireland. Using largest in such and such you really want to name the largest geographical entity in one go that you can. Ben W Bell talk 07:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very use of the term "British Isles" is, obviously, pov pushing. It is a hangover from British rule over the entire country. Those days are gone. The term is not used by those who oppose that rule, namely 80% plus of the island's population. Every single person in these discussions who uses the term indicates his/her political allegiance. 'British Isles', like 'Éire' to describe part of Éire and Ulster to describe part of Ulster, is used by those pushing a unionist agenda. At least be honest about that. 193.1.172.163 14:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're making an unwarranted generalisation there. I broadly consider myself an Irish nationalist and I have no problem with the term British Isles. It's a widely-used geographical name, and many people I know, in Ireland, use it quite frequently. A sweep of Google News demonstrates that the phrase is indeed widely used. But I agree that other terms are more frequently used still, like "Britain and Ireland"; nevertheless it seems to me that the largest applicable geographical term should be preferred. Would it be accurate to say, I wonder, that Lough Neagh is the largest inland lake in northwestern Europe? --Kwekubo 15:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern Europe sounds a bit too devoid of political connotations so it probably will be resisted. It is an excellent alternative, by the way. 193.1.172.138 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the British Isles article:

“

For political reasons, the term British Isles is sometimes seen as contentuous in the Republic of Ireland, even though it describes a geographical and ecological region and not a political entity, and even though the prefix "Brit-" actually derives from the Pretani a term once used as the collective description for the inhabitants of both Great Britain and Ireland.

”

I'm a Catholic from Northern Ireland, and I'm certainly not a Unionist, so I'm afraid your little theory that "every single person in these discussions who uses the term indicates his/her political allegiance" falls down somewhat. The term "British Isles" is not a "a hangover from British rule over the entire country", but the rabid anti-British sentiment (to such an extent that the very word "British" is intolerable) present in a vocal minority, is. Just imagine how bigoted and anti-Irish you'd have to be to refuse to use the term Irish Sea. It is anglophobia, pure and simple. Now, can't we all just play nice? Martin 16:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit too devoid of political connotations? Don't presume that everyone has a political motive behind all their edits, presume good faith. I feel British Isles is a well understood geographical term for it what we are discusssing, and has been adequate ever since 2002 to define Lough Neagh on Wikipedia. I have no political attachment to the term, and you have no idea what my political views are unionist, republican or don't care either way. As for the term northwestern Europe, I feel the term lacks definition as to exactly what northwestern Europe is. It's not a defined definition in common usage and leaves it very wooly as to what exactly is northwestern Europe. Ben W Bell talk 16:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of a member of the Irish government using the term. A closet Unionist, obviously. Martin 16:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made these comments on the British Isles page, but I feel they need repeating here.

"Well since the dispute with this seems to rest almost entirely on the premise that people in the Republic of Ireland think of the term I though I would see what the government of the ROI thought of it. Google search through the irgov.ie site, the official Ireland governmental site. "British Isles", 43 hits, including many Dail offical reports on such things as how the Shannon is the second largest river in the British Isles, freedom of travel between Europe and the British Isles and so on. "British and Irish Isles", 0 hits. Seems the government of the Republic of Ireland has no problems with the term. Oh and some more numbers for us. A main google search for "British & Irish Isles", 18 hits but only about 7 unique sites. "British and Irish Isles", 127 hits. "British Isles", 16,600,000 hits of which only 4,510,000 are from the UK leaving 12 million+ hits from outside the UK. Guess which term is known and used the world over?" Ben W Bell talk 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It said Dieu Et Mon Droit (God and My Right) is the motto of Northern Ireland - "in common with England and WALES." I have removed the Wales part as the official motto of Wales, printed on the Prince of Wales feathers, is Ich Dien. The unofficial motto - and the more representative motto - is either "Cymru Am Byth" - Wales Forever; or "Pleidol Wyf I'm Gwlad" (as printed on edges of pound coins ) - roughly translated "I love this land".

What happened to "Quis Separabit"? I thought this was the motto for NI. beano 14:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In a word, no. "Quis separabit?" is the motto of the UDA, and was formerly the motto of the Order of St Patrick and Royal Ulster Rifles. --Kwekubo 18:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is still the motto of The order of St Patrick? I saw it on a wreath

Idunnomeself

Northern Ireland doesn´t have nowadays official flag. Unionists use the flag that appears in the article and irish nationalists use the irish tricolor. The flag must be rubbed. User:Norrin_strange

At the bottom of the Northern Ireland topics pages, I believe the "Ulster Banner" should be romoved, as it gives the false impresseion that it is the flag of Northern Ireland. I believe it should be replaced with a less contentious symbol, such as a picture of Northern Ireland or a more neutral symbol. Irish Lad 12:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all looking a bit English, isn't it? What about replacing it with an outline of the Provence, as in other templates? Also, I think it would look better in green?   theKeith  Talk!  16:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Something like this?   theKeith  Talk!   16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one 'official' flag of NI recognized internationally and it is the Union Jack. Ergo it should feature on the page instead of any parochial one.

I replaced the flag of the former government with an outline of Northern Ireland in the Northern Ireland topics navigation box, as Keithgreer suggested. However, another editor immediately reverted it with the comment see Northern Ireland. Please discuss the template at Template talk:Northern Irish topics --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ulster banner has to go it is no longer offical it should be replaced by the Union Flag. --Barry^talk 11:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Northern Ireland flag must stay. It is the only flag which uniquely represents Northern Ireland. Scotland's entry only shows the Scottish flag. Northern Ireland's entry should show the Northern Ireland flag which is officially used by the NI football team and at the Commonwealth Games.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Happytalk (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

see #Ulster Banner below

The flag officially under United Kingdom law for Northern Ireland is the Union Jack so the flag for Northern Ireland on here should be the Union Jack too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingoranother (talk • contribs)

The section titled Lives lost in the “Troubles” lists some percentages but needs actual numbers of deaths. Someone unfamiliar with the situation might think it's 1 million people, or 100. Tempshill 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: The province of Ulster covers a greater landmass than Northern Ireland (though it didn't always) - what is the source for this last bit? I imagine it's safe to assume that the Kingdom of Ulster was once a lot smaller than 1/4 of the island, but the above seems to imply that it was once co-terminous with present-day Northern Ireland, which seems pretty unlikely. --Ryano 09:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sentence needs re-worded or simply ignored for the reasons cited above. Perhaps the insertion of the word 'modern', as in "The modern province of Ulster..." would suffice. The borders of all the provinces have changed over the centuries, and were finally established in their current forms officially by a British monarch. --Mal 09:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although "modern" might give the wrong idea also, as the boundaries were set in Elizabethan times. --Ryano 09:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really dredging the depths of my memory from primary school, but didn't there used to be five provinces/kingdoms? (Hence the Irish for province, Cúaige, meaning a fifth) and may seven before that? But this would be pre-Norman invasion. --Red King 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - the midland Gaelic colony, Meath, used to be a province. --Mal 17:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the term "northern Irish" is neutral when applied to a person or does it suggest that he or she is "Irish"?Kuifjeenbobbie 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more than "Northern Ireland" suggests the entity is on the island of Ireland.   Keithology  Talk!  17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that many in Northern Ireland consider themselves to be not at all Irish or predominantly British. Therefore saying "Northern Irish national identity" seems misleading as it suggests that all are "Irish", which many are only weakly or not at all.Kuifjeenbobbie 18:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Keithgreer on this one. They are from the Northern country of the Irish island. Of course, by state/law, the people are British too, but I can't see how a person living in Northern Ireland isn't Northern Irish. Pauric 18:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of anyone who doens't like being labelled as Irish objecting to Northern Irish. After all it is Northern Ireland and Northern Irish is what you are if you live there, it's an inescapable fact. Ben W Bell talk 19:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, they are all Irish. They sound Irish (or Scots, who can tell?), they use Hiberno-English, they go to church every week - definitely not British. :-) --Red King 20:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the statement "seems misleading as it suggests that all are "Irish", which many are only weakly or not at all" is highly POV. Everyone in Northern Ireland is Northern Irish. The vast majority of the population are Irish whether they label themselves as such or not. They are not Irish in the context of nationality, except where their political ideologies come into play or when they hold Irish national passports. The residents are also all de facto British by nationality.. again, whether they accept this label for themselves or not.

Secondly, in a couple of opinion polls taken over the last decade, it appears that "Northern Irish" is the single most acceptable label preferred by the people across the board in Northern Ireland. It is more popular even than the labels "British", "Irish" or "Ulster". --Mal 20:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in seeing the polls you refer to. Can you reference them?Kuifjeenbobbie 08:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "The vast majority of the population are Irish whether they label themselves as such or not" is also IMHO also POV. The question then arises "Who decides who is Irish or not? The people themselves? Or some "general consensus"? I myself think that people should be described as who they label themselves to be, as they themselves are most informed about who they are. Perhaps a section (or a new article) needs to be added on "Different interpretations of the word "Irish""Kuifjeenbobbie 09:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For myself I describe myself as Northern Irish. I have UK passport, but British just seems wrong to me as a description. --Blowdart 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember the places I saw the polls. I believe one was published in the Belfast Telegraph. Another can probably be found on the CAIN website.

I can't see how the statement you refer to could be considered POV. The vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland originate from Northern Ireland. As such, they are therefore Irish. There are only two meanings for Irish: one is a nationality and the other is ethnicity - "of, or relating to, Ireland".

If I can find a link to one of the polls I mentioned, I'll add it here for your interest. --Mal 14:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to add Polish into the languages section at the top, although I was unable to find a source with a bit of quick googling to back up my addition, (and I know people can be somewhat protective of changes on the Northern Ireland article ;) ) I was hoping either someone could help find a source, or just agree, because it's obvious, there is signifigantly more Polish spoken here than there is Irish or Ulster Scots. Pauric 23:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If its any help, we here in the south usually refer to all the inhabitants of Northern Ireland simply as "Northerners", whatever community you claim to come from. Not sure what they call us, other than "Free Staters" (sic) or "Fenian bastards" (sic). Fergananim 13:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I once worked with a guy from Newry who used to call all us Southerners "Mexicans" :) Demiurge 13:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• They can call us what they like so long as they keep being nice to us and each other. Otherwise, we Mexicans say "Northerners??? We don't need no steeking Northerners! Unless ye buy the first round!" Seriously, anyone else anymore terms they use for us/us for them? Fergananim
• 'Go on out of that you tight bastard' seems to have a very felicitous delivery when the recipient is from any place beyond the walls of Ceanannas Mór, or places north of that which is known as Kyaaavan, named after a hollow in the ground where all the people lived because they were too tight to build houses. The feckers don't even change their names with, for instance, the more civilised Mac Gabhann being known as Smith in south Cavan but in the wilds of deeper Ulster- oh Jaysas, there's none of that generosity on the name front. The further north you go, the tighter they get with everything. Even one syllable words- for instance, 'No!'- are taken to a new level of penuriousness. Not even an 'Ara sure that's an idea in itself' followed by a philosophical discussion of the pro and cons of an idea. Words are like money in the north: scarce and guarded. It would be interesting to see the per capita charity donations of every county in Ireland. hehe. The road to... Scotland is paved with good...retentions. El Gringo 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Em. You are a bit behind with your names, Gringo. Ceanannas Mór was axed as a name in the late 1980s and replaced by simply by Kells with Ceanannas as its Irish translation. I lived there at the time and there was a lot of happy people when Ceanannas Mór was dumped. It was a pain in the proverbial arse. You had all these tourists looking to find the town made famous by the Book of Kells but who couldn't find it because all the signs said Ceanannas Mór. That name is no more. The council and the minister binned it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JD. Maybe I just know the people of those particular times a bit better? I've had this conversation before with residents of Kenlis and I must say that the people in question were among the most unenlightened members of Irish society. That's usually the guideline for me. Being around 12 at the time, I had the good sense to tell them precisely this to huge laughter in the hollow halls of the big house surrounded by trees. They were so chuffed to be on that side of the walls of Kenlis they drew my wrath down on them. Sophistication, for them, was a trip to Balladuff (for the mart, of course, oh cultureless ones!) on a Thursday and a trip over to Mullagh on a Sunday morning for a cockfight down beside "the cross". A productive conversation was one along the lines of 'Bejaysas, didn't that bullock have a fine arse on it, Shayme?' And that, make no mistake about it, was serious business in Ceanannas Mór. And you daren't say anything bad about one 'John V', the finest defender of their interests in the Dáil. Oh, and no apologies about that little incident in Spain in the 1930s, either. It was the whole package I was dealing with. I'd sit for hours talking with them and usually the only vocabulary I had left for them was 'Oh Jaysas', followed by the nod of my head. We built up a great friendship and lifelong respect based on such honest exchanges. How do you change the redirect on the Kells page? Ceanannas Mór should only go to the Meath Kells. El Gringo 13:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've also updated the page on Kells Co Meath to refer to the change in name. I remember all the fanfare there was when the old Ceanannas Mór signs were taken down and replaced by Ceanannas. I'm afraid Mór is no more (or no mór if you prefer!). As to John V. how is he these days? I haven't seen him in years. I missed the Virginia Horse Show this year unfortunately. I haven't been Mullagh in ages either. Nor Moyalty (of "All to one side like the town of . . . " fame). Damn it. I must start visiting there again. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only know one person from Northern ireland who speaks Irish... many schools like the rest of the U.K teach french instead of irish so therefore you could as well just put french down there. Southern Ireland has a lot of Irish speakers, Northern doesn't. Therefore the sentence saying that the main languages of northern Ireland are English and Irish isn't true. Irish is a minor language in Northern Ireland and is only shown on main bilboards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisquared (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please sign your comments.

Secondly, Irish is spoken by many thousands (tens of thousands?) of people in Northern Ireland. It may be less common than Chinese (Mandarin?), but it is an officially recognised language of the region. It is also an indigenous language of historical import to the country. --Mal 17:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to sign, but even so, it really isn't spoken in Northern Ireland often. And furthermore few schools teach irish. I've lived in Northern Ireland all my life and I've never even heard a conversation in Irish. I've heard a conversation in Irish in Dublin, but that's in the south. Also further adding to my point, since everyone in Great Britain and Northern ireland HAS to learn french as a second language, you could even say it's also an official language! As far as I know, Irish is only taught in Northern ireland as a third language, and is usually replaced with spanish or german. I understand that for centuries it has been used as a language of trade between the british and irish, but at the moment Irish can be considered a lot like Welsh - i.e. it is only used inside it's own country. Irish is not used for trade any more. English is. Also finally, the official website of belfast says little about the Irish language. Wikisquared 17:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone on Great Britain has to learn French. Bazza 12:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really I thought it was compulsarary for wales, england, scotland and northern ireland. Maybe it's just northern Ireland and England then. Wikisquared 13:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't speak for anywhere else but in England a "Modern Foreign Language" is compulsory - it doesn't have to be French [QCA] Bazza 13:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird, If you want to do a modern foreign language (that isn't french) in northern ireland it'll be your third language. Some schools even teach another language on top of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisquared (talk • contribs)

In Northern Ireland it's also a Modern Language [2], most teach French, while larger schools (msotly Grammer Schools) offer a wider range.   Keithology  Talk!  13:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure French (or any other "Modern Foreign Language") is even mandatory in any region of the UK. I didn't have to take French in school, though I chose it. In saying that, the education system has changed since the O Levels, so perhaps a second language is compulsory in the UK now.

Incidentally, I was never offered Irish Language at my school. Also, I believe Ballycastle is a Gaeltacht (sp?) area and the University of Ulster at Coleraine offers a wide variety of courses on the language.

You're having a laugh with the Ballycastle thing aren't you? And a "Modern Foreign Language" (apparently including Irish, taught by many culchie schools) at GCSE was compulsary for some time, but I think they have rescinded that again because the BBC news talked a few months back about how the government was considering reintroducing it; though that may have just applied to England (and Wales?). beano 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there was an Irish Language class set up on the Shankill Road too at one point. --Mal 14:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right there is no requirement to take any exam. When I was doing my GCSEs (2002/03) I didn't pick any languages, but still had an hour a week of lessons. .   Keithology  Talk!  14:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have officially given up now... go ahead keep it there... Wikisquared 21:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is going to be kept there you nasty little bigot. I don't exactly hear you saying much about the ulster scots "language".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.53.254 (talk • contribs)

Irish is spoken quite alot in the North (coming from a family that all speak irish). The census shows that there are alot of irish speakers. Whether or not you have heard many irish speakers doesnt mean they dont exist (you just didnt overhear them). IRWolfie- 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Belfast and I am an Irish speaker. I have changed the Irish name of Northern Ireland to "Na Sé Chontae" to reflect the fact that this is the Irish name given to Northern Ireland. Tuaisceart Éireann is just the direct translation from English into Irish. Irish speakers refer to Northern Ireland as "Na Sé Chontae". Irish doesn't always directly translate into English and vice versa. Seamus2602 21:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you, the Irish wiki is at http://ga.wikipedia.org. As for the name, whatever next? Djegan 21:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Na Sé Chontae means "Six Counties" in Irish, and while I've no problems labelling it as so, it does not literally mean "Northern Ireland". I agree that the area is often called the six counties, however, and think that the term should be inserted in the article somewhere. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their is, incidentially a whole article on alternative names. Djegan 21:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While yes there is another page about that, we are talking about this page. If you list the Irish name of a place in an article then it should be the name used by the majority of Irish speakers. Dublin is called Baile Átha Cliath in Irish but to translate Dublin back into Irish you get Dubh Linn. The rease Baile Átha Cliath is used by Wikipedia is that it is the name used by the majority of Irish speakers. The same should be applied here.

This is the English wikipedia first most. Djegan 22:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When we're dealing with the Irish name for a place, then the Irish language should be correct. Most Irish speakers use the Six Counties name. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many people say "American" when they mean United States. Djegan 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point mate. I live in Belfast. I live in an area where Irish is spoken every day. I have never heard the name Tuaisceart Éireann being used for Northern Ireland. If you don't like that fact remove the Irish name all together. I would prefer the Irish name to not be there than a wrong Irish name to be there. User:Seamus2602 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "I have never heard the name Tuaisceart Éireann being used for Northern Ireland." — try here: [3] [4] I speak Irish too, and I've never heard the term "Sé Chontae" being used for Northern Ireland, except by people who were trying to push a certain political agenda. This seems to be just an attempt to reopen the old "six counties" debate through the back door. Demiurge 22:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am pushing no political agenda. There are many other more important things that I can pick a fight about. I am just putting in the name used by the majority of Irish speakers. Seamus2602 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "the name used by the majority of Irish speakers" — prove it. Demiurge 22:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't. I'll come out and admit that I can't magically produce surveys in favour of Na Sé Chontae but believe me I am not trying to push a political agenda. I just want the article to reflect the use of Na Sé Chontae in the way the Dublin article reflects the use of Baile Átha Cliath. Seamus2602 22:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you are correct, just because Na Sé Chontae may be the common term as Gaeilge does not mean it is the most appropriate term to use in this article. Tuaisceart Éireann is the official term as Gaeilge. I believe the article mentions alternative names for the North already. I find it hard to beleive you are not just pushing a viewpoint. zoney ♣ talk 23:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I speak Irish, but the six counties name seems more plausible to me. Who'se going to name another region of their country "Northern Ireland". Northern ireland is hardly even the north of ireland, as it only takes up six of the 32 counties of Ireland. Wikisquared 14:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that logic is that Northern Ireland is not just a region. It is currently separate from the other 26 counties and under UK rule (i.e. a separate country from the Republic of Ireland). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 14:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A separate state, not country. Just because most of Ireland got home rule while the rest remained in the United Kingdom doesn't mean the northeast suddenly became a country in its own right. Nor does the use of the term "Ireland" by the Republic mean that the island as a whole is no longer Ireland, nor does it change what the Irish nation is. zoney ♣ talk 11:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland is not a state either. Djegan 18:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Na Sé Chontae should be used. Just because its isn't the literal translation, doesn't mean it shouldn't be the version used. A lot of towns (eg Cookstown, Coalisland, etc) do not use literal translations for their Irish versions. This does not make the version wrong, it just reflects better what Irish speakers refer to the place as. (Derry Boi 10:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think Na Sé Chontae should be used because its a translation of a POV reference, and not the official name of Northern Ireland. I have personally seen Tuaisceart Éireann in written form far more often than Na Sé Chontae (which I can't actually recall seeing at all) in Northern Ireland. The article itself is not called, in English, "The Six Counties". Nor should it be the case that it's Irish name should be that. Nor is the article called "Ulster", by the way. Also, there are plenty of Irish language speakers who are of NPOV.

That certain people refer to any given place as something, doesn't mean that Wikipedia should.

How much landmass Northern Ireland does or does not take up is irrelevant. --Mal 20:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googlefight shows that "Tuaisceart Éireann" beats "Na Sé Chontae" 16,900 to 418 Ardmhacha

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22Na+S%E9+Chontae%22&word2=%22Tuaisceart+%C9ireann%22

It took a while to find this, but I'd guess the last 2 words of this sentence (from a government publication) mean Northern Ireland (or 'of Northern Ireland' perhaps). "Tá páipéar comhairliúcháin seolta ag an Roinn Cultúir, Ealaíon agus Fóillíochta ar an reachtaíocht atá molta don Ghaeilge i dTuaisceart Éireann." beano 21:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the infobox was changed the top three lines of text (Northern Ireland (English), Tuaisceart Éireann, (Irish) and Norlin Airlann (Ulster Scots)) haven't been looking right. The spacing doesn't look right. Anyone else noticed this or is it just me? I can't seem to fix it. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added ^{<small>&nbsp;</small>} after Tuaisceart Éireann which acts like the subset 1 after Norlin Airlann. Maybe someone could take a look at the template for a better solution.   Keithology  Talk!  08:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the same problem and was about to start a new topic until I saw this one. I noticed the scale of the problem depends on the text size you set your browser to. With IE6, the words 'Norlin Airlinn'have their bottom halves lopped off when the text size is set to 'smaller' or 'largest' although frankly the words sit together pretty uncomfortably whichever text size is used. Kaid100 18:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can refer to the Norlin Airlin section below on this, but I say remove the superscript/subnote on Norlin Airlin altogether. Of course it's a neologism or new word, the state's not even 100 years old!! The Norn Iron bit is irrelevant. It's not part of any language any more than "innit" is. beano 19:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion. Any input would be appreciated. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 21:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the general term for people from down south? Just curious Fergananim 19:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From who's perspective? I wasn't sure this question deserved an answer at first. But I'll assume Good Faith and inform you that the term "Fenian bastards" is an insult used by a small minority (people who would generally be called loyalists and bigots). Nor does the phrase, when used, apply solely to people from the Republic of Ireland. The phrase is used variously to describe Irish Roman Catholics, Nationalists, or specifically republicans (with emphasis on specifically millitant republicans). Sometimes it is used in Northern Ireland jokingly, in mixed company - usually only when the atmosphere is friendly. The term "Free Staters" is, I think, becoming antiquated and obviously referes to one of the names the Republic of Ireland had previously been known as. --Mal 20:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still hear "Free Staters" quite a bit. The most common is probably "Southerners". "Dirty Mexicans" is certainly the best term though :P ;) Jonto 14:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Republic of Ireland itself is usually found referred to in conversation as The Free State or Down South or sometimes The Republic. As for the people just things like Southerners or Them Down South is used, there's not really a solid term for those who live the other side of the border and the derogitory terms aren't used that much by the general populace to be honest. On both sides of the political divide there is still a sense of everyone really being the same people with little in the way of differences (though obviously there are a few who think otherwise). Ben W Bell talk 07:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly down here, "northerner" is the most common term for someone from, well, the North. I guess this is applied to Donegal or even Cavan/Monaghan folk too though. zoney ♣ talk 23:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that the most commonly used term is "Southerners" with "Mexicans" coming after, "Free-staters" has fallen a bit to the way side proably more common with the older generation. --Edengmcc 01:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-ordered the sections on the page to bring this long-running thread together. I suggest we continue business as usual at the bottom of this section. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Northern Ireland is a "constituent country" of the UK is universally regarded as garbage. The term is defined as meaning a "country within a country" (a largely discredited definition in itself). No-one in Northern Ireland, whether Unionist, Loyalist, Nationalist or Republican, regards Northern Ireland as a country. They variously call it a "province", a "geopolitical unit", a "statelet", etc. Scotland, Wales and England qualify for the term (though many political scientists regard it as a makey-up term that doesn't really exist). Many in Scotland, Wales and England take offence at the equation of their historic millennium-old nations and countries with a mere region like Northern Ireland. But by no definition can Northern Ireland be regarded as a "country within a country". Even Ian Paisley laughs at the idea. On WP the whole "agenda" for pushing a discredited term shows all the signs not merely of "original research" (itself against Wikipedia rules) but shabby and poor original research at that. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 12:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed it myself sometime ago until it was reverted. I think the term division, nation or region would be better when discribing the relationship. At best Northern Ireland is a "constituent part" or "constituent region" of the United Kingdom but "constituent country" is bogus. Incidentially the term did not come into usage on Template:United Kingdom until recently (i.e. prior to 2006).
Djegan 13:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Setanta is incapable of actually obeying the rules on dubious tags. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag because there is no doubt as to the fact. It seems that you are incapable of understanding facts. --Mal 19:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem utterly incapable of actually reading the Wikipedia rules on the dubious tag and how to deal with them. But then that is part of the course with POV pushers on Northern Ireland articles. Until you follow those rules the tag will be inserted, and your refusal to obey WP rules pointed out to admins and on relevant pages. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is describing a constituent country of the UK, as a constituent country of the UK POV? I am not a POV pusher thank you. --Mal 01:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should be sensitive to issues like this, especially if we don't live in the particular locale. But to be honest Mal, I have never heard of N.I. being referred to as a country until I read this page. Always a province or a territory, can you explain why you want country retained? --83.70.226.89 22:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand here that WP tries to avoid mentioning personalities on main talk pages, but since accusations have already been started in this dicussion, and I have already recently been described as a "vandal" by the admninistrator in question, I think I will have to say something: Jtdirl, while I think you have made many generally worthwhile and NPoV WP contributions, I do occassionally have problems with your attitude. Jtdirl is first in here with the "POV pusher" line. I think this is more of a case of you, jtdirl, pushing your personal PoV that NI can't be described as a "country", rather than anyone else pushing a PoV that it can. Jtdirl has also had a recent campaign to say the entire UK cannot even be described as a country!!

Yet, amsusingly, jtdirl also maintains elsewhere that the entire modern-day island of Ireland can reasonably be called a "country". Additionally, he argues that the term "Ireland" should be promoted as terminology for the Republic of Ireland, despite the term's high degree of ambiguity and controversy. He also claims that "Derry" is the official name of NI's second largest city, and argues that it should be the only one used in that article. None of his pedantry in these examples; hmmm... looks like a case of double standards if you ask me! Jonto 16:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I want country retained?!? Firstly, the term refers to a Wikipedia article entitled Constituent Countries. Secondly, having grown up all my life in Northern Ireland, I can tell you that I've heard this expression to describe Northern Ireland many times. Unfortunately, the Point of View of many nationalists is to reject any notion that Northern Ireland is a country. Now, given that Northern Ireland has a culture and infrastructure that is different from Scotland, England, Wales and the Republic of Ireland, and given the fact that when it was set up it was actually the most independent constituent countries (the first to have a devolved government), I think that speaks for itself. NI is referred to (rather inaccurately) as a province because that is how it is often seen by unionists - contained, as it is, wholly within the confines of the province of Ulster. --Mal 01:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing as a southerner of mixed background, I am sensitive to some these issues Would N.I. survive as a 'country' on it's own? I would believe that question would really define the de facto position. You seem to be taking a political view, which is not in my gift to either agree with or disagree with. Personally I think there should be more divolved governence as I dislike central government, and that applies here too! 83.70.226.89 01:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would NI survive as a country on its own? Interesting question, and one that I've addressed before in the past (not on Wikipedia though). Had it been the 1940s or thereabouts, when Northern Ireland had the largest textiles and rope manufacturing industries in the world, and other very successful manufacturing industries, I'd have said yes. Due to the last industrial revolution, and out-sourcing of the modern world economy though, I'd have to say I don't think it would survive without a lot of borrowing (much like the Republic seems to have done until the economy had developed enough to boom). Would it ever manage to eventually break out of the need for economic aid? I couldn't honestly say. Many countries throughout the world survive (just about) constantly in debt.. getting deeper and deeper into debt too. There'd be an initial drop in standard of living, and that's something it would probably never recover from. NI has no natural resources worth talking about (oil, coal, gold, diamonds etc), other than manpower, fertile land area and fish really.

I don't agree that its ability to survive on its own as a country is necessarily a defining factor.. given that at various times in history the answer would very probably have been yes, and that as a "country within a country", the context is perhaps slightly inappropriate. The same question could very well be asked of Wales. The Isle of Man seems to be doing OK (though quite how that region is defined is another matter!).

Saying that I'm taking a political view is .. well its undeniable really. But again, it depends on the context I think. I certainly think that certain editors here appear to me to be taking a political view, but I would say that I am not attempting to take it as a political view in that same context. When asked "What country are you from?" I have heard many responces from many people in Northern Ireland. One of the most frequent answers I hear is "Northern Ireland". I personally would say "The UK", because that is a country by all definitions of the word. Northern Ireland, as well as Scotland, England and Wales, in my view are states very much akin to Texas or Ohio in many respects.

Finally, I would very much agree with you about devolved government: I think that local people are best suited to local governing. I still believe in a central government, but I favour devolved government over direct rule so that the people that make policy decisions for this region are culpable to the people. Faceless administrative Civil Servants, who don't have to live here on a daily basis, are not responsible to the people: they don't have to care because they do not have to face a possible loss of position come the next election. --Mal 02:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This speculative discussion on whether Northern Ireland could survive as an independent country is all very interesting, but not really relevant to deciding what terms should be used in the article. We need to fall back on sources, so the question is whether there are relevant/official sources which call NI a "constituent country" of the UK. I've certainly heard "country" being used on occasion by people I know in NI, although obviously not by nationalists. More formally, e.g. on the BBC, my understanding is the usage is exclusively "province". However, I'll wait and see what sources can be dug up. --Ryano 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland is a Province of the U.K., not a country. That is a legal fact. The description of it as a country is therefore either wrong, or at best misleading. Is there a good reason why this error should not be corrected? Extramural 22:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the challenge has gone out. Obviously if reliable sources are not forthcoming then the claim that Northern Ireland is a "constituent country" will be removed in due course. Djegan 22:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel there is much wrong with describing NI as a "country" in the same way as Wales, and I don't see this as being a big issue as constituent country is wiki-linked together as one phrase. However, to keep quiet those who are anally over-pedantic, I propose the introductory sentence as follows: "Northern Ireland is a province and one of the four constituent entities of the United Kingdom." That way, the article describing the "constituent countries" can still be linked without any revert wars. Jonto 16:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just another way of stating the same falsehood. Djegan 17:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my unerstanding that both England and Scotland are Kingdoms, Wales a principality and Northern Ireland a province hope this helps 213.94.248.9 07:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this tag yet again, as the fact is not in dispute. An editor has suggested that we take a look at a user guide page which contains the following information:

It suggests that the 'dubious' tag be applied if one of the following cases is true:

   * It contains unlikely information, without providing references.
   * It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
   * It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

It certainly doesn't fall into the third category. The first and second categories are also not appropriate: references have, I believe, been given on this discussion page. While it can be difficult to verify, it is not impossible. The term is, as with many terms applied to the complex combination of Common Law, history and politics of the UK and the British Isles as a whole, an oft-used colloquialism rather than official, written-in-law terminology. But that does not make it any less a fact.

With that in mind, I shall continue to revert this tag and hope that the disruption to this article will cease soon. To be frank, the article is (still) in a mess, and more important editing could be done to the rest of it instead of, as I see it, needlessly challenging an aspect of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland from a Point Of View that rejects the status quo. --Mal 01:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the sources you refer to above. Can you tell us where to find them? --Ryano 09:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its disengenious to suggest that one of those three categories are a must, in any case the issue surrounding a dubious tag must be properly verified before removal, viz Wikipedia:Disputed statement which states, amongst other things,:

Don't remove the warning simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time to properly verify it.

Its not simply a matter of wishing it away, the responsibility lies on those who wish to retain the statement cite and verify it correctly. Three registered and one anonymous editors have expressed concerns at the statement. Verifiability isn't about disruption its about doing things properly. Djegan 15:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted Djegan, and I had actually resolved not to remove the tag again before reading these last couple of comments. I think the onus lies on the people who dispute it in this case though. --Mal 10:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is always on those who wish to continue the retention of the work, from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an official wikipedia policy, it states amongst other things:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

The disputed term "constituent country" is used prominantly (introductory line) in the article and this gives added impidious that the term must be appropriately cited as it is not in broad public usage (in fact I have never heard it in the context of Northern Ireland before) and I believe at this point four registered users have expressed misgivings about the term. Having said this it goes without saying that wikipedia has been at the centre of a number of scandals recently and if we want to keep this great project alive then verifiability and not original research are the standards we must meet. Djegan 17:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that Northern Ireland was not listed at Constituent Countries until last December; the edit that added it took as its basis the use of the term in this way at the Prime Minister's website, which is not a legal document. The Government of Ireland act does not list NI as a country, a constituent country or indeed anything else; I don't know if any later legislation defines the legal status of NI. At any rate, the 'dubious' tag is merited for the moment. --Kwekubo 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is the one that concerns me most (if its such a widely known (or undisputed) "fact" howcome it appears here in only the last few months). Of course in the age of spin the prime ministers website or indeed the taoiseachs is simply a political tool and not the law. Neither the Ireland Act nor the Northern Ireland Act (the two most notable laws) use the term "constituent country"; in the later the "Status of Northern Ireland" is;

(1) It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1.

(2) But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll is that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland.

Status of Northern Ireland Djegan 18:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed with respect to the potentially illiterate person in the prime ministers office they cannot even get the name of the "Irish Republic" right. The Ireland Act makes it clear that "Republic of Ireland" is the proper term to be used in UK domestic law. Djegan 19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They probably use "Republic of Ireland" because Ireland already refers to the island. Found this act of parliment that uses the term "constituent countries". If you read the commencement section it is clear that it also refers to NI. josh (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats just an explanatory notes, its not the law, it comes with a disclaimer:

These explanatory notes relate to the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003. They have been prepared by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in order to assist the reader in understanding the Act. They do not form part of the Act and have not been endorsed by Parliament.

Djegan 18:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way "Republic of Ireland" is explicity mentioned (and defined) in the said Ireland Act. Djegan 18:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A term does not have to be defined in law to make it accurate. Especially in the British case when there is no real defined constitution. Irrespective of the status of Northern Ireland, what other terminology is used by government to refer the 4 parts collectively? I guess "home nations" is used, but then of course jtdirl would be venting his PoV at that one too, despite there being nothing wrong with it IMO. Jonto 20:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term used to refer to the four parts collectively is (wait for it)... "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". No really the Ireland Act made it clear (since repealed those parts) that Northern Ireland was "part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom", the Northern Ireland Act makes it clear that it is "part of the United Kingdom". No more. we dont fit terms to suit the current fetish. Djegan 20:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say was "to refer to the 4 collective parts on an individual basis".

Just going back to the initial comment by jtirl here. It seems to me that it is a very POV comment - one in which an obvious belittling attitude is prominent. Witness the following statement: "Many in Scotland, Wales and England take offence at the equation of their historic millennium-old nations and countries with a mere region like Northern Ireland."

jtirl, you make this statement and yet I have never in my life heard anything approaching that from the people of England, Wales or Scotland. On the contrary, I've actually heard the reverse more often than not. Northern Ireland is a millenia-old nation, depending on perspective. It is also the continuation of a country that had been added to the UK in an official and legal capacity in 1801.

As I've said before, Northern Ireland was the first region of the UK to gain any form of independent devolved government, unless I am mistaken - making it a self-governing constituent part (or country) within the UK. It would be interesting to hear your opinion on whether you considered Ireland as a constituent country during the period 1801 — 1921.

The following statement is in error, and clearly shows that you have not had much communication with unionists or loyalists: "No-one in Northern Ireland, whether Unionist, Loyalist, Nationalist or Republican, regards Northern Ireland as a country." As a unionist, I have always thought of, and referred to, Northern Ireland as a country (within a country).

"They variously call it a "province", a "geopolitical unit", a "statelet", etc. Scotland, Wales and England qualify for the term" The term "province" is a nickname (although it has been suggested here that Northern Ireland is "officially" a province of the UK, I'd like to see a source for that). I have heard this term applied to Northern Ireland lots of times of course, and I have heard the term "statelet" too, though only from nationalists. I would suggest that the term "statelet" itself implies "country within a country". In that sense of course, England, Scotland and Wales can also be considered statelets. I have never heard the term "geopolitical unit" being applied to Northern Ireland.

"(though many political scientists regard it as a makey-up term that doesn't really exist)." Again, a source for this would be nice, just out of curiousity. However, if your insistance is that it is a "makey-up term", then what is your problem with applying it to Northern Ireland? The term exists, whether officially or legally, or otherwise, though it is not Original Research. Argument could be made that the only proper constituent countries (if we accept the argument that NI is not one) are Scotland and England, as Wales is a "mere" Principality and therefore, surely, not a country. The term "constituent countries" has always been used, to my knowledge, to refer to those four main parts of the UK, and never solely to refer to only three of them.

I suggest that the attempt to remove, or even to dispute, Northern Ireland's place as a constituent country, is simply an attempt to belittle the existance of NI in the first place. Kwekubo above mentions that the Government of Ireland Act does not mention Northern Ireland as being a constituent/country. But, as was rightly pointed out - the term doesn't have to be legally or constitutionally enshrined for it to be notable.

The British Prime Minister has refered to the constituent parts that make up the UK as "countries within a country".. and that's good enough for me: NI is a country by a similar loose-fitting definition that can be applied to the other three parts, and is a constituent part of the UK. Therefore - a constituent country. --Mal 17:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. That has got to be the weakest argument imaginable.

• You clearly don't know what the term country means;
• You push the ludicrous definition, that would be laughed at if written in a university essay, that a part is the same as a country.
• The claim that the removal of a grossly inaccurate term is somehow an attempt to "belittle the existence of NI" is absurd and offensive. The people removing the inaccurate term are constantly attacked by extreme republicans as "unionists" or "pro-Northern Ireland". The bottom line is accuracy, not any POV. The United Kingdom is made up of three constituent counties (England, Scotland and Wales) and a region (Northern Ireland). If the term was used in primary legal documentation then it might have some validity and notability. Wikipedia does not use inaccurate terminology simply because some individuals use it. If it did, it wouldn't refer to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom but the Queen of England. It wouldn't refer to Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples but Victor Emmanuel IV, it would use America rather than the United States. And it would use Irish Republic or Irish Free State when it means Republic of Ireland. You may think that basic standards of encyclopaedic accuracy don't matter, but thousands of Wikipedians (including those of us who have fought battles to stop Irish republicans replacing every mention of Northern Ireland with the Six Counties and attempts to move the article there) do. Try using objective criteria of definitions and not amateurish usage of POV language, for a change. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this issue has been ongoing now for some weeks speaks volumns, no one as yet has been able to cite a reputable source to support the simple idea that Northern Ireland is a "constitutent country" of the United Kingdom, yet both the Ireland Act and Northern Ireland act clearly say it is "part of the United Kingdom" (this I dont dispute) and do not use the terms "constitutent country" even though they span fifty years of British legislation. When you say, and I quote above "Northern Ireland is a millenia-old nation, depending on perspective" then either you dont know your history (at all) or it is simply a reminder that this dispute is well justified. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research and this is fundemental to the question here.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and like any encyclopedia if an idea cannot be backed up it ough to be removed. I am not trying to dispute the status of Northern Ireland but then again I am not going to present bogus theories. Sources people, sources. Djegan 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jtdirl:

• You clearly don't know what the term country means;

I do when it applies to the constituent countries of the UK. Apparently you are the one who doesn't understand it in that context.

• You push the ludicrous definition, that would be laughed at if written in a university essay, that a part is the same as a country.

You obviously wouldn't make a good examiner, as you clearly haven't read or understood what I actually wrote.

• The claim that the removal of a grossly inaccurate term is somehow an attempt to "belittle the existence of NI" is absurd and offensive.

As a matter of fact, it is absurd and offensive to suggest that it is a grossly inaccurate term.

You say: "The people removing the inaccurate term are constantly attacked by extreme republicans as "unionists" or "pro-Northern Ireland". The bottom line is accuracy, not any POV. The United Kingdom is made up of three constituent counties (England, Scotland and Wales) and a region (Northern Ireland). If the term was used in primary legal documentation then it might have some validity and notability. Wikipedia does not use inaccurate terminology simply because some individuals use it."

And yet that is precisely the case for the term "Constituent Countries" itself, as I have explained above. But the term is notable apparently. As such it is therefore an article in this encyclopedia. The constituent countries number four - not three.

"Try using objective criteria of definitions and not amateurish usage of POV language, for a change." I do thanks. Try taking your own advice. --Mal 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Djegan:

"When you say, and I quote above "Northern Ireland is a millenia-old nation, depending on perspective" then either you dont know your history (at all) or it is simply a reminder that this dispute is well justified."

I don't see that this is a "reminder" that the "dispute" is "justified". And nor am I unfamiliar with my history, thanks. I was pointing out that many people, including historians and other learned people, are of the opinion that Northern Ireland, in its previous incarnations as Ulster for example could arguably be regarded as a nation separate from the rest of Ireland (and the rest of the British Isles). I am not saying that I particularly hold that opinion personally, but my comment served a purpose in the context. Try not to take things quite so literally all the time.

It has been shown that Northern Ireland can be regarded as a country in the same context as the other three regions of the UK. It has also been shown that Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the UK. Therefore, it can be regarded as a Constituent Country. --Mal 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Learned people know that Northern Ireland was created by the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and did not exist before that time, period. It would be just as inaccurate to say the Republic of Ireland existed for millennia. Your last comment is simply a reminder of the original research that the claim is. Just that England, Scotland and Wales are regarded as constituent countries, it does not follow that Northern Ireland must be one; one would not claim that because the United States consists of fifty states that theirfore Washington D.C. must also be one, on a par with the rest. No, no one has been able to cite a reputable source that Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, simply a disputed theory that A=B=C... Djegan 21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It would be just as inaccurate to say the Republic of Ireland existed for millennia" .. indeed it would. I'm not sure you understand what I was getting at though. However.. moving on...

Likewise, with your example of England, Scotland and Wales being regarded as constituent countries, has anyone been able to cite a reputable source that Northern Ireland is excluded from this term..? It makes logical sense to me that if those three regions are regarded as constituent countries, then so is Northern Ireland. Your example of Washington DC is perhaps applicable to London.. but not to Northern Ireland. It is just as much original research to claim that England, for example, is a constituent country as it is to claim that any of the other regions are constituent countries. --Mal 23:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not produced legislative evidence for the claim. No evidence. No usage. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How hard have you been looking? I would strongly suggest that if you feel like that about Northern Ireland then, fair's fair - delete the entire article. After all, where is the "legislative evidence" for any of the regions being constituent countries? --Mal 01:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found several government docs (Statutory rules http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Sr/sr2002/20020137.htm][5][6] and an Act[7]) refering to a "country outside Northern Ireland" this infers that Northern Ireland itself is a country. Due to the converluted way the British legisture works this would make it officially considered a country of the UK. josh (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what your point is but if it is that theirfore the term "constituent country" can be citied by this then I would say no. The word country is of such general meaning so as to make such a implication original research. Djegan 18:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative evidence that NI is considered a country was asked for. The above refs conclusivly show this. It is obviously a constituent of the UK so constituent country applies as well. josh (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a theory, until proven otherwise. Djegan 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(duplicate post by josh removed --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

On the Northern Ireland page of Wikipedia the four Home Nations and four constituent countries of the United Kingdom are in fact England, Scotland, Wales, and er.. umm... England. Northern Ireland is officially an Entity of the United Kingdom. Anything on .gov.uk is not an valid source for this page. The discussion is here.   theKeith  Talk!  12:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Setanta,

Please do not insert material against consensus and Wikipedia:Verifiability, you well know the policy. Dont replay what was discussed here previously and pretend as if nothing happened and a conclusion did not occure. Misinformation is vandalism.

Djegan 06:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its "Setanta" - he's an Irish folk hero.

I assume you are referring to my correction of information (not "misinformation") in referring to Northern Ireland as a constituent country, yes? I that is the case, then I suggest you take a look at the article itself, and do NOT accuse me of something I haven't done, thank you very much. --Mal 09:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again, sigh! Read the policy, its simple. Another article does not constitute a "source". Supply a source that reaches the standard set in the policy or it gets removed per policy. That is the rule. Djegan 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I did not accuse YOU of vandalism, merely stated "Misinformation is vandalism." - which it is, read the policy. Djegan 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again *sigh*.. read the article Constituent country. I suggested you do this because it is pertinent to this discussion we are having, and there are verifiable sources contained within it. If you feel there needs to be reference to those same sources in this article, then feel free to copy the references from it into this article, and into the articles on England, Scotland and Wales also. --Mal 17:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume the reason why a citation is not provided is that their is none that pass a wikipedia policy, in particular Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The policies stand and they are not negotiable. Djegan 22:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mal/Setanta,

Like the last time you started this revert war your just going to have to face the fact that any changes adopting "constituent country" need to pass appropriate policy or be removed and stay removed. Anything else does no one favours, not least yourself. Simple.

Djegan 23:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I can only assume the reason why a citation is not provided is that their is none that pass a wikipedia policy".... you don't have to 'assume' anything. Go to the article Constituent country and find out for yourself. Reverted (again). --Mal 06:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Like the last time you started this revert war" I started a revert war..? Prove it. --Mal 06:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 links after the phrase "constituent country" which I found odd...so I followed all of them. The first, IMO covers what was said. The others except the last 2 seem to be examples of where Northern Ireland is referred to as a constituent country, the 6th defines consituent country and the 7th says the same exact thing as the first with less detail. I want to suggest that the 1st [8] and maybe 6th [9] links can be kept but having Census 2001 - Ethnicity and religion in England and Wales [10] and Explanatory Notes to Waste And Emissions Trading Act 2003 [11] is kind of silly. If there are no objections, I'll cut it down to 2, maybe 3 links. Omishark 13:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentially some of these links do not have "constituent country" in body and are therefore not valid citations at all. Djegan 17:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to cutting down the number of citations. I included all the citations from the article Constituent country with the expectation that the list would be whittled down to one or two.

A brief explanation of some of the citations you had trouble with Ommishark though:

The first is a link to the Downing Street website in which is stated, "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland", under the heading "Countries within a country". Made up of four countries - ie. constitutes four countries.

The second link (Waste and Emissions Trading Act) is an official government website that specifically uses the term "constituent countries" and from which it is plain to see that they number four.

The third link is an official webpage of the Republic of Ireland. This also explicitly states "constituent countries" and directly afterwards lists all four.

The next one is a BBC link which explicitly mentions "constituent countries" and then goes on discuss Northern Ireland in that context.

The 2001 Census link includes the statement "This question asked "What is your country of birth?" with tick box options of: England; Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland; Republic of Ireland and Elsewhere, please write in the present name of the country." One of the questions discussed in the article Constituent country was whether or not Northern Ireland was considered a country (and therefore a constituent country). This citation shows that Northern Ireland is indeed considered a country not only by its residents, but also by its government.

The National Statistics website is another British government agency, the link to its webpage notes that Northern Ireland is a country within the UK.

The final citation is that of an official webpage of the British Embassy in the USA, which describes the four countries of the United Kingdom.

I hope this is of help for any editor deciding which citations to keep, and which to let go. --Mal 21:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is fundementally where my problem lies, we are very good at providing links that backup the case for Northern Ireland been a country within the United Kingdom (the term country is a very broad term); but when it comes to the use of the term - and it is a term - "constituent country" then the appropriate links fizzel out to backup the latter case. Thus we have a problem with WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. We need to prove that Northern Ireland, beyond doubt, can be discribe as a "constituent country" because anthing else is simply an afront to the afformented policies when wikipedia is one of the few references using it.

For instance if I created an article "constituent county" (not country) and proceeded to claim that the counties of Ireland where discribed as such because they made up Ireland than this is a bogus term in the same sense. But its the same basic idea.

Sources, please that show the term has broad acceptance. Djegan 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And at least three of the links are quite specific. The term constituent county is not a term that I have ever heard mentioned anywhere. That's the difference. The term we are discussing, on the other hand, has been: one exists; the other does not. The term is not Original Research, and has been verified by the citations. --Mal 21:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What links? A quick google gives 610 returns fo "constituent county", and 79 returns for "constituent county" ireland. Just shows you can get a google return on anything, but proving its notable for WP:VERIFY (..."Just because some information is verifiable, doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it."...) and WP:NOR (..."It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source."...) is another thing. Djegan 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google returns some 14,500 matches for "constituent country" too. Quite a lot higher than the paltry (in comparison) 610 matches for "constituent county". I also note that Encarta has a map of Northern Ireland described thusly: "Map of Northern Ireland (UK constituent country), United Kingdom".

But that is besides the point. Are you telling me that you've never heard of the term "constituent country" in relation to the United Kingdom..? --Mal 22:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it is disputed in relation to Northern Ireland because Northern Ireland, unlike Wales, England and Scotland, is not a country. It is a region. Because it is disputed the consensus when this was discussed various times before was to footnote it and explain it, not use it in the text. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some people apparently do not like the phrase does not mean that the term does not exist. We have already established that Northern Ireland is a country by the way (see Constituent country). --Mal 14:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Northern Ireland" could be discribed as a "country". So what. The term in discussion here is "constitutent country" - a whole different term unless I have missed something. Reputable sources, people - no self-promoted ideas and theories.

Djegan 17:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What "self-promoted ideas" and "theories" are you talking about? The citations are there for all to see. Northern Ireland is a country. It is also a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, vis-a-vis, a constituent country of the UK... which is a term that common in usage, and has even been used by the British government and the Republic of Ireland's government.

You have indeed missed something. --Mal 17:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to repeat myself, indefinitely. You can see my rationale above. You can review the policies WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR at your pleasure. These are the policies by which I made my determination. Djegan 17:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The objection would seem to be to the inclusion of the word "country" in the phrase. which is why I have stressed that Northern Ireland is a country.

07:36, 14 August 2006 Djegan (Talk | contribs) (rv-still no citation (another article is not a source))

22:46, 15 August 2006 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (added citations)

18:03, 16 August 2006 Djegan (Talk | contribs) (rv-see talk/unresolved issue regarding acceptance in referenced works)

I'm wondering just what exactly would satisfy you (and Jtdirl and Mel) regarding what constitutes a verifiable source which specifically states "constituent country" relative to Northern Ireland in this case. It appears that every effort I make to meet your requirements, you find some other excuse to reject this simple phrase. It really is quite trivial of you.

And it looks as if you are going to repeat yourself indefinately. I have added verifiable sources, and its still not good enough for you. --Mal 17:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After all this you still do not get the point. Two "sources" simply underline the fact that the term has not gained broad acceptance. WP:NOR/WP:VERIFY. Djegan 18:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest it is you who doesn't appear to get the point that the term is in usage, both officially and informally.

• The term "constituent entity" is Original Research.
• The same arguments that you apply to "constituent country" can be applied to ".. entity".
• The wikilink for ".. entity" points to an article which makes it clear that Northern Ireland is one of the four constituent countries of the UK.

--Mal 18:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. There is no article on constituent entity and no suggestion that it is a term. It is simply used, and was agreed through a consensus, as two words to avoid edit wars and to facilitate the inclusion of a footnote explaining a controversy of actual terminology. You are simply clutching at ever more farcical straws. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no article on constituent entity and no suggestion that it is a term." Exactly. There is no controversy over the term by the way - it is in use, as pointed out by the citations. --Mal 14:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is controversy over it. But given that on WP you invariably dismiss Nationalist views and insist that if the British government says something then it must be right, you probably haven't noticed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Jtdirl, I would ask you to refrain from personal attacks against me. --Mal 04:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jtdirl - I think the views of the internationally recognised legal government of a territory do carry a hell of a lot more weight than the views representing a fraction of 22% of 2.7% of that territory's population. Certainly the internationally unrecognised minority nationalist viewpoint that considers the entire island of Ireland as a "country" should be noted as a footnote, but to let a minority dislike of a certain phrase rule out the sovereign government's preferred terminology is quite ludicrous! Jonto 16:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that peer review has been requested does not negate the requirement that WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR be meet. Indeed the most recent reference did not even use the term "constituent country". Sources please, not derivations. Djegan 20:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the sources have been included does negate the requirement for same though. --Mal 16:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Mal/Setanta your understanding of the policies is not something I am assured of, Re: this "misunderstanding".

Djegan 21:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pick one Djegan: Mal or Setanta - you don't need to use both.

As for the 3RR block in which you were instrumental, I would remind you that not only is this the first time any such action has been taken against me, but also that you yuorself were on the cusp of getting a warning. Indeed, I believe you would have received one had somebody taken it upon themselves to complain about your reverting, as you did with me.

And finally, the citation is there, for all to see. Its as plain as the nose I presume you have on your face. You asked for a citation: I provided one. --Mal 04:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed if anything we should use the terminology that the Northern Ireland Act has used "part of the United Kingdom"[12]. When their is a dispute keep it simple and factual. We need to stop banging about terms like "constituent country", "constituent entity" and "constituent parts" and the like because it is increasingly evident that their is no consistancy even among official sources (i.e. government, as distinct from law) and that terms vary widely. A truely conclusive source is as allusive as ever. We need sources that stand up to scrutiny and not terms used in an ad-hoc manner on government websites in FAQs and the like. If these terms are really that common that they deserve inclusion then where are the respected and written sources that cite them? Djegan 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest keeping a link in which the UK refers to NI as a consituent country, one in which Ireland does the same. For the other links, a wikipedia user could click the internal link to constituent country I think. Omishark 04:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A link showing that Northern Ireland is sometimes referred to as a "constituent country" would be a valid compromise as part of a rewritten opening paragraph. But with the absence of any authoritive sources the definitive claim that it is a "constituent country" is intollerable by the standards set out in aformented policies. The first paragraph needs a rewrite, its based on too many assumptions, it should include a citation on the Northern Ireland Act ("part of the United Kingdom"); this been more prominant and focused than other claims. The current status quo is largely bogus as it places too much emphasis on ad-hoc faqs as "sources". Djegan 21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its quite simple:

• Northern Ireland is a country.
• Northern Ireland is a constituent of the United Kingdom.
• Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom.
• The term constituent country(ies) is used in reference to Northern Ireland.
• You can't get much more authoritative than the government.
• The term constituent country is notable enough to have its own article.
• The Constituent country article, the United Kingdom article, the Home Nations article, the England article, the Scotland article and the Wales article all state that the United kingdom is made up of four constituent countries, and that Northern Ireland is one of them.
• Why haven't you and your cohorts mounted a campaign to remove the phrase from the articles on the England, Scotland, Wales, United Kingdom and Home Nations articles?
• Further, why haven't you AfD'd the Constituent country article itself?
• What exactly is your problem with the term constituent country? Is it the constituent part, or the country part?

--Mal 09:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, you have demonstrated a very elegant theory. Where are the authoritive sources? Djegan 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DCA --Mal 19:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are going to have to try a bit harder - it uses the term in passing, about city status. The fact that it comes from a government does not make to definitive, or show that its widely accepted. Djegan 20:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say "we", though I cannot see you going out of your way to provide a source yourself.

You also suggest that its not "widely accepted", though I can tell you that I am quite familiar with the phrase. Also, I note that you still haven't made similar edits on each of the other articles in which the phrase is used: England, Scotland, Wales, Home Nations, or United Kingdom. Nor have you, as far as I am aware, attempted to make the Constituent country article a candidate for deletion.

You asked for an authoritative source, and I provided several (the British government, the Irish government and the BBC amongst them). I found another source and decided it would look better if there was only one in the actual article. The cited source actually uses the phrase in the introduction, stating quite clearly:

City status will be granted next year by personal Command of the Queen, on advice from Ministers, to a suitably qualified town in each of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. --Mal 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentially of you see WP:VERIFY the onus is on the editor who wants to retain the material to cite a reputable source. My belief, as my rationale is explained above, is that the first paragraph needs a rewrite anyhow and that any current version(s) are a nonsense that contain "constituent x" nonsense. If their is controversy they should state unreputable facts first. Djegan 22:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for 3RR violation. Our anon friend (193.1.172.138) is not me nor have I requested him/her to revert. I dont live in Ireland incidentially. Regards. Djegan 21:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your not living in Ireland has to do with me, or this discussion. Anyway, I have duly reported yourself for breaking 3RR also. I had hoped not to go down this path, but unfortunately you do not appear to have accepted any effort I have made to address your concern regarding WP:VERIFY.

I have included a citation from a reliable source, and many more are available (as you know). Therefore your directing me to WP:VERIFY and talking of on whom the onus rests, is not applicable.

I can't quite work out your last sentence in your comment at 22:04 on this date. Perhaps you could re-write it. I personally don't see anything wrong with it other than the phrase "constituent entity": it is succinct and factual. --Mal 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously your mentioning of your whereabouts is in relation to the last reverter of the article. --Mal 22:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constituent elements seems to me to be most NPOV (well it would, wouldn't it, I thought of it!). "Nations" is definitely wrong. Widespread‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} use in GB is that there are two nations, a principality and a province. Its a bit hard to take seriously a place that has a smaller population than the West Midlands. Calling it a nation looks like hubris. --Red King 19:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hubris? I think that is POV to be honest. But this isn't abouot POV - its about factual editing.

You say that "its a bit hard to take seriously a place that has a smaller population than the West Midlands". Well let me tell you I take my country of birth very seriously. Quite frankly, I'm offended at your lack of sensibility.

Aside from that, take a look at the populations of various countries:

(table showing that countries with population similar to Northern Ireland, moved for space reasons to Talk:Northern Ireland/Population Table by --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC) )[reply]

You will notice that the Republic of Ireland has less than twice the population, and there are around 82 countries with a smaller population than Northern Ireland. You might also be aware that the Republic has a smaller population than the West Midlands, as do both Wales and Scotland.

On top of this, one of my main reasons for editing the article and putting back both the phrase "constituent countries" and the citation for it, is the fact that changing this phrase solely for the Northern Ireland article is inconsistent with other articles throughout the Wikipedia. Not only that but, because it is solely the Northern Ireland article, it smacks of POV.

I believe that some editors may have let their own personal political viewpoints get in the way of factual editing. --Mal 23:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear Mal! Was just about to post the same table! I think there is an underlying contempt for NI by many southern editors who continuously like to lecture us about their neutrality. Nothing makes this more evident than the comments by Redking above. Jonto 23:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say Jonto that I wasn't even aware where RedKing lives! --Mal 23:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to look at this issue as a result of Setanta747/Mal's request for peer review. Therefore I reorganised the talk thread, and reviewed recent diffs. I am quite new to Wikipedia so I am not claiming some kind of divine authority, nor even claiming impartiality (I have recently had dealings with some of the main editors here at other articles, and I have proved earlier today that I cannot count.)

It seems that a debate begun in April died down by May 10 (edit) as a kind of unspoken consensus or truce. The word "entities" remained for nearly three months, until edits between countries and entities started up again on August 3 (edit). As far as I can see, both sides are claiming that the issue has already been decided, and both sides are claiming that their opponents wording is not neutral.

So, the content of the debate: Talk:Constituent country seemed to decide that 'constituent countries' was a technical term independent of the meaning of 'country'. The term 'constituent countries' in the first sentence of Northern Ireland however has turned out to be highly divisive (among editors - we can't know what the readers think.) The main objection to the term, as used here, is that it gives readers the impression of identifying Northern Ireland as a country separate from the Republic of Ireland. The objection to the 'constituent entities' is that ducks out of using an established term, that it seems to give favour to Irish reunification by denying 'constituent country' status, and that it is not consistent with the articles on England Scotland Wales and Constituent country. There are a couple of additional twists and nuances on either side that are also interesting.

It seems no term can be found that every editor can agree is totally neutral, so we have to make a group decision on what is the least bad.

My suggestion: 'constituent countries' gets consensus as a specific technical term, but is divisive when seen as plain English at the top of the article. However, its specific meaning is not widely understood. 'constituent entities' had an unspoken consensus for three months. No-one has said that Northern Ireland is not an entity, but some editors (and verifiable sources) say it is also a 'constituent country'. Therefore, since no editor disputes the accuracy of the term constituent entities, I suggest that be the term used throughout the article, as most clear to the reader, and least divisive among the editors. Exception being in body of article it makes sense to have one link to Constituent countries.

That is my 1 penny and 1 cent. Lets wait a few more days and see what other 'peers' have to say. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Hroðulf. At this point I'd like to reiterate that Wikipedia articles are not meant as debating forums - an encyclopedia should report the facts. Any unpopularity of particular phrases or events etc, should really be simply marked as 'footnotes'.

I had taken a bit of a break from Wikipedia during the time the 'unspoken consensus' was arrived at, and I would not have agreed to the proposal. The clear and simple reason is, as has been said: consistancy. Prior to the 'unspoken consensus', I'm sure the article contained the phrase as-is, did it not, for a period of time?

There are people I have known who have obhected to, and taken offence at, the very 'phrase' "Northern Ireland". Yet this is the correct and factual name for the country. Wikipedia reflects that, and I don't see that this technical jargon should be treated any differently. Certainly if it can be proven that a large number of people object to the term constituent country then a footnote can be included in the article. It is official policy that "Wikipedia is not the place for original research."

Nor is Wikipedia a soapbox.

Nor is it censored. --Mal 01:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My belief is that on the absense of any authoritive sources we should jettison an constituent country, elements and parts claims as one is as bad as the other. Just limit citations to the law. Djegan 12:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wales count as a "country" in a United Kingdom context? Isn't it a Principality? JAJ 17:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the question and implication is that if Wales is a country theirfore it must follow that Northern Ireland is a country this is not the case. All parts of the "cake" do not have to be equal, by any measure. For instance the fact that New York is a U.S. state does not mean that Washington, D.C. is also a U.S. state, the latter is a federal district.

If you have a serious issue regarding the Principality (sic) status of Wales, raise it at talk:Wales. Djegan 18:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seams their is no end to this fiasco and farce, see Talk:Constituent_country#Requested_move_2. Djegan 22:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy is unfortunately inevitable. People on both sides can have cause to gloss over the fact that the island was a single nation and country until 1922 (albeit within the UK). I do not see how the North magically became a separate nation by remaining in the UK (its status in this regard is the same as before 1922 - i.e. British Ireland). Country is an ambiguous term that includes the nation, and should also be avoided. State would be appropriate, but is not in common usage. Constituent part is therefore the most logical term. zoney ♣ talk 23:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a dubious tag to the introductory sentence. The sentence used to state that Northern Ireland is one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom. This was changed to the WP:NOR phrase "constituent entities", then to "constituent elements", and now to "constituent parts".

The phrase has again been changed recently to remove the part "one of the four".

Northern Ireland is, however, one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom. I believe we should re-add the phrase, as it has been verified and sources have been cited in this and in other relevent articles (England, Scotland, Wales, United Kingdom and Home Nations).

I had added a reference note, suggesting that some people mightn't particularly like the phrase "constituent country" when applied to Northern Ireland.. as a compromise. That too was removed. --Mal 15:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering recent confusion and dispute regarding constituent country/element/part status of Northern Ireland I propose that we dump the premise of such status (in the main body at least) as they are high dubious as shown. Instead, in the main body, we should use the terminology of the Northern Ireland Act viz "part of the United Kingdom" and nothing more. A constituent status footnote, appropriately cited, could be retained. Djegan 18:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it dubious that UK government and the (RoI) Irish government websites show use of the term "constituent country"? The weasel wording of constituent part as a piped link to Home Nations is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV which requires at the outset that "all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent all significant views fairly and without bias". This seems to be an attempt to censor an official government view to present only the presumed viewpoint of those with allegiance to an adjacent country. If the term is controversial, the controversy should be made clear in the opening paragraph of the lede, and the article should include proper representation of both viewpoints as expressed in reliable sources which should be properly cited. .. dave souza, talk 20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from WP:VERIFY the fact that something is used on an external sources does not mean that it should and must be used on wikipedia. The question here has been that has the term sufficent usage that qualifies it as an authoritive and definitive discription of the Northern Ireland and United Kingdom relationship, viz WP:NOR. It appears on a few faqs and the like - so what? (if their was authoritive and definitive sources they would be forthcoming, long ago) Incidentially that claim of usage on a Irish government website is one usage in the Houses of the Oireachtas in all the parliamentary debates since 1919 until recently (with regard to results relevent to Northern Ireland/United Kingdom). Djegan 21:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support your removal of the "piped link" - I agree its dubious and misleading at best. A paragraph that weighs up the viewpoints of "constituent country" would not be unacceptable. As long as the outlandish claim that faqs and the like are somehow the final and definitive word on status. Djegan 21:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V says nothing about there being a requirement for "sufficient usage" - where did you get that from? From a quick google, looking at the first 20 of about 25,300 for "northern ireland" "constituent country" .gov, I find that the Department for Constitutional Affairs is happy to use it, as is Defra, and Hansard provides a table which clearly demonstrates its usage. There are also a lot of government pdfs using the term to describe NI. The extent and context of the usage should be stated, as should the usage that NI is a country. And what you claim was the "one usage" is from Dáil Éireann - Volume 541 - 03 October, 2001, the Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin): not as ancient as you suggest - maybe use there is increasing? What I haven't seen is any objection to the terms, and links to sources showing such objections will be welcome..dave souza, talk 22:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is a 'constituent part'? We may think that 'constituent country' or 'home nation' is a bit of a fudge because none of the UK constituent countries have real national sovereignty, but that is what they're known as. This isn't the least bit controversial, and the articles on England, Wales and Scotland call all of them 'constituent countries' in the first paragraph. The OECD and the Council of Europe both recognise the phrase, and it is a recognised part of UK nomenclature. There is absolutely no logical or sensible reason whatsoever to oppose using the phrase, even if (and I agree) it is a slightly misleading term given the usual definition of the word 'country.' It is, nonetheless, what Northern Ireland is known as within the UK. I have no doubt whatsoever that many Irish Republicans dislike the term, but it is not a nickname - that really is what the UK calls England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Refusing to acknowledge this is no different than refusing to call Israel a country on no other basis than Palestinian dislike for the term. I'm changing it and bringing into line with the rest of the Wikipedia articles on the UK, and if it's reverted I'll take it to an RfC. JF Mephisto 07:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for reopening an edit war on Labor Day. Mal already took it to a peer review, and got a deafening silence from our peers. It is an unusual technical term that, in Northern Ireland's case does not rely on the plain English meaning of the word 'country', so it does not belong in the first sentence of the Northern Ireland article. Slavish consistency with other GB/NI articles is not a requirement. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What has a US holiday got to do with it? lol

The term is not "unusual". Also, the term belongs as much to the article about Northern Ireland as it does to Scotland, England and Wales - and it does exist in each of those articles. The "unusual" thing really, when it comes down to it, is the geo-political makeup of the United Kingdom: four countries within a country.

I believe that consistency throughout Wikipedia should be adhered to, otherwise we will have many, many articles that all contradict one another. --Mal 20:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an unusual technical term, as it is used in both the nomenclature of the Council of Europe, the OECD and any government & politics textbook for a high schooler in Britain. The proper name for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is 'constituent country,' and to make sure the N.I. article has it as the other three do is not being slavish to consistency - it's simply calling it what it actually is. There is no such thing as a 'constituent part' when talking about state definitions - that's a term entirely invented on this encyclopaedia, from what I can tell, and is therefore original research. The proper name for Northern Ireland is constituent country. It is not obscure, it is not technical, it's really very simple. For crying out loud, there is a Wikipedia article on the very term. To apply it to all the other constituent country articles but to leave it out of the Northern Ireland one is incongruous, and has more to do with the fact that there are a few hardcore Republicans/Nationalists here who dislike the term. Be that as it may, it is still the correct term. Seeing as no one actually responded to Mal's issue, I think the assumption has to be made that there is broad agreement with what he said. Constituent part is a weasel word, and constituent country is the correct one. I'm restoring it, and I'm quite happy to see this go all the way to arbitration if needs be. I can't understand for the life of me why 'constituent country' is so controversial here we need to invent our own terms, when it isn't in the rest of the UK articles. You say that I'm opening up something on Labour Day, by which I assume you're American.. Perhaps if you were actually British, you'd be quicker realise that the term 'constituent country' is actually in common usage over here. Update: The actual link for constituent part/county is to Home Nations, the very first line of which is "Home Nations is a term used to refer to the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom." This is stupid beyond belief. JF Mephisto 11:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to all that, there are 36,800 Google hits for the phrase "constituent country," including Encarta, Answers.com, the UK Parliament website, About.com, Reference.com and Websters Online Dictionary. The more I think about this the more absolutely ridiculous it seems that there is even a debate. JF Mephisto 11:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying you shouldn't call it constituent country, nor am I cenosring nor saying that Wikipedia should be incorrect. I am saying (and I think the uneasy consensus that held here for at least a year is also saying) that constituent country does not belong in the first line of Northern Ireland.

As I see it, there are lots of correct terms for the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, but we can't have them all here, several are offensive to some and most are confusing. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do have them all here. The other terms are described in the article, as far as I'm aware.

Also, I don't believe the "uneasy consensus" regarding the phrase "constituent part" (.. or "entity" or whatever) has existed in this article for any more than a couple of months. Before I took a break from editing Wikipedia, the article had described Northern Ireland as a constituent country.. while I was away, there had been an edit war. I don't remember seeing any votes on the matter which led to consensus, and I certainly wouldn't have agreed to the proposal had I still been actively editing (and if I had noticed).

Which is more confusing: that all of the countries of the UK are termed the same in each of the four articles, in the article Constituent country itself, the article United Kingdom and the article Home Nations.. or that each of those articles except Northern Ireland are so noted?

I have no objections to a footnote stating that some (or all) nationalists and/or republicans might have an objection to the term, if it can be verified that this is the case. --Mal 20:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensuses are liable to change. I think it's time to look at the situation again. I can't make this any clearer: Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and it is like in every other UK article the primary way to describe it. It belongs in the opening sentence just as it belongs in the opening sentence of all the other UK articles. The phrase 'constituent part' is utterly unknown to me, and has absolutely no relation to existing political terminology - in fact, I'm pretty sure it was made up here on this page. If you have a problem with calling it a constituent country, then you also have a problem with the home nations and constituent country and United Kingdom articles, all of which name Northern Ireland as a constituent country. Please don't make Wikipedia contradict itself. The whole reason this is an issue is because some Republicans and Nationalists don't like the fact that it is called a constituent country, which doesn't change the fact that is what it's called. Are we to edit the Israel article to remove any mention of it being a country because there are a faction of Palestinians who believe it has no sovereign right to exist and is merely an occupying force? I'm getting sick and tired of trying to explain this to you: the British government, the Republic of Ireland government, and 38,000 websites on the internet including the ones I mentioned before, and Wikipedia ITSELF call Northern Ireland a constituent country of the UK. I'm changing it one more time to reflect the fact that I believe consensus has been established in favour of 'constituent country' by way of Mal's unresponded to peer review request. If people have a problem, then they can respond in the peer review. It's unacceptable to simultaneously not respond to Mal's comments and at the same time keep reverting it to 'constituent part.' I don't see what your personal interest is in trying to retain this shoddy and haphazard half-measure, and if you keep trying to revert it to 'constituent part' I see no other option but requesting arbitration. Given the evidence for the use of 'constituent country' which has been repeated on this page numerous times, I'm pretty sure how that will end up. JF Mephisto 21:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their is a very big difference between "is a constituent country" and "can be discribed as a constituent country". That is the nature of the disagreement here. If we are to affirm either then they must reach the standards of WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY, not a quick google search or personal assertions. Djegan 21:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's obvious that there exists such a thing as a constituent country - if you have any doubts, that's taken care of in the constituent country article. As for whether Northern Ireland is a constituent country, that is what the British government and the Republic of Ireland government call it. That, or 'home nation' (the meaning is more or less the same, I think you'll agree). Verification can be found on the UK Parliament website (it is mentioned in a dozen different places, just Google ""constituent country" [in parentheses] parliament.uk," as well as Encarta here, and the following textbooks: "Contemporary British Politics, Third Edition, Coxall & Robbins, 1998," "Politics UK, Jones & Kavanagh & Moran & Norton, Fourth Edition, 2001," and "UK Government and Politics, Andy Williams, 1995." Could this possibly be made any clearer? JF Mephisto 22:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mal wrote: "Also, I don't believe the "uneasy consensus" regarding the phrase "constituent part" (.. or "entity" or whatever) has existed in this article for any more than a couple of months.". Please read the edit history.

If you are going to revert to an old wording, please be aware of the WP:3RR. For what it is worth, I think we should keep the status quo (constituent part with dubious tag) until this discussion develops further. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly clear this will eventually need to go to Arbcom. I suggest raising it with the Mediation Committee, a member of whom could independently raise it at Requests for comment. I don't see any chance of it being resolved at RFC, but it seems Arbcom will reject it otherwise. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about a vote? Arbitration might be more likely to accept it if it has been firmly established that there has been an attmept at reaching consensus. There's a chance a vote could resolve the issue anyway. I propose a vote of a week's duration, a simple plurality of votes required to support either term. In the meantime, it can remain 'constituent part.' Does anyone have any problems with this, or should I set up a vote? JF Mephisto 11:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that would work. But let's see what other people's opinions are. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stu, a vote will not sort this out. As far as I can see the term "constituent country" is in common use, but this doesn't make it official. As for "constituent part" I have never heard it used before. It could just be me but why is the word "constituent" so important? "Northern Ireland a region in the United Kingdom on the north-east of the island of Ireland" could be used, at least until some sort of consensus is found.   Keithology  Talk!  12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just on that point, the term "part" is by far the more common usage, especially by the UK government, even over the word "constituent". You will hear from just about every source that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. I know no one has really proposed or discussed this term, but it should not summarily be dismissed. And perhaps people should focus away from the word "Constituent" - how often do you hear that term? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People talk about Northern Ireland as being 'part' of the United Kingdom, in the same way that Louisana is 'part' of the USA. But the way to describe it is as a 'state' in the United States. My problem is less with the word 'constituent' but 'part.' It's vague, and is out of line with several other Wikipedia articles including constituent country, United Kingdom, home nations and all the other home nation articles. I'd be happy for it to be described as a 'home nation of the United Kingdom' or a 'country of the United Kingdom.' Simply describing it as a part does not define what way it is a part, and could as easily apply to North Lincolnshire as Northern Ireland - both are parts of the United Kingdom, but one is a unitary authority and the other is a home nation. JF Mephisto 13:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, it's not a region. A UK region is something like 'Northwest' or 'East Anglia' and is a colloquial term not used to denote a seperate administrative area. In the case of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they are distinct constitutional and administrative areas, with Scotland and Wales having their own devolved parliaments (or assemblies). On government literature, they are referred to as 'home nations' or 'constituent countries,' in reflection of the Act of Union 1707 which joined the two Kingdoms (countries) of Scotland and England together as the United Kingdom, and the Act of Union 1800 which joined Ireland to the United Kingdom. Parliament refers to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as the 'constituent countries' [13] [14] [15] [16]. This is as near as we're really going to get to an official designation, as Britain doesn't have a written constitution that specifically defines terms and their relationship to one another. This article should be brought into line with constituent countries, United Kingdom and home nations which all specifically name Northern Ireland as a constituent country. Seeing as a vote isn't desired, and it's apparent that Mal's unresponded-to peer review request isn't apparently enough evidence of consensus, I'll go request mediation immediately. JF Mephisto 12:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made a request for mediation here. I've included everyone's name who has responded to my original post yesterday, but if you don't feel you're involved in the dispute please go ahead and remove yourselves (or, conversely, if I didn't add your name and you think you're involved please put it on). I didn't add any effects to your usernames because I don't feel it's my place, but if you want them please go ahead and do that as well. It'll need your agreement to take part in mediation.

JF Mephisto 13:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a straw poll should have been attempted before mediation, since everyone seems capable of holding fire until a poll has completed. All the same, I have signed up for the mediation. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my opinion too, but it didn't seem to get off the ground. If the mediation is rejected because we haven't done enough to resolve it, then we can hold a straw poll. JF Mephisto 16:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of WP:NPOV is that both viewpoints should be shown and attributed, and accordingly I've tried recasting the intro to make it clear that constituent country, Home Nation, Ulster and six counties are all disputed terms. The explanation relating to the first two is still in a footnote, but in my opinion this should properly appear in the Variations in geographic nomenclature section. Any comments? ..dave souza, talk 10:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I don't think it is a terribly good idea to edit the paragraph until the mediation is completed. However, I am surprised to find I like it with only two reservations.

This is the version of the paragraph as it stood a few minutes ago:

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and covers 5,459 square miles (14,139 km²) in the northeast of the island of Ireland, about a sixth of the total area of the island. It has a population of 1,685,000 (April 2001) — between a quarter and a third of the island's total population. It is situated in the province of Ulster, consists of six counties, and in Britain is known as one of the four Home Nations, forming a constituent country of the United Kingdom.[1]. These terms all have controversial implications in relation to the continuing dispute as to whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom, or become part of the Republic of Ireland.

What I like about it

1. Most of the contentious names have been move to the third sentence.
2. part has no dubious tag. I hope it stays that way.
3. You fixed the spelling error in the footnote
4. The controversy is in the body of the text.

What I dislike

1. I prefer within the province of Ulster to in, so I edited it.
2. There are four troublesome terms 'province', 'six counties' 'home nation' and 'constituent country', three of which could be considered as 'pro-British' or unionist, and only one as nationalist. If your proposal proves popular, we should discuss getting a better sense of balance before loose cannons start an edit war on that sentence.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment about your perception of what is pro-[insert political ideology group description here] (ie: "troublesome"): More often than not, these phrases or words become troublesome only within certain contexts - the phrases themselves are not necessarily contentious. For example, nobody would baulk at the mention of a group of six counties in the middle of England, or the USA. These statements are simply facts, devoid of POV:

• Northern Ireland does, in fact, consist of six counties.
• Ulster is, in fact, a province.
• Northern Ireland is, in fact, a constituent country.
• Northern Ireland is, within a particular context, a home nation.

To edit the article just because some people apparently take offence at the facts is Political correctness gone mad. --Mal 21:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to reiterate my point earlier that I don't think the possibly controversial nature of the terms should really come into it. For example, calling the Burma article Myanmar is, while controversial to opponents of the regime, still the official name of the country. Similarly, Tskhinvali proclaims that it is an independent republic called South Ossetia, that is not recognised and it is a de jure region of Georgia - this is laid out in its article. I think something similar must be applied to Northern Ireland - while Irish Republicans/Nationalists might not find the term 'constituent country' to their liking, that is what it's called. Anyway, I suppose all that can be hashed out in the mediation, though I'd also point out that I actually quite like paragraph Dave Souza laid out. JF Mephisto 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent iteration of the article is an improvement. It is a movement away from the contention that the status of Northern Ireland as a "constituent country" is absolute and definitive. If its status was so definitive then an appropriate citation, in the form of a judicial or statutory declaration, would of been forthcoming a long time ago. The possibilty that Northern Ireland fits the term constituent country does not mean theirfore that it is a constituent country, re WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. The internet is full of "sources", but only those tha are authoritive are worthy.

As for mediation at the moment I have not made up my mind but I think that it may accomplish little, that this page has already. The rationale that England, Scotland and Wales are constituent countries and that theirfore Northern Ireland must be one would be like saying that because the United States has fifty states and Washington DC is not part of a state then theirfore Washington DC must be a state. That rationale does not wash, in summary all parts of the cake do not need to be equal, we need more than basic algebra. Djegan 19:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody claims that Washington DC is a state. The US government does not claim that Washington DC is a state. However, the British government claims that Northern Ireland is a constituent country (of the UK).

As for WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY - sources have been cited. --Mal 21:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my comments again (abeit correctly, this time) then it will become apparent that that United States comment is simply an analogy - not a claim of fact. By all means supply an authoritive source that Northern Ireland is absolutely and definitively a constituent country of the United Kingdom. I am not talking about faqs and parliamentary questions - but an authoritive source that places the issue beyond doubt. Djegan 21:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "sources" provided until now show that Northern Ireland can be described as a constituent country, which is not at all the same as saying that it is a constituent country. They are two different things. Please review the policy if unsure. Dont misinterpret sources. Djegan 21:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the sources again (albeit correctly this time), then it will become apparent that not only can Northern Ireland be described as a constituent country, but it actually is described as a constituent country. This is in line with the exact same citations provided for the England, Scotland, Wales, Constituent country and Home Nations articles.

The only difference is that you choose to be offended by fact. --Mal 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments could never be accused of been original (research). But after all this time you still have not grasped WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Show me the sources that show that Northern Ireland is (i.e. beyond doubt) a constituent country of the United Kingdom, as distinct from been described or implied a constituent country. Their is a difference. Djegan 17:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's easy: the phrase is used by more than one government[17], including its own central government[18][19][20][21][22][23] , and in the media[24], to describe Northern Ireland as such. Also, by logical reasoning - Northern Ireland is a constituent of the United Kingdom. It is also a country. Therefore, it is a constituent country.

I would remind you of Wikipedia policy on Personal attacks. I'd advise you to read it before making yet another snide remark to me or about me. --Mal 01:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are as far as ever from a definitive source (i.e. judicial or statutory fact, not faqs and parliamentary usage)! It would be simply naive in the present day to believe everything emmitted by government or parliament is "fact". Incidentially WP:NPA is not a stick to stifle debate. If you think I broke it then tell me how (be specific), citing explict terms that are personal attacks. Djegan 06:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not really. We have now had verification from the government of the United Kingdom and references in the media, for some time. The term is used in the various other articles concerning the United Kingdom, and its use it not notably different with regard to Northern Ireland.

It has been explained how the term is not a legal term as the United Kingdom has no formal written constitution. However, it appears that is how the government views the four countries.. as constituent countries. Why would the government choose to lie about how it views the four countries of the UK as being constituents?

As for your "stick".. I have continued this debate in the same way that you have, only I have not made snide remarks against you. For each time you have made these personal attacks on me, I have responded, thus far, by reminding oyu of Wikipedia policy on the matter. --Mal 00:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if comments in this section could focus on what the proposed intro says, rather than past disputes relating to a previous wording. ...dave souza, talk 17:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Djegan is neglecting to define what he would consider an official source, but is simply referring in a vague way to "judicial or statutory fact[s]". Does he simply mean that the phrase 'constituent country' has to be used in a judicial ruling or in the wording of a statute? In that case, I think the multitude of links to Parliamentary transcripts should suffice. If you want a particular statute or judicial ruling that says that the term is the correct one to use, you're not going to get it. That is a constitutional issue, and Britain does not have a written constitution for there to be a judicial ruling about. However, the uncodified constitution we do have places Parliament as sovereign and statutory law as supreme over the constitution's other component parts, so it seems to me that whatever Parliament chooses to call it is probably the closest we're going to get to 'official.' This whole debate is childish and pathetic, brought on by Irish Nationalists/Republicans who can't see the difference between whether the term is correct and deserves to be used, and whether or not they support the reality it describes. JF Mephisto 14:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying just which side of the fence your on, obviously neutrality on the issue is a no-no from you. You have obviously decided because people like me classify themselves as "Irish" then theirfore they must be biased and bigotted against Northern Ireland. Actually I have always done my best to tow the neutral line, but you have decided otherwise. Enough said. Djegan 14:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, Dj, is WHERE you've been trying to tow the neutral line! ...dave souza, talk 16:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for an ego trip - people who are familiar with my work will know that I am not a republican nor unionist sympathiser. In the end of the day - written or unwritten constitution - if it cannot be supported by appropriate citations then it does not belong here. As previously noted the term first became used on wikipedia about nine months ago. An encyclopedia should contain well known facts, neither the Ireland Act 1949 nor Northern Ireland Act 1998 use the term constituent country with respect to Northern Ireland even though they both deal with the issue of its relationship to the United Kingdom. Its not used widely - if at all - in the media or society. So why are we using it here? (WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information come to mind as valid reasons for exclusion or a health warning). Djegan 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse you of being an Irish Republican or Nationalist - I said this entire situation was caused by their taking offence in the first place. There are no problems with the phrase 'constituent country' in the England, Scotland or Wales articles. The only reason the term is controversial is because some Irish Republicans or Nationalists have a hard time differentiating between whether they approve of the term and whether or not the term is correct nevertheless. I don't care what you are, or whether your sympathies are Unionist, Republican or in favour of establishing Mr Blobby as World President, the neutral line in this dispute is simple: Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom and should be called as such. That is hardly an "indiscriminate collection of information" - it's a simple statement the same as is applied to all the other articles on UK constituent countries. There is no such term as "part" or "entity" when defining what a state or a substate is; it's utterly vague and doesn't explain the constitutional relationships. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 does not use any term to describe its constitutional relationship to the United Kingdom, as it simply talks about "Northern Ireland" - it's disingenuous to claim that its omission means the term is rare or incorrect. Now, if Parliament, Encarta, and all the other UK Wikipedia articles are calling Northern Ireland a constituent country, what the hell is your objection? The only terms that properly describe Northern Ireland are ""constituent country" and "home nation," though the latter is informal and unencyclopaedic. The bare fact of reality is that there are no UK statutes that explicitly define what Northern Ireland is, so we simply have to use the term which is in most common usage by the British government, the Irish government, Parliament and the rest of Wikipedia. It is simply absurd to say that because there is no specific constitutional statute which promotes the use of the term that it is therefore on an equal footing with "part" or "entity," terms which have been invented purely on this Wikipedia article. If you really think the term is just an "indiscriminate collection of information," why aren't you pressing for the deletion of the constituent country and home nations articles and the editting of the England, Scotland and Wales ones? The UK Office of National Statistics and the last census both used the term: you are asking for a level of verification which cannot be provided short of a written constitution or a statute which specifically addresses the issue: neither exist. JF Mephisto 22:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a side note, I'd like to point out that I'm happy with the current introduction to the Northern Ireland article as of 17:34 GMT 11/9/06, which describes it at first as "part" then explains the terms "constituent country" and "home nation." I don't think it's ideal - I think it should follow the same opening as the England, Scotland and Wales articles - but I'm prepared to let it lie as is. JF Mephisto 16:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The British Government makes the distinction quite clear on the cover of all British passport whereon it states in bold lettering. Great Britian AND Northern Ireland. It's true that Ireland is wrongly mentioned to be a colony of Britian given they have always had representation in WM's parliment. However, in modern times Northern Ireland is not considered to be part of the British 'Home' Nations. This is made quite clear on the cover of all passports. Northern Ireland is best described as 'a disputed territory administered by the British government in accordance with the democratic wishes of the majority of the people that live in the region.'. It is absolutely incorrect to describe it as a country as this is not the case under British law. To this day Northern Irish currency is still not accepted as legal tender in England unlike Scotish or Welsh monies to cite an expanitory example as to why Northern Ireland is not part of Her Majestiy's British Home countries. MarkStreet Oct 9th 2006

Er, yes it is legal tender. I suggest you stop getting your financial advice from kebab vans at 2am.--feline1 14:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you'll find Northern Irish currency is quite legal tender in Scotland, England and Wales. Technically it's actually more legal tender than Bank of England currency as Northern Irish currency actually says Sterling on it where BoE notes don't. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, Northern Irish notes are legal tender in the rest of the UK. Also on the cover of the passports it makes the separate mention as they are passports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which is the legal title of the state. Ben W Bell talk 15:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Legal tender article. You will find you are both wrong, but those are common mistakes to make. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To this day Northern Irish currency is still not accepted as legal tender in England unlike Scotish or Welsh monies : Not a fact based comment. Scottish banknotes are often not accepted in England and there's no such thing as "Welsh money" JAJ 00:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This google search is fairly conclusive. DCAL, The Arts Council and the Ulster Scots Agency all use Norlin Airlann. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 18:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well they're fairly conclusively WRONG then, aren't they? I'm 32 years old and all my life people write "NornIrond" whenever they wanna hilariously emphasize the actual indiginous Ulster Scots way of saying it. Why should we allow some civil service quango tell us how to spell our own language? --feline1 09:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the D come from? I don't recall having ever seen it with a D, always as NornIron? Ben W Bell talk 09:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By hilariously emphasise, you mean Eye dialect? Are those people you know writing English or Ulster Scots? If they are writing Scots, the spelling traditions are different and are not hilariously emphasising anything. You can spell it how you like; but since the Ulster Scots language movement came up with the new word, they probably get first dibs on spelling it. I will put Norn Iron in the footnote, as it is a common piece of English eye dialect. Please do not mark a disputed change as minor edit'. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly please me to see "NornIron" there as a footnote, as it used regularly by tens of thousands of folk in NornIron as a spelling which reflects common pronunciation in everyday dialect (usually in jokey sentences about "craic", "yer man" and football etc etc). The ridiculous ulster scots neologism was just dreampt up by a fevered quango and barely merits being in the article.--feline1 10:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. So, I won't complain that you used the Irish spelling of 'crack', reputedly an Irish borrowing from Scots <grin>[25]. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Scots Wikipedia agrees with neither of us, see w:sco:Norlin Airlann. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I don't really care *what* Rab C Nesbitt says.--feline1 12:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is .ie in italics, while .co.uk is not? What is the reasoning behind this?

As far as I know .ie is an all-Ireland tld. (Derry Boi 08:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

.ie is the TLD assigned to the Republic of Ireland. Some companies from Northern Ireland (and some from other countries) choose to use it. (beano 12:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

But it's officially assigned to the Republic of Ireland, so why is it listed? I know registrations are accepted from NI, but that doesn't give it a claim to call it the ccTLD. For example .tk is available to anyone anywhere, but its not on every country's article. - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 17:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The .co.ni domain was created by the Nicaragua authorities for use in Northern Ireland. Shouldn't it be listed for the same extra-territorial reasons as .ie.? « Keith ^t/_e» 17:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about .co.ni being "created by the Nicaragua authorities" - as far as I know, it is more the brainchild of a business man from Luton. .ie is explicitly 32 county. --sony-youth^talk 01:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[26] is just a commercial domain name service using the Nicaraguan ccTLD - much as many others are. Type "nic" into [27], select "co" and see what you get. It's inclusion counts as advertising and it should be removed. Bazza 13:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.^[1]
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.^[2]
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.^[3]
• Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.^[4]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.^[5]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, ��in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 28 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. ^[6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 12:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]