Category talk:Unionism in Ireland

"British" or "Irish"
I see that KarlB is seeking to make this a sub-category of, but "Irish" is not within the meaning of "British". Please discuss the matter here before adding the category again. Moonraker (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to make as if you're somehow not responsible for this... you are the one who created this unilateral split. For many years, the articles about so-called 'Irish' unionism were in the category. This category had previously been proposed to be split or deleted, but it was retained as a single category: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_14. That was the consensus. Then, I recently proposed that this category be renamed, to disambiguate, and make it clear that it should capture all of the unionism in the Isles (hence:, but the anti-British-Isles crowd voted against that, and consensus said that the whole category was to be renamed 'British unionism' - not to describe 'British' as an ethnicity, but 'British' as a goal - you can read the arguments made by others on this point if you want, including BrownHairedGirl, who is not usually one to defend the word 'British'. In any case, the Irish institutions listed in this category were, by and large, part of the United Kingdom during the whole of their existence. I would personally prefer that this whole cat be merged back to 'British Unionism', or barring that, that these cats are all renamed as 'Unionism in Ireland' etc. But please don't be pedantic about how 'Irish' is not in the meaning of 'British' - these are only categories, they are not political statements, and 'Irish' was your name, not mine. I suggest you consider proposing a rename of 'British unionism' category as a start, but don't remove this link until then - these articles have always been together, and just because you devised a new category scheme it doesn't mean they can now be detached. Indeed, the header from  states (and has since 2006): "Articles and sub-categories relating to Unionism in the British Isles"; and again allow me to emphasize that the recent discussion did not suggest that 'Irish' articles needed to be removed, so the creation of a subcat does not change that. --KarlB (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To me this is all foolishness. "British" does not include "Irish" and never did. Separate categories are needed. For now, as you are so obsessive on the point, I shall add a note that the inclusion of the category is disputed and will need to be resolved once the category names have settled down. Moonraker (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet you seem to agree that British includes Scottish? Some Scots, I'm sure, don't agree. In any case, if/when the categories get renamed, this will be hopefully be resolved I think. British_nationality_law_and_the_Republic_of_Ireland useful to read as well, and this British_people: "Although the vast majority of Unionists in Ireland proclaimed themselves "simultaneously Irish and British", even for them there was a strain upon the adoption of Britishness after the Great Famine.[122]" Please don't try to paint this as black and white, identity is very complex and I'm quite sure that none of us understand it completely. --KarlB (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear. Please allow me to clarify this for you. Before 1707 there was the Kingdom of England, whose people were called "English", and the Kingdom of Scotland, inhabited by the Scots, who were called "Scotch" or "Scottish". With the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, the word "British" grew in favour for describing the institutions of the newly united state, and a "British" identity grew up, chiefly based on such institutions, which included the British Army, the British Crown, and the British Empire. "British" referred then, and still does, to the geographical island of Great Britain, which includes present-day Scotland. (The more obsessive unionists invented the name North Britain to replace "Scotland", but this failed to take root.) Many Scots dislike "British" and prefer to be called "Scottish", just as many English people like to be "English". The term "British" has been used since the 17th century to mean the English, Welsh and Scots. There was extensive English, Scottish, and British settlement in Ireland, but the words "British" and "Irish" have been useful for quite a long time now in distinguishing between the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland. This is quite neatly encapsulated in the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Of course, some Irish people (especially some of the Anglo-Irish) identified themselves as British, out of attachment to the British crown, but the notion that "Britain" once included "Ireland", or that "British" ever included "Irish", is incorrect. Moonraker (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)FWIW I'm certainly not trying to suggest that 'Irish' is always a subset of 'British'; I'm just trying to say that for this particular category of articles, which used to be grouped together, now that you've split them by nationality/ethnicity/identity/whatever, it still makes sense for them to have a common parent, which was recently re-named 'British unionism' by a consensus-based process --KarlB (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well, I think the best thing is to agree to review the question once the category names have settled down. In my view, it was a mistake to seek to use "British unionism" for unionism in all the countries of the pre-1922 United Kingdom, and in particular for unionism in Ireland. You will see my comments elsewhere that the problem could be overcome. Moonraker (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more; I was opposed to 'British' as well, for exactly the same reasons. however, many arguments were made that 'British' did not refer to the nationality/ethnicity/identity of the participants, but rather to their purpose somehow - BrownHairedGirl + others made this argument - and made the same argument about Unionism (United Kingdom) - e.g. suggesting that such a category would mean 'those who want/the idea of wanting union with the united kingdom' and not 'unionism within in the united kingdom'. I was not convinced by these arguments.
 * I think most people ended up voting for the rename because the head article was named 'British unionism', and thus felt everything should be under that. Your Unionism (British crown) is an interesting solution, but doesn't seem quite right - was it really just union with the crown that was desired? certainly that is a step, but not the whole package. I'm still partial to Unionism (British isles) but I get the feeling its a non-starter... perhaps we will end up with Unionism (Atlantic archipelago) after all as the only fully-inclusive category (pre-1707 Scotland, pre-1800 Ireland, post 1948 Ireland, etc)--KarlB (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)