Talk:Northern Ireland

Introduction

Why has the article been altered to remove the fact that Northern Ireland is a country of the United Kingdom? All 4 nations of the UK are meant to say the same thing. If Northern Ireland is not a country, none of the other 3 are. Why has this change been allowed to happen? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Since reliable sources do not treat all "4 nations of the UK" in the same way, the article should not do that at all. For too long one particular POV dominated this article and was presented as fact, that has now been rectified. You can thank WP:NPOV for that. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann pronounced [ˈt̪ˠuəʃcəɾˠt̪ˠ ˈeːɾʲən̪ˠ] ( listen), Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann orNorlin Airlan) is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland." Is an absolutely terrible introduction which purposely avoids informing readers of information and tries to hide it in the pipelink. Northern Ireland is deemed one of the four countries of the United Kingdom, that is what many of the sources used to justify the term country for England, Scotland, Wales and for the countries of the UK article all say. if these souces are wrong, and they are not actually countries.. the other articles need changing too dont they? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also deemed a province by the British government. More pertinently, reliable sources pour cold water on the idea that it is in fact a country. You can keep repeating the same flawed argument about other articles till the cows come home, it isn't relevant. You can also keep trying for as long as you like to get consensus to add back the so-called "fact" that Northern Ireland is a country to the intro, but since it'll never happen I recommend doing something more constructive with your time. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was made up of four countries - England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. When Ireland became independent, part of it remained in the re-named United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. TFD (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd support having something like 'variously described as a country, province or region' in the lead. Dmcq (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a good compromise. To use the word 'part' is plain daft. Of course it's a part. So too is any other 'part' of the UK. Your suggestion neatly overcomes any difficulties, provided the wording is succinct. Northern Arrow (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Dmcq, and I thought something like this had been agreed. However I have been on a wikibreak so not monitoring it. However reading the discussion above it is far from clear that there was an agreement to remove country. It looks like people just gave up which is not satisfactory ----Snowded ^TALK 11:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably gave up because no one likes to continue arguments on Ireland-related articles for too long any-more. Was DMQC idea put forward before by him/her or anyone else? --Τασουλα (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Also support Dmcq's proposal. "Part of" is silly, but, as Τασουλα said, it's a bore to just keep arguing, and it seems that's what happened here. "... one of the four countries of the UK", as was before, was fine as it was. It never said "Northern Ireland" is a country, like the equivalent sentence at England, Scotland and Wales. — JonC^ॐ 16:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Using the vague part of the United Kingdom is not helpful to readers. Hyde Park and Brighton Pier are also part of the United Kingdom. We, as editors, need to decide what to call Northern Ireland and add it to the lead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq's suggestion might work if it were a footnote - but to include that text in the opening sentence would give undue weight to a relatively minor issue of definition. Incidentally, the lengthy discussion that led to the current wording is archived here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What about "Northern Ireland is deemed to be a constituent country of the United Kingdoom" in the introduction with all the squabbling about 'country etc left to a later paragraph? --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That raises more questions than it answers. "Deemed to be" by whom? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

OK I've read the archive and it confirms my view that there was no firm concensus for the change. RA has returned to this subject several times and eventually people gave up. I return to Dmcq's suggestion. Its not a minor issue, the description used for Northern Ireland (and the controversies) are a part of its history. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason not to state one description as fact, as the article did for years. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with Dmcq's proposal?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a strong objection to adding a few words along these lines, if most people support it: "Northern Ireland... is a part of the United Kingdom, variously described as a country, province or region, in the north-east of the island of Ireland." Further explanation is set out in the Description section of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see discussions have been ongoing. Im not opposed to NI taking a slightly different approach to its wording compared to the other 3, but do feel strongly that we can not hide the fact the position on wikipedia is there are four countries of the UK, if that is not the case we have many inaccurate articles. How about something like "Northern Ireland is one of the four countries (sometimes referred to as a region or province) of the United Kingdom. It is located in the north-east of the island of Ireland and shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west." That is very differently worded than the other 3 UK nation articles, but reflects there are alternative names and there could be a note attached too.. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Obvious failure of WP:NPOV in promoting your preferred personal viewpoint. Why not "Northern Ireland is a province of the United Kingdom (sometimes referred to as a region or country)" or "Northern Ireland is a region of the United Kingdom (sometimes referred to as a province or country)"? Those aren't proposals by the way. " the fact the position on wikipedia is there are four countries of the UK", keep dreaming and I see you still haven't mastered what a fact is..... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I would rather your proposed wording there than the terrible introduction that is on the article at present. At least that would give a clue to what "part of" the UK meant. As someone above said, any town or city is "part of the UK" so its hardly informative. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm my suggestion sounds as though its talking about all UK nations rather than northern Ireland. So how about "Northern Ireland is a country (sometimes referred to as a region or province) of the United Kingdom. It is located in the north-east of the island of Ireland and sharesa border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west." so that its clear its just northern Ireland the region/province description is applying to. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

How about "no". It's an abject failure of WP:NPOV to describe it as a country when the term is disputed. Do you want to keep going round in circles and getting nowhere? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

But we are not going round and round in circles, there is an ongoing discussion about what the wording should be and there appears to be some questioning of if there really was consensus for the change that has been introduced. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The strongest argument for using "part of" was because it was deemed to be neutral while also being factually correct. Using any of the other terms in isolation (province, country, constituent country, region) promotes one viewpoint above the others. It's a case of all-or-nothing in certain respects - we can either list all the disputed terms, or go for a neutral term and explain later in the article. Personally, for the average reader, I believe the "part of" phrasing is a pretty good solution. The suggestion of including (sometimes referred to as a country, region, or province) might be inelegant, but also meets NPOV. --HighKing (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't, since it favours one viewpoint over another. It basically says, for example, that it is a country, but that other people describe it as a region or province. That's not NPOV at all, since it favours one viewpoint. NPOV doesn't just require that all viewpoints are presented, but that it is done "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood. In line with what I believe Dmcq suggests above, the lede could state Northern Ireland is a part (variously referred to as a country, region or province) of the United Kingdom. It is located in the north-east of the island of Ireland and shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west. --HighKing (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

My bad, I thought you were going with BritishWatcher's "country (sometimes referred to as a region or province)" proposal. The other one is ok from a purely NPOV standpoint, I'm a bit unconvinced if it's really needed in the first sentence though. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think "variously described as..." would be better than "variously referred to as...", grammatically. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, what was wrong with "Northern Ireland is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom"? It doesn't have to say that Northern Ireland "is a country...", as at the other three, but it's not in dispute that the United Kingdom is a country made up of four constituent countries... is it? — JonC^ॐ 13:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, it describes Northern Ireland as a "country". See above for reasons why this isn't NPOV. --HighKing (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, not really. How about "constituent country"? I don't think that term's in debate. — JonC^ॐ 14:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What about "Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom" which is basically the reverse of the legal name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Just checking - you mean remove the word "a", from "a part..."? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Either, just trying to get editors to move from the words country, province etc. Just reverse the full name of the UK? --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the (wiki) fetish with "country"? There's no consensus in reliable sources, including UK govt. sources, as to 'what Northern Ireland is'. Additionally, other descriptions are arguably better supported as well as more accurate and neutral.

For so much as the issue exists, it is fraught and unanswerable but thankfully it's not very important to understanding the subject. It's not an issue that is suitable for an introduction (and certainly not the first sentence) without making a mountain out of a molehill. What is important is to state that Northern Ireland is (a) part of the United Kingdom. --RA (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No new arguments here - this has all been done to death before. As RA points out (again), there is no generally accepted term for what it is, and of the possible terms, "country" is one of the least neutral. Personally I would prefer "region" but the last long debate on this point ended up at "part" and I'm content to leave it at that. Brocach (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never understood the fetish with removing it either. We've established that there are various term used, supported by the reliable sources. That makes Dmcq's a sensible way forward. There was not a clear consensus to remove it last time but I can see the case if its a single term. Reference to the various terms used makes sense. Such controversies are part of the recent history of NI and should be reflected ----Snowded ^TALK 18:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The "fetish" with removing it is WP:NPOV. Reliable sources simply don't support it while adhering to NPOV. Various terms are in use is correct but the issue isn't a "prominent controversy" per WP:LEAD (never mind WP:LEADSENTENCE). That's why I say it is a fetish.

A section in the article that deals with the question. If the issue that one that truly interests people, that section needs improving. Improving that might also shed further light on what reliable sources have to say about the question. It's doesn't all have to be about the first line. --RA (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There are sources which support all the names used in the Dmcq compromise, and country stood for several years (you even agreed with it twice) so please don't misrepresent the position. We have moved from using country to nothing, without a full consensus. It makes a lot more sense to mention the three commonly used names in the lede. There is also balancing issue here with the other articles on countries within the UK. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

^^ I seriously doubt you (we?) are going to get anywhere with this one guys. Well, you could prove me wrong :-) --Τασουλα (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Equally doubtful that this will bring us any further. However I disagree with Snowded on the supposed need for 'balancing' - the fact is that the four parts of the UK have very different histories and constitutional status, and there is no one word - other than possibly 'part' - which applies uncontroversially to all four. England is unquestionably a part of the UK, so is Wales, so at the time of writing is Scotland, ditto Northern Ireland. However none of the first three can properly be described as a 'region', or 'province', but all three can be uncontroversially described as 'countries' while in Northern Ireland that usage is highly controversial. Brocach (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever a "full consensus" might be, the chances of getting it here are zero, and it is absurd to argue that we should wait until it is achieved before a wording is changed. What happened in April is that a majority of editors at that time agreed that a new wording was better than the previous wording. So, it was changed. That is how we progress. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Fully appreciate that, but it was at best a bare majority and the change was made while discussion was active and I would have expected a little more openness from the main protagonist to a compromise. Brochach, its the fact that it is controversial in Norther Ireland that makes the various names notable enough for inclusion. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it all that controversial in Northern Ireland? I don't believe so and I haven't see any reliable sources that suggest it is. It is not a question that needs addressing to understand the subject and it is not a "prominent controversy" per WP:LEAD.

We should not attempt to offer answers to what reliable sources say is an unanswerable question. "...a part of the United Kingdom..." is the Occam's razor of all possibilities, and more detailed discussion of the question takes place in the article itself. --RA (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well its certainly been controversial for you over the years. Also there are already sources in the article that say the question of what it is named is controversial - you yourself have used them in the past to argue your case. Referencing the multiple names seems to have around the same sort of support that removing "country" did in the first place, there is little question that the three names are used so its reasonable to change the article on that basis. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Previous incarnations of the first line certainly were controversial and failed NPOV. But, whether the issue itself is a "prominent controversy" per WP:LEAD is different question:

"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..."

TBH, from my reading of it, it seem like it is Wikipedians such as yourself that make big deal out of it. I haven't seen a reliable source that suggests it is a significant issue. If its importance could be established through reliable sources, I wouldn't object to reference to it appearing later on in the introduction (though hijacking the first line just to get the word "country" back in is POV pushing).

That is why I suggest working on the section in the article first. Through doing so we can actually go about establishing how important this question is to the subject and what reliable sources have to say on it. We need to be careful not to engage in OR and to avoid engaging in synthesis. We also need to avoid placing too much emphasis on something that doesn't appear to be significant (per WP:LEAD). For now, that would be why I'm not gone on the "variously" suggestion.

Would you be OK with working on the section first and then looking back on the introduction? --RA (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I remember we had a stable position for years but every time an opportunity arose you tried to change it, so I think its you making the "big deal" of it. A little less of the POV accusations and the suggestions of hijacking might also improve things a little, you are far too prone here and elsewhere to imputing nefarious motives to people who have the temerity to disagree with you. The best way to be neutral is to list the terms which are used to describe Northern Ireland. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that if we "list the terms which are used" in the opening sentence of the article, it gives undue weight to a semantic issue, rather than giving more important information about the subject of the article. I would favour a footnote, or alternatively RA's approach to see where it leads. The intro should derive from the article content, not vice versa. Can we please move forward on content, rather than make accusations about each other? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as RA continues to make comments on other editors motives rather than dealing with content issues I am going to pushback, its disruptive and its become a habit. Otherwise I'm happy to see how the main content evolves, but I don't think the names can be confined to a footnote, it is an issue, there are clear sources that make the point that what you call it is controversial. Avoiding that in the lede is I think wrong. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The compromise along the lines suggested by Dmcq seems to be the most likely supported option to try and resolve the issues around the first sentence. Whilst i would prefer it clearly stating as the other articles do that Northern Ireland is a country of the UK, (either all 4 are countries or none of them are), i would support the compromise mentioning the fact that various terms are used. It is a huge improvement on the current wording and informs the reader. So perhaps someone could put such a proposal to a vote soon just to get an idea of where people are after the debate so far. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The entire argument of BritishWatcher is premised on the fallacy that because the UK contains three areas uncontroversially referred to as countries, i.e. England, Scotland and Wales, the fourth bit of the state must also be a country. Many states contain within their territory various autonomous or devolved regions, whose creation or existence does not automatically mean that every other part of the territory must fall into the same category or use the same term. I would much prefer to keep the intro as is. Brocach (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The current intro doesn't convey enough information. It's a "part", so what type of part? It's reasonable to briefly mention the options in the lead, so I also support Dmcq's proposal. Northern Arrow (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A part is "an amount or section which, when combined with others, makes up the whole of something." That captures Northern Ireland's relationship with the United Kingdom quite well. It is also how Northern Ireland is described in the 1998 act: "...Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom...". That may be unsatisfying, but it is accurate and neutral. --RA (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The whole idea of what is and what isn't neutral is being distorted by this discussion. I'm not aware of a raging debate out there in the real world about this issue. Sure, there's a few editors here who object to "country" for whatever reason, but that seems to me to be what's called POV pushing. As for the argument above about "...Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom...", to extract the word "part" from that statement to justify its use as we have at the moment is stretching it a bit. Northern Arrow (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So what's your idea of neutral then? --HighKing (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The idea that "country" is neutral, but "part" is not neutral, seems a little strange to me as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree about not relying on the above quoted legislation to back up the simple wording "part", as the word there is more of an assertion focused on the relationship between the UK & NI, rather than being a term specifically describing the nature/status of NI per se. It doesn't provide a definitive answer, were such a thing to exist anyway. I also think we don't need to obssess too much about finding perfectly neutral terminology - nothing is ever neutral when it comes to this issue; someone will always claim that word X overplays or underplays some aspect - but more on the preponderance of usage in serious sources, while avoiding anything too obviously controversial or outright "wrong". It's quite common to see NI described as a country, equally common to see it not so described (even when Scotland, Wales and England are by contrast - see first answer to today's Guardian citizenship quiz, for example, not that that proves too much either by itself). "Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, variously described as a region, province, country etc" might work, even if it is a little clunky and convoluted, especially for the first sentence in the lead. N-HH talk/edits 09:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(Half-jokingly...) Maybe we need a page on Northern Ireland description dispute, similar to British Isles naming dispute and Derry/Londonderry name dispute. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to that! Maybe however we should start with the assumption that no single term is universally accepted, even "part" is controversial. THat is why I rather like the proposed compromise, it lists the terms used without selection or exclusion. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I've tried just sticking in something like, the worst that can happen is it just gets removed again but I'd hope people could instead try seeing first if they can tweak the business a bit or move it where they'd like instead. Dmcq (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being bold and getting the ball rolling. I like it as it is, but as you say, let's just tweak away and see what we end up with. Better than this deadlock. — JonC^ॐ 13:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To my eyes, it's a fudge to satisfy POV pushing. None the less, I've added further links.

The current phrasing could also be marked with and, like GHM, I'd voice also weighting concerns. These terms aren't equal, interchangeable or used in the same way. "Province" is the UK government, ISO and OED definition of 'what Northern Ireland is', for example. In contrast, whilst "country" is frequently used to describe the four parts of the UK — and England, Scotland and Wales specifically (including in ISO, etc.) — it is much less frequently used to describe Northern Ireland in isolation. And both Scotland and the Republic of Ireland are "regions" in the same terms as Northern Ireland depending on context (e.g. NUTS regions).

A foot note would be a better approach IMO; or a sentence or two later on in the paragraph about nomenclature and symbolism in Northern Ireland, of which this question is part. --RA (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize the article so the main question should be is that a reasonable short summary of the section about that? We don't need footnotes and citations as that should be covered by the part of the article dealing with it and I think that is easily identifiable from the contents list. Dmcq (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In fact I see you made a link from 'variously described' to the appropriate section, that's a good way of doing the business I think. Dmcq (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The wording and links look OK to me, but I feel it gives the issue too much weight to have it as the second sentence. How would people feel about moving it down, perhaps to the end of the first paragraph? I think it is important to establish such basic facts as the location, size and boundaries first, before noting the semantic issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself as perhaps a little more could then be said, however looking at it I just couldn't seem to fit it properly and really do we need to say more about this rather than something more interesting about the place. I always wonder about tourists when I look at these articles even if that isn't being exactly neutral :) Plus the guideline in MOS:LEADALT encourages one to put things like this up front at the very beginning. Dmcq (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That guidance surely relates specifically to alternative names though, not descriptions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It still flows better where it is, and it is in the same position as "country" on the other UK articles which should help a reader moving between the articles. We are not elevating any one over the other, and to be honest if people want to change the sequence I will not be worried about it ----Snowded ^TALK 21:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• "...is that a reasonable short summary of the section about that?" — To do so, I think it would need a note that all of these terms are problematic in one way or another and can their use can reveal one's political bias. I've added another half sentence on this, along with citations (see WP:LEADCITE).
• "...I just couldn't seem to fit it properly..." — Same here. The issue doesn't deserve to be so high in the introduction but without adding a new section (like I suggested above) the second sentence is the best 'fit'. Since the sentence was added, however, it was joined to the first sentence. That's OTT and is just the sort of "POV creep" I suspect will happen if "country" is put back in. How long before we have, "Northern Ireland is a country, variously described as a province or region, that is part of the United Kingdom"?
• "...MOS:LEADALT encourages one to..." — MOS:LEADALT doesn't apply ... unless someone is suggesting we add Six Counties, etc. to the lead :-P --RA (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You additions this morning improved it. I think a few decades ago there would have been a case for six counties as well, but now that just needs to be in the main body somewhere. The point here is that there are official references for all three terms used. I don't think you are justified in calling it "POV creep" and the formulation you are worried about was one of your own earlier compromises. I would hope with having all three 'official' names that we might have a nice long period of stability on this issue. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. My point about not giving undue weight to the issue applies with even greater force after the latest changes. We are essentially saying that what is in essence a semantic debating point is one of the most fundamental items of encyclopaedic information to be given about the area. It isn't. The area's basic geography - where it is, how big it is, and so on - should be in the second sentence, not this wording. We should bear in mind that the opening sentence or two are what appears in popups, Facebook pages, Google searches, and so on. It is simply not important for this detailed clarification to be in those opening couple of sentences - there is no guidance that would give it that importance, and questions of consistency with other articles are simply irrelevant and should be given no weight. We are getting carried away with an issue that is simply not that important, except in debates between ourselves as editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well we will have to agree to disagree, Names of things have always had huge importance in Northern Ireland, what you call things is a tribal marker. RA has come back to this again and again over the years which illustrates the point. We also have reliable sources which make the point that the name is controversial, so its not just editors opinions here. Northern Ireland is a political entity of recent construct, the creation of which was and remains controversial. That is as important as its basic geography etc. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that editors here disagree over an issue, or that an issue is controversial, gives absolutely no indication whatsoever of that issue's importance in the real world. Any other encyclopaedia would state that "Place X is an area located here, with an area of Y and a population of Z. Its government is ....." etc. Whether that place is called a hamlet, village, city, etc., and the fact that there is disagreement over its description, is a side issue. The description is indeed controversial, but that does not make it very important. What is most important is to give the reader - the archetypal high school student in Indonesia, if you like - the most important information about the place at the start of article - not in giving priority to forms of words that happen to resolve differences between editors here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Its certainly not enough that editors disagree, but we have citations which show its controversial. The fact that out of the four "units" of the UK one has no agreed description, and the choice of description is controversial is notable. As I have said before, what things are 'called' is important on all Irish issues. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree - but not so much of an issue that it needs to be discussed in the opening two sentences of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I can live with the 'amongst other terms' as those are the official ones and the others are unofficial, however I really don't see thee need for 'although none of these is without problem'. That is simply duplicating and emphasising to no great purpose that I can see. If there was a single straightforward name without problems that would have been in the first sentence and anyway there is a link to the section about the problems and some citations have been added about it even though it is properly covered in the referenced section so they're not really necessary either. Personally I dislike citations in places like that as it makes it depend on the citation rather than being a summary of the relevant section but I can live with it as well too. Dmcq (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I can agree to Dmcq's suggestion at the start of this discussion.

@Hackney:

How about "no". It's an abject failure of WP:NPOV to describe it as a country when the term is disputed. Do you want to keep going round in circles and getting nowhere? 2 lines of K303 12:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Faux pas argument that'd mean we'd have no descriptions for many things on many articles. For example control of the Falkland Islands is disputed however is still stated as being British regardless. Also have you any reliable sources that says the term is actually disputed or is that simply personal opinion and original research? It's an abject failure of WP:NPOV to push a POV without corroborating evidence - evidence not from an Irish nationalist viewpoint at that.

@Snowded:

Maybe i'm splitting hairs but: Northern Ireland is a political entity of recent construct - it is not a recent construct. In world terms 90 years is not recent. The Republic of Ireland is a younger construct. Post-Yugoslavia and post-USSR states aren't treated as that recent anymore. Montenegro, Kosovo, and South Sudan can be called recent constructs. In fact just how many political entities have been come and gone since the creation of Northern Ireland. Definitely more than a few. It's like saying New York is a young city, which it ain't. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

More taking the wrong hairs to split  :-) The post USSR states are generally political entities of long standing. Ireland until the early part of the last century was one entity (or possibly four at times), so taking six counties from one province is a recent construct; no historical precedent. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The argument can be made that Northern Ireland didn't take 6 counties out of a previous construct, but the rest of Ireland left that previous construct and Northern Ireland remained where it was, with a different name. NI strictly didn't split from the rest of Ireland, the rest of Ireland split from the UK. Canterbury Tail talk 11:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It can be argued, but if I remember aright it was agreed that Ireland could move back to a state of independence, then the six counties chose to split. But this makes the case for controversy! ----Snowded ^TALK 12:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Im still not convinced this wording on the article is right although it is at least better than before.

" Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann pronounced [ˈt̪ˠuəʃcəɾˠt̪ˠ ˈeːɾʲən̪ˠ] ( listen), Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann orNorlin Airlan) is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland. It is variously described as acountry, province or region, amongst other terms, although none of these is without problem." I believe "of the United Kingdom" should possibly be added after the list of country, province or region. Otherwise it could mislead people into thinking its "of Ireland" as the last thing that is mentioned in the previous sentence is the island. ANd i am still not happy with the "part of the UK" being used in that way linking to an article about administrative subdivisions. It should be "[part of] the [United Kingdom]] in the.." BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see an argument for moving the "of the UK", although not sure it makes a huge difference. I agree that the link currently there for "part of" is not the best option, and that constituent countries - despite the debate here - would be a better one. It does say on that page that the term country can apply to the four parts, not that it does or has to. Can I also follow others though and say that I'm not sure we need the "none of them is without problem" declaration? I think it sits oddly so early in the lead, and makes an already slightly long and clumsy construction (albeit perhaps necessarily) even more so. We're not surely trying to address or describe the debate about nomenclature here, just highlight that the place is sometimes called different things and aim to cover the main ones. As also noted somewhere above, although we've tied ourselves in knots over it here for the purposes of picking words to write an accurate encyclopedia entry, it's not actually AFAIK a major substantive dispute or issue in the real world that needs to be flagged up so prominently in that entry. N-HH talk/edits 11:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not a substantive issue in the real world. I think The Four Deuces captured it very well above when he/she wrote, "I do not see that there is any dispute about what NI should be called, just that there is no agreement."

Like others have said too, the new sentence puts a undue weight on the issue. However, if the sentence is to be added (and the issue flagged) it requires stating that none of these terms is without problem. That is how the question is dealt with in reliable sources. Otherwise, just leave the whole thing out. --RA (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think with two votes to remove it the phrase should go. It just doesn't add anything in that context when there's the link to the section and the citations so I'll go and remove it. Adding 'of the United Kingdom', doesn't fit well with the 'amongst other terms' so I'm against for the moment unless someone can phrase it all better. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I too support the removal of that bit which did not sound quite right and was not needed seen as there is the link to the "variously described.." and it says amongst other terms. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the lot per concerns regarding WP:WEIGHT. It was the "although none of these is without problem" that was supported by cited reliable sources.

If consensus can be achieved on a wording then good and well, but only half-telling what sources say doesn't meet WP:NPOV. --RA (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with that move - thank you. There are certainly sources (in the article text) supporting a statement like "It is variously described as a country, province or region, amongst other terms...", and there may be also good sources for something like "...although none of these is without problem." But, if there is consensus in principle to reinstate those words or similar in the introduction - and I am not necessarily against that - they should be given due weight, by being placed no higher than the very end of the first paragraph, rather than in the first couple of sentences. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I think we need something stronger and more specific than "part", which is impossibly vague. Also, while there seemed to be consensus to remove the "none of these is without problem" phrase, there was broader support for nonetheless keeping the brief list of the main terms used to describe the place. Defining what something is is surely key in the first few lines of an encylopedia entry - and if one or two different terms are in play in the real world, isn't there a case for mentioning each of them at that point? Also, I don't see that there are sourcing issues here and still don't see this as being a grave NPOV issue. It's much simpler than that - what is this thing usually called and how can we explain that concisely, and simply without excessive explanation or analysis? N-HH talk/edits 14:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem, for me, is that any attempt to explain the (unarguably correct) term "part" in the opening sentence or two must inevitably give undue weight to the argument over what sort of "part" it is. For most WP articles, there is a single unambiguous term that accurately and uncontroversially describes what it is that we are talking about and which should be contained in the opening sentence. For NI, that does not apply. There are different terms, with different implications, used by different people with different POVs. But, what most readers of the opening sentence or two need to know is basic information like where it is, how big it is, and what sovereign state it falls within. If we try to explain what is meant by "part" - by different groups of people in different contexts - in the opening two sentences, we are giving that issue undue importance. The explanation (which is set out in full in the article text) should perhaps be summarised in the introduction, but certainly not in the opening few words of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto to GHM (and this is a point that was discussed a few sections above too).

"Defining what something is is surely key in the first few lines of an encylopedia entry..." Certainly, and the opening line does do that. It may sound "impossibly vague" but consideration must be given to the possibility that, despite our desires to the contrary, no definitive or genuinely neutral word may exist.

The closest thing to a definitve term for Northern Ireland IMO is "province". That is how the UK govt. defines it to the UN and, from that, the ISO definition. (In contrast, England, Scotland and Wales are defined as "country", Wales being formerly defined as "principality".)

However, per reliable sources, all of these terms are problematic. No less, Northern Ireland is "a part" of the United Kingdom. That is absolutely indisputable and enough to start us off. What kind of "part", you ask? Well, we have a whole article in which to spell that out. As has been said before, there are 10,755 words in the article. We are not obliged to illuminate our readers on every aspect of a complex topic in the first 17. --RA (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that so is, say, Brighton Pier. Everything in the UK is a part of it. It's our duty to say what kind of part. — JonC^ॐ 15:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

We do. In the article. And, possibly, somewhere in the introductory paragraphs. But not in the opening few words. It's too complicated and contentious, and any additional wording on the matter conveys an impression of undue weight being given to the issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've always said on my occasional forays into this topic that there is no definitive or pristinely neutral single term to apply here - but both those points apply to "part" as much as they do to "province", "country" or whatever. That's why I was broadly/cautiously in favour of the brief list we had for short time - as were several other people, looking at the threads above - before commentary about "none being without problem" was added. That commentary was, in my view, when we really started getting into undue weight territory and needless meta-debate; but when that second addition was removed, the whole lot was subsequently wiped and we were taken back to square 1, seemingly on the basis that "if we're not having my addition, we're having none of it". The main problem with "part" is, as noted, its vagueness and the lack of information it imparts - sometimes that's the only solution in these cases, but if we can offer a bit more clarity and note common terminology in six or so words, ahead of any more detailed discussion in main text, I don't see the problem. It's not about trying to illuminate every aspect of the underlying dispute over NI. Also, simple "part" can hardly be said to be neutral - for many, it underplays the status of NI as a discrete entity and/or one of the four constituent elements that make up the UK. N-HH talk/edits 16:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree; this mod [1] is one we should stick with; I will likely revert to that later today or tomorrow. Listing a few additional terms does not give undue weight, especially since readers may have come here from Constituent country or any number of categories where NI is listed as a country, or any number of other places in wikipedia where NI is referred to as a country; a brief mention is not out of line and helps readers, but we don't need to underline the problems - this is covered well later. --KarlB (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

When the BBC or government or in fact anybody just refers to the region or province or country of the United Kingdom they don't start talking about it being problematic, they just refer to it in that way unless they are specifically dealing with that problem. We should just say what happens normally and leave the mention of problems to a section about them according to that due weight. That there is a problem only has weight within the context of a discussion about the descriptions, it doesn't have any particular weight in the context of Northern Ireland itself which is what the lead is about. If anything was put in about it in the lead it would have to be in a subsequent paragraph in the lead making going on about summarizing the section about the different names but the various descriptions themselves are what people use all the time and are top level material whatever about the problems associated with them. Dmcq (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@N-HH, look it, if it can be done fairly with respect to reliable sources (and not rely on OR or SYN) then I'm OK with it. A specific problem, however, is that the reliable sources we have that address this question don't say, Northern Irleand can be called X, Y or Z. They say there are problems with calling Northern Ireland X, Y or Z. Hence, when the relevant part of the sentence was removed, it improperly represented the reliable sources we have.

Yes, being left calling Northern Ireland "a part" is unsatisfactory. (Funnily enough, several of the reliable sources also speak about being left with having to describe Northern Ireland in unsatisfactory terms because of this issue.) But, like GHM says, there is more to the article than the first sentence. Read on, and what kind of "part" Northern Ireland is will become clear.

Finally, that Northern Ireland is "a part of the United Kingdom" is indisputably supported by reliable sources. Find a reliable sources that says otherwise. Comparing that statement to use of terms such as "province", "country" or whatever, which reliable sources say are problematic, is complete wiki-twaddle. --RA (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Where did I ever argue that NI is not part of the UK, or that it is inaccurate to so describe it? I merely said the basic term has problems of its own, which it surely does, as many other people seem to agree. More generally, exercising a bit of judgment and deploying a reasoned argument is not wiki-twaddle. People don't have to find a precise source for every assertion they post on a talk page. Equally, saying "I have a source that says X" doesn't always prove or even illuminate anything, nor should it guarantee inclusion of content in article text, given that things such as relevance, context, due weight, and the fact that sources will diverge on subjective matters all come into play. My view and that of others is that simply and briefly noting the differing terminology (the fact that these terms are used is not controversial and does not need sourcing in the lead; and, if we do source it, we do not have to pick out everything the source we happen to choose might say in addition) with a bit more precision fairly early on is probably informative and helpful, and not undue weight so long as we don't dive into the fact there may be problems at some level with each of the alternatives. N-HH talk/edits 17:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

RA, all of the names are sourced, so is the fact that all names are controversial Its not OR or SYN, especially as it is the lede. You think it does not have enough weight, other editors disagree. Now please use the talk page ----Snowded ^TALK 20:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Now please use the talk page..." Says, Snowded ... replying to me .. on the talk page. TBH I'd ceased commenting because I thought I had added enough text to the page already ... but since you've kindly asked for more :-P

Look, we do need to properly use sources. That means properly representing what sources say. In this case, we don't have sources that simply say that Northern Ireland can be called X, Y, or Z. What the sources we have say is that calling Northern Ireland X, Y or Z is a problematic. Neglecting to mention that part, or glossing over it, neglects the substantive point made by the sources. The sources don't say, Northern Ireland is variously called X, Y or Z. They say, no-one knows what to call Northern Ireland.

I'm fine with anything that fairly represents sources (i.e. is WP:NPOV) but there's a lot of minor OR happening in this discussion. I want to avoid that. --RA (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I was mainly referencing this RA. We have sources for all the names and this is the lede. Open to changing the "problematic" wording if you have something better sourced ----Snowded ^TALK 21:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

We have sources for all sorts of facts, throughout the article. It does not mean that they all need to be set out in the introductory paragraphs, or, in particular, in the opening two or three lines. We are trying to balance the need for clarity with the need to give due weight (or more specifically, not give undue weight) to a matter of wording which is better and more clearly addressed in later sections. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to RA's attempt to wikilawyer  :-) We have a genuine disagreement here as to due weight. I respect your view, but I disagree ----Snowded ^TALK 21:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well a I said above I did actually wonder about placing it further down in the lead but I couldn't seem to make it fit reasonably elsewhere - it just naturally was associated with the 'part of the united Kingdom' text. It just looks strange to say that then nothing and then have a bit about descriptions in the lead later on and saying part of is just strange too. Where would you put it or would you just not have it in the lead? You seem to say that if we say what it is called then we need to describe the problems about those descriptions or put more in about it than having a link to the appropriate section and some citations, why do you think that? Why do you think the problems have weight in the context of a summary about Northern Ireland rather than a discussion about the names? Dmcq (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) My preference would be not to have it in the lead at all. I think we should assess opening sections of articles like this from the point of view of the reader who knows little about the subject matter. Once they read that it's part of the UK, and part of the island of Ireland, they want to move on to more substantive information about its geography, politics, and so on. Readers do not want to be sidetracked, in opening sentences, into esoteric debating points about wording. (I know they're not esoteric debating points to some editors here, but that's irrelevant - we are doing this to inform readers.) There's a full explanation of the terminology in the article for those who want it. In an academic document, such a side-issue could be addressed in a footnote, but I accept that's probably inappropriate here and contrary to policy. So, leave the explanation of what "part" might mean to different people out of the lead entirely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto with GHM, but if it's going to be in there then we need to state that it is a specific problem. I haven't seen a source that says that NI can be called X, Y and Z without stating that the question itself is a specific problem and that any choice is problematic. Indeed, if anything, it is the problem that is notable (not the possible answers). It is the problem is that the RS describe. --RA (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The places that show the names are all official descriptions don't say anything about problems. A more authoritative citation to government documents can be attached to each description if required and the citations at the end removed. Those citations at the end only establish the names and the problem, they don't establish weight whereas the official sites do establish weight. The problem does not have weight in this context. Dmcq (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence deals with the question what to describe NI as. Here is what the two references currently supporting the sentence say about that question:

"One problem must be adverted to in writing about Northern Ireland. This is the question of what name to give to the various geographical entities. These names can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences. ... some refer to Northern Ireland as a 'province'. That usage can arouse irritation particularly among nationalists, who claim the title 'province' should be properly reserved to the four historic provinces of Ireland-Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connacht. If I want to a label to apply to Northern Ireland I shall call it a 'region'. Unionists should find that title as acceptable as 'province': Northern Ireland appears as a region in the regional statistics of the United Kingdom published by the British government." — J. Whyte; G. FitzGerald (1991), Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford: Oxford University Press

"One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." — S. Dunn; H. Dawson (2000), An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press

Both refer explicitly to the "problem" in the context of what to describe NI as. Other sources may use one term or another without stating it is a problem, but the sentence deals with the question of what to describe NI as and the possible options. RS that deal with that question indicate that the choice problematic and we should (neutrally) state that. --RA (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The article does deal with the problem so there's no conflict with the advice in there to deal with the problem when writing about Northern Ireland. The question is what is the weight of saying there is a problem with the names. The citations saying there are problems can be removed and more authoritative citations for the names stuck in instead. Just because a reliable source about a subtopic says a problem in the subtopic is important does not make it important in the context of the topic. Importance is not inherited into a main topic. Dmcq (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence deals with the issue. The references describe the issue. Removing reliable sources that deal directly with an issue and replacing them with a synthesis of sources that avoids mention of a problem is no way to approach either an issue (any issue) or to deal with sources.

Alternatively, if you don't think this is an important issue after all, then we can simply remove the sentence. --RA (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The descriptions are widely used in official documents and elsewhere. The problem of the usage of the various descriptions is not important in that context. The summary is about Northern Ireland, it is not about the descriptions. Dmcq (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys we are talking about the lede here. Technically all the sources should be in the main body of the article and the lede then summarises. So this debate needs to move to getting the main body right. RA it would also help if you stopped posing either/or choices/ I don't buy the "if you don't do this, then you have to do this" form of argument here. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes the body should always be fixed before the lead. I think though the body is okay here but there is a bit of problem in that the various different descriptions are used by the government and it is just some confusion and annoyance, whereas in the article the subject is discussed under the signs and symbols section which is about conflict an trouble. The second paragraph in the lead is the main one dealing with that sort of stuff and this business doesn't make the cut as important enough for the lead under that heading. The reason for sticking it into the lead is as part of its designation, for instance see New Caledonia which is described as a special collectivity of France in the first sentence and special collectivity is not mentioned thereafter. By the way I'd support adding 'of the UK' to get 'as a country, province or region of the UK'. Dmcq (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that addition ----Snowded ^TALK 10:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The question carries more significance than just, "various terms are used". It is a part of the issue of symbolism and nomenclature around Northern Ireland. The reason I keep harking to reliable sources is because those are the terms in which reliable sources crouch the choice of these terms.

It's not merely that there is no agreement or simply that "various terms are used", they say. But, "These names can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences.", etc. That needs to be flagged. Not made a big deal of. But flagged.

On a pedantic point too, with regard to "of the United Kingdom", NI is also a "region" of the EU, and "province" has been used (by unionist commentators) to describe NI is being a "province" both of the UK and of Ireland. Adding extra words like this, while well intentioned, tries to further define what is meant by these terms - outside of reliable sources. I'd draw a parallel with the England, Scotland and Wales article here. We don't, for example, say that Wales is a country of the United Kingdom. We leave that question open - because it is open. --RA (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ulster is a province in the context of all Ireland, Northern Ireland isn't. It is only a province in the context of the UK. Actually Wales says it is a country that is part of the UK in the first sentence. There has been recent discussion on the talk page about that and whether to include principality. Why are you so keen on emphasising that some people prefer one over another when it is so unimportant in this context? It is not as though there is any big business about the different ways every time the BBC or a paper or the government uses one or the other. There's a link to the section about problems. There's your two citations about problems. There's no link with the first sentence about Northern Ireland saying there's trouble about that and people call it the six counties or the North or Ulster or the fourth green field or something like that, nor are there any citations. Dmcq (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've put in 'of the UK' as somebody else supported it as well but I wouldn't lose sleep if somebody else ups the sentiment against it and removes it again. Dmcq (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And I really don't see why you are so keen on removing it ;-) ! IMO, highlighting these terms, without indicating that they are problematic, is misleading. There are plenty of sources out there that discuss these terms (see the archives) and all make the point that these terms are problematic (and indeed that it is a specific problem with respect to Northern Ireland).

What substative argument is against mentioning that, except that you just don't like it mentioned there? Others don't like the whole sentence where it is - we also think it gives too great an emphasis to the issue - but we are willing to live with it because others think it is important.

About "province", an example of someone saying NI is a province of Ireland is Michael McGimpsey:

"... Northern Ireland is not a country, Northern Ireland is a province of Ireland and it is a province in the UK and I think that the notion of a national identity or group identity or racial identity or cultural identity here is a nonsense." - quoted in F. Cochrane (2001), Unionist politics and the politics of Unionism since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Cork: Cork University Press

Insisting that NI was a province of Ireland would be a tenuous POV to push, but adding "of the UK" is an unnecessary interference. That NI is a part of the United Kingdom on the island of Ireland is mentioned in the sentence immediately previous.

And about, Wales, etc. "... is a country that is part of the UK ..." is different from "... is a country of the UK ...". That is a minor difference in wording but is a meaningful one with respect to the subject of that article. --RA (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Essays in the citations

I've just reverted an addition to stick minor essays into the citations. We don't need multiple citations and essays in the citations especially when there is a section about something. If something is worth sticking in it should be in the article and it already is. Northern Ireland#descriptions is referred to in the lead together with a couple of citations and that section is where extra material should go rather than in the lead. Dmcq (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The "minor essays" formed part of the references. I have rationalised the references, now. You have broken the 1RR on this article, not for the first time. --RA (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just go and report me then instead of wikilawyering if you want to cause trouble. Why can't you just try and develop the article in a straightforward way instead of looking for opportunities to shove in your point of view and score one by exploiting the policies? What justification have you got for what you did? Dmcq (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I've gone and reinstated the Chipmunkdavis edit and put in another way of avoiding the excessive bleed of the image into the next section. I think it was better moved up but if you are really desperate that I not fix obvious problems with edits but save up reverts so I can deal with what you stick in then so be it though I'll try and find ways round like this instead. Dmcq (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not hellbent on getting my edit in or anything. It was just a simple adjustment in line with WP:ACCESS, making mains etc. appear before images for viewers such as mobile devices. The clear looks worse than overflow in my opinion, but the root cause of this problem isn't the picture, but that the Culture section is two unsourced paragraphs. As for the minor essays, they seem relevant, but I agree with Dmcq that they're not essential and can easily be seen as making some sort of point. Perhaps we need an article Descriptions of Northern Ireland, summarising our section on this article, where those sorts of quotes could go. CMD (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There's an article Alternative names for Northern Ireland though it doesn't deal with this in detail and they seemed to have mostly suppressed the use of 'country' there. I thought the other images were okay that spilt into the next section because the main part of the image was with the appropriate section. However that section was small and the image had quite a bit of text below so it had half the stuff beside the next section on my screen. If you want to quote access for changes please stick that into the comment. Personally I can't see the reason for that part of the guideline and it doesn't seem to be explained anywhere from my quick search of the archives but if you really think it looks better without the clear then go ahead and remove it. Dmcq (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not criticising your revert at all, or anything like that. I think the reason for the Access guideline is that everything appears vertically stacked on mobile browsers. Looking at one at this very moment, it currently has the section header, with the links below that, and then a box for the picture and caption. If the picture is between the header and the main/seealsos, like in the current Irish (in languages) section, the main article appears below the image, where it is disconnected from the now out of sight header. I've removed the clear, which on my monitor is creating significant whitespace, hopefully it'll be an incentive to develop the Culture section.

Alternative names are slightly different to descriptions, although they could quite reasonably be discussed on the same page, perhaps expanding the current article from what Northern Ireland is called to what it actually is as well? (renaming it in the process something like "Name and description of Northern Ireland" I suppose.) CMD (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Id support a change like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at the article with Opera Mobile and the only difference I could see the order made was whether the main link was before or after the image which didn't sem to make much difference. I certainly think that alternative names article should cover descriptions, the Names of the Irish state cover the business about 'Republic of Ireland' though I must admit that's because I merged the Republic of Ireland (term) article into it :) No need having multiple articles on the business. Dmcq (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This might help in the introduction ...

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

---

The English are British and lots of people think the British are English but that annoys the Scottish and Welsh because although some think they're British and some think they aren't and some think they are but don't want to be, they all agree that they definitely are not English. The Irish mostly think they are Irish, apart from the ones who are Northern Irish. Some say that makes them British and Irish. But others disagree and say they should just be Irish and then some say they aren't British either but part of the United Kingdom. People from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland can all play cricket for England because they're British as can those from Ireland even though they aren't British. So can South Africans. The English play football for England unless they aren't that good when they might try to play for Ireland. Those from the Isle of Wight are English, from Anglesey are Welsh and the Orkneys are Scottish, but although that means they aren't from the island of Great Britain they're still British. The Channel Islanders depend on the crown which is what the Queen wears but they aren't in the UK and those from the Isle of Man are the same, apart from their cats. BBC News site --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing adding this as it is into the article? Or is an argument for an addition of some sort? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

2 users like this.

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

NUTS in the lead.

Objections have been made to the inclusion of the following sentence in the lead: "Northern Ireland is one of twelve official regions of the United Kingdom at the first level of NUTS for statistical purposes.". I think that is is accurate, verifiable, notable and consistent with every other level 1 region of the Uk, all of which have the sentence in their respective leads. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. We must have some level of constancy, and unlike the issue of how NI is described, this seems fairly uncontroversial. per this [2] I now retract my support. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What you fail to mention is that it's only in the other articles because you added it to them yourself 2 days ago. Using your own edits, from the same time as your edits to this article, to support an argument that everything else has it is circular and quite bad form, not to mention it's hardly dealing in good faith. Canterbury Tail talk 20:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Consistency is a 'would be nice' thing on Wikipedia but not especially important. What is important is that the lead summarize the article and that stuff in it be useful introductory material about the topic. No justification is given above except consistency - and even that that is a very problematic reason in this case as Canterbury Tail points out. Dmcq (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Really doesn't belong in the lead of any of the related articles under discussion. Editing logic akin to 'painting by numbers'. RashersTierney (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Within the NUTS you will find Northern Ireland under the category "Country", of which England, (also a "Country"), given her larger population, is subdivided into nine "Regions", ("statistical regions of England"). Whereas England is divided into "regions", Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not, and for statistical purposes remain whole countries which, when combined with England's nine "regions", form a total of twelve "Level 1 Subdivisions". The "region" category is applicable to those nine within the "country" of England and not to the remaining three Countries/NUTS Level 1 Subdivisions.

What on earth is the OP trying to do here other than to prove they have grossly misunderstood what it is they are referencing/refering? Frankly, "Northern Ireland is one of twelve subdivisions of the United Kingdom at the first level of Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics within the European Union." is meaningless drivel for most readers and brings absolutely nothing to the table.217.42.118.93 (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.118.93 (talk)

People don't always come to Wiki to find facts that they already know; sometimes they like to find new facts. Some parts of the lead do not lend themselves to repetition in the main body. Having stated that "County X is a metropolitan county", would you really need to explain what a metropolitan county was in the body? Isn't that what links are for? And yes, there is a large share of nationalism involved here. Bad enough that some should doubt that it is a country, but to be relegated to the level of region, well that realy takes the biscuit. No such sensibilities have arisen in those regions in England. Indeed, in the case of the Republic of Ireland, not only does it figure in the lead of level 1, but also in the lead of level 2 and 3 regions. Lastly, it is the way that the govt of the UK uses in making cases to the EU for special funds for disadvantaged areas. It has very real implications for the lives of people in those regions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As this same discussion is occurring in parallel on three different pages, I shall respond in just one place, Talk:Wales#NUTS in the lead. -- Dr Greg  talk  20:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be mentioned somewhere. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

NUTS areas are detailed in Local government in Northern Ireland and in Local government in the Republic of Ireland where that sort of stuff is entirely appropriate. There's also a category at the bottom. I'm not struck on its importance anywhere here but I wouldn't bother reverting if someone stuck it in, however it certainly should not be in the lead. Dmcq (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, do not see any need for that in any four of the UK nation articles introductions. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Key Ethnic Groups Left Out of the Article

The two largest ethnic groups in Northern Ireland, Irish Catholics and Ulster Scots are completely left out of the infobox "Ethnic Group" listing and are erroneously just referred to as merely "White". These are far from just being religions, they are two distinct ethnicities.

Thankfully they are now mostly at peace with one another, although it was not too long ago that some (never a majority, but some) on each side waged war with the other-- this was never merely about religion either, it was always far more of an ethnic conflict than a religious one, the national sovereignty issue was always in line with deep ethnic divisions as well. Even the peace is deeply ethnic in nature, few have given up their identities to make peace, instead Ulstermen are still Ulstermen and Catholics are still Catholics, it's just that most members of each ethnic group have agreed to get along. There has been no loss of ethnicity, just a gain of peace.184.183.173.20 (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ulster Scots Names

Can someone who has access add Northren Ireland to the plethora of Ulster Scots names in the lede. The ref is http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/71784/DG31101719_1c_Ulster-Scot_3Mth.pdf 85.211.147.237 (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The "plethora"? You mean the one with two slightly different spellings? Anyway, that is the first and only time I've seen Northern Ireland rendered as Northren Ireland in Ulster-Scots – DigitalUK seem to be using standard modern Scots rather than the Ulster variant. Are there any other Ulster-Scots sources in use that use Northren Ireland rather than Norlin Airlan(n)? — Jon C.^ॐ 08:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"digitaluk"?! The heck? That's an interesting choice of sources...and I didn't even think they covered NI...and as Jon C pointed out, I think something else could be found too. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the (modern) Ulster variant of Scots just an over-enthusiastic use of creative spelling and made-up words? According to this, Scots in Ulster and Scotland is much the same thing. I've seen Norn Iron used too. 86.165.155.92 (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)