Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Split

Oh god, I can'tfind where to put this correctly. But can someone please put up some information about why Ireland chose to split, and why it continued to remain seperate from the Republic of Ireland. This should be one of the most important parts of the history, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.96.242 (talk • contribs)

sorry this is simple in 1921 and indeed before 1921 in what today is the Republic Of ireland there was a war of independence they choose to go their own way simple while the Majority of people in Ulster (londonderry/derry/antrim/down/armagh/tyrone/fermanagh along with Donegal Monaghan Cavan make up the Province of Ulster the first 6 of these counties went into Northern ireland while donegal Monaghan and cavan went into the republic as the 6 counties of Northern Ireland had a high Unionist Majority and the other 3 had a high Nationalist majority so they went into the Republic of Ireland the 6 counties of NI decided to stay in the UK because we wanted to indeed in the treaty drawing up the border Northern Ireland had the option of staying in what was then the "Irish Free state " But decided to stay within the UK ...as we have done so since then dont know why people think we are being occupied by the "British" excuse me but I'm a British and Born in Northern Ireland and we dont wanna be part of the Republic of Ireland because we dont simple its called the principle of consent read the good friday agreement (0r belfast agreement as its officially called )- "it is hereby declared that Northern ireland shall remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as the Majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish it to do so " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.240.15 (talk • contribs)

Since you define yourself as British that would be why you don't think you're being occupied by the British. Those that do not view themselves as British or do not feel that they are represented as an Irish person by being a part of the UK would otherwise define themselves as being occupied. Simply because the majority of Northern Ireland does not wish to be part of the Republic does not mean that the issue is closed until such time as there is a majority. Haven't you ever heard of the tyranny of the majority? This is not an ideal situation. It would be wise to state that the current state is such that Northern Ireland is part of the UK by choice, but that there is a large desenting minority that does not wish to be part of the UK and would rather be part of of the Republic. Fair enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.204.155.241 (talk • contribs)

Northern Ireland didn't "continue to remain" separate from the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland continued to remain a part of the UK. --Mal 02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Their was never a split as such but the reason that The north is part of the uk is because of the the brits look up the Irish civil war and the Ulster Plantation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.34.70 (talk • contribs)

There was indeed a split, and this was ratified in an international treaty. The Republic split from Ireland because a large minority of Irish people didn't want to split from the UK. Most Irish people didn't particularly want to split from the UK until after the leaders of the failed Easter Rising were executed for treason. --Mal 02:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The split occurred because it was an integral part of the peace treaty that the UK offered to the nascent Irish Free State: the civil war occurred because certain members of the IRA couldn't accept a treaty that meant the North would remain part of the UK and the Irish government would have to swear an oath of alleigance to the King of England. But really who cares anymore anyway? We're all a part of Europe, right?

Incorrect/misleading section on "Northern Ireland nationality law"

It is not correct to say that "a co-national law exists to protect the rights of both nationalities in Northern Ireland and to protect the rights of the people of Northern Ireland under law to identify themselves as either Irish or British or both, if they so choose".

This is simply incorrect. There is no "co-national law". There is UK nationality law, and there is Republic of Ireland nationality law. These are separate.

In UK law, everyone born in Northern Ireland (who has at least one parent who is a UK citizen) is a UK citizen.

In ROI law, everyone born in Northern Ireland is entitled to ROI citizenship.

It is not the case, then, that "the majority of persons in Northern Ireland are entitled to both British citizenship and Irish citizenship", since UK citizenship is not an "entitlement", but a de facto state. Only ROI citizenship is an "entitlement".

The statement "Entitlement to Irish citizenship is due to the Republic of Ireland extending its nationality law on an extra-territorial basis" is correct.

The passage from the Good Friday Agreement that is cited is relevant, but legally meaningless, since "being accepted as Irish or British, or both" is not legally enforceable, and nor has any attempt been made to legally enforce it. The significance of the passage is that it resulted in the ROI changing its citizenship law to become extra-territorial.

(NornIron, 9 April, 17.14)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, you should read this WP:BB, and have fun. You might also be interested in adding yourself to the WP:NIWNB. theKeith 16:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above. The Good Friday Agreement provisions are nothing more than a political statment by the two governments and are not legally enforceable. However the extension of Irish nationality law to Northern Ireland does produce a situation where certain persons connected with Northern Ireland may be Irish citizens but not British citizens. See Chen Case. Incidentally, the comment that everybody born in Northern Ireland is entitled to ROI citizenship is no longer true for those born on or afer 1 January 2005. Also, the comment that a person born in Northern Ireland must have a UK citizen parent to be British also isn't true, a parent who is a UK permanent resident (also known as "settled" in the UK) is enough. JAJ 02:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have amended the section. Can you refine it to include reference to the ROI changes post-1.1.05?

(NornIron, 10 April, 13.01)

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

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

see Cfd discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Great_Britain_at_the_Olympics_to_Category:Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_at_the_Olympics --Mais oui! 22:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Its the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Wrong.

The UK does not have an Olympic team. England, Scotland and Wales play as GB. NI sportsmen either play for Ireland or register as English, Scots or Welsh.

Not possible to "register as English, Scots or Welsh" as these are not Olympic teams. Olympic teams are based on sovereign nation (all representatives must be citizens of that country) and recognised non-sovereign territories, so the default for any NI sportsman is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland team. However, a person from NI with Republic of Ireland citizenship may represent the Republic of Ireland instead if he or she wishes, and is selected to do so. JAJ 01:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but there is no United Kingdom team, just team Great Britain. Northern Irish athletes can choose to compete either for Team GB or for the Republic of Ireland, it is their choice (and obviously the choice of the particular team managers). Ben W Bell talk 06:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be called "Team GB" however it's still a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland team. "Great Britain" on its own could not be an Olympic particpant as it's not a sovereign entity. JAJ 22:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Team GB is a shorthand name for the team known as "Great Britain and Northern Ireland". beano 14:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No. The teams official name is Great Britain[1].

Irrelevant. Olympic jurisdictions are sovereign countries or legally incorporated territories. Great Britain is neither. JAJ 23:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Even before partition, Irish athletes entered as part of a "Great Britain" team. It should probably have been UK, but the name stuck. I've noticed a lot of TV commentators refer to the "GB and Northern Ireland team", in the way a lot now refer to the "British and Irish Lions". The team someone from NI plays for often depends on their sporting association - Eventing, Boxing and indeed most sports apart from football recognise a 32 county team, as a carry-on from pre-partition times.Blowmonkey 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

At the Olympics the only choice for a Northern Ireland person is to represent either the United Kingdom (Team GB) or the Republic of Ireland. Assuming the person is a dual citizen - those in Northern Ireland who are not Irish citizens may only represent the United Kingdom at the Games. JAJ 23:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Validity of voter demographic?

I am puzzled by the 59%/22% Unionist to Nationalist percentage that We have on the main Northern Ireland article. These figures, in My opinion, don’t represent the voting figures for Northern Ireland voters and seem to bias towards the Unionist side for Me. I looked into it, and these figures were gained by interviewing an alleged 1800 people. I question the validity on the groups that it doesn’t state were this survey was carried out. For example, was it in Belfast city centre, a fairly unbiased city, or was it say Ballymena or Portadown? Can we also trust 1800 People to fully give us a representation of Northern Ireland opinions on politics?

This source seems to be a little too convenient for my liking.

I draw People’s attentions to the following link: http://www.nationmaster.com/wikimir/images/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Northern_Ireland_election_seats_1997-2005.png/650px-Northern_Ireland_election_seats_1997-2005.png

Clearly showing a rise in Nationalist voting patterns.

On the same website, they also claim to have conducted a survey were a staggering 86% of People in Northern Ireland claiming they could learn to accept a United Ireland.

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2004/Political_Attitudes/FUTURE1.html

Based on voting figures, I don’t feel We have a fair representation of the opinions of Northern Ireland peoples.

I would recommend perhaps keeping in the voting figures as they are, but also adding it that they were based on only, what, less than 8% of the population of Northern Ireland? I would also recommend a few words on recent voting figures putting that percentage at a different scale, particularly that Nationalist vote is larger than stated.

BBX 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood both the nature of polling and what they say. What those numbers show (and they are replicated in poll after poll) is that on the issue of a united Ireland 59% support the union, 22% support a united Ireland. Every survey ever done shows that not all nationalists support a united Ireland. The figure usually ebbs around the 50% mark. On my first visits to Northern Ireland I was astonished to find how few nationalists, while proud of their Irish identity, actually support a united Ireland. I met Conradh na Gaeilge activists, a lot of SDLP members, and even Sinn Féin members who privately would say that they would vote against a united Ireland. One of the main arguments was economic: they believed that even Celtic Tiger Ireland could not subsidise the North to the same level as the British taxpayer. They believed unity with the Republic would lead to wholescale cuts in education, environment and social spending. The figures accurately reflect surveys done year in and year out, and are far more accurate than voting figures, where things like personality of candidates, geography, tactical voting, and the undemocratic First Past the Post system all distort outcomes. (Eg, both Mark Durkan and David Trimble picked up large amounts of support from the other community because the alternatives, SF and the DUP, were less acceptable to moderates. Paisley, bizarrely, even picked up thousands of Catholic votes in European elections! In one ballot box I saw opened, some voted 1 Paisley, 2 the SF candidate, 3 UUP!!!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

---

This isn't about the above - while I still disagree with the figures, I'll accept them until I can give concrete evidence against them. This is to do with the adding in of the phase:

"In practice, though, those born in Northern Ireland do generally become British Citizens and not automatically Irish Citizens. They can, however, claim or renounce either nationality."

The Irish Government recognise the birth right of all Irish People on the island as being Irish. Why doesn't it therefore also say everyone is recognised as Irish citizens by birth also? The above phrase, to Me as an Irish Nationalist, comes across as petty and serves no purpose. There was nothing wrong the paragragh as it was, this just seems to have been added out of spite by someone. I myself have always been Irish, and have never had to denounce anything.

---

Since no one objected I've removed it. However, I dunno how this place worked to be honoust about editing pages and whatnot, so if I have get expressed permission before editing, I apologise and hope that if anyone does indeed disagree, then as the title say, discuss it.

I'm not bothered about the inclusion of the poll. What annoys me is the prominence given and importance attached to it, while election results (the true markers of change) are glossed over. 1800 people, plus acquaintances of Fear "Don't ask Google, ask me" Éireann. A fraction of a per cent of the region's population.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you don't know what an opinion poll is. As to elections being "the true markers of change" no-one involved in politics believes that. Elections show a mixture of party strength, candidate appeal, regional impact, electoral spending, the impact on weather on the day of polling in terms of turnout, the impact of alphabeticalisation of candidate's names on ballot papers, media coverage and a host of other things. They do not, and never have done, give any clear example of views on a policy. Opinion polls do analyse policy issues alone without electoral, geographic, regional, financial and weather impacts and are done professionally using strict mathematical formulae and using carefully worded questions framed to contain no language that would influence the person being questioned.

The only people who feign disbelief in detailed polling are those who find that polls show their views do not reflect the opinion of most people. Tracking polls offer the additional protection of ensuring that no rogue polls create misleading impressions. Because polling organisations have to work with people on all sides of political divides, they refuse to ask questions framed to produce a particular result because their credibility rests on their independence. They could (and are) asked to work for Sinn Féin one week and the DUP two weeks later, the Tories one month, Labour the next. No professional organisation will compromise their credibility by fake polling. So you won't find them asking loaded questions like "The cost of subsidising Northern Ireland is x billions. The Republic's Minister for Finance says the Republic could not pay that and so would have to slash payments on health and roads in the North. In the light of that, do you support Irish unity?" or "Martin McGuinness was head of the IRA in Derry when horrific murders were carried out. Is he a fit person to become Minister for Finance?" or "Martin McGuinness is widely regard as having been a superb Minister for Education. The IRA has disbanded. Do you believe that Martin should be back in government?"

Questions are very carefully worded to be absolutely neutral. In fact before a poll takes place dry runs are carried out with questions to test out their neutrality with feedback taken to see if the person being questioned picked up any unintended bias in the question. Only questions that pass a strict test are carried out.

Polls use 1100 or more respondents because it means that mathematically the odds are that some people will be found who will not be representative of the electorate. The larger the poll size, the smaller the impact under mathematical formulae each individual respondent is overall, which means that on a poll of 1100 the margin of error is could be around 3% but in reality it is usually in the range of 0.7%. Depending on the type of survey, respondents are picked for age, gender, location, class, with groups used that reflect that their segment among overall society. The accuracy of polling is increased marketly if done face-to-face rather than by telephone and to avoid creating bias by making respondents give the sort of answers they think the questioner wants the organisation who commissioned the poll is never released. Indeed questioners may give false names for themselves if their name (Murphy, Paisley, etc) is seen as belonging to one community. Polling numbers are cross-referenced to ensure accuracy and all questions are examined to ensure that the numbers do not throw up a possible bias.

Everyone, from the DUP to Sinn Féin, uses polling and takes the results seriously. Some polling organisations, such as MRBI in the Republic, have such credibility that governments will change policy based on the outcome of polls. Professionals in politics swear by MRBI results. It is not simply a case of asking a couple of hundred people a few questions and claiming that that is representative. It is a very complex process carefully vetted and regarded universally by mathematicians, pollsters, and politicians as 100% reliable. LP's comments suggest that he does not know what polling is, how it is carried out, what its perameters are, and that is big gripe is that polls disprove his theories. Unlike him, privately Sinn Féin does believe the polls — privately leading Sinn Féin figures will tell you that a united Ireland is, on the numbers, not a goer in the forseeable future. But as with all political movements they have to say something else publicly because to say that would demoralise their supporters, just as Bertie Ahern knows that come the next election his party is likely to lose 10-15 seats and has no chance of being in government with the PDs after the next election. Which is why FF are trying to get Labour to ditch Fine Gael and why the PDs are trying build bridges with Fine Gael. The reason for all of this is their own private polling, and isn't explained publicly for fear of demoralising their supporters. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing you've written, nor your tone, is new to me. Polls have changed and will change nothing; elections and referenda do that. I don't believe I've outlined theories anywhere on Wikipedia, so I don't understand how this poll disproves them. Unlike what you imply, I don't have a problem with the poll's inclusion. Just its prominence when compared to election results.

Lapsed Pacifist 00:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

An ESRI poll in mid 2005 (more recent) showed 65% of Catholics favouring a United Ireland, 21.1% supporting the Union, and 11.2% favouring independence. Furthermore, 3.8% of Protestants supported a United Ireland, with 87.7% supporting the Union and 5.5% in favour of independence. I think those figures should be inserted here as a more recent poll is more relevant. For this reason, I am inserting the relevant details and a link to the source of them. (mango2002)

Ulster Scots

I'd like to point out that Ulster Scots is not an "official language of Northern Ireland" as stated in the main article. The Good Friday Agreement does not refer to Ulster Scots as a "language", rather describing it as a "variety of the Scots language". It recognised it as "part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland", and the Agreement in part lead to the formation of the cross border "Ulster-Scots Agency". The Irish language is official, and is (supposed to) be promoted through media and television/radio broadcasts, as well as being taught in all schools, to all People who wish to learn it.

Since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I thought it best to point that out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .

• Good point. I'll take it down, unless anyone can substantiate that it has official status. Guinnog 19:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not named under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which I assume is where Irish derives it's "official" status, perhaps renaming the "Official language" box, to "Languages", and annotating what languages are official would be in order? This could also include the languages of the substantial portugeese, and chineese communities that have developed over the past number of years.
  • For a list of NI languages see [[2]], which I suspect is about as much of an official statement as we are going to get

• Ulster scots is not actually a language, but merely invented by unionists to counter the irish language when it was revealed under the good friday agreement that it would receive funding. Although I am aware that nothing is going to change in this article and don't really care either way, I will point out that if the real world allowed for an =entirely= objective view on things then an "encyclopedia" would state this. I'm afraid no matter how you look at it, nothing in this world will ever be objective and particularly not in the case of northern ireland. --Spark13579 03:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have studied Ulster Scots and I would tend to agree. I am a unionist and I am strongly pro British but I still have to be convinced Ulster Scots is its own language. Scots however is a language and it is spoken in Northern Ireland. I don't understand why people refer to it as Ulster Scots? Its a dialect of Scots just like American English is a dialect of English. I wish however people from the Nationalist community would have a bit more tollerance and respect when it comes to the Scots language though after all it was the official language of Scotland at one point in its history.

It seams every other minority language in the world is supported by Sinn Fein eg Basque, Catalin etc. The republican movement are out to destoy and erase anything they see as a threat to their united ireland based on cultural hegemony. If anyone here Speaks Spanish you will understand how easy it is to read Catalin and how easy it would be to learn Portuguese and Italian. Anyone who speaks one of the Scandanavian languages will understand how easy it is to pick up one of the other languages. That does not take away from the fact they are all seperate languages!

Unfair removal of work

I’d like to know why, when I add a piece that is constructive and informative to the article, it is consistently removed? Let me show an example.

I add in that Northern Ireland shares a “relaxed” land border with the Republic of Ireland, and it is removed. Why? This is true. The Irish border is as relaxed nowadays as, say, the border between Scotland and England. There is no stop points anymore, no check points, there is North - South ministerial bodies that will be put into place (Per the Good Friday Agreement) that will see the border even further relaxed. Isn’t it right to inform people of this situation and give it its proper title? Yes, it is a border which entails all the legal status of such, but is a relaxed border, which does not have the sternness of a border between say, America and Mexico. It’s an important piece of information to inform people of that, whether people leaning towards a certain side want to acknowledge that or that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .

It is just as "relaxed" as any other EU state border. Look up France or Spain or Netherlands etc., and see if it describes their boreders as being "relaxed". Jonto 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• The thing you are failing to take into consideration is that the border between northern ireland and the republic of ireland was not always "relaxed". For many years there were police checkpoints all along it, and this of course was not the case for any border in europe. The fact that the border is now relaxed has everything to do with the history of the troubles in northern ireland. It's like talking about a country where beef has been banned for 30 years and someone writing "imports of beef are very relaxed here", and you writing "Look up france or spain, and see if it describes the beef imports as being relaxed". The fact of the matter is that it is appropriate to state that the northern ireland border is relaxed, as it hasn't always been relaxed in the past. Anyone who objects to this obviously feels that saying the border is relaxed is, in a way, undermining its existance and bringing it closer to the republic of ireland, i.e. they have an obvious unionist agenda. --Spark13579 03:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me (a Protestant from NI) to be simply a statement of fact - the borders were at one stage very tightly controlled, and now are relaxed. What they are with relation to European countries actually doesn't matter a great deal. I agree with the above comment. Orderinchaos78 15:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the old government of northern Ireland has never been official as a flag of northern Ireland, and so what is wrong with adding the word “Unofficial” under it, to further explain it’s status? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .

It already says "De facto" and "former". It once was the official government flag. Was always and still is the de facto civil flag.Jonto 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This flag was never an official flag to my knowledge, it was merely teh transposition of the coat of arms onto a piece of cloth, if you have any proof that it was ever officially used, would you please post it.86.12.245.194 17:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Check the Flags Of The World database article. I can't access it right now but it mentioned that the government had 'authority' to transfer the arms to a flag and that they exercised this right (in 1953?) for the Queen's Coronation. Beano ni 18:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Under demographic and politics I believed that a piece from another part of the website would be a good addition under the small questionnaire demographic. I added:

Strangely, the same survey shows support for full independence at 11%, while the Ulster Third Way party (the only party that supports independence) receives less than a tenth of 1% of votes. It is important to take into account the fact that public opinion polls can be very inaccurate at times.”

This is a good addition as it informs the reader that although the questionnaire of tiny percentage of northern Ireland say this, it is also important to take into account that the survey shouldn’t be taken with a grain of salt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .

That is too much detail for the main article. Lapsed Pacifist added that to the Demographics article which needs cleaned up badly. Using words such as "strangely" is POV pushing.Jonto 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference between support for the independence option and Ulster Third Way is to my mind further evidence that elections cannot be taken as direct referendums on this matter. Leaving aside the fact that they only contest the odd seat, Ulster Third Way is a rather fringe political force with very limited appeal, primarily pitching to loyalist areas with doses of Ulster nationalism and having links to the British National Front. It promotes a lot of "traditional Ulster culture" like the Orange marches and the Ulster Scots language. That's not exactly going to appeal to middle class golf course Protestants for a start. And their reasoning for independence - as a Rhodesia UDI style way of escaping from an all Ireland state - is not exactly something to get Catholics to vote for them. U3W speak for virtually nobody and certainly aren't the voice of one community or the other.

What the raw headline figures don't show is just where in the population the 11% comes from. But belief in an independent Northern Ireland as a compromise for both communities (and it's easier to grasp and sell as a permanent option than a joint sovereignty area) and a view that the people of the six counties are closer to each other than to those in either Great Britain or the Republic, or for that matter emigrees from either wanting to get the province away from them, is not an unknown phenomenon - but none of these are even ideoligcally in line with Ulster Third Way even if they do happen to reach the same conclusion. Timrollpickering 14:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

People vote for reasons far removed from their stance on a given issue. For instance, there are many people who care about the environment, but they may not vote for the Green Party. There are many people who care about the rights of the working class, but they may feel their vote is safer with UUP than SDLP. And like Timrollpickering said, sometimes the party promoting a particular option is not a credible advocate of said option. This trend is amplified in a first-past-the-post system as a vote for anything other than a major, winnable party is seen as a "wasted vote", and may erode a majority from the party the voter sees as being the lesser of the two evils (ref Florida 2000). Orderinchaos78 15:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

=To “Jonto”=

I am from Ireland, I travel to Dublin quite often and to mainland western Europe on occasion, I can safely say it is more relaxed than any EU State border I have ever crossed. It’s no more a border than the border between American States. I don’t understand why people get so worked up about the word “Relaxed”, it’s the truth whether people want to believe it or not. A relaxed border is exactly what it is, yet people don’t want it to be acknowledged as such here. Seems like a case of anti Nationalism towards northern Ireland and Southern Ireland people to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .

I was born in Northern Ireland - I currently live in Switzerland and being right in the centre of Europe I travel frequently. I travelled from Belfast to Dublin and back less than a month ago. The border is no more relaxed than most borders throughout continental Europe.

This is not "anti nationalism" as you put it. I respect that you have nationalist views, but you must remember that when you write here that you must be careful as to not only what you write but as to what you are implying. What you are writing implies that the border doesn't really exist. The border may currently be more relaxed than it was in the past due to the past higher perceived level of terrorist threat, but the current border has simply been brought into line with any normal European borderJonto 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Don't be ridiculous, who is implying that the border doesn't exist? For years and years a person couldn't travel across the border in northern ireland without being stopped by police and their car searched. This was, of course, not true for continental europe. It is a valid point to state that at present the border is "relaxed", i.e. on par with borders throughout western europe. The key point to take out of what you stated above is that it has now "been brought into line" with other european borders; i.e. it was not always like this. Why not indicate that at present the border is now as relaxed as any other border throughout continental europe? --Spark13579 04:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The old government of northern Ireland flag has never, and will be the official flag of Northern Ireland. It has no more right to be there than say the Irish Tricolour, which represents the other half of the northern Ireland community, yet if I was to add it, I’m sure that it would be removed. That is despite the fact that there is a much better change of seeing the Irish Tricolour (along with the Union Flag) flying over the city hall of Belfast, than seeing the old government of northern Ireland flag flying over it. Again, an unbiased opinion is not being given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .

That's why it's used for the Commonwealth Games team, isn't it?! The Tricolour wouldn't be allowed because it is the flag of the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland. There isn't such thing as a "nationalist flag" for Northern Ireland, because many Nationalists would prefer if Northern Ireland did not exist at all. I'm sure that even if NI had a new flag sanctioned by the assembly then nationalists would probably demand that it was removed! Jonto 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The flag of northern ireland, although possibly worth mentioning, is defintely unofficial. It is used, but generally to hang off lampposts. If you ever see the "flag of northern ireland" flying abreast any kind of official building then please let me know, as i'd be very glad to hear. --Spark13579 04:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

=To “Timrollpickering”=

You make some good point, as for “where in the population does the 11% come from” that is a question I have asked before, in relation to where exactly the figures for the entire survey were conducted, and even at that, is it fair to simply take this as the word of truth when only 1800 people, a tiny percentage of the people of the north of Ireland, were questioned.

Maybe the piece was perhaps too long and too commonly written to be placed into an encyclopaedia article, but how does the term below term suit:

“It is important to take into account that small scale opinion polls can be very inaccurate at times”.

This is short, to the point, truthful and simply insightful to the reader. It wouldn’t be fair to try and give a casual reader fact that are not facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .

The facts that are being stated are that these are results from a poll. Please take a look at Image:Northern_Ireland_Poll.png for the results of the poll over time. It is up to the reader to make up their own mind about the poll results. Your edit still implies that the poll is wrong. Jonto 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm living this year in Germany, but normally I live about half and hour from the Massachusetts/New Hampshire Border. And I can say that any time I've travelled internationally here (with the exception of one time into Switzerland), the borders have been comparable. So I'm not sure how the Northern Ireland / Ireland border could be much more relaxed. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Jonto, what I added in is not implying anything, however leaving the results section as it is implies that the results are the full truth, when in reality, 1800 people (a tiny percentage of northern Ireland) cannot possibly give a fully accurate and unbiased viewpoint of Irish northern beliefs on Unification. The Catholic population has been growing for years, if the trend line continues their could likely be a Catholic majority in the north of Ireland by 2017. Should we incorporate that into discussion? 40% of the north of Ireland vote Pro Nationalist/Republican, and Unification parties, should we incorporate that into discussion in that section?

What I’ve added in (and I’ve seen it has been removed/censored even though I shortened it, so I’ll add it back in) gives the reader an unbiased opinion on the Irish northern situation, removing it is clearly bias.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .

User:BBX, please avoid editorializing within the article. Instead, continue to discuss the inclusion or removal of the poll data here on this Talk page. Adding editorial comments on its reliability is outside our purvue. Jkelly 18:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want it removed, I simply want it made clear that the opinion poll could be unreliable and shouldn't be taken as the full truth. I don't understand why people are so against giving an unbiased viewpoint on this matter, isn't an enclycopedia supposed to be unbiased and free from personal opinions?

I also brought it to attention that Ulster Scots is not an official language of northern Ireland, yet it still remains listed as so. I wouldn't care if it was or not, but encyclopedia is about facts, and we should respect that. Why can't we simply be more unbias with this subject and try and give a fairer representation of northern Ireland?

I haven't been following the language issue, but your commentary on the value of polls is itself the kind of personal opinion that articles should be free from. Jkelly 19:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Flag Status

What is the official status of the flag? And can it be backed up with a source? Under which government was it official? I'm asking simply because I'm curious, don't know for sure, and feel like it's important to the discussion of whether or not to include any reference in the infobox.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 20:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up discussion on this

The old government of northern Ireland flag is taken from the actual flag of Ulster. The hand has historical fact as being the symbol of the O’Neil’s and a representation of Irish resistance before the Ulster Plantation. Since that time many myths and stories have arisen, such as the popular story of a King and his Sons and the cutting of a hand. There are, however, fabricated due to some Unionist/Loyalists not wanting to have a symbol of Irish resistance to British rule on their flag. On the hand, the thumb was moved from being towards the hand, to being outward, to try and differentiate it from the original hand and the historical symbolisation which it has. The cross was also thinned out from the original Ulster flag, to make it into a St. George’s cross, the flag of England. When displayed in the Governor of northern Ireland’s flag, the disc was yellow, not white as it’s became known by Unionists today. The colour was quickly changed also, to further give it a more “English/British” look, with the addition of the Royal crown of Britain.

The flag was used as the official government of northern Ireland, however, after the Irish Civil rights movement began (Peaceful protests against Unionist oppression towards Nationalists) and the Provisional IRA began their much documented campaign to end British rule in Ireland, the British government suspended and then abolished the Unionist Stormount government in 1973 and began governing northern Ireland straight from England, which - give or take a few moments here and there - has continued up until today.

The flag has not been the official government of northern Ireland flag since 1973, and has never been the official flag of northern Ireland. Some unofficial usages of the flag exists, usually in Unionist dominated fields, such as the Irish FA (the Irish FA only use it during game openings, but since Nationalists don’t support the state of northern Ireland, they would find it hypocritical to support a football/soccer team that represents that state, so they support the Republic of Ireland, hence why there isn’t much objection to the usage of the flag, although the Irish FA might gain interest more from Nationalists if they incorporated a neutral flag)

Although northern Ireland doesn’t have it’s own official flag or national anthem (mainly due to bickering) most peaceful Nationalists and Unionists would probably agree that the unofficial national anthem of “Danny Boy” and the St. Patrick’s cross are fair, unbiased, good and neutral representations of northern Ireland, while it remains a State.

I am a Nationalist of Ireland, however, I would agree upon using the St. Patrick's cross to represent northern Ireland, as most people from here that are neutral would already view it as such.

No discussion?

What goes on at this place. I was hoping that we could perhaps discuss the subject, and maybe get ourselves a neutral symbol for northern Ireland, instead somebody has simply overlooked what I said, and decided to heighten sectarianism and further oppress the views of Irish Nationalists. I even see the old government of northern Ireland flag is still there, so I will ask: Would anyone object to me adding the Irish Tricolour to the same grouping of flags?

Belfast city council were discussing Flag regulations in regards to what is flown on city hall prior to the suspension of the northern Ireland assembly. There was three options tabled:

1. No change. Union flag.

2. Union flag flown at regulated occasions.

2. Neutral. Belfast city crest, or no flag.

3. Equality. Union flag and Irish Tricolour flown simultaneously.

Not once did I hear or read anything about the old government of northern Ireland flag being used. Therefore, by logic, the Irish Tricolour has as much, if not more, legal right to used as a representation of northern Ireland in the modern age.

I will await a reply, but if none is given then I will obviously presume that no one objects, and I will add, or ask for assistance in adding, the Irish Tricolour.

I would have personally agreed to the St. Patrick’s cross being used as a neutral flag, which most unbiased northern Ireland today probably view as the flag of the State, for the time being.

• See the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus article, complete with flag. Guinnog 23:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Complete with NPOV tag. --Red King 23:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Flags and emblems

Flags and emblems are a major issue in Northern Ireland that inflames continuous PoV arguments such as the one above. As BBX observes, it is not unique to Wikipedia. In the interest of NPOV, the most reasonable approach is not to have any flags. Northern Ireland is not a nation, so it does not have a national flag. The most reasonable position is to replicate the infobox from, say, the North East England article. No flags, no emblems, no PoV. Just a map. --Red King 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. It's the approach also taken by official governmental issues in northern Ireland at the moment. Whether it is to do with Policing, simply official letters, or even building, the two governments and official bodies in northern Ireland (Unlike the rest of the U.K or the island of Ireland) tent to avoid ANY flags or emblems, which has seen changes to a lot of things in northern Ireland (such as the police force getting the neutral name of "Police Service of northern Ireland"). BBX 00:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is different from a region of England, and is generally seen as more akin to Scotland and Wales, it has its own International Football team and had its own regional government. The flag normally shown is a recognised symbol of Northern Ireland and is used by Northern Ireland at various events. Also, It's the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in English language northern Ireland and Northern Ireland are completely different, northern Ireland could describe the northern half of the island. Northern Ireland is the name of the constituent part of the United Kingdom set up by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. There have been a number of discussions about this and they usually end in the "Red Hand flag" being reinstated as a cultural symbol rather than national flag. There are many strange things associated with this article, like the .ie TLD in the infobox. - TheKeith 00:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In some sporting events the old government of northern Ireland flag is used BY CHOICE by the northern Ireland people using it. However, Wayne McCollough and Eamon McGee are example of Sportsmen who used/use the Irish Tricolour as their representation. McCollough used it mainly because northern Ireland is apart of the Irish Boxing body, who’s flag is the Irish Tricolour, and McGee used and uses it because of his heritage and Nationality. The bottom line is that the old government of northern Ireland is used in some sporting events because the people/bodies using it have chosen the flag, just as they are free to choose the Irish Tricolour if they so choose.

Also, if the old government of northern Ireland flag is to be used a “Culture symbol” them the exactly same case will be made for the Irish Tricolour. Unionists, by and large, decent from Scottish and (to a lesser extent) English settlers from the Plantation of Ulster, so they have their culture. However, Irish Nationalists, again by and large, decent from the Irish population predating such settlements. They have, therefore, different cultures and different heritage and so if one culture is to be represented, then the other should be also. Otherwise there will be a serious case of one sidedness that does not reflect the modern day northern Ireland.

The best solution, in my opinion, is to take the advice of Red King (Not to mention the example set by current northern Ireland ways) and leave all flags and emblems for the section that lists northern Ireland flags and emblems.

Anything else would be simply be one sided.

BBX 00:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to say BBX and Red King have a point. Northern Ireland has no official flag. Why should one be displayed so prominently on the page?--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 02:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. The non-existence of any acceptable flag for this entity is very telling of the particular circumstances that apply. I still feel the article 'needs' a flag or flags somehow. Maybe another bit of text about the controversy would be appropriate? Guinnog 02:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That would indeed be a good idea - a section detailing the ins and outs of the situation that have been laid out in the course of this discussion, with appropriate images (of the red hand flag, the irish tricolor, the union flag, and the saint patricks cross) would certainly be both informative and npov. I say yes.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 02:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

While i agree that symbols of Northern Ireland are a contentious issue both here and in the real world. I do not believe nor do i support the removal of the symbols on the basis that it would make the article any less pov, if anything it would make the article just as pov not to have these symbols then it would to have them. The removal of the symbols would give editors of the unionist community the ability to say that the removal of the symbols is some kinda of nationalist pov. Regardless of NI is a nation or not, it is one of the 4 constitute parts of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and should have an infobox that is appropriate to it's status, of which it currently has. While i will not stand in the way if the current infobox being reshaped to remove the flag and coa, based upon their current status of usage, i will only support it on the conditional basis that a section about symbols is added with the imagery, as being that both at one time were official symbols of Northern Ireland, and then in the case of their flag, it sill holds a de-facto status in being a representative symbol of Northern Ireland, regardless if it is accepted as so by all communities, and that the coa still holds a semi-official status being that it's grant has not been rescinded. Besides that i don’t see any need to add any other symbol, i.e. the try colour, to the section with the exception poss of the St Patrick saltire. Also if were are going to remove the sympols because of their non-official status, then the same should be done with images of the same status on other UK pages, i.e. the COA of Wales. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an official flag of Northern Ireland and only one, and I'm sure it will come as a disappointment to those who wish to be either politically correct or sectarian. It is neither the Ulster Banner nor the Tricolour -- it is the Union Flag. If this article is to be strictly accurate, then the internationally-recognized flag of the territory should be shown. Displaying former flags, flags of other countries, and non-official country name translations (for that matter) is simply misleading. --62.6.127.190 00:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Ireland article titles

A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Net Domain

As with most things in Northern Ireland, we have 2 tld .uk, and .ie. While .uk is the most common, the .ie is "open the domain to registrants located in, or with a significant connection to, the island of Ireland". Historically there has been geographic domain allocations such as the .gb, although largely defunct would have covered Britain, and not NI. I would guess the .sco name should also be included if it finally materialises. 86.12.245.194 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

---

To be honest, surely the official TLD is .uk and not .ie? Although the Irish net authorities do not recognise the border as such, .ie isn't officially in use in NI regardless of how widespread its use is. Otherwise you could argue that .co.ni is official because the Nicaraguan authorities sanction its use.

Or you could argue that .uk is official in ROI because of addresses like [3].

Personally although .ie should be mentioned, I don't think it should be given the same prominence. And I don't think that .sco should ever be included. We aren't Scottish!

Or maybe we should just get rid of that box altogther.

Thoughts?

NotMuchToSay 23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The .ie domain is geographic specific, whereas the .uk is available to all, similar to .com with no consideration to geographic location, it just tends to be used a lot in the uk. The point of the .sco domain is that it is a cultrural domain, for scots culture, and if I can say it without starting a fight Scots language, so may be relavent 86.12.245.194 19:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The .ie and .uk domains are both reserved for specific countries - see Country codes. How the two domains are administered may well place restrictions on use outside their respective administrative areas. In the same way, you can't state that .ni is available as a NI country code, even though the Nicaraguans may (or may not) allow some in NI to register a domain in their administration. It should be removed from the info box. Bazza 18:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Flag usage

While the government of northern Ireland was the flag that represented the northern Ireland government pre the early 1970s, people also need to realise that the Irish Tricolour was originally created to be the flag of ALL IRELAND, under the Provisional Irish government after the 1920’s partition of the island.

The green on the flag was supposed to represent Irish Catholics throughout Ireland (and their heritage), the white in the centre was to represent a lasting peace, and the orange was to represent the Protestant peoples in the north (and their Irish/Ulster-Scots heritage).

The Irish Tricolour was never the official flag of northern Ireland, but neither was the old government of northern Ireland flag. The Republic recognised it as such though, as did the Irish Nationalist population of the Ulster Province.

As northern Ireland is at the moment, there is much more chance of the Irish Tricolour being flown, along side the Union flag, than seeing the old government of northern Ireland flag flown officially.

Many Unionists don’t mean offence when they fly it personally, but to many Nationalists and Catholics, it represents a government that treated them like second class citizens, myself included. The Nazi flag was once the flag of the German government, yet it also wouldn’t be correct - politically, officially, socially or unbiased - to show it on this website.

I say either one of the follow should take place:

A. Both the old government of northern Ireland flag and the Irish Tricolour are shown, listing both as “De Facto” or “Unofficial”.

B. No flags used, only a map.

We really need to come to an agreement on this, instead of ignoring the discussion and simply doing what fits one’s agenda. I have my own view on the flag situation, but I’m clearly trying to find a compromise, and I believe I have been nothing but unbiased here.

PS: Since no one has objected since Guinnog's post, I believe it's time we removed Ulster Scots as an "official language", since it currently isn't an official language of northern Ireland. As the Good Friday Agreement states, it does play a role in “the culture wealth of the island of Ireland” but I guess there simply wasn’t enough demand for legal status pertaining to the dialect, as their was for the Irish language. Most Unionists/Protestant I know don't seem to care about it anyway, although their is obviously speakers of the dialect and I would never object to it recieving legal status if the sitution ever arose.

• So even though you dont even consider it a language, you wouldn't object to it receiving legal status??

This is getting ridiculous.

Whoever the silent editor is, I would appreciate that you join the discussion, instead of simply overlooking what people are writing and doing as you so please. We’ve already brought it to attention that Ulster Scots is not an official language of northern Ireland, you are giving false information by consistently listing it as so.

We’ve also come to the conclusion that - what you have edited - are unofficial symbols of northern Ireland, the Tricolour of Ireland is also an unofficial symbol of northern Ireland, not just with Irish Nationalists in northern Ireland, but throughout the island of Ireland and worldwide. Removing it, yet keeping another unofficial symbol, is biased.

Either equality: both the old government of northern Ireland and the Tricolour of Ireland, or nothing. Those are fair opinions I believe, and I would appreciate some discussion and not totally overlooking what we are discussing. This is a public encyclopedia and we all entitled to have our say on issues pertaining to how exactly an unbiased article should be laid out. I've got my POV, but adding it into the article without any regard for an unbiased read is - as far as I am aware - against Wikipedia rules.

BBX 21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

This is getting riddiculous, I think we need some emblem of NI at the start. The use of the assembly logo, seems to be a step in the right direction, it is reasonably neutral, but unfortunetly not widely recognised, even within the area it is proported to represent, but I am at a loss to think of anything better. Any thoughts?

I can agree to that, but if the unoffical old government of northern Ireland remains without equal representation of the Irish Tricolour, then nothing will have changed. There is a distinct feeling of Anti Irish Nationalism here, and I will not accept anything bar equality and a totally unbiased article that represented northern Ireland for what it is: not what some people would like to still be. BBX 00:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree with that. The Irish tricolor has NEVER been used to represent Northern Ireland, and this article is about Northern Ireland. The Irish tricolor was only adopted as an official flag in 1937, and then for the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland. Since the flag has never ever been associated with NI then it cannot be included. Ben W Bell 08:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

With thought I think the "Red Hand and Crown" flag should also be removed. While it was the official civil flag of Northern Ireland for almost 50 years it also has had no official status for over 30 years now. The only flag that can be flown for Northern Ireland is really the Union Flag, no other country article shows historical flags so there really is no reason that the NI article should either despite it's rather unique situation. So all the flags should be replaced with only the Union Flag as that is the only official flag that can be used. Ben W Bell 09:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The article has underwent a lot of editing in the last few days, to say the least. The symbol for the Northern Ireland Assembly has no more place in the infobox anymore than the symbol of the Parliament of the United Kingdom should be in the United Kingdom infobox (the portcullis often seen on the British One Penny coin) and not least because the assembly is currently suspended. Djegan 11:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I would think a symbol of an assembly suspended 3 years ago, is slightly more relevant than one suspended 35 years ago (not much though). The flax was uesd to represent N.Irleand on the pound coin a few years ago, and seems a reasonable compromise, although, I would hope there would be something better, if anyone can think of it 86.12.245.194 11:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The infobox isnt a drop-in-center for lost symbols; it is for the flag and coat of arms only. Djegan 12:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Cut the crap, the Northern Ireland flag is the official symbol of Northern Ireland and that isnt changing because you want it too. If I was the editor of this I would have the Northern Ireland flag flying, the Union Flag and the St Patricks cross but the tricolour has nothing to do with Northern Ireland.

New flags page

I have created a new page, entitled Northern Ireland flags issue which should hopefully keep people happy. As for the flags which are on the Northern Ireland page, I suggest something like this:

Flags: - Union Flag (official) - Flag of Northern Ireland (former official) - Northern Ireland Coat of Arms (former official) There is a flags dispute, click here.

That is very one sided. This page is on NORTHERN IRELAND, not the United Kingdom. The Union Jack is the flag of the U.K, which northern Ireland is currently apart of, however northern Ireland is also part of the European Union, so why not the European flag? Living in northern Ireland all my life, I know exactly how flags are dealt with on an official basis: they are avoided.

As I've said before, the old government of northern Ireland flag was never the official flag of northern Ireland, only the government (as the Nazi flag was the official flag of the German government).

If we are dealing with northern Ireland, not the U.K, we should use nothing but the government of northern Ireland standard. The current government is suspended, not collapsed, so it still is technically running (the MLA's are still collecting their pay checks for it I may add).

Also, "God Save the Queen" is not the official national anthem of NORTHERN IRELAND, it is the official national anthem of the U.K, and again, I believe we are discussing northern Ireland and NOT the U.K as a whole. G.S.T.Q is used by some sporting bodies (namely the Irish FA) simply because Nationalists do not support northern Ireland the football team, they support the Rep. Ireland, so a Unionist agenda is free to be filled. "Danny Boy" (Londonderry Air) is used during the Commonwealth games, why not used that? Again, a total display of bias. People have used the term “De Facto” to fill their own agenda’s, so why not use the term “De Facto, Londonderry Air”, since it is the unofficial anthem of northern Ireland. Again, the one sidedness is so obvious it’s becoming a joke.

I am offering a completely unbiased solution here, yet it is being overlooked. This is ridiculous.

Flag: ONLY the official government of northern Ireland standard. It may be suspended, but it is still official and has not collapsed.

Anthem: De Facto, Londonderry Air or none.

That is totally neutral. Why are people finding it so hard to be unbiased here?

• People are finding it so hard to be unbiased because Republicans want everything that was ever British or Northern Irish removed from Northern Ireland. It is no surprise that this website is constantly disputed over. Londonderry Air is not the official national anthem of Northern Ireland because we are part of the UK and the nation's national anthem is God Save the Queen. It is also true we are part of the UK and our official flag is the Union Flag so lets see it when we enter the page but let us also see the Northern Ireland flag. I have no objection to the European Flag also being displayed. I would not object to Londonderry Air being mentioned as an anthem played to represent the country at some sporting events.

---

Not sure what you mean by "official government of northern Ireland standard". I don't believe the flax logo was ever designed to be flown as a flag, it's simply a logo for assembly letterheads. I suppose that could be used in place of the crest, even though it is not one (Official Government Logo?). I don't understand your use of de facto for the anthem used at the Commonwealth Games and not the flag? This is a very controversial issue and never seems to be far from the Talk:Northern Ireland page, maybe it's about time for a proper vote as to what symbols to use in the Info box?

One last thing sign posts with four tides '~' (Shift and # on most keyboards) makes talk pages easier to read. - TheKeith 15:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the official standard as I'm aware, and I for one would view it as totally neutral. Why does their NEED to be a flag anyway, there is no flag of northern Ireland, a simple crest of the current government of northern Ireland would do the job. The fact is, it's really the only official symbol for northern Ireland as a state.

Let's be honest. Is there a Union Jack on the Scotland page? No. Is there a Union Jack on the Wales page? No. Is there a Union Jack on the England page? No. So why one on the northern Ireland page? Am I seriously the only one who wants this article to unbiased?

• Well lets put a union flag on their pages!

Again, I would like ANYONE to tell me what exactly is wrong about the following:

Flag: Official government of northern Ireland standard.

All "flags" can go in the new flags of northern Ireland page where they belong. There is no flag of northern Ireland (at the moment anyway), any usage of unofficial or Union flags (U.K or European) is simply gonna be one sided and won't give a fair representation of what northern Ireland is and represens today.

Anthem: De Facto: Londonderry Air

I will also point out that the Irish F.A are debating using their anthem at their home international football games to try and attrack more Nationalists to their games. The Irish F.A is fairly biased at the moment, most would agree to that, but in most other Sporting events (unless it is an All - Ireland body, which is usually the case) the theme of "Danny Boy", the Londonderry Air, is used.

Also, I think we all know that any vote would result in a total one sidedness towards Unionism, which may be the want for most of the people here, but it simply isn't true if we are to give a fair, unbiased account of the modern day northern Ireland.

PS: Keith, how long have you been at the Uni of Coleraine, I was gonna their myself. Good to know some other people from northern Ireland are here, if only it could be left up to yourself and I to get this article sorted.

Now, to whomever it may concern (i.e. the silent editor) English is an official language of N. Ireland, Irish is since the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, and Ulster Scots (rightfull or wrongfully ..... I don't think much people - Nationalist or Unionist - cared) does not have the same recognition as either. Please take this into account before overlooking and editing. Believe it or not, the '70s are over, there is Unionists who learn Irish, and Nationalists who join the Police *shock*. cheers.

BBX 15:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Like the Ulster Banner, the Londonderry Air was the anthem of the government of Northern Ireland, so has the same "de facto" status as the flag. Also, the Arms were never actually withdrawn so, while no longer used, are not "former". Whether or not the Assembly executive could use them if they chose to, I'm not sure.

Also what's wrong with " Official government of northern Ireland standard." is the small n, which is simply wrong and could refer to anywhere north of Dublin.

Beano ni 19:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that our anonymous poster is correct to a certain point. Northern Ireland's only official national flag is the Union Jack. Its only official national anthem is God Save the Queen. However, as this is an article specifically about Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland has its own official, semi-official and non-official symbols etc, then I support the fact that the Union Jack and the national anthem are not in the infobox at the right hand side. --Mal 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like the following removed

"Under the Good Friday Agreement, Irish and Scots have official recognition on a par with that of English. Often the use of the Irish language in Northern Ireland has met with the considerable suspicion of Unionists, who have associated it with the largely Catholic Republic of Ireland, and more recently, with the republican movement in Northern Ireland itself."

There is so much wrong with this paragraph.

1. In the Good Friday Agreement, it states that Irish is to be promoted in various television and radio broadcasts and media outlets as well as being made available to all school's who wish to teach it and pupils who wish to learn it. It does not extend the same legislation to Ulster Scots. Mainly because not many people speak Ulster Scots, it was created in the 1990's, and is basically the language (or more properly describled, dialect) of the Orange Order.

2. As an Irish speaker, I find it highly offense that I have my native tounge put down as the voice of sectarianism. We have spoken Irish for 100's of years in Ireland, Catholic and Protestant, North and South. It mentions nothing negative about Ulster Scots, a dialect that isn't two decades old, a dialect that a small minority of northern Ireland who are usually in the Orange Order. Has anyone here even read Ulster Scots?

Irish has official usage usage, U.S does not, it has none. I'm not saying that to push any PoV, I'm not saying it as a lie, or an altering of facts, I'm saying it as a fact. An encyclopedia deals with FACTS. I find it offensive that my native tounge is cast in a negative light on this webpage, when it is clearly not true. I live in northern Ireland, I work with members of the Protestant community, I interact with Protestants all the time, they do not believe this. A small sectarian number do, as there is sectarianism on both sides. Give the facts, and not a PoV.

Re the language: Irish is not "official" moreso than any other language, just because the government have committed to promoting it. Also, you may be right that it is offensive to have mention of Irish being put down as the voice of sectarianism, but you lose credibility by launching into a tirade against Ulster-Scots.

From the GFA:

"3.All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland."

Beano ni 19:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• • And I find it just as offensive, as a student who has studies Scots, that you totally disrespect Scots as a language. For your information Scots was the official language of Scotland at one point in time with all business and parliament using the language. Perhaps if you didnt highlight your secterian views about anything loosely associated with Protestants people might respect your own opinion about the Irish language. Might I also point out that I have met with many speakers of Scots who are neither Protestant nor unionist and many many people probably including yourself use Scots words and utilise Scots grammar on a daily basis. It is quite IRONIC that you as an Irish speaker come on the website to defend your language as non secterian but your blatent secterianism shines right through your whole argument. Let me make myself clearer. The Irish language isnt secterian, nor are many of its speakers. The Scots language is not secterian, nor are many of its speakers. It is you who are secterian no matter what language you preach in.

It is inaccurate to say that Ulster Scots was invented in the 1990s. It was standardised in the 1990s, a big difference. Scots has been spoken in Ireland since the Ulster plantations, nobody bothered to create a standardised 'language' until recently. I don't know when Irish was standardised (I'm guessing 19th century) but I think most Irish speakers (and nationalists) would highly offended if told that their language did not exist until the 19th century.

Scots might be popular with the Orange Order now but pretty much everybody in Northern Ireland spoke that way at one time.GordyB 15:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has become a fiasco...

Over the last two weeks because of continuous warring this article has become a fiasco, I have seen more sober stuff on Uncyclopedia. The infobox has become untouchable by any sane person.

• Firstly removing the arms and flag of the government from the infobox (which whatever side your on are some of the most recognisable symbols of Northern Ireland) and replacing it with the symbol of the suspended assembly.
• Secondly the warring over the internet tld, substituting .co.ni (like as if the link with Nicaragua is relevant for a infobox which should be a summary) and putting in .ie (that’s a Republic of Ireland contention that it applies to the whole island) really compounds the fiasco because Northern Ireland does not have its own internet tld as a matter of course.
• Thirdly the issue with the official language. Many countries don’t have official languages per say, but rather a de facto official language. Like who are you kidding when you say Irish and Ulster Scots are "main languages"?

In summary, the infobox has more terms and conditions than a mortgage, people should look at England and Wales for guidance when editing (remembering Scotland maybe another battleground of nationalist/royalist). Infoboxes should be short and have quick, recognisable, relevant facts. Warring only reaffirms traditional cultural attitudes of Northern Ireland. Djegan 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with everything you have said there Djegan. To be honest, I think this article always was a fiasco! Who ever added the "good article" tag - this article had never been up to standard as compared to the Scotland or Wales articles.

Currently I think there is way too much of the Unionist v. Nationalist / Protestant v. Catholic crap throughout. When I get some time I'd like to do a major edit to add a lot of non-sectarian info. and add some decent photos.

Jonto 13:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. As a Northern Irish man myself I feel embarassed about this article but I try not to make changes to prevent inserting any POV into it. The article had a type of status quo with everyone agreeing what could be put in it and what couldn't until a couple of weeks ago when a new editor turned up and lit the powderkeg. Ben W Bell 14:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to: "Re the language: Irish is not "official" moreso than any other language, just because the government have committed to promoting it. Also, you may be right that it is offensive to have mention of Irish being put down as the voice of sectarianism, but you lose credibility by launching into a tirade against Ulster-Scots."

I never launched into any “tirade” against Ulster Scots, I was simply giving a just argument on the flip side of the coin. If Irish is to be painted with a sectarian brush, why shouldn’t Ulster Scots? It’s completely one sided to offend Irish speakers, and simply ignore the same derogatory allegations which could be cast upon Ulster Scots, rightfully or wrongfully.

Now on the subject of Irish not having any official recognition more so than other languages, I would disagree. Irish is a recognised, ancient and working language in the modern World, which has been agreed upon by both the Catholic AND Protestant communities in northern Ireland, under purely democratic votes, to be promoted throughout the North of Ireland in different areas and outlets. No other language was given the same level of recognition in the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement, so I would argue that Irish does indeed have more recognition and official usage than any other language bar English in the North of Ireland. Ulster Scots simply does not represent the Unionist community in northern Ireland, more Unionists neither know nor care to know Ulster Scots. It was a modern created dialect created by members of the Orange Order. That is facts which speakers of the dialect support. I have never had a problem with US, I may hold an objection towards the Orange Order because of it’s anti Catholic legislations that it’s members are supposed to follow, but that is neither here nor there.

Pertaining to the article itself, I believe its in a better state than it was, but some areas need cleaned up. The flag issue has been resolved and I believe that if the symbol of the official northern Ireland government is to be removed, then no symbol should be presented, but I do feel that we have at the moment is fine and gives an unbiased representation. The old government of northern Ireland flag is seen by Nationalists and Catholics as a flag of hate, as it was the flag of the government which openly discriminated against them for years and was - as the first “first minister” of the state said: “A Protestant government, for the Protestant people”. It would be totally irresponsible to show an unofficial “flag” which is offensive to half of the North of Ireland. It’s fine as it is.

The info box should remain in tact, perhaps simply remove things that aren’t representative of northern Ireland. I mean, “National Anthem”? That differs from each person and each body which has to choose one. While most see the tune of “Danny Boy” as unbiased, as I do, most would also agree that there is no one clear National anthem of northern Ireland. The term “National” is, in itself, a joke, since northern Ireland can be ruled at a whim by Westminster and by a government which the people of northern Ireland cannot vote for.

Northern Ireland is a bi-National state, it’s one of the most complex areas in Europe with Irish and British citizens, and it’s obviously not going to be as straight forward as other areas for people outside the North of Ireland to write about. In fact, I would go as far as to say that, at this point, no one outside northern Ireland who has not been to or does not know every detail about the state has a warrant to give an unbiased article on it. I would like any people from northern Ireland to join a discussion in here that does not push PoV, but will build towards giving the best article possible, which I believe we may be close to getting. Both sides need representation equally, whether we have ten Nationalists and one Unionist posting, or visa versa. Most of us can interact just fine nowadays with members of the “other” community.

BBX 00:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately BBX I don't believe you can put an unbiased POV on this article, just reading your post above shows that. Every instance of Northern Ireland you have put there is done as northern Ireland, or you refer to it incorrectly as the north of Ireland. Northern Ireland is the name for it, recognised by the entire world including the Republic of Ireland. If you cannot refer to it by it's correct name then you cannot provide an unbiased opinion. Also you have stated that Irish is your native language, a statement that is brimming with agenda as English is the native and by far most used language of both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland with Irish being a language that is added on top in the Republic of Ireland education system. Ben W Bell 08:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ben, just to let you know there are still people whose native language is Irish, both in Gaeltacht areas and elsewhere. I'm not sure if BBX is one of these, however. --Ryano 10:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I do realise that, but there are only about 10,000 of them and BBX states on his user page that English is his native language. Ben W Bell 10:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There aren't very many of them in Co. Antrim, Ryano. Beano ni 18:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Not terribly many in Down, either (my home county). In Down, incidentally, I've noticed an odd nomenclature - most people seem to call Northern Ireland "Ireland" and the Republic "South of Ireland" or "The South". Orderinchaos78 15:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I can understand that the flag and arms are not everybody’s favourite none-the-less I believe that they are better than the corporate logo of the suspended assembly. Using that logo would be comparable to using the shamrock in the Republic of Ireland article, its simply a poor substitute even though it has some legitimacy.

As for the "Northern Ireland is not a nation" argument that simply does not wash, the terms "state" and "nation" are being confused here and they are quite distinct - one is not the same as the other. And to claim that this article is under the exclusive control of Northern Irish people is a non-starter.

One person cannot decide what is and is not appropriate for the article. Djegan 22:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - the flag and arms should be restored to the infobox. I would actually prefer that [this] was Northern Ireland's flag, but just because we don't agree with what the flag SHOULD be doesn't mean that we should try and misrepresent what the current de facto flag actually IS. The argument that [this] should be removed from the Northern Ireland article just because it was used by loyalist paramilitaries is the same as saying the the Tricolour should be removed from the Republic of Ireland article just because it was used by the IRA, or that the Union Jack should be removed from the United Kingdom article just because it is used by the BNP. There is also already plenty of linked info outlining all the flags and emblems issues in considerable detail, so I doubt this will cause any NPoV issues.Jonto 23:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to:

"Unfortunately BBX I don't believe you can put an unbiased POV on this article, just reading your post above shows that. Every instance of Northern Ireland you have put there is done as northern Ireland, or you refer to it incorrectly as the north of Ireland. Northern Ireland is the name for it, recognised by the entire world including the Republic of Ireland. If you cannot refer to it by it's correct name then you cannot provide an unbiased opinion. Also you have stated that Irish is your native language, a statement that is brimming with agenda as English is the native and by far most used language of both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland with Irish being a language that is added on top in the Republic of Ireland education system. Ben W Bell 08:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)"

1. I write “northern Ireland” by habbit, not consicious. If you look correctly you will see I also write “Northern Ireland”, it’s a joke that a capital “N” can be noticed and brought to attention as if it means anything. I also write “North of Ireland”, because that’s how the vast majority of people from Ireland call this area, it’s not a political thing despite what some might like to push others into believe. It is the North of the island of Ireland, big deal. Northern Ireland, North of Ireland, “northern Ireland”, it’s the same thing!

2. “Irish” is my native language. Natives of this island spoke Irish as their language for hundreds of years before the English came, my ancestors are from here, hence, Irish is my native language. English is my first language. I am a speaker of both Irish and English. Is that somehow wrong? No. I have a right to freely celebrate my heritage. A right which I will not have oppressed and labelled as somehow being anything but peaceful and good.

Pertaining to the flag issue, it’s clear that people are not willing to accept equality. The old government of Northern Ireland flag is not displayed in any legal governmental capacity in northern Ireland. The Tri colour of Ireland has more chance of being flown aloft government buildings in Belfast than the old government of Northern Ireland flag.

Nationalists find the old government of northern Ireland flag offensive because it represents a government which openly discriminated against them and forced them into second class citizenship. That is a fact. People can deny it, people can lie about it, but that’s a simple, straight forward fact. What we have now is an unbiased symbol for the state of Northern Ireland. People want to change it into an biased, outdated and offensive standard. And that’s not a “Point of View”? Gimme a break will ya. The sheer fact that people are so worked up about getting the symbol shown over an unbiased OFFICIAL standard, shows a clear pushing of PoV.

BBX 00:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes you have the right to "freely celebrate" your heritage but not on a Wikipedia Article, use your Userpage.

2. When using English "Northern Ireland" and "northern Ireland" are different. northern is a geographic term, while Northern is a used as part of a name (hence the capital letter).

3. What we have now on the top of the article is a corporate logo used on letterheads, which means little or nothing to anyone anywhere. - TheKeith 16:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You’ve misunderstood. I was trying to get across how I don’t like the way my heritage is being labelled as sectarian in the paragraph I brought to attention. The Irish language is a big part of my heritage, as it is for all native people across this island. The language is nothing but peaceful and is celebrated freely by both Catholics and Protestants, Nationalists and Unionists, both sides of the Irish border.

As for the capital “N” it’s a joke that it can picked up on. Northern Ireland is northern Ireland, I would say I didn’t mean offence, because I didn’t it’s simply habit, but I write “northern Ireland” and “Northern Ireland” just as I say “northern Ireland” and “The North of Ireland”. They’re exactly the same.

And for the symbol, the official standard, I can’t state anything I already haven’t. It’s an unbiased official standard for Northern Ireland. Replacing it was a totally biased, unofficial, outdated and offensive symbol would be strongly pushing a PoV and would not give a fair representation of the modern day northern Ireland.

BBX 18:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the United Kingdom so in lieu of NI having it's own official flag then the only flag that is legal to be flown in the country to represent it, the Union Flag, should be used instead. Ben W Bell 18:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Trying to use the arguement that we can only use a flag that has "official" sanction is misleading. In the United Kingdom and its constituent parts convention and tradition are often seen as a fundemental part of life and as important as the law; see Constitution of the United Kingdom. The articles flag of Northern Ireland and list of British flags may provide interesting reading. In any case if someone did cite a relevant legal instrument i am sure you would argue that Northern Ireland is illegitimate anyhow.

Djegan 20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The flag issue is fine as it is. We are discussing Northern Ireland, not the United Kingdom. We have an official standard of NI on the heading of the webpage, and a seperate page - clearly linked in the article - to show all flags which represent NI and those which represent the different "communities" of northern Ireland. We would all like our own PoV's to be represented and our own flags to be shown, but this is 2006 and Northern Ireland is different than it was in the '70s. Using the official standard is the best and only way to go, to fairly represent the people of this area and to give an unbiased representation of the area. Anything else is pushing a PoV, which isn't right.

Ps: I believe it might be a good idea to lock this article. It's open to so much vandilism from both sides, it's gonna be one of the most controvesial articles on the encyclopedia.

BBX 16:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the way this section

Many voters (regardless of religious affiliation) are attracted to Unionism's, free-market policies and "let's get down to business attitude". While other voters are instead attracted to the traditionally leftist, nationlist SDLP and its party platform for Social Democracy.

is worded. For starters, it's tendentious and secondly it's not accurate. There are five main political parties. Currently, the largest unionist party is the DUP, the largest nationalist party is Sinn Fein. Then you have the UUP, the SDLP and the Alliance. None of these parties are remotely free-market and the SDLP is a middle of the road slightly conservative social democrat party, they are not "leftists". Anyone unfamiliar with NI reading the article would get the wrong impression of NI political parties. I also doubt that any of the parties really have a "get down to business" atitude. Mcgahon 08:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

With respect McGahon, the DUP is very much a free-market (read: capitalist) political party. I agree with your assessment of the "let's get down to business" phrase. --Mal 08:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Re the DUP, I've just had a quick scan of their manifesto and my impression remains that, as with the other parties in NI, they have little interest in economic matters and are more concerned with the typical political issues in NI. It seems to me that there is very little discussion in NI generally about the economy and none of the conventional "free market" issues, tax, (de-)regulation, privatisation, etc. appear in the DUP manifesto. The only reference to "tax" I could find was about water charges, the only reference to "regulation" was to do with waste management and EU regulations and there was no reference to privatisation at all. I have no problem saying they are a conservative party or a party of the right, but "free market" has a specific connotation (of classic/neo-/economic liberalism) which doesn't really apply to the DUP. Mcgahon 11:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, historically the ideology of both unionist parties is that of the free-market. I wouldn't press the issue personally, when it comes to writing the article, because the DUP have never been tested in the matter of economic policy, as that is all controlled via Direct Rule. --Mal 09:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"Free market" and "Conservative" don't mean the same thing, even though many free-marketeers call themselves "conservative" and many conservatives praise the free market. Historically the UK Tory party weren't free market - "Laissez-Faire" was the policy of the old Liberal party, not the Tories. Margaret Thatcher was the first Tory PM to be notably pro-free-market. That the unionist parties supported her was probably more to do with her attitude towards Republicanism and the more traditionally conservative aspects of Tory policy. I doubt that most of the people involved with the UUP or the DUP would be familiar with F.A. Hayek. The "ideology" of the Unionist parties is unionism, that's all. Economics doesn't come into it. AS you note, under their favoured direct rule, economic policy is ceded to whoever is in power in Westminster, Labour or Tory. So why mention economic policy at all. It's less misleading to simply elide the reference to "free market" than it is to retain it. Mcgahon 07:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you repeating what you already said about Conservatism? Hullo?!? You might doubt this, that or the other about whoever, but until you actually talk to one of them, I'm afriad you'll probably remain in the dark about it.

On another note of your ignorance regarding Unionism - Direct Rule is NOT Unionists' favoured constitutional status. Don't try to imply that is what I had said, thank you. --Mal 09:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not getting through: Conservatism does not equal "free market". This is pretty well attested. you are applying your own POV into what should a neutral description. Mcgahon 10:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What's not getting through? I am aware of difference between the Conservative Party and capitalism and a mixed economy. In relation to the politics of the UK, the DUP lean towards free market ideologies. I am not applying POV to anything, as I've not made any edits regarding the issue. Stop being so patronising. --Mal 16:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I call bullshit. If you're going to come up with a statement like "the DUP lean towards free market ideologies" when they patently don't, please offer something to support it. I noted above that I scanned their manifesto for any evidence of same and couldn't find any. Now that was just a scan, but I've never heard anything so much as a hint of a "leaning towards free market ideology" from the DUP. I'm prepared to be corrected but not on the basis of some bland throwaway remark. As it happens "in relation to the politics of the UK", the DUP is considerably less free market (but more conservative!) than the Labour party! The reason I'm mentioning your POV is that you appear to wilfully conflate conservatism and "free-market Ideology" to the extent that you are prepared to argue against a non-controversial edit - replace "free market" with "conservative". I'm at a loss as to why this is so problematic. The point of such an edit would be to present a more accurate picture - anyone unfamiliar with NI or the UK might be misled into thinking the DUP was some sort of deregulating, tax-cutting, privatising party. While I'm at it, I'm going to come back to your insistence that unionists don't favour direct rule. Unonists most certainly favour direct rule compared to joint authority and a signicant proportion of Unionists favour direct rule compared to power-sharing with SF and these are the only options on the table at the moment. Mcgahon 17:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No mate - if you're going to disagree with the fact that the DUP lean towards capitalism, when they patently do, please offer something to support it. You can't see any mention of their economic poicies on their website, yet you feel able to make your own "throwaway comment" that they are somehow "considerably less free-market" than the Labour Party. You're arguing against yourself Im afraid. Enjoy.

As for your insistance that unionists favour direct rule over and above any other form of local government.. well you obviously aren't a unionist for a start, as you have little understanding of them. --Mal 07:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

McGahon, it might interest you to know that I have changed the relevent entry in the article. My main reason is because, as I suggested, the Unionist parties have not been in a position to demonstrate their economic policies for over 30 years now, due to Direct Rule. I try to never let an argument or duscussion get in the way of facts! ;) --Mal 20:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

i am an Irish Catholic a lot of abuse in this article that has been thrown at the Irish (Gaelic) language. Many sectarians, Ulster Scots or people from all Protestant denominations have treated the Catholic peoples as the scum of the earth for 100's of years. They have tryed to trample our believes, ways of life and our language ever since they came to this land. They now believe that because they have been here for so long that the Irish will just accept everything that has happened to them. Then if you believe these things you are wrong.

I myself have no problems with members of Protestant denominations and am happy to live along side them in peace, but what I do have a problem with is the UVF, LVF, the Orange Order and various other Loyalist groups. These groups do their best to cause as much bother and damage to the Catholics and Republicans. For instance the Orange Order have marched threw clearly Catholic areas and caused riots in a clear attempt to stir trouble. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OisínDonnel (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC).

I think most people who believe in the rule of law and democracy have problems with paramilitaries but this isn't really the place to discuss them. If you have a problem with this specific article you can add it here. Also if you would sign your posts with four tides ~~~~, it will add your name and date to the end of your post, a bit like this... <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> theKeith  Talk to me  18:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Official Language reversions

Okay, fact time. Irish is not an official language of Northern Ireland, it is recognised but not an official language, government is not done in the language but in English. It is also not a language that is spoken by 87% of the population as someone has claimed. In the Republic of Ireland, 1.6 million people claim some knowledge of the Irish (yes Irish, Irish is a language, it is part of the Gaelic group but Gaelic itself isn't an actual language). That 1.6 million is less than half the population of the RoI, and of those less than 550,000 claim fluency. Now in Northern Ireland, which this article is about, only 160,000 people claim knowledge of Irish, and less than half of them claim fluency. Now since 160,000 represents less than 10% of the population of Northern Ireland I do not see where this ridiculous claim that 87% of the country speaks the language comes from. Ben W Bell 19:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In answer to Ben W Bell I would just like to say that you are clearly diluded. Are you unaware of the fact that all Catholic schools have Irish on their curriculum. The fact that Irish is not spoken by all Catholics and Nationalists is because the English came here and trampled and beat the Irish language out of everyone who spoke it. The fact that you have got to except is that the Gaelic language is more widely spoken now than it has been for hundreds of years. By OisínDonnel

I have no problem with keeping flag, I personally support the usage of the St. Patrick's cross with the Shamrock centre flag, and hopefully a more non biased flag will be used soon, but w/e. So long as it's clearly labelled as the former government of NI standard. Being "de facto" is whatever people believe it is. Some people, from both Ireland and internationally, view the Irish Tricolour as the de facto.

I do want to report something serious though:

WildIrishMan Vandilising

I would ask those "in power" to please take a look at the history page. WildIrishMan has removed factual information pertaining the the N. Ireland census, and added in untrue and ufactual information to strongly push his PoV.

I would ask that this is please deal with ASAP. I noticed how quick Nationalist points are removed, now how long will this be allowed to go?????

Please sign your comments. --Mal 20:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling any Adults posting here

I've just had a jook at the "history" section for this page, seems like some people have been busy boys and girls. There is so many Kid's here it isn't even funny anymore. People, act like adults for this one. Ok. Here's my opinion. If anyone would do me a favour and actually get back to me on this, I'd appreciate it. Let's a have simple, discussion.

1. National Language. There is none, we've learned that. It's over. English is the working language like it is in a lot of countries, it doesn't MAKE you English, or British, or Australian or American. Irish is spoken by a lot of people, and is the native (historic) language of the island of Ireland, so it has some recognition. A smaller number practice Ulster Scots. Let's leave it as it is. It clearly states there is no official language. I believe it's fine. Can we agree to settle this?????

2. National Anthem. Now this one is a joke. There is no "National Anthem" of Northern Ireland. God save the Queen is the anthem of England and the United Kingdom, though unofficial I believe. We are discussing northern Ireland, not the United Kingdom. There is as much reason to put "National anthem" on the Northern Ireland as there is to put it on the South East England (or whatever region it is) page. It's nit picking guys.

The De Facto, UNBIASED anthem for northern Ireland is Danny Boy/Londonderry Air. The Irish FA play Gstq, big deal, the Commonwealth Games play Danny Boy. On a discussion note, the I.F.A have discussed played it in their new stadium. Now as far as I'm aware, the Irish FA don't make laws pertaining to the State. They wonder why so little Nationalists turn out to n. Ireland games????? Oh come on, get real. They know exactly the reason.

Put Londonderry Air there if it's so important to People's PoV to have a "National Anthem" there. Pointless argument, absolutely pointless.

I don't want People ganging up on me. I'm a Nationalist from Belfast, yes, but I didn't actually want to believe there was this much bitternes still going on in the Province. I have many Unionist/Protestant friends - I really don't care about my friends political affiliation. I'd like for a mature Unionist poster, who is open about it, to discuss this with me, someone who actually socialises and knows we're not in the '70s anymore. People come on, this isn't the place to be acting like Kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude1 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 7 March 2006 --Mal 01:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I was about to start a subheading on this talk page, though I see you've already addressed the points I was going to address Wikidude1. The official language, as such, is that which is used by all the people, and in official government documents and legislation etc. that would be English. Now, before you consider I'm expressing POV, I have to say that yes - I do consider myself unionist, and I'm also from Belfast. But I also support the survival of the Irish Gaelic language. I should note that Gaelic isn't necessarily the "native" language of Ireland, as it replaced whatever language(s) was(were) used by the people of the island(s) before their arrival. But it was the 'native' language by the .. what - 6th century AD?.. up until the imposition of English on the Irish people. One possible compromise would be to simply change to "Language(s)", and list them in order of popularity of use (English, Irish, Ulster-Scots?).

Regarding the National Anthem, Londonderry Air was adopted by the NI government as the national anthem. Its interesting to note the wikipedia entries for the other constitutional countries of the UK. The claim seems to be that "God Save the Queen" is not the 'offical' anthem and nor does it appear to be the official anthem of the UK. However, GSTQ is always used (as far as I can determine) when it comes to 'official' (countrywide, as opposed to regional) events and has thus surely become de facto. As "countries within a country", therefore, the 'de facto' anthem for each part of the UK would surely be GSTQ. However, as there is already a UK article, which explains the usage of the anthems, I could logically propose that we drop the anthem entry from the infobox completely. And do the same for the other three UK regions for consistency, and put a note in the main body somewhere.

The NI flag was adopted by the government of 1920 - 1972 also. But the official flag of Northern Ireland is actually (whether you agree with it or not - and no offence is implied) the Union Jack. I would propose that we keep the Northern Ireland flag until such time as perhaps the Assembly is back up and running, and decides to adopt a different flag.

The problem is, I think, that the UK has no written constitution. Laws, rules and policy are determined by practical implementation - Common Law. The other main problem is that Northern Ireland's constitutional status within the UK is, obviously, not 'accepted' by every person in NI. To be an elected MP for example, it is the custom of the country to swear an oath of allegience to the monarchy. The problem in that sense, as I see it, is the acceptance of the established facts: that NI is part of the UK; that the nationality (de facto again!) of its people is British; that it is part of a country which is a monarchy; that it was created to ensure the Protestant majority of the region was, in fact, the majority. Again, I mean no disrespect or offence by stating these things - I merely offer them for discussion and reasoning (and, with regard to nationality, I'm aware of course of the similar de facto situation regarding being an Irish citizen). Anyway, I hope that is a mature enough response to your points, even if you should disagree with any or all of my suggestions and 'facts' as I understand them. To summarise then, I would suggest dropping the 'national anthem' from the infobox in favour of a note in the main text; keeping the flag as is; adjusting the languages part to reflect common usage. --Mal 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with keeping flag, I personally support the usage of the St. Patrick's cross with the Shamrock centre flag, and hopefully a more non biased flag will be used soon, but w/e. So long as it's clearly labelled as the former government of NI standard. Being "de facto" is whatever people believe it is. Some people, from both Ireland and internationally, view the Irish Tricolour as the de facto. Despite what this website - which in my opinion is making me, as a Nationalists, feel very unwelcome, claims - I believe a United Ulster and a United Ireland are sooner coming than reported here. My ideal Ireland is for four self governing local assemblies of the provinces, operating as part of a Reunited, Political Ireland. Scots decendant people have nothing to fear in a united nine county Ulster were they celebrate their culture freely with their Irish neighbours, as part of a thirty two county, Political Nation.

I'm assuming this comment is from you Wikidude1. Please sign your comments mate. As for the Patrick flag with the shamrock in the middle - sounds ok-ish. I'd like a red hand in it for historical reasons (I appreciate the red hand of Ulster has been hijacked by certain paramilitaries, but I'm claiming it back!). The crown would probably be best omitted and the 6-pointed star too. For the minute though, the NI flag is the semi-official one, and I guess that should remain for now, and as you say - label it as the former flag of the govt. The Tricolour cannot be viewed as de facto, no matter what foreign people my think (and, let's face it, many foreigners think many things, and not all of the things they think are correct!), because the majority of the Northern Irish people reject the notion. The govt of the RoI have also ammended their constitution as part way an acceptance of this. If you believe that a United Ireland is going to come sooner than articles here report (though I have to say that I've not noticed any article so far that suggests a time frame for this happening), I'd certainly be glad to discuss that with you - probably best as a separate discussion from this talk page. The other points you make are not directly related to this article either, though I personally appreciate hearing your viewpoints. Regarding your suggestions, since you offered them, I have to say that you appear to have a simplistic view (no offence) of these people you think that should have nothing to fear: while I have some Scottish ancestory (my granda's granda was a Scottish Quaker), all the rest of my roots are Irish. I do think your suggestion excludes any desire to remain British, as part of the British political entity. In my case, and with respect, that's not acceptable. That's my personal opinion though, and nothing I think either of us should get upset about. :) --Mal 21:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I do want to report something serious though:

WildIrishMan Vandilising

I would ask those "in power" to please take a look at the history page. WildIrishMan has removed factual information pertaining the the N. Ireland census, and added in untrue and ufactual information to strongly push his PoV.

I would ask that this is please deal with ASAP. I noticed how quick Nationalist points are removed, now how long will this be allowed to go?????

Please sign your comments. I've not looked at the article for the changes made by this editor, and I'm putting Northern Ireland on the backboiler for the minute in any case. But my suggestion would be to remove a LOT of the references to the troubles and political ideologies, stating only a basic summary (if at all possible!), and concentrate more on the many other aspects of Northern Ireland. Ideologies and politics are best left to other articles such as Unionist (Ireland) and Irish nationalist etc. Obviously there's a certain amount of overlap with both UK-related subjects and RoI-related subjects, though I would personally like to see both of those aspects pruned as much as possible so that its specifically geared towards these 6 of 9. --Mal 21:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'd probably agree with that. I do believe it's an absolute joke that they're using a small scale, unofficial opinion poll to give facts. I mean, come on, a majority of Catholics don't support a United Ireland????? That's the biggest load of horse crap I've ever heard. 40% of Norn Ireland support Nationalists parties with main goals of a reunified Ireland for Pete's sake! This place is unbelievable at times.

Is there a way of lodging a complaint?

I'm getting tired of being trolled by user Ben W. Bell and his constant anti Nationalist views. Each and every valid point I insert is removed because it's Nationalist, whereas any Unionist points are kept in - rightfully so of course - but this bigetory has to stop. Does anyone know if there is a way to lodge a complain to a competant person in power around here?

Please SIGN your comments. Otherwise its not easy to find out who you are and where your talk page is, if anyone wants to contact you about issues you've raised. --Mal 20:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry what have I done? If this is user BBX then looking through the history yes I did revert an edit of yours recently. However that was not actually intentional, I was reverting back because an anonymous user had deleted a massive chunk of the article including all the links, references and other items, almost half the article. Reverting was the easiest way to get it back. Checking what you had done afterwards I have no problems with the edit you made and I'm sorry I didn't go back in and re-add them. Ben W Bell 08:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition I revert and alter many Unionist edits to these sort of pages as well when they are very POV. On articles such as this it is important to maintain a neutral POV on the page. If you check my histories while yes there may be more reversion of nationalist POV than unionist POV, but that is just pure numbers as these articles are historically more likely to be POV'd to nationalist leanings. And watch who you are calling anti-nationalist as you have no idea as to my actual political views on this topic, and probably never will as my views don't come into an encyclopaedia. I deal solely in facts as accepted by the world. Ben W Bell 08:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough I apoligse, the constant change from "good" to "rubbish" or "PoV" on this article is getting tiresome for me, your name was really only the first I saw a few times in the history page. I didn't mean to cause any offense personally, I'm just trying to vent a few fustrations about the subject. Again, I didn't mean any personal offense.

PS: The article as of the time of writing this, flag and all, are close to totally neutral as we're going to get. If only someone could lock the page eh.

Van Morrison was wrong

Wikidude: you put a quote in the article (which has since been removed) by Van Morrison:

Perhaps Belfast born singer/songwriter Van Morrison put it best when he proudly declared "I'm Irish and a British subject."[1]

But Northern Irish people gain British citizenship by virtue of being born in the UK to Northern Irish parents - they are not "subjects". Subject status was reserved for British overseas and commonwealth citizens, but that nominclature was changed in the early 1980s I believe. --Mal 00:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The term British subject has a restricted meaning today. In its statutory sense it only encompasses those holding British nationality solely by connection with India, Pakistan or the Republic of Ireland prior to 1949. JAJ 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Though its more than just India, Pakistan and the RoI. --Mal 23:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The only way one can be a British subject under the British Nationality Act 1981 is through a connection with India, Pakistan or the Republic of Ireland before 1949. People connected with other former colonies or territories of the UK may have a different status, such as British Overseas citizen or British National (Overseas) but these persons are not British subjects in the statutory sense of the term. Nor are British citizens. JAJ 23:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We're agreeing here quite a lot.. though I had thought that other regions (other than Pakinstan, India and the RoI) had previously been known as "subjects" before the change in policy/law regarding that usage. Either way, Van the Man was quite wrong. --Mal 01:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Prior to 1983 the term "British subject" had a much wider statutory usage in British law, including Citizens of the UK & Colonies, citizens of Commonwealth countries, and British subjects without citizenship (certain persons from India, Pakistan and RoI). From 1983 the term only applied to the third category as far as statute is concerned. However the term British subject may still mean in a more generic sense a subject of Her Majesty in right of the United Kingdom, which includes all categories of British nationality other than British protected person (five categories in total). JAJ 01:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see what you're saying here. I'm not sure that those people are truly subjects though. As far as I can see, to be truly (or officially, if you like) considered a British subject, a British citizen would have to be a knight or similar..? --Mal 01:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really. There are two different definitions of "British subject" out there - a statutory definition under the British Nationality Act 1981 (sections 30-35) and a more generic concept of being a subject of Her Majesty in right of the United Kingdom (as distinct from other Commonwealth Realms such as Australia or Canada). Being knighted doesn't make you a "British subject" - you have to be a British subject (in the generic sense of the term, which includes British citizens) to get a substantive knighthood. There is also such a thing as an honorary knighthood. See List of honorary British knights (the distinction between the generic and statutory definition of British subject is also discussed on the talk page). The Home Office Immigration & Nationality Directorate generally use the term "British subject under the 1981 Act" to make it clear they are using the statutory definition of British subject. JAJ 01:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OK so, with reference to Van Morrison's quote, he would have been referring to a general perceived concept, as opposed to an official label. In that sense then, he is not entirely wrong then. --Mal 01:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct, except that usually the term "British subject" is used as a substitute for "British citizen" when the latter term is the more appropriate one for the context. JAJ 02:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OK I'd agree on that, though I think to call a British Citizen a "British Subject" is possibly wrong, though that may be just my own personal point of view. Certainly, British Citizen is more correct when talking about the average UK resident. I'm not particularly pro-Monarchy.. but I guess I'm not particularly anti-Monarchy either. --Mal 14:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Note on "its" vs "it's"

In modern English it has become correct to use either version. An editor recently changed "it's" to "its" in the article, though there was no real need to. I'm not changing it back of course, because the new edit is just as correct as the original. --Mal 07:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

When did this come in? Everything I've seen says that this is still a recognised difference - and easily the most common spelling error going. Timrollpickering 15:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm...I'm not sure that's true, Setanta. I know it's (or is it its?) often treated that way, but I'm almost 100% positive that with an apostrophe, it's (or is it its?) a contraction meaning "it is" or "it has," and that without an apostrophe it's (or is it its?) a possesive. And regardless of its (or is it it's?) colloquial usage, it would have been wrong to leave a possesive with an apostrophe.--82.83.39.161 15:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I should have been clearer, sorry. It's become acceptable to use the form its for the contraction (it is; it has), though not to change the possessive form into it's. Thus, its acceptable to drop the apostrophe in the contracted form. Apparently however, it's was the accepted form for both in the 19th century. In the last couple of hundred years though, it became correct grammar to only use the apostrophe in the contraction. I didn't actually read the context of the sentence that was changed in the edit by the way (EDIT: So it looks as if what I said in my initial post here was uneccessary, as it was a change made to a possessive form!). --Mal 04:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think it's become acceptable to use "its" for "it is" or "it has"; most certainly not in any institution which actually teaches English. That people commonly make mistakes which are not even registered any longer in spoken language (e.g. in German "wegen dem" instead of "wegen des", or "weil er hat gesagt" instead of "weil er gesagt hat") any longer does not change anything about the rules of the language. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 11:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Better example for the English Wikipedia (though I'll admit exactly those two German examples were the first parallels to come to mind, too): in English, even though like 95% of everyone says "If I was there, I would've (or is it wouldve?)done something" for the conjunctive, that doesn't(or is it doesnt?) make it correct. It has to be "If I were there." Because it's used colloquially does not mean it's correct. --This guy

I beg to differ Nightstallion. While I agree, the established grammar is that the apostrophe is used in the contraction, it has become 'acceptable' to omit it.. as taught to me by an English teacher. --Mal 11:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference to any source that allows its for the contraction? I must say this is the first I've heard of it.

Some might say a little laxity in these rules makes things easier, but I would take the opposite view. It's easier to learn rules of grammar and style when these rules are consistent. Allowing something like its for the contraction just introduces another exception to the rule which must be learned along with the rule itself. A good example is the practice of allowing things like CD's for the plural of CD. Many style guides allow this on the basis of "readability", but I would favour "writability" over readability. The rule "an apostrophe is never used to indicate a plural" is easier to learn than a rule "an apostrophe is never used to indicate a plural except in certain specific cases on which nobody agrees". --Ryano 12:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you Ryano. Its(!) ok for informal writing, but with regard to literature such as this, I think it's(!) important to stick to more rigid rules.

As for my source.. well an English teacher with degrees coming out of her ears, and several other learnéd people have indicated to me that this rule has become more lax in the last couple of decades.

Regarding the plural of CD - I actually thought that people use the apostrophe to denote the missing letters - isc (although obviously nobody does it between the letters as in "C'D"). --Mal 14:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's is a contraction of it is whereas its is the possessive of it. Working for three years in the media with editors, it doesn't appear to be particularly flexible. Orderinchaos78 15:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's cause its not flexible. 82.82.188.159 16:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet I'm just after explaining that it is. --Mal 11:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't consider it in any contexts other than informal ones. Your source may be an English teacher, but it's certainly a minority opinion. Although it may become acceptable in a few decades, it isn't yet.BovineBeast 16:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Justifying lax use because of its rampant overuse does not imply it's correct. Ain't is not a word, but a lot of people use it ... does that make it acceptable to use here? --PaddyM 18:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It would appear you're definitely in the minority on this, Setanta. Quoting from the excellent Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss: The confusion of the possessive "its" (no apostrophe) with the contractive "it's" (with apostrophe) is an unequivocal sign of illiteracy and sets off a simple Pavlovian "kill" response in the average stickler. "It's" and "its" were once interchangeable in the posessive sense, but no longer is this the case.--Kwekubo 19:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Look:

• It's = It is
• Its = possessive

It's (!!) one of the exceptions. No more. End of argument. Jonto 16:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Civillian Deaths

Sutton states that 96.7% of Loyalist killings, 56.8% by the security forces and 43.1% by Republican paramilitaries took the lives of civilians.

Is it not the case that since the killing of republican terrorists (IRA etc) would be registered as 'civillian deaths', and if so the above statement be amended to reflect that? beano 12:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Loyalist terrorists? Nil Einne 11:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

96.7% of Loyalist killings... what about Loyalist terrorists Nil Einne..? (96.7% is incorrect by the way) --Mal 22:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also the whole issue of the term "terrorist". Articles have been written on its meaning and use. If it is used in this article, I hope it is applied to both sides or not at all. Fsotrain09 01:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What issue? I have not seen the word terrorist appear in this article for quite a while, so I don't think it is an issue. My personal opinion is that they should all be labelled what they are: terrorists. However, there seems to be an unoffical and unspoken consensus that articles relating to Northern Irish matters describe these plethora of groups as "paramilitaries". I've stuck by that myself. --Mal 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mal, I was referring to the above comments, and just advising that we keep anything one-sided and/or inflammatory out of the article itself. Thanks for doing that yourself. Fsotrain09 03:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah .. mea culpa. I misunderstood your comment. --Mal 09:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Danny Boy

At the Commonwealth Games, the Northern Ireland team uses the Ulster Banner as its flag and Danny Boy is used as its National Anthem.

Is the official name used for the anthem Danny Boy rather then Londonderry Air? Or if there is no official name, is this the name commonly used to describe the anthem in the media? This wouldn't be surprising since I expect we would have a Londonderry/Derry Air controversy otherwise but can someone confirm it's the case? If it is, can someone update the Londonderry Air article appropriatly Nil Einne 11:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Danny Boy is a song played "to the tune of Londonderry Air". Basically I think, without the lyrics, the song is Londonderry Air. There is no controversy surrounding the name: it was always referred to as Londonderry Air despite the controversy surrounding the name of the city and county. --Mal 14:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Stroke City

Can we agree on a compromise when editing articles, that all references to the city be called "Derry" and all references to the county be called "Londonderry" perhaps..? --Mal 06:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally yes its a good idea and principal, the only exception I can think of is for quotations that need to be as is. It is very clumsy in articles having to remind the reader of the correct and incorrect name every time, and particularily in tables where space is limited. Djegan 10:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Section on discrimination

I have edited the section discrimination and deleted some of the information relating to unionist attitudes to discrimination. This is a contentious issue and my reason for doing this is make sure that we keep as factual as possible. Therefore I believe the way the article was edited from my intial contribution was somewhat misleading and not really backed up by the facts. Undoubtably there were and are many unionists who belive discrimination did not occur but the issue was being dealt with by government agencies from as early as 1969 e.g. Cameron Report and I believe the article had been edited to appear that it was only in the 1990 that the majority of unionists finally came to accept discriminationa s a reality. I belive this isn't backed up by the information on the Cain website.

Melaugh decribes it as follows.

"The Unionist Party enjoyed 50 years of control in Northern Ireland without intervention from Westminster. During that time many aspects of the operation of the state continued to benefit Protestants more than Catholics. An element of this was a number of forms of direct and indirect discrimination. Whyte (1983) produced a list of fields where discrimination was practised and ranked them from the greatest level of discrimination to the least. These were, electoral practices, public employment, policing, private employment, public housing, and regional policy. While the extent of direct discrimination in these fields was, and remains, the subject of debate (Hewitt, 1981, 1983, 1985; O'Hearn, 1983, 1985; and Kingsley, 1989) most researchers and commentators accept that this type of discrimination was practised mainly against Catholics over an extended period of time. Perhaps the most important consequence of this was the creation of a perception among the total Catholic population of a more widespread and systematic form of direct discrimination than the currently available evidence would support. Nevertheless, the Catholic allegations of discrimination by a number of local government districts, predominantly in the south and west of the region, were substantiated in many respects by later investigations (Cameron Report, 1969). There is also evidence that Catholics, in a few areas where they were in control of a local authority, discriminated against Protestants. As Catholics were less likely to be in a position to exercise such discrimination there was less of it; this is not in any way to excuse that discrimination which was carried out.

The Civil Rights movement focused British and wider public opinion on the relatively poorer circumstances of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland. Under pressure from Westminster the Stormont government began to introduce a number of reforms in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Some reforms required little more than political will and the introduction of new legislation, and so were implemented fairly quickly. Other difficulties, in particular the relative economic disadvantage of the Catholic community, have proved more problematic. Reforms in this area have taken longer to implement and appear to have had less impact on the situation. At the heart of the problem is a cycle of disadvantage which, while affecting the poorest sections in both communities, is particularly pervasive in the Catholic community. This cycle involves a number of interrelated elements including education, employment, income, housing, wealth, social class, and health.

Issues related to education are considered elsewhere in this book (see Chapter 11) but it is worth noting here that an important effect of the segregated education system is the marked difference in the educational attainment of Catholics and Protestants (Gallagher, 1989). According to Northern Ireland Continuous Household Survey (CHS) estimates, based on samples of the population taken during 1988 to 1991, 52 per cent of Catholics had no formal education qualifications compared to 46 per cent of Protestants (Policy Planning and Research Unit (PPRU) 1993). While differences in educational attainment do not fully explain community differentials in employment opportunities (Eversley, 1989) they are an important factor in the job prospects of each individual."

Therefore I removed the info realting to unionist attitudes to discimination as the rpevious edit was misleading. When can however discuss this further and come to a consensus.# --Strangelyb 18:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you were right to edit. This is indeed a very contentious issue, and is near impossible to summarise succinctly. The Whyte reference mentions something like "discrimination was neither black nor white but most likely a murky shade of grey". The previous mention of unionist denial and opinion, was not balanced with nationalist exaggeration and opinion. Jonto 17:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Religious breakdown

I have removed the addition of the Free Presbyterians as being stated as the third largest religious denomination in Northern Ireland. According to the CAIN website, Free Presbyterians make up around 1% of Northern Ireland's population as compared with Methodists' 4% and Baptists 2%. The data was taken from a 1993 source, and I doubt very much that the percentages have changed enough to place Free Presbyterians ahead of Methodists in the subsequent years.

CAIN had a problem for me, though I was able to access a cached version of the page. --Mal 20:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well since that 1993 source the membership of the Free Presbyterian Church has increased dramatically, however I wouldn't have thought they'd be anywhere near the other churches in percentages still. Ben W Bell 09:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I spent a good few minutes looking through websites to try to find a more current statistical breakdown, but to no avail. If anyone can prove that Free Ps outnumber Methodists in 2001 or more recently, I'd be happy for any change to be made to the article. --Mal 10:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this excel file from the 2001 census will prove invaluable to this and other NI articles. In descending order: Catholic 678,462 (40.26%) ; Presbyterian Church in Ireland 348,742 (20.69%); Church of Ireland 257,788 (15.30%); Methodist Church in Ireland 59,173 (3.51%); Baptist 18,974 (1.13%); Free Presbyterian 11,902 (0.71%) ... (Total population 1,685,267). Given the problems inherent in combining other smaller religions - please be careful using these statistics. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

More on religious breakdown

The leading sentence in the Demographics section says:

"In the 2001 census, 45.5% of the Northern Irish population were Protestant, (Presbyterian, Church of Ireland, Methodist and other Protestant denominations), and 40.3% of the population were Roman Catholic. 13.9% of the population did not specify a religion. [4]"

..Which adds up to 100% when including those of other non-Christian religions. Yet the source quoted says 40.26% Catholic, 39.5% Protestant (Presbyterian, Church of Ireland, Baptist), 6.07% Other Christian, and 0.33% Other religions. The other Christian element includes many Protestants, but also other Christian religions such as 8,502 (0.5%) 'Christian,' Greek Orthodox, 'Believe in God', Non Denominational (1,115), 'Church', Independent, Interdenominational, Charismatic, and numerous other minorities that are not, or may not be, Protestant. It is wrong to include them all in the Protestant figure. This figure is over-inflated. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

..This should be changed to be more accurate, in table format or something. 7 June 2006 16:55 (UTC)