Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

"Northern Ireland" is not a "country"

This is a joke of an article. Anybody who has a basic understanding of Irish history knows that the statelet known to some as "Northern Ireland" came about because the British state overthrew the expressed wishes of the vast majority of the democratically-elected Irish representatives, as stated in the 1918 General Election, for an "independent sovereign Ireland". The result of that election was: 73 Sinn Féin seats; 6 other nationalist seats (IPP); 26 British loyalist/unionist seats (And many of the British seats were given as a result of gerrymandering the constituencies to give more seats to Unionists, and giving them special seats from Trinity College Dublin).

Then, on 23 December 1920, the British state overthrew this democratic decision and partitioned Ireland against the wishes of the vast majority of the inhabitants. Those who are in any doubt about this overthrow of democracy can simply read about the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Now, following this British state overthrow of Irish democracy you are trying to contend that Ireland is no longer a country, but rather just a mere 'island' and that this artificial, gerrymandered British settler-colonial statelet, this most anti-Irish and anti-democratic entities, is a "country". As I said: this is a joke of an article. Politically-motivated British jingoistic nonsense, as ever. 86.44.47.116 (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Los Angeles Times

I clearly recall back in the late 60s, and throughout the 1970s, when reporting on the Troubles, the Los Angeles Times newspaper always used the name Londonderry, never Derry. In fact, many Americans innocently use Londonderry when visiting Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

BBC

I have removed the recently added claim that the BBC "uses "Londonderry" when adressing the city, but also uses "Derry" when quoted by someone as such". This is a conclusion being drawn from a BBC news report which is obviousl original research, and can easily be contradicted by the use of Derry in a headline here and here, and the use of Derry in normal text here. O Fenian (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding (from memory) was that the BBC used Londonderry in the first instance and Derry thereafter; quoted text left as it. --RA (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is quite possible they do, although that might not be a hard and fast rule as the examples above show. However it would be original research do draw such a conclusion from one or even multiple news reports, either a style guide or a secondary source which has drawn that conclusion would be needed. O Fenian (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For sure. (From memory again) I think there was a BBC style manual floating around and it was mentioned in that. --RA (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland county introduction discussion

Forgot to mention this here, and seeing as it is very important for this Project, there is a discussion on how the introductions to Northern Ireland articles should go - all input would be welcome. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"re-unify"

I reverted this good faith revert by Canterbury Tail. Prior to 1801 Ireland was a single political entity in every respect. Between 1801 and 1922 Ireland was a single jurisdiction with in the UK. It is only since 1922 that Ireland has been politically divided.

It would be as if a Scotland was partitioned, with a part remaining in the UK and a part leaving. Were we then to talk about the two parts of Scotland rejoining (outside of the UK), we would be talking about the political reunification of Scotland.

One of the wishes of nationalists is to end partition. It is the desire of nationalists therefore to "re-unify" Ireland.

See here. I've added two such reference to the text. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted a change that was just made. But the last time it was politically united was under the auspices of the UK. If reunited it to be used, it needs to be better clarified. Reunited implies returning to the previous state of unification, which isn't what is wanted or intended. Canterbury Tail talk 16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The reunification of Ireland could take either form: within the UK or without. Few desire the former. The citations make that clear.

It can be clarified further though. We could remove "unify"/"reunify" "join"/"rejoin" altogether and say something like: "Unionists want Northern Ireland to remain a part of the United Kingdom, whereas nationalists want it to follow the rest of Ireland, which left the UK in 1922." --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

But RA, aren't there many republicans who refuse to recognise the current Irish government? THe Provisional IRA have always said that the pro-treaty Irish government was not legitimate. This fact would need to be mentioned.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Historically, yes. At present, no. Even at that I would be very careful about accepting political rhetoric for fact. One such republican grouping, for example, at one time said they would never accept the legitimacy of the pro-Treaty government. They are currently the majority party in the Government of Ireland.

I'm happy with things as they are now. I only proposed the above if Canterbury Tail still had issue with "reunify". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Would this sound better? Nationalist want N.Ireland to leave the United Kingdom and reunify with Ireland. Jack forbes (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That works. Canterbury Tail talk 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The term 'Ireland' is used by some people as a shorthand for the Republic, and is also used to refer to the whole island. "Re-unify with Ireland" would be better reading "Re-unify with the rest of Ireland" or "unite with the Republic." --Eamonnca1 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In this context using Ireland to refer to the Irish state is confusing. In the context of Northern Ireland or the island of Ireland use Republic of Ireland. -rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we have an article devoted to the term, how would Nationalists want N.Ireland to leave the United Kingdom and join a united Ireland sound to other editors/readers? We don't have to worry about defining if its a unification or reunification, the linked article covers all aspects of the term. Alastairward (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good except that I would not say "join" a united Ireland as NI do so would not be "joining" a UI, one does not exist for it to join. The Jenkins quote I added to the article earlier today sums things up perfectly and succinctly IMHO. There's two things that need to be captured. Nationalists want 1.) to leave the UK and 2.) to end partition. Both are necessary, not one without the other.

I think the issue of suddenly introducing whether "unify"/"reunify" could be headed off by mentioning earlier (and clearly) that the genesis of Northern Ireland lies in the partition of Ireland. This sentence is particularly lacking:

• "It was created as a distinct division of the United Kingdom on 3 May 1921 under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, though its constitutional roots lie in the 1800 Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland."

All of what is said is true but seems to go out of its way not to mention partition. If partition was addressed more clearly then the question of "unify"/"reunify" could be left to the reader to decide. I suggest the following:

• "It was created on 3 May 1921 under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 when Ireland was partitioned into two jurisdictions: Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, the latter of which the left the United Kingdom 18 months later."

We could then change the other sentence (similar to what Alastair suggests) to:

• "Unionists want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, whereas nationalists want a united Ireland outside of the United Kingdom."

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nationalists want a united Ireland outside of the United Kingdom sounds perfect RA; we might also add that they want a 32-county republic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

RA, I like that, I can't see anything there that might be described as weasely. Although I hope it can be taken in good faith that I intended my original sentence to mean the same as you had. When you grow up in the country, you sort of take such meanings for granted, but it should be available to be read by a wider audience than that. Alastairward (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Historically Ireland was made up of separate provincial kingdoms - can these be called a single Irish political entity?--ZincBelief (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

True, which is why 32 county republic would be useful to add.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If by "historically" you mean "in the middle ages". Contrast with Germany which was "reunified" in 1989 having only been "unified" in 1871 and partitioned in 1945. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My comment was in response to Prior to 1801 Ireland was a single political entity in every respect. Between 1801 and 1922 Ireland was a single jurisdiction with in the UK. It is only since 1922 that Ireland has been politically divided. I totally fail to follow how either of your comments have any relevance to that. What I am saying is that Ireland has had separate political entities prior to 1801 (for instance, yes, the middle ages), history tells us that quite clearly.--ZincBelief (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't pick that up. Yes, you're quite correct. Historically (i.e. in the middle ages), Ireland was made up of a number of petty kingdoms. The same is true for nearly every European country. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't call the seaparate kingdoms of Ireland petty, RA; no more would I cconsider Brian Boru or Dermot MacMurrough to have been petty kings. The former was largely responsible for the decline of Viking power in Europe, and the latter, unfortunately, paved the way for the Cambro-Norman invasion in 1169 led by MacMurrough's future son-in-law, Strongbow. Most medieval European kingdoms such as France contained within their realms autonomous duchies such as Brittany and Burgundy who were nominally vassals of the French king, but more often than not allied with the English.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Brian Boru was largely responsible for the decline of Viking power in Europe? On Ireland possibly (even though he had Viking troops in his army) but the whole of Europe? I don't think so. The annexation of the Viking and Gaelic-Viking Scottish Isles by Scotland, the defeat of the Norweigans by King Harold at Stamford Bridge, the end of the Danelaw, the settlement of the Vikings in Normandy leading to the Normans who'd wrest England out of the sphere of Scandinavian influence all didn't largely contribute i suppose. Then again don't forget the Vikings settled down which helped decline their power - for example Iceland, Greenland, Kievan Russ, even Constantinople serving as the Varangian Guard. And the stabilising of their home countries as well as the expansion of trade ended the need for Viking raids and attacks. Brian Boru's battle with the Ostmen hardly made an impact on mainland Europe for it to be largely responsible to their decline in European power.

Just to say, this a lovely English version of history. Lovely. --86.184.67.178 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes to religion stats graph

The changes...

• 1
• 2

... (the first of which I reverted) look a bit off to me. From my reading of the text the mix "community background" with stated "religion" from the 2001 census. Compare with the article text and the census data (.xls format):

• "religion"
• "community background"

I don't want to revert again without getting input. --RA (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two sets of figures and showing a chart showing one set over the other might confuse some people. If a chart is to be used, why not have two showing both sets of figures and what they relate to? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory

This edit was reverted. If this article is going to say "Northern Ireland consists of six of the traditional nine counties of the historic Irish province of Ulster", then why is the Ulster article written in present tense? And indeed why does Provinces of Ireland say "The four provinces are" not "The four provinces were"? O Fenian (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ireland is traditionally separated into 32 counties, in the Republic of Ireland these are still used for administrative and political reasons. While in Northern Ireland, the counties aren't use for administrative reasons, mainly just sport orientated. The use of the word 'traditional' doesn't reflect past or present tense, it's merely stating the traditional composition of Ulster. Ireland has been split in 4, previously 5 provinces for hundreds of years, hence why you would consider Ulster to be 'historic'. The Ulster article is written in present tense because Ulster still exists? Your argument doesn't make sense, why would the Ulster article be written in past tense if it still exists? AnOicheGhealai (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Historic means it no longer exists, unless you want to claim one of the other meanings is being used which are all inappropriate. You ask "why you would consider Ulster to be 'historic'", well that is precisely my point. The word "historic" was removed by an IP editor then restored, while the word remains this article is contradicting others. The word "traditional" also implies that Ulster no longer has nine counties in it also, but for some reason the entire edit was reverted as it was ref'ed to an RS. Thus I have brought the dispute here for discussion, as it needs to be addressed. O Fenian (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is related to arguments happening elsewhere around the counties. The counties of Ireland (32 in number) are described in the present tense in reliable sources. Their division between Northern Ireland (6) and the Republic of Ireland (26) is also described in the present tense. The provinces likewise are described in the present tense too.

However, I don't believe that "traditional" or "historic" implies past tense. These words however are adjectives and we must be sure that the thing we are describing as "traditional" or "historic" actually is.

If Ulster is "historic", then how so? Is it more "historic" than Connacht, Leinster and Munster? I don't think that's what's meant so let's leave it out.

It is a similar situation with "traditional". There are so many aspects of that sentence that could be described as "traditional" that I don't see why the number of counties would be the thing described as being "traditional". Is there a non-traditional count of the counties of Ulster that arrives at a different number? Compare these sentences:

1. "Northern Ireland consists of six of the traditional nine counties of the Irish province of Ulster"
2. "Northern Ireland consists of six of the nine traditional counties of the Irish province of Ulster"
3. "Northern Ireland consists of six of the nine counties of the traditional Irish province of Ulster"

Like "historic", "traditional" seems seems to be a redundant adjective with respect to sentence 1, so I'd leave it out in case it is taken to imply something more than it should. IMHO it is fine in sentence 2 and 3, but I know that others disagree at least with respect to "counties". --RA (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I will avoid using your numbered examples to avoid endorsing the use of "traditional" later in the sentence. My issue is that "Northern Ireland consists of six of the nine counties" is a clear sentence, but the addition of "traditional" before nine implies to the reader that Ulster used to consist of nine counties but does not any more. It involuntarily emphasises the world traditional. I can possibly understand the need for saying counties are traditional, but I think that sentence is the wrong one to do it in. Going by the definition you linked above historic can mean "archaic of or concerning history; of the past" which is certainly past tense to me. Either that or it means "famous or important in history, or potentially so:", so why would we need to emphasise that in relation to Ulster? O Fenian (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree but I think the "of the past" definition relates to grammar rather than the sense we mean it here. In the sense we mean it here the question is, like you put it, what is to "famous or important in history" about Ulster (vis-a-vis the other provinces)? --RA (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say nothing that requires the word to be there, particularly as the word is ambiguous. O Fenian (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If I've understood correctly, the counties were forms after the provinces, from their territories, is that correct? If so, I agree with O Fenian that traditional before or after the word county implies that there was a change in the counties that made up that province somewhere along the line. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there seem to be no objections to the removal of "historic" and "traditional", could someone else please remove the words and the template, since I cannot do the former due to 1RR. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:AnOicheGhealai.

I disagree with User:O Fenian and have reverted the ommissions for the time being. Why? WikiuserNIs statement above stated: that traditional before or after the word county implies that there was a change in the counties that made up that province somewhere along the line. There was. County Louth was at one stage part of the province of Ulster, indeed the number of counties and which counties where in a specific province did fluctuate even if only rarely. It all depended on the English administration.

It must be remembered that the English created the provinces in the shape they are today, with Connacht and Munster even being administered by provincial presidencies. They also shired them into counties - thats why counties fit perfectly into provinces and don't straddle across provincial boundaries. The provinces are also purely historical nowadays outside of GAA divisions and the four rugby teams so stating historic is also valid. Traditional and historic don't solely imply past tense. People would call Big Ben or Stone Henge a "historic monument" but they still exist. People can be traditionalists but they aren't past tense or they'd be dead.

Mabuska ^(talk) 23:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone except you agrees the words are misleading and pointless. They are being removed, so this article does not contradict other articles. By the way AnOicheGhealai said hence why you would consider Ulster to be 'historic', so he does not disagree with me either. If you want to claim all of the provinces no longer exist, you go to those pages, get all four changed so they are past tense, then come back here. But since that will not happen, this page will not contradict them. O Fenian (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst "historic" can mean of the past, it is not solely past-tense. Claiming traditional means past-tense is totally absurd and rediculous. Claiming it is pointless and misleading is also absurd if you know anything about Irish counties in relation to provinces. Also majority does not equal concensus O Fenian. No-one said the provinces no longer exist.

There is nothing wrong in usage of the word traditional - it does not refer to past-tense, and informs the reader that Ulster didn't always consist of the same counties or the same territory that the counties now exist on. So on that i will either add in RAs number 2 - or amend it in another way to make it clear.

Useless you can prove that Ulster has always consisted of the same land area and number of counties, i don't see how you can argue against it. But that will be impossible as County Louth in terms of land and later as a county was part of Ulster before and during English rule.

1. It once formed part of Ulaidh and Airgialla, both over-kingdoms within the province of Ulster.
2. Map of Irish provinces showing Ulster before English invasion including what is now County Louth. ^{Mac Annaidh, Séamus; Irish History, page 130. Star Fire, 2001. ISBN 1-903817-23-4}
3. [1] - County Louth was considered part of Ulster until 1596.
4. The county of Argial, Lowth, or Louth, was one of the four counties of the pale in which, in 1473, a small standing force was appointed to be maintained; and the mayor of Drogheda, Sir Laurence Taaf, and Richard Bellew, were appointed commanders of the newly insti­tuted fraternity of arms for the defence of the English pale. It was overrun by the insurgent chieftains in the reign of Elizabeth, at which time it appears to have formed part of the province of Ulster; for in 1596, in the conference held at Faughart between O'Nial and O'Donel, on the Irish side, and the archbishop of Cashel and the Earl of Ormonde on that, of the English government, the latter proposed that the English should retain possession of that part of Ulster situated between the river Boyne and Dundalk, in this county, of which they had been in possession for a long period, together with the towns of Carrickfergus, Carlingford, and Newry, in the more northern parts: but these terms were altogether reject­ed, and ever since, Louth has formed a portion of the province of Leinster. Lewis 1837 Topographical - County Louth
5. Even though in 1638 maps still showed Louth as part of Ulster: [2]
6. This one includes it as part of pink focus area of Ultonia Oriental (eastern Ulster): [3]
7. [4] - shows boundaries of the five provinces c950 AD, Louth area lies within Ulster, whilst present-day Cavan area lies within Connacht.
8. [5] Wikipedia map showing Louth and Cavans older provincial ties.
9. [6] - O'Laughlin, Michael C; Ireland, County Cavan and County Leitrim. Which is also taken from Lewis' Topographical. Clearly states Cavan was once part of Connacht.

Tradition is defined simply as:

1. tradition - an inherited pattern of thought or action
2. tradition - custom: a specific practice of long standing

The 9 counties are traditional as they are long standing custom and an inherited pattern of thought. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone else agrees the words are ambiguous, confusing, and add nothing to the sentence. That is a clear consensus. You even fail to understand that the word traditional implies a change from the nine AT THIS MOMENT, not a change in past history. O Fenian (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point, i can now see the difference. Though this stuff needs added into the Ulster article. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It could just as easily mean that Ulster traditionally consisted of nine counties, but currently consists of eight, but I assume you have understood that now. The word really does not inform the reader of anything, and is ambiguous no matter where it is added in the sentence. O Fenian (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis or just not put in a proper context?

Snowded undid my removal of this source being used to back-up that two of Northern Irelands counties had a nationalist majority. The source deals with an election whilst the paragraph reads as if its on about population:

“ The island of Ireland was partitioned in 1921 under the terms of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.[15] Six of the nine Ulster counties (four with a unionist majority, two with a nationalist majority) ”

If you do a simple tally up of the electorate, and those that voted:

County Tyrone electorate (in total) - 67670

People who actually voted - 52443

People who didn't vote - 15227 (22.5% of electorate)

People who voted nationalist - 27450 (40.6% of electorate)

People who voted unionist - 24993 (36.9%)

It would only take 4% of the 22.5% that didn't bother to vote (and unionists do tend to not bother voting) to give a unionist majority.

For County Fermanagh:

County Fermanagh electorate (in total) - 28458

People who didn't vote - 4125 (14.5%)

People who voted nationalist - 13041 (45.8%)

People who voted unionist - 11292 (39.7%)

It would only take 6.1% of the 14.5% that didn't bother to vote to give a unionist majority.

However no-one can tell what way the electorate that didn't vote would vote, so its WP:SYNTHESIS to make assumptions that because the majority of people in two of NIs counties who actually bothered to vote voted for nationalist parties - that that means the two counties had a nationalist majority in population. For that source to be used it needs to be in a proper context depicting electoral results and not being used to weakly back up claims that the majority of two counties had a majority of nationalists.

Until the issue is sorted i've since again changed, this time to read (addition highlighted):

“ The island of Ireland was partitioned in 1921 under the terms of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.[15] Six of the nine Ulster counties (four with a unionist majority, two with a nationalist electoral majority) ”

Mabuska ^(talk) 23:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly a disputed point. A quick search on Google Books for '"northern ireland" partition two counties nationalist majority' gives this, this and I am sure some others if you want to look. O Fenian (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Its also getting very silly and the argument wikilawyering at best. We say on all other articles that "majority" means those who voted. Not only that as O Fenian points out the references are very clear on their use of language. This is getting to the point where its disruptive editing and a defacto breech of the 1RR rule. --Snowded ^TALK 00:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a fair point. The source that is used supports the result of the 1919 election rather the counties had nationalist majority in a broader way. Either the statement should be changed or a new source found. New sources, like O Fenian links to, are very easy to come across. Another example is: "Two of the six counties, Tyrone and Fermanagh, had a Catholic and Nationalist majority. Derry, the second city in Ulster, had returned a Nationalist member in 1914, and in 1918 under the new franchise it brought in a Sinn Féinner by a large majority."

Stick with what the sources say. Let source lead the text or find a source, like the above, that supports explicitly what is said in the text. In this instance, presumably, the important point is that two counties had nationalist majority (rather than just looking at how they voted in the 1919 election) so I suggest changing the source. --RA (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you RA. The issue here is source and verifiability Snowded and O Fenian. The source used was WP:SYNTHESIS as far as i am concerned for the reasons pointed out above, and more reliable sources that explicitly make it clear should be used in its place. The results above don't show a clear nationalist majority in the population - just that a majority of the electorate who bothered to vote voted nationalist. I will change the source to some of those given above that actually makes it clear.

Not only that as O Fenian points out the references are very clear on their use of language. - yeah sources that have only come to light and aren't cited after the claim when the changes where made. Real strong arguement Snowded. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Home Rule Act 1914#The shaping of Partition, without citing a source, gives a rather different picture:

The compromise proposed by Asquith was straightforward. Six counties of the northeast of Ireland (roughly two thirds of Ulster), where there was arguably or definitely a Protestant majority, were to be excluded "temporarily" from the territory of the new Irish parliament and government, and to continue to be governed as before from Westminster and Whitehall. How temporary the exclusion would be, and whether northeastern Ireland would eventually be governed by the Irish parliament and government, remained an issue of some controversy.

Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough i have a source somewhere that also makes a claim similar to that where Lord Craigavon choose the six counties as they had either majorities or where on par. Definately however another source i have makes it clear that by 1926, Fermanagh and Tyrone did have populations that were roughly 55% Catholic - but then again its stereotyping to assume that every Catholic was a nationalist and that every Protestant was a unionist. THe same source also states that by 1971, Fermanagh and Tyrone had Catholic minorities. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

& Albert Reynolds said not too many years ago that 4 counties now have Nationalist/Catholic majorities.

It's very much a matter of the impression you give readers. If you simply say NI included 2 Nationalist counties (in whatever exact wording), that says "British imperialism". If you say counties of uncertain majority were included on a temporary basis which then, by a series of historical accident, became permanent, that gives a different impression. Peter jackson (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not argueing that four do now, just the percentage fell downwards to the minority status of 1971 until 1981 when they had become a majority again. Had the Boundary Commission ever implemented some of its reports the whole thing would be different altogether. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Demonym

I have reverted the edit that placed "Northern Irish" first. When "British" was included the demonyms were in alphabetical order, I see no reason why this should be changed now to promote a minority term. O Fenian (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering how the hell Irish even weaseled it's way back into that demonym box. If the objection to not adding British as well is because it's a 'nationality', then, per the million and one reminders all over the pedia in all things NI, so is 'Irish' in Northern Ireland. MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is in the reliable source, unlike British. O Fenian (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes. The source that says 'What to Call People From Northern Ireland'. I've never read it, but it must be some work of fiction if it can come up with an answer to that question that includes Irish, but not British, by using the exact same definition. You would have to come up with some fantasy world where someone could possibly utter the phrase, 'the Irish come from Northern Ireland', without clarifying the glaringly obvious other part of that sentence that you would need to include before people thought you simple. It's patent POV pushing BS, a convenient fiction for obvious ends tbh, promotion being the apt word above. MickMacNee (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Infact, from the suspiciously small fragment of a quote that is provided in the article as that source, you will see that it is carefull not to say Irishman. They are singularly, Northern Irishman and Northern Irishwoman, or collectively, Irish and Northern Irish. The reason for the distintion is obvious - the collective use of Irish only applies because it overlaps the rest of Ireland, in the same way that British overlaps the rest of Britain. As per our wiki-article on the word demonym which includes the definition of a demonym where supposedly this source in this article got his from, a demonym is "derived from the name of the particular locality". Now, one does not have to be a genius to conclude that by whatever definition of 'locality' you get Irish for Northern Ireland from, you can also get British by the same reasoning. Although, understandably, that requires recognition of the other term people would prefer had never existed in relation to NI, the British Isles. If Irish is a demonym of Northern Ireland, so is British. The world and his dog can see that, and when they see what lengths people got to, fighting over even a single word order, they can see the reason for it's ommission here. MickMacNee (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The reference is from the book that coined the term "demonym". It lists places in the world and gives the demonyms for people from those places. It explicitly gives "Irish" and "Northern Irish" as demonyms for people from Northern Ireland.

This was a (perfectly reasonable and fair) requirement during discussion of what to include in the "demonym" box: that there should be a reliable source that supports what is a "demonym" for people from Northern Ireland. Per other articles, there is consensus not to confuse "nationality" with "demonym". For example, the article on Manchester gives "Mancunian" as a demonym, not "British". Ditto for other localities in the UK, including its constituent parts.

It is noted in the info box that nationality in Northern Ireland is not a straight-forward matter. --RA (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we had a fair stab at beating out all the arguments we could in a previous discussion, before we settled on a reliable source to cite the entries (previous discussion). WikiuserNI (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And also Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 7#More demonym problems?. As Rannpháirtí anaithnid notes, England, Scotland and Wales lack "British". O Fenian (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, There is very likely going to be in that 'source' rather more discussion of the Irish/British example than has been provided here, especially in the exremely dodgy situation of the source making up its own definitions for what is now ludicrously included here as some sort of indisputable fact. You would not put British on England for the exact same reason that Irish does not belong here. This is frankly beyond obvious, if the task is not basic POV pushing to try and assert that if someone from Northern Ireland ever said they were Britain/British to an answer of 'where are you from' it is somehow intellectually wrong, yet if they say Ireland/Irish, for the exact same reasons, it is somehow right. Both descriptions are absolutly not coming from the sense of a demonym as it is supposedly defined, i.e. as your 'locality'. Nobody here is going to brazenly claim that Irish is a term that could exclusively refer to NI are they? By the same warped logic being provided here to justify 'Irish', one can just as easily add Ulsterman to the demonym field for NI, infact it makes even more sense than Irish being more locally matched, but I'm sure certain people would go absolutely off it if that was even attempted. I don't know what people are reading tbh, but the clear consensus of uninvolved editors in both those previous discussions, is to either use Northern Irish on its own, or all three. It is only, unsurprisingly, the most republican of editors that even remotely thought that just Irish and Northern Irish was appropriate, and in actual fact, most wanted Northern Irish removed aswell, until it was hammered home to them that a demonyn is not a nationaltiy. In that respect it's extremely odd then that once it was determined that it isn't, suddenly Irish is not a nationality, but British is, for the purposes of this field. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is to be honest, if we've got a cite that defines the demonym for us. We could argue back and forth about whether the author of that source is correct or not, but those opinions wouldn't have a place in the article itself. WikiuserNI (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If we've got a single cite that sets its own definition of a demonym, and then comes up with an idiotic answer for the unique situation of NI, and then that single cite is being used here without qualification as the single world view in the article, flying in the face of common sense, in an article where the propensity for POV pushing. 'promotion' of terms (see above), and the abuse of Wikipedia for social engineering is at its worst, (c.f. the other attempts to erase the idea there even is a 'Northern Irish' identity across the rest of the pedia, or to claim Northern Irish people as Irish based on the flimsiest of evidence, such as when a boxer's short colour's became the cite for his nationality), then really, what the problem is for not questioning the situation should be pretty obvious. MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the addition of OR to the article would be an acceptable alternative to a suggested problem with the cite though. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You would have to wonder if the volume would be as loud if the book included "British" as well.. I suggest if editors do not like what a clearly reliable source says they find their own reliable sources. O Fenian (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As Northern Irish, British, and Irish are all demonyms used quite regularly in Northern Ireland they should all be used. Leaving one out is biased editing. [sarcasm]We should throw Ulsterman in too as its regulary used too by some.[/sarcasm] Clearly reliable depends - who's got the source used? Can we be sure nothing was left out to aid one pov other another? I think the book more or less probably declares "British" as a UK general demonym and uses more localised demonyms for the constituent parts of the UK just like this site - link. So who's to say someone hasn't glossed over the UK-wide descript which would cover Northern Ireland and just concentrated on the localised ones? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Assume good faith. The book, from which we get the word demonym, lists places and gives demonyms in the same way as a dictionary lists words and gives definitions. That's the entry for Northern Ireland in its entirety. As you correctly guessed, "British" is listed as a demonym for the UK. Per other articles, it is not listed here as it is not a demonym for Northern Ireland. --RA (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Its objectivity. Well as Northern Ireland is part of the UK then the demonym British applies to it. The book more of less probably wanted to avoid tautology by restating the national demonyms for each part of the UK. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(rp to O Fenian) Well yes, this was Domer48's favourite game (where has he dissappeared to btw?), and it doesn't wash with neutrals and never settles a POV dispute, because it's a rather blatant form of gaming. People can read the demonym article and deside for themselves whether the author is speaking for the world view and hence its reliability. Any smart person will see how easy it would be to abuse this article by blurring the line between accepted world view and author's view from his own definition as a primary source. Despite the predictable triumphalism at having found the one true source, the fact remains, to a neutral observer, any argument that makes Irish a demonym of NI is patent bullshit if it also somehow manages to exclude British. That is if indeed the quote is even accurate. Maybe the book addresses this fact, maybe it doesn't. I'm 100% sure you've never read it, and you likely don't give a monkey's either way. Which is not the sign of anybody who should be seen as a neutral editor in the matter, although you are happily reverting over it. I notice how we have no source backing up the idea advanced by you that NI as a demonym is a 'minority term' compared to Irish, although that rather exposes the fact that, despite now hailing the one true source, in this instance we are apparently not even talking about demonyms, and Irish is being included in that section as an 'ethnicity/geographic origin/percieved identity', going on the likely response to where that source for it being a minority would come from. This is not what a demonym is by the one true author's definition, namely 'name of locality/local inhabitant'. Obvious POV Gamery Is Obvious frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"...in this instance we are apparently not even talking about demonyms..." Refer to the demonym article. It is from this author and this book that we get the word demonym. There is no greater a reliable source for demonyms. It is not merely that this author wrote the book on demonyms; but this is the the book on demonyms that he wrote.

If you have an complaint, or a suggested correction, address it to the publishers:

Merriam-Webster, Inc.

47 Federal Street

P.O. Box 281

Springfield, MA 01102

In the mean time, we work from the perspective of verifiability, not truth. --RA (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What crap. The fact that there is supposedly only one source for the demonyn is the whole point. This does not make it 'the greatest brilliantist reliablist' source, it makes it the only source, and a primary source to boot. If it was so brilliant, then there would be a million other sources out there repeating his conclusions re. Irish/British and NI, in the field of demonyms. But I haven't seen it, have you? The only conceivable reason I could think of for using that address is to ask him if he has the first idea about the issues of identity specific to NI, and if he does, how could make such a blindingly obvious fuckup if he was to include Irish but not British, if he is drawing up a list of possible options for names of people from the locality of Northern Ireland. And if you really want to get into how he defines what a demonym is, if you will accept his and only his idea of what the hell the name Northern Irish is, then you don't actually have to go far before you find something that would support the view that British is a perfectly fine demonym for NI if Irish supposedly is. 'People choose what to call themsevles' is a choice quote from a source from that demonym article. And yes yes yes, V not T. This is from the exact same playbook as 'sourced, notable' and all the other crappy little Wikipedisms which people come out with when they have long ago exited the orbit of common sense or reality. Think about what you are really saying with this 'V not T' nonsense. You are trying to give truth to the lie that is the bare statement "The Irish people come from Northern Ireland", full stop, no clarification. It's garbage. And if you do the necessary clarification, using even Dickson's terms, then by anybody's logic, excluding British is also garbage. It's all garbage, and I am not convinced this is a conclusion that even Dickson supports, based on reading eveything but this supposed definitive entry (which again, nobody has bothered to address the exclusion of Irishman in - is this oversight, or deliberate, for the common sense reasons given). This exact dispute is a brilliant example of how reducing policy to a soundbite can be gamed to the max so as to argue black is white in Wikipedia. And your opening quote, "in this instance we are apparently not even talking about demonyms...", refers to the supposed minority status of the term Northern Irish over Irish, and how that has jack all to do with demonyms, but has somehow been mixed into it by O Fenian. Or are we going to find that included in this book? Nobody knows. You added it presumably, do you know? Do you even own this book? Did you even read it all if you did, or just flip to the listings page? Were there any footnote? Any indication at all the baove was considered, or resolved? MickMacNee (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just looking at this, and quite frankly this situation here is quite ridiculous. The only exact demonym for Northern Ireland is "Northern Irish", and it would be simplest to leave it at such. If you insist on including the wider scope of identities that are prevalent within Northern Ireland, then anyone opposing the inclusion of ALL 3 of Northern Irish, British and Irish obviously has an Irish Nationalst axe to grind (or even an England-centric world view) and isn't honestly or completely reflecting the complexities of Northern Ireland. ALL 3 are all integral to describing Northern Ireland. The omission in particular of "British" is completely wrong - NI is one of the few areas of the UK (outside London) where people living there have ancestry from all parts of the UK/British Isles - this unique situation due to the Plantation of Ulster. It also seems ridiculous that the most obvious "Northern Irish" is not first.Oxtersniffer (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

England (outside of London) i believe has a greater percentage of Scots, Welsh, and Irish than Northern Ireland does. Also the Plantation of Ulster was a failure and wasn't the sole or biggest factor in this islands diversity. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"...obviously has an Irish Nationalst axe to grind..." Welcome to Wikipedia. Please assume good faith and take time to review our policies, including verifiability.

A note about nationality/identity is included as part of the demonym section in the info box. --RA (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Ulsterman"/"Ulsterwoman" struck me as being very easily referenced. A very short amount of digging produced:

• Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English (Third revised edition ed.), 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953296-4, Ulsterman (or Ulsterwoman): a native or inhabitant of Northern Ireland or Ulster. {{citation}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |publihser= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)

I've added it to the info box. --RA (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It is rediculous that British can't be added in with the excuse of technicalities in the source being the reason. Northern Ireland is part of the UK and any demonyms used for it also apply to people from Northern Ireland - and as you all know many people here call themselves British - some who do don't even acknowledge the term Northern Irish, whilst others accept both or vis versa. The arguement against its inclusion is pov-pushing assuming good faith or not. And on assuming good faith - if we all did that then British would be included. This isn't a bad-tempered rant by the way, just a stating reality. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"... the excuse of technicalities in the source being the reason." - The absence of a source is not a mere "technicality". I know there are many in Northern Ireland who call themselves British and more power to them. There are many in England, Scotland and Wales who call themselves "British" too. And more power to them as well. But "British" is not listed as a demonym for England, Scotland or Wales because it is not a demonym for England, Scotland or Wales. Why would Northern Ireland be any different? (That question is asked honestly and in good faith BTW.)

In the absense of a source to support "British" as a demonym for Northern Ireland, I've made an edit to demonstrate how we might include "British" in the list without presenting it as a demonym. --RA (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would British not appear as a demonym for Northern Ireland? Because British is not a term used to refer to people that only come from the locality of Northern Ireland. In the exact same way that Irish is not a term used to refer to people that only come from the locality of Northern Ireland. I am not arguing for the inclusion of British, I am arguing for the removal of Irish, unless or until someone comes up with an explanation of how Irish is a demonym of NI that does not automatically also include British. A good start would be if one of the people asserting that the reason can be found in the one true book of demonyms, actually reads the bloody thing, starting with the 'Definition' section, assuming there even is one. MickMacNee (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Write a strongly worded letter to the publisher, Mick. The address is above. Aside from that, (quite unsurprisingly to me) "Irish" is listed as a demonym for Northern Ireland. Unless you have a source to the contrary there is little to discuss. --RA (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Enough of the patronisation. You are like a stuck record. With every passing minute it becomes clearer and clearer you don't even have the faintest idea how or why this book lists Irish as a demonym for NI, and I'm becoming more and more convinced you don't even know what his definition of a demonym actually is, let alone have the vaguest idea how he has come up with the NI entry in a way that does not include British when applying Irish. Your 'write to the publisher' angle is just a sorry excuse for an answer, and your 'find a contradictory source' tactic is the tired old angle of anyone who has only just learnt the policy shortcuts. A poorly understood or plainly mis-interpreted source warrants no contradiction, just fixing, by researching, explaining or attributing. Contradictory sources won't be found if the original claim forces on the mind a basic logical fallacy that nobody would ever think they would have to contradict it's so obviously wrong in the context being applied. You might as well ask for a cite that the sky is not blue to reference the oft used example, yet your side of this debate is seemingly that it is blue, yet you've only got one book to prove that, and it's called the 'colour of the sky' by one Mr God, and you care not a jot that it makes sod all sense to the scientists. All things said and done, you are the one with the single primary source that sits there supporting a claim you know full well to be contentious, and even if you cannot or will not understand how, is simply illogical too. You can either back it up by proving you really understand what the source means, with a cogent and meaningfull explanation of it, and rebuttal of the contradiction it throws up, or you can stand there and look like for all the world the person who has magic'd up a convenient cite based on the barest of verifiable details of its actual contents or rationale, but that just happens to support the most contentious and obviously POV outcome of all the options that neutral editors have put forward as to the real world realities, that to anybody who doesn't share this POV, makes not one ounce of sense. Show us a single ounce of good intentions, go and try and search for an independent verification that Irish is indeed the commonly accepted demonym of Northern Ireland. I know you heard and understood me mention it above, but it's just one of many things not being registered in here today, for whatever reason. Seeking independent verification is normal when dealing with red flags like this, certainly if we are dealing with 'the authorative source', especially on issues open to abuse. But I fear you won't find it, you will only find mirrors of this garbage. A good outcome for the social engineers. But not for Wikipedia and the principle of reflecting, not writing, the truth. MickMacNee (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Either keep both (British & Irish) or keep neither. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You have to admire the logic of people who claim that the person who invented the term demonym is wrong and they are right. O Fenian (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If we are to keep anything, let's keep with policy. We respect reliable sources. We treat them neutrally. We don't cherry pick the sources we like. And we don't cherry pick the pieces from those sources that we like. Demonyms for Northern Ireland according to reliable sources are "Irish", "Northern Irish" and "Ulsterman/Ulsterwoman". If there sources to the contrary or that give further demonyms, they are welcome. But we do not remove referenced material because it does't suit someone's unsourced POV. --RA (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well no offence but you have cherry-picked the resource. You admitted yourself that it states for United Kingdom the demonym "British". Unless your denying uncontrovertable factuality that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, then there is no reason why it can't be used as the source. Wikilawyering and Wikigaming is also frowned upon, if we're going to start quoting policies to everyone then by all means read Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules - which essentially means we can ignore them if it means we can improve the encyclopedia. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact if this whole issue is over names local people call themselves then i've added in a source that shows people call themselves British and more than just a couple. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither source uses demonym, and you and another editor have still failed to address why Northern Ireland should be treated differently to England, Scotland and Wales, when "British" does not appear as a demonym for them. Your edit was extremely controversial, and made without consensus or discussion. O Fenian (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You must be blind then, I've answered it already, and pointed out a hundred times how it isn't even relevant to how on Earth Irish is applicable to this page if British isn't. This is just one of many posts you seem to not be seeing on this page, presumably you are just unable to answer them, prefering instead to make sarcastic, provocative or triumphalistic posts, hardly the mark of a neutral editor. If you really want to get cute about it, the reference for Irish on this page doesn't say demonym either. You and RA don't seem to have the first clue about the actual subject of demonyms tbh, your extent of knowledge seems to be that single tiny quote, and some vague idea that on Wikipedia one person is allowed to invent their own word, and if published, then it can be used and abused in an infobox to mislead and decieve readers without batting an eye-lid. Out of your own mouths, this quote is an entry invented by one man, a primary source with zero independent verification, yet seemingly authorative and 100% reliable as a world view. This transparent tactic is otherwise known as POV pushing, yet, big surprise, this seems to be one area where that practice is seemingly not objectionable to Republicans. What is it RA said? 'All power to NI residents who call themselves British'? Well, how very good of him. But, the supposedly authorative Dickson book is called, 'Labels for Locals'. Hmm, it's a puzzler for sure. Pick any common or garden POV Troubles dispute flare-up on this pedia, that is when the usual suspects are not banned, and you won't find an argument that doesn't revolve around the use and abuse of actual sources to push a POV, not the lack of them. Still, you already know this I'm sure. MickMacNee (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as one of those sources was already being used to back up the use of Irish as a demonym i hope you removed it on that basis? If not then your cherry-picking the sources. I'll remove that source on the basis that as you said - it doesn't state "demonym". Is a demonym not a phrase used by people to describe themselves? The source is about what people call themselves and how they see themselves - so why does it have to explicitly state demonym for then? Why shouldn't Northern Ireland be treated differently? Not all articles follow the same manual of style as is quite evident on the Northern Ireland county articles in relation to the other British county articles. Purely wikilawyering excuses. Purely pov-pushing at its best. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah its not a BBC survey, so did you even read the source? Its a Belfast Telegraph one. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing nationality and demonym. Do you intend to keep ducking the question about England, Scotland and Wales until the end of time? O Fenian (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep making excuses O Fenian. I didn't duck the question i answered it above, you ducked the question - why should Northern Ireland have to follow the same manual of style in regards to the rest of the UK when it can't on other aspects of Northern Ireland such as the county pages? Oh yeah as it would clash with imposing the "all-Ireland" view with the Northern Ireland counties. Wikilawyering and wikigaming. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just going to add my 2 pence on this. Surely if you asked any Unionist, he would genrally say he was British and if you asked any nationalist, he would genrally say he was Irish. So if you include 1 in the main box and demote the other to a smaller footnote when they both have equal standing is not really very neutral as this page is supposed to be. I'm in favour of having both British and Irish in the box although I'm also of the opinion that if you have the genrally non-contraversial Northern Irish in there then you shouldn't have the others. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice bit of WP:OR there C of E completly irrelevant but nice work, it is verifiability not truth that we use on wikipedia, not if I ask someone they would say. Mo ainm~Talk 17:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh very nice, you try to be neutral and this is what you get in return? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, there is just 1 source here [7] says Northern Irish people can use British as a nationality. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The C of E, this is about demonyns not nationality unfortunately. I think demonyns was only added in the first place to give something that couldn't mention British but could Irish. However no matter...

I sent an email to Paul Dickson asking for clarification on whether the demonym "British" can also be used in repsects to Northern Ireland. I will send the email response (if i get one) to anyone interested as proof. Why we were given the details to write a letter to the books publisher, which can take a while to arrive and get a response, rather than the writers email address, which will take a considerably shorter amount of time... well we can only make assumptions. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Mabuska you make many assumptions but few of the right ones. The "demonyn" field in {{infobox country}} is not a Irish nationalist plot. I don't think an email from an author is a reliable source for the purpose of Wikipedia. I may be wrong, you can ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You could invite him to contribute here directly, he may have access to sources that we don't or an insight not mentioned here already.

CoE and Mabuska, I've sympathy for your positions. There does need to be balance. However, no source that I can find gives "British" as a demonym for Northern Ireland. Rather it is a demonym for the UK. If a source can be found that says otherwise then great: add it in; but we have to stay with sources and we have to treat them neutrally and not cherry pick to suit our POVs.

Above, I asked Mabuska what was different about Northern Ireland. In the same way as someone from Northern Ireland can be called "British" so too can someone from Wales, Scotland, England, Liverpool, Newport and so on. This is what reliable sources say. "British" is not included as a demonyn for other places in the UK. I asked this because Northern Ireland is treated differently.

A note linked to the demonym section points out that nationality and identity in Northern Ireland is a complicated matter and directs the reader to the section of the article where this is discussed. This is different to other articles on places in the UK or the constituent parts of the UK. Last night, I changed this to explicitly state that some people in Northern Ireland feel strongly British. I also added the word "British" to the denomym box (in a way that didn't suggest it was a demonyn). No-one reverted it.

In this way, Northern Ireland is already treated differently from the rest of the UK. The straight forward approach is simply to list the demonyms and nothing more (Scotland is an brief exception). The Northern Ireland info box comes with all sorts of trappings to temper those and to ask as a warning for the reader. It comes with even more since my changes last night. --RA (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW - my personal view on this is that "British" should be in there (in one form or another) as a demonym for the UK as a whole but, without it being in the other infoboxes for England, Scotland and Wales, I don't see why this article should be any different. For those interested in getting consensus among the other constituent parts of the UK, a possible way to do so might be to add a UK-specific field to {{infobox country}} for (for example) "citizenship", or simply to add it straight-out with a note saying "In common with the rest of the UK" etc. --RA (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So, what is the explanation for this special treatment for Irish in NI then? One that makes it a rather obvious special case. Now that when people answer your 'what about England' questions they suddenly no longer matter anyway. I want you to lay out an argument on this talk page that speficically refers to the word 'demonym' and I want it cited 100% to an authorative source, seeing as we are playing the find the source game where all editors are unreliable idiots and common sense has no place in discussion pages. Even better if the reliable source is not Dickson, but I think we've already established that is probably not possible. If you are going to stuff in material you know nothing about into an infobox you know is fertile territory for POV pushers, then everybody here has the right to accuse you of cherry-picking, not least when it's a bare fact from a primary source that you seem totally non-plussed about the fact that it cannot be independenlty verified as authorative or reliable, beyond the fact that it exists and what is apparently in it. The bare statement that effectively says, 'The Irish people come from Northern Ireland', but not in the same way as British people do, supported by one primary source, is an obvious WP:REDFLAG which needs independent verification, and if POV pushing editors resist its removal if it does not arrive, then it absolutely requires unambiguous bullet-proof in-article explanation and qualification. The fact that demonym is not apparently a well known or understood term, not least among the general populace, seems to have flown right by you. MickMacNee (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And also RA, would you please look at this page at Amazon for Dickson's book. I'm asking you because you are the chief advocate for the authorativeness of this source, O Fenien is just here to piggyback it's existence for rather more blatant ends. Now, if you peruse that page, namely various reviews and the cover illustration, can you hand on heart stand there and tell me it is an academic work of the highest order? That it's contents have been vigorously checked and re-checked? That it alone stands above all as a definitive source for 'what to call locals'. Words in the reviews like "Filled with tantalizing trivia and fascinating facts", "loaded with surprising, entertaining, and useful tidbits", do not fill me with confidence at all, not the confidence I want for a single source to be held up as authorative and generally accepted, let alone compiled with the utmost of academic standards. Merriam-Webster and Harper Paperbacks might be proper publishers, and Dickson may be a proper author, but you are talking as if this has been publish as an academic reference, peer reviewed and held in corresponding esteem. This amazon page makes it sound and look like a coffee table book tbh. The closest to a description of it as an authorative source is "a book that no classroom or newsroom should be without". Now, I don't know about you, but I think British and Irish newsrooms are pretty well covered for authorative reference material for what to call people of/from NI, and I don't think you are for a minute going to suggest they have but these two options. Not to mention that the article reference seems to be out of date, referring to a super-ceded issue. MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? You ask for a reference. You get a reference. The you remove the reference? Along this logic, I'm also removing the content I added for Ulsterman/Ulsterwoman and the compromise I added for including British. Very sad. --RA (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you stop the simplification, and actually start reading what people write? I didn't just ask for a reference, I want to see an independent reference supporting the central crux of your argument - that there are only two demonyms for Northern Ireland. By your own logic, that requires using the word demonym, and a source that is talking about demonyms as it's central topic, not a mere random example from some random topic. It is unbelievable that after everything said above, all that is apparently now required to meet the 'V/T' standard is a random ref like this. You cannot just bung that in as a ref, and simultaneously not accept that a similar source could not be found describing the how's/why's/wherefore's of calling people from the locality of NI British, for the exact same reasons as Irish. Infact, if you believe the Republican line, these instances would both outweight the examples of usage of Northern Irish, but they are just the usual one sided wanting to shape reality to a POV fantasisms really. And I couldn't give a monkeys about removing the ref for Ulsterman, I don't see what it brings to the debate, being just a dictionary definition and similarly not mentioning the word demonym at all. All it said was, 'An Ulsterman is a person from Ulster or Northern Ireland'. Yet such simple logic is apparently unacceptable for defining what British means, or Irish for that matter. You won't find a similar entry for Irish or British w.r.t NI without the necessary extra explanation and qualification. Infact, I was surprised the Republicans didn't have a fit over it actually, as I always though Ulster=NI was supposedly a very Unionist view. The reason Republicans would dispute Ulsterman=Northern Irishman, period, are the exact same reasons why Unionists would dispute that Irishman=Northern Irishman, period, or rather, Irish=Northern Irish, as we are still waiting for the reason why Irish is included by Dickson but Irishman isn't. Which maybe explains the lack of any uproar, as to object to one requires objecting to the other, if being objective and neutral. Frankly, that demonym section would look a lot different if we were allowed to simply use the dictionary definitions for Irish and British, and we were being transparent about the fact that demonym is probably a term that is so uncommon it likely doesn't even warrant inclusion in this specific article's infobox at all given the context and history, and all it is really describing is what you can call residents of NI and what they call themselves (referring to Dickson's own ideas mentioned above). Although as above, at least where Ulsterman is concerned, are we even sure that the reliability and authorativeness of Dickson's book is even comparable to the average dictionary? MickMacNee (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again with the same old excuse "oh these articles don't have it so this one can't". There is no reason why the Northern Ireland article can't have it included - not all articles follow the same style and not all have to. How many times must i state that? Using other articles styles to bolster your own pov is Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Wiki also states Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which essentially means you don't have to follow any standard set of rules (within reason of course). As i said before - you treat Northern Ireland county articles different by including foreign state countys in the ledes and maps when English, Welsh, Scottish county articles don't!

If your going abuse a source to enforce the inclusion of "Irish" then you should be willing to be conciliatory to match your words and allow the word "British" to be added in properly - not all people here call themselves Northern Irish or Irish but British and nothing else - England, Scotland, and Wales are different, people there have no problem with using British alongside English, Welsh, or Scottish. But the fact is many people here call themselves British and nothing else instead of Northern Irish or Irish as the above source i provided above shows - so it is a specific demonyn that is used by many Northern Irish people to describe themselves (and not just nationality wise).

Any other country article i've seen so far list only ONE demonyn not two. As other countries in that book no doubt have more than one demonyn listed, yet only one is used on Wikipedia elsewhere why is Northern Ireland different if we are going to use the styles of other articles as excuses? Simple answer there. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mabuska, you must stop making accusation against people. You must assume good faith. Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. It is not optional. You must do it. I know we all get frayed around the edges on these kinds of matters but your last few posts have been consistent in making accusations of bad faith. It must stop. OK?

About the meat of your post, those are sound reasons to treat NI differently. Thank you. There are only two thing that I'm not willing to compromise on:

1. Sources: What ever goes in has to be verifiable and attributable to a reliable source. That is not gaming the system. That is just policy.
2. Neutrality with respect to sources: we don't cherry pick or play games with them.

From that standpoint, the demonyms for Northern Ireland from reliable sources are: "Irish", "Northern Irish" and "Ulsterman"/"Ulsterwoman". "British", from reliable sources, is a demonym for the United Kingdom. I wholly accept that, from the perspective of this topic, "British" is a very important name for the people of Northern Ireland. What I am afraid of is how to present that in the info box without suggesting that "British" is a demonym for "Northern Ireland" when that is not supported by reliable sources.

So, with that in mind, I've made another suggestion in a sandbox here. Would it be acceptable to you? I know it doesn't put "British" in the same pile as the others but (for better or worse) neither do reliable sources. --RA (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith with my posts. Personally i think there are too many demonyms being used. I would prefer just one to be used and thats the immediate regional demonym that has most relevance; Northern Irish. Do any other country articles have two never mind four? If Irish has to be included then British has to be as a fair balance - and your proposal does have merit, though it does look a bit wierd with the way its "- United Kingdom", maybe having it in brackets like (United Kingdom) might look better. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a good fews places I can see with more than one demonyms in the info box. North Korea/South Korea is an very comparable example. A random looking around at a few countries, I can see Argentina or Republic of China too for example. Iceland. The United Kingdom. If there are verifiably more than one demonyn then there's no harm.

"- United Kingdom" was merely to keep the style used throughout. You're OK with the general approach though? We can mull it over for a few days and if no-one complains we can put it in either bracketed or with a dash? --RA (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

With reference to the use of British as a demonym, I'm not sure how the addition of something uncited could be described as "fair", to the reader. Ignoring the meaningless diatribe about Republic sympathies amongst editors, the best thing for a reader is to have a stable, well cited article.

I believe there are other more appropriate places to discuss whether something is appropriate to include in an infobox, or whether a cite is reliable or not. In the meantime, a simple Irish/Northern Irish from the original cite given seems fine. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"the best thing for a reader is to have a stable, well cited article". Well, the article is not stable, not least because there are now about 20 issues with this fantasy content that have gone unanswered in this section, and the 'we have a source' answer is now bordering on trolling tbh in light of this willfull blindness. RA needs to answer the many issues raised that show that claiming Irish is a demonym yet British isn't based on this one source, yet ignoring a hundred others, and basic logic, is simply a deception of the reader, and is not and never will be, backed by policy. Wikipedia policy is not there to support idiotic content if it flies in the face of logic or common sense, not least if the outcome is a serious violation of NPOV. This one source is even contradicted by the authors own cited words elsewhere as to what a demonym is. It is not supportable by any measure. MickMacNee (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And this talk page is precisely the place to discuss the use and abuse of an infobox and a cite, because it is only on this article where the capacity for its abuse exists. Nowhere else is a cite ever going to be abused to push a POV in this way, because even in the case of Korea, there is not a glaringly obvious POV laden ommission even if you include the locality and the not so local demonym from its infobox. MickMacNee (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The POV being pushed hardest on this talk page seems to be the one suggesting that in the interests of being "fair", a cited bit of material must be "balanced" with the opinion of others. (Where have I heard that before?) WikiuserNI (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiuserNI, the source gives British as a demonym for the UK, which as Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, means it applies to it so it is indirectly sourced. MickMacNee no point asking lots of questions - as i've learnt that most will go unanswered. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The questions asked here (however rudely worded) have been politely answered. That they're not answered to someone's satisfaction is neither here nor there, the relevant points have been covered.

And yes, I can see from RA's sandbox edit that a demonym for the UK in general is British. But then this is the article specifically about Northern Ireland. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No questions have been answered in here that I've asked, none at all, so no, this is not a case of me just 'not liking the answers'. You are realy naive if you think the issue here is just that there is one cite for one POV, and nothing else matters if a contrary cite cannot be found, not least as described in the 101 issues raised in here that seemingly are typed in invisible letters. Your comparison to Fox News is laughable frankly. "this is the article specifically about Northern Ireland" - that's the whole point, the demonym 'Irish' applies to all Ireland, not just Northern Ireland. Or do you want a cite for that basic fact too? And it applies to Northern Ireland in the exact same way British does. This is basic fact, and nobody here has even attempted to dispute it, because I half think that nobody here has the first clue what this source says about the definition of a demonym. No, the best argument we've seen yet is the irrelevance of 'it's not on England'. No shit Sherlock. That does not explain why Irish is on Ireland in a way that excludes British. To even attempt to explain this with a sustainable stance you actually need more information than 'magic book says it does', especially in light of the author's own words elsewhere. This is just one of the many unanswered points on this page. MickMacNee (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly folks, I find it very difficult to believe that nobody in NI self-identifies as British. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What someone self-identifies as is irrelevant, I could self identify as a Klingon doesn't make it a demonym. Mo ainm~Talk 20:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Put British in, afterall NI is a part of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Great input GoodDay you have solved the problem, you should have said that earlier and save all the threads about it. Now why didn't anyone else think of those words of wisdom? Mo ainm~Talk 20:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the intellectual weight of the 'I could be a Klingon' argument aside, if you bothered to read this whole page, you would see that what people choose to call themselves is what the author himself defines a demonym as. And how the hell else do you decide 'labels for locals' anyway? are we imposing the label Irish on the people of NI now, if it's not an issue of identification? That's the conclusion of the Klingon defence. The other theory is that it comes from the language spoken - which makes people from NI English then, more than Irish, which is patently bollocks. MickMacNee (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So are you agreeing with what the author says Mick? Mo ainm~Talk 21:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with what he has said about his defintion of a demonym that would justify Britsh alongside Irish, which is information people seem to think is invisible, but I would rather both be removed, as neither are demonyms for just NI under a simple common sense definition, even ignoring this author's contradiction, and which is what many other sources would agree with also if we are interpreting demonym to simply mean what locals call themselves. Ultimately though, what with me not being a POV pusher playing games here, for the specific demonym box, if we are to accept it is even remotely appropriate to have one author's opinion put into an infobox on an article that is Meccah for Irish Rebuclican POV pushers, then I am willing to wait for the input of anyone who has read the book in full, to see if he explains his contradictions, or squares the circle, and have that appropriately annotated in the infobox. I would be astounded if you fell into that category tbh, whether or not you want to reveal your previous identity. MickMacNee (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Mick I honestly don't care one way or the other if British is in the section, I am not pushing any POV and a "a simple common sense definition" I found is this one A name for an inhabitant or native of a specific place that is derived from the name of the place, using this I can see how Irish can be argued for and also Ulsterman/women. A silly question, is it not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, does this not imply that GB and NI are different? We could get into what people self identify as or even what they call themselves, I know as do most people from Ireland that certain sections of the NI community call themselves British, but a nice bit pointless WP:OR for you, go to any country in Europe and when they here your accent they will call you Irish not British much to the annoyance of the NI loyalists/unionists. I know a few unionists who get very irate at being called a paddy when the go to the "mainland".Mo ainm~Talk 08:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally believe that the author has stated "Irish" not in a way that implies nationalist self-identity but because geographically Northern Ireland is a part of the island of Ireland. "Certain sections" you make it sound like only a minority call themselves "British" - do you have sources to back up those remarks? More people (and polls back it up) that British is used more than Northern Irish as a mark of self-identity here. Heck as my fiancee defines herself as British and nothing else whilst i define myself as British, Irish, and Northern Irish.

Your remark on "A silly question, is it not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, does this not imply that GB and NI are different?" is silly. GB is an island and Northern Ireland is a part of an island thats where the difference ends. British refers to all of the UK not one part. The definition you give - A name for an inhabitant or native of a specific place that is derived from the name of the place - suits British for Northern Ireland quite well. As British is for the UK and Northern Ireland is part of the UK go figure. However the definition is stupid as it implies that someone from the United Kingdom would be United Kingdomish or something stupid as they derive from the name of the place. But then again demonyn is a term that hasn't been accepted into common usage yet - any wonder.Mabuska ^(talk) 11:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If there are any doubts about the reliability of this source, surely it should be taken to the RS noticeboard? In any case, simply stating that other terms must be added to the infobox because an editor beleives it to be right isn't terribly productive, especially since anything uncited would be quickly scrubbed from the main article.

Is there anything to suggest that this argument isn't stale and simply going around in circles? WikiuserNI (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not stale, because you and RA have failed to answer a single point raised that I can see that disputes your logic or reasoning for this blatantly POV entry. That's not the argument going stale, that is willfull evasion. You have simply said same thing over and over, while you ignore everything and anything else said, even the parts that directly rebut the point you keep stating again and again. And no, for the last time, the issue is for this page, because this is the only page it can be abused to produce a POV entry, that flies in the face of even itself, let alone other sources. If you want to post pointers at the various pages you want to shuffle this issue off to, to direct people here, fine, but the discussion belongs here. MickMacNee (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The demonym of Scotland is Scottish. England is English, and Wales is Welsh. How on earth can the demonym of Northern Ireland be British? It makes no sense whatsoever. Jack forbes (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And Northern Ireland is Northern Irish....? So what? The issue is including Irish, not including British. British should only be included if people persist with this POV push that there are only two demonyms for NI, and want to pretend that the only issue here is having, or not having, a single cite. This 'E/S/W' comparison has got no relevance to the issue, because the reason you wouldn't have British on E/S/W is the exact same reason you wouldn't have Irish on NI. And vice versa. MickMacNee (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Northern Irish is the most accurate description of somebody from Northern Ireland. There is just no alternative. If there is, what is it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Mabuska, Northern Ireland is a part of an island... yes the island is Ireland not the island of GB. Also what part of the definition I provided would lead a neutral person looking at the word for the first time to derive British from the term Northern Ireland, Northern Irish, yes, Irish, yes, but certainly not British. Mo ainm~Talk 15:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So what! You want British included if another POV is included. What kind of rubbish is that? British is not a demonym of Northern Ireland, so saying it should be included is wrong, and you know it is. As for Irish or Northern Irish, well, you all decide that, but don't insist on something just because something else you think is wrong is included. Jack forbes (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want either in, you are quite correct. Your fears of Scotland suddenly becoming British if we accept the distorted logic being advanced here has no relevance to this discussion. The defenders of both articles are perfectly capable of ensuring both articles reflect their own specific realities. The resultant contradictions over wtf a demonym is are an issue entirely for the reader it seems. MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Behave yourself. This has nothing to do with Scotland. This has to do with you insisting that British should be included if Irish is. If you think both are wrong you should never be insisting on either of them. Give your argument, and sources, against the use of Irish and leave out the retaliatory nonsense. Jack forbes (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where we're supposed to go from here. Why should any editor remove a piece of cited information, when the only reason to do so is diatribe from an editor who doesn't like it, but can't provided a sourced solution of their own. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

FFS. Where you go from here is to read, understand, and reply to, what's actually been said in this whole section. Where you don't go from here is to restate the same thing for the hundredth time, and dismiss anything and everything else which has been said in response as diatribe or IDONTLIKEIT. If you want a reason to remove cited material from this article, then read REDFLAG. One primary source to back up one POV on an article known for past attempts at POV distortion, does not make that source untouchable. Infact it makes it bloody suspect, and the onus is on it's defenders to give an argument a bit better than what's been offered already. We are not operating in a logic or common sense vacuum here. If you want a cite that supports British as a demonym for NI, then please, just tell me what the supposed definion of a demonym from this single source actualy is. We can put aside the author's own contradiction for now if you are so determined to pretend it doesn't exist and is not an issue. This dispute will easily be solved if someone bothers to read the book they are so sure is academic and authorative for the 'labels for locals' of Northern Ireland, and put in the necessary clarfication into the article if and when we get something to work on. In the meantime, either remove the whole entry, add British, remove Irish, add better footnotes, or mark the whole entry as factually disputed, anything but pretend you've answered anything in here to the disputers satisfaction. MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not from England and not English; I am not from Scotland and not Scottish; I am not from Wales and am not Welsh; I am from Northern Ireland and I consider myself to be British. I also believe that others who live in Northern Ireland may choose to consider themselves Irish, Northern Irish, Ulsterman (woman) etc. Leave the list alone.Gavin Lisburn (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Mick, the discussion is stale because you provide by way of response a wall of text that's slightly abusive and simply demands that we bow to your logic, which at present doesn't come with a supporting cite. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't need a cite to support the fact that 'your' cite is not secondary, or multiple, or in any way supports a giant REDFLAG piece of content. I won't bother replying at any length to you any more, I long ago realised you don't even read the posts, let alone understand them enough to give a decent rebuttal. MickMacNee (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

"It's not stale, because you and RA have failed to answer a single point raised that I can see that disputes your logic or reasoning for this blatantly POV entry" — Because, Jack, it's not "our logic" and I'm not here to engage in pub talk around it. It is what is said in reliable sources. If you want to counter it, you will need a reliable source to back up your (frankly, quite exceptional) claims. In the mean time, I've re-added a second reference for "Irish", I hope this addresses your concerns. and I've re-added "Ulsterman/Usterwoman" for completeness with references. I would encourage yourself and Mabuska to work from the basis of reliable sources and to desist in removing cited information.

GoodDay:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." – WP:V (Emphasis in original.)

I'm sure you're aware of this policy and can provide a suitably reference in a timely manner. --RA (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Add: I've boldly added the workaround from the sandbox as a way to keep all views fully cited. --RA (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

More blind repetition while ignoring other people's pertinent points. Shocking. Why I bother writing anything here I really don't know, but I will persist in attempting to show you I am not some idiot who just discovered Wikipedia policies yesterday. V is not just about providing a bloody book title and a page number and that's that. The assertion containted in the article is that Irish and Northern Irish are the only two widely accepted demonyms of NI, according to reliable secondary sources, plural, with a reputation for fact checking and reliability. This one book is not multiple sources, and it is a primary source for its own factual assertion. Even if it has a proveable third party reputation for fact checking and reliability, which is debatable, it is still a primary source. This is totally deficient for the purposes of V, for an assertion that is a blatant REDFLAG - this citation is ostensibly here to support an assertion that many people find grossly offensive. And to repeat it for the fifth time, your idea about independent verification using random google results is just nonsense - if the authors of 'Passport to Success' have any reputation of reliability in the field of definition and use of demonyms, please show us. If you can't show anything other than a book title and a page number, this information, which is effectively a dictionary listing although we don't even know if this book is remotely comparable to an RS like a dictionary, then you have not remotely supported this material in the slightest in the case of it being challenged, which is the case here. After many requests, you still don't even seem to be able to say what Dickson's own defintion of a demonym is. If you ever get around to finding it, then people might bother to look to see if there are competing evidence out there to show it can also include British according to other reliable sources. But the basic fact you seem to be willfully blind to is that your one primary source is useless for the purposes you actually think you placed it there for. At best, is supports one person's view who created his own definition of a demonym, and other knowledgable and reliably published sources may or may not agree with it, but that's irrelevant because the definition isn't even provided here, and all things considered, the reader can apparently go screw themselves if they don't like any of that. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm i am slightly unsure what the dispute on this matter is currently as its too late to read through everything tonight, but id just like to say i am glad to see the change that has been made over recent months so that British has been added to the the infobox there. This is a very good addition and as long as it remains there i am not too concerned about other things listed or which order they appear.

I hope those that have been successfully supporting the addition of British to that section consider trying to get it added to the other articles on the United Kingdom, the same case must apply there too for its inclusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"to work from the basis of reliable sources and to desist in removing cited information." RA your cite was removed as it didn't include the term "demonyn" which was the basis for O Fenian removing my source for British being used by Northern Ireland people as an identity. You can't have it both ways - removing a source that states British but not the word demonyn, but allow a source that states "Northern Ireland is Irish" but also doesn't state demonym. If demonyn isn't stated in the source how can it be used to back up a statement on demonyns? You didn't complain about his removal of cited material that didn't mention demonyn. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"@ Mabuska, Northern Ireland is a part of an island... yes the island is Ireland not the island of GB. Also what part of the definition I provided would lead a neutral person looking at the word for the first time to derive British from the term Northern Ireland, Northern Irish, yes, Irish, yes, but certainly not British"

On that basis Mo ainm do you support RAs addition of Ulsterman and Ulsterwoman into the infobox? The reader wouldn't be able to derive the word Ulsterman from Northern Ireland just like they wouldn't be able to derive British. Surely your reasoning must work here as well? If the reason it should be included is because Northern Ireland is in the province of Ulster, well it is also within the UK so British would apply on that basis. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess nobody has heard from the author yet? The simplistic 'V/T' argument doesn't get anymore convincing just because it's supporters prefer to go quiet rather than answer it's many obvious flaws. This article just remains a steaming turd of a POV riddled shithouse. MickMacNee (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think of the article. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Silence does appear to be the favoured method of bypassing questions that can't be answered or flaws that can't be explained. Its the same over at WikiProject Ireland where counter-points i've made have gone unanswered whereas anything that can be challenged is. Maybe you should take the silence as consent? If they have a problem then they can address the issue. Nah i ain't got a reply from the author (yet, if at all), however the arguements put above against the inclusion of British are so flimsy a gust of wind can blow them apart. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack, you might want to re-read what Mick said, I think he was trying to be subtle with his true feelings.

Mabuska, might the silence not be a retort to the increasingly aggresive and unpleasant musings of Mick? WikiuserNI (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The silence might be because we are going round in circles. If Irish can remain in the infobox then British should be there too. If not lets just keep Northern Irish and remove everything else. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, with regards the article, why? WikiuserNI (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Read up, there is a long debate about this matter. "Northern Irish" is a term that clearly justifies being in the infobox about Northern Ireland. If we accept that Irish has to be included, why can British not be included to? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, read it. Still remains to be explained, why add the term British simply because some editors beleive it represents a "balance" of some sort? WikiuserNI (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Jack forbes (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment?

This seems somewhat circular. Is it worth requesting outside help? I refuse to believe that an issue such as a demonym should be so intractable. TFOWR 15:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's to do with the island of Ireland - everything here has the potential to be intractable lol :-P Mabuska ^(talk) 21:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would support a RFC provided we all agree on the wording to it. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not circular. Those who had Irish/Northern Irish in the infobox had an appropriate cite (I disagree with Ulsterwoman/man personally), those who asked for British had none. That's it really.

Putting British in to have some sort of "balance" doesn't make much sense. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to go into too much detail. Give them the basic information and they can come here and check out the sources for the demonym's. They can then opine on whether they stand up or not. Jack forbes (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well one source is source 3 used to justify Irish. The reference says " While all of the people of the UK are known as British," and in "Northern Ireland as Irish". There for people in Northern Ireland are know as British. Just for the record i believe British should be stated in the infobox of England, Wales and Scotland too but for Northern Ireland this is far more of an important matter when people seek to include the term "Irish" which applies to another state and a wider area, how can the UKs British not be included as a wider area too when we all know many in Northern Ireland only identify as British. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A demonym describes someone depending on their locality. The United Kingdom article quite rightly has British and Briton as the demonym. This article is about Northern Ireland, therefore the demonym of this locality must be used. I don't understand why anyone would be confused over that. Jack forbes (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There for it should JUST say Northern Irish because Irish applies to a wider area in the same way British does. If it just said Northern Irish i would not have a problem with it despite rather seeing British mentioned in the infobox as well, along with in the other UK articles. Its the fact Irish is there that is the problem. This is taking one side. We all know that there are 3 ways people identity themselves (sometimes choosing more than one) but it is Irish, Northern Irish and British.. We should not exclude British. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

BW, I'm not arguing for or against Irish. I am arguing against British because there are no sources to back it up. Some are arguing against the source for Irish, but that should be decided at WP:RSN or from a request for comment. Jack forbes (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well if we could all agree to remove Irish i would not be saying British should be included now. Compare this to Scotland for a second. You would oppose British being put in that infobox next to Scottish. How is putting Irish on this article any different to that? Its talking about a wider identity, or an island wide identity rather than just Northern Ireland specifically. Thats the problem.. If we can allow Irish there is no reason not to allow British. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We can only allow Irish if the sources back it up. The same goes for British. Jack forbes (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But sources do back it up, source 3, used to justify Irish being there clearly stated that the people of the UK are known as British it then goes on to say the people of Wales are also known as Welsh, in Scotland as Scottish, in England as English, and in Northern Ireland as Irish.. So that particular source says its British and Irish. Rightly or wrongly, no matter how people feel about the present situation there really can not be a dispute that people in Northern Ireland are British, even if some totally refuse to recognise that identity about themselves. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How about...

"There is a dispute about the demonym or demonyms to be used to describe people from Northern Ireland. Four options have been advanced:

* British, Irish, Northern Irish

* British, Northern Irish

* Irish, Northern Irish

* Northern Irish

Assistance in this matter would be appreciated."

I've placed the options in alphabetical order. Are there any more that I've missed? TFOWR 16:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but shouldn't we be talking only of those 'demonyms' that have some kind of source? We can't argue for something that doesn't have a single reference to back it up. As far as I'm aware the main argument is, should Irish be included as a demonym. Ulsterman and Ulsterwoman has also been questioned. Jack forbes (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to present sources for each option. Part of the problem seems, at least to me, to be a sourcing problem. I'd hope that the RfC would address that (though WP:RSN might be a good first step instead...?) TFOWR 16:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Lets just use policy if it is contested provide a reliable source to back it up. If there is no source then it doesn't go in it's simple. Mo ainm~Talk 16:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN sounds like a good step to me. Jack forbes (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, what sources do we have for each demonym? It'll make lives easier for the WP:RSN folk, if we make them readily available. I'll create a handy list right after this comment... TFOWR 17:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Handy list of sources

• Northern Irish:Paul, Dickson (1997). Labels for Locals: What to Call People from Abilene to Zimbabwe. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster. p. 220. ISBN 9780877796169. Northern Ireland: Northern Irishman and Northern Irishwoman, or the collective Irish and Northern Irish {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• British:
• Irish:Paul, Dickson (1997). Labels for Locals: What to Call People from Abilene to Zimbabwe. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster. p. 220. ISBN 9780877796169. Northern Ireland: Northern Irishman and Northern Irishwoman, or the collective Irish and Northern Irish {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

I would back either 1 or 4. Its either all of them or just Northern Irish on its own. The source used gives British for the United Kingdom. Seeing as Northern Ireland is a locality of the United Kingdom, British applies to it, so its indirectly sourced. I would back adding it all the other UK contituent country articles. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• This issue is not confined to the issue of sources. I've distilled all the issues that any Rfc needs to resolve to my satisfaction in the below box. People can include them or not in any Rfc, but if not resolved, the main issue will remain disputed as far as I'm concerned. But should you attempt to tackle them, be warned, I do not accept silence, bluffing or bullshit as acceptable responses. MickMacNee (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning. Here be issues to be resolved, in a every long list. Do not be alarmed if others seem to ignore it. Frequently, the contents of this box has been found to resolve as invisible ink in the eyes of others on this page. I have placed it in a collapse box for collegiate niceness. This does not mean it does not exist. Enjoy. MickMacNee (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are the wide variety of issues that this dispute has thrown up (many of which remain unanswered, and even simply unacknowledged, by various people in the above section): Wtf is a demonym? Our Wikipedia article (unreliable source) claims it is "a name for a resident of a locality and is derived from the name of the particular locality" Nobody has yet presented a reliable source for what the definition of a demonym is There is some suggestion that Dickson is the guy who defined it, in his book, Labels for Locals Nobody has conformed what his definition is, or how it deals with the specific question of Ireland and Irishness Nobody has offered a plausible argument as to why British is not a label for a local of NI in the exact same way as Irish supposedly is. There is a suggestion that demonym isn't even a recognised academic concept, it lacks even a dictionary definition itself for example, but is rather a minority term used by very few people, and only really used within geographic circles Is the concept of 'what is a demonym' likely to be misunderstood by the general reader? You bet your life Ignoring academic definitions which nobody can seemingly provide, most normal people when comparing NI to other countries, as you do, will see that the normal procedure would be to simply use Northern Irish and nothing else (as 99% of countries have one demonym, formed from name-ish most of the time). That is just the common sense solution. The only other precedent I know of for inclusion of two demonyms is N/S Korea, but the Koreas do not have a significant population contained within either state who do not consider themselves Korean in any sense of the word, in the way NI does Does self identification come into it? In National Geographic, Dickson himself states that 'demonym', from demos (people) nym (name - -onym), denotes the fact that people choose what to call themselves Do people just call themselves Northern Irish and Irish then, as the Wikipedia article currently asserts? Of course not. See People of Northern Ireland Wtf does V not T actually mean? It means that sourced content is preferred over non-sourced content Wtf does V not T mean? It does not mean that a source just existing is the end of the dispute It does not mean that your source is de-facto reliable compared to un-sourced content It does not mean a source is incontestable, or its usage or relevance is not up for dispute It does not override NPOV or common sense, and it cannot ever support content that is de-facto bullshit, or ragingly POV Is Dickson a reliable source for what a demonym of NI is? A cursory examination of his book shows that it looks more like a natty coffee table book than an academic work of reference, independently verified and accepted Is he a primary source? If he is the only acceptable source for what a demonym is, and he created it, then yes, obviously Is this a case where a trailblazing pioneer can generate ideas that have as of 2010 become widely accepted and understood in a way that makes them relevant for use in Wikipedia Nobody has presented any evidence to this effect. He's a credible author and uses a decent publisher. That's it as far as the V part of this article goes. His book, or the part being used here, is being held up by some as a work as rigorous and accepted as a dictionary. Nobody has supported this assertion. According to the proper reading of V, the only thing this article says is what Dickson thinks people from NI are called. And it doesn't even properly attribute that. Are primary sources acceptable to support WP:REDFLAG content? Absolutely not. Independent verification is required to support the primary sources claims in the case of red flag content Random usage examples do not constitute independent verification Wtf is POV pushing? POV pushing is the use and abuse of rules to game the system, and force articles to reflect a POV, and not the NPOV POV pushing is most often manifested by advancing one version of reality that an a person with an opposing world view would likely find grossly offensive Is POV pushing a huge problem on the NI article? Of course it bloody is, where have you been living the last hundred years Who are the POV pushers on the NI article? You will work it out pretty quickly if you inspect their edits and user pages. Tendency to POV pushing as opposed to sensible conflict resolution rises exponentially with tendency to use sarcasm, fallacy, and general bullshit, in response to valid questions What does 'Irish' mean in relation to NI? Irish is a label that does not refer solely to inhabitants of the locality of NI Demonyms are supposedly labels for locals Labels for locals in regard to the specific case of NI is extremely contentious Irish is a label that a large part of the community in NI find grossly offensive, particularly those who would consider themselves to be British, i.e. of and or from Britain, not Ireland or Irish There are thousands of sources that support that Are these sources relevant to the demonym infobox? If Dickson is not to be given undue weight in Wikipedia as a primary source, irrespective of all the other concerns, then of course Dickson claims that Irish is a collective demonym for people from NI, but he specifically excludes the term Irishman for a person from NI Why is this? Nobody knows. Nobody will even acknowledge this fact it seems. Wtf is an infobox? An infobox is for quick presentation of accurate information about the article subject Is it accurate to claim what demonyms for NI are, given the lack of a definition, in an infobox? Is there a dangerous possibility for an infobox to be misused by presenting a primary source view of what a demonym is, a term probably not widely understood, to reflect a view as a widely accepted fact, in order to commit POV pushing on this article?

• Well, I'm looking idly at my handy list of sources, and it's kind of empty. Would it be easier just to punt MickMacNee's box to RfC? TFOWR 23:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken the only sources are those currently in the infobox. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think MickMacNee's box is worded in the most neutral terms so perhaps punting the options and the sources used in the infobox may be the best idea. Jack forbes (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And source 3 used to justify "Irish" also clearly justifies British. So that needs to be used for both if the sources are going to be listed here. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

To say Mick's box is not worded in the most neutral terms is indeed putting it mildly. There's a lot of assumption of bad faith there, might someone else reword (or just rewrite) the whole thing for him? WikiuserNI (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm extremely lazy and unfamiliar with the topic. If I go to WP:RSN or WP:RFC I'll take what I'm given. If you want me to give me something, great! The box seems to be fairly comprehensive and wouldn't appear to need too much work to cover everything in a neutral manner. But you're better equipped to do that than me. TFOWR 10:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Micks box covers it well, though maybe replace all the wtf's with what's. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mabuska, the box might work a little better for your case if you eliminated entries such as; "You will work it out pretty quickly if you inspect their edits and user pages. Tendency to POV pushing as opposed to sensible conflict resolution rises exponentially with tendency to use sarcasm, fallacy, and general bullshit, in response to valid questions"

Mick's behaviour here has been to label anyone who generally disagrees with him as an Irish Republican POV pusher. If we thought that Mick had a genuine interest in the article and not the editors, that might be a start. WikiuserNI (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You have just removed a source for Irish because that source also justified the use of British. Sadly now the only source for Irish to be included is for a book many of us will not have access to and is not available for free view on GoogleBooks. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I cited a poll carried out by the Belfast Telegraph which clearly showed that at least a third of the Northern Irish people queired identified as British rather than Northern Irish or Irish. The anti-British brigade removed it as it didn't state the word demonym, but allowed RA's "Ulsterman" source which (i) and then WikiuserNI later removed despite the fact it didn't state demonym either. Cherry-picking thats all it is. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Also RA above admitted that the Dickson book declares British as a demonym for the UK. So it can still be indirectly sourced as NI is a locality of the UK. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

BW, Mabuska, rather than rehash these arguments again, could we gather up all the sources and take them to WP:RSN?

WikiUserNI, I'd like to assume good faith about everyone here. Specifically, I'd like to see criticism of edits, not editors. TFOWR 11:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think Reliable sources are the issue here. It comes down to how we interpret the sources and define demonym. WikiuserNI just removed a source from the article which was used for Irish being listed but it could also be used to justify British. If we are going to gather the sources here we need to be sure everyone is able to view it and we look at everything it says, not just pick and choose the bit some people may want which justifies their position.

I think everyone accepts Northern Irish belongs in that list, there are clearly sources to back it up. The question is about Irish and British, both these identities belong to a wider area (the UK or the island of Ireland). If one is justified then the other must clearly be justified too surely? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If there are sources for Irish and British then put them in, no source then it doesn't go in. Mo ainm~Talk 12:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not yet convinced it's as simple as that, though I agree that nothing should be added without reliable sourcing. TFOWR 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If it boils down to us interpreting sources then, instead of re-debating sources we should head to WP:RSN. TFOWR 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well the source says "The United Kingdom is made up of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. While all of the people of the UK are known as British, the people of Wales are also known as Welsh, in Scotland as Scottish, in England as English, and in Northern Ireland as Irish." [8] BritishWatcher (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mabuska, can you please avoid words like "admit" etc.. It is vexing and frames discussion in adversarial terms. You could also do me a bit of credit and say that I have done more to present ways in which "British" could be included in the info box than any other editor here, including yourself.

WikiuserNI, pedantry around the term "demonym" is not helpful. It is a rather obscure word. The Dickinson book is attributed with "popularising" it but it doesn't appear in any dictionary I've ever seen. Can you please self-revert?

TFOWR, I'm unclear about what you want to call an RfC on. For one thing, there are enough people participating in this discussion already. There is plenty of comment as it is. But more substantially, if we are to invite outside opinion we need to be clear about what we are askig them to comment on. There are three issues as I see it:

(a) an editor is unhappy with the sources for "Irish"

(b) two (three?) editors have said that if "Irish" is included then "British" must be too

(c) the same editors as (b) want "British" included

In realistic terms, (a) is a non-starter. There is nothing wrong with the sources. The are reliable secondary sources from well-known publishers and authors. They are being used here to support exactly what they say and in the same context as they say it. Inventing problems with them, such as calling them 'natty cofee table books' and spewing forth expletives, is no sound reason to question them.

(b) and (c) are related, but taking (b) solely on it's own again we have only to look to the sources: they include Irish (for Northern Ireland specifically, not the island of Ireland) and not British (which they reserve for the UK as a whole). Saying that we lack NPOV when we are merely replicating what is said in reliable sources is again a non-starter.

(c) I think is more realistic but we do have to address the question that RS don't give "British" as a demonym directly "Northern Ireland" but indirectly through the UK. A fairly stable solution has been put forward for that. Only one editor I can see is anti it. Although some editors would be loathe to say it, Northern Ireland is different to the rest of the UK. I don't think that it is unreasonable to say that NI is an exception to the UK rule of not including "British" in the demonym section of Scotland, England or Wales. This is because, as well as being a part of the UK, Northern Ireland is a part of Ireland. In that context "British" is unique to Norhthern Ireland by vertue of being in the UK. But I would be cautious about attributing "British" to "Northern Ireland" directly without a source to support it. --RA (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before. Punt the options and sources from the infobox to WP:RS and take it from there. It is after all the sources that are being questioned. Jack forbes (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As a default, if agreement cannot be reached on (c), I'd agree. For better or worse, regardless of what they say, sources always trump the opinions of Wikipedians. --RA (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some external involvement, because this debate has been going for what seems like forever, without any apparent resolution. If you are disagreeing about the quality of sources, then WP:RSN is the place to go. If there's a wider issue about how we apply "demonym" here then an RfC seems an obvious venue for bringing in fresh eyes. Either way, this debate could do with some resolution. TFOWR 12:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ten days is not "forever". Also, not all discussion end with everyone clapping each other on the back and a definitive "resolution". The reason I had not contributed in the last five days was because there was just nothing to discuss. I don't believe an RfC is not going to suddenly ignite the discussion. It may be that there was no "resolution" because there was nothing to "resolve". --RA (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's ten days for this current discussion: it's cropped up before. TFOWR 12:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The point about making Northern Ireland an exception to the rule i agree with. If British is added here along side Irish and Northern Irish, it should not be used to justify British being added to the infoboxes of the other articles. The fact people want Irish added here which is part of a wider island identity makes it important to also take into account there is a wider British identity too. I am happy with just Northern Irish being listed, but if Irish is listed as well, British must be included. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

@TFOWR. If there is a wider issue about how we apply "demonym" then an RfC wouldn't really cover it. This would have to cover Wikipedia as a whole as demomyms are used over hundreds of articles in the very same way. A discussion on this with the wikipedia community would have to take place if it would affect all the articles concerned. Jack forbes (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A discussion on this with the wikipedia community - that works for me ;-) TFOWR 12:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@BW - That doesn't really advance us anywhere. The reliable sources that are being used attribute "Irish" to "Northern Ireland", not "Ireland". They attribute "British" to "United Kingdom", not "Northern Ireland". If we were to remove "Irish", it would mean doing to so at the behest of a POV that is unsupported by reliable sources. --RA (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

How about this source [9] Its talking specifically about Northern Ireland although its talking about how people identify themselves rather than "they are this because they were born in Northern Ireland". BritishWatcher (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat myself again. I'm probably being a pain in the ass here, but here goes. The main disagreemnt on this subject is the use of Irish and its source. Isn't it possible if it was taken to WP:RS it could be resolved without anymore disagreemnts on this page? Am I the only one who thinks this? You're all probably going to say yes, you are, but I really think this is the best way to go. Jack forbes (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You are not being a pain, you are simply incorrect. That is not what is being disputed here. The point is Irish applies to a wider area than just Northern Ireland, it applies to the whole of Ireland, surely we all accept that? The thing some people here are complaining about is if you allow Irish to be listed which applies to a wider entity, why can British not be listed which is in exactly the same situation. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I would agree. Such a move is conspicuous by it's abscence. It would seem a logical first step rather than dive straight into a RFC. WikiuserNI (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a handy list above, just waiting to be populated by sources... TFOWR 13:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see British in there as well as Irish for WP:NEUTRAL as you can't have one without the other, or just plain Northern Irish to avoid controversy. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

COE, adding British, simply to appeal to someone's sense of neutrality would be the controversial edit. If there are suitable sources, then go for it. WikiuserNI (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be adding British because it is accurate. People in Northern Ireland are either Irish, Northern Irish or British. Irish belongs to a wider entity than Northern Ireland there for if that can be included British must to because they exact same thing applies. There is a link to the source above. Sadly some refuse to accept that the source says people of the UK are British but they are also English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish.BritishWatcher (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the thing, the article is about Northern Ireland, not the UK as a whole. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why does Irish belong there? If this is just about Northern Ireland then only Northern Irish should be listed, not the wider Irish identity which applies to the whole island in the same way British applies to the whole of the UK. This is the problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am happy for my box to be reworded for neutrality and form the basis of an Rfc on the appropriateness of having a demonym box on this article, and what it might reasonable contain given what is known about the history and people of Northern Ireland. As I predicted, many people are pretending they can't even see large parts of its content. With regard to WikiuserNI's slur of me, some of these people are well known Republican POV pushers for whom this is a familiar tactic, they know rules of the game and they play it, constantly. One is even commenting in here as if we are blisfully aware he is in violation of SOCK#LEGIT. Some however just have such a narrow and simplistic view of policy, that while they might well be acting with 100% good faith, their lack of clue is forcing them to come up with solutions that are frankly incompatible with the 5 pillars. It is these people who need to see the error of their ways, and presenting an Rfc framed to simply answer the question they want asked is not going to do that. Presenting an Rfc that gives all the issues, and does not laughingly presume that one source for one obscure word is remotely acceptable on this kind of highly divisive and disputed article, is what does that. I will ask again, why (as in explain it with the backing of sources) does Dickson include Irish as a demonym for NI, if the entry is just for the locality of Northern Ireland? Nobody, not one single person, has proven either that they know why he did, other than 'he just did', or even whether the intended entry really is supposed to assert that Irish can be seen as applying to just the locality of NI. This is where the talk of the undisputed quality of the source for such a contentious claim becomes more than problematic and a REDFLAG, because that is something for which there has also been zero backing with either primary sources or independent support of Dickson as the definitive primary source, as yet. But as for using Dickson as a primary source, unless or until somonee reads the whole book, including the latest revisions, and any other supporting material that explains his definition of a demonym, then these blind assertions about what his simple book entry for NI means are just that, blind assertions. Anyone participating here in the spirit of improving the quality and relevance of this bare cite, rather than just entrenching what they know is a grossly offensive and POV assertion, would not have any issue with calling this source disputed unless or until that happens. This is basic academic honesty, it's Wikipedia 101 frankly. Sure there is 'nothing to resolve' here if you sign up to the view that 'I has a source' solves this issue. I don't, and I've expended a TON of good faith so far with regard to the willfull ignoring and total lack of cogently argued rebuttals of various valid explanations as to how this is not, and never will be, a stable end to the dispute. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mick, what slur have I made against you? You've thrown so much mud and accusations that it's hard to accept that you're assuming good faith about anyone who disagrees with you.

If there's a sock about, why not report them? If there's a rock solid RFC you can request, why not make it? If there are consistent game players, why not request help for dealing with them.

The only relevant line I could see from WP:REDFLAG is a warning regarding "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources". Well, I'm not sure what is so surprising or important about a denomyn that has incited your rage so. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You aren't sure what is so surprising or important about calling anyone from Northern Ireland Irish? Fine. I urge you to visit the place and test this theory out. You world view seems to be as naive as your knowledge of the history of POV pushing on Irish topics in Wikipedia. We've had mass sock hunts and arbitration case after arbitration case to stop the game playing that plagues Irish topics, it's proved pointless, as this debate shows. No, if you are simply civil, yet are effectively only here to advance the Irish POV over the NPOV, and you can appear to be doing this with just the right amount of fillibustering and evasion, then I'm afraid through bitter experience, in terms of being seen as a danger to Wikipedia, you are untouchable. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think this is a minor issue that people should not be getting worked up about, i think this is a very big deal considering Northern Ireland's history. At present this infobox recognises only 2 of the 3 main identities people hold in Northern Ireland. It is very offensive as far as im concerned for Irish to be listed but British excluded. If it just said Northern Irish i wouldnt be bothering with the debate here but to have Irish there which is an identity that applies to the whole of the island in the same way British applies to the UK is unfair if we can not include British as well. Surely people can see the problem even if they do not care or disagree with it???? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WP goes with what reliable sources say, not on the basis of whether particular editors find it "offensive". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine. If you'll just answer the million and one points that have been raised that challenge this simplistic reading of the situation at hand referring to other actual policies, and the core principles of Wikipedia no less, then I don't know about anyone else, but I'll be satisifed to consider it solved. But if you aren't going to bother doing that, then I can confidently say that repeating this same mantra for the hundredth time here was pretty pointless if you intended on convincing anybody but yourself that you are right and there is no dispute here. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And plenty of sources say people in Northern Ireland are British. One of the sources used to justify Irish which was removed earlier also justified using British, it clearly stated the people of the UK are British, they just also may be Welsh, Scottish, English and Irish. This had nothing to do with what reliable sources say, its how people interpret what belongs in that infobox. It is unacceptable to discriminate against a large community in Northern Ireland by saying they are either Irish or Northern Irish refusing to accept the fact many still identify just as British. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then the problem is that the Northern Ireland#Citizenship and identity concerns are being conflated with the demonym issue. Nobody is discriminating here, just trying to take the best cites for the article. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be a problem from where I'm standing (I went to reply to BW, and in the meantime you'd made the same point). My sole concern is over the demonym. TFOWR 16:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into the sources debate. Why is Irish an acceptable demonym but British is not? What is the difference? the only thing that applies only to Northern Ireland is Northern Irish. Irish and British are part of a wider identity. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've not said that. Indeed, I've not expressed a preference for any option (and nor will I). Part of the problem is that we do need to get into the sources debate, apparently, as some editors dispute that there are sources for one option, and some editors dispute that there are sources for another option. TFOWR 17:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Dickson himself says that the actual word 'demonym' comes from the principle that people decide what to call themselves. Given that verifiable evidence, it's beyond weak to claim the massive amount of evidence that citizenship and identity is a hugely complex subject for NI, and no, people do not just call themselves Irish and Norther Irish, can be brushed aside because we are 'just talking about the demonym box.' - unlike other accusations, this is the real example of editors opinions taking precedent over verifiable facts. Infact, it wasn't that long ago that Northern Irish was being removed by Republican POV pushers for not being a 'nationality' - and bingo, now there is one single cite with all sorts of unanswered questions about it, they very much now really really want to claim, with zero evidence, that the concept of a 'demonym' has a widely understood meaning, not least for Northern Ireland, while offering zero evidence or independent verification of this. Not one person, not one single person, has provided any evidence here as to what Dickson's definition is, or whether it is generally accepted by anyone else, not least for NI. Our own demonym article acutaly states, no fucker in the real world would know what a demonym is, and it is no leap of imagination to assume most people conflate it with national identity, and by extension, citizenship. It is frankly one of those silly things that people give no thought about because 99% of cases are easy, that it until it comes to a situation where it can be so obviously abused to con the reader. Wikipedia through NPOV is duty bound to recognise that basic fact and act on it. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No one may intentionally be trying to discriminate here but that is how it feels like if we allow 2 of the 3 identities people hold in Northern Ireland in that infobox but on purpose exclude a 3rd despite it being in the same boat as a (wider identity) like Irish. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• The pertinant question to ask at this point would seem to be, what is so informative about Dickson's bare entry, with all the consequent questions about it, compared to simply stating in that box, 'See the Citizenship and Identity section'. I am AGFing to the max, but there is no answer to my mind to that version that does not read like an attempt to promote an Irish POV using one cherry picked cite, over and above the wealth of sources we have on the issue of 'labels for locals'. Infact, the original Republican editor who kicked this latest section off was as bold as brass about the fact that he was changing the content of the section to match his POV (which bizarrely enough, was that Northern Irish is a minority term - his evidence? Well, he went silent at that point, but we can infer that this assertion comes from nationality/identity studies, and NOT any source that even mentions the subject of demonyms, let alone their use in NI). In light of that, the 'this is about demonyms not identity' stance again looks to be as weak as anything from a moral and GAME standpoint. MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mick what reason have you for not wanting Irish in the section? It is sourced, if the source is rubbish raise it at WP:RSN. Have you another reason apart from the source issue? Mo ainm~Talk 17:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is Irish applies to a wider area than just Northern Ireland. If that is justified to be listed then British must be as well. This article can not unfairly list Irish and ignore the fact the people of Northern Ireland can also be British. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got many reasons, all of which have been documented at length. Some are about the source directly, some are not. Why don't you take the time to read them? That's if this was even a serious question. I rather think it was just more game playing and other bullshit, I am guessing you wanted me to give some other explanation, maybe that I'm a member of the UDF or something. MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah Mick your arrogance is a sight to behold your posts really are odious with petty squabbling and attempted point scoring, I attempted to AGFwith your posts and gave input which I felt would help this situation, I have stated that I don't care what is added to the article but you can't accept that, all you see is POV warriors ganging up against you. I will no longer be posting here as people like you are what made me stop in the first place, so knock your self out. Mo ainm~Talk 12:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Issue of sources raised at WP:RSN

Arising from suggestions made above by a number of editors, I've raised questions about the sources at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Demonymns_for_Northern_Ireland. --RA (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks great, thank you! TFOWR 20:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I said (no surprise to see it got ignored) if this request is framed just to ask, 'is this book a reliable source', then that is a waste of time as far as solving this dispute goes. This request as formed borders on deliberate provocation frankly. This is going well beyond IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour now. MickMacNee (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I added in a source that shows that many people in Northern Ireland do describe themselves as British as oppossed to Northern Irish or Irish. I also added the reason why i was told it wasn't good enough - the same as sources 2, 3, and 4 over at the noticeboard. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Good grief Mick, is there any harm in having a little bit of patience? Why not just wait for the RSN discussion to clear and then move on if needs be? WikiuserNI (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm saying things that have been said already, but I haven't bothered to read all the lengthy discussions. I think the redflag point is important. Sources that don't fit in with the actual situation on the ground should be treated with great suspicion. And what is the situation on the ground? You have 2 different communities, not a single demos with a single demonym.

1. The majority community would call itself British, Northern Irish or Ulster. It would not usually call itself Irish, though that does sometimes happen.
2. The minority community would call itself Irish or Northern Irish. It would not usually call itself British.

Remember also that Ulster includes 3 counties in the Republic. Peter jackson (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter, "Sources that don't fit in with the actual situation on the ground should be treated with great suspicion", again sounds like it's more to do with the issues surrounding citizenship and identity than the demonym. WikiuserNI (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter, thanks. A recent poll (courtesy of Mabuska) gives 42% identifying as "Irish", 39% as "British" and 18% as "Northern Irish". "Irish" is thus hardly a red flag. The sticking point really is "British".

Attempts have been made to place "British" in the info box. Objections raised are that "British" refers more properly to the United Kingdom and that there are no sources that attribute it to Northern Ireland directly (in contrast to "Irish", "Northern Irish" or "Ulsterman"). In particular, an objection is that "British" does not appear in the info boxes for "Scotland", "England" and "Wales". Some say that Northern Ireland should be an exception but how to appropriately include "British", when it is not in RS as a name for people from Northern Ireland directly (but rather for the UK), is not obvious. I've made several suggestions as to how to do this. The most recent being this.

Some say that it is unfair to include "Irish" without including "British". This is responded to by saying that reliable sources include "Irish" without including "British". This is responded to again by saying that the same sources list "British" as what to call someone from the "United Kingdom".

It is for these reasons, and as you call it "the situation on the ground", that I think the suggestion I linked to above is the most appropriate solution. However, as WikiuserNI points out, these concerns are more to do with citizenship, identity and ethnicity, rather than 'demonym' in its usual sense. There is a note concerning those issues in the info box. --RA (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"42% identifying as "Irish"" is a minority; "39% as "British"" is a minority; 18% as "Northern Irish"" is a minority. So where does that get you? Peter jackson (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

To the sentence immediately afterwards: "'Irish' is thus hardly a red flag." --RA (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Dickson demonynm source being used no doubt only states Irish not as a nationality or political outlook but because Northern Irish is part of the island of Ireland. However Ireland is part of the British Isles so the term British is justifiable with sources or not. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

oh lord dont mention the BI word lol. It would be nice if the Dicksons source was available for us to all see, i want to know what it says in the section on the United Kingdom and anything else that is related. For example, does the book have a disclaimer in the introduction or throughout the article reminding people that more than one identity is held in some places and some may not recognise certain identities. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh i know all about the BI problem, however its still the most common-usage term compared to the multitude of others that haven't caught on. The only way to verify what the source says is for the person who has it to upload a scan of the relevant sectios in their entirety, in otherwords the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland sections. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the bottom line is this. If you mention Irish but not British or vice versa, hundreds of thousands of people in NI will consider that Wikipedia is simply lying about them, & no doubt millions elsewhere will agree. Maybe that would be a good thing. Maybe the only way Wikipedia will ever run sensibly is if it becomes so totally discredited as to be forced to reform. Maybe. Peter jackson (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I know people who think Wikipedia is discredited because anyone can add information in. And the scandals of the FBI and Vatican edited pages didn't help either lol. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should start a new section on the NPOV noticeboard because that is what this whole issue is more about. The section on the reliable sources board has got no feedback at all from what i can see, perhaps we all scared people off responding? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well actually my comments were in response to that notice, but I put them here not there because I wasn't discussing the reliability issue except tangentially. In fact I was going to put my remarks above this heading, as you can see from my 1st edit summary, but forgot this was a subsection, so the bottom of the main section was the bottom of this. Anyway, your suggestion seems sensible to me, for what that's worth. (Disclosure: I'm British, of part Irish Catholic descent, & have never been to NI. ) Peter jackson (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Now I think of it, there's now a noticeboard somewhere specializing in ethnic/religious conflicts, which would seem like the place to go. Peter jackson (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There is: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. I'd personally be slightly embarrassed about taking this issue there, "demonyms" not ranking up there with some of the issues they normally deal with, but needs must, etc. I'd like to at least consider letting WP:RSN get back to us first, however. BW makes a good point: it would be really helpful to whatever board we go to if we drafted a post in advance, and didn't then bombard them with our own comments on the original post. Rather than going through every single board, would now be a good time to reconsider an RfC? TFOWR 10:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A draft proposal would be best. How long does it take fot the WP:RSN to get back? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends ;-) I'd imagine in this case they're having the same kind of problems that we had locating and reading one or more of the sources, but I honestly don't know. TFOWR 11:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on a draft proposal, but that must clearly list all of the problems and concerns if we are to avoid many editors responding before neutral 3rd parties join in and help. As for the RSN, i notice that there are tons of replies to sections underneath our one. I would not count on there being a response at all there, in truth though its not really a reliable source issue its how we are interpreting the sources, the fact some of us have no access to the source itself and there is potentially valid information missing and its a neutrality issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that RfC gets even fewer responses than noticeboards. Peter jackson (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

True, RFC will certainly take longer to get responses back on. How about we agree on wording, making a post on the NPOV noticeboard and see what responses are given, if they say its not a matter for there then we can try the RFC. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the problems with simply listing something on the RSN, you would have to be quite careful about the wording for an RFC. Especially given the diatribe from an editor on "your" side of the discussion BW. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Errr, the 'problems' arose when certain people ignored what I said about what should and should not be posted as the question at the RSN, and just went ahead and carried on with the general theme of this dispute, that the perceptions of the people on one side of the dispute, are also just reality. So yes, thankyou for the acknowledgment that what I say should be listened to, if people want to avoid problems. MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Mick, it's hard to see exactly what you want inbetween the ranting about POV and "Republican" editors. The above is the calmest thing you've posted on this entire subject.

It might help if editors stopped declaring their own POV as "reality" or the "situation on the ground" too. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

User:WikiuserNI please be more restrained in your comments. Declaring people as "ranting", giving "diatribes", and comments such as "your side" do more to agitate the situation and provide next to nothing to the debate other than personal attacks and ill-feeling. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's a common mistake in these pages - the idea that somone objecting to blatant Republican POV pushing and gamery must themselves be a Unionist POV pusher. It's bollocks frankly. Nothing I have ever said in here contradicts NPOV, and unlike the simplistic arguments of 'V not T', it is me who has the better all round backing of policy on my side over this dispute, which is why huge chunks of what I say simply doesn't even get replied to, because there is no answer other than 'yes, you are right', which is understandably a difficult thing for a POV pusher to say if it destroys the argument supporting their POV content. Still, if you want an encyclopoedia that doesn't reflect 'the situation on the ground', more power to you ... I guess *facepalms*. MickMacNee (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

the idea that somone objecting to blatant Republican POV pushing and gamery must themselves be a Unionist POV pusher; I never suggested you were a "Unionist POV pusher", that was your own bit of hyperbole actually.

Huge chunks of what you write is ignored because you can't help but mix it up with such ridiculous ideas. So yes, I would happily ignore what people like you think of as "the situation on the ground"... WikiuserNI (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks. Please point out a single thing I've said that you think is a "ridiculous idea", let's see how justiifed you really are to think you can get away with using phrases like "people like you" while simultaneously claiming to be a neutral editor in this dispute. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I just told you what your ridiculous ideas were. You accuse everyone who disagrees with you as Republican POV pushers (as above). Or accuse everyone of painting you as a Unionist POV pusher in return when it was only you who raised the mere idea of it all. There you go, people like you; people who wade into a discussion burying any points they want to raise under a mountain of hyperbole.

You really should chill, I'm not sure why you have be so angry and unwilling to assume good faith. WikiuserNI (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to the people like you, whose only response to extremely long and detailed reasons why their arguments are false, is to stay silent, or call people hysterical, or tell people to chill, or call for AGF, or any and all of the other nonsense that is an attempt to cover over the fact that you cannot and will not answer the points made that disagree with your views. This is Wikipedia, where none of those things constitute an actual reasoned debate, rather than POV pushing game playing, so yes, I'm fine to not be one of those people. MickMacNee (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

ENOUGH

You both sound like wanes, please focus on the topic and not who's labelling who as this or that or assume reasons why people are doing this or that. Maybe no-one else is commenting as they don't want to get involved in the mud-slinging match between you both. Please restrain yourself WikiNI and MickMacNee. Take a breather and allow things to settle. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to try and start drafting a post to be placed over at the Neutrality board. I would do it but i think my wording may be a little unbalanced on this matter because i can not see how one side has taken the view it has to clearly discriminate against a large community in Northern Ireland that are British. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mick, your problem then is that people haven't replied to you in kind? That you would like to be replied to in the same way that you respond to others? I don't think anyone is taking the bait to be honest.

Mabuska, I'm not sure what you mean by that, where exactly am I at fault for kindly asking Mick not to go overboard. You're not helping with suggestions such as "so the term British is justifiable with sources or not" (WP:NOR and all that).

BritishWatcher, that's a heck of an assumption of bad faith. Nobody who suggested we stick with Irish/N. Irish for the infobox has done anything to "clearly discriminate" against anyone. A check for adequate sourced to back yourself up would be more productive that crying foul at the first opportunity. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry Mabuska, I'm done arguing with this guy. The 5503204th time he has come out with the same line, despite it being disputed a hundred times in all the posts he ignores, is enough for me. He is most definitely not qualified to be telling anyone what their problem is in this discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Arguing" suggests a (heated) back and forward discussion regarding the subject at hand. All I've done Mick is to let you know we can't make out what you're trying to say regarding the topic. All you've done in reply is to imply I'm some sort of Irish Republican.

At least I know I'm not the only one to be on the receiving end of such abuse. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

My points on the actual issues can be made out just fine, others seem to manage it. It's not me, but rather you, who spends too much time talking about irrelevancies frankly. What my comments on other unrelated pages are for example. But if you would rather spend your time trawling for those, than reading my points again to tease out what you've been ignoring, I guess that's fine too. MickMacNee (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't really a trawl, I was going to drop you a note on your talk page for you to tone down the language here and found a few interesting links. Going by those, you've certainly been restrained here! I'm aware of what you think about the demonym issue inbetween the angsty rage, I believe you could do more yourself rather than jump at an RFC straight away, but then where's the fun in that eh? WikiuserNI (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Issue raised at Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts admin board

I have now raised this matter here BritishWatcher (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

More input from people here is needed over at noticeboard linked above. Several people there agree that it is wrong to list Irish whilst excluding British, or to list Irish at all when only Northern Irish applies specifically to Northern Ireland. If there is no further debate on that page, i will be removing "Irish" from the infobox of this article in the next few days in line with that debate. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you don't issue ultimata BW as you will certainly be reverted. You have asked other editors to be involved, see what happens. --Snowded ^TALK 11:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, i thought i was being helpful informing people of my intention to remove Irish in the next few days if there is not more debate. I could have just removed it now and started an edit war. The current grossly offensive position of listing Irish whilst discriminating against British people has to come to an end. I am happy to engage in a very long debate on this matter, but no one has commented for a couple of days.. which is why i posted that message to ensure it got more attention before i made any edit. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As other editors have informed you, what you find offensive is not a criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Its about reliable sources. And starting an edit war on this page is a easy way to earn a block or two. --Snowded ^TALK 11:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not be breaking a rule if i removed it and someone else reverted. I would not have reverted the revert, but it would have been a way of provoking a debate. I thought i did the right thing by posting on this talk page, informing people of my action over the next few days if there is no further debate. Yet you make it sound like i was making some form of unhelpful "ultimata". The debate here faded, i waited days before posting on the admin noticeboard. Several people there agreed that Irish should not be listed for one reason or another. I waited a day then posted on that noticeboard asking what should be done, i have then waited 2 days and there has been no response which is why i posted the above message. The fact i find it grossly offensive is not the reason for it needing to be removed. Its a neutrality issue and its also an accuracy one.

I would hope as you are likely to oppose British appearing in the Welsh and Scottish infobox you would see the problem with irish appearing here. Northern Irish is the only Demonym that applies to Northern Ireland. Irish applies to the whole island of Ireland in the way British applies to the whole UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The consensus in that discussion is clear, particularly among uninvolved editors, as it has been anytime this issue reaches the wider world. Anyone blindly reverting this clearly supported change will have to explain themselves in that regard, and if they have anything to say other than what's already been said, and been seen, by all those people, then they had better say it when they revert. Because I don't know about anyone else, but I've had my fill of the resounding silence that greets the many questions about the 'it's referenced' argument. MickMacNee (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Clear consensus among uninvolved editors? Hmmmm ... here's what editor who had not previously commented on this talk page had to say:

• "Looking at the other constituent country articles, there's no reason to include British whatsoever, as the others do not. This sounds akin to wanting "American" in the infobox for Texas. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)"
• "Sounds a bit like 'If I can't have the baby, no problem, but neither can she'... 68.238.21.153 (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)"
• "The inclusion of anything not specific to Norn Irn is an abuse of the demonym box. The only term that should be there is 'Northern Irish', because it is the only term which is A) specific to Northern Ireland; and B) applicable to everybody who is from there, regardless of their political, ethnic or confessional affiliations. I believe we can agree that not everybody in Northern Ireland regards themselves as 'British', nor as 'Irish'; and the Six Counties ≠ Ulster! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC) a 32-county republican Protestant, thank you"

--RA (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, your 'not previously commented' criteria seems to extend pretty far, almost into eternity. Although that does show just how many different people have been consistently brushed aside with the standard but rather repetitive counter argument in this dispute. You've missed off at least one new person that I can see, and the .153 IP sounds very much like the troll who keeps popping up, who is most likely an established user who logs out every now and again to give that sort of non-comment. MickMacNee (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeking to add British, simply remove "Irish" and leave "Northern Irish" there, which is inline with OrangeMikes post. Golbez point is also just about the inclusion of British, rather than removing Irish which is what i seek to do. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

One month on

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus at WP:CCN was for using "Northern Irish" as the sole demonym, but omitting the demonym altogether seems a reasonable alternative given the obvious complexities of the issue. TFOWR 22:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Well it has now been a month since i posted on the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts admin board. A very clear majority support the removal of Irish from this infobox (several also want the removal of Ulsterman too). Only 3 editors over on the noticeboard support having Irish included whilst British is excluded, out of a debate that on that page has involved more than 10 people.

The time has come for this article infobox to be changed to reflect what the majority agree should be included. If there is no more debate within the next 24 hours, i will be making the change. I do not understand what more has to be done to get this infobox changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki doesn't do democracy but it does do overall concensus and there seems to be an overall concensus for the removal of Irish. Three editors who will continue to argue against it shouldn't be allowed to gazump what a majority agree with. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And no editor has yet to disprove the fact Northern Irish is the only term that applies only to people from Northern Ireland. So this is not a case of a majority overruling commonsense. The problem with inclusion of Irish has been made very clear many times and it is very clearly out of sync with other infoboxes on wikipedia. A few editors should not be able to block an obviously justifiable change that has clear support. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

BW, I wasn't hugely impressed with the way you summarised the results at WP:CCN ("removing Irish"), but I do agree with the implicit analysis of the consensus: that the consensus was for "Northern Irish" alone. "British" is a demonym for United Kingdom, "Irish" is a demonym for Ireland (the island)/Republic of Ireland, "Ulsterman" is a demonym for Ulster (nine counties), and - although curiously no one mentioned it at all - "European" is a demonym for Europe. TFOWR 15:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely, someone would have mentioned it :) Daicaregos (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with the above at all. When reliable cites have been found for the other demonyms, they may not be so easily dismissed as "discriminatory" or through logic (which would be original research).

Since the "consensus" didn't address the issue of what to do with reliably sourced information in the article, I don't think we've done anything except echo approval for the use of "Northern Irish". WikiuserNI (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And BW; "Only 3 editors over on the noticeboard support having Irish included whilst British is excluded", for goodness sake please drop that line. British was excluded while no cite existed, that's all. Find a decent cite and it can stay. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Only 3 editors over on the noticeboard support having Irish included whilst British is excluded" This is an accurate reflection of the situation. You oppose the removal of Irish from this infobox despite British being excluded at present. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, i waited for weeks asking 3 times for suggestions on a way forward, sadly some of these admin noticeboards seem to lack any admin input at all most of the time. The final time i posted asking specifically for an admin to read through the debate and advise on what steps should be taken. WikiUserNI replied disagreeing with my claim that a clear majority supported a specific change like removal of Irish. I then waited another 5 days before producing the list, i would rather not have had to make such a list at all and left it to a neutral or uninvolved person to sum so it could not be disputed. I do not understand what more i can do on this matter. Going round in circles would be an understatement of the situation. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No complaints about the wait, etc - it was framing the conclusion as "remove Irish" instead of "support just Northern Irish" that I had a problem with. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned it's resolved - we went to WP:CCN, there was a consensus, we're back here with that consensus: the demonym for Northern Ireland is "Northern Irish". TFOWR 16:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah i see, i was trying to be specific about if Irish should stay or go as not all had stated a clear position on the use of ulsterman but also "removal of Irish" seemed to be the big issue and dominated the debate. As WikiuserNI shows below, he refuses to accept Irish should be removed because there is a source backing it up. "Removal of Irish" because British is being excluded was why i took it to the noticeboard, i too support the removal of Ulsterman, but the key thing for me was always the British/Irish issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

From WP:CON; "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles." That's the bit that's being ignored above.

One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability. Sources have been found for Northern Irish, Ulster, Irish, none yet for British. That should be the end of the issue. Northern Irish, Irish and Ulster may stay as sourced, no matter what the opinions of other editors may be.

Those who care for "balance" might better spend their time seeking cites for British so that may be added. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the sources used to justify Irish was this one:

"The United Kingdom is made up of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. While all of the people of the UK are known as British, the people of Wales are also known as Welsh, in Scotland as Scottish, in England as English, and in Northern Ireland as Irish."

Why would that source have repeated British 4 times after mentioning EWSNI? When it already clearly stated the people of the United Kingdom are known as British. People refuse to accept inclusion of British unless a source specifically use the exact term "Demonym", yet that above source had been used to back up Irish. Sources saying people identity as either British, Irish or Northern Irish are deemed unsuitable and simply dismissed. The infobox should be changed for two reasons. Northern Irish is the only thing that applies specifically to Northern Ireland (Irish applies to the whole island) and as far as im concerned its a gross violation of WP:NPOV to state Irish but exclude British from that infobox when as the article itself says, Identity is a very big issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiuserNI knows full well by now that his 'RS' and 'V' arguments have been challenged using wholly legitimate policy based concerns many times, both from within RS, and from without in other fundemental pillars, like NPOV. It is unfortunate that he has chosen to continutally ignore them, or worse, pretend that these objections have simply been based just on personal opinions. I am a Wikipedia veteran, I do think I know what the fuck I am talking about regards to policy and consensus based debate, and I simply would not waste the time WikiuserNI has stolen from me, if all I had on my side was my own POV. At last count, I think he has ignored the most damning evidence that contradicts this slavish love-in of the one true source we have seen for months, about ten times, maybe even more, I got bored counting after a while. And that evidence comes from the very same author. Despite multiple requests, we've yet to see any rigorous defence of that one true source's quality, reliability or standing in the field, and it must be beyond obvious by now that the only thing its supporters know about the source, or the topic of demonyms in general, is the one tiny quote which is the root of this dispute. If he wants to take the matter of his ongoing obfuscation to the meta level, his simplistic 'it's WP:V! argument ad nauseum violates another pillar - do not slavishly follow rules when it degrades the pedia. It is beyond obvious that a majority of readers do not see his preferred version of what is a demonym of Northern Ireland as justifiable, and he has been given legitimate reasons why. Enough already. MickMacNee (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Enough already is exactly right, Irish is sourced get a source for British and no problems. Mo ainm~Talk

I understand demonyn to refer to the description of people from the relevant area. And the people from that relevant area should be recognised as being from there by that demonym. Sources do not conform to my view, so whether I am right or not is irrelevant. The only realistic compromise I can see here is to exclude demonym from the article entirely. Neither side will be completely happy, and the article will be (slightly) the poorer for it, but it is preferable to misinforming the readers. Sadly, such is the nature of compromises. Daicaregos (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

How is calling someone from NI, Irish, "misinforming the readers"? Mo ainm~Talk 19:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you seriously want to go through it again? Daicaregos (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So your saying that someone from NI is not Irish. Mo ainm~Talk 19:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I despair. Read my posts. If you think I said that you must provide the diff - 'cause I'd like to see it. Daicaregos (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You stated above that the article as it stands is ...misinforming the readers, I asked how. Mo ainm~Talk 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Because Irish applies to the island of Ireland, it is not a specific demonym just for Northern Ireland, the accuracy of any source that suggests otherwise is something that does need addressing. People in Northern Ireland may be Irish, but they are also British. Listing one whilst excluding the other is a violation of WP:NPOV when this is clearly such a sensitive subject. Removing the section whilst we debate this further seems fair, considering clear support for the removal of Irish as mentioned before. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that other editors are too bored or angry to engage in polite debate, but maybe they might take the sources to the reliable sources noticeboard if they aren't satisfied that they're applicable here. WikiuserNI (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. Until the sources have been confirmed to be reliable by the WP:RS/N (which they have not), the demonyms should be removed. Daicaregos (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I would support the removal of the section in the infobox for the time being whilst other sources are checked up on. However i think there is clear support and justification for that infobox to say just Northern Irish. But it saying nothing for the time being as a compromise seems reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In agreement. Delete all demonyms for the time being. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not how it works, because an editor doesn't like something is not a reason to take it out it is a verifiable source. Mo ainm~Talk 20:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right. If a source is verified as being reliable, it should stay (unless it it WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE, which this may be) - although there is recent precedent for excluding a source verified as being reliable and in context(see John Prescott). However, the source, although referred to WP:RS/N, has not been verified by them to be reliable. Consequently, it cannot be considered to be a verified reliable source. It should be removed until such time as they confirm whether the source is reliable, or not. Daicaregos (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It also hasn't been verified to be unreliable so it is just a case of I don't like it. Mo ainm~Talk 20:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

its a case of most editors here know that Northern Irish is the only demonym that specifically applies to Northern Ireland there for the reliability / accuracy of the current sources used to justify Irish are an issue. Irish fails to meet that test as it applies to the island of Ireland as a whole. British is not included on England Wales and Scotland, there for there is no justification for saying Irish here. The removal of Irish from this list is needed for WP:NPOV reasons too, not just the WP:RS issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It won't do any harm to have the slate blank, until a solution is found. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised we didn't think of it sooner, we won't miss much if the demonym goes for a while. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are ok with removal of the section for the moment then it appears to be a good compromise that both sides in the debate can accept for the time being, perhaps TFOWR could delete the section or another less invinvolved editor. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• You can be sorry all you like WikiuserNI, you can even pretend you've been 'debating' (Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument), others can see the truth if they have the time to waste going through it all to see if you even once made a post that resembles that definition of debate. With that latest pointless post above you have yet again shown that you don't really know what to say people who know what they are talking about and have called out your positions time and again with policy and common sense based argumentation, while you come back with repetition or irrelevance or evasion. After all this time, after this whole 'debate' you claim to have been participating in, your apparent stance on this matter is still no more weighty or thought out than Mo ainm's, only you've wasted about a hundred hours of other peoples time in the process. As they say elsewhere, shit, or get off the pot. At least Mo ainm has the decency to not even pretend that his position cannot be changed by any argument, valid or otherwise, and he really doesn't bother giving the pretence to others that engaging him in a 'debate' would be a fruitfull exercise. MickMacNee (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section from the infobox for the time being, as agreed above. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiuserNI and Mo ainm etc. will continue to argue but there is an overall concensus for the listing of "Northern Irish" alone. This is the most fair and balanced result as it stops the constant complaining and argueing over the contentious inclusion of Irish whilst there is a contentious exclusion of British. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And still, Mick is angry, surprise surprise. But, it's hardly important. There is no contentious exlcusion of British, Mabuska, it was simply uncited. There should be no demonym listed at all if the perfectly well cited Ulster/Irish demonyms aren't to be allowed. WikiuserNI (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you always make personal statements on other editors (not at me by the way) WikiuserNI. No demonym listed at all suits me fine, however most people have agreed with the inclusion of Northern Irish alone so i say we all just shut it and respect the overall concensus. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a comment on what they're saying Mabuska, I'm not sure what being told to "shit, or get off the pot" has to do with demonyms for Northern Ireland. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am prepared to support keeping the section off the infobox permanently if it resolves this matter and is a compromise people can accept, if they can not accept simply listing Northern Irish. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As I have said before if it is sourced I don't care if Klingon is used, but what has happened here is an editor didn't like what he saw and removed a whole section that is according to policy sourced with a verifiable reliable source because they are pushing a POV, sad really. Mo ainm~Talk 13:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what debate you have been following because that does not reflect what has happened here. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you removed a verifiable, reliable source, yes or no? Mo ainm~Talk 14:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources in question had not been verified, it was raised on the WP:RSN but nobody there responded. Even if they had and said it was wonderful, we still have a right not to include it for accuracy and neutrality. But i am not going to go over all of this again. There was clear support for just saying Northern Irish. We have supported the compromise of removing the section entirely for the time being. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So as it stands it is verifiable and reliable as no one on RSN have said otherwise but you don't like it so removed it to push your POV, simples. Mo ainm~Talk 14:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mo ainm, but I can't see the "I don't like it" editors doing so, so the removal of the section seemed to be the best way to allow everyone to move on. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Its always the same editors continually complaining even when most people have voiced a desire for the listing of plain and simple Northern Irish on its own - and if they can't have it their way then they propose its entire removal. No Irish and no British is the best way forward.

@ Mo ainm - i've only seen one source being used that actually states "demonym". I was told i couldn't use a source where people identified as British as it didn't state "demonyn" by O Fenian when another source (which BW quoted above actually) which states Irish for Northern Ireland doesn't actually state demonym either - so it can't be used as it doesn't state the term so its unreliable for the question at hand. One source does not equate to reliability. Mabuska ^(talk)

To WikiuserNI (and I'll include Mo ainm, not that there's much point), are you or are you not going to acknowledge that:

1. Everybody here knows that the defence is RS/V
2. Everybody knew that a month ago
3. People have posted legitimate policy based issues with this stance
4. If this is a 'debate', you are supposed to acknowledge and reply to those points

If you don't acknowledge the basic truth of these four points, you are simply a wind up merchant and displaying all the classic behaviours of WP:TE. If you do acknowledge their truth, then please make an attempt to answer the issues raised, or if you think you have already given adequate answers in the style of an actual proper debate (defined above remember), and well enough that justifies ignoring the consensus against the content, then provide diffs of where you did so, for independent review. I'll stand by the conclusion of any independent reading of those diffs. This farce has gone on long enough, and nobody is willing to have you continue to bullshit your way through this dispute by claiming that the only opposition you've ever encountered is based on 'I don't like it' responses, or pretending that simply repeating the original defence a million times is an adequate way to debate. This what as known in the business as a demand to 'shit, or get off the pot', because like it or not, throwing out acronyms is not how we debate here, you actually have to demonstrate you understand the wording behind them, understand that V is not the only policy on the site, and understand that if you know nothing about the content of the source or the field it comes from, your simple assertions as to it's appropriateness or reliability are worthless. MickMacNee (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Mick another of your long winded posts, why say something in one sentence when 100 will do hey, I have said before and i'll say it again, if their are sources that say British, Irish, Northern Irish, Ulster or whatever the fuck else then put them in, I have no problem with it so long as it can be backed up with a source. Mo ainm~Talk 19:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Less swearing Mo ainm and even if someone is long-winded there is no need to be cheeky about it. Why are we still debating this when its clear the majority agree with just NI? Do we continually pander to the few who will fight it to the death? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that apply to Mick also. Quick to pull me aren't you when Mick has attacked me and other editors and swearing in nearly everyone of his rambling diatribes. So well are you going to ask him to tone it down? Mo ainm~Talk 21:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does apply to Mick also and i would like it for him to tone it down and not be so fire-brand at times. However don't make accusations. I'll pull you on it quicker as your replies are far shorter and easier to catch aggressive and foul language - i don't really read Micks comments as they are that long and usually in one big paragraph which can be hard to read so its harder for me to indiscriminately spot foul or aggressive language in his posts as i either quickly scan or scroll right past them. No offence by the way Mick. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that makes two of us. I usually loose the will to live by the third sentence, but having said that my apologies for using unparliamentary language and i'll try not to again. Mo ainm~Talk 21:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst it is tempting - just because one editor uses foul and aggressive language, it is not an excuse for everyone else to rebute the editor back in a similar manner. It just makes the situation worse, and whilst we may all disagree fundamentally on certain aspects we should still try to retain civility. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Mo ainm, I find it difficult to get through those walls of text myself. But it's usually worth it to find gems like "This what as known in the business as a demand to 'shit, or get off the pot'". Ooooh, "the business", that sounds serious!

In any case, I agree with the compromise BW came up with, less than perfect as it is. Perhaps now we might move on to other bits of the article to improve? WikiuserNI (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiuserNI is there any need for make the snide remark; Ooooh, "the business", that sounds serious!. If you meant it as a joke, a smilie to hint it was would be good, but you didn't so i assume its snide. What compromise are you referring to just out of curiousity as i'm getting lost in all of this? Having just Northern Irish listed or having nothing whatsoever just because Irish can't be stated? Have you forgot that the majority have stated a desire for just Northern Irish on its own as a solution... does your acceptance of the entire removal of demonyms have the same weight and authority as all the editors who agreed to just stating NI instead? Surely a a few dissenting voices shouldn't be allowed to overrule what everyone else can agree with? Mabuska ^(talk) 23:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Mo on this one. If you have a RS that says French/German/British/whatever then put it in. But if there is a RS that say Irish then also put that it. We can't just remove things because people don't like the fact that they can't find a RS for their preferred option. Bjmullan (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Mabuska, I honestly can't tell if Mick is serious or not. And really, what he said just sounded quite ridiculous. Yeah, "the business" oooooh! ;)

But back to the article, I was referring to BW's idea, that we remove the section entirely. Really it was just to allow everyone to pop off and edit other things. I don't mind if anyone wants to have NI as a demonym, just that if we allow that cited demonym, why not Irish or Ulster? The problem as I saw it was the other way around, it was a few dissenting voices asking to keep a bit of cited material, the Irish demonym. WikiuserNI (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Mo ainm, I know you don't read my posts, and I'm not bothered, because even if you did, I know your view wouldn't change. That's because you are what you are, you act the same way as your previous account name, which you had to dump to whitewash your history as a straightforwardly obvious Republican game playing wind up merchant. But WikiuserNI is a different animal. He is a rather more subtle but certainly more egregarious type of WP:TE than you, as he has insisted and insisted he has been participating in the debate here in good faith and as a proper participant, yet shock horror, his last, what, 5? posts in here show he's been doing no such thing. He can't even answer a few basic questions, but takes the time to act the fool. He's lost his right to have his say in here on what happens going forward. If he doesn't like that, he's gonna have to explain his last few 'replies'. MickMacNee (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

He's lost his right to have his say in here on what happens going forward. On who's authority Mick's? Yours? Don't make me laugh. Bjmullan (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you so stupid as to think that the only people who gets to judge your conduct in this debate is you or me? Seriously, get real. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats good Mick the posts are getting shorter now maybe for your next trick you can post something that is not attacking every editor you disagree with, can you do that Mick? Come on show them Republican POV pushers that you have policy on your side that when we don't like something we attack everyone around us and remove verifiable, reliable sources, oh wait we dont have a policy like that, so just keep attacking. Mo ainm~Talk 11:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are like a stuck record tbh. You were given what you seek weeks ago, right about the time you went deaf and dumb in the debate. It's not other people's fault that you behave this way, and requiring people to repeat themselves endlessly because of your flaws is not going to happen. This act of claiming you are right and everybody else is just an 'attacker' is seriously tedious, and fools nobody but yourself. You are seriously wasting your time if you think people are going to go away, or the content is not going to get changed, as long as you just keep making the same argument again and again, insisting it is the only policy based answer, while ignoring everyone else who has responded to it with their own policy based reasoning. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

So a policy like WP:Civil, which covers incivility such as your personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict should not apply to you?--Domer48_'fenian' 19:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

CIVIL states, do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. I and everybody else have taken full account of what Mo ainm has to say, and have indulged him to the nth degree in this debate. He has not had the common courtesy to do the same. So, if you don't mind, I won't be taking any lectures from you on policies you have no understanding of, while you ride to the rescue of a trusted colleague who just happens to share your political outlook on the world. Anyone with half a brain can manage not to attack others, while they bluff, cheat and manipulate their way through debates, which always miraculously conclude by supporting their original opinion 110%, according to them of course. It's a modus operandi many, if not all, persistent POV pushers tend to learn, to help them in their everyday activities here. Please don't waste everybody's time by pretending otherwise, you are not talking to idiots here. MickMacNee (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has reached consensus and should be closed. I see little point in continuing it any longer. It has long since ceased to be productive, and can only serve to inflame bad feeling between those remaining. Any admins reading? Please close and archive. Daicaregos (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it's closing time. PS: Welcome back D48. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, a reasonable compromise has been reached. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ok Mick you seem to be a wise one so could you please tell me what my position is and how it is pushing a POV? Or for that matter any editor here tell me how I am pushing a POV please. Mo ainm~Talk 21:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Howabout the both of you have this discussion on your respective talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem reasonable GoodDay, can you tell me what POV I am pushing? Mo ainm~Talk 21:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know, how could I? GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great thanks GoodDay you can't see one because I am not pushing one. Mo ainm~Talk 21:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No probs. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm closing this out now. Discussions about our respective POVs can be had at our own talkpages (or not — that works for me, too). In the meantime, it may be closing time here but the pubs are still open where I am... TFOWR 22:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Describing as POV the suggestion that referenced information should be included and unsourced information removed is a strange kind of logic. Removing referenced information, because editors can not reference what they would like to have is also strange. To then use personal attacks on editors to support this view seems almost natural. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you Domer48 on this one. I think this discussion has been closed too earlier and the "consensus" goes against all that is WP. Bjmullan (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a reasonable compromise, there was absolute justification and clear majority support for that section to just say Northern Irish. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you what Domer/Bjmullan, if you still want to bullshit your way through this debate, then let's take it to arbitration. Let's take it to the people who can spot POV pushing a mile away based on the evidence, irrespective of who is claiming they are following policy and supporting the one true argument, while talking absolute bollocks about the other side's opinions. Are you game for that? Or are you going to lose your bottle like a bunch of fannies? Enough already - shit, or get off the pot. MickMacNee (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

With no supporting policy or a logical argument, being reduced to ignoring other policies, such a being civil, not engaging in personal attacks, and ignoring all of our talk page guidlines is being offered as a substitute to reasonable and rational argument. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mick please stop it with commenting on editors comments and intentions in the style you are doing so - it adds nothing to the discussion. Secondly if the section is gone then there can't be any arguements over reliable sources, unsourced, and so-called reliable sources that haven't been verified as reliable. The issue has ended lets just move on... and no doubt for most of you, time to scout out the next British versus anti-British issue. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion was closed to early. Strength of numbers is not consent; reaching consensus is based on the strength of a legitimate concern. The argument that the section of referenced text be removed because of the inability to add unreferenced text is not a legitimate concern, likewise the suggestion that this be considered a compromise. Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus.--Domer48_'fenian' 11:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been debated for well over a month, i am sorry you arrived late for the debate, but it has been ongoing. The clear majority view was to simply say northern Irish in that infobox, this is justified for many reasons, but as a compromise we accepted removing the whole section. That seemed very fair as far as im concerned. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Domer there was only one source that actually stated the word demonym which made it relevant however the reliability of that source couldn't be proved. You can all complain all you want about it being referenced - the fact is the verifiability of the source couldn't be proved. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Being new to the discussion, could I be provided with a link to the discussion on removing the whole section, and one which says that the source was unreliable? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of demonym section

I see the demonym section has been removed altogether. Despite possible issues about censorship, that would strike me as being OK in this circumstance since issues around demonym and Northern Ireland (i.e. nationality, identity, community) are too complex for a blunt tool like an infobox. (I do find it sad however that editors neglected to remove the note relating to the demonyn section after the section itself had been removed from the infobox. It sat there uncorrected for 10 days until I removed it when I came back from wikibreak.)

On a similarly touchy issue (for me anyway), and not for want of raising the same issue time and time again, any chance of taking a similar approach to the "country" chestnut?

Small related anecdote: during my wikibreak, I took a tour of the houses of parliament in London (not for the first time, highly recommended). The tour guide, in a received accent, repeatedly described the UK as being made up of "England, Scotland, Wales and the province of Northern Ireland" (his emphasis). I couldn't help but smile.

--RA (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've heard it described like that before now - 2 countries, a principality and a province NornIronMan (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is a province and i have quite a few reliable sources to back it up, however i'm happy enough not to upset concensus at the moment. I remember the last time you tried to argue for a change RA lol. An overall concensus was reached over NI's status on Wikipedia, however none could be reached for the demonyms. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)