Jump to content

Talk:Unionism in Ireland/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The Taking of Ireland

Given the context of the sentence, I changed this back to the literal translation. As a compromise however, I added the 'known as' comment. There is no other "Book of the Taking of Ireland" to confuse this with, and the Wikilink points directly to the article in question. The common 'translation' is also, ironically, part of historical revisionism. --Mal 08:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


The Troubles

This section begins with a reference to brutal killings, to which are linked the British army and the police. I think that this is badly phrased, rather than deliberately incorrect. I've left it because I don't like trespassing on other people's pages, but I think that it could do with being looked at. --Major Bonkers 12:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole section seems a bit out of place to me. It is talking about the Troubles in general, and doesn't specifically relate to Unionism. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Protestants in the Irish Parliament

There are four Protestants in the current Dáil: Seymour Crawford, Mildred Fox, Jan O'Sullivan and Trevor Sargent. What about Ivan Yates and Martin Manseragh ? Im not sure how relevent this anyway. None of the 4 TD's (or 3 Senators) AFaIK are Unionists. In anycase a Southern neo-Unionist in this day and age is as likely to be Roman Catholic (or of "other" or no religion) as Protestant !

I've removed all that. Ivan Yates is no longer a TD and Martin Mansergh is a Senator. As none of them are Unionists, I don't think it's relevant. --Ryano 09:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Natives of Ulster

Could someone go to the foot of the article on Cruithne (people) and flesh out the Unionist notion described there, that Scots settlers in Ulster are descended from the original inhabitants of the province? Or is there a separate article on this matter?--Shtove 17:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

For aa start, I think you've misunderstood the history. The Cruthin are not "Scots settlers in Ulster". Perhaps the article isn't quite up to scratch - I'll have a look at it. --Mal 23:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks a very ethnic-political proposition to me. As I understand it, there is a theory that the Scots who settled in Ulster in the 16th-17thC. are descended from the Cruithne, who formed the common, aboriginal population of Ulster and Scotland.--Shtove 10:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard this theory before. If you have a decent source, feel free to add it to the article with a citation though I suppose.
My understanding is that the Cruthin were a large tribe of people who may or may not have been pre-Celtic and lived in the British Isles some two- to two and a half thousand years ago onward. In the 1500-1600s (the 16th and 17th centuries), any people from Scotland would have been much more mixed because the tribes of previous millenia had been largely consolidated.
While there may be a substantial proportion of the British population that is descended from these people, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that these people are, each and every one of them, unionists, or Protestant (an 'invention' of the 16th century), or Scots. --Mal 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm just inquiring, not asserting. I have no source for this, just a recollection of a political argument based on ethnicity to counter the Brits Out! line ie. loyalists would argue that since their Scots forebears (the planters) were descended from a population once common to Scotland and Ulster, then their presence in Ulster was justifiable ab initio. I'm not for it or agin it - just think it's notable and worth fleshing out, if in fact that is the gist of the argument. P.S. Leaving a message for User:El Gringo on my talk page is probably not the best way to reach him. Thanks.--Shtove 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me illustrate a point for you Shtove. The Irish folk hero Setanta has been hijacked by both Republicans and Loyalists and politicised. That does not mean that the myth never existed until these two polar opposite groups decided the character represented their respective 'cause'.
Some of the more stringent unionists, and probably many Loyalists too, use the idea of the Cruthin to demonstrate how the history of our peoples isn't as straightforward as 'native' and 'Planter'. Some go further than that.
The problem though, is that we're dealing with a pre-history society in the case of the Cruthin - very little is actually known about them. One theory is that they had lived as a matriarchial(sp?) society, as opposed to the Celtic culture's patriarcial society. Another is that they spoke with a pre-Celtic tongue. Another is that they arrived at the same time as Celts, or were themselves Celts.
We should probably note all of these theories, but I don't believe it is necessary to politicise it in terms of Catholics versus Protestants or nationalists vs unionists. Too many things are polarised in that way already, which only serves to further divide the people, rather than give us all some kind of common ground and mutual appreciation and understanding. It is wrong to dismiss something simply on the grounds that it is perceived to be, in mordern terms, of nationalist or of unionist import. Instead, we should just present the theories and/or facts, and let the reader formulate their own opinion, or do further research for themselves. --Mal 02:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not interested in polarisation. Not interested in common ground. Not interested in the history of the matter. I understand your point about Setanta. I understand use of the Red Hand of Ulster. But I'd like to read a coherent statement of the political/ethnic theory that seeks to justify the Plantation of Ulster and the continued presence in Ireland of descendants of the Scots settlers. People are people, and being people they often tell themselves elaborate stories. So, what's the story?--Shtove 23:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Assorted comments

Irish Unionist Alliance

http://www.irishunionism.org

The Reform Movement (Realising our Common Future)

http://www.reform.org

The Irish Association

http://www.irish-association.org

Dublin University (Trinity College) Young Unionists

http://www.csc.tcd.ie/~unionist/

Ethnic cleansing in the free state - Protestants in Republic of Ireland : New Statesman July 10, 1998

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_n4393_v127/ai_20967818

Aughavey 3 July 2005 21:54 (UTC) (Craig openly condoned discrimination against Catholics.) I`m not sure the above is quite true - he did however state: July 12 1932 - James Craig

"ours is a Protestant Government and I am an Orangeman" As NI Prime Minister, at Orange demonstration at Pontzpass, Co. Armagh

April 24 1934 - James Craig (Lord Craigavon) "I have always said that I am an Orangeman first and a politician and member of this Parliament afterwards - They still boast of Souther Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast of is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State" As NI Prime Minister, at Stormont.

and to put that in context 

Eamon de Valera Prime Minister of the Irish Free State / Irish Republic 1930

"Justifying the sacking of a properly appointed librarian in Mayo, because, though highly qualified, she was a Protestant, de Valera argued in June 1930: "I say the people of Mayo in a county where I think 98% of the population is Catholic are justified in insisting on a Catholic librarian." He went on to widen the issue indeed, and asserted: "a Protestant doctor ought not to be appointed as a dispensary doctor in a mainly Catholic area."

(But De Valera was in Opposition before 1932. So he cannot be accused of making that decision regarding the librarian.)


Mayo County Council made the decision. But for the state's Opposition leader to back them unequivocally was definitely sectarian populism.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Not long after partition:- During the debate on compulsory Irish, Deputy Wolfe (a Protestant) protested:


"I doubt if compelling people to learn is a good way of spreading the language; it is a very difficult thing to compel an Irishman to do anything." It is still a compulsory requirement to this day (2005) that you must speak fluent Irish to gain employment as a Civil Servant in the Republic of Ireland.


Yeats a prominent Southern Irish Protestant TD in the Dail / Irish Parliament gave the Government a warning:

"If you show that this country, Southern Ireland, is going to be governed by Catholic ideas and by Catholic ideas alone, you will never get the North . . . You will put a wedge in the midst of this nation."

Quote: "It is still a compulsory requirement to this day (2005) that you must speak fluent Irish to gain employment as a Civil Servant in the Republic of Ireland."

Not so. The compulsory element of Irish in schools was removed in April 1973 (see Compulsory Irish by Adrian Kelly), and was removed in 1974 as a requirement for the civil service.

Actually the Study of Gaelic is still compulsary in Irish Schools. All the so-called abolition of compulsary Irish did was to end the situation where if one failed Irish in theie exams one was deemed to have failed the entire exam ! And this wasnt a retroactive change either There are still many people in Ireland today who effectively have no educational qualifications whatsoever because they failed one Irish exam !.

The term 'Southern Ireland' is nonsensical, geographically and politically. That country simply does not exist. The term is Republic of Ireland.

Northern Unionism can not be predominantly Presbyterian as that would be insufficient to maintain a unionist majority. The Presbyterians are the largest religious bloc, but the Church of Ireland is generally just as unionist and only a few percentage points below the size of the Presbyterians. MnJWalker Also there is a geographical divide between Presbyterianism and Anglicanism with Presbyterianism being dominant in the North and East of Northern Ireland and Anglicans (Church of Ireland) being the dominant (Protestant) religion aross the rest of the Island.

Some anonymous individual claims above that WB Yeats said "this country, Southern Ireland". I'd like to see the evidence for Yeats's use of that loyalist term. His country was Ireland, a fact which he was very proud of.El Gringo 05:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Admitidely Southern Ireland may not be a TECHNICALLY correct description of the Republic of Ireland (The most Northerly point of the Island being in the south and all that) however in the context of a discussion about Unionism or Nationalsm the term "Southern Ireland" is arguably more readily understood by people living outside (the island of) Ireland. It is certainly far less misleading than the widespread practice of referring to the Republic (as opposed to the Island as a whole) as "Ireland" (as enshrined in Article 4 of The Republic's 1938 constitution) or the even more confusing term Irish Republic unwittingly used by many Unionists (and others) to describe "the south" when it actually refers to the notional All-Ireland republic to which nationalists aspire. And for a short period prior to the establishment of the free state there WAS an legal entity called "Southern Ireland" albeit largely existing on paper.


SO THE DUCK GOES INTO THE BAR AND SAYS " WHERES MY MARGIRITA!" AND THE BARTENDER SAYS " ITS ON FIRE!" LOL SARAH NEEDS TO WORK ON HER REVOLUTION MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Alright, hands up who did this? EmpComm 20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Irish culture

Can anyone help me get my head around the following phrase?


It makes it sound like Northern Ireland is some sort of cultural blank slate, appropriating the culture of its next-door-neighbour, when in fact many "Irish" things are intrinsically bound up with Ulster and the north. We wouldn't say Irish culture "influences" the Republic of Ireland, would we? Martin 00:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason for keeping the paragraph myself. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Most cultures are influenced by neighbouring cultures Northern Irish culture is heavily influenced by both Irish and British (mainly Scottish) cultures. Indeed Southern Irish culture is also influenced by British (mainly English) cultures and to a lesser extent that of the rest of the Anglosphere.


-The part that bothers me most is the term "provence". Ulster has 9 counties, Northern Ireland has 6, therefore to call the country a provence (as so many often do) is inaccurate. EmpComm 20:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

North of the island of Ireland

Is there a politically neutral manner of referring to the North of the island of Ireland if one wants to include not only Northern Ireland but the northern part of the Republic, without implicitly passing comment on the legitimacy of Northern Ireland?--Lucifer(sc) 13:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the northern half of the island you could say "north of Ireland" but it will always be taken the wrong way, and so IMO shouldn't be use on Wikipedia. If you mean Northern Ireland plus Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan then Ulster is acceptable. It would help if I knew what you were referring to the north of Ireland in relation of? Also if you're using north, south, east and west geographically then capitals are not required. <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology  Talk!  14:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the Belfast agreement the term "Northern Ireland" is recognised by most people (including moderate nationalists) nowadays. Only hardline Irish Nationalists ("republicans") Insist on referring to it as "the six counties" or even "occupied Ireland". In casual conversation the terms "the North" and "the South" are widely accepted (despite the most Northerly point on the Island actually being in "the South") but only makes sense when all the speakers are actually IN Ireland 87.113.19.12 18:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

87.113.19.12 misunderstands: I do not want to refer to Northern Ireland but to the north of the Island.--Lucifer 15:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You probably need to provide some context. You could be referring to the the northern coast of Ireland, or Ulster, or Northern Ireland and border counties or the northern half of Ireland. If its clear that its a purely geographical description, I don't think there should be much of a problem or offense taken. --Mal 22:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Use north of Ireland. The island is a distinct geographical entity, with parts in the north, south, east and west. If you were referring to the north of Antarctica, then you'd have a problem.--Shtove 23:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


Whatever we do, let's not forget Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan are part of Ulster, but not part of Northern Ireland (or the North/Occupied Ireland/Six Counties, etc) - EmpComm 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Captain Obvious. 88.107.72.138 14:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Donegal Progressive Party

What in the world is the Donegal Progressive Party? Dermo69 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think its something like the Peoples Front of Judea. --LiamE 00:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The Judean People's Front, surely? « Keith t/eub>» 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)/
I read an interview with one of them onetime. Apparently they stood on a Neounionist platform (not sure if they actually meant for the whole Island or just Donegal ???) IIRC they got less then 100 votes but were quite philosophical about it pointing out that a lot of ideas that are taken for granted today (I think they gave the examples of the abolition of slavery, giving women the vote and even Irish Nationalisim) were once the preserve of a tiny eccentric fringe pursuing a lost cause. 80.229.222.48 20:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this group still exist? They sound like a splendid group of people with a very worthy cause! Donegal should have never been included in the Republic. It's inclusion was a sad mistake of history. YourPTR! 16:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know they no longer exist, they did have one or two local or County councillors at one time, but obtaining information on the party or personalities involved is hard to come by.--padraig 16:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
They had one councillor elected to Donegal County Council in the 1979, 85 and 91 local elections, but lost the seat in 1999.--padraig 17:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the Politics.ie Wiki # they last contested a local election in 1999 according to this posting on Boards.ie they are still registered as a party but dont have a website They also get brief mentions here and here 80.229.222.48 21:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

They refer to 1987 and 1992, and as point out they last won a seat in 1991. I don't know if they stood in the 1999 election, so they are hardly active.--padraig 21:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Just checking Elections Ireland #no sign of them in the 2004 local elections (no details available for 1999 or prior) So youre probably right. 80.229.222.48 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Still a registered party as of late 2009 but perhaps not for much longer (see page 1509) ?

Neutrality disputed tag

Are there any viable running disputes that really merit the inclusion of this tag. If so, could we please have them outlined and addressed. Thanks.--Breadandcheese (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Small Island Property and Tax Law?

I fail to see the logic behind: "Irish unionists opposed Home Rule for many reasons. Much of their support in southern and western Ireland (the provinces of Munster, Leinster and Connacht) came from landed gentry who feared that a nationalist assembly would introduce property and taxation laws more suitable to a small island than the laws imposed from Westminster, which were designed for a much larger area, the entire United Kingdom." I fail to see how Ireland being a slightly smaller island than Britian is at all relevent. Other factors may have made UK law less just in Ireland than in Britian, but not island size. matturn 02:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"I fail to see how Ireland being a slightly smaller island than Britian is at all relevent"- This statement betrays a misunderstanding of the authors argument. Ireland at this point was part of the United Kingdom, or Britain. He was not comparing the size of Ireland with mainland Britain, rather Ireland with the entire United Kingdom-including the island of Ireland. I think that it is a fair point to argue that the United Kingdom in its entirety was a much larger area, and that a different set of property and taxation laws would plausibly be appropriate there than in a self-determined area the size Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.63.116.72 (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

This article is seriously bad in large areas. It mucks up terminology, makes sweeping generalisations, veers from a pro-republican bias (I should have known Lapsed Pacifist had edited it!) to an over-the-top Unionist bias, then jumps between the two. It contains a lot of POV crap about "neo-Unionists" (except in Sinn Féin-speak there ain't no such thing). Oh gawd, it is so substandard and unencyclopaediac it is almost funny. BTW Ivan Yates is retired from the Dáil years ago!!! The fact that the article cannot even get that fact speaks volumes for how bad it is. And who the heck is so bad at spelling? Senete??? For crying out loud! This article is a thorough embarrassment. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There IS such thing as a neo-Unionist. Not many but more than most people realise. I am a neo-Unionist although admitidely I no longer live in the Republic 87.113.19.12 18:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph does state that "the number of Unionists in what is now the Republic of Ireland declined to a point where their numbers were widely regarded as almost insignificant" So wheres the dispute ? As for inaccuracies regarding spelling, numbers of representitives in parliament etc why dont you correct it instead of complaining about it in here ? Oh and yes there are a few of us left. Southern Unionism may not exactly be fashionable (for now ?) but it certainly still exists 194.165.161.133 13:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is appalling. It mentions the partition of Ireland without any attempt to put it into context, it's blatantly politically biased throughout.

This article is so terribly awful yada yada yada. (Sigh- I know this is going to inevitably need to more revert wars and accusations/counter-accusations of POV but what the heck....) WP:SOFIXIT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.117.87 (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Unionism in the 1840s

This article is missing the very start of unionist organisation - the opposition ot the Repeal of the union in the 1840s. You can read an article aspects of this here http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/01/20/loyal-dublin-the-dublin-protestant-operative-association/ . I'm going to write a paragraph on this for the history section. Regards. Jdorney (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed

Added citation needed to the following line. Discrimination, however, took place, particularly in the areas of housing, employment and local government representation. The extent of such discrimination is disputed,[citation needed] and there was also widespread poverty among Protestants.

The fact that there was discrimination is undisputed as there is overwhelming evidence that there was. The added line (The extent of such discrimination is disputed) looks strange in this context and looks like it was added by a different editor who is not happy that this is mentioned. It is used to cast doubt on what are known to be facts but rather than delete the entry I will give the editor a chance to back up that statement with facts. Who disputes this? Are they notable? Do you have any sources to back this up? Tcla75 (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't know who added the sentence, but i have seen things that have stated stuff along those lines. Though the statement doesn't deny that there was discriminiation or even try to cover it up so what your argueing about is unclear - it simply implies that the extent of it may be blown out of proportion, and that Protestants also suffered widespread poverty which is also undisputed fact. Mabuska (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Unionism in the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ulster

Snappy, why are you removing "Ulster" from the description of Ulster Protestant people? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Well going by Snappy's edit summary in his last revert, because the source doesn't state "Ulster", which is correct. However the source is a Northern Ireland Life & Times survey, which sampling was specifically of Northern Irish people. This is an article on Unionism in Ireland as in the whole island not a select part of it. Thus I think the source may only be referring to the actual sentence it is appended to, i.e. "However, these are generalisations, because there are both Protestant nationalists and Catholic unionists,", which the source backs up and there is no issue with.
The sentence that you are altering which before your edit is "Most, but not all, unionists are of one of various Protestant backgrounds. Nationalists are mostly of a Catholic background." I am assuming that this is actually unsourced, and whilst a source would be ideal, we can easily call blue on this.
Your suggested change "Most unionists are Ulster Protestants, and nationalists are mostly Irish Catholic.", cuts down on the words and is also easily blue. Yet do we need to change what is there? If so then we could simply find a source for the sentence or lump a {{cn}} tag at the end of an obviously true statement. Mabuska (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem with Gob Lofas change, it that it is unreferenced. A consistent problem with him, is that he readily adds unreferneced material and then gets really annoyed when someone calls him out on it and removes it. Are reliable references available for this? If so, why haven't they been provided? Adding an {{cn}} tag is a silly suggestion, and beneath you Mabuska. If the statement is "obviously true", it should be simple to get a few reliable references. Snappy (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
My view would be that the Ulster Protestant and Irish Catholic articles are more relevant than linking to the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant articles. While the reference doesn't explicitly give those adjectives, given the context it's obvious that the Catholics being referred to are Irish and the Protestants are from Ulster. Do you doubt this, Snappy? Far from calling me out on anything, you have a strange aversion to the term 'Ulster Protestant' plain to anyone who looks at the edit history and talk page of that article, unlike your more limited activity on the Irish Catholic page. What is the basis of this aversion? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
On Billy Fox's talk page, where the debate is over a year old, you gave a reference (at last!). This appears to state the so-called "Ulster Protestants" are a group in the Ulster counties in the Republic of Ireland, separate from Irish Protestants in the Republic, and from Northern Ireland Protestants. Yet here you are claiming that all Protestants in Ulster are members of this group. Such inconsistencies reek of OR. Also remember that essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Snappy (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a little misrepresentative. It divides Irish Protestants into Ulster and non-Ulster, and further divides Ulster Protestants by the border. It emphasises the links of kinship and culture between Ulster Protestants on either side of the border, rather than plays this down as you imply. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't you think? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No references have been provided to support your claims. Snappy (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
My single claim is quite simple, and has not been disputed by you. The Protestants being referred to are from Ulster. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Surely it can't be that hard to get a reference for your indisputable claim then. Snappy (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
British media OK with you? [1] Gob Lofa (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
No. That term is only in the headline not the body. Try again. Snappy (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I have a feeling the goalposts are going to shift a lot here. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
You said "indisputable claim", yet now you can't get a single reliable reference. Snappy (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say "indisputable", I said it "has not been disputed by you". That still stands. I'm reluctant to look for references for someone who's such a committed goalpost shifter. No sooner than I find one, no doubt you'll assert it fails another personal test of yours. You really take this far too personally. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

As I stated in my first comment, we can call blue for some matters which we know to be true. Most Unionists in Ireland are Ulster Protestants. Mabuska (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not obvious to all, and please remember that essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines, so you do need references. It can't be that hard to get a reliable reference if its "indisputable" and "skyblue". Snappy (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Read the box at the top of the page: "Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." WP:SKYISBLUE is a norm on many pages when something is blatantly obvious. Do you disagree with the point Gob Lofa is adding in? Do you disagree that most Unionists in Ireland are Ulster Protestants? Mabuska (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Snappy, where were your references when you redirected [Ulster Protestants] to Unionism in Ireland? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you do need to get references, its standard Wikipedia practice, see WP:References. Also, please stop quoting skyblue, it's irrelevant and is not a carte blanche to add your own unreferenced pov. Snappy (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Stop avoiding the question you have been asked several times. Do you disagree with the proposed addition regardless of sources or not? Simple yes or no. Mabuska (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
If he doesn't I do. Its not a sky-blue issue, if only because Ulster is not Protestant while six counties of it are in part. ----Snowded TALK 21:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we've gone a bit off what the original issue here is, and I think I have found the obvious solution that was always on Wiki. Snappy opposes Gob Lofa's wish to link Protestant and Catholic to Irish Catholic and Ulster Protestants. I can understand the opposition to it, however there are two better wikilinks we can use that shouldn't be any trouble: Protestantism in Ireland and Roman Catholicism in Ireland. Surely that is the most common sense solution that makes more sense than just linking to Protestant and Catholic and makes more sense than just linking to Ulster Protestant and Irish Catholic? Mabuska (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this sensible suggestion. Snappy (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll make the change. Anyone who doesn't agree, feel free to revert. Mabuska (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, as the proposed pipes would be misleading. We don't link Jews to Judaism, for good reason. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
To quote you from above: "My view would be that the Ulster Protestant and Irish Catholic articles are more relevant than linking to the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant articles." Well the two I suggested are more relevant and avoid issues of needing sourced as we are linking to the relevant religion on island articles. Your suggested articles in comparison and more misleading and easter egg. Your Jew comparison is neither here or there. [User:Mabuska|Mabuska]] (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do you believe they're more relevant? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Because your case came across as stating that the Roman Catholic and Protestant links are far too general as they reflect the entire branch of their respective denomination across the world. Your case came across as looking for more Ireland specific religion articles. Unfortunately the two you wish to add into the article, which whilst in the general scope of where most unionists come from is correct and WP:BLUE, in reality doesn't take into account the Protestants outside of Ulster (which do exist) that are of unionist belief. Also not all Irish Catholics can be classified as nationalist. At the time of Conor Cruise O'Briens death (an Irish Catholic by the way), was he a nationalist? No he was a unionist. Also not all Catholics of a nationalist persuasion may be of Irish identity. So I agree now wholeheartedly with Snappy that your suggestions are troublesome. The two links I suggested however deal with the issue by specifically linking to the Catholic and Protestant in relation to the island of Ireland articles, which solves your issue without the problems. Thus Catholicism in Ireland and Protestantism in Ireland are the only sensible links we can go for. Mabuska (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
In return for answering your question, answer mine... how are the two links I'm suggesting misleading? They both refer to the two denominations on the island without the added baggage of identity (Irish) or regionalism (Ulster), so cover both denominations across the whole island which this article deals with (in regards to unionism). The Republic does supposedly have 500,000 British passport holders, more than the entire population of the 3 Ulster counties in the Republic. Obviously they can't be called unionists without explicit evidence stating so, and I wouldn't suggest that they are, however it does show that we can't simply regionalise the religion and politics. It is more grey than we know. Mabuska (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Snappy, any sign of those references for your redirect? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume this redirect is the one you are on about: "Snappy, where were your references when you redirected [Ulster Protestants] to Unionism in Ireland? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)" - None are needed because Ulster Protestants redirects to Protestants of Ulster. Mabuska (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No. In October, Snappy redirected [Ulster Protestants] to [Unionism in Ireland]. [2] I've since wondered what drove him to do this, especially given his current stance. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
It is a bad redirect choice by Snappy, which does make his argument above kind of redundant. Regardless of that, we now have two links that better reflect what was sought without any issues attached to them Mabuska (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Unionism in Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hard to believe only two editors (including nominator) had anything to say, during 1st nomination, which resulted in non admin closure due to lack of consensus, which is an intolerable and inexplicable outcome. See here. Quis separabit? 15:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Unionism in Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Unionism in Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes

This article has undergone some rather significant changes over the last couple of days, from this version to the current version by @ManfredHugh:. Personally, I think the current version is an absolute disaster. Taking just one section as an example Unionism in Ireland#Protestant unity and the New Reformation is full of unencyclopedic language such as:

  • A scourge among the presbyteries of the North of the “lax” theology that had indulged the republicanism of the 1790s, Cooke had emerged as an early evangel of a New or Second Reformation. A spiritual backwash from the wave of Presbyterian emigration to North America, in Ireland the new evangelism lent itself to a politically-charged prosperity gospel.
  • Dill's "home mission" of shepherding the Irish peasantry into the reformed fold (and for which Cooke, a Gaeilgeoir himself, urged Irish upon bible "messengers") had clearly a temporal as well as spiritual purpose. Seen to find proselytising advantage in "the waiings" of famine, it was the subject of bitter Catholic commentary
  • For Cooke the more immediate gospel may have been for those already within the fold. While affirming rejection of the devotional practices of the Roman church, the invitation in the new evangelism to personal witness through Jesus Christ offered to transcend the ecclesiastical differences that continued to divide Protestants at a time—so Cooke insisted—of supreme peril

What should be done to this article, that now resembles several badly written essays? Revert back to the previous version? Revert just some of the recent changes? Leave it as it is? FDW777 (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, maybe this is language open to misinterpretation and needs to be partly reworked. Whatever the difficulties, which I think can be ironed out, the the version had even more seriously problems and omissions. ManfredHugh — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManfredHugh (talk • contribs)

If we do revert to a previous version, in whole or part, it isn't saying that's the best version and can't be changed at all. FDW777 (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually the more I consider it, the more I agree with the criticism. Among other problems, my revisions are too "essay" like for an encyclopaedic articles--though obviously I believe they some merit and the previous version does have serious problems. But for now I think it is best to revert to the version as of 6 February. ManfredHugh

I don't mind waiting to see if others think your changes can be salvaged somehow, or you could try editing some of the essay-like additions yourself. As you have access to the source material, it would make more sense for you to do it. FDW777 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Well we could start by taking out the section you have cited as an example of broader problems, on Cooke and the call for Protestant Unity. Cooke and the New Reformation are critical to the history of Irish Unionism--and acknowledged as such in the scholarship. But this does need reworking. Faced with something which was just a jumble with very limited references, I did get a bit carried away. ManfredHugh

It's no problem. You've accepted and understood the issues with your edits, which is usually the main stumbling block. Please go ahead and make whatever changes you think are necessary to address the essay-like additions. FDW777 (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes again

I have not looked at the article in depth, but I see sentences such as The dismay of many was compounded by the seemingly easy relationship he developed with Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, an admitted former member (and it was widely believed, former Chief of Staff) of the IRA, routinely denounced by Paisley as "vermin." that is supposedly referenced by this BBC article. Please ensure any text already in the article, and that is added in future, is what the references say. If this is not done shortly I will not hesitate to remove policy violating sentences per WP:BURDEN. FDW777 (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Title and viewpoint

The title is Unionism in Ireland however the focus is Unionism in Northern Ireland. There is a separate wiki article on the Irish Unionist Alliance which perhaps could usefully be merged in as well as mention of Irish politicians such as Conor Cruise O'Brien who have stood as Unionist candidates for Dáil and Seanad. There is some very positional language, such as referring to the government of Ireland as "the Dublin government". I am not familiar enough with the material to correct this myself. 83.217.149.238 (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

There's that much wrong with this article it's impossible to know where to start. FDW777 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The title Unionism in Ireland goes back several years to an original entry. Perhaps there might be a case for two separate articles: one on Irish Unionism (i.e. Unionism until 1922) and another on Unionism in Northern Ireland, although there is a lot we can't understand about the later without knowledge of the former.

Very "positional language"--that is a problem if it is the case. But as to "the Dublin government" I don't know what the implied position might be. I think it is just used for variation. But if you think "Government of the Free State," or "Government of the Republic of Ireland", or simply "the Irish Government" would in all cases be better, that can be changed.ManfredHugh (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion to this article taking place

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Proposed mass reversion of two articles. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please also see Talk page for Irish Nationalism where my edits (which I no longer seek to have restored) have also been reverted. The discussion there provides the immediate background to the above proposals. This is living document: anybody has the right to revert edits, re-edit, or re-write. My hope for any discussion on the relative merits of a mass-revert is that (1) participants seek to be constructive by defining their terms: so that, for example, if they suggest that something strays from the proper encyclopedic subject of the article that they inform the Community what their understanding of what those boundaries should be; and (2) that given the proposal for mass reversion that the focus (in the first instance) be on the question of whether or not the article to be restored ON BALANCE better serves the Wiki reader than the revised article. Regards to allManfredHugh (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Confusing: what kind(s) of Protestants were/are unionists?

(Please note that in my following questions and discussion, I mean no value judgment whatsoever on the merits of any particular religious group, religious persuasion, or ethnic group. I hope for universal friendship and love.)

I find some of this article confusing, esp. w/ regard to the various Protestant churches extant in Ireland in the last 2+ centuries. Notably, were most adherents of the Church of Ireland, which is Anglican ("Episcopal" in the US), part of unionism? Were most adherents of ALL "noncomformist churches" (an "Isles", but not US, term) part of unionism? It would be helpful if the article clarified these, without too much "Isles" jargon.

It appears from the article as it currently reads, that most of the 19th century Protestant adherents on the Irish island were Presbyterian, Methodist, and Anglican. Is this true? I have assumed from what I've read elsewhere that most Presbyterians on the Irish Isle are descended from immigrants from Scotland, and that the Methodists and Anglicans there are mostly descended from immigrants from England & Wales, but perhaps I am misinformed. (However, if I am not misinformed, this leads to a sadly ironic conclusion that the two main politically-opposed groups in 20th century Northern Ireland were both ethnically mostly Celtic - of Irish-Scottish origins, except that anyone named "Fitz-Something" also had paternal Norman ancestry - that is, French-Viking.)

Clarification of my confusion: I am not familiar with all of the subtleties of the history of Protestantism in the "Isles"; I myself was raised and remain in the US (although dual citizen by virtue of being born in UK, of a UK dad and a US mom who remained together for life, neither of whom adhered to any particular religion). I note also that most US readers have no clue what a "noncomformist church" means, in any context. (I personally have only recently come to understand that, in the "Isles", "noncomformist" means all, or almost all, Protestant churches other than Anglican. I have not yet figured out whether Lutheran churches (of which there are a lot in the US) would also be considered "noncomformist" in the "Isles".) I suspect that some Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders would understand this stuff a bit better than US residents would. OTH, modern residents of the "Isles" are likely aware that most US residents adhere to a huge variety of Christian religions, plus many others.

(I note the British Isles naming dispute. Therefore, here I just call them the "Isles".) Acwilson9 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Your understanding is generally correct. You have deciphered the "isles" language of the article. Yes there were two main groups of Protestants in the old Kingdom of Ireland.
There were those who, confusingly for us, were often referred to simply as "Protestants." These took the Anglican--or as identified in the US, Episcopalian--communion in the Established (state) Church of Ireland which (as of the Irish 1537 Act of Supremacy recognised the King as its head). After 1691, the final defeat and dispossession of the Catholic Jacobites and the introduction of the Penal Laws these "Protestants" monopolised landholding and public office.
Then there was the numerically larger group of "Dissenters"--those Protestants who dissented from the established communion. These were largely the Presbyterians of Scottish descent concentrated in the north-east counties of Ulster, but also included Methodists, Quakers and others.
Nonconformism is not a term you use in the States because you don't have an established Church. It is a British term applied to those same groups identified in Ireland as Dissenter: i.e. those who did not conform to the established church, the Church of England. It would have included Lutherans had there been a Lutheran community in Great Britain.
That "the two main politically-opposed groups in 20th century Northern Ireland were both ethnically mostly Celtic" is a little more difficult to determine. To begin with, it is not always clear what we are to understand by the term "Celtic". As the Wiki entry on Celts notes "the exact relationship between ethnic, linguistic and cultural factors in the Celtic world remains uncertain and controversial." Many, perhaps most, Ulster Presbyterians would have been of Lowland Scottish origin and would not have been considered, even under broader, definitions Celts. But, in any case, it is probably safe to say that, narrowly considered in terms of lineage, there is not a clear ethnic distinction between Protestants and Catholics in the North.
Yes, Fitz which means "son of" (like the Irish and Scottish Mac or Mc) does generally connote a family of Anglo- or Irish-Norman ancestry (also referred to in Ireland as "Old English") and, going back, something you can--as you do--describe as "French-Viking."
Kind regardsManfredHugh (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@ManfredHugh. Tx.
It would be very helpful for those of us not from the "Isles" if this and other articles on the conflicts in Ireland were to more precisely state what they mean by "Protestant", etc., which in these contexts is different from the way its used in the US (at least, when not discussing Ireland). It took me many years to come to the above understanding of the terminology, despite listening to my late English-raised father.
Do I understand correctly that "Dissenter" and "Noncomformist" have the same meaning, at least in the "Isles"?
Also...in the "Isles", are or are not Lutherans considered to be Dissenters/Nonconformists? Luther preceded Henry VIII (and also "I'm Henery the Eighth, I Am"). Lutheranism and Anglicanism appear to this nonexpert to be the Protestant branches that remain closest to Roman Catholic practice, including in veneration of saints. (In the USA, Lutheranism, like almost every other religion in the USA, appears to have splintered into multiple groups. I don't know whether this is also true of Lutheranism in the rest of the Americas.)
So, the term Celt seems to be almost as ambiguous as the term Semite. Acwilson9 (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't see that "Protestant" has any distinct meaning here at all. There are no "Lutherans" as such in the Isles. Similar theological views are found at the Low church end of Anglicanism or the Arminian end of Presbyterianism. I don't think it has been explained to you that "Nonconformist" has no meaning in Scotland, where the established Church is Presbyterian. Yes, "Nonconformist" is the same as "Dissenter" (the older term). I suggest you read some articles - it can all be got there. Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@JohnBod: I have continued to read up on these topics, out of curiosity. Some of this is still a bit confusing to this US native; imagine a Delhi native trying to follow it. This present "Talk" conversation has helped me personally to a better understanding, so I have just now made a few appropriate explanatory edits. (BTW, as I had expected, there are a few expat Lutherans in the Isles. For example, see Lutheran Church in Great Britain, Evangelical Lutheran Church of England, Lutheran Church in Ireland, Nordic churches in London. The Porvoo Communion article also helped me understand saint-venerating Trinitarian Protestantism in the northern-European context. Remember also the other small religious minorities in the whole Irish isle - e.g, Van Morrison's Jehovah's Witness family, James Joyce's Bloom's Jewish community, etc.) Acwilson9 (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Current state of the article

Still atrocious, since it's an editor's personal sandbox for their unencyclopedic essay prose. My browser counts over 500 quotation marks in the article, granted there will be a few reasonable quotes but there's still plenty of rubbish. Examples, not just limited to overuse of quotations, include

  • An opportunity to integrate Catholics through their re-emerging propertied and professional classes as "a dilute minority" within the United Kingdom may have passed
  • With its emphasis upon "personal witness", the "New Reformation" appeared to transcend the ecclesiastical differences between the different Protestant denominations
  • Setting their remaining differences aside, they would cooperate on all "matters of common safety".
  • But as the Irish party-political successors to O'Connell's Repeal movement gained representation and influence in Westminster, Cooke's call for unity was to be heeded in the progressive emergence of a pan-Protestant "Unionism"
  • "No Irishman worthy of the name", declared the anti-home-rule Liberal James Shaw, "would be contented" with the "subordination and dependence" implicit in the new dispensatio
  • A great Ulster Unionist Convention was held in Belfast organised by the Liberal Unionist Thomas Sinclair, in earlier years "an articulate critic of the Orange Ascendancy."
  • A manifesto signed in the spring of 1914 by two thousand labour men, on behalf of the only "fully organised and articulate" trade unionists in Ireland, rejected the suggestion of the "Radical and Socialist press" that Ulster was being manipulated by "an aristocratic plot."
  • The Northern Whig reasoned that if differences in "race" and "interests" argue for Ireland's separation from Great Britain then "the Northern 'aliens', holders of 'foreign heresies' (as O'Connell says they are)" could not be denied their own "distinct kingdom", Belfast as its capital
  • Contingents of republican Irish Volunteers and Connolly's Citizen Army, ensured that while Irishmen, at Redmond's urging, were sacrificing themselves for the sake of “Catholic Belgium,” Britain could be seen on the streets of Dublin in Easter 1916 suppressing an Irish "strike for freedom"
  • In debating the Government of Ireland Bill, Craig had conceded that, while unionists did "not want" a parliament by which they would be "to a certain extent separated from England", having in the six counties "all the paraphernalia of Government" might help them resist pro-Dublin pressures from a future Liberal and/or Labour government

That's just a few that jumped off the page up to the Partition section, the essay writing continues throughout. Other issues include problematic synthesis of references to suit a particular agenda. Example

  • At a time when Sinn Féin was citing the cross-border, all-island, economic activity facilitated and supported by the EU as a further argument for Irish unity[1][2] there was a sense that Brexit would restore a necessary measure of "distance" from Dublin.[3]~

David Cameron was responsible for the Brexit referendum. He came to power in 2010. So, enlighten me, what do references from 2005 and 2007 have to do with a sentence about Brexit? I think, to use a micro-quote of my own, "absolutely nothing" would be the answer to that question. The one reference that is anything to do with Brexit doesn't reference the "necessary measure" part of the sentence.

The problems with the editor responsible's prose were summarised here, the most relevant part is The concept is that your style of writing is not fit for purpose. You are not writing a book on history, you are not writing an essay or a thesis. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia which needs to be as accessible by everyone as possible. There is a manner of writing which is considered the standard. You may not like it, but as long as you don't submit to using it, you will find yourself facing this criticism in every article you touch. This article is a mess, and is in dire need of a rewrite by someone capable of writing in an acceptable style. FDW777 (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  1. An opportunity to integrate Catholics through their re-emerging propertied and professional classes as "a dilute minority" within the United Kingdom may have passed.

-This is from R. F. Foster's standard reference and the same point is made by many other historians of the period: namely that in delaying Emancipation thirty years, Britain may have passed up the opportunity to reconcile Irish Catholics to the Union as a minority (as distinct from the majority they would form in a separate Irish parliament). But if you don't think the use of Foster's exact phrase helpful, we can just say minority.

  1. With its emphasis upon "personal witness", the "New Reformation" appeared to transcend the ecclesiastical differences between the different Protestant denominations.

-Personal witness and New Reformation are not "micro quotations" but terms put in quotation marks because they are concepts within a particular time and place. The basic point made by Prof. Andrew Holmes (who is referenced) is critical: the new 19th century Protestant revivalism in emphasising personal religious experience and testimony de-emphasised the various denominational differences between Protestants, and that became opportunity for the likes of the Rev Cooke to preach and advance Protestant political unity.

  1. Setting their remaining differences aside, they would cooperate on all "matters of common safety".

-It is clear from the proceeding sentence, that this is what Cooke proposed. Does the meaning of "common safety" need to spelled out? I think in the context it is clear, and is made clearer in what follows.

  1. But as the Irish party-political successors to O'Connell's Repeal movement gained representation and influence in Westminster, Cooke's call for unity was to be heeded in the progressive emergence of a pan-Protestant "Unionism"

-This is the basic dynamic underscored by all histories of the period and of unionism: as Nationalists gained influence at Westminster, Protestant unionists progressively sank their differences to create a unionist alliance embracing all denominations and classes of Protestants. True unionism here does not need to be in quotation.

  1. "No Irishman worthy of the name", declared the anti-home-rule Liberal James Shaw, "would be contented" with the "subordination and dependence" implicit in the new dispensation

-This is proceeded by a description of the severe limitations on the Irish legislature envisaged by the first Home Rule Bill. The point of quoted Shaw is to illustrate that even unionists didn't believe acceptable to nationalists, and that unionists agreed with many nationalists that for Ireland the only alternative to complete integration with Great Britain was complete separation.

  1. A great Ulster Unionist Convention was held in Belfast organised by the Liberal Unionist Thomas Sinclair, in earlier years "an articulate critic of the Orange Ascendancy."

-Perhaps we could just say, 'a noted critic of Orangism'. What is discussed here is how the Convention was reported in the unionist press, namely as a first gathering of unionists of all different persuasions and interests (so that Orangemen could attend of convention convened by one of their leading opponents within the broader Protestant community)

  1. A manifesto signed in the spring of 1914 by two thousand labour men, on behalf of the only "fully organised and articulate" trade unionists in Ireland, rejected the suggestion of the "Radical and Socialist press" that Ulster was being manipulated by "an aristocratic plot."

-Yes maybe scrap "on behalf of ... " etc.

  1. The Northern Whig reasoned that if differences in "race" and "interests" argue for Ireland's separation from Great Britain then "the Northern 'aliens', holders of 'foreign heresies' (as O'Connell says they are)" could not be denied their own "distinct kingdom", Belfast as its capital

-Yes the original language is a bit arcane and perhaps needs interpretation. But again the point is critical: as early as 1846, the unionist press was seeking to turn the nationalists' argument for separation from Britain against them by suggesting that ethnicity and religion could equally argue for a separation of north and south.

  1. Contingents of republican Irish Volunteers and Connolly's Citizen Army, ensured that while Irishmen, at Redmond's urging, were sacrificing themselves for the sake of “Catholic Belgium,” Britain could be seen on the streets of Dublin in Easter 1916 suppressing an Irish "strike for freedom"

-While this is the observation just about every history makes, it needs to be made clear that the language is republican

  1. In debating the Government of Ireland Bill, Craig had conceded that, while unionists did "not want" a parliament by which they would be "to a certain extent separated from England", having in the six counties "all the paraphernalia of Government" might help them resist pro-Dublin pressures from a future Liberal and/or Labour government

-again, I am having to guess at the issues, but maybe the quotation could be dispensed with, and the point more simply made that Craig believed that having at least the appearances of a separate government in Belfast, a hostile majority in Westminster would find it more difficult to push Northern Ireland toward unification with the South.

  1. That's just a few that jumped off the page up to the Partition section, the essay writing continues throughout. Other issues include problematic synthesis of references to suit a particular agenda. Example

At a time when Sinn Féin was citing the cross-border, all-island, economic activity facilitated and supported by the EU as a further argument for Irish unity[1][2] there was a sense that Brexit would restore a necessary measure of "distance" from Dublin.[3]~ David Cameron was responsible for the Brexit referendum. He came to power in 2010. So, enlighten me, what do references from 2005 and 2007 have to do with a sentence about Brexit? I think, to use a micro-quote of my own, "absolutely nothing" would be the answer to that question. The one reference that is anything to do with Brexit doesn't reference the "necessary measure" part of the sentence. --What is being discussed is not Cameron's decision to commit a Conservative government to a referendum on EU membership. It is why the DUP, when given the opportunity to vote on the issue in 2016, opted for leave, and a number of commentators suggest that one reason was that Sinn Fein (which had originally opposed the EU) increasingly depicted cross-border EU membership as a glide rail to increasing north-south integration. If you don't think the references support that there would be plenty where they came from.

This Wiki entry is for a two-hundred year history of what is ultimately the political tradition, not of a party, but of a society with many and conflicting political, social and economic elements. For the years since the Good Friday to be sure, I have had to drawn more on press reports and commentary as histories of the period have yet to be written. RegardsManfredHugh (talk)

Contingents of republican Irish Volunteers and Connolly's Citizen Army, ensured that while Irishmen, at Redmond's urging, were sacrificing themselves for the sake of “Catholic Belgium,” Britain could be seen on the streets of Dublin in Easter 1916 suppressing an Irish "strike for freedom"
As the militants saw it, contingents of republican Irish Volunteers and Connolly's Citizen Army ensured that while Irishmen, at Redmond's urging, were sacrificing themselves for the sake of Belgium, Britain could be seen on the streets of Dublin in Easter 1916 suppressing an Irish strike for freedom
That you replaced the former text with the latter text suggests you are completely oblivious to the nature of the multiple problems with your writing, despite them being pointed out at length by several different editors. I therefore consider it a waste of my time to even provide point-by-point rebuttals since you don't appear capable of listening. FDW777 (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

No, you have never "explained the multiple problems" with my writing, although I have repeatedly invited you to do so. You have simply relied on dismissive descriptors like "atrocious" and "mess which while they express your displeasure don't offer any constructive suggestion of how it might be improved.ManfredHugh (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Nick Stadlen interview with Gerry Adams: Part 1". The Guardian. 12 September 2007. Retrieved 2020-04-09.
  2. ^ Tonge, Jonathan (2005). "The EU and the Irish Border: Shaping Aid and Attitudes?" (PDF). qub.ac.uk/cibr. Centre for International Borders Research (CIBR) Electronic Working Papers Series 2005. Retrieved 10 April 2020.
  3. ^ Berberi, Carine (2017). "Northern Ireland: Is Brexit a Threat to the Peace Process and the Soft Irish Border?". Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique. XXII (2). doi:10.4000/rfcb.1370.

The " Detail from 2015 Sinn Fein election flyer, North Belfast"

This graph is particularly egregious as on first impression it appears as if there are twice as many Protestants compared to Catholics when the difference is only roughly 2%, I recommend it be removed entirely or be replaced by a more fair graph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.16.49 (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I do understand, but the "egregiousness" of the Sinn Fein flyer in this respect (also objected to by some within SF) is the point: it is an illustration of a communal politics of that focuses on sectarian head counts. The graph is identified as coming from an SF election flyer. Maybe it should read, "detail from a CONTROVERSIAL Sinn Fein election flyer".ManfredHugh (talk)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

"Ulster Unionism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ulster Unionism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Ulster Unionism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Heanor (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

"Unionist (Northern Ireland)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Unionist (Northern Ireland) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Unionist (Northern Ireland) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Heanor (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

"Unionism (North Ireland)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Unionism (North Ireland) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Unionism (North Ireland) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Heanor (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

"Ulster unionism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ulster unionism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Ulster unionism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Heanor (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

"Ulster unionists" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ulster unionists and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Ulster unionists until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Heanor (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

"Ulster unionist" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ulster unionist and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Ulster unionist until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Heanor (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unionism_in_Ireland/Archive_1&oldid=1210736969"