Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 11

User:Mabuska trolling over the British Isles dispute.
I just want to flag up User:Mabuska trolling over the current British Isles naming dispute. I know I am being deliberately provoked here. Most people are aware of a ridiculous campaign of a few editors to remove as many references to British Isles from the Wikipedia as possible. The inset image is an image of the British Isles NOT the United Kingdom. Simple as that. I suggest they change the image if they want to change the caption. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect. The map shows the UK in one tone, and other countries in a different tone. The fact that parts of other countries happen to appear within the inset map is irrelevant. There is no need to change the map, which is common to other articles covering parts of the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. You've been reverted by three different editors. Any particular reason you're singling out Mabuska? For that matter, given that you're obviously aware that this is a contentious issue currently under discussion at ANI, is there any particular reason you felt the need to edit war then discuss once you hit the WP:3RR point, rather than discuss first and gain consensus? TFOWR 15:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably because i gave him a warning and warned him of the 3RR that he is one edit away from breaking. His changes aren't discussed or concensused upon. Funnily enough i am for keeping British Isles and don't want its removal from Wikipedia and have fought against it so thats a stupid claim. The image clearly shows Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom - its geo-political parent. Any changes need to be discussed and agreed upon. Mabuska (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am picking up on this because it strikes at the heart of this whole Irish versus British Irish debacle and the way people are going at it. I am sorry if I stuck Mabuska in the green camp but they were also provoking me as I worked by reverting my talk page. I was not "edit warring" with him, I was working at he same time to try and change the caption formatting which I found complex. It is complex.

Ghmyrtle, you state, "The map shows the UK in one tone, and other countries in a different tone".

'''It does not. The first map shows the British isles - e.g. it confusingly shows includes the IoM which is not UK - in two colours.'''


 * TFOWR, I was reverted by one editors before I got blocked. I am sorry but Ghmyrtle and Bjmullan are editors working with HighKing on his ridiculous, and I dare say nationalist campaign, to remove the term British Isles. Bjmullan's revert 8 hours earlier, was not discussed either. Please tell me simply why I should discuss when they should not?

Here is the proposal. The first map show an inset of the British Isles. The second map shows an inset of the UK. We need a caption that matches the map, or a map that matches the caption. Which is it to be?

Northern Ireland is in the British Isles. The map does show the British Isles. The British Isles is a convenient and non-political geographical area. The names comes from some 2,000 year old Italian or Greek. We need to be consistent. We cannot be consistent if the opposition to that consistency is politically and nationalistically motivated campaign to rule the Wikipedia.

How do we fix it?

In this case, if the caption is "Northern Island in the UK", then we should use the second image so as not to offend the Irish who do not want to be reminded they are in the British Isles - and to mistakenly suggest that Ireland and Man are in the UK.

Does that not seem logical? --Triton Rocker (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Northern Ireland is a political entity so the appropriate "higher level" is the UK which is also a political entity. BI is a geographical term.  Accusing Ghmyrtle of being part of a nationalist conspiracy brightened up an otherwise raid sodden day for me in Singapore but it really is a nonsense and you should try and address content issues not attack other editors.  You already have one block, the next will be longer and so on.  Oh, you are confusing etymology with origin by the way.  -- Snowded  TALK  01:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was reverted by one editors before I got blocked. No. And I linked to the page history as well, so you could have checked. Since you apparently didn't bother checking I'll list your edits here for your convenience:
 * 02:41, 16 July 2010 (WP:BOLD, WP:REVERTed by Bjmullan)
 * 14:22, 16 July 2010 (reverted by Mabuska)
 * 14:40, 16 July 2010 (reverted by Mabuska)
 * 14:52, 16 July 2010 (reverted by Ghmyrtle)
 * 16:19, 16 July 2010 (blocked by Black Kite)
 * You were reverted by three different editors (as I previously stated), not one editors [sic] as you claim.


 * I am sorry but Ghmyrtle and Bjmullan are editors working with HighKing on his ridiculous, and I dare say nationalist campaign, to remove the term British Isles. No need to apologise, just don't use the "bad kids made me do it" excuse in future. I'm sick and tired of seeing WP:POV warriors try and blame other editors for their own misconduct. Take responsibility for your own actions - no one forces you to do anything (unless Ghmyrtle and Bjmullan are in the same physical location as you, carrying weapons, in which case let me know and I'll contact the police on your behalf...)


 * Bjmullan's revert 8 hours earlier, was not discussed either. Please tell me simply why I should discuss when they should not? You were WP:BOLD (fine). Bjmullan WP:REVERTed you (fine). All good so far, per bold, revert, discuss. Except instead of discussing the issue you chose to edit war. When making a change from the status quo the onus is on you to get consensus for your proposed change. The first time you were reverted the edit summary was "You are well aware of the discussion currently taking place on this issue", which makes your edit warring after that all the more astonishing.


 * TFOWR 02:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If the Isle of Man were indeed shown in the same tone as the UK, something would need to be done to change it. But, it simply isn't.  Another point on which User:Triton Rocker is mistaken (along with "Northern Island" (sic)).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * TFOWR, did I challenge or revert Ghmyrtle? Here is Bjmullan typically working in cahoots with HighKing.


 * No. I was blocked for two edits against Mabuska who was trolling my talk page at the same time. It was all over before I was scapegoated.


 * I understand the whole idea of the Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it and it changes. If reversion is so evil, why wasn't HighKing been banned or blocked for his obvious and widespread reversal campaign - despite the community vote for it? Why are two edits on one topic worse than dozens across many?


 * Unfortunately, what people write in the edit summaries is not always honest but rather just part of their game - surely you get that?


 * Mabuska told me falsely that I had "no right to remove other editors comments" from my talk page. We all do. So how could anyone assume it was all "good faith"? Like I said, I was working on the complex caption formatting trying to get my edit as I wanted it - NOT editing warring with him.


 * So, Ghmyrtle, is the UK one tone or two? Does the map show the British Isles or not? The answers are two and yes. So why don't we use the other UK only map which is more accurate?


 * Can I change the BI map to the UK map, or can I change the UK caption to a BI caption? Thanks. --Triton Rocker (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither Triton Rocker, neither. Bjmullan (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that a map of the British Isles or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triton Rocker (talk • contribs) 22:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was reverted by one editors before I got blocked - Are you still claiming that, or do you now accept that you were, in fact, reverted by three editors?
 * did I challenge or revert Ghmyrtle? - Doesn't look like it - what's your point?
 * Unfortunately, what people write in the edit summaries is not always honest - True, however in this case it was honest. WP:AGF.
 * If reversion is so evil, why wasn't HighKing been banned or blocked for his obvious and widespread reversal campaign - don't use the "bad kids made me do it" excuse in future. I'm sick and tired of seeing WP:POV warriors try and blame other editors for their own misconduct. Take responsibility for your own actions - no one forces you to do anything
 * Why are two edits on one topic worse than dozens across many? - I don't recall ever saying that (though it's not a bad summary of WP:EW... see WP:3RR, for example) - do you have a diff where I said that? Or are you simply trying to avoid taking responsibility for your actions? TFOWR 22:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't actually know that we were allowed to blank our own talk-pages Triton Rocker until Ghmyrtle pointed it out to me afterwards. I thought everything had to remain, obviously not. But i was hardly trolling seeing as you were removing warnings you'd just recieved and i thought you were trying to hide them and brush them under the carpet. Mabuska (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember if you blank then you are deemed to have read the notice -- Snowded TALK  06:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Back to the inset map, please. Is it a map of the British Isles or the UK? --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It shows the UK. It also shows other adjacent countries in a different tone - but that does not need to be mentioned in the caption because it is obvious.  Your "UK only" map does not differentiate between land and sea, which is highly unconventional to the point of being misleading and silly.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Does it show the just UK ... or the UK within the British Isles? You do accept that such a concept as the British Isle exists, don't you?


 * I am just trying to establish how far this naming phobia goes. --Triton Rocker (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why on earth talk about phobias? The map reflects the common approach over several articles.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Does an island group exist? Yes. Is it often called the "British Isles"?  Yes.  Is that relevant to this map? No. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Every other country map shows and/or states the country and the continent or political union, i.e. EU that it is in. The maps shouldn't exclude any local geographical landmass. Here is another example of an island split into two different states: Haiti and Dominican Republic - both share the same island are both shown with the other half in a different colour yet don't have the tag "within the island of Hispaniola" on them as its not needed and is mentioned in the lede anyways. Same for Papua New Guinea.
 * Oddly enough i have noticed that they all use a "globe" style map whereas European countries don't. They also don't actually have tags of any sort. Mabuska (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've lobbied successfully for the globe-style maps ("Orthographic projections") to be used at most/all continent articles (see, e.g. Europe). I never considered them for countries/states/territories, but looking at Haiti and Dominican Republic they seem to work quite well with insets. TFOWR 11:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So, are we to expect the same campaign from Norwegians and Fins over term Scandinavia (being the ancestral home of the Danes)? Ghmyrtle wrote British Isles. I suppose that is some progress. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Ghmyrtle wrote British Isles." Pardon?  I wrote that the islands are "often called" the "British Isles", which is undeniable.  I made no comment on whether they should be, or on whether they are called that more or less often than they used to be.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is as much an issue with the term Scandinavia especially just like the origins of the term British - it goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks. Pliny the Elder used the term Scantinavia i believe and he lived around the 1st-century AD. - before the Danes i assume. Mabuska (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"claiming to represent"
Just raising this edit since it changed piece of text that might be considered significant and has been a part of the article since 9 August 2006. My 2¢ is that was better as it was. --RA (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would disagree, the new version is better. If, as most people would, you assume "those claiming to represent" refers to the paramilitary organisations, the previous wording paints an extremely narrow version of the Troubles excluding wider events. The riots of 1969 consisted mainly of "ordinary" (for want of a better word) people, the protests against internment and civil rights marches were the same. Then there was Bloody Sunday, the collapse of Stormont, the Ulster Vanguard rallies, the Ulster Workers strike(s), the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Ulster Says No protests against it, and countless other events. All those events were very much part of the conflict, they were not just events that happened at the same time as the bombings and killings. The Troubles was more than just bombings and killings, much, much more. The new wording could be improved probably, but the previous wording was worse in my opinion. There are a couple of other issues with the previous wording too, but it seems pointless to go into those before you have responded to this. O Fenian (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "...years [...] of violent and bitter ethno-political conflict — the Troubles — between nationalists, who are predominantly Roman Catholic, and unionists, who are predominantly Protestant." And yet, people could walk into work on a Monday morning and not beat the heads of each other? It's a little too black and white for my tastes. You're right that the sentence does/did focus solely on paramilitarism (and thus those who "claim to represent" others) but " violent and bitter ethno-political conflict" (my emphasis) is the substance of the sentence. Not all nationalists or unionists were "violent", though those that were claimed to represent them. I take your point that the breadth of the point needs to be widened to take in not only violent nationalism and unionism but the wider "conflict" and how that was played out. But it doesn't do that right now. --RA (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * During the height of the Troubles any Catholic lucky enough to have a job where Protestants worked and dared to reveal their religion usually ended up leaving due to intimidation (and I am sure the same happened in Catholic dominated workplaces, should many have existed), but I digress. I do not have any objection to the current wording being improved, but I do not think simply reverting back to the old version is an improvement. How about adding "caused by the divisions" before "between" and adding a sentence or two after that about the paramilitary side of it, which would lead neatly in to the sentence dealing with the end of various armed campaigns. O Fenian (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. "Northern Ireland was for many years the site of a violent and bitter ethno-political conflict — the Troubles — caused by divisions between nationalists, who are predominantly Roman Catholic, and unionists, who are predominantly Protestant. Unionists want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, while nationalists wish it to be politically reunited with the rest of Ireland." I'd be happy enough with that not to need a sentence specifically about paramilitarism but if you wan to add then then OK. --RA (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Done the first part. I do think a sentence is necessary, since it manages to have paramilitaries calling off armed campaigns before we even say there were armed campaigns. O Fenian (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland isn't a country....
...well thats according to a certain band of users on the Giant's Causeway WP.Pilgrimsquest (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that a look at the FAQ's on The UK Talk page should sort this out. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the Northern Ireland government it is a country.--Jenny Coopers (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And according to the UN it is not. Bjmullan (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Country is not the same as sovereign state though. Reliable sources and this article describe Northern Ireland as a country of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And reliable sources say Northern Ireland is not a country. O Fenian (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The United Kingdom is made up of 4 Countries of the United Kingdom. If we can not call Northern Ireland one, then we can not call England, Wales and Scotland countries either. Personally id be fine with that, they are all just parts of the UK to me. But ive had to accept there are lots of reliable sources describing them as country's, including Her Majesty's Government. Which is the key factor for me. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, O Fenian. If you want to look for sources that prove NI is a country you can find it in a search engine in about 5 seconds. In fact I found this already and it only took me a couple of seconds from ask.com. Theres a lot more out there. Those floodgates look almost ready to open. 16:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) "One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." - S. Dunn and H. Dawson, 2000, An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Edwin Mellen Press: Lampeter
 * 2) "Next - what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? 'Province' won't do since one-third of the province is on the wrong side of the border. 'State' implies more self-determination than Northern Ireland has ever had and 'country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd. 'Colony' has overtones that would be resented by both communities and 'statelet' sounds too patronizing, though outsiders might consider it more precise than anything else; so one is left with the unsatisfactory word 'region'." - D. Murphy, 1979, A Place Apart, Penguin Books: London
 * 3) "Although a seat of government, strictly speaking Belfast is not a 'capital' since Northern Ireland is not a 'country', at least not in the same sense that England, Scotland and Wales are 'countries'." - J Morrill, 2004, The promotion of knowledge: lectures to mark the Centenary of the British Academy 1992-2002, Oxford University Press: Oxford
 * 4) "Not a country in itself, Northern Ireland consists of six of the thirty-two original counties of Ireland, all part of the section of that island historically known as Ulster." - J V Til, 2008, Breaching Derry's walls: the quest for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, University Press of America
 * 5) "Northern Ireland is not a country in itself, but a small fragment torn from the living body of Ireland where now the last act of its long struggle for independence is being played out." - W V Shannon, Northern Ireland and America's Responsibility in K M. Cahill (ed), 1984, The American Irish revival: a decade of the Recorder, 1974-1983, Associated Faculty Press
 * 6) "Northern Ireland (though of course not a country) was the only other place where terrorism can be said to have achieved a comparable social impact." - M Crenshaw, 1985, An Organizational Approach to the Analysis of Political Terrorism in Orbis, 29 (3)
 * 7) "The study compare attitudes in Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, the UK, Holland, Ireland, Italy and West Germany. It also includes Northern Ireland, which of course is not a country." - P Kurzer, 2001, Markets and moral regulation: cultural change in the European Union, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
 * 8) "As I see it, I'm an Irish Unionist. I'm Irish, that's my race if you like. My identify is British, because that it the way I have been brought up, and I identify with Britain and there are historical bonds, psychological bonds, emotional bonds, all the rest of it you know. ... Bit to talk of independence in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is not a country, Northern Ireland is a province of Ireland and it is a province in the UK and I think that the notion of a national identity or group identity or racial identity or cultural identity here is a nonsense." - Michael McGimpsey quoted in F. Cochrane, 2001, Unionist politics and the politics of Unionism since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Cork University Press: Cork
 * 9) "Moreover, Northern Ireland is a province, not a country. Even before direct rule, many of the decisions affecting the economy, labour law, and wage bargaining were in reality taken in London, thereby diminishing the importance of local control." A Aughey, 1996, Duncan Morrow, Northern Ireland Politics, Longmon: London

You are welcome. O Fenian (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're quoting all those books, eh? I may want to purchase some of these books to verify it, do you have all the ISBN numbers for them? If you don't, I don't think that would be allowable to use as a source. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can look for websites, I am sure you can find the ISBN numbers yourself. O Fenian (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think WP:BURDEN comes to mind. It's in your hands. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Burden is fully met, since it does not even mention ISBN numbers. You have the quotes, you have the book titles, you have the authors, you have the publishers. O Fenian (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Where are the page numbers of the sources? Burden is not fulfilled. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Northern Ireland is a country of the United Kingdom. It is highly problematic if people claim its not neutral to state that within other articles, provided the UK is mentioned still i do not see the problem anymore as its reliably sourced. The suggestion to put Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) in that template on the other article addresses peoples concerns. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We have "Infobox U.S. state", "Infobox German State". Maybe it is time for "Infobox country of the United Kingdom". No argument, NI is a part of UK, but what both use the same template? However Hong Kong is a "country", so maybe there is no problem at all. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Burden is fulfilled including direct quotes, it is nothing but disruption to suggest otherwise particularly as it is not even being added to an article. O Fenian (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support a single Infobox for the countries of the United Kingdom, although that idea is likely to get a hostile reception on Scotland and Wales. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it not generally consensed upon that we have Northern Ireland stated as a country? Unless we want to open a huge debacle of a debate on the issue again, i think we should stick with the general concensus. Even though in all technicality its a province of the UK. Though if we changed this article we would have to change the England, Scotland, and Wales articles as they are not proper countries in the sense that the USA or France are. Mabuska (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "So you're quoting all those books, eh?" &mdash; That's generally how we work around here.
 * The matter is one of NPOV. Some sources refer to Northern Ireland as a "country". Some sources refer to it as a "province". Others as a "region". Some take the time to explain that is it more complicated than simply a matter of picking one and running with it; and that one's choice it is likely to represent (or to be perceived to represent) one point of view on the politics of Northern Ireland.
 * We're better that that around here - or at least we aim to be - we try to go for a neutral point of view, not just any one POV because it suits us. NPOV is not going to be achieved by anyone saying, "We have refs so it doesn't matter if you have refs that contradict us - even if they comes from the same sources as ours or are ones that delve deeper into this question".
 * "Country" is workable with respect to England, Scotland and Wales. It is tenuous with respect to Northern Ireland (particularly when speaking particularly about Northern Ireland) and likely to be disputed, including by reliable sources, as it regularly is on this talk page. It is far, far from NPOV with respect to the Northern Ireland article, regardless of whether it is suitable for use on United Kingdom (even where that article refers to its constituent parts) or whether it is suitable for England, Scotland or Wales to be described as countries. --RA (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding Scotland, you may be interested to know that Scotland "has been refused admission to the International Cricket Conference on the grounds that it is not a country".. O Fenian (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * lol BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The sources we use to justify England, Wales and Scotland being described as countries today mostly also say Northern Ireland is one. If Northern Ireland can not be called a Country of the United Kingdom then nor can England, Wales or Scotland. And all will need to be changed if there is a change in the present consensus to call Northern Ireland a country. From some of the comments above maybe it is time this issue was re-examined in full? But my position is if EWS are "countries" today then Northern Ireland is. If Northern Ireland is not a country, England and Scotland use to be countries, but they are not any more. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BW you keep linking to wikipedia, of course you know that wikipedia is not a reliable source Mo ainm  ~Talk  19:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All relevant sources can be found Countries of the United Kingdom. The most important one is this source.... If Her Majesty's Government says England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are countries, then it is fact. However i must confess i note the page no longer appears available on Downing Street website, which is troubling.. because that is the core source ive always accepted. Perhaps we do need a full debate on the status of the "Countries of the United Kingdom". But as ive said before, if England, Wales and Scotland are countries, then Northern Ireland must be. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The topic of this article is Northern Ireland. Nothing else. What may be an appropriate way to describe one thing may not be an appropriate way to describe another (or even the same thing in different contexts).
 * Incidentally, the Countries of the United Kingdom article (as well as this one) cites the Her Majesty's Government's submission to the Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names, where the correct nomenclature for Northern Ireland is explicitly described as being "province". --RA (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You may also wish to review these over at Constituent country. O Fenian (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The 4 countries of the United Kingdom are clearly connected. We can not take this one country in isolation. If Northern Irelands status is to be changed, England, Wales and Scotlands must be as well. Reliable sources including from HMG, describe it as a country. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Although a seat of government, strictly speaking Belfast is not a 'capital' since Northern Ireland is not a 'country', at least not in the same sense that England, Scotland and Wales are 'countries'." (Morrill: 2004, Oxford University Press)
 * Reliable sources treat them differently in respect to this question, therefore so do we. --RA (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone could post up a picture of the flag of this so called country? And maybe the national anthem as well? Bjmullan (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the Ulster Banner is one of the best known flags of Northern Ireland. God save the Queen/Londonderry Air are used as anthems for them. The anthem issue is not a problem, England faces the same issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So is the Ulster Banner the official flag for the country? Or is it the fact the NI is a province that it doesn't have a flag and hasn't had one since 1972? Bjmullan (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well how do we define officially. Do all countries have an official flag/anthem? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's start with what is flown on the parliament building? If you walk down the Royal Mile in Edinburgh to the ugliest building in the world (and one of the most expensive to boot) you will see the Scottish Saltire flanked by the Union and EU flags. What do you find in Belfast? Bjmullan (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lmao well we agree on the building. But the flag being flown over a building changes nothing. What about before the parliament of Scotland was created? The Ulster banner is flown for Northern Ireland at some sporting events. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But we are going off the point, im not requesting a flag be added (although it would be nice if the ulster banner or union flag was displayed), where in the rule book does it say a country must have a single official flag and a single official anthem? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Most people--those who aren't politically radicalised--will think of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland as countries/nations, and Northern Ireland as a section of Ireland (the nation) and a province of the UK (the sovereign state). Sometimes, because of the current political structure, we are forced to talk of and treat Northern Ireland like Scotland and Wales for certain matters of convenience, but normal people don't usually think of it as a "country" in the same way (not outside a football/sporting context). British Watcher thinks it ought to be thought of the same way ... well, it isn't (and you must know this from your own experience). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If England, Wales and Scotland are countries, then Northern Ireland must be too. I find this whole issue rather ironic though because when i first joined wikipedia i myself was unhappy with the fact the introductions of countries of the UK had been changed to say they were countries. Ive had to accept that reliable sources do describe northern ireland as a country, along with England, Wales and Scotland. I wouldnt mind if the term country for all these entities was removed, but they must be treated the same way. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You must distinguish what you believe ought to be the case from what is actually the case. The idea that all four must have the same degree of country-ness is your own. [Rightly or wrongly] People don't think of them like that, Northern Ireland being thought a part of the nation of Ireland. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Regarding Scotland, you may be interested to know that Scotland "has been refused admission to the International Cricket Conference on the grounds that it is not a country".. O Fenian 19:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)" LOL. FIFA seems to recognize both Scotland and Northern Ireland.
 * AgadaUrbanit is right on with the infobox suggestion.
 * It may not be a country in the sense that some editors traditionally accept but enough sources call it a "country" to make any debate pointless. Cptnono (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well either way there has been a consensus and stable agreement to describe the 4 as country's on wikipedia for a couple of years now. This must be put to a wider debate if we are seriously attempting to change the status of Northern Ireland because it does have an impact on the status of England, Wales and Scotland. All must be consulted. If this is not a serious debate, and despite our own opinions we know that Northern Ireland must continue to be called a country, then we may as well implement the change on the article in question that caused this debate to start as people were blocking attempts to describe it as country suggesting it was not neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Any debate about whether Northern Ireland *is* or *is not* a country is a little misconceived, surely. The term is somewhat vague, and can be used in different contexts by different people - or even the same people - to mean different things. NI is obviously one of the greyer areas that reflect that point. Also, something can be a country while also being something else, eg a province, region, nation or whatever (and there are of course issues with each of those terms in respect of NI). Common sense, but also the sources make this rather obvious: there are plenty that say - sometimes fairly explicitly - that it is a country, others that say it isn't; others might use the term casually, or not happen to use it on one occasion but without intending to imply that they wouldn't use it at all. It's a common description for example in the media - eg here on the BBC, where it has a "country profile"; also, more casually, here in the Irish media. As it is, as noted, in government literature, eg here. Plus, lest we forget, in the comments of government ministers past. The fact that the place was carved out of another country and currently forms part of a different constituent state does not mean, either by definition, by common use or according to the sources, that it is "not" a country, nor that it is necessarily politically motivated for people to describe it as such. Equally, it doesn't necessarily follow from the fact that we might describe Scotland, England and Wales as countries that we have to do the same for NI - there's no reason in principle why the separate consituent parts of the UK should not have a different description/status. Anyway, not sure how any of that helps us come to an answer, but there are some statements above that are a little too definitive one way or the other. It's certainly not wrong to describe it, following sources, as a country. Or - additionally or alternatively - as a province or region. But neither is it obligatory to do any of those in all cases.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the definition of a country? Unless a generally accepted definition can be produced and decision made on the matter would constitute Original Research (using your brain), which is not allowed on wikipedia.--ZincBelief (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's broadly understood - with or without sources - what is meant by a country. This, however, is one of those cases at the margins where everything's a bit fuzzy, due to the slightly odd status of NI and the inevitable fact that most classifications and descriptions are subjective to some degree. Just because there's no precise right or wrong answer here, doesn't mean we have to junk the whole concept, even in respect of NI. I'm not sure it's a problem of orginal research as such.  N-HH   talk / edits  14:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You must ask what are the motivations for removing the statement... i'm sure for some of the biggest opponents of it its hardly because its in the best interests of Wikipedia - assuming good faith or not. WP:IDONTLIKE comes to mind. Mabuska (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Country" proposal

 * The impetus for the change to include "country" here was a resolution to the dispute about use of the word "country" on the Scotland and Wales articles (primarily) and to a lesser extent the England article. Although it was known to those involved in that discussion that the term was problematic in relation to Northern Ireland, the needs of this article were put into second place ahead of the needs of resolving disputes on the other three. (Consistency across the articles was seen as being a crucial element to a "deal".)
 * The failing behind that decision should be obvious: articles need to be written in terms that are decided by what is appropriate (i.e. NPOV) to the topic they describe, not what is convenient for other articles. "Consistency" across articles is of far less importance than taking the necessary time to appropriately describe each topic itself ... in what ever terms are necessary to do so properly.
 * For example, while this is not an explicit suggestion for a re-write, something that would be more appropriate to Northern Ireland IMHO would be akin the following:
 * "Northern Ireland (...) is a largely self-governing part of the United Kingdom situated in the north-east of the island of Ireland. Along with England, Scotland and Wales, it is one of the what are called the four countries of the United Kingdom, although in the case of Northern Ireland country is seen as less appropriate compared to the other three and the terms province and region are used also. It shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west. At the time of the 2001 UK Census, its population was 1,685,000, constituting about 30% of the island's total population and about 3% of the population of the United Kingdom."
 * --RA (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems OK to me, other than that:
 * a) "of the what are called the .." is arguably a bit OTT and/or redundant. The problem there might be solved by instead saying "it is one of the constituent countries of the UK". Adding the word constituent seems a neater way of qualifying the word country and being a bit more formal and specific.
 * b) the "seen as less appropriate .." phrase is also possibly too much by way of detail and commentary. Simply saying "it is also referred to as a province or region" is probably enough, IMO.
 * So, the second sentence would read something more like - Along with England, Scotland and Wales, it is one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom, although it is also referred to as a province and region.
 *  N-HH   talk / edits  14:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Constituent country" is fine by me but others have objected to it in the past (I believe because they do not want Scotland or Wales described as anything other than "country" plain and simple).
 * Removing "of the what are called the" is better. In my view not for being redundant but for being weasel-ish.
 * I think the "seen as less appropriate" is the point however and is supported by refs e.g Morrill:2004. it could be rephrased better though.
 * --RA (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The subject has been discussed numerous times before (editors should refer here). This is a FAQ. Previous consensus has been for there to be no change from the description given by the UK government. I agree with current introduction. Daicaregos (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If RA's proposal is trimmed per my suggestion it doesn't actually leave a huge difference from what is there now, other than the addition of the words "constituent", "province" and "region". Personally I don't see too much wrong with the current version, but equally can see the value in a little tweaking. Quite a few editors - who as far as I know were not part of any previous consensus discussions - had raised issues above about the country description. Actually I disagreed with them for the most part, but equally consensus is not always set in stone of course.  N-HH   talk / edits  14:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus can change. --RA (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * IMHO, none of the 4 entities are countries (E/S/W/NI), but reliable sources beg to differ. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I like N-HH  tweaking: we could say both:  all 4 are countries of UK, and NI is no less a country than others 3. Adding  "constituent", "province" and "region" would only help understanding of this article and could be a nice introduction to NI. After all NI is a part of I, at least geographically ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need for the change given that calling Northern Ireland a country is neither offensive or non-neutral. Does anyone have a an exact definition of what a country is? The Faroe Islands is described as a constituent country of the kingdom of Denmark...that being the case then England, Scotland, Wales aswell as Northern Ireland should be described as a constituent Country of the UK. And if it is described as a constituent Country then it can also be called as a Country. If Northern Ireland can compete in International competitions, sporting or otherwise as a nation then that is enough evidence for me.This is a completely pointless thread.Dame edna uk (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea that Northern Ireland shouldn't be called a country but my idea would be say keep the country but bring up something up in the opening paragraph like "It is also sometimes called a province and region" The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose changes to the first sentence of this article unless we change England. Scotland and Wales too. If Northern Ireland can not be called a country today, none of the other parts of the UK can. Putting "largely self-governing" is absolutely out of the question, that is the description often used when talking about dependent territories. None of the UK is in any way "largely self-governing". BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's clear that there is no concensus for change. This is a repeat of continual attempts by a couple of editors, one of which who openly admitted in the past that the usage of "country" rubs them up the wrong way. This clearly is a case of WP:IDONTLIKE.


 * On RAs proposals - more than one tweak is needed. For example rather than stating "largely self-governing" what is wrong with the term "devolved" seeing as that is the situation?? Mabuska (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And just for badness on the comment: After all NI is a part of I, at least geographically....


 * Should we also state that it is also a part of E(urope)? RoI is geographically part of I which is part of BI but it is largley glossed over or argued against. Mabuska (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Mabuska, I'm not sure who you are saying is presenting a case of "I don't like it". (Or who these "couple of editors" that continually repeat this discussion are, since the issue has been raised by a new, previously-uninvolved editor every time.) Those presenting the case for change are referring to how this question is handled in reliable sources. This thread discusses how Northern Ireland is described in various reliable sources. Some describe it as a "country". Others, including the UK government, describe it as a "province". Some say that to call Northern Ireland a "country" is absurd. Some contrast Northern Ireland with England, Scotland and Wales and say that while "country" is appropriate for those places it is less so for Northern Ireland. Those presenting the case to keep only country refer only to a limited set of reliable sources, ignoring even where the same source says something else.
 * On Wikipedia, "neutrality" refers to striking a balance between the perspective given in differing reliable sources. All articles must be written from that "neutral" point-of-view. The point of this thread is to discuss whether the views given in reliable sources are neutrally represented in the introduction and to look at ways in which the article may be improved. To me, the introduction currently cherry picks sources. An better article would present the veiw given by range of sources (in a neutral manner).
 * With regards to my "proposals", I presented it as "not an explicit suggestion for a re-write" (see @13:27, 30 September 2010). It is a suggestion of "something that would be more appropriate to Northern Ireland" and a neutral presenting of RS would be "akin" to it. It is intended to show that it is possible to integrate the various perspectives on this question neutrally and that it is not necessary to cherry pick reliable sources when dealing with this (or any other) question. As with CoE's post above, it is meant to show that we can present the complicated terminology around Northern Ireland neutrally. --RA (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's decided to call NI something other then country, I suppose that not a terrible thing. Where I'm from, we've got 10 provinces & 3 territories. So why can't the UK have 3 countries & 1 province. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * According to one source the UK is made up of two countries (England and Scotland), a principality (Wales) and a province (Northern Ireland). That source is a UK government submission to the United Nations on geographic names (2007). Now, while I am not suggesting we should take that one source (or the others that say Northern Ireland is a "province"), it illustrates the problem of cherry picking of sources that underlies this issue. --RA (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At times, I'm not certain if the UK knows what to describe itself as. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much devolution has left us "self governing", but I'd go for describing as a region in terms of how it has been left in terms of how its governed. Although I don't know if that can be put succinctly enough other than to say "devolved region". WikiuserNI (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The proposal seems far more neutral than the current version, in that it includes the various views from reliable sources without specifically endorsing any one of them as a fact. Editors claiming "no consensus" should realise that "I do not like it" cannot be used to uphold a non-neutral status quo. O Fenian (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The last time i mentioned that Wales was a principality i was lambasted and then RA was shouted-down for trying to change concensus on this very issue lol. However RA in regards to my statement on the same editors, its in reference to the jump on the opportunity of someone else bringing the matter up. Though this time the issue was brought up by sockpuppet of a banned used, with that sockpuppet also now banned which is probably why we haven't heard from them since.


 * If there eventually is a concensus for change which is doubtful looking at all the preferences for retaining the current phrasing, the term "country" in regards to Northern Ireland should be mentioned in the change. Why? Well the Wiki standard of "common usage" comes to mind. It has been stated to me as being more than a good enough reason for the inclusion of "32 counties" in county ledes despite the fact there isn't officially or legally 32 counties in Ireland anymore and there hasn't been since the splitting of Tipperary into North and South in the 19th century.


 * If we cite the GAAs usage of "32 counties" or other cultural usage of the term then we must also cite the usage of terms such "Our Wee Country" and FIFA's usage of "country" in regards to Northern Ireland and its football team and by its supporters as viable reasons for the retention of the term as a viable descriptor for Northern Ireland whether or not it actually meets the criteria for being called a country.


 * All in all i'm sure we could find an agreeable wording if concensus is agreed for a chance, wording that states the reality that NI is a province (i'm not denying it) of the UK but also that it is commonly referred to and treated as a country by various sources. Mabuska (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose describing Wales as a principality, would be like describing England & Scotland as kingdoms. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * @Mabuska - Precisely. NPOV is the neutral presentation of the range of views that appears in reliable sources on a topic. With regards to what Northern Ireland is, "a country of the UK" is one of those. So too is "province"; and "region", etc. Presenting any one of those alone as definitive or more correct is not NPOV: it is simply one POV.
 * This issue has been a recurring problem with this the introduction to this article not only since "country" became the status quo. Before then the problem existed also - but it was "province" that was used, or "region", or something else. In reality, there is greater depth to this question than currently - or previously - shown. (And the question is more complicated with regards to Northern Ireland, as RS attest, than for Scotland, Wales or England). Cherry picking one perspective - whether for convenience or personal taste, or whatever - does not do the topic justice. The range need to be shown in a neutral manner.
 * As AgadaUrbanit commented above, doing so would help understanding of the topic and introduce the complexities of Northern Ireland upfront. As it stands, these complexities appear to be glossed over in favour of something "neat" - but that "neatness" requires we ignore a whole raft of reliable sources. And that's the problem. --RA (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the use of Province is a little confusing in the context of Ireland given that it is made up of 4 Provinces, one of which is Ulster which is sometimes used in relation to Northern Ireland. As for region, I understand its use but it doesnt really do 'our wee country' any justice given that it is a small country, but a great one. I will have to accept what ever decision is made but given that effects the WP pages of the UK and the England, Scotland and Wales, I do feel that this should be brought to a larger forum.Dame edna uk (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Edna, I used to think region wouldn't suffice as it was too vague. I wonder if it would imply in any way an equivalence with the Regions of England? Is every term we try to use loaded? WikiuserNI (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV does not mandate the use of weasel phrasing and intentional vagueness in the opening paragraphs of articles, let alone the absolutely screaming agenda pushing in the very first paragraph that this proposal offers. It also does not mandate treating book references from decades ago with the same weight as the sovereign power's current view, which has been clearly stated. Northern Ireland can be called a country in the lede without violating NPOV, not least because any complexity is already fully dealt with in the main article, and even in the lede itself in later paragraphs. Infact, it's treatment is a little too much in preferance of the Republican POV actually, given that it is itself still riddled with cherry-picked, un-attributed and completely unbalanced assertions. It's a mess, and it's no surprise that RA was the primary author of most of it. Northern Ireland is largely 'self-governing'? WTF is all that can be said to that, I think a lot of political theory professors would have a lot to say about that phrasing, let alone the man in the street, who knows it is just nonsense compared to real, actual, self-governing situations, like US states or other federal systems. MickMacNee (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "It's a mess, and it's no surprise that RA was the primary author of most of it"; that is neither civil nor an assumption of good faith. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When it comes to RA and his understanding and application of NPOV, my good faith ran out long ago. He is heading headlong into CPOV territory with these continually flawed proposals on Irish issues, which only ever get support from ardent and unashamed Republican editors, which is something that should really ring alarm bells in his head, if he really has aspirations of becoming an admin. It's no surprise they all value him a lot as an editor, far too much to have him defect to the admin corps and have to then deal with their gaming to retain his boldly implemented 'improvements'. So no, no more good faith from me, unless he clues up rapidly. MickMacNee (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As for the general idea that a lot of editors have raised this issue so it must be wrong, go and have a look at the talk page of Barack Obama, and see what suggestions are also raised there frequently, without any change to the article. 'Consensus can change' refers to consensus, and consensus is about cluefull and policy backed reasoning, not just rabble-rousing and vague ideas that something, from a personal POV, is wrong. And yes, wanting to dilute and weasify the opening sentence of an article over an issue that is already more than dealt with, as NPOV actually requires, is without a doubt the manifestation of a POV. No policy backed arguments equals no change. MickMacNee (talk)
 * Mick, the "clueful" reasoning is that reliable sources, including the United Kingdom government, describe Northern Ireland as something else. Reliable sources also point out problems with the term "country" with respect to Northern Ireland and point out that, even where Northern Ireland is described as a "country", it is not a "country" in the same sense that England, Scotland and Wales are. Problem also exist in with other terms to describe what Northern Ireland is.
 * The "clueful" and policy-backed reasoning is NPOV: "[NPOV] means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." In this respect, the problems around describing 'what Northern Ireland is' should not be glossed over out of convenience in the opening paragraph but can be dealt with properly and in a manner that doesn't require that we cherry-pick sources.
 * This doesn't need to be a big issue. It just needs to be dealt with with our horns pulled in. --RA (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Clueful reasoning requires doing more than just exclaiming that sources disagree, and therefore we have to just mash up the very first line into total nonsense, as if the rest of the entire article didn't exist. That's garbage as far as NPOV goes, not to mention just plain common sense. Don't bother to quote the policy at me, I know it by heart, having writtten huge articles on controversial subjects, on a variety of topics, and never once had to defend my knowledge of how to write to the NPOV even slightly, to editors of all sides. This post is part of the problem, you have nothing to offer in these disputes but continual restatement. That, and the problem that you yourself do cherry pick sources to claim there is a problem, which is exactly what you are doing with the issue of the government view. It is nothing but pushing an opinion which is actually not supported by the sources, if engaging the brain and applying NPOV with a little more sense than 2+2=5 type logic. You contest that there is a contradiction or even a dispute within the government view. Well, source that assertion. Don't just randomly pick instances without care or attention, let alone temporal consideration, and then claim that's what it shows and thus somehow the clearly stated view of the government is something that can be muddled and smudged by Wikipedia. That sort of rubbish methodology is what flies for presenting the NPOV at articles like the BI dispute, which is why whenever outside observers look at articles like that, they quickly see it for what it is, POV pushing garbage. You can scare quote the term 'country' all you want, it doesn't make any of the sources more definitive or worthy of notice than the UK government's clearly stated current position. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mick it's a real shame that your aren't as familiar with AGF as you say you are with NPOV. I really am getting tired of reading your rants and abusive of other editors without actual saying anything that might improving the project. If you have nothing constructive to say here I suggest you move on. RA has put forward a valid argument regarding the status of NI and how it should be dealt with in this article and it is a case that I for one fully agree with. Bjmullan (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And it's a real shame you either really don't know, or just want to pretend for some reason, that AGF very much has a hard limit when dealing with issues of neutrality disputes; or how completely unconvincing it is to have editors from only one side of a POV give resounding support to what they will unsurprisingly claim is a valid argument, as if everybody else really was born yesterday. If you want me to give a tiny rat's ass about what you are getting tired of, well you or RA can go and prove that this proposal has support from neutral editors. The best way to get me to assume good faith is to present some opinions from people who have never commented on this issue, but otherwise have a proven record at cluefully understanding NPOV, and applying it to more topics than just this interminable Irish rubbish. Or you can just carry on as normal with all this pretence and mock disapproval, which is very much the tedious norm in this topic area. At least Groundhog Day was actualy funny. MickMacNee (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just checked WP:AGF Mick and can't see anything about a hard limit maybe you could point it out to me or just maybe you could assume good faith. Bjmullan (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:TE or WP:CPUSH, or alternatively, just realise when you are talking absolute nonsense, that nobody here is buying except, amazingly, the people who have no problem with the proposal. MickMacNee (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If people are really convinced there needs to be a change, then this matter should be advertised at the Northern Ireland and UK wikiprojects, along with the talk pages of the other 3 countries and the UK article talk page. A change here has seriously implications for all of those. If the first sentence of Northern Irelands article can not say it is a country, then nor can Wales because it is also described as a principality and in my opinion nor can England and Scotland, which are simply former Kingdoms who are able to participate as separate teams internationally because we invented many of the sports in question.. there for England Vs Scotland became the teams before the world joined in. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems like alot of headaches to endure. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, also Wales has just undergone a good article review, the issue of Wales is a country of the United Kingdom did not cause a problem or get mentioned, despite Wales being known as a principality in exactly the same way Northern Ireland has often been described as a Province. So if it is not a problem there, it should not be a problem here. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, let's stick with 'country'. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second everyone .. I don't see any serious calls for removing the word country. The possibility was raised, tentatively, but was - correctly, probably - rejected. Where we are now with the actual proposal is to add mention of the alternatives "province" or "region", as well as some mooted additional wording. As a hopefully neutral editor, interested in following the broad range of sources and highlighting/using the terminology that readers are likely to come across regularly elsewhere, I'm OK with the simple addition of those two words, less keen on much more than that. Fair enough, I understand the irritation that the endless revisitation of small issues can cause, but that doesn't seem an out-and-out unreasonable addition. Also, there's no knock-on to other articles, so this issue can also be dealt with in its own right. As to the Wales example specifically, that page does mention the "principality" alternative - albeit at the end of the lead rather than in the opening para - so, if anything, that's an argument for making the change.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The other terms should be mentioned within the article, but we do not need to clutter up the introduction with alternative terms. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have found (easily) the ISBN numbers for some of the books mentioned above. It is silly to think ISBN numbers are required from a source before it is taken credibly (especially considering some of the sources are already used in wikipedia too)


 * 1) "One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." - S. Dunn and H. Dawson, 2000, An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Edwin Mellen Press: Lampeter ISBN: 077347711X
 * 2) "Next - what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? 'Province' won't do since one-third of the province is on the wrong side of the border. 'State' implies more self-determination than Northern Ireland has ever had and 'country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd. 'Colony' has overtones that would be resented by both communities and 'statelet' sounds too patronizing, though outsiders might consider it more precise than anything else; so one is left with the unsatisfactory word 'region'." - D. Murphy, 1979, A Place Apart, Penguin Books: London ISBN: 0719534763
 * 3) "Although a seat of government, strictly speaking Belfast is not a 'capital' since Northern Ireland is not a 'country', at least not in the same sense that England, Scotland and Wales are 'countries'." - J Morrill, 2004, The promotion of knowledge: lectures to mark the Centenary of the British Academy 1992-2002, Oxford University Press: Oxford ISBN: 0197263127
 * 4) "Not a country in itself, Northern Ireland consists of six of the thirty-two original counties of Ireland, all part of the section of that island historically known as Ulster." - J V Til, 2008, Breaching Derry's walls: the quest for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, University Press of America ISBN: 0761839089
 * 5) "Northern Ireland is not a country in itself, but a small fragment torn from the living body of Ireland where now the last act of its long struggle for independence is being played out." - W V Shannon, Northern Ireland and America's Responsibility in K M. Cahill (ed), 1984, The American Irish revival: a decade of the Recorder, 1974-1983, Associated Faculty Press ISBN: 0804693595
 * 6) "The study compare attitudes in Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, the UK, Holland, Ireland, Italy and West Germany. It also includes Northern Ireland, which of course is not a country." - P Kurzer, 2001, Markets and moral regulation: cultural change in the European Union, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge electronic: ISBN: 0511041543 hpk: ISBN: 052180289X pbk: ISBN: 0521003954;
 * 7) "As I see it, I'm an Irish Unionist. I'm Irish, that's my race if you like. My identify is British, because that it the way I have been brought up, and I identify with Britain and there are historical bonds, psychological bonds, emotional bonds, all the rest of it you know. ... Bit to talk of independence in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is not a country, Northern Ireland is a province of Ireland and it is a province in the UK and I think that the notion of a national identity or group identity or racial identity or cultural identity here is a nonsense." - Michael McGimpsey quoted in F. Cochrane, 2001, Unionist politics and the politics of Unionism since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Cork University Press: Cork ISBN: 1859181384;  ISBN: 1859181392 ISBN:1859182593;

IRWolfie- (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The ISBN changes nothing. Northern Ireland is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom. "country" can not be changed here unless it is changed on England, Wales, Scotland and also gets changed on United Kingdom and other relevant articles. I dont mind province or region being mentioned within the article here, but it needs to be clear country is the primary description used throughout wikipedia. I see no need for region / province to be mentioned in the introduction, It certainly should not be placed in the first paragraph. It may fit in that final paragraph in the intro but i do not accept a change is required especially as people are pushing for the first sentence to be changed something that is unacceptable without changes to the other country articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BW I think you fail to understand that England, Scotland & Wales are different to NI. You cannot compare them. Historically these other parts existed long before the inception of the UK (in one of it's many forms), NI did not. If however someone can come up with RS that states that they are not countries then this would need to be taken into account. But that is a discuss for the talk pages of those articles and not here. This is about NI so keep it to the subject. Bjmullan (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wales is also described as a principality in the same way Northern Ireland is sometimes called a province, so if we change country here of course it will have to be changed at Wales too. There has been consensus for some time to have the opening sentences of the 4 UK countries the same, or in line ( a compromise here was to say one of the four countries rather than is a country. This is not just about NI and this article. proposed changes to the first sentence of this article have radical implications for many articles. If Northern Ireland is not a country today then none of the others are. England and Scotland are former countries/Kingdoms and Wales is a principality and Northern Ireland is a Province. They all will need to be changed along with the United Kingdom article which states the UK is made up of four countries. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Does anyone here seriously believe that anybody who is a regular to this topic, which BW is, fails to understand NI has a different history to Scotland etc? This is condescending, patronising, rubbish. And this is from the editor giving lectures on assuming good faith. MickMacNee (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In essence what you appear to be saying is we must ignore verifiable sources because it suits some apparent consensus you mention (link?) You can have it that Great Britian is made of the 3 countries, the UK was the union of Great Britain and Ireland. United Kingdom consisted of the countries England, Ireland and Scotland and Wales. Most of Ireland then left the Union. Northern Ireland can't be treated in the same respect as the countries of Great Britain as a result. It is not comparable to the the status of England, Scotland and Wales as countries. This has led to the above reliable sources indicating its status as a country is not the same as for those in Great Britain. In effect regarding England Scotland and Wales as countries should not have implications on this article as to whether Northern Ireland is a country. Perhaps referring to Northern Ireland as a State would be a fair compromise? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * State? That would cause a riot, meaning as it usually does, sovereign state. And bear in mind that the list of sources above was collated by someone looking to change the article, not by a neutral editor looking to ensure NPOV is satisfied. That's without even looking in detail at their relative weight and relevance on the extremely vague and fluid concept of what is and is not a country, especially when compared to the indisputable, 21st century, government view. MickMacNee (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources say there are 4 countries of the United Kingdom, that includes Northern Ireland. Its true other terms are sometimes used, just like can be said about Wales and infact England and Scotland too. Encyclopaedia Britannica simply describes them as constituent parts or atleast it did the last time i looked. "State" is certainly unacceptable and misleading. Northern Ireland is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom. I strongly oppose an alteration unless we change the other articles i have mentioned. If countries of Great Britain can be countries, why cant Northern Ireland? A bunch of sources can be provided showing NI is described as a country, in order to maintain consensus the 4 parts of the UK are described in the same way and this is clearly justified by the sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the consensus, check out the prior debate on this talk page and that of Wales and Scotland. Along with Countries of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * State is also a problem. Any of these words are. The essential issue is that the "what to call Northern Ireland" is a problem in itself, as the Dunn/Dawson ref explains. --RA (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly there are problem with all terms, there for we should stick with the current wording which is in line with the other articles and has been stable for some time. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's grand so long as we have no interest in properly approaching this topic from an NPOV. NPOV is "non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." It mean "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." With respect to this topic, the question of what Northern Ireland is problematic. That should not be brushed under the carpet for the sake of convenience and one term chosen to artificially keep this article "in line" with others, despite proper treatment of the topic demanding otherwise. --RA (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is a problem with all terms the logical approach would be to mention in the introduction that any label is problematic.IRWolfie- (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the introductions final paragraph already mentions that the name and description of Northern Ireland is complex owing to its history and there is a huge section in the article on it. Ive no objection to a mention of the main alternative "Province" being used as an example there in the final paragraph of the introduction. But the first paragraph must state its a country of the UK or one of the four countries of the UK, so this is inline with the other UK articles. As for NPOV, when i first arrived on wikipedia i was opposed to any of the articles describing the 4 parts of the UK as just countries, but there are plenty of sources to back this up (although obviously NI is the most problematic) so i changed my mind, but its important that there is a common approach taken on all the articles. The UK article makes very clear there are four countries of the United Kingdom, we there for can not make out like theres only 3 or even 2. Many sources describe Wales as a principality and not a country, but its first sentence manages to say country fine with a mention of "Principality of Wales" being in the final paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made another proposal below based on your post here. --RA (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite
A rewrite of the above taking in the criticism and N-HH's tweaking:

Northern Ireland (...) is a part of the United Kingdom situated in the north-east of the island of Ireland. Along with England, Scotland and Wales, it is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom,[1] although what to call Northern Ireland is uncertain[2] and the terms province[3] and region[4] are used also. It shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west. At the time of the 2001 UK Census, its population was 1,685,000, constituting about 30% of the island's total population and about 3% of the population of the United Kingdom.



--RA (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If it were entirely up to me, I'd use ...is a part of... for all 4 entities (E/W/S/NI). But since I don't see that happening? let's stick with country. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite reliable sources saying this question is a "specific problem" for this topic? --RA (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are ya certain this won't cause a disruption on the related articles? GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is flogging a dead horse. When you come to look through all those in favour or against change (after endless hours of debate, and no matter how many times you jump on the bandwaggon of passing socks bringing it up), please note that I do not agree with rewriting the lead of this article. It is fine just as it is now. I'll leave you to carry on, then. Daicaregos (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose changes to the introduction. A change here would require us to change other articles and have an impact on the status of England, Wales and Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Who is Helen Dawson, and by what policy or analysis are you claiming supports her view being placed in the first line of this article? Is she for example as reliable and trusted as an authorative source on the concept of either statehood in general, or Northern Ireland in particular, or is she just another cherry picked random, much like the guy who coined his own definition for a demonym and placed it in what looked like nothing better than a coffee table book, whose importance as an authorative and respected work on the subject could not be demonstrated by you, despite being asking over and over and over again, in accordance with all relevant policies. This is what I mean RA when you have an extremely simplistic working knowledge of NPOV, and how to balance views properly. MickMacNee (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

RA - are you planning to raise this every few months? We went though all this before and agreed a variation for Northern Ireland. I really don't see any new arguments being raised above. -- Snowded TALK  15:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * @Mick, Seamus Dunn is a professor at the University of Ulster and director for the Centre of Study of Conflict. He is joint editor of the Macmillan book series on Ethnic and Intercommunity Conflict. Helen Dawson is a co-author of his on that book.
 * @Snowded, when others raise the issue, I'll chip in. Same as yourself. The arguments against change, as far as I can see, are: (a) "I like it" (b) this would require us to change the other articles (why? and so?), (c) the current text is supported by RS (which is true but it does not neutrally represent what RS have to say). Every time the issue is raised, it seems like the same few editor that oppose changing the article to reflect RS on this question and the same non-argument that they make, usually prefaced by "this has been discussed before". That kind are approach to talk page discussion will not make any issue with an article go away. The issue will perennially resurface until the introduction is closer to a NPOV with respect to reliable sources and this quesion. --RA (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been extensively discussed RA and no new material has been introduced. The comment/threat in your final sentence represents your perspective.  You were very happy to lead an earlier (successful) attempt to prevent re discussion of the name of the state for three years so you are on weak ground saying that reference to prior discussion is a "non-argument".  -- Snowded  TALK  16:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please strike your comment where you say I made a "threat". It is incivil. The purpose of talk pages is to discuss improvements to articles. My point is that this issue will perennially appear on this talk page until the article is improved in respect to this quesiton.
 * About the unrelated Ireland-naming issue, that is subject to an ArbCom motion, which as been clarified. Please don't carry disagreements form one area of the encyclopedia over onto another. --RA (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be inconvenient for your position if your actions in one area are referenced when they contradict your behaviour here, but that is your problem not mine. Otherwise I am sorry, but we are going to make no progress if editors keep raising the same issue just because they didn't get what they wanted a month or so ago.  It is very clear that you feel it is OK to bring such subjects up again and again, hence my use of "threat" -- Snowded  TALK  17:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowded, ArbCom but the kibosh on those discussions, not me. Please don't carry perceived slights from one area of the encyclopedia to another. And please do not say that I am making a "threat" against you or anyone. It is incivil. Wikipedia is not a battleground. --RA (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * RA, you said that the issue will be perennially appear, and this is the second time you have raised it. That is a threat, factual description, nowt to do with good or bad faith.  You were active, in fact very active, in bringing the Ireland discussion to a three year close, I think its fair enough to suggest you are consistent.  To be honest I thought better of you, having reached a compromise agreement some time ago I would have expected an editor of your standing to honour that agreement -- Snowded  TALK  17:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Are these pointless arguments what editors do? I have just started editing, thinking I could correct a few errors or help improve things where I know about a subject. Having grown up in Larne, I naturally decided to read the Northern Ireland page - I didn't see anything in the introduction to give me particular concerns, but then decided to look on the talk page... I now see that editors seem to spend an inordinate amount of time arguing about the same points that have been raised time and time again. I thought most editors were people who just wanted to help improve articles, but from what I've read on the talk page, it appears that some editors only care about winning an argument and getting articles changed to reflect their opinions. I had been trying to think of a good name to use when I signed up as an editor, but I don't think I'll bother - I don't think I'll be spending much time trying to improve articles after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.2.149 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, bye. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, it gets tldr. I really appreciate RA effort to reach consensus and discuss, though I do not agree with rewrite, it is confusing. I think that argument that changes on this country article would have to cause changes on other countries, means we can not agree via talk page discussion on any change ;) I was surprised about UK usage of country term, but oh well, agree all 4 are equal "as country". So disputing or doubting "country term" in the lead appears as irrelevant. There is plenty of space to discuss such nuances in the body, while attribution fairly opinions, since "alternatives" are clearly sourced and appear to enjoy some notability. However I guess, NI<->I relationship could and should be discussed, per WP:LEAD, according to this article content. An IP should explain confusing COUNTY ANTRIM, PRODUCT OF IRELAND Black Bush labling, looks suspiciously similar to Tullamore Dew industrial design, so where is COUNTY OFFALY exactly? ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Final paragraph
OK, on the suggestion in BW's post @ 17:35, 3 October, here's another proposal. The addition here would be to add a bit to the final paragraph. Would the following be amenable to folk:

Northern Ireland (...) is one of four countries of the United Kingdom.[1] … … Due to its unique history, issues around symbolism, citizenship and identity and geographic names and descriptions are complex, with choices often revealing one's political views. In general, Unionists consider themselves British and Nationalists see themselves as Irish, though these identities are not necessarily mutually exclusive and many consider themselves to be both. Even the question of what to call Northern Ireland itself is problematic with no definitive answer[2] and terms such as province,[3] region[4] or simply jurisdiction[2] are used along with others.



--RA (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * RA, I guess the last paragraph is OK the way it is, it tries to explain the complex issue, citizenship and identity and geographic names and descriptions links also help readability. The terminology doubts addition you suggest does not improve the article, imho. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Other than plowing on RA throwing several rewrites at us as if we have all agreed for a change why don't you see if there is a concensus for a change. So far looking at the debate above its clear that more people are in favour of maintaining the current usage of the word "country" rather than changing it. So why are you continually throwing us these rewrites as if their is general concensus? Mabuska (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * @Mabuska, the reason I'm "throwing" rewrites at you is in order to draw people out of entrenched positions and nervousness about change and into a genuine discussion around content. Sure, you (or someone else) may see nothing wrong with the current text. Others do. By "throwing" suggested rewrites out, the intention is that we can all comment what is good or bad about the rewrite. And importantly, say why.
 * Unfortunately it's not working. Folk are still just saying, "I like it they way it is", without giving any meaningful explanation as to why or what is good about the current text in contrast to the rewrite.
 * Conversely, in my view anyway, those arguing that the current text is deficient in one way or another (e.g. IRWolfie, Deacon of Pndapetzim, etc.) do so based on explicit arguments. Others (e.g. N-HH, BritishWatcher, etc.), see no great problem with the current text but are open to suggestions for improvements and are willing to discuss them and move this discussion forward.
 * The rewrite suggested above was in response to a comment by BritishWatcher. It is to keep the current usage of the word country but to add an additional sentence to the final paragraph (and other minor improvements, e.g. around identity).
 * @AgadaUrbanit, could you explain how the suggestion above degrades the article? In my view, the lead should define the topic of an article, part of which is saying what it is. If, as reliable sources attest, there is no definitive answer to what Northern Ireland is (and all answers are problematic to some degree), surely that is just the sort of thing that should appear in the lead? --RA (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If it'll help the article? by all means impliment. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont like "Even the question of what to call Northern Ireland itself is problematic with no definitive answer". It sounds to me a bit like "and people cant even figure out what to call it". Id prefer something along the lines of.. "Whilst Northern Ireland is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom, it is sometimes described as a Province, Region, jurisdiction, along with some other terms." BritishWatcher (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, the "even" is a bit dramatic - but it does mean that people can't figure out what to call it. "Whilst Northern Ireland is..." is the very opposite of the point. The point being that "what Northern Ireland is" is problematic and un-agreed.
 * How about something like:
 * "'Due to its unique history, issues around symbolism, citizenship and identity and geographic names and descriptions are complex, with choices often revealing one's political views. In general, Unionists consider themselves British and Nationalists see themselves as Irish. However these identities are not necessarily mutually exclusive and many consider themselves to be both. In the context of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland is frequently called a country, but it is sometimes contrasted with England, Scotland and Wales in this respect (Morrill:2004). Terms such as province,[3] region[4] or simply jurisdiction[2] are used along with others however there is no generally agreed answer.[2]'''"
 * --RA (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ". In the context of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland is frequently called a country, but it is sometimes contrasted with England, Scotland and Wales in this respect (Morrill:2004)" - cant agree with that. What about with considered? "Whilst Northern Ireland is considered one of the four countries of the United Kingdom...."  BritishWatcher (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If any of these rewrites are to get people out of "entrenched" positions its going to have to be very finely and delicately balanced. If i'm being honest progress is being made - however when stating "frequently called a country" it should be noted that it is frequently called and sometimes treated as a country - i.e. in sport etc. Mabuska (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Text saying that NI is frequently called a country and then listing other options gives the impression that country is the widely used term when in fact it is only used in minority of cases, "province" being by far the more usual term. A more accurate approach would be to say the NI is generally called a province but is sometimes called a country, largely for symmetry with the countries of GB Ardmacha (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You see there are as many claims that the usage of "country" is only by a minority without any backup for this. I hear NI being called a country more than a "province" even if it is technically a province. A more accurate approach would be state that NI is a province but generally called a country bu sections. Mabuska (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd support RA's proposal -- Snowded TALK  10:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)