Talk:People of Northern Ireland

The following discussion is an archived debate of the article "Northern Irish People." Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made below this box. No further edits should be made to the discussion in this box.

I don't think this page should exist at all. It was originally deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Irish people, and "Northern Irish" isn't accepted as a descriptive term by a large majority of the population, both Catholics and Protestants. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Evidence? Because you're wrong[1] 23% of CatholicsTraditional unionist (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC).Reply

Erm, thanks for proving me right!!!!! 77% of Catholics don't describe themselves as "Northern Irish", which is a "large majority". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Didn't say that did they? This proves a positive, not a negative.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it does. They had a choice, and they rejected the term in preference to others. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, they didn't, the chose the ONE they felt BEST described them. They didn't reject anything.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes they did. They rejected the term by picking another. The term is a Unionist invention, and even the majority of Unionists reject it apart from sectarian hatemongers. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, they didn't. Read a market research text book, amazon is full of them. They chose one, they did not reject another.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you actually know what "reject" means? If you have four choices and pick one, by definition you are rejecting three. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you know anything about research? When you present a person with 5 options and tell them to pick the one that "best describes the way you think of yourself", you are asking people to make a value judgment on a range of options, not a zero sum decision. Your analysis is fundamentally flawed.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

So are you denying that someone rejects three in preference to the fourth? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Of course I am - there is no way of knowing if they accept of reject the other three. They weren't asked that.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll ask the question again, and put the salient words in bold. So are you denying that someone rejects three in preference to the fourth? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Weaslry. You're attempting to extract something from those results that simply aren't there. The respondents stated a PREFERENCE for one option. They did not express any kind of opinion one way or another on the rest.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

We all know its BS, and a bit of a cop out. Come on TU, let it go. --Domer48 (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please remain civil Domer or you will be reported and blocked.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was been nice and casual, and simply saying the term is used as a cop out, and therefore BS. Now what’s uncivil about that? Would you describe yourself as "Northern" Irish? If you do, well then I will apologise for offending your sensibilities. I just can not get my head round why Irish Unionists need a geographical indicator to illustrate or designate their political views when simply ask their nationality. --Domer48 (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

We're not talking about me.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

TU I was not talking about you, jez, are you going to pull me up now on everything? It was rejected, what more do you want? --Domer48 (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Would you describe yourself as "Northern" Irish?" We're not talking about me.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

And what did I say directly after that? "If you do, well then I will apologise for offending your sensibilities." Please. --Domer48 (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

We've got English people, Scottish people & Welsh people? Why not Northern Irish people? GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

What do you call a person from England? Scotland? Wales? Ireland? --Domer48 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The English are an ethnic group. The Scottish are an ethnic group. The Welsh are an ethnic group. The "Northern Irish" are not an ethnic group. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

English, Scottish, Welsh (along with Northern Irish) - put it all together? you get British. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because England, Scotland and Wales are seperate Nations but Northern Ireland isn't one. Plus it is a Unionist attempt to try and create a seperate identity for themselves rather them accept they are Irish. In Northern Ireland not all people regard themselves as British, something recognised in the GFA, they are either British, Irish or both.--Padraig (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Basically, it's the age old 'geography vs politics'. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not really. This one has nothing to do with politics, there isn't a "Northern Irish" ethnic group. See the AFD above! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks like it's time for a 2nd AfD. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Or a complete rewording of the intro, and possibly a pagemove. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's acceptable aswell. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Except there is no consensus for a page move. Only accusations of Unionist fiction, which is demonstrably false.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The English are an ethnic group, thats a highly dubious statement, for which there is little proper evidenceTraditional unionist (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's no consensus for this to exist at all, see the AFD and the page history! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

IMO, this article shouldn't of been recreated so abruptly. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agreed! Why was it done? --Domer48 (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Possibly, the creator didn't know the article existed before; and didn't know of the AfD. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the actual content of the page, whats the problem? Its a disambiguation page that does not claim there is an "ethnic" group of Northern Irish people. Which of course is a dubious claim about any inhabitants of the British isles.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Shall we keep it as a disambiguation page? What say you all. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think anyone has ever attempted to change it beyond that.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's no consensus for this to exist at all, see the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Irish people. If the creator didn't know the article existed before; and didn't know of the AfD, they do now. --Domer48 (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That AFD may as well be about a different article. There seems to have been claims of an indigenous people, which there is none on this article.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Except for the contentious opening line.....I've tried a bold redirect anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The contention of it is not established beyond the opinion of Nationalist wikipedians!Traditional unionist (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've restored it to the consensus version then. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Concensus demonstrated where?Traditional unionist (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Consensus in that it's been redirected to that article for some considerable time, whereas this current version was disputed two minutes after it was created. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll repeat the question for you. Consensus demonstrated where?Traditional unionist (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

IN THE PAGE HISTORY, WHERE THE REDIRECT WAS ACCEPTABLE FOR MONTHS. THIS DID NOT EXIST AS A DAB PAGE UNTIL YESTERDAY, AND IT WAS IMMEDIATELY CHALLENGED. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please remain civil or you will be reported and blocked. You are also missing the fact that as this page was created at all challenges the previous consensus. Ergo there is NO consensus, and you are making edits on a fictional one.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wrong. Now you you actually like to explain what was wrong with my bold redirect, or were you just edit warring for the sake of it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're citing edit wars as evidence of consensus now are you?Traditional unionist (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Answer the question. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please read WP:ASSUME. I was attempting to protect the wikipedia policy of WP:CONSENSUS.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

By reverting to a version that's been disputed two minutes since it was created?! Now, would you actually like to address the question? What was wrong with the article I redirected to, or were you just edit warring without even checking? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Once again, please read WP:ASSUME. You are also not seeing the wood for the trees. There is NO consensus whatsoever about this article. Therefore any accusations of edit warring should be directed elsewhere.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Once again, please answer the question. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have answered your question. Your satisfaction or otherwise with the answer is not something I can account for.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I ask yet again, what was wrong with the article I redirected to? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The lack of consensus for your edit. There is also no consensus for the current redirect.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

So in other words you were just edit warring regardless of the merits of the edit? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, I was attempting to protect WP:CONSENSUS. I must again ask that you carefully study WP:ASSUME.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why can't you answer a question about the merits of the redirect? It's a simple question. I'm trying to progress with a discussion here, yet you are constantly being evasive and refusing to discuss. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

With respect, you're not asking about the merits of your edit, you're asking why I reverted it. And I have answered that question twice. If you are now asking what I think of your two redirects, I think they are flawed. There is no solid argument yet presented that the current disambiguation page should be changed. Perhaps it needed a little expansion, but to remove it smacks of WP:POINT, as illustrated by Padraig's reason for wanting it moved.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

ONIH is going out of there way to be helpful and reasonable, please explaine what was wrong with the re-direct? --Domer48 (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You've now had half an hour to read my explanation!Traditional unionist (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but you have done everything but answer, with all due respect. --Domer48 (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have answered the question. I cannot take account of others satisfaction with the answer. I have answered the question directly.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Now I know you are just being disruptive, and another comment like this, will not go un-noticed. You have been told often enough. --Domer48 (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please remain civil or you will be reported and blocked. Is it not true that the wikiepdians active in this discussion who dispute the opening sentence have identified themselves as nationalist?Traditional unionist (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I cant see where you gave a direct answer to the question asked by ONiH and seeing as you just keep answering with links have a read of this one WP:AAGF. BigDunc (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It seems I need to point to [my reply].Traditional unionist (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

• True as it may be that N. Irish is not a real nationality I think the page should exist for convenience and to disambiguate between British people. I see Scottish people exists, yet N.I. has been a devolved entity for longer (in recent years!); i.e. more legitimately an independent state. Those from N.I. are definitely not Irish; they are British; but that term is, in my opinion, too vague. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

People from N Ireland are not British unless they choose to be, they are firstly Irish, just as the English, Scottish and Welsh retain their on National identity.--Padraig (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

bull-shit. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is your point of view, not fact. People are what they want to be, per the NILT survey result linked at the top. Legally they are both British and Irish.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

But not northern Irish. --Domer48 (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That not being a sovereign state, clearly not. But as the polling evidence shows, a sizable and cross community chunk of people identify as Northern Irish. Aside from which the term is a demonynm.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

So what your saying is No. --Domer48 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Which is of no relevance in any case. If we were to have only articles such as this on national identities that carry individual citizenship, we'd have a large AFD backlog. That is no point at all.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Things are happening fast here. First a disambiguous article was created, now it's become a re-direct. The pace is breathless. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You've got the order wrong. It was a redirect before - this discussion started two minutes after it ceased to be a redirect. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, it's difficult to keep up. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I want to open this up again. There are claims above of concensus. Clearly, there is none. It seems to me there are some options. Firstly the page redirected for more than 6 months to Northern Ireland. That is imperfect, but as the edit summary reflects, it is more meaningful. Secondly the disambag page could be restored - this reflects the concensus of the AFD by not asserting there is an "ethnic" group of Northern Irish (which, like the rest of the British Isles, there isn't). Personally I don't mind either of those two.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Irish People article deals with the whole island, not just the state, to include the Unionist/Protestant tradition and its prevalence in Ulster, influence on the United States etc. The article deals fairly with all ethnic groups in Ireland, to include minorites such as Ulster Protestants and the travelling community. Perhaps your needs could be better serviced by ensuring that the Ulster Protestant people are sufficiently acknowledged in the British people article. Windyjarhead (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

And what is wrong with a redirect to Demography and politics of Northern Ireland? BigDunc (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not much.....but that seems to me to be a slightly different subject matter.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the words of Ian Paisley, "I would never repudiate the fact that I am an Irishman." [2] Windyjarhead (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm surprised this debate is happening. OK, I understand the dynamics behind what's going on and what's at stake here, but surely a disambiguation is a "third way" option - leaving opinion open to our readers, rather than our editors. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The debate is going on because, like everything involving identity in Northern Ireland, this issue is complicated. Historically, the people of Northern Ireland have self-idntified as "Irish", "British" or "Ulster." Importantly, these are not always mutually-exclusive terms. One can be Irish and British or an Ulsterman and an Irishman or Ulsterman and British etc. To classify someone as "Northern Irish" is not only faulty as a neologism, it also disregards most people's preferred label of self-identification, usually Irish or British.

I would not object so strenuously if the article were titled "People of Northern Ireland" because it then implies a matter of geographical happenstance, not one of identity. Windyjarhead (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

My point was it wouldn't be an article, it's be a disambiguation page. It currently points to Irish people, which, I imagine, is problematic for obvious reasons. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why is that problematic? Northern Ireland is part of Ireland. The people of Ireland are Irish. It's a geographical truth, just as France is part of Europe and the people of Europe are Europeans. They may also be French and Parisians or Bretons etc, but they are undeniably European. The analogy applies and the logic is sound. Windyjarhead (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

But... (and it's a big but)... Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. The people of the UK are British. It's geographical truth etc etc. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would make an argument that the people of Britain are British, not the people of the United Kingdom, but I don't want to open that can of semantic worms. Nevertheless, the people of Northern Ireland are British, or Irish or both. But certainly not "Northern Irish." Britain and Ireland have both existed for centuries, "Northern Ireland" was dreamt up by drawing a line on a map in 1922 and its existence and legitimacy have been questioned ever since. Windyjarhead (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

--Windy. You need to come from a more NPOV. Your argument is based on preference and perspective, not the reality of the situation. The legitimacy of Northern Ireland's partition isn't questioned at all - it's not a disputed territory. Simillarly, the people of Northern Ireland can hold British nationality, play for the Great Britain Olympic Team and have full protection under British nationality law. On the more anecdotal side of things, I have "Northern Irish" roots; believe me, they were British. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're constructing an argument based on two assumptions. Firstly that Northern Irish is a rejected term - that is false as evidenced by repeated market research, the most recent of which is linked in the above discussion. Second that Northern Irish can only refer to identity, which isn't true either. In political geography it is a perfectly acceptable term. I don't see what was wrong with the disamg page that was here before.Traditional unionist (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It's totally neutral, and doesn't enforce any view upon the reader. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Three things, I presume, can be acceted by all - (1)Northern Ireland is a real place that actually exists (2) there are people who live there and (3) this article is meant to address those people.

I will not agree, however, that those people are "Northern Irish." Somebody from Donegal has more claim to being "Northern Irish" than somebody from Armagh. Accoring to my dictionary, the term "Northern Ireland" can be used as an adjective, just as "West of Ireland" can, for example, my uncle in Connemara might be described as a "West of Ireland man" who speaks with a "West of Ireland accent."

Any objection to a rename to "Northern Ireland People"? or "People of Northern Ireland"? Windyjarhead (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Windy, what myself and TraditionalUnionist (I believe) are proposing is that this does not become an article, but a disambiguation page-- there is a distinct difference. People are going to look for "Northern Irish people" for a link, or explanation, what we're saying is that the reader should get to choose what that definition entails, and pipe accordingly. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see an enormous potential for further sectarian bickering in that scenario. But, In the interest of compromise, how about this: "Northern Irish People" as a redirect page to "Northern Ireland People" which would be a disambiguation. Windyjarhead (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

But "Northern Ireland People" isn't Standard English, nor is it an approach I've seen anywhere else on Wikipedia. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Alright, "Northern Irish People" as a redirect to "People of Northern Ireland" as a disambig then. What I'm afraid of here is people like Mary McAleese and Brian Dooher and countless others being described as "Northern Irish" when they are unequivocally Irish, and happen to be from Northern Ireland. I cannot allow them to be portrayed as second-class Irish people or unequal inheritors of Irish identity, simply on the basis of partition.

I'm offering compromise here, I need a little quid pro quo. Windyjarhead (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Comments like "I cannot allow them to be portrayed as second-class Irish people or unequal inheritors of Irish identity, simply on the basis of partition." stink of bias and personal preference, and don't help futher your aim.

Under the Belfast Agreement, the Union of Northern Ireland with the UK has been internationally recognised; the Republic of Ireland has formally abolished its territorial claim to the province; it guarantees the "recognition of the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose."

People can choose what they like - they can be ethnically Mancunian if they desire. I'm not sure what the logic is for this "compromise" you ask for. A quick Google search shows that "Northern Irish people" has widespread use outside of Wikipedia. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

So, your response is "Not one inch". Lovely. And for the record, I make no secret of my bias. Irish republicanism is clearly stated as one of my biases on my userpage - full disclosure.

Let me ask this clearly then; what is your objection to naming the page "People of Northern Ireland"? As far as I can tell, it's politically-neutral and means basically the same thing, without the identity-politics connotations.

Also for the record, your suggested quick google search of "Northern Irish people" revealed in the top ten links: 3 to wikimedia sites, 2 to NORAID, 2 that merely had both the phrase "Northern Irish" and "Irish people", a youtube clip called "Talkin' Shite", 1 to "Northern Irish Blogs" that contained the word "people". In fact the only non-wikimedia site with the complete phrase "Northern Irish people" was something about dentistry and of course, "Talkin' Shite." Hardly convincing. Windyjarhead (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't hold the power of enforcing preference - it is a community decision that should be made, not one by myself. You put "Not one inch" in quotation marks as if I said it. Well I did not. I merely have concerns about the possible negative effects of the self-admitted bias you are bringing to the discussion. These concerns should be able to be addressed through polite, intelligent discussion. If you can't address these issues, there's no need to suggest I'm not williing to make a reasonable compromise in my preference.

To be totally honest, because of this bias, I've been less than impressed with your reasons for preference. I'm not even from Northern Ireland, but seem to know more about the basic constitutional realities behind the nationality of the Northern Irish people, such as those laid out in British nationality law and the Belfast Agreement.

You say that the use of "Northern Irish people" isn't convincing. If a reputable, scholarly, third-party source is found to verify its meaning, I assume that point will be nullified? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Alright, this conversation is becoming adversarial, and it need not be. I am as much to blame for that at as anyone, so for that I apologize.

Yes, British Nationality Law applies to Northern Ireland. However, so does Irish nationality law. But citizenship is not the issue here. Hawaiians are citizens of the United States (ie. they are Americans, per se) even though Hawaii is not in America, it is in Polynesia. The difference here is the definition of "America". It can be taken to mean "The United States of America" (a nation-state) or the 2 continents of the Western Hemisphere and the smaller islands associated with them (ie. North America, South America, Cuba, Jamaica etc.) For that reason, Hawaiians are Polynesians too.

The questions that I am trying to address is the one of identity, not citizenship. Calling people "Northern Irish" imposes an identity, that may or may not be their chosen one. Calling them "People of Northern Ireland" merely implies that they are people and that they live in Northern Ireland, which, as you correctly stated, is an internationally-recognized geopolitical unit.

I think that it is the most NPOV approach to the topic. Windyjarhead (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

NB: It is worth mentioning here that the Agreement to which you refereed (the full text of which can be found here: [3] makes no mention of "Northern Irish People." It does however, make numerous refernces to "the people of Northern Ireland". Windyjarhead (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This discussion seems to have continued on the basis that Northern Irish is a rejected term - that is not the case. One quarter of all people in Northern Ireland descriobe themselves thus, a result that is remarkably corss community, ie 23% of Catholics see themselves primarily as Northern Irish. It is true to say that 75% do not see themselves primarily as Northern Irish, but as ONiH couldn't see above, that does not preclude them from ALSO seeing themselves as Northern Irish. From this we can conclude that a significent minority of Northern Irish people (ie people in or from Northern Ireland) identify primarily as Northern Irish. I don't, but I think my father would to give a small example. Therefore to say that the term is rejected, invalid or "second class" does not stand up. Also, trying to rename the page outside of WP best practice meerly smacks of political point scoring and attempting to find offense where there is none, or at least very little. And for the record, I am only seeking to have this as a disambg page.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article should be written, as was originally intended. It was nominated for deletion before it had been developed to any degree. What had been there was basically a placeholder copied from a similar article, which was in the process of being developed. --Setanta747 (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The English are an ethnic group. The Scottish are an ethnic group. The Welsh are an ethnic group. The Irish are an ethnic group. The "Northern Irish" are not an ethnic group. Stop trying to suggest they are. --Domer48 (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please point to a diff where that is suggested.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

If people see themselves as being part of an ethnic group, then they probably are. Stop trying to suggest that the Northern Irish are not an ethnic group, Domer. The point is not specifically about ethnicity anyway, necessarily, as TU indicates.

Moreover, Northern Irish as an identity appears to be gaining ground and is more favoured (as a primary choice) by those people from the region who are under under 45 than by the older generations. It is often seen a a more neutral identity, embracing to an extent both Irish and British identities. This has even been demonstrated here by the fact that the article has been redirected to both Irish people and British people. --Setanta747 (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It should also be noted that all ethinic groups are based on indentity politics. To assert what is and isn't an ethnic group is based purely on perpective. Whether a group is a "recognised" ethnic group is a different matter.

Certainly, at very least, the page should be a disamiguation page, not a redirect to Irish people, which smacks in the face of the Belfast Agreement. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

(inserted break with header)

I've created a page at People of Northern Ireland as a disambig and set this page to redirect to it.

I've included text quoted directly from the Good Friday Agreement.

Coincidentally, I just noticed that Jonathan Powell's recent book "Great Hatred, Little Room" is dedcated to "the people of Northern Ireland."

Hopefully, all will agree that this is an acceptable NPOV solution. Windyjarhead (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

That has my support. Can't say it's my first preference but that's what compromise is all about I guess. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't have mine. It is based on a flawed argument that has been deconstructed without valid reponse. There is no reason not to have the page at Northern Irish people. The new page was created without seeking concensus and without adequate discussion.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was trying to adhere to WP:BOLD. The parties and governments chose to use the (somewhat unwieldy) term "people of Northern Ireland" and not to use "Northern Irish People" in the 1998 Agreement, as cited above, presumably to avoid just this argument. I think we should follow their lead. Windyjarhead (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think, Traditional unionist, it is at very least a step in the right direction. Certainly the content of the page reflects real-world practice, and allows the reader to make their mind up. My worry was the "forced" redirect to Irish people, which was rather one sided for obvious reasons. If there's a consensus to change to "Northern Irish people", then I'm happy with that. Perhaps we ought to ask the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups for their stance? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply