Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 3

message: Is the UK's Olympic team "Great Britain" or "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?
see Cfd discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Great_Britain_at_the_Olympics_to_Category:Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_at_the_Olympics
--Mais oui! 22:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not possible to "register as English, Scots or Welsh" as these are not Olympic teams.   Olympic teams are based on sovereign nation (all representatives must be citizens of that country) and recognised non-sovereign territories, so the default for any NI sportsman is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland team.   However, a person from NI with Republic of Ireland citizenship may represent the Republic of Ireland instead if he or she wishes, and is selected to do so. JAJ 01:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but there is no United Kingdom team, just team Great Britain. Northern Irish athletes can choose to compete either for Team GB or for the Republic of Ireland, it is their choice (and obviously the choice of the particular team managers). Ben W Bell talk 06:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  It may be called "Team GB" however it's still a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland team.    "Great Britain" on its own could not be an Olympic particpant as it's not a sovereign entity.  JAJ 22:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Team GB is a shorthand name for the team known as "Great Britain and Northern Ireland". beano 14:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Irrelevant.   Olympic jurisdictions are sovereign countries or legally incorporated territories.   Great Britain is neither.   JAJ 23:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: At the Olympics the only choice for a Northern Ireland person is to represent either the United Kingdom (Team GB) or the Republic of Ireland.   Assuming the person is a dual citizen - those in Northern Ireland who are not Irish citizens may only represent the United Kingdom at the Games.  JAJ 23:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the correct name of the UK's Olympic team? 

message: I am puzzled by the 59%/22% Unionist to Nationalist percentage that We have on the main Northern Ireland article. These figures, in My opinion, don’t represent the voting figures for Northern Ireland voters and seem to bias towards the Unionist side for Me. I looked into it, and these figures were gained by interviewing an alleged 1800 people. I question the validity on the groups that it doesn’t state were this survey was carried out. For example, was it in Belfast city centre, a fairly unbiased city, or was it say Ballymena or Portadown? Can we also trust 1800 People to fully give us a representation of Northern Ireland opinions on politics?
This source seems to be a little too convenient for my liking.
I draw People’s attentions to the following link: http://www.nationmaster.com/wikimir/images/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Northern_Ireland_election_seats_1997-2005.png/650px-Northern_Ireland_election_seats_1997-2005.png
Clearly showing a rise in Nationalist voting patterns.
On the same website, they also claim to have conducted a survey were a staggering 86% of People in Northern Ireland claiming they could learn to accept a United Ireland.
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2004/Political_Attitudes/FUTURE1.html
Based on voting figures, I don’t feel We have a fair representation of the opinions of Northern Ireland peoples.
I would recommend perhaps keeping in the voting figures as they are, but also adding it that they were based on only, what, less than 8% of the population of Northern Ireland? I would also recommend a few words on recent voting figures putting that percentage at a different scale, particularly that Nationalist vote is larger than stated.
BBX 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of voter demographic? 

message: I'd like to point out that Ulster Scots is not an "official language of Northern Ireland" as stated in the main article. The Good Friday Agreement does not refer to Ulster Scots as a "language", rather describing it as a "variety of the Scots language". It recognised it as "part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland", and the Agreement in part lead to the formation of the cross border "Ulster-Scots Agency". The Irish language is official, and is (supposed to) be promoted through media and television/radio broadcasts, as well as being taught in all schools, to all People who wish to learn it.
Since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I thought it best to point that out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBX (talk • contribs) .
* Good point. I'll take it down, unless anyone can substantiate that it has official status. Guinnog 19:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ulster Scots 

message: What is the official status of the flag?  And can it be backed up with a source?  Under which government was it official?  I'm asking simply because I'm curious, don't know for sure, and feel like it's important to the discussion of whether or not to include any reference in the infobox.--jfg284 you were saying? 20:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say BBX and Red King have a point.  Northern Ireland has no official flag.  Why should one be displayed so prominently on the page?--jfg284 you were saying? 02:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. The non-existence of any acceptable flag for this entity is very telling of the particular circumstances that apply. I still feel the article 'needs' a flag or flags somehow. Maybe another bit of text about the controversy would be appropriate? Guinnog 02:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would indeed be a good idea - a section detailing the ins and outs of the situation that have been laid out in the course of this discussion, with appropriate images (of the red hand flag, the irish tricolor, the union flag, and the saint patricks cross) would certainly be both informative and npov.  I say yes.--jfg284 you were saying? 02:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: While i agree that symbols of Northern Ireland are a contentious issue both here and in the real world. I do not believe nor do i support the removal of the symbols on the basis that it would make the article any less pov, if anything it would make the article just as pov not to have these symbols then it would to have them. The removal of the symbols would give editors of the unionist community the ability to say that the removal of the symbols is some kinda of nationalist pov. Regardless of NI is a nation or not, it is one of the 4 constitute parts of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and should have an infobox that is appropriate to it's status, of which it currently has. While i will not stand in the way if the current infobox being reshaped to remove the flag and coa, based upon their current status of usage, i will only support it on the conditional basis that a section about symbols is added with the imagery, as being that both at one time were official symbols of Northern Ireland, and then in the case of their flag, it sill holds a de-facto status in being a representative symbol of Northern Ireland, regardless if it is accepted as so by all communities, and that the coa still holds a semi-official status being that it's grant has not been rescinded. Besides that i don’t see any need to add any other symbol, i.e. the try colour, to the section with the exception poss of the St Patrick saltire. Also if were are going to remove the sympols because of their non-official status, then the same should be done with images of the same status on other UK pages, i.e. the COA of Wales. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 07:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag Status 

message: What goes on at this place. I was hoping that we could perhaps discuss the subject, and maybe get ourselves a neutral symbol for northern Ireland, instead somebody has simply overlooked what I said, and decided to heighten sectarianism and further oppress the views of Irish Nationalists. I even see the old government of northern Ireland flag is still there, so I will ask: Would anyone object to me adding the Irish Tricolour to the same grouping of flags?
Belfast city council were discussing Flag regulations in regards to what is flown on city hall prior to the suspension of the northern Ireland assembly. There was three options tabled:
1. No change. Union flag.
2. Union flag flown at regulated occasions.
2. Neutral. Belfast city crest, or no flag.
3. Equality. Union flag and Irish Tricolour flown simultaneously.
Not once did I hear or read anything about the old government of northern Ireland flag being used. Therefore, by logic, the Irish Tricolour has as much, if not more, legal right to used as a representation of northern Ireland in the modern age.
I will await a reply, but if none is given then I will obviously presume that no one objects, and I will add, or ask for assistance in adding, the Irish Tricolour.
I would have personally agreed to the St. Patrick’s cross being used as a neutral flag, which most unbiased northern Ireland today probably view as the flag of the State, for the time being.
* See the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus article, complete with flag. Guinnog 23:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No discussion? 

message: Flags and emblems are a major issue in Northern Ireland that inflames continuous PoV arguments such as the one above.  As BBX observes, it is not unique to Wikipedia.  In the interest of NPOV, the most reasonable approach is not to have any flags.  Northern Ireland is not a nation, so it does not have a national flag.  The most reasonable position is to replicate the infobox from, say, the North East England article.  No flags, no emblems, no PoV.  Just a map.  --Red King 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say BBX and Red King have a point.  Northern Ireland has no official flag.  Why should one be displayed so prominently on the page?--jfg284 you were saying? 02:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. The non-existence of any acceptable flag for this entity is very telling of the particular circumstances that apply. I still feel the article 'needs' a flag or flags somehow. Maybe another bit of text about the controversy would be appropriate? Guinnog 02:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would indeed be a good idea - a section detailing the ins and outs of the situation that have been laid out in the course of this discussion, with appropriate images (of the red hand flag, the irish tricolor, the union flag, and the saint patricks cross) would certainly be both informative and npov.  I say yes.--jfg284 you were saying? 02:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: While i agree that symbols of Northern Ireland are a contentious issue both here and in the real world. I do not believe nor do i support the removal of the symbols on the basis that it would make the article any less pov, if anything it would make the article just as pov not to have these symbols then it would to have them. The removal of the symbols would give editors of the unionist community the ability to say that the removal of the symbols is some kinda of nationalist pov. Regardless of NI is a nation or not, it is one of the 4 constitute parts of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and should have an infobox that is appropriate to it's status, of which it currently has. While i will not stand in the way if the current infobox being reshaped to remove the flag and coa, based upon their current status of usage, i will only support it on the conditional basis that a section about symbols is added with the imagery, as being that both at one time were official symbols of Northern Ireland, and then in the case of their flag, it sill holds a de-facto status in being a representative symbol of Northern Ireland, regardless if it is accepted as so by all communities, and that the coa still holds a semi-official status being that it's grant has not been rescinded. Besides that i don’t see any need to add any other symbol, i.e. the try colour, to the section with the exception poss of the St Patrick saltire. Also if were are going to remove the sympols because of their non-official status, then the same should be done with images of the same status on other UK pages, i.e. the COA of Wales. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 07:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags and emblems

message: A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp.  Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Poll:_Ireland_article_titles|Poll: Ireland article titles]] 

message: As with most things in Northern Ireland, we have 2 tld .uk, and .ie. While .uk is the most common, the .ie is "open the domain to registrants located in, or with a significant connection to, the island of Ireland". Historically there has been geographic domain allocations such as the .gb, although largely defunct would have covered Britain, and not NI. I would guess the .sco name should also be included if it finally materialises. 86.12.245.194 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The .ie domain is geographic specific, whereas the .uk is available to all, similar to .com with no consideration to geographic location, it just tends to be used a lot in the uk. The point of the .sco domain is that it is a cultrural domain, for scots culture, and if I can say it without starting a fight Scots language, so may be relavent 86.12.245.194 19:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The .ie and .uk domains are both reserved for specific countries - see Country codes.  How the two domains are administered may well place restrictions on use outside their respective administrative areas. In the same way, you can't state that .ni is available as a NI country code, even though the Nicaraguans may (or may not) allow some in NI to register a domain in their administration. It should be removed from the info box. Bazza 18:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Net Domain 

message: While the government of northern Ireland was the flag that represented the northern Ireland government pre the early 1970s, people also need to realise that the Irish Tricolour was originally created to be the flag of ALL IRELAND, under the Provisional Irish government after the 1920’s partition of the island.
The green on the flag was supposed to represent Irish Catholics throughout Ireland (and their heritage), the white in the centre was to represent a lasting peace, and the orange was to represent the Protestant peoples in the north (and their Irish/Ulster-Scots heritage).
The Irish Tricolour was never the official flag of northern Ireland, but neither was the old government of northern Ireland flag. The Republic recognised it as such though, as did the Irish Nationalist population of the Ulster Province.
As northern Ireland is at the moment, there is much more chance of the Irish Tricolour being flown, along side the Union flag, than seeing the old government of northern Ireland flag flown officially.
Many Unionists don’t mean offence when they fly it personally, but to many Nationalists and Catholics, it represents a government that treated them like second class citizens, myself included. The Nazi flag was once the flag of the German government, yet it also wouldn’t be correct - politically, officially, socially or unbiased - to show it on this website.
I say either one of the follow should take place:
A. Both the old government of northern Ireland flag and the Irish Tricolour are shown, listing both as “De Facto” or “Unofficial”.
B. No flags used, only a map.
We really need to come to an agreement on this, instead of ignoring the discussion and simply doing what fits one’s agenda. I have my own view on the flag situation, but I’m clearly trying to find a compromise, and I believe I have been nothing but unbiased here.
PS: Since no one has objected since Guinnog's post, I believe it's time we removed Ulster Scots as an "official language", since it currently isn't an official language of northern Ireland. As the Good Friday Agreement states, it does play a role in “the culture wealth of the island of Ireland” but I guess there simply wasn’t enough demand for legal status pertaining to the dialect, as their was for the Irish language. Most Unionists/Protestant I know don't seem to care about it anyway, although their is obviously speakers of the dialect and I would never object to it recieving legal status if the sitution ever arose.
* So even though you dont even consider it a language, you wouldn't object to it receiving legal status??
===This is getting ridiculous.===
Whoever the silent editor is, I would appreciate that you join the discussion, instead of simply overlooking what people are writing and doing as you so please. We’ve already brought it to attention that Ulster Scots is not an official language of northern Ireland, you are giving false information by consistently listing it as so.
We’ve also come to the conclusion that - what you have edited - are unofficial symbols of northern Ireland, the Tricolour of Ireland is also an unofficial symbol of northern Ireland, not just with Irish Nationalists in northern Ireland, but throughout the island of Ireland and worldwide. Removing it, yet keeping another unofficial symbol, is biased.
Either equality: both the old government of northern Ireland and the Tricolour of Ireland, or nothing. Those are fair opinions I believe, and I would appreciate some discussion and not totally overlooking what we are discussing. This is a public encyclopedia and we all entitled to have our say on issues pertaining to how exactly an unbiased article should be laid out. I've got my POV, but adding it into the article without any regard for an unbiased read is - as far as I am aware - against Wikipedia rules.
BBX 21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting riddiculous, I think we need some emblem of NI at the start. The use of the assembly logo, seems to be a step in the right direction, it is reasonably neutral, but unfortunetly not widely recognised, even within the area it is proported to represent, but I am at a loss to think of anything better. Any thoughts?
I can agree to that, but if the unoffical old government of northern Ireland remains without equal representation of the Irish Tricolour, then nothing will have changed. There is a distinct feeling of Anti Irish Nationalism here, and I will not accept anything bar equality and a totally unbiased article that represented northern Ireland for what it is: not what some people would like to still be.
BBX 00:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I cannot agree with that. The Irish tricolor has NEVER been used to represent Northern Ireland, and this article is about Northern Ireland. The Irish tricolor was only adopted as an official flag in 1937, and then for the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland. Since the flag has never ever been associated with NI then it cannot be included. Ben W Bell 08:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  With thought I think the "Red Hand and Crown" flag should also be removed. While it was the official civil flag of Northern Ireland for almost 50 years it also has had no official status for over 30 years now. The only flag that can be flown for Northern Ireland is really the Union Flag, no other country article shows historical flags so there really is no reason that the NI article should either despite it's rather unique situation. So all the flags should be replaced with only the Union Flag as that is the only official flag that can be used. Ben W Bell 09:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would think a symbol of an assembly suspended 3 years ago, is slightly more relevant than one suspended 35 years ago (not much though). The flax was uesd to represent N.Irleand on the pound coin a few years ago, and seems a reasonable compromise, although, I would hope there would be something better, if anyone can think of it 86.12.245.194 11:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox isnt a drop-in-center for lost symbols; it is for the flag and coat of arms only. Djegan 12:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag usage 

message: Whoever the silent editor is, I would appreciate that you join the discussion, instead of simply overlooking what people are writing and doing as you so please. We’ve already brought it to attention that Ulster Scots is not an official language of northern Ireland, you are giving false information by consistently listing it as so.
We’ve also come to the conclusion that - what you have edited - are unofficial symbols of northern Ireland, the Tricolour of Ireland is also an unofficial symbol of northern Ireland, not just with Irish Nationalists in northern Ireland, but throughout the island of Ireland and worldwide. Removing it, yet keeping another unofficial symbol, is biased.
Either equality: both the old government of northern Ireland and the Tricolour of Ireland, or nothing. Those are fair opinions I believe, and I would appreciate some discussion and not totally overlooking what we are discussing. This is a public encyclopedia and we all entitled to have our say on issues pertaining to how exactly an unbiased article should be laid out. I've got my POV, but adding it into the article without any regard for an unbiased read is - as far as I am aware - against Wikipedia rules.
BBX 21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting riddiculous, I think we need some emblem of NI at the start. The use of the assembly logo, seems to be a step in the right direction, it is reasonably neutral, but unfortunetly not widely recognised, even within the area it is proported to represent, but I am at a loss to think of anything better. Any thoughts?
I can agree to that, but if the unoffical old government of northern Ireland remains without equal representation of the Irish Tricolour, then nothing will have changed. There is a distinct feeling of Anti Irish Nationalism here, and I will not accept anything bar equality and a totally unbiased article that represented northern Ireland for what it is: not what some people would like to still be.
BBX 00:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I cannot agree with that. The Irish tricolor has NEVER been used to represent Northern Ireland, and this article is about Northern Ireland. The Irish tricolor was only adopted as an official flag in 1937, and then for the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland. Since the flag has never ever been associated with NI then it cannot be included. Ben W Bell 08:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  With thought I think the "Red Hand and Crown" flag should also be removed. While it was the official civil flag of Northern Ireland for almost 50 years it also has had no official status for over 30 years now. The only flag that can be flown for Northern Ireland is really the Union Flag, no other country article shows historical flags so there really is no reason that the NI article should either despite it's rather unique situation. So all the flags should be replaced with only the Union Flag as that is the only official flag that can be used. Ben W Bell 09:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would think a symbol of an assembly suspended 3 years ago, is slightly more relevant than one suspended 35 years ago (not much though). The flax was uesd to represent N.Irleand on the pound coin a few years ago, and seems a reasonable compromise, although, I would hope there would be something better, if anyone can think of it 86.12.245.194 11:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox isnt a drop-in-center for lost symbols; it is for the flag and coat of arms only. Djegan 12:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is getting ridiculous.

message: Okay, fact time. Irish is not an official language of Northern Ireland, it is recognised but not an official language, government is not done in the language but in English. It is also not a language that is spoken by 87% of the population as someone has claimed. In the Republic of Ireland, 1.6 million people claim some knowledge of the Irish (yes Irish, Irish is a language, it is part of the Gaelic group but Gaelic itself isn't an actual language). That 1.6 million is less than half the population of the RoI, and of those less than 550,000 claim fluency. Now in Northern Ireland, which this article is about, only 160,000 people claim knowledge of Irish, and less than half of them claim fluency. Now since 160,000 represents less than 10% of the population of Northern Ireland I do not see where this ridiculous claim that 87% of the country speaks the language comes from. Ben W Bell 19:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your comments. --Mal 20:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Language reversions 

message: I would ask those "in power" to please take a look at the history page. WildIrishMan has removed factual information pertaining the the N. Ireland census, and added in untrue and ufactual information to strongly push his PoV.
I would ask that this is please deal with ASAP. I noticed how quick Nationalist points are removed, now how long will this be allowed to go?????
: Please sign your comments. --Mal 20:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WildIrishMan Vandilising 

message: I would ask those "in power" to please take a look at the history page. WildIrishMan has removed factual information pertaining the the N. Ireland census, and added in untrue and ufactual information to strongly push his PoV.
I would ask that this is please deal with ASAP. I noticed how quick Nationalist points are removed, now how long will this be allowed to go?????
: Please sign your comments.  I've not looked at the article for the changes made by this editor, and I'm putting Northern Ireland on the backboiler for the minute in any case.  But my suggestion would be to remove a LOT of the references to the troubles and political ideologies, stating only a basic summary (if at all possible!), and concentrate more on the many other aspects of Northern Ireland. Ideologies and politics are best left to other articles such as Unionist (Ireland) and Irish nationalist etc.  Obviously there's a certain amount of overlap with both UK-related subjects and RoI-related subjects, though I would personally like to see both of those aspects pruned as much as possible so that its specifically geared towards these 6 of 9. --Mal 21:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WildIrishMan Vandilising 

message: I'm getting tired of being trolled by user Ben W. Bell and his constant anti Nationalist views. Each and every valid point I insert is removed because it's Nationalist, whereas any Unionist points are kept in - rightfully so of course - but this bigetory has to stop. Does anyone know if there is a way to lodge a complain to a competant person in power around here?
: Please SIGN your comments.  Otherwise its not easy to find out who you are and where your talk page is, if anyone wants to contact you about issues you've raised. --Mal 20:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry what have I done? If this is user BBX then looking through the history yes I did revert an edit of yours recently. However that was not actually intentional, I was reverting back because an anonymous user had deleted a massive chunk of the article including all the links, references and other items, almost half the article. Reverting was the easiest way to get it back. Checking what you had done afterwards I have no problems with the edit you made and I'm sorry I didn't go back in and re-add them. Ben W Bell 08:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition I revert and alter many Unionist edits to these sort of pages as well when they are very POV. On articles such as this it is important to maintain a neutral POV on the page. If you check my histories while yes there may be more reversion of nationalist POV than unionist POV, but that is just pure numbers as these articles are historically more likely to be POV'd to nationalist leanings. And watch who you are calling anti-nationalist as you have no idea as to my actual political views on this topic, and probably never will as my views don't come into an encyclopaedia. I deal solely in facts as accepted by the world. Ben W Bell 08:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a way of lodging a complaint? 

message: Wikidude: you put a quote in the article (which has since been removed) by Van Morrison:
Perhaps Belfast born singer/songwriter Van Morrison put it best when he proudly declared "I'm Irish and a British subject."[1] 
But Northern Irish people gain British citizenship by virtue of being born in the UK to Northern Irish parents - they are not "subjects". Subject status was reserved for British overseas and commonwealth citizens, but that nominclature was changed in the early 1980s I believe. --Mal 00:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term British subject has a restricted meaning today.   In its statutory sense it only encompasses those holding British nationality solely by connection with India, Pakistan or the Republic of Ireland prior to 1949.  JAJ 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The only way one can be a British subject under the British Nationality Act 1981 is through a connection with India, Pakistan or the Republic of Ireland before 1949.   People connected with other former colonies or territories of the UK may have a different status, such as British Overseas citizen or British National (Overseas) but these persons are not British subjects in the statutory sense of the term.   Nor are British citizens.  JAJ 23:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Prior to 1983 the term "British subject" had a much wider statutory usage in British law, including Citizens of the UK & Colonies, citizens of Commonwealth countries, and British subjects without citizenship (certain persons from India, Pakistan and RoI).   From 1983 the term only applied to the third category as far as statute is concerned.   However the term British subject may still mean in a more generic sense a subject of Her Majesty in right of the United Kingdom, which includes all categories of British nationality other than British protected person (five categories in total).   JAJ 01:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really.   There are two different definitions of "British subject" out there - a statutory definition under the British Nationality Act 1981 (sections 30-35) and a more generic concept of being a subject of Her Majesty in right of the United Kingdom (as distinct from other Commonwealth Realms such as Australia or Canada).  Being knighted doesn't make you a "British subject" - you have to be a British subject (in the generic sense of the term, which includes British citizens) to get a substantive knighthood.   There is also such a thing as an honorary knighthood. See List of honorary British knights (the distinction between the generic and statutory definition of British subject is also discussed on the talk page).     The Home Office Immigration & Nationality Directorate generally use the term "British subject under the 1981 Act" to make it clear they are using the statutory definition of British subject.   JAJ 01:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct, except that usually the term "British subject" is used as a substitute for "British citizen" when the latter term is the more appropriate one for the context.  JAJ 02:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Van Morrison was wrong 

message: Sutton states that 96.7% of Loyalist killings, 56.8% by the security forces and 43.1% by Republican paramilitaries took the lives of civilians.
Is it not the case that since the killing of republican terrorists (IRA etc) would be registered as 'civillian deaths', and if so the above statement be amended to reflect that?
beano 12:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Loyalist terrorists?  Nil Einne 11:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  96.7% of Loyalist killings... what about Loyalist terrorists Nil Einne..? (96.7% is incorrect by the way) --Mal 22:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  What issue? I have not seen the word terrorist appear in this article for quite a while, so I don't think it is an issue. My personal opinion is that they should all be labelled what they are: terrorists. However, there seems to be an unoffical and unspoken consensus that articles relating to Northern Irish matters describe these plethora of groups as "paramilitaries". I've stuck by that myself. --Mal 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civillian Deaths 

message: :At the Commonwealth Games, the Northern Ireland team uses the Ulster Banner as its flag and Danny Boy is used as its National Anthem.
Is the official name used for the anthem Danny Boy rather then Londonderry Air? Or if there is no official name, is this the name commonly used to describe the anthem in the media? This wouldn't be surprising since I expect we would have a Londonderry/Derry Air controversy otherwise but can someone confirm it's the case? If it is, can someone update the Londonderry Air article appropriatly Nil Einne 11:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Danny Boy is a song played "to the tune of Londonderry Air". Basically I think, without the lyrics, the song is Londonderry Air. There is no controversy surrounding the name: it was always referred to as Londonderry Air despite the controversy surrounding the name of the city and county. --Mal 14:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danny Boy 

message: Can we agree on a compromise when editing articles, that all references to the city be called "Derry" and all references to the county be called "Londonderry" perhaps..? --Mal 06:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally yes its a good idea and principal, the only exception I can think of is for quotations that need to be as is. It is very clumsy in articles having to remind the reader of the correct and incorrect name every time, and particularily in tables where space is limited. Djegan 10:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stroke City 

message: I have edited the section discrimination and deleted some of the information relating to unionist attitudes to discrimination. This is a contentious issue and my reason for doing this is make sure that we keep as factual as possible. Therefore I believe the way the article was edited from my intial contribution was somewhat misleading and not really backed up by the facts. Undoubtably there were and are many unionists who belive discrimination did not occur but the issue was being dealt with by government agencies from as early as 1969 e.g. Cameron Report and I believe the article had been edited to appear that it was only in the 1990 that the majority of unionists finally came to accept discriminationa s a reality. I belive this isn't backed up by the information on the Cain website.
Melaugh decribes it as follows.
"The Unionist Party enjoyed 50 years of control in Northern Ireland without intervention from Westminster. During that time many aspects of the operation of the state continued to benefit Protestants more than Catholics. An element of this was a number of forms of direct and indirect discrimination. Whyte (1983) produced a list of fields where discrimination was practised and ranked them from the greatest level of discrimination to the least. These were, electoral practices, public employment, policing, private employment, public housing, and regional policy. While the extent of direct discrimination in these fields was, and remains, the subject of debate (Hewitt, 1981, 1983, 1985; O'Hearn, 1983, 1985; and Kingsley, 1989) most researchers and commentators accept that this type of discrimination was practised mainly against Catholics over an extended period of time. Perhaps the most important consequence of this was the creation of a perception among the total Catholic population of a more widespread and systematic form of direct discrimination than the currently available evidence would support. Nevertheless, the Catholic allegations of discrimination by a number of local government districts, predominantly in the south and west of the region, were substantiated in many respects by later investigations (Cameron Report, 1969). There is also evidence that Catholics, in a few areas where they were in control of a local authority, discriminated against Protestants. As Catholics were less likely to be in a position to exercise such discrimination there was less of it; this is not in any way to excuse that discrimination which was carried out.
The Civil Rights movement focused British and wider public opinion on the relatively poorer circumstances of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland. Under pressure from Westminster the Stormont government began to introduce a number of reforms in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Some reforms required little more than political will and the introduction of new legislation, and so were implemented fairly quickly. Other difficulties, in particular the relative economic disadvantage of the Catholic community, have proved more problematic. Reforms in this area have taken longer to implement and appear to have had less impact on the situation. At the heart of the problem is a cycle of disadvantage which, while affecting the poorest sections in both communities, is particularly pervasive in the Catholic community. This cycle involves a number of interrelated elements including education, employment, income, housing, wealth, social class, and health.
Issues related to education are considered elsewhere in this book (see Chapter 11) but it is worth noting here that an important effect of the segregated education system is the marked difference in the educational attainment of Catholics and Protestants (Gallagher, 1989). According to Northern Ireland Continuous Household Survey (CHS) estimates, based on samples of the population taken during 1988 to 1991, 52 per cent of Catholics had no formal education qualifications compared to 46 per cent of Protestants (Policy Planning and Research Unit (PPRU) 1993). While differences in educational attainment do not fully explain community differentials in employment opportunities (Eversley, 1989) they are an important factor in the job prospects of each individual."
Therefore I removed the info realting to unionist attitudes to discimination as the rpevious edit was misleading. When can however discuss this further and come to a consensus.#
--Strangelyb 18:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you were right to edit. This is indeed a very contentious issue, and is near impossible to summarise succinctly. The Whyte reference mentions something like "discrimination was neither black nor white but most likely a murky shade of grey". The previous mention of unionist denial and opinion, was not balanced with nationalist exaggeration and opinion. Jonto 17:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on discrimination

message: I have removed the addition of the Free Presbyterians as being stated as the third largest religious denomination in Northern Ireland. According to the CAIN website, Free Presbyterians make up around 1% of Northern Ireland's population as compared with Methodists' 4% and Baptists 2%. The data was taken from a 1993 source, and I doubt very much that the percentages have changed enough to place Free Presbyterians ahead of Methodists in the subsequent years.
CAIN had a problem for me, though I was able to access a cached version of the page. --Mal 20:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since that 1993 source the membership of the Free Presbyterian Church has increased dramatically, however I wouldn't have thought they'd be anywhere near the other churches in percentages still. Ben W Bell 09:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure this excel file from the 2001 census will prove invaluable to this and other NI articles. In descending order: Catholic 678,462 (40.26%) ; Presbyterian Church in Ireland 348,742 (20.69%); Church of Ireland 257,788 (15.30%); Methodist Church in Ireland 59,173 (3.51%); Baptist 18,974 (1.13%); Free Presbyterian 11,902 (0.71%) ... (Total population 1,685,267). Given the problems inherent in combining other smaller religions - please be careful using these statistics. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious breakdown 

message: The leading sentence in the Demographics section says:
"In the 2001 census, 45.5% of the Northern Irish population were Protestant, (Presbyterian, Church of Ireland, Methodist and other Protestant denominations), and 40.3% of the population were Roman Catholic. 13.9% of the population did not specify a religion. "
..Which adds up to 100% when including those of other non-Christian religions. Yet the source quoted says 40.26% Catholic, 39.5% Protestant (Presbyterian, Church of Ireland, Baptist), 6.07% Other Christian, and 0.33% Other religions. The other Christian element includes many Protestants, but also other Christian religions such as 8,502 (0.5%) 'Christian,' Greek Orthodox, 'Believe in God', Non Denominational (1,115), 'Church', Independent, Interdenominational, Charismatic, and numerous other minorities that are not, or may not be, Protestant. It is wrong to include them all in the Protestant figure. This figure is over-inflated. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on religious breakdown