Talk:Ulster

Older comments

In the Donegal Gaeltacht, Northern Ireland is referred to as "Na Se Condaetha". Not "An Tuaisceart", as the North is obviously not to their north, but their south and east. Why remove the translation?

Well, personally I'm in favour of as much Irish as possible here, but this is the English Wikipedia, so I was just worried that having more than the county names in Irish would lead someone to complain and insist on ALL the Irish names being removed. I didn't see the State names as being particularly necessary - but with the Donegal thing, I guess there is point. It's easy to forget Gaeltachts or genuine Irish speakers exist in this country!!!

Note that the Republic of Ireland is NOT "Saorstát Éireann" - that hasn't been used since 1937. It's "Éire" or "Poblacht na hÉireann". zoney ♣ talk 16:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting WehrWolf's changes and want ot explain why.

Gaelic in the context of 16th century Ireland and before was not just a language, it also referred to a people, who called themselves Gaidheail or "Gaels" and to their society and culture -Gaidhealach or Gaelic and to where they lived the Gaidhealtacht -(Gaeil, Gaelach and Gaeltacht in modern Irish). "Celtic" by contrast is an abstraction. It is a word used by the ancient Greek and Romans. The Gaelic peoples of Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man never referred to themselves in this way and nor did anyone else until the nineteenth century, when "celtic" was re-invented. Modern archeologists question whether it makes sense even in an abstract way to refer to the inhabitants of Ireland as "Celts". So celtic is going out and Gaelic is going back in.

Point two. The Irish and Scots werre not both descended from the "Gaelic Irish", I don't know how you figured this one out. If you mean that some of Scotland - the Highlands, shared a Gaelic culture with Ireland, this is true, but the settlers who came to Ulster were Lowlanders, not from Gaelic regions and did not have (in the main) a common culture or descent with the natives. That was the whole problem. The only exceptions here were the MacDonnell clan, who after several generations regarded themselves as Irish, in stark contrast to the other Scots in the province. Jdorney

Most of the settlers who came to Ireland from Scotland in the 16th and 17th centuries were Lowlanders, but a significant proportion were from the Highlands. In any case Gaelic language, culture, customs, heritage etc had spread to almost all of Scotland by the 12th century; to the extent that it was an entirely Scottish Gaelic speaking country, bar the area within approximately 20 miles radius of Berwick Upon Tweed, which only had a Gaelic speaking minority. Gaelic survived throughout most of the western Lowlands well into the 16 century and was spoken in northern areas of Ayrshire up until the early 18th century. More information on this subject can be found in numerous publications from the University of Aberdeen and Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, as well as Aithne na nGael, Gaelic Identities by Gordon McCoy and Maolcholaim Scott. Plus, information regarding the historical linguistic divisions of Ulster (including the surprising broader use of Gaelic in the province than many would have us believe) can be found in Hidden Ulster, Protestants and the Irish Language by Pádraig Ó Snodaigh, and also in Prebyterians and the Irish Language by Roger Blaney. D.de.loinsigh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

History

A few new things here, have changed "Anglican" to "Protestant" in discusion of sectarian violence in the 1790s. Presbyterians were also involved in these clashes, especially in Armagh and Tyrone. Presbyterians were generally the poorer of the two Protestant groups and were therefore in more direct competition with Catholics over the linen trade. Lapsed Pacifist, please don't change this back again. Thanks. Have also added subsections and a few other bits and pieces Jdorney 15:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're blurring important distinctions that existed in Ulster Protestantism at the time. The Peep o' Day Boys were exclusively Anglican. The Orange Order that followed them remained exclusively Anglican for forty years. The Ulstermen who practised the state religion were not inclined to treat too cordially Presbyterians who looked to the revolutionary example of their American cousins. There were many clashes between Presbyterian and Catholic factions, but not the one referred to. The Orange Order's loyalism to the crown took a distant second to the economic status of its members.

Lapsed Pacifist 23:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC

The Orange Order were not "exclusively Anglican" for forty years. The first ever lodge (Dyan in Co. Tyrone) was in fact Presbyterian.

Ok, that's a good edit. It makes a big difference when you expand the text with good information and use the talk page rather than just change a few words in the article. While we're at it, regarding the piece you've put in about refugees moving to Connacht, to my knowledge this happened in the 1640s/50s and 1790s, not at the time of the plantation. What's your information about this? Jdorney 00:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not all the Ulster planters who came in the 17th century were Lowland's Scots though. I think Monroe's army sent over in 1641 to put down (unsuccessfully) the Irish rebellion consisted mainly of Highlanders. Some Protestant-majority areas in the North were supposedly Gaelic speaking in the late 19th century. One piece of evidence of Gaelic speaking planters is the town of Lisburn. Originaly it was a village called Lisnagarvy (before the plantation) meaning "Fort of the Gamblers". Scots Gaelic planters changed this to Lisburn meaning "Fort of the Streamlet". - Peter O'Connell

• I have changed the bit about thousands of "natives" being driven off their lands during the Plantation. I have included a reference to respected (Catholic) historian Marianne Elliot stating that most Irish natives remained on their land during the plantation scheme. If anybody could fix up the reference, I would be grateful as I'm not sure how to do it.- Stephen.*

• I have changed the line to this which is also in agreement with what is stated on Wikipedia's page on the Plantation itself...

In general the "ordinary" native Irish remained in occupation of their land, they were neither removed nor Anglicised. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.140.83 (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Somebody continues changing this line back to the previous line which is simply incorrect. I have included an online reference for my line something that whoever is changing it seems unable to do. If one reference is deemed insufficient to support what I have written I can provide many more from other respected historians such as Jonathan Bardon and A.T.Q. Stewart.- Stephen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.139.249 (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to have an "edit war" over this. Could we try to reach some sort of agreement over this or could somebody explain to me how to take it to the arbitration committee?- Stephen.

Monoglots

I'm unhappy with this sentence, it just doesn't make too much sense. "English is spoken by virtually everyone in Ulster, apart from a few immigrants living in the province, and a handful of monoglots in the Donegal Gaeltacht." It's the bit about monoglots, which in the context makes no sense because the majority of people in Northern Ireland and indeed Ulster are monoglots only speaking English. They are as much monoglots as in Donegal Gaeltacht. Ben W Bell 10:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Lapsed, that's definitely better wording. Couldn't think how to rephrase it myself. Ben W Bell 10:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

External Links

• BBC Nations History of Ireland
• The British Isles Independent view of Ireland and the UK
• Inconvenient Peripheries Ethnic Identity and the United Kingdom Estate The cases of “Protestant Ulster” and Cornwall’ by prof Philip Payton
• Mercator Atlas of Europe Map of Ireland ("Irlandia") circa 1564

Just added the following Bretagne 44 13:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I redid the link to payt.pdf which had changed.

Porthugh 09:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the bit about thousands of "natives" being driven off their lands during the Plantation. I have included a reference to respected (Catholic) historian Marianne Elliot stating that most Irish natives remained on their land during the plantation scheme. If anybody could fix up the reference, I would be grateful as I'm not sure how to do it.- Stephen.

the British Isles

Now, I don't want to open a can of worms, but i think that the claim that "the British Isles" is a geographical rather than a political one is, at the very least, open to debate. I suspect that it would not be supported by the majority of the population of the island of Ireland, but that it would by the majority of the larger island to the east. This, in itself, points towards it being at least partly political. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I give you this, from our British Isles article:

Many Irish people, as well as some Scottish, Welsh and Cornish nationalists, find the term British Isles proprietorial and unacceptable as being inconsistent with the modern meaning of the word British, and, as such, offensive. However, Unionists in Northern Ireland attach great importance to their 'British' identity.

Other people see it as a geographical term that does not imply ownership or control by the British.

Hostility to the term British Isles has often been caused by its misinterpretation; this was exemplified by an embarrassing and controversial faux pas by the then American First Lady Nancy Reagan during an Irish visit. The confusion caused by the term was also highlighted during a stop-over visit to the Republic of Ireland by then Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, when he indicated that he presumed Ireland's head of state was Queen Elizabeth II, given that she was the British Queen and his officials said that Ireland was a part of the British Isles.

The term British Isles is no longer used in Irish state documents, has been abandoned in schoolbooks in the Republic of Ireland and is being phased out of textbooks. Its usage is also decreasing in official British state documents, out of sensitivity to the concerns of some Irish, Scottish and Welsh people and the evolving geo-political relationships.

Now, until we get agreement on this, I'd rather that the term was removed. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The British Isles is a term which derives from sources going back thousands of years long before there was anything really that was 'British'. It is a collective geographic term for almost all the islands off the NW of the main European continental mass and has nothing to do with governments or people. It's a collective term just like all the land in the EU is Europe without taking any national or political boundaries or states into consideration, just like Americas. It doesn't imply political controls, national identity or any such and I suspect has only been brought up as contentious because it contains a term that is used by some as a national identifier. It's like people from Northern Ireland are Irish because they come from the island of Ireland, but are not Irish as a national or political identifier of their nationality, people from Canada and Mexico being American because they are from the Americas but not because of what political institution they are part of. Ben W Bell 10:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that it is a term that has happily existed in what is a very contentious article for almost a year, if you look through the history, without any of the politically biased sides taking issue with it. Ben W Bell 10:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologists of the term "British Isles" maintain that it has ancient origins, something to do with Ptolemy calling Ireland and Britain the "Pretannic Isles" on some map or other, completely ignoring the fact that the knowledge of the world in Ancient Greece was in many ways as patchy as our own knowledge of the surface of Titan in our own time. If Ptolemy was referring to the peoples who spoke the British Celtic language, or Prythonic language of England, Wales and southern Scotland then he was, for the most part, correct in speaking of the "Pretannic Isles" but there is no concrete evidence to suggest that this Prythonic Celtic was spoken in Ireland.

The simple fact of the matter is that the term is both politically and geographically incorrect. The idea that "British Isles" is merely a geographical term is utter nonsense. "British Isles" is an extremely jingoistic, Victorian and imperialistic term. It is immaterial that most people in Britain use it as a "harmless" geographical term. As an Irish person, I find it deeply offensive. I live in the sovereign Republic of Ireland not in just another "British isle".

The adjective "British" refers exclusively to the island of Great Britain, however, in the absence of a satisfactory term for the United Kingdom and its people as a whole, "British" is used widely to describe the people, government etc. of the United Kingdom. The term "Ukonian" has been put forward in the past as a possible alternative term to "British" when referring to the United Kingdom. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using "British" when the term is used correctly, to describe the people, cultures, geography etc. of Britain, which is an island composed of Scotland, England and Wales. This has already been officially acknowledged by the United Kingdom state in its own official title; The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If Northern Ireland were just another part of Great Britain there simply wouldn't be any need to mention it in the official title of the state.

There simply isn't any need for the term "British Isles" anyway. Can someone explain to me what exactly is wrong with the term "Britain and Ireland" or "Ireland and Britain"?? One does not refer to the Iberian Peninsula as the "Spanish Peninsula" nor to peninsular Scandinavia as the "Swedish Peninsula" nor to Corsica and Sardinia as the "Sardinian Isles", yet it seems to be perfectly acceptable to speak of Ireland and Britain as the "British Isles"!

The twenty-six county Republic of Ireland has been an independent state for almost eighty four years now, yet the British media continue to bandy this term about as though the sovereignty of this state were non-existent! It is most interesting that of the main stream British broadcasters, Sky News is the only television channel, as far as I know, which has a clear policy of not using the term British Isles in any of its reports. All weather reporters speak of "Britain and Ireland" and I've yet to hear "British Isles" on Sky News. If only this were the case for the BBC, ITV etc.

If, as apologists claim, "British Isles" is merely a geographical term, devoid of any political overtones, then does it follow that Ireland is a "British isle", that, therefore, its cities and towns are "British" cities and towns, indeed, can, therefore, people who inhabit those towns and cities be accurately described as "British" people? It is when one starts to evaluate the term in these terms, that any defence of the term begins to fall to bits.

To those who say that most of the main political parties, including the nationalist ones, raise no objections to the term, I say this: the vast majority of people in Ireland never ever use the term "British Isles" and find it repugnant. The fact that more people are not more vocal about this is that most people feel that nothing can be done about it, that the British media have been let away with this for years and can effectively use any terminology they like when referring to this state. Politicians are no different. "British Isles" is, indeed, an informal term but that does not make it any less inaccurate or patronising to Irish people.

A further argument commonly made is that Scottish or Welsh or Cornish nationalists occaisionally get hot under the collar about the term British, yet, the use of British to refer to Scotland, Wales or Cornwall is at least geographically correct. All three are physically joined to Britain unlike Ireland which is seperated from Britain by the Irish Sea.

The only fair and decent alternative to "British Isles" is "Britain and Ireland" or "These Islands". Neither side of the political fence in Ireland could possibly object to this!!

You are using the terms incorrectly. To be precise:

British Isles - this is first and foremost a geographical term for all islands in the archipelago off the northern coast of France (excluding the Channel islands, that belong to the French land mass). In fact, off the coast of Brittany, hence the British Isles.

Great Britain - the largest island in the archipelago (hence United Kingom of Northern Ireland and Great Britain - Northern Ireland is in the British Isles but is not a part of the island of Great Britain). The term 'Great' is again a geographical term, meaning the largest island (ala Gran Canaria).

Ireland - first and foremost, this is a geographical term for the 2nd largest island in the archipelago - the British Isles. It sits next to Great Britain.

In terms of geo-political terms, it is incorrect to use the term British Isles or Ireland as nation states. The correct terms are the UK (consisting of 2 countries and a principality on the island of Great Britain and a Province on the island of Ireland) and the Republic of Ireland (the remainder of the island of Ireland).

Informally, many people misuse these terms. For example, they may use the term Irish to mean someone from anywhere on the island of Ireland (i.e. 2 different political states), when many in NI would take offence and prefer to be called British (or Ulstermen or ...). Similarly Nationals in the Republic of Ireland would take offence at being called British. This is the same problem as Canadians living in North America but objecting to being referred to as American.

The point being, that you may be be Irish, living in Ireland, in the British Isles, in Europe and it's ok. I know many people in the UK who would swear that they are not European and take offence at the implication. Geography has a way of out lasting political structures and geographical reality is unlikely to be changed to suit political beliefs.

User: Ben W Bell states, 'The British Isles is a term which derives from sources going back thousands of years long before there was anything really that was 'British'.' Actually, the earliest record of the term "British Isles" is from 1621. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=British. El Gringo 01:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That may (or may not, I haven't checked) been the earliest English language reference to the British Isles, however the British Isles talk page contains references of ancient Greek and/or Roman texts from circa 2000 years ago referring to the Pretannic or Britannic isles. Unless I'm mistaken at least one referred to Britannia Major and Britannia Minor (Great Britain and what is now Ireland). beano 23:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Irish nationalist view above is the common position Ireland. It is considered offensive and is not used. However the views expressed above, while mainstream in Ireland are simply wrong-headed. The term is geographical, ancient and well attested. This is not to say that the phrase has no jingoistic sense, it clearly did in Victorian times. I have used the phrase in Ireland, and the reception was hostile (I'm Irish but was raised in England and have that accent). We do ourselves no favours by getting so chippy over this sort of thing. The rational position is to not use the phrase if you dislike it, but also not get priggish with people who innocently use the phrase that they were brought up with as simple geographical shorthand. The rant above simply makes us seem to have a massive inferiority complex. To demand that it be expunged from an encyclopedia is the worst kind of political correctness. The rant above demonstrates an emotional response to the phrase which is completely over the top. We have an unfortunate need to deal with our history by scraping insignia from postboxes and blowing up statues. Attacking the language is just another form of this infantile approach. The phrase is valid, verifiable and well used. This unfortunate tendency to get snotty with the English over trivia does not say well for us.

As to the comment on the names of the states, this is incorrect. The name of the nation is simply Ireland. Republic of Ireland is not official, but descriptive. Its a common misconception. Look at the front of a passport. Éire is the Irish name for the nation. Again this is wrongly used to mean the 26 county state, particularly in England. Both names refer to the entire island, not to the 26 county state. This is still the case after the state dropped its terretorial aspiration over unification in the Good Friday referendum some years ago.

The statement that people and things in Northern Ireland should not be called Irish is really very silly. Northern Ireland has only existed since 1922, the idea that my grandfather stopped being Irish on that date is not serious. Its is true that some Unionists may object to 'Irish' but some do not. They certainly did not object to being called Irish when Ireland was in the union. Peers in the House of Lords in Britain are called Irish peers, the UK army has the Irish guards. Twisting the language into knots to suit the political needs of the most extreme voices in the north is not going to work. The more sane among UUP members say they are Irish and British. That shows sense, even Ian Paisley says he is comfortable with being called Irish and British, and frankly if you are going to out-unionist Paisley on the issue then you are out on a limb. Bushmills is a protestant town, and the distillery was set up by protestants with a charter from an English king. It still says 'Irish Whiskey' on the bottle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.85.88 (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd note that Spain and Portugal are actually called the Iberian Peninsular, though Iberian is often used in Spain to refer to Spanish things. The main island of the British Isles is actually Great Britain - meaning the big island, technically the other islands are other bits of Britain. The fact that the British Isles were all a United Kingdom for only a period of a century or so does not detract from their geographical nature. Gymnophoria (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This topic is discussed and more properly belongs to talk:British Isles and talk:British Isles naming dispute. It is not appropriate to reprise it here. Ulster is a province of Ireland (or of the United Kingdom, for those with the 'Ulster = NI' worldview). It is not an isle and is thus irrelevant to that debate. Please don't drag it in by the ears. --Red King (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the correct name of the UK's Olympic team?

Is the UK's Olympic team "Great Britain" or "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?

see Cfd discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Great_Britain_at_the_Olympics_to_Category:Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_at_the_Olympics --Mais oui! 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The correct name is Team Great Britain. They do not use the United Kingdom wording in their logo. Perhaps this is to reflect that athletes in NI can represent either team Ireland or team GB. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  22:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Political Parties and religion

A anon change the information on the relationship of political parties and religious doctrine. I was not a big fan of what was preiously stated, and i am no more a fan of the current changes. First off their is no information or citation that provides a number to back up these claims. Second i cant belive the claims, i am more likely to belive that their are no catholics in the DUP, due to the fact of their leader, then the idea that their are no protistants in SF, considerng the fact that the republican movement (even in it's most radical of forms) has had many non-catholics involved, many in high positions in it history, though many were pre the modern day verson of SF. Either way unless their is some kind concret source to back up the claims, and at best that is what they currently are, i will consider rewording the paragraph. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Just delete the sentences. It's pretty irrelevant information as to how many taigs and how many prods are in each party - it's also already dealt with (irrelevantly IMO) on the pages for the individual parties. There is also an awful lot of waffle in that section called "Current Politics", and wouldn't mind a lot of that was revamped and possibly scrapped too. All it seems to deal with is religion - details of numbers of catholics and protestants in each area - it's just SO cringeworthy!

This article also discusses little about Ulster culture, Ulster-scots heritige and people etc. There should be as much (if not more) of this type of info as all the political stuff. Perhaps some information should be taken from the other Ulster articles.

Jonto 12:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I might just do that, considerng the more i think about it the less relevant i see the information being to this article anyway, it better situated for the Politics of NI artile then Ulster, which is a about a province that spans 2 countries. And yeah i agree, the artile needs to get away from the political side and more on the cultire of the whole of Ulser, and not just the NI side of it. Also what is up with the advert on the bottom, i might just remove it, as it nothing but a call for a website and has really no relvance to any discussion. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a good idea to keep politics on this page down to a minumum. As a person from N. Ireland, I'm fed up with all the politics anyway, personally I'd love to have a more unified nine county Ulster with self governing in a Reunited Ireland, but that's just My personal opinion.

I have changed the Ulster flag in this article to the correct version of the nine counties Ulster flag. The previous image showed the thumb on the red hand point outwards, like on the Government of Northern Ireland Flag. On the Ulster flag the thumb doesn't point out. Seamus2602 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ulster Flag

Can I ask how certain you are that the closed thumb flag is the correct one? I ask as even the Gaelic Athletic Association uses the open thumbed one and I'd have thought they'd be correct. Ben W Bell talk 12:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be right that it does not mattter. I assumed there was a difference as on the Flag of Northern Ireland and Flag of Ulster pages it mentions a difference in thumb, but this is unsourced, so I think a tag should be put on those articles in the meantime. Jonto 16:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a GAA reference: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/Ulster_GAA.gif/200px-Ulster_GAA.gif http://www.trikotshop-grafina.de/trikots/tyrone_detail.jpg Those ones look kind of in between to be. I've also seen NI flags that look sort of in between too. Jonto 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Comhairle Uladh uses an open thumb. Tyrone use an open thumb but the Ulster Flag has a closed thumb. If you look at Flag of Ulster.svg the creator says that he used the red hand from the Government of Northern Ireland Flag. The thumb on the two flags is actually slightly different. This link is from CAIN. This shows the Ulster Flag as having a different thumb. This is the actual flag used by the GAA. Comhairle Uladh, Tyrone and Ulster Rugby use an open thumb but the flag is a closed thumb. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/symbols/flags.htm User:Seamus2602 19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

London/Derry

Seeing as this article deals with Ulster in the sense of a traditional Irish provence, should the traditional name "Derry" not be used? I'm fighting the temptation to change it myself. "Londonderry (Doire)" is inaccurate. Doire is the irish version of "Derry" alone, without the "London" prefix. Using both terms is a contradiction. - EmpComm 21:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If we are talking about the county then there is no traditional name of Derry. There has never been a County Derry as County Londonderry was formed from County Coleraine and bits of other counties. Ben W Bell talk 22:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

When I inserted a more literal irish version of the name in County Londonderry their was a bit of a hissy-fit over it. Djegan 00:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Current politics

This section primarily discusses the three Ulster counties in the Republic of Ireland. For current politics in Northern Ireland refer to Demographics and politics of Northern Ireland.

I'm confused by this section and its heading. For some reason the heading says it relates to the politics of the 3 counties in the Republic. This seems strange in an article about the whole of Ulster but actually the article talks about politics in Northern Ireland as well. I'm not sure what it adds as quite a lot is unsourced. Morganr 13:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Giant's Causeway

The article states: "..Giant's Causeway, one of Ireland's three UNESCO World Heritage Sites.". Except it is not in Ireland it is in the United Kingdom. Ireland is what the Republic calls itself and the Republic is not (currently) in the UK. YourPTR! 01:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Except it is one of the three in the island of Ireland. Ben W Bell talk 07:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The offical UNESCO website doesnt actually list it in Ireland, instead it properly lists it under United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It would be better so say: ..Giant's Causeway, one of the UK's twenty-eight UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/ (Alanewing1 (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

I don't see how that's better. It merely diminishes the Giant's Causeway. The article makes clear that it's one of the three in Ireland (the island). ~Asarlaí 16:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the original was better. This article is about Ulster, which spans 2 countries. As a result the article is discussed in relation to Ireland (island) as a whole. Best to keep that consistent in the article rather than start breaking it up into the constituent states on an ad hoc basis. The main article itself makes it clearer that it's in the UK, doesn't need to be explicitly stated here. Canterbury Tail talk 17:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Section "Current politics"

This section could do with a good rewrite. At present, it starts with the arbitrary claim that it will only discuss the politics of Donegal/Cavan/Monaghan (which it clearly should not do - I plan to delete that!) and then sort of generally waffles about it a load of opinion and original research. Can someone attempt a rewrite please. Feel free to delete and replace. --Red King 19:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I decided to Be brave and have a go! I'm sure it won't please everybody but I hope that it provides a better basis for editing than what went before. --Red King 19:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect use of Derry/Londonderry

I had to make an edit changing 'Counties Derry...' to 'Counties Londonderry...'. When are people ever going to learn to grow and stop making immature edits which devalue Wikipedia!

Wikipedia policy is call the county Londonderry and the city Derry. A semi-respectable compromise that is being ruined by those with an Irish-unifying agenda.

AlexSloan 15:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the compromise should stay and not be vandalised, however please remove bias and respect that this vandalism is occuring on both sides and not just by "those with an Irish-unifying agenda". --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is no such city as Derry. The charter creating the city, granted ny the present monarch was for Londonderry. Acorn897 (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is where Wikipedia fails as a serious and respectful encyclopedia - the failure to adhere to the legal names for cities. Just like Gdansk versus Danzig. It is the City of Londonderry, it is County Londonderry, the only semi-legit use of the term Derry is in Derry City Countil. And seeing as the Irish burnt down the original Derry in 1641 and the English established a brand new settlement on the other side of the Foyle which they named Londonderry - Irish nationalists and republicans have no cause for arguement for the Derry they refer to they themselves destroyed. Mabuska (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that it is a failing. Factual accuracy has been compromised for the sake of cordial relations amongst editors. That said, you'll have a tough time if you seek to overturn the existing consensus. --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Couple of points to Mabuska:Mabuska, acorn 897 and breadcheese. In my Irish opinion,where Wikipedia fails is when people ignore other perspectives. Legally in the Republic of Ireland, Derry is called Derry, please dont discount our opinion. Wikipedia if it is to be a tool for civilisations (not just Unionists) must be able to see other opinions. As for Derry coming into exisitence only after its charter this is inaacurrate it existed prior to its commercial conquering by the London trading org, Cork for instance recieved a charter over 800 years ago but existed prior to that. Are you trying to state that history only begins once a city is imperialy occupied? Derry from Irish meaning place of Oaks is a beautiful preplantation name; adding Latin Walled city detracts astetically. User Alexsloans comments above "When are people ever going to learn to grow and stop making immature edits which devalue Wikipedia!" reminds me of the comment in Gladiator at the start of the movie "When will people realise they are conquered"! This is not a matter of "Irish Unifying" commenters it is factual representation of what Irish users call it. Please be more respectful of opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.113.10 (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you call it, because it's OFFICIALLY called Londonderry, therefore, the OFFICIAL name is correct, and is what it should be referred to in this (and indeed every) article. Bmuni (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick thought - UVF first Paramilitary organisation??

"This movement also saw the setting up of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), the first Irish paramilitary group, in order to resist British attempts to enforce Home Rule. In response, Irish nationalists created the Irish Volunteers—forerunners of the Irish Republican Army (IRA)—to ensure the passing of the Home Rule Act 1914."

Occurs to me - i dont know if i am mistaken - but i was always told that the IRB was the 'first paramilitary organisation' - i dont know if this is just my background of education - but i guess it worries me even that i think the IRB was the first Paramilitaries - what is a Paramilitary organisation etc - like if the UVF were but the IRB werent then what were the united irish men or the young irish etc? Kindof makes me feel that the paramilitary title is only given cause they are modern. armalite = paramilitary. Pike = rebel/loyal to the crown etc.

--82.3.69.215 (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The Fenian rebellion was 1867 - somewhat earlier than 1913! Mooretwin (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit needed desperately - from the Current politics section

Following sentences really only has one thought in it as far as i can see...(and most of that thought only has passing interest to Ulster.)

The Republic's parties have long ceased to base their selection of candidates purely on any religious criteria. For most of the twentieth century they chose at least one candidate from a Protestant background to attract the Protestant vote, but the disappearance of a block Protestant vote (except in County Donegal) voting exclusively for a candidate on the basis of religion (with Protestant voters instead voting primarily for local candidates irrespective of religion) means that selection now depends largely on considerations of geography when electing TDs to Dáil Éireann under its Proportional Representation system. Again, County Donegal differs here in that a Protestant "block vote" continues, especially in the east of the county.

I Propose - drop most of history of block vote in ireland as whole (or link elsewhere) and concentrate on donegal.

--82.3.69.215 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Cavan and Monaghan are also part of both Ulster and the Republic, so wouldn't bits that aren't about Donegal still be applicable to those two counties?Tameamseo (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Languages accurate?

File:MidUlsterEnglish.png

White and blue: Ulster English
Orange: Ulster Scots
Green: Irish
Yellow: Hiberno-English

Is the image in the language sections accurate? It looks very wrong to me.--Theosony (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that you mention it I've never really looked at it before and what it represents. It implies that North Down (for instance) speaks Ulster Scots and not English. You're right, it's not accurate at all. It was user created, but has no sources listed for it and doesn't seem verifiable. Maybe it should be removed, and just leave the section text. Canterbury Tail talk 12:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... probably. The caption doesn't even explain why it's there. It also looks like it's been scanned from a sheet of paper, and the author hasn't said anything about it. I'll remove it now and keep an eye on the talk here.--Theosony (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A high concentration of Irish speakers occurs in Belfast and in part of Fermanagh, and Ulster Scots, like the Irish language, is mainly rural...--Theosony (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'd go with that. Also a lot of Irish speakers around the Derry area that aren't represented here. Canterbury Tail talk 14:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No one has posted an argument about keeping the article, and it is completely inaccurate. To me it is a consensus giving that the talk on this image began over 6 months ago.--Theosony (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at Talk:Mid Ulster English.

Theosony, if you cut and paste my comments again you will be reported for vandalism. ~Asarlaí 15:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am now awaiting your input... sometime...--Theosony (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The languages section is wrong. English is the most widely spoken language in Ulster, however to assert that one can speak some Irish does not mean [a] that you can speak Irish [b] that you do speak Irish. If Ulster Scots exists at all it is the second most widely spoken language in the historical province of Ulster. Lord Laird claimed when he was Heed o tha Boord ae Ulster Scotch that 100,000 people speak Ulster Scotch every day. If Ulster Scotch actually exists then most people who speak don't know they speak it and they certainly are not going to lie about it like purported speakers of Irish do. 10% of the population of Ulster is 200,000 Irish speakers in Ulster more people than actually speak Irish on the whole Island! USER: Mountainyman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainyman (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

While as you say I suspect a significant proportion of those people contributing to the way-too-high figures (in the Republic' census in particular) who tick the box saying they speak Irish in censuses would find it difficult to carry on the most basic of conversations in the language, it is silly to claim that there are under 200,000 on the island who have any actual ability to speak Irish. Although it would be true for native speakers. 109.79.82.112 (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia can only relay the data in the census. We have no survey data about how many people lied or exagerated. --Red King (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrectly used as a synonym for Northern Ireland?

Isn't it illogical and possibly POV to state that Ulter is inacurately used as a synonym for Northern Ireland? Who is to say it is inaccurate when it is widely used, including by reputable sources? Also, I think it is illogical because it implies that the fact that Ulster is a historical (9 county) province of Ireland means it can't also be the modern (6 county) UK province. The two aren't mutually exclusive. By the same logic "California" can't be a state of the USA, because it is also a historical region covering a wider area of modern Mexico and the USA. What about "Poland is incorrectly used as a name for the country in Central Europe, but in fact Poland refers to a larger historical country that includes territory of the present Belarus and Ukraine"? Booshank (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed it. The reference given was a dictionary page that didn't say anything about it being "incorrect", it said "informal" and "often used". You can't give something as a reference but write something that the reference doesn't contain. Booshank (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The only people who have referred to Northern Ireland as Ulster are unionists. Ulster is still a nine-county province of Ireland. Therefore it's totally inaccurate to use that name for Northern Ireland, because it covers only six counties. Also, Northern Ireland is a "constituent country" of the UK, not a "province". I'm removing that sentence from the introduction, since it's repeated in the terminology section. ~Asarlaí 21:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I took it back again. It is incorrect to call NI Ulster, but a lot of people do it (not just unionists). If people are unhappy then lets reach agreement here on any change --Snowded (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the given reference http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Ulster has the following definitions for Ulster:

"a former province in Ireland, now comprising Northern Ireland and a part of the Republic of Ireland"

"Informal. Northern Ireland. "

"A historical region and ancient kingdom of northern Ireland. Largely annexed by the English Crown during the reign of James I, it is now divided between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is often called Ulster."

Nowhere does it say anything about it being incorrect. If it is "often" and "informally" used, that doesn't make it incorrect. What's the point of having a reference if it doesn't actually support the information in the article? I could write "the sky on a clear day is green" and give a reference to a source that only talked of a blue sky. Neither do you seem to grasp the fact that the two uses of Ulster are not mutually exclusive. As for "province" or "constituent country", both seem to be used, neither is strictly defined and therefore they don't seem to be mutually exclusive either. Booshank (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's incorrect because Ulster consists of nine counties. Three of those counties –Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan– are not part of Northern Ireland. Therefore it's incorrect to say that Ulster = Northern Ireland. Very simple. ~Asarlaí 23:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather than "incorrectly" (the nationalist view) or "informally" (the more unionist position), how about something along the lines of "somewhat confusingly", which would (IMHO) be more neutral, and reflect something closer to common ground? And/or spell it out more fully (perhaps not in the lead) that group A finds this usage unacceptable, whereas group B uses it commonly. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Calling it incorrect isn't simply "the nationalist view" – it's fact. Furthermore, its usage among unionists appears to be rare these days. ~Asarlaí 12:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly decided it was a fact and incorrect? It's purely POV. If a large number of people call Northern Ireland Ulster, including reliable sources, then it is called Ulster. University of Ulster, Radio Ulster, until recently Royal Ulster Constabulary, Ulster Unionist Party, mainstream media etc etc and I don't think any were laying claim to Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan. Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is verifiability not truth, and this usage of the word "Ulster" is certainly verifiable. That includes the dictionary source given for the supposed "incorrectness" which didn't actually say anything about it being incorrect!

It is quite possible for a name like this to have more than one meaning. In fact it is almost the same as "Ireland" which can refer both to the whole island of Ireland and also to the Republic of Ireland. This argument is rather like saying the Republic of Ireland can't be Ireland, because the ROI doesn't include Northern Ireland. Booshank (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How many times must I repeat myself? Ulster consists of nine counties; Northern Ireland consists of six counties; Northern Ireland covers only two thirds of Ulster. That is an indisputable fact, no matter how many people want to think otherwise. Also, where is this slew of neutral and relible sources proving that "large numbers of people" call Northern Ireland Ulster? ~Asarlaí 17:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point so there is no need to repeat it, but repeating it doesn't fix its faulty logic.

By the same logic:

"Ireland consists of thirty-two counties; the Republic of Ireland consists of twenty-six counties; the Republic of Ireland covers only 80% of Ireland" (true). This 'logic' would dictate that the country with Dublin as its capital can't be called Ireland (because Ireland has 32 counties).

Here are some reliable sources for Northern Ireland being called Ulster. Remember, we're interested in whether Ulster is used for Northern Ireland, not whether you or I like that usage or opinions about it.

"Ulster a former province of Ireland, in the north of the island; with Leinster, Munster, and Connaught one of the original four provinces, the ‘four green fields’ of Ireland. The nine counties of Ulster are now divided between Northern Ireland (Antrim, Down, Armagh, Londonderry, Tyrone, and Fermanagh) and the Republic of Ireland (Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan). The name is also used generally for Northern Ireland, particularly in a political context." ELIZABETH KNOWLES. "Ulster." The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Oxford University Press. 2006. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O214-Ulster.html

"A historical region and ancient kingdom of northern Ireland. Largely annexed by the English Crown during the reign of James I, it is now divided between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is often called Ulster." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

"1 region N Ireland (island) comprising Northern Ireland & N Ireland (republic); ancient kingdom, later a province comprising nine counties, three of which in 1921 joined Irish Free State (now Ireland) while the rest remained with United Kingdom 2 province N Ireland (republic) comprising counties Cavan, Donegal, & Monaghan area 3093 square miles (8042 square kilometers), population 246,714 3 Northern Ireland —used unofficially." "Ulster." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online. 21 April 2009 <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ulster>

"Shoppers are pouring into Ulster border to buy supplies [from the Republic of Ireland, not into Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal], devastating the retail industry along the borders." Daily Telegraph (broadsheet newspaper with the highest circulation in the United Kingdom - many references to Northern Ireland as "Ulster") http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5121728/Ireland-imposes-emergency-cuts.html

"Every week while DUP MPs are at Westminster leading for Ulster on the issues that matter to Northern Ireland, they are also meeting Government Ministers, Departmental Officials, Statutory Agencies and helping hundreds of constituents across Northern Ireland." Democratic Unionist Party http://www.dup.org.uk/pdf/DUPServingYou05.pdf I don't believe DUP MPs are representing Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal at Westminster!

So there we have three dictionaries, a major mainstream media outlet and the largest political party by number of votes in Northern Ireland giving Ulster as a synonym for Northern Ireland. Booshank (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

First, "Ireland" is both a political and geographic entity, whilst "Ulster" is only a political entity. Second, those sources don't change anything. The article already notes that "Ulster" is sometimes used in place of "Northern Ireland" (although I've only ever heard unionists and foreigners doing so). It's still incorrect, and always will be incorrect. ~Asarlaí 00:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So you don't regard dictionaries, mainstream newspapers and major political parties as reliable sources? Well that's fine but it isn't how Wikipedia works. Who are we to believe, Asarlaí's personal opinion or the Oxford English Dictionary? Booshank (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There perhaps lies the root of the problem - learning your history from 'dictionaries, mainstream newspapers and major political parties'. I'm with Asarlaí here - firstly no-one ever gained a meaningful insight into politics, history or geography by reading a dictionary. Secondly the opinion's of journalist's and policitians are pretty much irrelevant unless backed up with meaningful facts and neither has a reputation for producing anything reliable on that front. History books with no partisan axe to grind will tell you Asarlaí is infact absolutely correct in his/her assertions. I do find your forelock tugging deference to your percieved 'betters' as quaint though. Who are we to believe? Why not find out for yourself and form your own opinion?

I too think Booshank has got it wrong. In a similar error, people often refer to The Netherlands as Holland - when Holland is only a constituent part of The Netherlands. Is Booshank saying that if enough people repeat an error such as this over time then it becomes correct? There are ample freely available, neutral historical sources stating the correct status of the 6 counties of Northern Ireland within the 9 counties of Ulster. The fact that some still refer to to it incorrectly can only mean that they have either never read any neutral text or choose to deliberately ignore the facts for their own purposes. Either way Booshank - "it isn't how Wikipedia works." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.97.85 (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I also think it is quite PoV to imply that the ulster = NI usage is solely unionist - this usage is wider than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.47.171 (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Which republican/nationalist groups call Northern Ireland "Ulster" then? ~Asarlaí 11:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is widely used in the UK press (a headline works much better with one five letter word than two 7 or 8 letter words). If you are annoyed by it, then sauce for the goose re 'Ireland'. --Red King (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Red King just because it is used by some lazy British Empire press personnel doesn't mean it is correct or in any way, shape, or form, a representation of reality, however if you wish to get fairy tail news then you're on the right track. Your argument is also destroyed by Reductio ad absurdum, as text speech may work better as it takes up less space on a page, in some peoples opinions, but the vast majority of educated people reel from the sight of it, and if I'm not mistaked a respected encyclopedia should reflect the reality of things rather than what a group of misguided people believe. Remember Northern Ireland may make up 6 of the 9 Counties of Ulster, but by land mass, it is just over 55% of Ulster. If you wish to claim Ulster as part of the British Empire then I'm sure a referendum of the people of Ulster would quickly force you to change your minds and again claim only Northern Ireland. Boundarylayer (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be your view that it is incorrect to use Ulster to refer to Northern Ireland, but you are not a reliable source. If there are sources to say that Ulster is sometimes used as a synonym for Northern Ireland, then the article should mention this, and let readers make up their own minds as to whether or not such usage is correct. Mooretwin (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Divided Province

I have added the key-word Divided Province to this article showing that half of Ulster is in Ireland and half in the UK Mr Taz (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure the divided keyword is needed, as the sentence goes on to explain this fact. Canterbury Tail talk 18:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding "divided" is simply pointless, and could be seen as inflammatory. That is why it is unhelpful. The sentence already explains perfectly clearly that 6 counties are in the Republic and 3 in Northern Ireland. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

:-)))) Well said, Snalwibma. Dunlavin Green (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Dubious religious data

"Across the nine counties, according to the aggregate UK 2001 Census and Irish 2002 Census, there is a very slim Catholic plurality over Protestant (49% against 48%), but not an overall majority (people of "no religion" or those "not stating" religion making up the balance[dubious – discuss])."

Really? Nobody's Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Jedi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

49 + 48 = 97, so presumably 3% "other"? Ausseagull (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad! I have added "neither religion". best, Sunil060902 (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

New Demographics Map

I removed the new demographics map that was added, not because there is an issue with the map itself, but because it isn't clearly labelled and described. It's not clear from the caption which way the colours refer, Catholic% or Protestant%. Also describing the colours for each percentage isn't very clear, not everyone can make those colour distinctions. Would be better if it had an actual colour box key rather than a Dark Orange etc. Some people are colourblind, some just can't make out what is being referred to by each colour description. Feel free to re-add with an improved caption. I would have done it myself, but as I said it's not clear which is which, though I could take a guess. It's a great map, well done, just needs to be clearer in it's description is the only reason I removed it. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Plantation of Ulster

What was incorrect with my edits of this Sectarian and biased section? The current body of writing is tantamount to Historical revisionism (negationism). I hope the delusional peoples who continue to distort facts to be in line with their own political agendas acquaint themselves with some of the unbiased references I added to the section. Perhaps even reading the dedicated Plantation of Ulster page might help. 15:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs)

Londonderry vs. Derry

I see that someone has been changing the name of the county in this article from Londonderry to Derry. I personally couldn't care tuppence what name people use, and consider arguments about the subject to be childish in the extreme, but my understanding was that a consensus had been reached somewhere to use "Derry" for the city and "Londonderry" for the county. I'm not going to get into a revert war over a playground fight, so I'll leave it to others watching this article to sort things out. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you are correct but one thing I've noticed is that the Irish name for it has been set a Doire (irish for derry) while surely it should be Londaindoire. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In Irish, the city's name is Doire or Cathair Dhoire and the county's name is Contae Dhoire. Londaindoire may be a more direct translation of Londonderry, but it's just not used by Irish speakers. ~Asarlaí 01:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Kingdoms of Ulster

There's very little on the early history of Ulster, in comparison to history from c.1600 onward (very well done, I might add). I'll list a few pointers:

1 - No distinction is drawn between the original kingdom of Ulster (Ulaid, which compromised Antrim, Down, Armagh, along with parts of Coleraine and Magherafelt in Londonderry) and the rest of the province. How its name came to be applied to all of the north (see John de Courcy needs to be explained.

2 - Ditto on the Airgíalla and In Tuisceairt (later called Aileach), to name the other two main overkingdoms in the middle and west.

3 - A brief mention of who were the Ulaid, and their political/ethnic divisions, with regard to Dál Riata.

4 - Late pagan/early christian era.

5 - Rise of the Uí Néill in the west and south-west.

6 - High Kings of the north, division of Aileach into Tír Eóghain and Tír Chonaill

7 - Fall of the kingdom of Ulaid to John de Courcy) and the Anglo-Irish colony.

8 - Gaelic-Irish reconquest of what was by then called east Ulster.

9 - There are excellent maps showing the extent of kingdoms such as Tyrconnell and Thomond. Same could be made for at least the main Ulster kingdoms.

I realise some of these really need their own articles, but some pointers in the main article would suffice. The rest of it up to the present day is worthy of FA status. Fergananim (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This should definitely be mentioned under the Early History section of the Ulster article, but I think the best bet is for you to create a separate page on the Kingdoms of Ulster and reference your new page under the Early History section.Boundarylayer (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ulster/NI

Despite what seems like a reasonable consensus against stating that calling Northern Ireland 'Ulster' is incorrect, the present form of the article seems to do so by implication. Moreover, to exclude the issue from the lead - when the division between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is mentioned, seems ludicrous: whether agreed with or not, the Northern Ireland meaning of Ulster is quite probably predominant. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Proof by consensus is not supported by wikipedia. However it may be a fair idea to note in the article that there is a naming controversy as some refer to Northern Ireland as 'Ulster' but that its use can be insulting to those from the other Ulster Counties Donegal Cavan and Monaghan and therefore 'Ulster' shouldn't be used when one means Northern Ireland. But the article at present does suffice in educating readers that Northern Ireland is not Ulster.Boundarylayer (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as the use of "Ireland" by the Republic of Ireland is insulting to those living on the island of Ireland that aren't part of that state? JonChapple^Talk 17:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Only an insult Jon if you are one of those ultra-nationalist freaks.Sheodred (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct. I can't see many reasonable people getting offended by either issue. JonC^Talk 22:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of "claimed" in relation to people speaking Irish

I am unaware of anywhere else on Wikipedia where any other data from the UK census is reported as a "claim, be it age, gender, religion and so on. Thus I see absolutely no reason why "claimed" should apply to whether people speak Irish or not. If a reliable secondary source has cast doubt on whether people were honest in relation to this there may be a case for further discussion, but right now it seems clear cut to me? O Fenian (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Cinnte! Agreed! there seems to be a pervasive passive aggressive attempt at undermining people of certain cultures in this article, your point being an example of that.Boundarylayer (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it a Former Province?

Shouldn't Ulster be described as a "former" or "historic" province? The current wording is in the present tense, which seems confusing. A province is "a territorial unit, almost always an administrative division, within a country or state". None of the four traditional "provinces" of Ireland are administrative units, and have not been since the Norman Conquest! It's akin to insisting on referring to Wessex and Mercia in England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymnophoria (talk • contribs) 10:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The provinces are still used in sporting contexts. --Red King (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that the "former", "historic" or "traditional" qualifiers would be needed. The OED describes Ulster as:

• a former province of Ireland, in the north of the island. The nine counties of Ulster are now divided between Northern Ireland (Antrim, Down , Armagh, Londonderry, Tyrone, and Fermanagh) and the Republic of Ireland (Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan).
• (in general use) Northern Ireland.

Officially, Ulster is a "former province". The sporting contexts are more for the sake of tradition. 86.171.183.252 (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How can it be "officially" a former province if it has never been abolished? ~Asarlaí 07:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Ulster is very much alive and well across all Irish cultural and sporting organisations. This doesn't suit British nationalists so they're trying to change the definition. A simple Google search will show Ulster being used by the GAA (far and away the most important and popular organisation - sporting or otherwise - on this island), rugby, music and much else. 86.41.15.114 (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the four traditional "provinces" of Ireland are administrative units, and have not been since the Norman Conquest! - prior to the Normans, the provinces were over-kingdoms NOT administrative units. Also a forgotten fact in Irish history is that the provinces were used as divisions by the English, and the current provincial borders were defined by the English.

As an administrative unit they were never used as such by the English or British, except for a couple of exceptions such as short lived provincial governments centuries ago, so in technicality they can't be abolished.

Politically however Ulster is historical. All the provinces in a political sense are historic as they no longer have real political relevance as they once did when they were over-kingdoms with their own over-king and composite under-kingdoms. The Earldom of Ulster is also historic as it no longer exists. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dubious Geography - the numbers don't add up

County	Area
County Antrim (Aontroim)	2,844 square kilometres (1,098 sq mi)
County Armagh (Ard Mhacha)	1,254 square kilometres (484 sq mi)
County Cavan (an Cabhán)	1,831 square kilometres (707 sq mi)
County Donegal (Dún na nGall/Tír Conaill)	4,841 square kilometres (1,869 sq mi)
County Down (an Dún)	2,448 square kilometres (945 sq mi)
County Fermanagh (Fear Manach)	1,691 square kilometres (653 sq mi)
County Londonderry (Doire)	2,074 square kilometres (801 sq mi)
County Monaghan (Muineachán)	1,294 square kilometres (500 sq mi)
County Tyrone (Tír Eoghain)	3,155 square kilometres (1,218 sq mi)
Total	21,432 square kilometres (8275 sq mi)

As you can see, the total here is significantly less than the 24,481 square kilometres (9,452 sq mi) quoted on the main page - and repeated across the internet.

Can anyone provide an explanation? Is Lough Neagh not included in the county areas? Even so, at 392 km² this does not explain the discrepancy of 3,000 km² (approx). Jynxboy (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just realised that there is a discrepancy in the population figure too. The total quoted is 1,993,918, while a sum of the counties gives 1,846,381.

Am I missing something here?Jynxboy (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly somebody has used different sources for the totals and their constituent parts without checking that the data sets corralated, this would explain the discrepencies between totals, and between quoted total and the sum total of the parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.148.242 (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"

We don't use the full name of the United Kingdom in other articles, so why should we use it in the "Ulster" article? It makes it look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabav12 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the rest of the island is named "Ireland". See Belfast Agreement. --Red King (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Locator Map

As per this, the locator map ought to be replaced with an SVG file. I did this earlier, but the file was deemed to be too similar to the existing map in the article, and too different from the maps used on the other three province articles. I'm happy to create four variations based on this one with a similar colour scheme. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 17:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ireland trad counties named.svg is too inaccurate. I think it'd be better to make four variations based on this one or simply to convert the existing ones to SVG (if that's possible). ~Asarlaí 17:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll update the ones I just created. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 17:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Should the dotted lines in Northern Ireland be kept? NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 17:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think all the dotted lines should be removed for these maps (those in NI and the ROI). They denote modern administrativ divisions. The provinces, on the other hand, arn't used for administration and ar what would be called "traditional" or even "historic" divisions. ~Asarlaí 18:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nine counties is an Elizabethan definition

To simply state that Ulster has nine counties is woefully unbalanced and would have been the definition imposed following the Tudor conquest in the Elizabethan era, or "Elizabethan Ulster". Ulster is much older than that and has had many many boundary definitions over the centuries (at some stages as small as around "two counties" around Antrim and Down, and as big as the size "11 counties" at other times). These changes need to be documented in more detail than at present. Much more accurate is to describe it as a province of Ireland (to say there are "four provinces" is inaccurate too as there have been many provinces over the eras) located at different times in the North/North-East of Ireland.

The most relevant modern usage would be for the 6 counties of Northern Ireland, described by Sir Edward Carson and others as "statutory Ulster" or "constitutional Ulster". This needs to be properly laid out in the article as a valid point of view representing a modern polity and not simply dismissed as if it is some minority view. As this article stands, it reads as if it is written by a GAA fanatic (who don't adhere to modern political boundaries anyway) who only views Ireland through the lens of "four green fields" form of C19 Irish Nationalism, and probably deserves a NPoV tag. 86.171.31.103 (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the pre-19th century history of the province itself to make the changes you're suggesting, but I do agree that contemporary use of Ulster to mean modern Northern Ireland isn't given enough prominence and is buried away, making it look like a fringe view. I'd also never heard "statutory Ulster" before I just Googled it, so that is certainly a failing of this page. Please do be bold and edit the article yourself if you think you're qualified and have the references to do so. — JonC^ॐ 10:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What reference do you have that Ulaid/Ulster as it exists today owes it's existence soley to 'Elizabethan' times? On the contrary, most accounts support that Ulster has contained the 9 counties that it has now since Norman times, predating Elizabethan times by 400 years?

As myself and Fergananim already discussed in 2010, How the name Ulster came to be applied to all of the 9 northern counties (see John de Courcy needs to be further explained in this Ulster article. Therefore your unsubstantiated edit about Elizabethan times needs to be reverted.

Since you made this edit, I would prefer you amend it until such time that you can find a reliable source that backs up your opinion.

As for the 'Statutory Ulster' inclusion that you bring up, yes I agree, the Boundary Commission and Carson should be referenced for historical completeness. However the use of Ulster in this context is not 'the most relevant modern usage' as you claim.

As Peter Robinson himself declared mere months ago -

'It is probably the case that most unionists will identify their homeland as ‘Northern Ireland’ rather than using any other term...'

http://sluggerotoole.com/2012/03/29/robinson-only-those-who-can-adapt-to-changing-circumstances-remain-standing/

Furthermore, yes the boundaries of Ulster were fluid, over the millenia the boundaries of Ulster changed much like all the boundaries of the Provinces of Ireland, this is discussed in the dedicated article on the subject.

Please also see the Ulster#Early_history section of this article, were the early history of Ulster is discussed and internal references to Ulaid & the Provinces of Ireland are included.

You are also incorrect to assume that only fanatic GAA supporters, or 'nationalists' recognize that Ulster contains 9 counties, every educated Irish person is also aware that the Irish Rugby Football Union and Ulster Rugby also recognize this, amongst many other bodies.

It would thus appear that the point of view lens that you bring up is actually myopically attached to your own forehead rather than, a POV from the previous editors of the article as you have so contentiously claimed.Boundarylayer (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"makes no sense bud"

62.26 per cent of Ulster (5,152 sq mi) was assigned to Northern Ireland and 37.74 per cent (3,123 sq mi) to Southern Ireland.

I added in the above. A simple, informative breakdown by percentage of how Ulster was carved up. It was reverted twice, last time with the remark "makes no sense bud." Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope the revert is;

"Southern Ireland comprised all of Ireland except for "the parliamentary counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone, and the parliamentary boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry [the city of Derry]" while comprise Northern Ireland."

back to

"Southern Ireland comprised all of Ireland except for "the parliamentary counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone, and the parliamentary boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry [the city of Derry]" which were to constitute "Northern Ireland"

I have reverted the poor English again. Murry1975 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought you'd taken out the "carve up" break-down. If you didn't, fine as regards what I was talking about. But the current revert you mention is silly. You say "comprised" for SI but "were to comprise" for NI. There is no "were to" about it. It so "comprised" as it does today. Makes no sense bud. Frenchmalawi (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The revert was "silly"? Your blind revert was silly, and your edit was plain poor. Its locked now due to an edit war, wonder who that was...Will correct grammar when its unlocked. Murry1975 (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It is far too detailed. I have never seen any body asking for how many acres the Britisch got or how many acres the (later to be) Republic of Ireland got. People want to know what counties were involved. Beside that, the percentages look like WP:OR. The Banner talk 19:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"It is far too detailed. I have never seen any body asking for how many acres the Britisch (sic) got or how many acres (who mentioned acres) the (later to be) Republic of Ireland got." Have you ever seen any body asking how many counties the UK retained? I haven't. I don't see any logic as to why a person might be interested enough to want to know what counties were involved but not interested enough to know what the basic split was (percentages). Frenchmalawi (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have again revert all edits of Frenchmalawi because they were either not helpful, irrelevant or plain wrong. The percentage of area are completely irrelevant, "which comprised" instead of "which were to constitute" is plain wrong. And your editwearring is quite unhelpful and quite disruptive. The Banner talk 18:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:The Banner. Thanks for participating in the discussion. Can you tell me why you think including a precentage breakdown for how Ulster was carved up is "irrelevant"? I think it is simple, informative and relevant informatiuon. I'd like to understand the objection.

About "which comprised" instead of "which were to constitute" is plain wrong, I don't care as much about this. If you feel strongly about it, fine. I don't agree with you though. Southern Ireland existed. It is a historical fact. It comprised a certain territory. There is no "were to" about it. The "were to" is unclear suggesting there was never a Southern Ireland.Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Before you make an absolute joke of yourself, could you do some reading to learn the difference between Ulster and Northern-Ireland? The Banner talk 19:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Please can we maintain respect and courtesy? I know the difference between Ulster and Northern Ireland. So, could you address my questions above? Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, there is no hyphen in Northern Ireland. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from edit warring or face the consequences. The Banner talk 19:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is 3Rs is edit warring. I haven't done that. Is that it? Is that the extent to which you will engage in discussion about your edits? Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, the article is now protected against your disruptive editing. In the wrong version, but that is part of the game.

I still do not see any logical reason why the big part about the alternative names of Ulster should be in the article. This is about the state belonging to Great Britain etc. not to the Irish province of Ulster. Ulster is only a (wrong) nickname for those six traditional counties. No formal name whatsoever. As there is a separate article about it, you could have done with a mention under "See also". The Banner talk 07:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"This is about the state belonging to Great Britain etc. not to the Irish province of Ulster."...The article is about ULSTER. The entire section about renaming NI is about ULSTER...as that was the name they were looking to use. I agree ULSTER is not a formal name for NI. I have added in a section explaining about the attempts to make it a formal name for NI.

Your decision to get the article protected will stifle me and any one else who would like to edit. Well done. It is not a "game" for me; I actually believe in the old Wiki ideas of editing and discussion etc., not agressive steps without discussion. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Northern Ireland is NOT IDENTICAL to Ulster. Northern Ireland comprises of only six of the traditional counties on the island of Ireland. Ulster comprises of nine of the traditional counties on the island of Ireland. The Banner talk 18:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I know we've got off on a bad footing. I'd like us to interact positively. I'm not ego-orientated. Any way, that's by the by. The article is about "Ulster". I, for one, would never suggest that Ulster is identical with NI. I've clearly said as much. But "Ulster" (the topic of the article) was suggested as a new name for NI. This proposal was so seriously considered that draft legislation to impplement it was tabled to the British cabinet. That is a very noteworthy historical episode centred entirely on the name "Ulster", the topic of this article and so the relevant and interesting too. Nothing more to it than that. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

In case it helps you understand further, I would put this scenario: if the UK had considered "British Ireland" as a new name for NI, I would not consider it particularly relevant to the Ulster article. But they considered "Ulster" and so it is. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter that you are not ego-oriented. It is just that your edits are plain wrong. Point. The Banner talk 00:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I can only summise that there will be no attempt at rational discussion involving putting forward explanations. I did so but you will just make a statement that I am wrong - no reasons etc. Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

As long as you consider the province Ulster identical to Northern Ireland, there is indeed little to discuss. The Banner talk 13:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No one here has suggested NI is identical to Ulster. Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:The Banner as far as I can see User:Frenchmalawi never said they are one and the same. What he is clearly saying is that at some point in the past, the Northern Ireland parliament seriously considered renaming Northern Ireland "Ulster". Obviously the section is in dire need of citations to back if up, and it is by on large irrelevant to the article, being more applicable to the Northern Ireland article, however some of the aggressive overtoned responses to Frenchmalawi are not warranted.

If anything a sourced sentence or small paragraph that the NI parliament considered renaming the country Ulster would suffice seeing as this article is on about Ulster - an entity that has not always comprised of the land it does now.

Also this is an encyclopedia, which are meant to inform people of things. If the land percentages of Ulster that went to ROI and NI can be sourced then it most definitely is not "far too detailed". If that is the case then lets turn this site into Simple knowledge for Dummies. If it can be sourced then it wouldn't be out of place somewhere in the Geography section. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Renaming Northern Ireland as Ulster

This recently added section is original research. The assertion that "Serious consideration was twice given to renaming Northern Ireland as Ulster" is based entirely on an interpretation of primary sources. WP:PRIMARY says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." There is no secondary source cited, therefore it's OR, and I am deleting it accordingly. Scolaire (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with your decision to delete the section nor with the reason given. The piece was very well referenced and sourced. Frenchmalawi (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have shown why it was not "well referenced and sourced". There was no secondary source. We were given a conversation, a speech and the response to a working party (working party into what?) report in which one of its recommendations wasn't adopted. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans. That's why nobody has ever written about it. Even the section itself quotes Clement Atlee as saying, "In discussion with the Northern Ireland Ministers we found that they were not disposed to press very strongly for the adoption of the title Ulster." It's a nothing story, Which is what you often get when you indulge in original research, hence the policy against it. Scolaire (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There are secondary sources: The Times reported on it at the time, as no doubt others did. I have reports from the Times. That said, I don't know of any secondary sources that reported on the conclusions of the Cabinet etc. That I accept. It was confidential until decades after the event, at which point it wasn't as big a story. But, it may have been reported on in papers when the Cabinet papers were finally released after the 30 year rule....I don't know about that.

As to it not amounting to a "hill of beans": A working party established by the Cabinet of the United Kingdom recommended that the name of the United Kingdom be changed to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ulster". Draft legislation to make the change was also presented to the Cabinet for their consideration. They considered it at some length and discussed it, with most initally being in favour. Ultimately, the trouble it might cause with other Commonwealth countries with large Irish populations was what really put the Cabinet off.

Perceptions vary, but to me that's pretty noteworthy.

I agree with you that the term "Working Party" was left unclear: If it makes any difference, I could confirm the exact title and provide the (original) source. Its short name was the "Working party on Ireland". It was established in the context of Ireland's then iminent exclusion from the Commonwealth on account of its decision to declare a republic.

My perception of the decision to exclude the piece on grounds of it having no secondary sources is that it's really selective and not balanced. Like I've mentioned, the cabinet papers were confidential for decades afterwards so it could not have been reported on in much detail at the time. I don't really think there is any prospect of you changing your mind. That's why I just hoped third parties might get involved and bring new perspective to this. I think Wikipedia is the poorer for this sort of thing: excluding well sourced material about a very noteworthy event. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you do not fully understand the meaning of "primary source". A contemporary newspaper account is a primary source. You cannot just say "The Times is a secondary source", or, for that matter, "The Times is a primary source". If The Times were to publish a story on it today, that would be a secondary source, but a report on it at the time is a primary source. Similarly, if this issue was dealt with in detail by any newspapers, journals or books when the cabinet papers were released under the 30 year rule, that would be a secondary source. But no such secondary source is forthcoming at the moment. Now the question is, if nobody has written about it in the past thirty-six years, with the cabinet papers available, and especially given the volume of coverage given to Northern Ireland during those years, does that not suggest that nobody else thinks it's "pretty noteworthy"?

"My perception of the decision to exclude the piece on grounds of it having no secondary sources is that it's really selective and not balanced" is a veiled personal attack. I would ask you to withdraw it. Scolaire (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Section that was deleted and is under discussion

(for the benefit of those who don't know what we are discussing, I re-produce the above here):

Serious consideration was twice given to renaming Northern Ireland as Ulster. Ahead of the renaming of the Irish Free State as Ireland in 1937, the British Prime Minister and the Home Secretary discussed the matter with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Lord Craigavon when he was in London in July 1937. On 1 December 1937, Thomas Joseph Campbell, MP (Nationalist) asked the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland whether the Government was considering changing the name of Northern Ireland, and, if so what name was being considered. Responding, the Minister of Finance John Miller Andrews MP said "the matter has been under discussion amongst Members of the Government, but no Cabinet decision has been taken". The Attorney General of Northern Ireland remarked around the same time that the Ulster name was of "great importance" and that the "cumbersome name" of Northern Ireland that came into the Act of 1920 alongside Southern Ireland should be changed. He continued further remarking that "The name of Southern Ireland has been changed and it was time that the name of Northern Ireland should be changed to Ulster". However, ultimtely no change was made to the name in 1937.

Renaming Northern Ireland as Ulster was considered even more serioiusly in 1949. A Working Party was established by the British Cabinet and chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, Norman Brook. Its report dated 1 January 1949 was presented by Prime Minister Clement Attlee to the Cabinet on 7 January 1949. Among its recommendations were that the name of Northern Ireland should be changed to Ulster. In this regard the Working Party's report noted:

The Government of Northern Ireland have formally asked that the title of Northern Ireland should now be changed to "Ulster"...As a name "Ulster" is clearly to be preferred to "Northern Ireland." "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ulster" is a rounder and more resounding title than "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." ...The majority of the working party conclude that the balance of advantage lies on the side of adopting the title "Ulster" for the six counties.

However, the renaming proposal was ultimately rejected by the Prime Minister with Attlee reporting to the Cabinet:

The consideration which weighed most with me and with the other Ministers whom I consulted was that the proposed use of the title "Ulster" was likely to provoke acute controversy among Irishmen in other Commonwealth countries. This in itself would be unfortunate: but, even worse, it would aggravate the difficulties of securing the agreement of other Commonwealth Governments to the necessary change in The King's title. In discussion with the Northern Ireland Ministers we found that they were not disposed to press very strongly for the adoption of the title "Ulster."

Third opinion question

• Someone asked for assistance on the third opinion noticeboard, but it wasn't specified which section contains the dispute. Would someone go back and direct to the correct discussion, please? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I've puzzled that out and the last discussion above is the one (and I've made this section a subsection of that discussion). Unfortunately Third Opinion, like all other moderated dispute resolution processes here, requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance and your request for a 3O has been removed due to the lack of any such discussion. Once the matter has been thoroughly discussed here, feel free to refile at 3O or use some other DR process if you cannot come to consensus. If either party will not discuss — though I see no sign of that yet here — consider the recommendations which I make here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@User talk:TransporterMan - Is the above enough talk to warrant 3P input? I think we'd talked it to the point of alleged personal slights and the like and me being asked to withdraw remarks and things like that. Predictably, I don't think we were making any progress nor that any more discussion between me an the other editor who came along and deleted the section woud help. Predictably too, not many editors are getting involved as it's a minority interest article. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I know you asked TransporterMan, not me, but the answer is no. If you refuse to discuss the issue with me you are not entitled to a third opinion. I have made valid arguments that you still have not addressed. Scolaire (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If its any help I'm with Scolaire, reference is simply not good enough ----Snowded ^TALK 09:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Scolaire: I didn't refuse to discuss or anything like that. We discussed. You said, in short, secondary sources needed so delete. I disagreed and wanted to get more input from outside editors. Is that a fair summary? Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

At any rate, Snowded has now offered a third opinion, so that's that. Scolaire (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Snowded was telling me he has had meetings with Editors outside of Wikipedia in a few different countries. It's off the topic of our discussion but I'm trying to learn more about Wikipedia and how to be a more successful editor. Have you ever met Snowded in person? I'd like to join a gang but amn't sure how it works. Any tips? Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A Seperate Article

For those unaware, there is an seperate Wikipedia article that deals with this name issue in detail: Alternative names for Northern Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ulster/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I came to this page to find the history of what are called the "Ulster Irish" in America, in my genealogical research. The questions I wished answered are, Why are the "Ulster Irish predominately protistant? Another is, Did the Ulsters originate in Scotland and then move to northern Ireland? and finaly why did so many immigrate to the U.S. when it was still a British colony? Instead I found only a history of the language. Please link this page to more information on Ulster history.

Last edited at 09:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

IRL should be used, not ROI

I changed references to ROI back to IRL but the change was reverted. The only explanation given was that it was "confusing". The only confusing thing is for the readers, who will be left thinking that ROI or Republic of Ireland is the name of the state in question. We all know its name is Ireland and its ISO code is IRL. This should be used here too. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a bit esoteric for my taste. The state's called Ireland because it's irredentist and seeks to control the whole island. Specifying the Republic avoids confusion with the part of Ireland that's not in what you call Ireland. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:IMOS when both Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) or Northern Ireland are being discussed then Ireland (state) should be referred to by its description Republic of Ireland to avoid confusion. Canterbury Tail talk 16:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

to shire as a verb

What does to shire mean in the current article?

It took a definitive shape in the reign of King James I of England when all the counties of Ireland were eventually shired.

Wiktionary offers just a generic explanation, but I sense there was some deeper historical meaning in this case.  « Saper // @talk »  10:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Shired as in divided up into counties, the same way as England and Scotland. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006122431/http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do to http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Londonderry/Derry

I'm concerned that the use of Londonderry and Derry interchangeably could be confusing to outsiders to this topic and could make them think they are two different places. I propose that we should just use one or the other to avoid confusion. (I think, from what I know from this topic that as a city in Northern Ireland it is referred to as Londonderry, but as a city on the island of Ireland it is referred to as Derry. So really, similar to Gdansk and Danzig, as well as every other case I have heard its name comes from whichever country it is inside of. But, the wiki page for this place is called Derry, so I don't know, either way this doesn't nullify my argument.) AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:IMOS it's Derry for the city and Londonderry for county. Nothing needs changed unless usage is against that guideline. To clarify though, Londonderry is the de facto and de jure name of the city and county according to its sovereign state, the UK. What a foreign country that has a history of anti-Britishness calls it should have little bearing. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

::To correct Mabuska's mistake, the de jure name of the city is Derry, as voted upon by it's citizens. What a Loyalist from the elsewhere of life has to say on the matter has obviously little bearing.Hibarnacle (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Who's the loyalist? I don't see one in the discussion. De jure means by legal right. Seeing as the UK courts have repeatedly stated that the name is Londonderry and can only be changed by Royal prerogative, the city's name is legally Londonderry. What a council names itself is entirely up to it and as the courts have stated has no bearing on the official name of places within it. Also I don't ever remembering a plebiscite on the city's name for its citizens to decide what it should be called. Regardless here on Wikipedia we abide by WP:LONDONDERRY. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ulster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125100715/http://www.drdni.gov.uk/alternative_formats_in_ulster_scots to http://www.drdni.gov.uk/alternative_formats_in_ulster_scots
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830193417/http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/moneacastleus.pdf to http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/moneacastleus.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130227120523/http://www.northsouthministerialcouncil.org/annual_report_2010_ulster_scots.pdf to http://www.northsouthministerialcouncil.org/annual_report_2010_ulster_scots.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140401014648/http://www.northsouthministerialcouncil.org/ulster_scots_nsmc_2009_annual_report-3.pdf to http://www.northsouthministerialcouncil.org/ulster_scots_nsmc_2009_annual_report-3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930130326/http://www.tourismireland.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=646377f0-74e6-41ae-a616-2aecd44397eb to http://www.tourismireland.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=646377f0-74e6-41ae-a616-2aecd44397eb
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526060346/http://census.cso.ie/sapmap2011/Results.aspx?Geog_Type=GA&Geog_Code=02 to http://census.cso.ie/sapmap2011/Results.aspx?Geog_Type=GA&Geog_Code=02
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140912104226/http://www.ahg.gov.ie/ie/Straiteis20BliaindonGhaeilge/Foilseachain/Staid%C3%A9ar%20Cuimsitheach%20Teangeola%C3%ADoch%20ar%20%C3%9As%C3%A1id%20na%20Gaeilge%20sa%20Ghaeltacht%20%28achoimre%29.pdf to http://www.ahg.gov.ie/ie/Straiteis20BliaindonGhaeilge/Foilseachain/Staid%C3%A9ar%20Cuimsitheach%20Teangeola%C3%ADoch%20ar%20%C3%9As%C3%A1id%20na%20Gaeilge%20sa%20Ghaeltacht%20%28achoimre%29.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

History section

The history section is much longer than any of the others, should it have its own article? Stara Marusya (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible rendering bug

Early in the article is a link to the article titled Gaeltacht, plural Gaeltachtaí ... on my browser, only the first of the two (aí) plural letters (to wit, the a and not the í) is made part of the hyperlink, though a review of the source editor doesn't suggest a reason therefor. This makes me think that Wikipedia's rendering engine isn't prepared to handle the unusual pluralization of the language; but I really don't know what's going on. Al Begamut (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay I've fixed it by bringing the last two characters inside the link. It's not a case of the software not handling plurals, it's a case of it was written with the last two letters outside of the link and for some reason the software has issues with auto linking accented characters. Something to do with ASCII sets I'm sure. Canterbury Tail talk 11:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks much. Your comment "for some reason the software has issues with auto linking accented characters" is basically what I meant to convey as my suspected reason; I'm glad you were able to resolve it for this article. Cheers! Al Begamut (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)