Talk:People of Northern Ireland

Dubious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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