Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 7

Possible NPOV paragraph in the intro

I was going to fact tag this, but perhaps it might be lifted entirely;

"though it should be noted that only 2 of the 6 counties hold a Protestant majority, those counties are Antrim & Down who, generally prefer a union with Britain. The other four counties have a Catholic majority and generally prefer unification with Ireland. A reunification of Ireland would result in a quarter of Ireland's population being protestant, therefore giving them greater input than they currently have in Britain as only 1.6% of the British population. Irish nationalists have, throughout their history, desired a republic based upon a union between the native Irish and British settler' based on freedom and equality, Unionist's have favoured a union with Britain in order to maintain thir culture and heritage."

• Why should the population by county be noted?
• The bit about "greater input" sounds like OR.
• Republican ideals the same.

Ok to remove or should it be left pending tags?

Alastairward (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it is poorly written, it sounds like OR to me. I'd say go ahead and delete it. --HighKing (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with others. Delete it. Poorly written and unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Mooretwin (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As much as I agree with its sentiments, it's POV. Agree to delete. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Link Request

I would like to request a link be added in the Northern Ireland section We are the second largest tourist information site for northern Ireland www.visitnorthernireland.com

Thanks Terry Hutley terry@visitnorthernireland.com 82.18.181.250 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL. Your site (probably/likely) fails as being solely for promotional purposes. --HighKing (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

1% Catholic turnout in 1973

The article gives a BBC source claiming the turnout of 1% of Catholic voters in the 1973 plebicite, but the plebicite page itself gives a claim of 25%. Could it be that the 1% was a mix up of the percentage of votes against, which was 1%? Booshank (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Norlin Airlann"

Are you serious?! --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Though I can't understand why the "Boord o Ulstér-Scotch" (sic) would want to ignore hundreds of years of shared literary tradition between Ulster and Scotland by inventing spellings and adopting diacritics, Ulster Scots is a recognised language variety in the whole of Ireland and therefore the "official" rendering of the name should be included. I prefer the more traditional Northren Ireland Scroggie (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's recognised as a dialect. Are we listing the spelling of regions in all dialects now? The way it's listed in that box makes it seem like Ulster Scots is some sort of language! --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Citizenship.

Would people stop reverting the text on citizenship? The original text was agreed and accurate, but Irish-nationalist editors are changing to an inaccurate version. It now, wrongly reads:

• People from Northern Ireland have the right to identify as either an Irish or British citizens, or both. This means that citizens of Northern Ireland may choose to hold an Irish or a British passport, or both.

This is wrong because:

1. "Having the right to identify as a citizen" is meaningless and irrelevant: one is either a citizen or one is not, and what is relevant here is the actual citizenship of people from NI. What does "identifying as a citizen" mean, anyway?
2. It gives the impression that people are not necessarily UK citizens, which is incorrect, and that UK citizenship is a matter of choice (NI is still part of the UK).
3. The reference to passports is of little relevance and no import. Mooretwin (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The previous text was straightforward and accurate: People from Northern Ireland are British citizens but may additionally be recognised as Irish citizens. Mooretwin (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion might be enlightening for those who don't understand the legal position. Mooretwin (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Belfast Agreement, "Constitutional Issues", Part-1, Section-6. That provision is made. purple (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes that provision is made in the Belfast Agreement, but that doesn't overule normal nationality laws. Someone born in NI has the right to identify as Irish and take an Irish passport yes, but they're still most likely born British. The fact a lot of people don't acknowledge this British citizenship doesn't remove the fact that the law still applies to them. In fact unless they have formally revoked their British citizenship nearly everyone born in NI is British, and continues to be so until they die. It doesn't mean much granted, but it's still the way nationality law dictates. There are even links buried in the archives about this that shows even the Irish government acknowledges this (as the Irish government cannot impose a citizenship upon people in another country.) Choosing citizenship is meaningless, they don't ask all newborn babies what they want to be, it just gives them the freedom to choose later in life. Canterbury Tail talk 21:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Belfast Agreement is actual law, and Britain does not have a Constitution, so any laws passed are "lawful", that's the way UK law works. Northern Ireland is a "special case" situation, that's why the Belfast Agreement. The text of the law can be found on Google. purple (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the Belfast Agreement is just that, an agreement of things to do. It is not a law. It may be legally binding (though few such agreements are, or are challenged to legal binding), but that doesn't make it a law. Don't mistake an agreement signed between countries for a law as they are completely different things. It's like the Anglo-Irish agreement, peace treaties and the like. They are not actual laws. Canterbury Tail talk 23:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on?...Eh! Actually the present wording is labouring the point a little bit too much, as if anyone conjectured a person born in UK jurisdiction might be Chinese or whatever. Wording a bit clumsy, and and could be written better. purple (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The only laws that apply in the United Kingdom are ones passed by the Houses of Parliament. The county's constitution is the cumulation of all the acts passed by through the two houses. The Belfast Agreement had nothing to do with either and therefore has no standing in the UK. Eckerslike (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The points made by Caterbury Tail, above, say it all really. Like it or not, people born in Northern Ireland are (automatically) British citizens. This needs mentioning in the article, as it previously was. We shouldn't allow those who object to everything British to remove information. LevenBoy (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Subjects" is the correct word for UK, not citizen, as UK is a monarchy. purple (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. "British Citizen(s)" is the correct nomenclature. "British subject(s)" is applied only to a very few, and diminishing, group of people. The UK is a constitutional monarchy. --90.203.247.197 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Imo the whole automatically thing is a bit POV. The fact of the matter is in Northern Ireland both nationalities are equal.MITH 23:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Parity of Esteem" it was called. Some here at WP don't see the 'patity'. purple (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Under what laws would someone born in NI not be British as anyone else in the UK under UK nationality laws? Nothing has happened to except that or override it. Yes you can take up Irish citizenship, but you're still born British whether you acknowledge it or not. Doesn't mean much, but that's still the law. The relevant part of the BA people are referring to is

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

This doesn't say they can choose at birth to be British or Irish, doesn't say you're not British at birth. Just acknowledges that you can IDENTIFY as either and have a right to both citizenships. No where does it say you're not British or that UK nationality laws do not apply. And even the Irish Reform movement acknowledges this. A referencible source, from Ireland. Canterbury Tail talk 01:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Canterbury Tail talk 01:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't "just" acknowledge that one can identify as either. It acknowledges that one can identify as either *AND* it also acknowledges that one who chooses Irish (and doesn't choose "both") will "BE ACCEPTED AS" Irish alone (thus, NOT British). To say "You are British" is to not "accept" the Irish (and not both) choice. Even if U.K. nationality law still applies, such law cannot be translated into statements such as "You are British" and "You were born British" without violating the GFA. That is the ESSENCE of this quoted section of the GFA, so don't quote it and then misinterpret it with statements like "no where does it say you're not British" because it most certainly *does* say that one can be not British. Nuclare (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A small point. Can a newborn "choose" to be not British and Irish instead, etc? Clearly, a child is born British - and the choosing comes later... Another small point - on 23 May 1998 the Agreement was endorsed by the voters of Northern Ireland in a referendum and that makes it legal, binding, and law, in Northern Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No as far as the law is concerned the referendum itself was a political expression, not the formal passing of any laws - Northern Ireland doesn't have a direct democracy set-up. The contents of the Agreement had to be subsequently enacted by legislation passed through the Westminster parliament (unless any was already legislated on a "only takes effect if the referendum passes" basis) - it is the Acts not the referendum that the courts look to. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Government extends citizenship to all people born on the island of Ireland. It is enshrined into Irish law as an inalienable right. It would not affect Irish citizenship what laws Westminister passed. purple (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Republic's laws can certainly offer citizenship to designated people's outside their border but under international law they can't actually impose it upon them without their consent, nor exercise rights over them in third countries. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

When is a person born in Northern Ireland legally allowed to assume the citizenship of his or her choice? At the age of 18? What happens if a 14 year-old wants to go to America? Does he or she have to obtain a British passport or can he/she opt for an Irish one, despite being under-age?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The section is not really doing its job if it doesn't explain it, and likely needs some tweaking. I guess the parents of the 'minor' would have sway over what passport the 'minor' gets issued with. Can't see Adams applying for a UK one for his kid, any more than Paisley applying for an Irish one for kid either. purple (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Reform movement a referencible source, from Ireland? When you reach the bottom of the barrel give us a shout. Now it's quite clear, vi) "recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose and accordingly confirm that their right...". Now please provide a source which says having been born in the north you still have no choice? --Domer48_'fenian' 08:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the current issue was not about whether the people of Northern Ireland have a choice; they do, but about the automatic conferring of British citizenship at birth. LevenBoy (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a thought; any citizens of Northern Ireland who don't exercise their right to dual nationality are either lazy or stupid - maybe both. In today's climate of fear and ever-increasing state control, the facility to have two passports is extremely useful. LevenBoy (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is part of the UK. As such people in NI are UK citizens on the same basis as people elsewhere in the UK. They may also elect to be Republic of Ireland citizens as the Republic of Ireland law allows them to. It's not difficult. It's not complex. Can we just say that in the article, please? Mooretwin (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• British Nationality Act 1981:
• 1(1)A person born in the United Kingdom after commencement, or in a qualifying territory on or after the appointed day, shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother is—(a)a British citizen; or (b)settled in the United Kingdom or that territory.
• UK Border Agency:
• Who has citizenship?
• If you were born in the United Kingdom before 1 January 1983, you are almost certainly a British citizen. The only exception is if you were born to certain diplomatic staff of foreign missions who had diplomatic immunity.
• If you were born in the United Kingdom on or after 1 January 1983, you are a British citizen if at the time of your birth one of your parents was: a British citizen; or legally settled in the United Kingdom.

Mooretwin (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC) okay question I'm Born in Northern Ireland hold a British Passport so for example when that Passport expires and i say decide to apply for and Get an Irish Citizenship (by applying for a Irish Passport) does that mean I'm putting my British Citizenship on hold some how please explan!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scales67 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the most stupid debates here in a long time, with a level of petty minded tokenism. I have removed the first sentence completely, the formal position was already laid out below --Snowded (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is we are left with the fluffly Belfast Agreement, which clearly causes confusion - as evidenced during the edit war by editors believing that there is a "choice" between UK and ROI citizenship. Mooretwin (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It would've been easier to use dual citizenship. Brett Hull (for example), has both American & Canadian citizenship. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm entitled to three passports, but I've only got an American one. IMO, it's convenient to have dual-nationality, as it sure helped during the Vietnam War.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What happens when a minor disagrees with his parents over nationality? For instance, if a teenager wishes to have an Irish passport, yet his or her parents insist on a British one? Is the minor's choice legally upheld?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's up to the minor to sort it out with his folks. If his folks order him a UK passport, it doesn't affect his right to ROI citizenship. He can apply for an ROI passport when he's old enough and let the UK one expire if he wants. Or keep both. Mooretwin (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Mooretwin, that sufficiently answers my question. There is always the possibility that a minor could opt for Irish citizenship despite parental preferences to the contrary, and vice versa.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sport section?

There currently isn't a sport section in the article. Perhaps someone would like to add one in? Sport is very big in Northern Ireland - Association football, Gaelic games, rugby, hockey etc. I believe people who are interested in sport such as myself might like to find out what sport is played here. I haven't the time myself, but perhaps someone else would like to start it? I trust there wouldn't be any objections Andygray110 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Mooretwin (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone just needs to summarise Sport in Northern Ireland. O Fenian (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That looks brilliant. Nice one ;) Andygray110 (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Football should be listed ahead of Gaelic in recognition of its greater popularity. If it's the most popular in the Republic then it has to be also in NI, given that fewer people play Gaelic in the latter (due to the large number of unionists) see page 22 of this research report. Mooretwin (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The data in this report is based on activities which people surveyed state they are actively involved in, and appears to cover the entire island, not just Northern Ireland. So the comment above "due to a large number of unionists" is puzzling unless Mooretwin is trying to argue that participation in sport across the entire island is mainly down to unionists playing soccer..... Nevertheless, despite the inaccurate interpretation, if the list is to be ranked, the question to be asked is "Should active participation form the basis of ranking the list"? --HighKing (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The report relates only to the Republic of Ireland. If you don't think the list should be ranked, then alphabetical order would be the most obvious way to list the sports. Mooretwin (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And what would that be?

GAA

Rugby

Soccer or

Football

GAA

Rugby?

MITH 10:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Either the latter, or:

• Association football
• Gaelic games
• Rugby union

"Soccer" is not a proper name for the sport. Mooretwin (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's just POV from yourself. Soccer is an accepted name of the sport worldwide. Everyone knows what soccer means. Sure just read the article on soccer/association football. Association football, more commonly known as football or soccer. Per WP:COMMON we should use the most common term, but as football is ambiguous with both rugby and GAA, soccer is the next best common name and therefore that is what should be used - not through my own POV but because of Wikipedia policy. If it's going to be through alphabetical order, it's going to have to be the first set above.MITH 11:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) According to CAIN GAA is the most popular sport so Mooretwin we will leave GAA at the top. As I said when I reverted yesterday this is silly. BigDunc^Talk 10:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so silly that you went to the bother of looking out that report, though? Strange that football is more popular than GAA in the South, when GAA only has half the market share in the North than it does in the South. Very odd. But CAIN is the stronger evidence. Mooretwin (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Any reason why sports like boxing, hockey and cricket aren't mentioned? All popular in Northern Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it not possible for anything to be explained on Wiki in relation to Northern Ireland without it turning into a sectarian point-scoring match? Here are my thoughts:

• To say that soccer is more popular in NI than GAA is incorrect. Ulster Championship Gaelic Football matches get bigger crowds than Northern Ireland international soccer matches. There are far more GAA clubs than there are soccer clubs too. It may not look that way if you've never stepped out of Ballybeen in your life, but it's true.
• Referring to Association Football as 'soccer' is entirely appropriate in this case. The game is referred to as 'soccer' in Northern Ireland, particularly in circumstances where the use of 'football' might not be clear as to whether we are talking about soccer or gaelic. Gaelic Football and Association Football are both called 'Football' by their adherents, so there is a need to distinguish between them.
• If we're going to get into a statistical war about which sport is more popular and hence put our favourite sport at the top of the list, let's first agree on what to call the games, and then list them alphabetically. That would put cycling above both games, and I'd be all in favour of that.
• Cricket, hockey, and many other sports are played in NI. They should all be listed.

--Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Majority or small majority?

The lead says "In general, Nationalists want Northern Ireland to be politically reunited with the rest of Ireland,[5][6] while Unionists, who form a small majority, want it to remain part of the United Kingdom.[7]"

Describing the majority as "small" is a subjective judgement and is unnecessary in this article. Someone had edited it to say simply "majority", but Music in the House (ironically) described this as a POV edit and reverted.

Can we agree to remove "small" on the basis that it is (a) not necessary, and (b) POV - nationalists will tend to judge the majority as "small"; unionists will not; and (c) the footnote attributed to the sentence makes no reference to a small majority. Mooretwin (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be preferable if there was a sourced description of the majority as opposed to just stating "majority".--Vintagekits (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not get rid of everything between the commas? Change the sentence to read In general, Nationalists want Northern Ireland to be politically reunited with the rest of Ireland,[5][6] while Unionists want it to remain part of the United Kingdom. --HighKing (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's possible, although surely unionists should be mentioned first, as there are more of them and their position is to retain the status quo. Also don't see the need for upper case on "Nationalists" and "Unionists" as the reference is generic. Mooretwin (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no need for capitalization of Unionist or Nationalist. I've no opinion either way on which should appear first in the sentence, and I'd hate to participate in a meaningless one-upmanship debate/argument on the topic. Rewrite the sentence, and if nobody objects, go for it! --HighKing (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Unionists want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, while nationalists wish it to be politically united with the rest of Ireland.' Mooretwin (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You do have an odd fascination of wanting things you relate to most appear first, however I have no objections to the sentence. You can input it in.MITH 14:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with things to which I relate, and everything to do with logic. Mooretwin (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed there that you didn't raise the point that you would be changing reunited to united. As you didn't make that point clear, I changed the text to reinclude it. However, I am still happy with switching the two groups around as you clearly indicated that was your intent and I and others agreed to it.MITH 14:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The majority (unionist) should be listed first. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think "united" is less politically-loaded than "reunited", while conveying the same thing. The slogan is, after all "united Ireland" and not "reunited Ireland". Mooretwin (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, to some reunited means that Ireland is rejoining the UK since that was the last time it was politically united. Plus the government system is completely different to how it was the last time as well, that it's isn't technically a reunification politically. Canterbury Tail talk 15:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Last time Ireland was politically reunited was for a few days before Northern Ireland opted out was it not?MITH 15:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think so, on paper yes, but not not in any real or practical sense. No actual unified political apparatus that ran it. Plus that political union and government no longer exists. Canterbury Tail talk 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would tend to go for united myself. BigDunc^Talk 15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there's consensus for united now after this discussion. It was better to be safe than sorry. I will insert it into the to text now.MITH 16:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sneaky

This page provides very little reference as to how NI was stolen from the Irish in the Ulster Plantations. One would think, reading this page, that Northern Ireland was always part of the UK. It's not good enough to have this information on another page, the situation has to be adressed.--FF3000 (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland was never "stolen" from "the Irish", or from anyone else. Northern Ireland did not even exist during the time of the Ulster Plantations. Northern Ireland has indeed always been part of the UK.

Please read a decent history or geography book. --90.203.247.197 (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of decent history books... it depends how you define "always". "Northern Ireland provisionally became an autonomous part of the Irish Free State on 6 December 1922." Of course, it opted-out of the Irish Free State the following day, but "always" doesn't seem accurate in the light of "decent history". Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the area wasn't known as "Northern Ireland", but the Irish people living there were brutally kicked out of their homes during the plantations. If they later became loyal to the King of England and changed their religion to Protestant, they received a small piece of land away from where they once lived. If they didn't, they were left homeless.

So yes, Ireland was stolen. The Ulster Plantations destroyed what once was a peaceful place with Gaelic traditions.--FF3000 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have any useful contribution to make, perhaps it is at Plantation of Ulster rather than here. You'll need sources to back up your claims, though. Mooretwin (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Holding Back Northern Ireland!

I find the profile of Northern Ireland overwhelming uninformed and grossly incorrected about many major elements of Northern Irish.

This refused to recognised the proclaimed nationality of Northern Irish by all the citizens of Northern Ireland, we are Northern Irish, so get used to it! There are also various subject ethnic groups in Northern Ireland, like I previously pointed out, people have referred to themselves as Ulster Scots, Scotch-Irish, and Ulster Irish. Thought it seems to deeply suprise this site that people call themselves anything other than British or Irish.

Further more I noticed that the writers of the one page relating to Northern Ireland didnt even seem to know what county town belonged where, thought i must it is common knowledge across Northern Ireland of the county towns; Co. Antrim - Antrim, Co. Down - Downpatrick, Co. Armagh - Armagh, Co. Fermanagh - Enniskillen, Co. Tyrone - Omagh, and Co. Londonderry - Londonderry.

I was under the impression that Wikipedia was netural site decated to the accquirement of knowledge about a wide varitey of topics. I was not under the impreson that its creators and user are turning it a rather back word thinking chat site for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is my homeland, she is the country I was born in and have lived my life, and I will not tolerate this site making a mockary of my home. NORTHERN IRELAND HAS MOVED ON!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.53.34 (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst many have moved on in Northern Ireland, there are still strong feelings on each side which makes it difficult to get consensus about important changes to this article like many other articles on wikipedia. If you have suggestions on how to improve the article, list them and im sure people will comment on it. Far better to suggest the changes here first if they are even slightly controversial, because they will likely be undone otherwise. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Date of establishment?

Currently the article states that Northern Ireland was established on 3 May 1921. However, we're left in the dark as to what precisely happened on this day (and thus why it qualifies as the date of establishment). On 24 May the NI general election was held. On 7 June the NI Prime Minister was appointed. On 22 June the NI Parliament was officially opened. Which is the correct date? ~Asarlaí 15:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The correct date is 3rd May. That is when the GIA 1920 was commenced. Mooretwin (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Have we any other sources to support that date? The GIA itself states the following:

73. This Act shall, except as expressly provided, come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day for the purposes of this Act shall be the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which this Act is passed, or such other day not more than seven months earlier or later as may be fixed by Order of His Majesty in Council either generally or with reference to any particular provision of this Act...

~Asarlaí 21:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the appointed day wasn't that as conditionally prescribed, otherwise it would have been July or August 1921. I'll dig out the relevant commencement order when I get a chance. Mooretwin (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked at the article again. There are two references already there to support 3rd May! See footnote 3. Mooretwin (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fact tagging

Reviewing the last change to the article, I spotted a few fact tags sitting since Dec 2008. Should the tagged material be pulled from the article to the talk page or is it satisfactorily uncontroversial? Alastairward (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You correct, its there to long without being addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's what fact tags are there for. If it's been tagged, and not referenced, then it should be pulled. That's the point of them. Canterbury Tail talk 12:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, I think I added some to this very article. I just wanted to ask twice to give someone a chance to add the info if they happened to know, given that the article is more sensitive than most others. Alastairward (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Country categories

There have been several recent changes to the categories to which the countries of the United Kingdom belong. Discussion is being coordinated on Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom. Editors are invited to participate. Daicaregos (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Health and Social Care Northern Ireland or NHS?

Over at National Health Service a dispute has arisen about whether the HSC is commonly referred to in Northern Ireland as the NHS. I have never lived in NI so it would be good to have some input from natives who can give us some guidance and how we can use WP:RS to come to a conclusion on this one. I can imagine that people might talk about "the Health Service" by which they mean the infrastructure of HSC but do people in NI use the term NHS or National Health Service to mean the services on the other side of the Irish Sea or do they also use it talk about HSC services?

Also a bit of history regarding health services in NI would be nice to know too if someone can fill the gap in my knowledge or give pointers as to where to find it. Kind regards --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If the issue is the word 'commonly', I am happy for it to be changed to 'sometimes' but it is clear that there is evidence that the term is used. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

demographics

the demographics section is all wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.189.67.59 (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Compromise on flags

If they want to be fair then theres always this compromise. Since NI is controlled of the UK and (alledgedly) has no flag then surely it has to have the Union Flag and the British coat of arms as it's de facto flag like on some of the British Overseas territories like Ascention Island and Akrotiri and Dhelkia that have no flags of their own The C of E (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Union flag is the only official flag of NI. BigDunc 17:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The "no flag" POV is less neutral than the UK flag POV. The infobox on this page ought to include the Union flag. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the other constituent parts of the UK have that flag in the infobox. O Fenian (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Therein lies the problem if you are going to use the Union Flag on this article it would have to get used on the Scotland and Wales article. BigDunc 17:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a chance. Daicaregos (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The 'No flag' usage here, is easier to get adopted. Trying to push the Union Jack on Scotland, Wales & England is asking for headaches. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Dai. No chance. Jack forbes (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Jack and Dai, No chance with what? BigDunc 17:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Dunc, forgive me if I'm mistaken but doesn't the red hand of Ulster flag pre-date partition? I believe the red hand is part of an ancient Ulster legend going back over a thousand years. I know the red hand is on my mother's coat-of-arms and her surname's an old Ulster one.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If your talking about the Ulster Banner then no but the Flag of Ulster does. BigDunc 18:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The "province flags" were created by the authorities after the Tudor insertion of the Kingdom of Ireland. The "Flag of Ulster" is just a synthesis of symbols of families who previously had some power in the area the Gaelic O'Neill (Red Hand) and the Norman Burkes (the cross with the gold). Jeanne; the "Red Hand" features specifically on the coat of arms of families which originated as septs of the Uí Néill. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My mother was a Gilmore or Mac Giolla Mhuire, and the red hand was definitely on her coat-of-arms. Isn't Ui Néill the oldest known surname in Europe?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ulster is more than just Northern Ireland.
The Union Flag has no place on the Wales, England or Scotland pages. It is the flag of the UK, not the flag of Wales, Scotland or England. Daicaregos (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

e/c Using the Union flag for the countries mentioned. That is the flag of the United Kingdom. Wales, Scotland and England have their own flags. That's just the way it is. There is no flag of N.Ireland. Jack forbes (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So once again it's a saw-off between consistency across those four articles versus neutral point of view. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To those who know me quite well, try not to faint. I can't agree to using the Union Jack at E/S/W/NI. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with both Jack and Dai. BigDunc 18:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) If we were to put the Union flag on all UK regional articles for the sole reason that they do not have a flag of their own it would get ridiculous. (Yorkshire?, The Lake District?.) Ascension Island is a special case in that it is noted for using the Union Flag rather that the flag of St. Helena. The flag, coat of arms, and anthem in the Akrotiri and Dhekelia article are in my opinion ridiculous. Using a country infobox for a Sovereign base seems silly. C.f. Guantanamo Bay. The article simply would not benefit from the inclusion of a national flag, no more than Devon, County Mayo or Lviv Oblast: The flag belongs in the parent country's article unless the sub-national entity has a flag of it's own. Fribbler (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, using the Union Jack would be the same as using the Canadian flag on its provinces & territories, or using the American flag on its states. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Or the European flag on the articles of its member states. Daicaregos (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the Union Flag should be used under the assumption that it is the de facto (or de jure) flag of a country that (allegedly) has no flag The C of E (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing alleged about it, NI doesn't have a flag. BigDunc 09:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So then surely then by defult it should use the Union Flag as the de facto or de jure flag (i forget the difference between the two) The C of E (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope & don't call BigDunc, Shirley. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the idea of needing a "flag compromise" is a false one. There isn't a regional flag, and including a flag on sub-national articles is superfluous if the entity doesn't have a flag: Every article does not need a flag; and administrative regions least of all. No compromise is needed. Fribbler (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the no-flag consensus of two or three years ago should stand. That the Saltire and Cross of St. George are the traditional symbols of Scotland and England are, I think, uncontroversial, and the Dragon for Wales is not that much more so. There are different things that could be considered flags of N.I., but claiming any one of them is the flag of N.I., including the Union Flag, is going to be OR and inflame passions of Unionists or Nationalists, or even both. -Rrius (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Expected year of Catholic majority

Several demographers have predicted that Northern Ireland will soon have a Catholic majority, given that the last census in 2001 showed that over 40 % of the population was Catholic. Catholics tend to have more children than Protestants, and there are usually more Catholic immigrants than Protestant immigrants. This should probably be included in the article somehow. Also, another important thing to note is that many Anglicans in Northern Ireland self-identiy as anglo-Catholics, i.e. they follow an ecumenical movement pioneered by John Henry Newman that tries to improve its ties with the Holy See. ADM (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

People do tend to think that when the majority changes then Ireland will be reunified, but it's not that simple. Basing this solely on religion is inaccurate. In the last survey conducted by the two universities here, only 39% of Catholics thought Ireland should be reunified. This seems a little low to me. I think that percentage would increase when reunification becomes a realistic prospect, but still wouldn't be 100% But yes something along these lines may be appropriate in the article, as long as it's not simplistic. Having been brought up and confirmed in the Church of Ireland (despite not believing in god!), I have never heard of Newman or Anglo-Catholicism. I honestly doubt many other people have either. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stu. Considering the political climate in the North, not to mention that the Orange Order was originally an Anglican institution, I doubt very much that Anglo-Catholicism is popular in Northern Ireland. Dervla Murphy discusses the ecumenical movement at length in her book A Place Apart, and she states that High-Church Anglicanism (Anglo-Catholicism) has never drawn much support from the Church of Ireland community in Northern Ireland who clearly self-identify as Protestants.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have heard of the High Church, just didn't recognise the term Anglo-Catholicism. St. George's Church, Belfast is a High Church, and the only one in NI. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to add that including something like "Catholics tend to have more children than Protestants" would need to have a heck of a cite in an article on Northern Ireland! Alastairward (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and this would not count. :-) Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that people in Northern Ireland tend to have large families, irrespective of their religion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we do have larger families or not. But I know two people who both have over a hundred first cousins! Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought my mother had a lot of first cousins. BTW, she had a lot of Northern Ireland ancestry-LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Having such wit, charm and intelligence Jeanne, I wouldn't have doubted you're from Northern Irish stock! Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a boyfriend from Ballymurphy who said I had the sense of humour of a "wee Belfast girl". Of course I wasn't so "wee" at 5'8 (1.73)!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Judging from what "St. George's Church, Belfast" article says it seems to be slightly different there than in England (and presumably the Episcopalians in Scotland). The Anglo-"Catholic" element here tends to be more against feminist and homosexual clergy and are usually fairly conservative. While on the topic are there any ethnic Ulster-Scots at all who are Catholic? I saw that Pat Buchanan (who is slightly more Catholic than the Pope) is from Ulster-Scots background and thought it was unusual. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Buchanan's Ulster-Scots ancestry is only paternal.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really been following this article, but as I recall from when I lived im the UK, some English journalists have pointed out that the peace process has largely come about due to a realization among the violent minority about the long term consequence of this demographic shift. Better to inherit a peaceful country than one wracked by violence. Also from the other side, its better to become a minority when the country is peaceful than when it is at war with irself and your party is not in majority control. I don't know how much credence the argument had in NI but I believe it was the position expressed from time to time by reporters such as Mary Holland and Peter Taylor.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a source that can be cited you're welcome to put that in. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Any chance of a fourth paragraph? Something about the geography, climate and landscape of Northern Ireland? Centres of population? It's six counties? The lead should summarise the whole article - presently (and as to be expected I guess) the lead focusses only on the troubles and administration. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Anthem

shouldn't there be a mention of the anthem in the opening box on the page? I think it should have God Save The Queen as the de jure anthem along with maybe adding Londonderry Air as the unofficial one The C of E (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No for the same reason that there is no arms or flag. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 09:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

God Save the Queen isn't the anthem of the Home Nations any more than the Anthem of the EU is the anthem of the UK. Scroggie (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I mearly suggested it for the same reason of Asscention Island and Akrotiri and Dhelkia, they both have God Save the Queen as their anthems by default due to the fact they have no flag or anthem for themselves The C of E (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd avoid using GSTQ for all 4 UK countries. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always felt sorry for the English having to use it at Rugby matches. --Snowded ^TALK 13:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Being a republican & an atheist, I feel sorry for the entire UK having GSTQ as an athem. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, GoodDay I'm a Christian and a Monarchist and I'm proud to have it as my anthem, but to each their own The C of E (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, let's both face it calmly: You're no fun!!!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, ha ha ha haaa. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No God and no Crown? Sounds a bit Soviet Unionist to me. Through days dark and stormy where Great Lenin led us... :-o, Nicholas Save Us. As for this article, isn't Danny Boy used at sports events? (Commonwealth Games, All-Ireland Rugby games in NI, etc?) - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A commie, me? Nyet. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty straight forward, if it can't be cited, I wouldn't chance putting it into an article prone to controversy from time to time. Alastairward (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised the people of Northern Ireland don't campaign to make Danny Boy the official anthem of Northern Ireland. It's a hauntingly beautiful, evocative song. To me it is Ireland--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

1. It's called Londonderry Air and 2. people would never be able to agree, The Unionists would say "We already have a anthem, it's God Save The Queen" and the nationalists would say "We already have an anthem, its Amhrán na bhFiann". NI use it at the Commonwealth Games because they need an individual anthem. The C of E (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Danny Boy is that it's not the easiest song in the world to sing. I can only imagine how 20000 football fans at Windsor Park would butcher it. Better that than the dreary GSTQ though. The anthems are covered in the body of the article, which will suffice in my view. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I quite enjoy GSTQ - it's cathartic - cos it give me a chance to have a good booo! I missed the days when it used to come on at the end of a days viewing on the BBC and the TV would give my dear old papa a bit of target pratice with his slipper.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

More demonym problems?

Anybody got any idea about this? Last discussion I can see here seemed to agree that all three were appropriate for the article, as common sense would also suggest. Has something changed? --John (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The only appropriate two are the ones in the Good Friday Agreement, Irish and British. "Northern Irish" is a term increasingly used by loyalists to describe others as they object to the term "Irish" being applied to anyone from Northern Ireland. O Fenian (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I started an edit war. Fantastic. A demonym and a nationality are separate things, are they not? Obviously you can't have a NI passport, but people describe themselves and Northern Irish and are described as Northern Irish by others. Which makes it a valid demonym. Northern Irish is not a term increasingly used by loyalists, it's a term increasingly used across the whole community. Loyalists consider themselves British, full stop. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite obviously a demonym is an adjective, it is not directly mappable to a nationality where that is clearly disputed. The outcome the last time this was discussed back in October 2008 (See #Demonyns of Northern Ireland) was to have it as Northern Irish, British and Irish, pipelinked as one phrase to the Citizenship section, which was the stable solution to edit warring to include Irish as well as Northern Irish, so the revert "I see no consensus on the talk page for that" [1] from O Fenien makes no sense to me at all. If there is no consensus for that, then I say there is no consensus for anything else including the state he has reverted to, because I certainly object to his revert. MickMacNee (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Infact if we are playing the game, last reverter in an edit war = consensus, then without the presence of obviously banned user, 83.43.216.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), it would currently include all three terms. MickMacNee (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So consensus is Northern Irish, Irish, British in that order? ie, [[#Citizenship_and_identity|Northern Irish, Irish, British]] Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. That piped version was removed last October and has not been in since. Who reverted the addition of "Northern Irish" is not relevant, it has not been in the infobox for quite some time that I can see. Therefore the consensus version is without it. I never said loyalists use it to refer to themselves, I said they use it to refer to others. O Fenian (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for misreading your comment.

As far as I can see (I wasn't involved/aware of the October discussion) the consensus version in October was [[#Citizenship_and_identity|Northern Irish, Irish, British]]. This was changed by Fishiehelper2 to amend the hyperlinks here. Then Northern Irish was removed without discussion and against consensus by an IP here. So it should go back in. How does IP vandalism become consensus? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That second link is wrong. I appear to be a bit rusty. Can't see where Northern Irish was removed at the minute. But whenever it was, it was against consensus. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Shall we put it back in then? (I am getting a surreal feeling asking this question, about whether it is ok to mention the demonym Northern Irish on the Northern Ireland page. Oh well.) --John (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.204 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(<-) The demonym of Northern Ireland is Northern Irish. It's got nothing to do with citizenship or nationality. I might be a person of Pakistani descent with British nationality living in Bradford - I may even choose to identify as English, but the demonym of Bradford is and forever will be Bradfordian, not a mixture of whatever nationality the people of Bradford have. Those who have agreed on this "consensus" have completely misunderstood what a demonym is. Put aside the politics; Irish and British should not be there. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a local consensus cannot override our policies or common sense. Northern Irish is the demonym relating to Northern Ireland. --John (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Local concensus" - you mean people in Northern Ireland reject it but some unionist British ediotrs wish to force it upon them - I dont think so!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Irish is the correct term to use. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Why doesnt anyone but unionist use it then? Just looking at the personalities that have turned up here to try and force it proves my point.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is about part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, shock horror that British editors may be involved with this article. Anyway please focus on the matter at hand and not start going on about peoples personalities. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Scotland uses Scottish, England uses English & Wales uses Welsh? We'll have to settle with Northern Irish at this article. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

CIA world factbook uses the term "Northern Irish" [2] It should never have been removed, although its obvious why some want it removed and it aint to make the article more accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is whenever "Northern Irish" is used as a nationality. It isn't one. But as a demonym, it is correct and legitimate. However, I suspect most people in real-life don't label themselves or others with a demonym, and that's why politically motivated editors think in terms of nationality, and why they object to the term regardless of how it is used. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should say "Northern Irish" with a source, and then use a notation system (like the lead sections of Cornish people and England) to explain at the bottom that (if sourced) it should not be considered a nationality, and that under the GFA the people of Northern Ireland can opt to be British nationals, Irish nationals or both. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

On this article, that makes perfect sense. But in general—such as BLP articles—it is probably simpler to say "from Northern Ireland" without that overhead. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh. Yes. Perhaps. I've always personally endevoured to use nothing unless explicitly supported by a source. Infact, I raised this as a proposal here last month, but I haven't the strength to try formalise it just yet. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. Per the 'self-identification' norm which is actually proper BLP application, unless you find a proper source that someone does not self identify as Northern Irish, if you add that mangled 'from NI' version by default, thinking you are being more neutral, you are not, because all you are doing is supporting the POV of the people that want to push the idea that Northern Ireland is not a real place with defined borders where people can be of/come from/be associated with, in the same way as any other universally understood descriptor. Anyway, Andrwsc, I see you are an admin, so I'm more interested in how Vintagekits, coming off a weeks block, is permitted to come out with the kind of bad faith 'it doesn't matter because you're all Unionists!!!11!' crap towards other editors that he has above? Do I really need to post this on ANI for anybody to start pulling him up for this sort of behaviour? MickMacNee (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(@Jza84) I'm with you. I guess my point is that it is easiest to find a reliable source for a BLP that cites their birthplace. A reliable source that cites their nationality is often more difficult, and especially so for Northern Irish people people from Northern Ireland. So I would presume the typical BLP article would have a reference next to "born October 15, 1965 in Belfast, Northern Ireland" (for example) and not next to "Joe Bloggs is a Northern Irish^{[ref needed]} person...". If the prose text must say something about Joe Bloggs' origin, then "from Northern Ireland" aligns better with the cited reference to the birthplace location, and would not be confused with a nationality. My comment about "overhead" was implying that Joe Bloggs' article would naturally have a reference for his birthplace, but a reference that explains nationality issues for people from Northern Ireland would seem excessive and out of place. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(@MickMacNee) I don't see anything in either of Vintagekits' two edits to this page since his latest block expired that would warrant another block or even a warning. I don't agree with his lack of good faith assumption, nor his POV that everything Northern Irish needs to be painted in unionist vs. nationalist colours, but I don't see any behaviour of his (yet) that crosses our lines (again). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable. MickMacNee (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with VintageKit's comments. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I also didn't think they were accurate or appropriate, but I doubt anybody here took them seriously either. It's just the same old rhetoric. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Just coming back to the matter in hand, can we please use "Northern Irish" as the demonym of Northern Ireland (which it just is....) with a source, and then use a notation system (like the lead sections of Cornish people and England) to explain at the bottom that (if sourced) it should not be considered a nationality, and that under the GFA the people of Northern Ireland can opt to be British nationals, Irish nationals or both. I'm not here to say its a nationality, and that it's denying birthrights etc etc... I'm here breifly to make the point that we can do things better for our readers on this issue. The "consensus" was in good faith but ill-advised. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And on this basis, does the categorisation of NI bio articles need looked at again? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be clear consensus and reasoning for just having "Northern Irish" in the infobox. Yet VK and Dunc are still prepared to edit war, and revert without even leaving an edit summary? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with what? All he is saying is that it exists - no one has ever denied the term exists. The issue is that it is not the main demonym - infact it is avoid by the majority or people an institution across Britain, Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Just look how the BBC, the DSNI, the NIO, the Alliance Party, the Irish government, the British Government, the Northern Ireland executive, the Northern Ireland Policing board, the Northern Ireland Arts Council, the UUP and the Good Friday Argeement describes "People from Northern Ireland" - they certainly dont use loaded POV terms such as "Northern Irish".

It is avoided in real life and that should be reflected here.

Then we have the WP:NPOV issue - the term is highly charged and politically loaded and therefore fails NPOV as a term that should describe people or instituations from Northern Ireland - and they we have it - "from Northern Ireland" - just use "from Northern Ireland" - it is factual, verifiable, neutral and will avoid edit wars across wiki - its a zero loss solution but it appears some were are not happy if even isnt singing God Save the Queen. At least try and have some balance and neutrality.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Irish is neutral and sourced. Move on thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Irish is never neutral it makes an assumption. BigDunc 11:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

lol, that people from Northern Ireland would be described as Northern Irish? Thats a shocking assumption isnt it! The CIA world factbook uses the term, thats one of the biggest sources for wikipedia, the "Northern Irish" must remain.. to remove it would be inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

But they dont describe themselves as "Northern Irish" - like I have said (and proven) its is avoided at all opportunity. Actually if you look at the CIA source its obviously bullshit - it says that 2.9% of the UK population at ethnically "Northern Irish" - are you saying that that is correct? The source is farcical and would force a POV minority term on all when there is a factual, neutral, verifiable, zero loss alternative - its says a lot about those arguing for the use of "Northern Irish" that they are advocating its use.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to reinforce its minority status please see here. But if the British majority of editors on wikipedia want to push their POV or a neutral approach then please feel free.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

lol that doesnt matter, they use the term Northern Irish and other sources do too. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Lol" - wtf is laugh out loud got to do with it? You are obviously avoiding the issue and the sources - no one is saying that the term doesnt exist - it obviously does and I have never advocated removing it as a demonym - its is a demonym, its just not a majority term and it is a politically loaded non neutral term. I give up. --Vintagekits (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The CIA source describes the country "Ireland" as "Ireland" and don't use the RoI term. The CIA don't even list NI as a country. Unless a person self identify as being either British or Irish the use of Northern Irish is dubious. To say for example that someone was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, and to then want to go on and add a nationality (not being aware of how ther person identifies themselves) is just pushing a point or trying to make one. Default of "from Northern Ireland" is accurate and accatable. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

lol, "Northern Irish" is fine and should be the default unless there are sources to justify something else. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

eh no, I think enough sources have been provided to prove otherwise. Its a POV minority term, it's offensive and avoided - and real life should be reflected on wikipedia - not just your POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You may need to see the difference between a demonym and a nationality then. --John (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You obviously havent even read what I have written if you can come out with that (no surprise there to be honest). I said it was a demonym - I just said it was a minority term and should never be used as a default terms to describe a person or instituation from Northern Ireland because it is a minority term and POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

'From Northern Ireland' is not neutral, it is POV, but Republican POV, which obviously means its OK. Its a total strawman that it is 'neutral', especially if the reason for using it is laughingly that Irish people in NI see themselves as Irish not Northern Irish (and as helpfully shown above, more people prefer NI than I), as they would quite obviously not even want to acknowledge the fact that anybody can be 'from Northern Ireland', because it should not exist as a place to 'be from', in the same way that people would think you were a bit simple if you went around saying you were Eastern Irish. Of course, a lot of that is total WP:OR, but it's no different from the 'proof' offered above that Northern Irish is an offensive term. Given the 'evidence' presented above, if anything, using that twisted logic, it should be the British campaigning to have Northern Irish removed, but funnily enough, it isn't. I wonder, though, how it is proposed anyone suggesting it is the more neutral term could for example, describe that somebody had a notable accent 'from Northern Ireland'. This newspeak POV crusade is total BS, and is obvious to all outsiders whenever you see this discussed in wider venues. MickMacNee (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I was born in the 6 counties and I for one consider myself Irish, never have been Northern Irish and never would be Northern Irish, so Mick how can you say it is neutral to call me Northern Irish? Also I would find it offensive to call me Northern Irish.BigDunc 12:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I was born in the 6 counties as well, and I would be offended being called anything but Northern Irish. (I actually couldn't give a shit, but I'm using the example for comparison) This isn't what about anyone finds offensive, it's about deciding the correct demonym for Northern Ireland, and that it Northern Irish. Irish is ambiguous, British is incorrect. Mick hit the nail on the head, Northern Irish is the most neutral term, and more importantly than that, the correct one. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just proved my point it isn't neutral some like it others dont. BigDunc 13:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Irish is a demonym - no problem with that but its POV and I am surprised that you are agreeing that it should be used as a default description for people or instituations "from Northern Ireland".--Vintagekits (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think you are a reliable source? You could believe in flying unicorns and personally believe you are Elveish, for all the difference it makes to how we write neutral articles, or deal with neutrality. As an aside, I cannot see how, given your personal views, you could possibly think someone saying you are 'from Northern Ireland' is any less offensive, but again, that is wholly irrelevant to what we put in articles. MickMacNee (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming a farce. "from Northern Ireland" is factually, verifiable and neutral - how can you contend that it isnt? It just makes a mockery of your whole argument.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I can contend it because I can see for myself the evidence that you claim supports this view, and I can see you have taken A and B and made C. A classic mistake, but understandable when you are trying to prove something you simly believe is correct anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Combined with the fact that you keep coming out with patent nonsense such as describing a football club as Northern Irish is assigning it a nationality and is thus offensive and must be removed per NPOV. MickMacNee (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Mick It is factually correct to state that I am from Northern Ireland, regardless of my opinions of it, but to claim I am Northern Irish is POV, I really can't understand how editors can't see that. BigDunc 13:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is factually correct to say Northern Irish is not a nationality, and it is factually correct to say that describing some as Northern Irish does not assign a nationality. So, likewise, I am equally bemused by your stance that we should start changing the whole English language and its usage in Wikipedia to come around to your viewpoint that it does. MickMacNee (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying how is anyone trying to change the English Languge? Also X is from Northern Ireland and X is Northern Irish, is there a difference in your opinion. BigDunc 13:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Right that is gobeldegook! I have provided a source to show that "Northern Irish" is a polictically loaded POV term, I have provided sources that show that the term is a minority term and avoided by the people of NI as well as the vast majority of insitituations and organisations in NI, Ire and GB. Yet you come out with "from Northern Ireland" is POV. Please explain to me, because I am thick, what you mean to achieve by using the term "Northern Irish" - and b. how exactly is "from Northern Ireland" a POV term.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, that's what you think you have shown. However, it is no coincidence that whenever anybody who is not trying to assert your POV is shown it, they simply cannot connect the dots the way you have. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OK - fair enough but I am not trying to convince you, its others I am interested in. Can you now answer the questions or not? a. what you mean to achieve by using the term "Northern Irish" - and b. how exactly is "from Northern Ireland" a POV term.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

'From Northern Ireland' is a POV term because its use instead of Northern Irish is an attempt to use the pedia to push the idea that the phrase Northern Irish assigns a nationality, when patently, the only people who believe that, are asserting a POV themselves. Hence, it is a POV term. It's not rocket science. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously I must be dumb but I didnt understand that at all - can you please explain further. Are you saying "from Northern Ireland" is POV because its not "Northern Irish"? Also you ignored question A. what you mean to achieve by using the term "Northern Irish"? --Vintagekits (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've explained it enough, so your conclusion must be correct. And no, I do not agree that your desired changes are 'loss-less', in the same way that nobody in their right mind is ever going to start replacing 'British' with 'form the United Kingdom' or 'Scottish' with 'from Scotland' in articles. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Gents, consider the sacrafice I've got to make here. IMHO, 'British' should be used here, England, Scotland & Wales. But, I'm willing to put it aside. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's use 'Northern Irish' here & 'from Northern Ireland' on the BLP articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

why when that doesnt reflect real life - its just pandering to POV pushers.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That is as pointless as saying we should use 'from Scotland' on BLPs where we aren't sure they self identify as British or Scottish. It's nonsense, 'from Northern Ireland' is not a neutral term, it is a POV term. MickMacNee (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, back to the old drawing board. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The current set up at the Infobox seems workable (using all 3: 'Northern Irish', 'British' & 'Irish'). GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree - but now there are editors that was to use the term "Northern Irish" as the default term that describes people, insituations or organisations "from Northern Ireland". I believe that "from Northern Ireland" is good enough and genuinely cant get my head around that arguments that oppose it.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've no prob with using 'from Northern Ireland' on BLPs (though I'd prefer 'British' over that & English, Scottish & Welsh). GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the consituants of Great Britain differ from Northern Ireland but thats a whole 'nother 12 rounder for somewhere else.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Look we're talking about two different issues here.

1. What to put in the infobox on the Northern Ireland article

2. What to use in the lead paragraph in BLPs, and possibly categories.

Can we deal with 1 first, as was the original intent of this section? And the basic facts are, ignoring anyone's irrelevant sensibilities, British and Irish are not demonyms of Northern Ireland. If I said to a stranger, "I'm British" or "I'm Irish", how could that possibly tell them that I was from Northern Ireland? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats more like it - a reasoned debate using logic - how refreshing.

1. I havent got a problem with all three going in the infobox in order to stop edit warring but I think that only Northern Irish and Irish should be in the box - much like South Korea has South Korean, Korean.

2. "Northern Irish" should never be a default positon for lead paragraphs from organisations, insituations or people from Northern Ireland, simply because its innacurate and POV. "from Northern Ireland" removes all the bullshit and baggage and is a neutral compromise and verifiable.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd opt for using all 3. It's better to peeve off all possible groups in Northern Ireland, then just one group. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I couldn't disagree more. That would be akin to having "Canadian" included as a demonym in the infobox for Prince Edward Island. True, but irrelevant for that specific article. "Irish" is a demonym for the Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles, and "British" is a demonym for the United Kingdom and Great Britain articles (although I note that neither island article currently uses the demonym field in their respective {{Infobox Islands}} transclusions). I think it is highly illogical to oppose putting the Union flag into the infobox but to insist on including the demonyms for Ireland and Britain. You can't have it both ways. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My personal choice would be to use 'British'. But it's been explained to me numerious times that people in NI go by either British or Irish. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point, or perhaps confusing demonym with nationality, as many editors in this thread seem to be doing. "British" is a demonym for Britain. The same word also has a meaning for a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we're talking about an infobox field that says "Demonym", not one that says "Nationality". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I hear ya, but trying to get 'Northern Irish' in there 'only', is next to impossible. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So you are willing to sacrifice the integrity and correctness of the encyclopedia so that politically-driven sensitivities of some editors are satisfied? That's a terribly slippery slope... Prehaps the best solution is to include a footnote for the "Northern Irish" demonym that also explains that it isn't a nationality, in case our readers are too lazy to click on the adjacent link to the Demonym article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, the footnote idea is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"from Northern Ireland" is accurate, and covers both without being POV. Its that simple. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about what to place in the demonym = field for the infobox on this article. Your comment makes no sense for that issue. The issue of what to use in BLP articles (for example) is a different discussion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Users are confusing the issue. It's not about nationality or identity, its about what the demonym is of a place. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I find Andrwsc's footnote proposal acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Had a go at your proposal Andrew, opinions? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I had to correct the footnote numbering, but I think your edits are good. It is an accurate description of the correct demonym, but with a sensible footnote to allay any fear over a misperception of what "Northern Irish" is being applied to. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Demonym (redux 29.10.09)

[Moved from the bottom of the page to join with earlier discussion]

This edit was reverted without a comment being given. As we know a varitey of identities exist in Northern Ireland. "Northern Irish" is just one of those (ref). Naturally thus, a varieties of denonyms exist to describe people from Northern Ireland. Indeed, it is not unknown to see no demonym to be used in relation to people from Northern Ireland (e.g. news reports for "Northern Ireland man"). A demonym refers specifically to people, bear in mind.

I'm certainly going to restore "Irish" (i.e. Irish ethnicity, as distinct from Irish citizenship). Whether "British" should go in there - to me it's more distinctly a citizenship - I'll leave to up to others. Certainly, there's a case. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

RA, please see the "More demonym problems" section above. Snowded was right to revert to the agreed form. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah ... didn't see it. I can't say that I see consensus not to use "Irish". (To use "Northern Ireland" has consensus - and I support it too.) I understand that "Northern Irish" makes common sense ("...of course someone from Northern Ireland is Northern Irish!..." etc.) but you know as well as I do that it's not that simple.

First, there equally evidence of no consensus demonym for people from Northern Ireland among published sources (e.g. the "Northern Ireland man" news examples). Secondly, "Northern Irish" is, relatively speaking, a recentism (cf. "Interpreting Northern Ireland", J. Whyte, G. FitzGerald). Thirdly, it far from universally accepted and carries with it a political baggage that makes it less that NPOV (cf J. Ruane, J. Todd, "The dynamics of conflict in Northern Ireland")

A "demonym" is the common name for a person from a certain place is called (usually based on the name of that place). Are you seriously saying that someone from Northern Ireland is not normally called "Irish"? Like the South Korea example, it's appropriate, I think, to have both. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But those people are called "Irish" because Northern Ireland is part of the island of Ireland. It's the same kind of subset relationship why the demonyms of "Londoner", "English", and "British" all apply to residents of London. But we only include "Londoner" on the London article, "English" on the England article, and "British" on the United Kingdom article. The same principle applies here. "Irish" belongs as a demonym on both the Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles, but is superfluous here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that is what common sense would tell you. You would imagine that "Northern Irish" would be a neutral term without any great significance. I know that you don't mean it but insisting on "Northern Irish" as the only demonym actually makes a political statement (or more correctly is likely to be interpreted by others as one). The choice of such words carry with them a perspective on the political relationships of Northern Ireland and approaches to them (cf. the books I cited above).

A person from Northern Ireland can be called "Irish" owing to the fact that they come from Northern Ireland in the same way that a person from the Republic of Ireland can be called "Irish". The political partition of the island did not mean that in 1922 people south of the border became "Free State Irish" and people north or the border became "Northern Irish". A valid demonym for the people of both parts remained simply "Irish" (as in the example of South Korea). Indeeed "Northern Irish" is quite recent (cf. the book I cited above). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to put "Irish" back in as a demonym alongside "Northern Irish". They are both listed in lists of demonyms for the UK/Northern Ireland. I'll going to ref it with the following:

• Matt Rosenberg (2009). "Demonyms - Names of Nationalities". About.com. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2009-11-18.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd have doubts about the reliability of about.com. So have others, see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive13#ABOUT.COM, Wikipedia:Peer review/Jada Pinkett Smith/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Washington Capitals head coaches, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Presidents who died in office and several other discussion if you do a search. If it's not good enough for featured articles, it shouldn't really be here either. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised by that, but fair enough. It's a tough one to find - "demonym" isn't even in the dictionary! I'll dig away at it.

BYW what's the reference for "Northern Irish" - cue wiki-dig-in-the-ribs :) ? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ribs? Below the belt more like :-) I was fairly sure there was a reference for Northern Irish in the demonym field at one point, but I can't find it in the revision history. Though I doubt a single other country (!) article has a reference. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

OK try again:

• Paul, Dickson (1997). Labels for Locals: What to Call People from Abilene to Zimbabwe. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster. p. 138. ISBN 9780877796169. Northern Ireland: Northern Irishman and Northern Irishwoman, or the collective Irish and Northern Irish. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

I'll give people a chance to respond and slot it in later tonight. (And got you a ref for "Northern Irish" to boot, Stu!) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as you slot in British along with it then I'm fine with it, considering the citizens are mainly British after all. Not that I'd trust an American author to know what is correct about Ireland. Canterbury Tail talk 20:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you trust an American author to know about Ireland, when there are so many people in the USA of Irish background, not to mention Irish-Americans (such as myself) who have lived for many years in Ireland? Perhaps you should go back and double-check the Irish-related articles I have edited and created just to make sure I didn't make any glaring errors as a result of my Californian birth.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you nominating the book for testing at the RS noticeboard? Alastairward (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The field in the info box (and the ref) lists demonyms, not nationalities/citizenships. (See discussion above.) "British" isn't listed over at England, Scotland or Wales for the same reason. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Canterbury Tail talk 21:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Irish" is the demonym for all residents of the island of Ireland, and for all residents of the Republic of Ireland. "British" is the demonym for all residents of the island of Great Britain, and for all residents of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Awkward, isn't it? I agree that "Irish" and "British" are both valid demonyms for residents of Northern Ireland, but I still assert they are superfluous. "Northern Irish" is the most precise demonym that uniquely applies to this article. Put "Irish" on the Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles, and put "British" on the Great Britain and United Kingdom articles, but this article ought to only include the most precise demonym for this specific region. Rannpháirtí anaithnid, that's a great source you've got for "Northern Irish", but it's also frustrating that it includes the demonym for the superset region (i.e. the island). What does Dickson mean by the "collective"? Perhaps that's a terse reference to the island? Anyway, if we're going to add "Irish" and "British" to this page, why not "European" as well? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The books lists specific places and gives the demonym (demonym specifically, not citizenship or nationality) for people form those specific places. The entry for Northern Ireland lists the demonym for Northern Ireland as being "Irish" or "Northern Irish". This is not "frustrating", this is verifiability not truth]. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the frustrating part is that the snippet from that book (which is the best source for demonyms, by the way!) will be the seed for a new round of edit warring and debate, perhaps because there is no further explanation or context for what he means by "collective Irish". I was hoping that we could close this issue, but I now anticipate the if we include "Irish", then we must also include "British" type of comments. Sigh. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we close it? We have a cite for the first time in a while after all. Alastairward (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding a cite for "Northern Irish" as a demonym, wouldn't something like this do? It's the people of NI being described as Northern Irish. Why does it have to mention the word demonym? I disagree with Irish for the same reason as Andrew, accuracy. If I was in a foreign country and one local said to another "He's Irish." How would the other local know what country I was from? He wouldn't. Say "He's Northern Irish", and there's no doubt. BTW, "Southern Irish" is listed as a demonym over at List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names! Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 18:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of locals have no interest in what part of Ireland you come from, North, South, East or West, they simply want to know that you come from Ireland. People are primarily interested in places, not political structures. --Ardmacha (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

At least you and I can be pin-pointed to somewhere on a reasonably-sized island, Stu. There's over 300,000 out there people that cannot be distinguished from another soul across two continents. Both "Irish" and "Northern Irish" are demonyms for a person from (specifically) Northern Ireland. That's what the reference says. We're not here to correct the imprecision of the English language. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)