Talk:United Ireland/Archive 5

Reunited Ireland
Should the heading not be Reunited Ireland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The source usually deals with United Ireland.
 * If some source exist to justify why another expression might be used for the same concept, the the article might give the second name with its source and the sourced explanation to justify ni what a united ireland might be considered as reunited... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.213 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In the text on this page - people talk of reunification of the Ireland, so why do we not say a reunited Ireland as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You seem to have forgotten that you already asked the question and had it answered here. The answer is that in the real world, people do say "reunification" but they don't say "reunited Ireland". Wikipedia articles tell what happens in the real world, it doesn't make up new phrases on a whim. Scolaire (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Border poll
Do you not think it is reasonable to have an opinion poll regardIng whether there shoulD be a poll in the article? Nobody is suggesting this means a majority are pro-UI.Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No because there is nothing in the wording of the question of that poll that was linked that suggests anything to do with a United Ireland and any suggestion that it is is very much original research. It's about whether the subject of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland should be reconsidered. The endpoint outcome many years down the line and meaning behind it could be many things, join it with Scotland, make it a fuller partner in the United Kingdom, dissolve it as a separate body and incorporate into England, independence, join with the Republic or one of dozens of other items. To suggest that based on the wording it's specifically relevant to a United Ireland is pure original research. This is why opinion polls are written so extremely carefully, everyone who reads that question will read a different thing into it and the wording suggests none of it. Canterbury Tail   talk  14:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how an opinion poll regarding whether there shoulD be a referendum on x is not relevant to x's article. You will have to explain that oneq to me.Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If the opinion poll was on whether there should be a United Ireland, sure I'd agree with you. But this isn't that poll. The question on the poll that could be most interpreted to be related, without mentioning it, is ": Do you think there should be a referendum in Northern Ireland, regarding Northern Ireland's constitutional position within the United Kingdom, within the next 5 years? NB this is regardless of how you would vote in such a referendum. " No mention of United Ireland, no mention of leaving the UK, no menion of joining with the Republic. You'll have to explain to me how you get from that question to something about a United Ireland without reading between the lines and putting your own interpretation on it. It's not a question on a referendum on a United Ireland, that's not what the question is. Canterbury Tail   talk  19:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously it is related to a UI, there can be no denying that. It related to it due to the fact that it is asking an opinion about something that you would agree is related to the article. Now if you want to say that it is not related enough then I would ask is there any policy that prohibits this kind of inclusion.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's your interpretation it's related. That's the original research. It doesn't say it's related to a United Ireland therefore you can't use it. Canterbury Tail   talk  21:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is also your interpretation and OR that it is not relateD.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since it doesn't say it, and since it has to be intrepreted to mean United Ireland, that means it falls afoul of WP:OR and cannot be used. Wikipedia's policies are very clear on this point. The source doesn't mention United Ireland, the question doesn't mention it therefore it cannot be used to support a point on a United Ireland article as there is no evidence in the source it's in any way related. Canterbury Tail   talk  21:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What point Do you think is being made?Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Question does not state UI or anything in that regard so it is pure synthesis and OR to state so. Apollo should know better considering their recent dispute at Plaid Cymru where they argued the reverse point. Wiki policy works for them when it suits it seems. Mabuska (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The heading, text and diagram in the LucidTalk document all prominently contain the words "Border poll", e.g. "There is a slight majority in Northern Ireland in support of having a 'Border Poll' in the next 5 years", so it's not just a general question about the hypothetical constitutional status of NI. If we look at your hypothetical outcomes: A "border poll" can have only one meaning, and only one question: should there be a border or not? Or in other words, should the island be divided or united? A very similar poll in 2014 is already mentioned in the Public opinion section. This latest poll should be mentioned (briefly) immediately after it. Also pinging,. --Scolaire (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Join it with Scotland – no change in the border
 * Make it a fuller partner in the United Kingdom – no change in the border
 * Dissolve it as a separate body and incorporate into England – no change in the border
 * Independence – no change in the border
 * Dozens of other items – such as? An unincorporated territory of the United States? Confederation with the Falkland Islands? There'd still be no change in the border.
 * There's no border today from the perspective of the common man but there's two countries. The question made no mention of a United Ireland and there are many ways to have a discussion on a border that aren't necessarily a United Ireland. Keep it like today, have the Republic rejoin the UK, have a union of Northern Ireland, Republic and Scotland (I know unlikely.) Point is you can't draw the inference from the question and use the question as it requires interperetation to reach it being a question on a United Ireland. Canterbury Tail   talk  22:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree.Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Scolaire it is still pure OR and synthesis as the document does not say what border it is on about. Mabuska (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. You know damn well it is talking about the north-south border. That is what bordEr poll mEans. This is WP:SKYISBLUE. There is also this "We can see from the comments that the Brexit issue has galvanised Catholics (and therefore it can be assumed also the majority of Nationalist/Republicans) to be more pro a Border poll than was previously the case." Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A border poll would if anything lead to redrawing the border to make it more sensible like was originally envisaged at partition rather than anything to do with a United Ireland. You need to poll everybody for anything wider ranging. Dmcq (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You all have wonderful imaginations, is all I can say. Scolaire (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I see this is about LucidTalk rather than the people's referendum below. Should have spent more time but it is hard to raise my interest before something definite comes up. The LucidTalk poll was about having a referndum and the the 'referendum' below was more a poll getting opinions of people on the border. I do wish it wasn't all messed up. Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I suppose the Irish News would not be considered a reliable source: "Arlene Foster was last night accused of "running scared" from the debate around a border poll after the DUP leader claimed she does not expect to see a referendum on a united Ireland in her lifetime." "[Chris Hazzard] said a recent opinion poll by Lucid Talk showed that a majority of people in the north were in favour of holding a referendum on Irish unity." Scolaire (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Irish News reliability can be questionable at times but in this instance we know that it is Chris Hazard who is being guilty of synthesis as we can all see the lucidtalk poll and nowhere does it state UI or what border is being discussed. So his reliability is dented. Arlene Foster is not referring to the lucidtalk poll but on a specific UI border poll. You lot can't cherrypick what policies to follow especially when it suits, especially yoh Apollo. Mabuska (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Guilty of synthesis? Should we report him to the PSNI? The entire article makes it clear that "border poll" is synonymous with a referendum on a united Ireland. If you think the Irish News is questionable (what a surprise!), take your pick of this lot. The Belfast Telegraph is in there too. Not to mention "constitutional position" and "united Ireland". And don't tell me the LucidTalk poll isn't mentioned; I know it isn't. You are stretching the concept of synthesis to breaking point. That is not how policy is meant to be applied. Scolaire (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The poll in question here however is not this article and does not make it explicitly clear that it is on about Irish unification. So your argument is neither here nor there. Anyways, how about adding in a poll that does explicitly mention a united Ireland? Say the most recently released Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey one? A brief online overview of it can be found at Slugger. United Ireland support amongst Catholics post-Brexit only up 3% to 34% compared to 56% in 2006? Overall support is 19% if I can remember the News Letter coverage of it correctly. Makes a mockery of the attempts to portray the LucidTalk poll as showing support for a United Ireland (well according to you lot thats what its on about, not simply a border poll) Mabuska (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Poll about a poll
The citation I have provided states that 51% are in favour of a border poll. I am not really sure why this was necessary in the first place considering it seems obvious that it is about a border poll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unity ref (talk • contribs)


 * Border poll does not equal a poll on a United Ireland. Yes it's an option for the poll but there are many other outcomes. Equating border poll to united Ireland poll is pure original research, especially since the reference being used doesn't make such a statement. The reference doesn't say anything about the poll being about a united Ireland, just a border poll on Northern Ireland's place in the UK. Canterbury Tail   talk  19:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources say a border poll is a united ireland referendum. They can be provided on demand.


 * Well then you need provide them. As it is at the moment all you are doing is interpreting the source (against policy), disruptively editing Wikipedia by constantly readding material not supported by the source against 1) consensus on the talk page, 2) WP:Verifiability and 3) Original research. As discussed on this talk page (see the archives) consensus was reached that the source doesn't support that claim. The only thing you'll achieve by continuing to re-add improperly sourced material (which I'm obligated to remove) and original research, is to be blocked which we don't want. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Well this article multiple times refers to a united ireland referendum as a border poll just so you know.

Here is one source which states "Brexit, demographic shifts and the dramatic outcome of the Northern Assembly elections are all fueling talk of a united Ireland, a Border poll and joint authority." https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/a-united-ireland-is-there-something-in-the-air-1.3007271 Well this article multiple times refers to a united ireland referendum as a border poll just so you know.


 * Fixed the link, missing a space. See that's a better source. Doesn't support quite the original point of 51% but it does connect the border poll to a united Ireland discussion unlike the first source. For the original unfortunately the Irish Sun isn't always considered a reliable source, but here we have the Irish Times a more reputable source connecting the two which is much more acceptible. Now if it can only connect the poll referenced by the Irish Sun (which curiously doesn't state what the poll actually asked) to this then all would be good. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you give an example of border poll not being used to refer to a united ireland referendum? The poll referenced asks about a border poll, border poll only has one meaning as you well know. according to the Irish sun the poll was regarding "the norths constitutional place in the uk" which also can only mean one thing.


 * No source to prove a negative no. The concept of a border poll could in theory be about several things, all of which have been discussed in the news over the last year in one form or another. Could be simply about an open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, could be about some form of a united Ireland, could be about joining with Scotland if Scotland secceeds from the UK, could be about going independent (which in my belief NI would last 1 month.) In a very extreme interpretation it could be about asking Ireland to rejoin the UK back to when Ireland was previously united. I know a daft and very extreme interpretation but fueling the point it is an interpretation and if you put your mind to it there are multiple possible meanings of the term Border Poll when it's placed in an article and left undefined. The Sun article is a spectacular piece of really terrible journalism there.
 * However that being said, the Irish Times article you have above does define the border poll as being on a united Ireland, so it can be used as a source to backup the Irish Sun one by provide the border poll definition. Absent any reason to believe otherwise or interpret differently I believe that would meet Wikipedia's standards on sourcing to provide the connection and definition of the border poll. So by adding that source your original edit would stand as long as no one calls the reliability of the Irish Sun as a source into question (which I'm not.)
 * Please understand this isn't some kind of personal thing, it's purely about making sure statements are properly sourced on Wikipedia. We have an obligation as editors, supported by Wikipedia policies, not to interpret sources to read what we think or want them to read. As a result things must be clearly stated in the sources for Wikipedia to use them. The first source didn't clearly support the claim without starring at it and adding information between the lines, something against Wikipedia policy. However the addition of that second source as an addition would solve that problem. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

"No source to prove a negative no."

a lack of sources can. You wouldnt include the statement "Hitler was actually a closet jew" in an article because no sources say otherwise would you? Would you not agree that a lack of source is enough of a reason to exclude it?


 * That's not what this is about. This is about the fact that border poll is completely undefined in the first source and could have been intrepreted in many ways by many people. Anyway if you read above I agree with you that the second source, if used to supplement the first, is sufficent to define border poll and the context and can be used. Canterbury Tail   talk  12:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The state of Northern Ireland
There is a tendency on pages like these to change "the state of Northern Ireland" to something else, on the grounds that Northern Ireland is not a sovereign state. The latest attempt is by with this edit. This ignores the fact that Northern Ireland – especially between 1921 and 1972 – is almost universally referred to as a state. Do a Google Books search for "state of northern ireland", "northern ireland state", "northern irish state" and "northern state" ireland. Don't look at the "About 6,960 results" under the search box; just scroll through the results and you'll see that each search returns at least 50–60 good quality books referring to Northern Ireland as a state. By contrast, search for "jurisdiction of Northern Ireland": I found a total of four books, all of them fairly esoteric, where that phrase actually appears. "State" should be used until somebody can show that the balance of reliable sources don't use it. Scolaire (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You cite the particular case of 1921 - 1972 to support your case, yet the term 'state' is used interchangeably with 'province' and 'jurisdiction' throughout this period, with the latter two continuing to be in use. I used the term 'jurisdiction' as it is the least partial to either side of the debate. We long past 1972, so you have ignored the passage of time and end of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 that established Northern Ireland as a self-governing 'state'. As it is no longer in force, and the Good Friday Agreement, which repealed the Act, does not refer to Northern Ireland as a 'state', it is improper to refer to it as such. Further, you inexplicably removed an edit I made to specify a United Ireland 'under the Republic'. Why? EncyclopaediaNilssonia (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because, as I said, unionists oppose unification full stop. They wouldn't support unification as a federal state or as a monarchy any more than they would support unification "under the Republic". The sentence on the state of Northern Ireland which you edited, and I reverted, was in the particular context of 1921, therefore the term is the appropriate, recognised and common term. If you look at the Google Books results you will see that authors didn't stop using the term after the Good Friday Agreement. Scolaire (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's strictly true. Unionists pre-1921 used to be all in favour of a united Ireland, and I'm sure they would be again were Ireland to rejoin the UK. They oppose being part of an independent Irish republic, not a united Ireland per se. — Jon C.  ॐ  14:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say a reunited UK, I said a united Ireland as a monarchy or a federal state. They oppose being part of an independent Ireland, regardless of its constitution. Unless you have reliable sources that say otherwise, of course. Scolaire (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Scolaire's argument against EncyclopaediaNilssonia's edit. Also where in the Good Friday Agreement is the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920? I'm curious. Maybe the subsequent Northern Ireland Act 1998 which repealed only parts of it not the whole thing? Mabuska (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Assembly seats chart (under Public opinion)
Two big problems with this chart: Recommend deletion. 82.21.168.53 (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Unsourced, presumably OR. The designations are unexplained and may be contestable, e.g. the only Assembly member elected in 2017 without a formal position on the constitutional question is probably the one from People Before Profit.
 * 2) Most importantly, not a meaningful measure of public opinion on reunification: seats ≠ votes and votes in a regular election ≠ votes in a border poll.
 * I agree, on the grounds of point 2. On point 1, every MLA is officially designated as either nationalist, unionist or other. Alliance and the Greens are designated "other". WP:NOR does not apply to graphics. --Scolaire (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Other charts
The big blue-red-yellow-grey-green chart ought also to go, for several reasons: The problem with the chart in the "In Great Britain" section is bigger. It does at least correspond with the (very brief) text, but with a cutoff of 2008 it is hopelessly out of date. Scolaire (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It is intrusive.
 * 2) It is out of date. The Brexit referendum, four general elections, the collapse of the Executive and the uncertainty over hard v soft border have all happened since 2014.
 * 3) There is no attempt at interpretation. What does the peak of 30% in 2006 (rising from 23% and falling to 18% in 2008) reflect? Or the fall in support for the United Kingdom from 73% in 2010 to 62% in 2012?
 * 4) It does not correspond to article text. There are three mentions of Northern Ireland Life and Times polls in the text, but two of the three (2011 and 2015) do not appear on the graph and 15 out of the 16 polls in the graph are not referred to in the text.


 * Absolutely agree, and only corresponds to one source of polling which may not be representative. Please remove and leave the opinion polling table instead for consistency with other wikipedia pages having opinion polling sections Pcauchy (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Chart on NILT survey series NIRELAND/NIRELND2
I've replaced the old chart graphic, which was imprecise because it didn't include the "don't know" responds of the surveys, while still having every stacked bar add up to 100%. This led to some inaccuracies, e.g. the survey's result for "remain part of the UK" in 2000 was 60%, while the chart clearly shows the red bar extending well past 65%. Some years the "don't know" responses even amount to 14%, that's quite a bit of information to leave out. So, I've built the new chart with the Graph:Chart template. This gives us some more flexibility with updating the graphic with new results (just add it in the comma-delimited list!) and accurate representation of values. Of course, this means that sometimes we encounter rounding errors, which is why some years add up to 99% or 101%. This is perfectly normal, although it might look odd at first glance. I was trying to get the percentages printed onto the bars, although the template's page states this isn't yet supported. The numbers show up, but can't be rotated and don't have any collision detection or minimum spacing, so the smaller bars' labels overlap and become illegible. Maybe in the future this will be fixed, which is why I've left you an alternative version of the chart to the right. --Safto Rangen (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
This article is presented from a set point of view that favours a united Ireland by focusing on set pieces of information which deliberately support the idea (for example the public opinion section places undue weight towards polls which favour a united Ireland and pro-unity political parties/positions). Brythones (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is titled United Ireland, so naturally it is going to discuss the concept of a United Ireland from various viewpoints. You need to show me the specific text you think is non neutral.  I read through the article and it's pretty clear it's main message states that this matter requires a majority vote in order to leave the UK.  Not a lot different from the Scotland Referendum.  Please show me what you think is biased.  Is your position that certain content should be removed, or that balancing content shoud be added? Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * please respond to this discussion so your issues can be addressed otherwise I will remove the tag after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed. Thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the edits that you have made are breaking the neutrality of this article. You have removed well-documented sentences leaving only one that some catholics want to stay in the UK, and selectively polls that show increased support for a united ireland, quoting that "they do not reflect public opinion" or that they are "selective" without providing any reference. This page is not biased towards republicanism, if anything it is the opposite as it actually prominently shows ancient polls that favour staying in the union, yet you do not seem to have a problem with this even though they are ancient, and that this has actually changed since Brexit. Pcauchy (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed tag based on consensus from other editors. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Country vs. sovereign state
There is an incongruity between the article's short description and its first sentence. The short description reads:

"Idea that the whole island of Ireland should be a single country"

The first sentence reads:

"United Ireland is the proposition that all of Ireland should be a single sovereign state."

There is no reason for these to be unnecessarily different, much less for there to be contention over the differences between the two. I chose to make both sentences say the same thing:

"[United Ireland is the] proposition that all of Ireland should be a single country."

To me, this is an improvement in style, consistency, and clarity. For one thing, United Ireland is not just an "idea" that someone had, it is a proposition with political support, especially post-Brexit. Second, the distinction between "sovereign state" and "country" is deceptive. Ireland may appear to be a single country on a map because of geographic continuity, but in fact it is two separate countries with separate governments, which is the entire subject of this article.

Furthermore, WP:LEAD states that an article's introduction "should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." When people speak of political boundaries separating independent governments, they speak of countries. "Sovereign state" is an overly technical term that does not serve the introduction's purpose of being accessible to a potentially unfamiliar audience.

Per WP:BOLD I have kept the changes in question. Please direct further comments to this discussion thread. Thanks.

68.58.56.64 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Please revert your reversion. Per Wp:BRD you were bold, you were reverted, then you take it to talk you don't revert again. If you make changes and others revert again it, it is up to you to get consensus for the change, not to put it back and insist the others support their reversions. Canterbury Tail talk 17:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." 68.58.56.64 (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That applies to you as well! There is no consensus for this. As I'm sure you know perfectly well, Ireland (all of it) was absolutely regarded as a separate country before partition, and that NI is now regarded as its own country, or part of a British "country", as opposed to nation, is a highly dubious and contentious proposition. There's a reason the British media talk of the "province".  Don't restore your changes again until you have gained consensus for them here. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And I clearly explained in my edit summary why I reverted. Canterbury Tail talk 12:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * However, the ip is right to say (at top): "There is an incongruity between the article's short description and its first sentence. The short description reads:

"Idea that the whole island of Ireland should be a single country"..." - I've changed that to "state" in the short description. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The term "country" can be misleading, especially in the UK where Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are considered "countries". So actually "sovereign state" is more neutral. So it is a good idea indeed to use "sovereign state" in the first sentence or "state" in the short description, thanks! Pcauchy (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We should use whatever reliable third party references state, not our preference. Canterbury Tail talk 13:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Public Opinion: Northern Ireland
The first paragraph should be completely rewritten as there has been a marked shift in voting intentions towards a united Ireland since Brexit. It is simply not true anymore to write "Opinion polls of the Northern Ireland population have consistently shown majorities opposed to a United Ireland and in support of Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom" and to use an outdated example in the next sentence. Please re-write. Pcauchy (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources?Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a well balanced page which has largely avoided the temptations of partisanship, and I urge the editors to keep it that way. For completeness it should probably have a section which considers the economic consequences of Irish unification, not least because these might be the factors which determine whether it happens or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)