![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Given the context of the sentence, I changed this back to the literal translation. As a compromise however, I added the 'known as' comment. There is no other "Book of the Taking of Ireland" to confuse this with, and the Wikilink points directly to the article in question. The common 'translation' is also, ironically, part of historical revisionism. -- Mal 08:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
This section begins with a reference to brutal killings, to which are linked the British army and the police. I think that this is badly phrased, rather than deliberately incorrect. I've left it because I don't like trespassing on other people's pages, but I think that it could do with being looked at. -- Major Bonkers 12:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There are four Protestants in the current Dáil: Seymour Crawford, Mildred Fox, Jan O'Sullivan and Trevor Sargent. What about Ivan Yates and Martin Manseragh ? Im not sure how relevent this anyway. None of the 4 TD's (or 3 Senators) AFaIK are Unionists. In anycase a Southern neo-Unionist in this day and age is as likely to be Roman Catholic (or of "other" or no religion) as Protestant !
Could someone go to the foot of the article on Cruithne (people) and flesh out the Unionist notion described there, that Scots settlers in Ulster are descended from the original inhabitants of the province? Or is there a separate article on this matter?-- Shtove 17:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Irish Unionist Alliance
The Reform Movement (Realising our Common Future)
The Irish Association
http://www.irish-association.org
Dublin University (Trinity College) Young Unionists
http://www.csc.tcd.ie/~unionist/
Ethnic cleansing in the free state - Protestants in Republic of Ireland : New Statesman July 10, 1998
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_n4393_v127/ai_20967818
Aughavey 3 July 2005 21:54 (UTC) (Craig openly condoned discrimination against Catholics.) I`m not sure the above is quite true - he did however state: July 12 1932 - James Craig
"ours is a Protestant Government and I am an Orangeman" As NI Prime Minister, at Orange demonstration at Pontzpass, Co. Armagh
April 24 1934 - James Craig (Lord Craigavon) "I have always said that I am an Orangeman first and a politician and member of this Parliament afterwards - They still boast of Souther Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast of is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State" As NI Prime Minister, at Stormont.
and to put that in context
Eamon de Valera Prime Minister of the Irish Free State / Irish Republic 1930
"Justifying the sacking of a properly appointed librarian in Mayo, because, though highly qualified, she was a Protestant, de Valera argued in June 1930: "I say the people of Mayo in a county where I think 98% of the population is Catholic are justified in insisting on a Catholic librarian." He went on to widen the issue indeed, and asserted: "a Protestant doctor ought not to be appointed as a dispensary doctor in a mainly Catholic area."
(But De Valera was in Opposition before 1932. So he cannot be accused of making that decision regarding the librarian.)
Mayo County Council made the decision. But for the state's Opposition leader to back them unequivocally was definitely sectarian populism.
Lapsed Pacifist 16:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Not long after partition:-
During the debate on compulsory Irish, Deputy
Wolfe (a Protestant)
protested:
"I doubt if compelling people to learn is a good way of spreading the
language; it is a very difficult thing to compel an Irishman to do
anything." It is still a compulsory requirement to this day (2005) that you must speak fluent Irish to gain employment as a Civil Servant in the Republic of Ireland.
Yeats a prominent Southern Irish Protestant TD in the Dail / Irish Parliament gave the Government a warning:
"If you show that this country, Southern Ireland, is going to be governed by Catholic ideas and by Catholic ideas alone, you will never get the North . . . You will put a wedge in the midst of this nation."
Quote: "It is still a compulsory requirement to this day (2005) that you must speak fluent Irish to gain employment as a Civil Servant in the Republic of Ireland."
Not so. The compulsory element of Irish in schools was removed in April 1973 (see Compulsory Irish by Adrian Kelly), and was removed in 1974 as a requirement for the civil service.
Actually the Study of Gaelic is still compulsary in Irish Schools. All the so-called abolition of compulsary Irish did was to end the situation where if one failed Irish in theie exams one was deemed to have failed the entire exam ! And this wasnt a retroactive change either There are still many people in Ireland today who effectively have no educational qualifications whatsoever because they failed one Irish exam !.
The term 'Southern Ireland' is nonsensical, geographically and politically. That country simply does not exist. The term is Republic of Ireland.
Northern Unionism can not be predominantly Presbyterian as that would be insufficient to maintain a unionist majority. The Presbyterians are the largest religious bloc, but the Church of Ireland is generally just as unionist and only a few percentage points below the size of the Presbyterians. MnJWalker Also there is a geographical divide between Presbyterianism and Anglicanism with Presbyterianism being dominant in the North and East of Northern Ireland and Anglicans (Church of Ireland) being the dominant (Protestant) religion aross the rest of the Island.
Some anonymous individual claims above that WB Yeats said "this country, Southern Ireland". I'd like to see the evidence for Yeats's use of that loyalist term. His country was Ireland, a fact which he was very proud of. El Gringo 05:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Admitidely Southern Ireland may not be a TECHNICALLY correct description of the Republic of Ireland (The most Northerly point of the Island being in the south and all that) however in the context of a discussion about Unionism or Nationalsm the term "Southern Ireland" is arguably more readily understood by people living outside (the island of) Ireland. It is certainly far less misleading than the widespread practice of referring to the Republic (as opposed to the Island as a whole) as "Ireland" (as enshrined in Article 4 of The Republic's 1938 constitution) or the even more confusing term Irish Republic unwittingly used by many Unionists (and others) to describe "the south" when it actually refers to the notional All-Ireland republic to which nationalists aspire. And for a short period prior to the establishment of the free state there WAS an legal entity called "Southern Ireland" albeit largely existing on paper.
SO THE DUCK GOES INTO THE BAR AND SAYS " WHERES MY MARGIRITA!" AND THE BARTENDER SAYS " ITS ON FIRE!" LOL
SARAH NEEDS TO WORK ON HER REVOLUTION MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alright, hands up who did this?
EmpComm
20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone help me get my head around the following phrase?
“ | Everyday life in Northern Ireland reflects the rest of the UK, sharing the same newspapers, roadsigns, postcodes etc. Irish culture, of course, influences the province as well. | ” |
It makes it sound like Northern Ireland is some sort of cultural blank slate, appropriating the culture of its next-door-neighbour, when in fact many "Irish" things are intrinsically bound up with Ulster and the north. We wouldn't say Irish culture "influences" the Republic of Ireland, would we? Martin 00:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Most cultures are influenced by neighbouring cultures Northern Irish culture is heavily influenced by both Irish and British (mainly Scottish) cultures. Indeed Southern Irish culture is also influenced by British (mainly English) cultures and to a lesser extent that of the rest of the Anglosphere.
-The part that bothers me most is the term "provence". Ulster has 9 counties, Northern Ireland has 6, therefore to call the country a provence (as so many often do) is inaccurate.
EmpComm
20:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a politically neutral manner of referring to the North of the island of Ireland if one wants to include not only Northern Ireland but the northern part of the Republic, without implicitly passing comment on the legitimacy of Northern Ireland?-- Lucifer(sc) 13:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the Belfast agreement the term "Northern Ireland" is recognised by most people (including moderate nationalists) nowadays. Only hardline Irish Nationalists ("republicans") Insist on referring to it as "the six counties" or even "occupied Ireland". In casual conversation the terms "the North" and "the South" are widely accepted (despite the most Northerly point on the Island actually being in "the South") but only makes sense when all the speakers are actually IN Ireland 87.113.19.12 18:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Whatever we do, let's not forget Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan are part of Ulster, but not part of Northern Ireland (or the North/Occupied Ireland/Six Counties, etc) -
EmpComm
20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
What in the world is the Donegal Progressive Party? Dermo69 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Does this group still exist? They sound like a splendid group of people with a very worthy cause! Donegal should have never been included in the Republic. It's inclusion was a sad mistake of history. YourPTR! 16:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
According to the Politics.ie Wiki # they last contested a local election in 1999 according to this posting on Boards.ie they are still registered as a party but dont have a website They also get brief mentions here and here 80.229.222.48 21:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Are there any viable running disputes that really merit the inclusion of this tag. If so, could we please have them outlined and addressed. Thanks.-- Breadandcheese ( talk) 04:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the logic behind: "Irish unionists opposed Home Rule for many reasons. Much of their support in southern and western Ireland (the provinces of Munster, Leinster and Connacht) came from landed gentry who feared that a nationalist assembly would introduce property and taxation laws more suitable to a small island than the laws imposed from Westminster, which were designed for a much larger area, the entire United Kingdom." I fail to see how Ireland being a slightly smaller island than Britian is at all relevent. Other factors may have made UK law less just in Ireland than in Britian, but not island size. matturn 02:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
"I fail to see how Ireland being a slightly smaller island than Britian is at all relevent"- This statement betrays a misunderstanding of the authors argument. Ireland at this point was part of the United Kingdom, or Britain. He was not comparing the size of Ireland with mainland Britain, rather Ireland with the entire United Kingdom-including the island of Ireland. I think that it is a fair point to argue that the United Kingdom in its entirety was a much larger area, and that a different set of property and taxation laws would plausibly be appropriate there than in a self-determined area the size Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.63.116.72 ( talk) 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is seriously bad in large areas. It mucks up terminology, makes sweeping generalisations, veers from a pro-republican bias (I should have known
Lapsed Pacifist had edited it!) to an over-the-top Unionist bias, then jumps between the two. It contains a lot of POV crap about "neo-Unionists" (except in Sinn Féin-speak there ain't no such thing). Oh gawd, it is so substandard and unencyclopaediac it is almost funny. BTW Ivan Yates is retired from the Dáil years ago!!! The fact that the article cannot even get that fact speaks volumes for how bad it is. And who the heck is so bad at spelling? Senete??? For crying out loud! This article is a thorough embarrassment.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
04:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
There IS such thing as a neo-Unionist. Not many but more than most people realise. I am a neo-Unionist although admitidely I no longer live in the Republic 87.113.19.12 18:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph does state that "the number of Unionists in what is now the Republic of Ireland declined to a point where their numbers were widely regarded as almost insignificant" So wheres the dispute ? As for inaccuracies regarding spelling, numbers of representitives in parliament etc why dont you correct it instead of complaining about it in here ? Oh and yes there are a few of us left. Southern Unionism may not exactly be fashionable (for now ?) but it certainly still exists 194.165.161.133 13:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is appalling. It mentions the partition of Ireland without any attempt to put it into context, it's blatantly politically biased throughout.
This article is missing the very start of unionist organisation - the opposition ot the Repeal of the union in the 1840s. You can read an article aspects of this here http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/01/20/loyal-dublin-the-dublin-protestant-operative-association/ . I'm going to write a paragraph on this for the history section. Regards. Jdorney ( talk) 15:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Added citation needed to the following line. Discrimination, however, took place, particularly in the areas of housing, employment and local government representation. The extent of such discrimination is disputed,[citation needed] and there was also widespread poverty among Protestants.
The fact that there was discrimination is undisputed as there is overwhelming evidence that there was. The added line (The extent of such discrimination is disputed) looks strange in this context and looks like it was added by a different editor who is not happy that this is mentioned. It is used to cast doubt on what are known to be facts but rather than delete the entry I will give the editor a chance to back up that statement with facts. Who disputes this? Are they notable? Do you have any sources to back this up? Tcla75 ( talk) 11:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Unionism in the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 15:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Snappy, why are you removing " Ulster" from the description of Ulster Protestant people? Gob Lofa ( talk) 20:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
As I stated in my first comment, we can call blue for some matters which we know to be true. Most Unionists in Ireland are Ulster Protestants. Mabuska (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think we've gone a bit off what the original issue here is, and I think I have found the obvious solution that was always on Wiki. Snappy opposes Gob Lofa's wish to link Protestant and Catholic to Irish Catholic and Ulster Protestants. I can understand the opposition to it, however there are two better wikilinks we can use that shouldn't be any trouble: Protestantism in Ireland and Roman Catholicism in Ireland. Surely that is the most common sense solution that makes more sense than just linking to Protestant and Catholic and makes more sense than just linking to Ulster Protestant and Irish Catholic? Mabuska (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I assume this redirect is the one you are on about: "Snappy, where were your references when you redirected [Ulster Protestants] to Unionism in Ireland? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)" - None are needed because Ulster Protestants redirects to Protestants of Ulster. Mabuska (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Unionism in Ireland. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hard to believe only two editors (including nominator) had anything to say, during 1st nomination, which resulted in non admin closure due to lack of consensus, which is an intolerable and inexplicable outcome. See here. Quis separabit? 15:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Unionism in Ireland. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://cormembers.cor.eu.int/cormembers.aspx?critName=&critCountry=GB&critFunction=MEM%7CALT&critGroup=&critDossier=&iaction=Search{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.openrepublic.org/open_republic/20050619_vol1_no1/content/20050619_ru.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://irishloyal.awardspace.info/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=28{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vhKILW7FcTMJ:www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_n4393_v127/ai_20967818+%22Ethnic+cleansing+in+the+free+state+%22&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=2When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Unionism in Ireland. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
This article has undergone some rather significant changes over the last couple of days, from this version to the current version by @ ManfredHugh:. Personally, I think the current version is an absolute disaster. Taking just one section as an example Unionism in Ireland#Protestant unity and the New Reformation is full of unencyclopedic language such as:
What should be done to this article, that now resembles several badly written essays? Revert back to the previous version? Revert just some of the recent changes? Leave it as it is? FDW777 ( talk) 16:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, maybe this is language open to misinterpretation and needs to be partly reworked. Whatever the difficulties, which I think can be ironed out, the the version had even more seriously problems and omissions. ManfredHugh — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManfredHugh ( talk • contribs)
Actually the more I consider it, the more I agree with the criticism. Among other problems, my revisions are too "essay" like for an encyclopaedic articles--though obviously I believe they some merit and the previous version does have serious problems. But for now I think it is best to revert to the version as of 6 February. ManfredHugh
Well we could start by taking out the section you have cited as an example of broader problems, on Cooke and the call for Protestant Unity. Cooke and the New Reformation are critical to the history of Irish Unionism--and acknowledged as such in the scholarship. But this does need reworking. Faced with something which was just a jumble with very limited references, I did get a bit carried away. ManfredHugh
I have not looked at the article in depth, but I see sentences such as The dismay of many was compounded by the seemingly easy relationship he developed with Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, an admitted former member (and it was widely believed, former Chief of Staff) of the IRA, routinely denounced by Paisley as "vermin."
that is supposedly referenced by
this BBC article. Please ensure any text already in the article, and that is added in future, is what the references say. If this is not done shortly I will not hesitate to remove policy violating sentences per
WP:BURDEN.
FDW777 (
talk)
13:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The title is Unionism in Ireland however the focus is Unionism in Northern Ireland. There is a separate wiki article on the Irish Unionist Alliance which perhaps could usefully be merged in as well as mention of Irish politicians such as Conor Cruise O'Brien who have stood as Unionist candidates for Dáil and Seanad. There is some very positional language, such as referring to the government of Ireland as "the Dublin government". I am not familiar enough with the material to correct this myself. 83.217.149.238 ( talk) 19:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The title Unionism in Ireland goes back several years to an original entry. Perhaps there might be a case for two separate articles: one on Irish Unionism (i.e. Unionism until 1922) and another on Unionism in Northern Ireland, although there is a lot we can't understand about the later without knowledge of the former.
Very "positional language"--that is a problem if it is the case. But as to "the Dublin government" I don't know what the implied position might be. I think it is just used for variation. But if you think "Government of the Free State," or "Government of the Republic of Ireland", or simply "the Irish Government" would in all cases be better, that can be changed. ManfredHugh ( talk) 17:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Proposed mass reversion of two articles. Thank you. FDW777 ( talk) 20:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
(Please note that in my following questions and discussion, I mean no value judgment whatsoever on the merits of any particular religious group, religious persuasion, or ethnic group. I hope for universal friendship and love.)
I find some of this article confusing, esp. w/ regard to the various Protestant churches extant in Ireland in the last 2+ centuries. Notably, were most adherents of the Church of Ireland, which is Anglican ("Episcopal" in the US), part of unionism? Were most adherents of ALL "noncomformist churches" (an "Isles", but not US, term) part of unionism? It would be helpful if the article clarified these, without too much "Isles" jargon.
It appears from the article as it currently reads, that most of the 19th century Protestant adherents on the Irish island were Presbyterian, Methodist, and Anglican. Is this true? I have assumed from what I've read elsewhere that most Presbyterians on the Irish Isle are descended from immigrants from Scotland, and that the Methodists and Anglicans there are mostly descended from immigrants from England & Wales, but perhaps I am misinformed. (However, if I am not misinformed, this leads to a sadly ironic conclusion that the two main politically-opposed groups in 20th century Northern Ireland were both ethnically mostly Celtic - of Irish-Scottish origins, except that anyone named "Fitz-Something" also had paternal Norman ancestry - that is, French-Viking.)
Clarification of my confusion: I am not familiar with all of the subtleties of the history of Protestantism in the "Isles"; I myself was raised and remain in the US (although dual citizen by virtue of being born in UK, of a UK dad and a US mom who remained together for life, neither of whom adhered to any particular religion). I note also that most US readers have no clue what a "noncomformist church" means, in any context. (I personally have only recently come to understand that, in the "Isles", "noncomformist" means all, or almost all, Protestant churches other than Anglican. I have not yet figured out whether Lutheran churches (of which there are a lot in the US) would also be considered "noncomformist" in the "Isles".) I suspect that some Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders would understand this stuff a bit better than US residents would. OTH, modern residents of the "Isles" are likely aware that most US residents adhere to a huge variety of Christian religions, plus many others.
(I note the British Isles naming dispute. Therefore, here I just call them the "Isles".) Acwilson9 ( talk) 02:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Still atrocious, since it's an editor's personal sandbox for their unencyclopedic essay prose. My browser counts over 500 quotation marks in the article, granted there will be a few reasonable quotes but there's still plenty of rubbish. Examples, not just limited to overuse of quotations, include
That's just a few that jumped off the page up to the Partition section, the essay writing continues throughout. Other issues include problematic synthesis of references to suit a particular agenda. Example
David Cameron was responsible for the Brexit referendum. He came to power in 2010. So, enlighten me, what do references from 2005 and 2007 have to do with a sentence about Brexit? I think, to use a micro-quote of my own, "absolutely nothing" would be the answer to that question. The one reference that is anything to do with Brexit doesn't reference the "necessary measure" part of the sentence.
The problems with the editor responsible's prose were summarised
here, the most relevant part is The concept is that your style of writing is not fit for purpose. You are not writing a book on history, you are not writing an essay or a thesis. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia which needs to be as accessible by everyone as possible. There is a manner of writing which is considered the standard. You may not like it, but as long as you don't submit to using it, you will find yourself facing this criticism in every article you touch
. This article is a mess, and is in dire need of a rewrite by someone capable of writing in an acceptable style.
FDW777 (
talk)
18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
-This is from R. F. Foster's standard reference and the same point is made by many other historians of the period: namely that in delaying Emancipation thirty years, Britain may have passed up the opportunity to reconcile Irish Catholics to the Union as a minority (as distinct from the majority they would form in a separate Irish parliament). But if you don't think the use of Foster's exact phrase helpful, we can just say minority.
-Personal witness and New Reformation are not "micro quotations" but terms put in quotation marks because they are concepts within a particular time and place. The basic point made by Prof. Andrew Holmes (who is referenced) is critical: the new 19th century Protestant revivalism in emphasising personal religious experience and testimony de-emphasised the various denominational differences between Protestants, and that became opportunity for the likes of the Rev Cooke to preach and advance Protestant political unity.
-It is clear from the proceeding sentence, that this is what Cooke proposed. Does the meaning of "common safety" need to spelled out? I think in the context it is clear, and is made clearer in what follows.
-This is the basic dynamic underscored by all histories of the period and of unionism: as Nationalists gained influence at Westminster, Protestant unionists progressively sank their differences to create a unionist alliance embracing all denominations and classes of Protestants. True unionism here does not need to be in quotation.
-This is proceeded by a description of the severe limitations on the Irish legislature envisaged by the first Home Rule Bill. The point of quoted Shaw is to illustrate that even unionists didn't believe acceptable to nationalists, and that unionists agreed with many nationalists that for Ireland the only alternative to complete integration with Great Britain was complete separation.
-Perhaps we could just say, 'a noted critic of Orangism'. What is discussed here is how the Convention was reported in the unionist press, namely as a first gathering of unionists of all different persuasions and interests (so that Orangemen could attend of convention convened by one of their leading opponents within the broader Protestant community)
-Yes maybe scrap "on behalf of ... " etc.
-Yes the original language is a bit arcane and perhaps needs interpretation. But again the point is critical: as early as 1846, the unionist press was seeking to turn the nationalists' argument for separation from Britain against them by suggesting that ethnicity and religion could equally argue for a separation of north and south.
-While this is the observation just about every history makes, it needs to be made clear that the language is republican
-again, I am having to guess at the issues, but maybe the quotation could be dispensed with, and the point more simply made that Craig believed that having at least the appearances of a separate government in Belfast, a hostile majority in Westminster would find it more difficult to push Northern Ireland toward unification with the South.
At a time when Sinn Féin was citing the cross-border, all-island, economic activity facilitated and supported by the EU as a further argument for Irish unity[1][2] there was a sense that Brexit would restore a necessary measure of "distance" from Dublin.[3]~ David Cameron was responsible for the Brexit referendum. He came to power in 2010. So, enlighten me, what do references from 2005 and 2007 have to do with a sentence about Brexit? I think, to use a micro-quote of my own, "absolutely nothing" would be the answer to that question. The one reference that is anything to do with Brexit doesn't reference the "necessary measure" part of the sentence. --What is being discussed is not Cameron's decision to commit a Conservative government to a referendum on EU membership. It is why the DUP, when given the opportunity to vote on the issue in 2016, opted for leave, and a number of commentators suggest that one reason was that Sinn Fein (which had originally opposed the EU) increasingly depicted cross-border EU membership as a glide rail to increasing north-south integration. If you don't think the references support that there would be plenty where they came from.
This Wiki entry is for a two-hundred year history of what is ultimately the political tradition, not of a party, but of a society with many and conflicting political, social and economic elements. For the years since the Good Friday to be sure, I have had to drawn more on press reports and commentary as histories of the period have yet to be written. Regards ManfredHugh ( talk)
Contingents of republican Irish Volunteers and Connolly's Citizen Army, ensured that while Irishmen, at Redmond's urging, were sacrificing themselves for the sake of “Catholic Belgium,” Britain could be seen on the streets of Dublin in Easter 1916 suppressing an Irish "strike for freedom"
As the militants saw it, contingents of republican Irish Volunteers and Connolly's Citizen Army ensured that while Irishmen, at Redmond's urging, were sacrificing themselves for the sake of Belgium, Britain could be seen on the streets of Dublin in Easter 1916 suppressing an Irish strike for freedom
No, you have never "explained the multiple problems" with my writing, although I have repeatedly invited you to do so. You have simply relied on dismissive descriptors like "atrocious" and "mess which while they express your displeasure don't offer any constructive suggestion of how it might be improved. ManfredHugh ( talk) 10:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
References
This graph is particularly egregious as on first impression it appears as if there are twice as many Protestants compared to Catholics when the difference is only roughly 2%, I recommend it be removed entirely or be replaced by a more fair graph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.16.49 ( talk) 02:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I do understand, but the "egregiousness" of the Sinn Fein flyer in this respect (also objected to by some within SF) is the point: it is an illustration of a communal politics of that focuses on sectarian head counts. The graph is identified as coming from an SF election flyer. Maybe it should read, "detail from a CONTROVERSIAL Sinn Fein election flyer". ManfredHugh ( talk)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Ulster Unionism and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Ulster Unionism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Heanor (
talk)
19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Unionist (Northern Ireland) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Unionist (Northern Ireland) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Heanor (
talk)
19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Unionism (North Ireland) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Unionism (North Ireland) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Heanor (
talk)
19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Ulster unionism and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Ulster unionism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Heanor (
talk)
19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Ulster unionists and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Ulster unionists until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Heanor (
talk)
19:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Ulster unionist and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Ulster unionist until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Heanor (
talk)
19:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Given the context of the sentence, I changed this back to the literal translation. As a compromise however, I added the 'known as' comment. There is no other "Book of the Taking of Ireland" to confuse this with, and the Wikilink points directly to the article in question. The common 'translation' is also, ironically, part of historical revisionism. -- Mal 08:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
This section begins with a reference to brutal killings, to which are linked the British army and the police. I think that this is badly phrased, rather than deliberately incorrect. I've left it because I don't like trespassing on other people's pages, but I think that it could do with being looked at. -- Major Bonkers 12:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There are four Protestants in the current Dáil: Seymour Crawford, Mildred Fox, Jan O'Sullivan and Trevor Sargent. What about Ivan Yates and Martin Manseragh ? Im not sure how relevent this anyway. None of the 4 TD's (or 3 Senators) AFaIK are Unionists. In anycase a Southern neo-Unionist in this day and age is as likely to be Roman Catholic (or of "other" or no religion) as Protestant !
Could someone go to the foot of the article on Cruithne (people) and flesh out the Unionist notion described there, that Scots settlers in Ulster are descended from the original inhabitants of the province? Or is there a separate article on this matter?-- Shtove 17:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Irish Unionist Alliance
The Reform Movement (Realising our Common Future)
The Irish Association
http://www.irish-association.org
Dublin University (Trinity College) Young Unionists
http://www.csc.tcd.ie/~unionist/
Ethnic cleansing in the free state - Protestants in Republic of Ireland : New Statesman July 10, 1998
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_n4393_v127/ai_20967818
Aughavey 3 July 2005 21:54 (UTC) (Craig openly condoned discrimination against Catholics.) I`m not sure the above is quite true - he did however state: July 12 1932 - James Craig
"ours is a Protestant Government and I am an Orangeman" As NI Prime Minister, at Orange demonstration at Pontzpass, Co. Armagh
April 24 1934 - James Craig (Lord Craigavon) "I have always said that I am an Orangeman first and a politician and member of this Parliament afterwards - They still boast of Souther Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast of is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State" As NI Prime Minister, at Stormont.
and to put that in context
Eamon de Valera Prime Minister of the Irish Free State / Irish Republic 1930
"Justifying the sacking of a properly appointed librarian in Mayo, because, though highly qualified, she was a Protestant, de Valera argued in June 1930: "I say the people of Mayo in a county where I think 98% of the population is Catholic are justified in insisting on a Catholic librarian." He went on to widen the issue indeed, and asserted: "a Protestant doctor ought not to be appointed as a dispensary doctor in a mainly Catholic area."
(But De Valera was in Opposition before 1932. So he cannot be accused of making that decision regarding the librarian.)
Mayo County Council made the decision. But for the state's Opposition leader to back them unequivocally was definitely sectarian populism.
Lapsed Pacifist 16:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Not long after partition:-
During the debate on compulsory Irish, Deputy
Wolfe (a Protestant)
protested:
"I doubt if compelling people to learn is a good way of spreading the
language; it is a very difficult thing to compel an Irishman to do
anything." It is still a compulsory requirement to this day (2005) that you must speak fluent Irish to gain employment as a Civil Servant in the Republic of Ireland.
Yeats a prominent Southern Irish Protestant TD in the Dail / Irish Parliament gave the Government a warning:
"If you show that this country, Southern Ireland, is going to be governed by Catholic ideas and by Catholic ideas alone, you will never get the North . . . You will put a wedge in the midst of this nation."
Quote: "It is still a compulsory requirement to this day (2005) that you must speak fluent Irish to gain employment as a Civil Servant in the Republic of Ireland."
Not so. The compulsory element of Irish in schools was removed in April 1973 (see Compulsory Irish by Adrian Kelly), and was removed in 1974 as a requirement for the civil service.
Actually the Study of Gaelic is still compulsary in Irish Schools. All the so-called abolition of compulsary Irish did was to end the situation where if one failed Irish in theie exams one was deemed to have failed the entire exam ! And this wasnt a retroactive change either There are still many people in Ireland today who effectively have no educational qualifications whatsoever because they failed one Irish exam !.
The term 'Southern Ireland' is nonsensical, geographically and politically. That country simply does not exist. The term is Republic of Ireland.
Northern Unionism can not be predominantly Presbyterian as that would be insufficient to maintain a unionist majority. The Presbyterians are the largest religious bloc, but the Church of Ireland is generally just as unionist and only a few percentage points below the size of the Presbyterians. MnJWalker Also there is a geographical divide between Presbyterianism and Anglicanism with Presbyterianism being dominant in the North and East of Northern Ireland and Anglicans (Church of Ireland) being the dominant (Protestant) religion aross the rest of the Island.
Some anonymous individual claims above that WB Yeats said "this country, Southern Ireland". I'd like to see the evidence for Yeats's use of that loyalist term. His country was Ireland, a fact which he was very proud of. El Gringo 05:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Admitidely Southern Ireland may not be a TECHNICALLY correct description of the Republic of Ireland (The most Northerly point of the Island being in the south and all that) however in the context of a discussion about Unionism or Nationalsm the term "Southern Ireland" is arguably more readily understood by people living outside (the island of) Ireland. It is certainly far less misleading than the widespread practice of referring to the Republic (as opposed to the Island as a whole) as "Ireland" (as enshrined in Article 4 of The Republic's 1938 constitution) or the even more confusing term Irish Republic unwittingly used by many Unionists (and others) to describe "the south" when it actually refers to the notional All-Ireland republic to which nationalists aspire. And for a short period prior to the establishment of the free state there WAS an legal entity called "Southern Ireland" albeit largely existing on paper.
SO THE DUCK GOES INTO THE BAR AND SAYS " WHERES MY MARGIRITA!" AND THE BARTENDER SAYS " ITS ON FIRE!" LOL
SARAH NEEDS TO WORK ON HER REVOLUTION MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alright, hands up who did this?
EmpComm
20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone help me get my head around the following phrase?
“ | Everyday life in Northern Ireland reflects the rest of the UK, sharing the same newspapers, roadsigns, postcodes etc. Irish culture, of course, influences the province as well. | ” |
It makes it sound like Northern Ireland is some sort of cultural blank slate, appropriating the culture of its next-door-neighbour, when in fact many "Irish" things are intrinsically bound up with Ulster and the north. We wouldn't say Irish culture "influences" the Republic of Ireland, would we? Martin 00:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Most cultures are influenced by neighbouring cultures Northern Irish culture is heavily influenced by both Irish and British (mainly Scottish) cultures. Indeed Southern Irish culture is also influenced by British (mainly English) cultures and to a lesser extent that of the rest of the Anglosphere.
-The part that bothers me most is the term "provence". Ulster has 9 counties, Northern Ireland has 6, therefore to call the country a provence (as so many often do) is inaccurate.
EmpComm
20:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a politically neutral manner of referring to the North of the island of Ireland if one wants to include not only Northern Ireland but the northern part of the Republic, without implicitly passing comment on the legitimacy of Northern Ireland?-- Lucifer(sc) 13:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the Belfast agreement the term "Northern Ireland" is recognised by most people (including moderate nationalists) nowadays. Only hardline Irish Nationalists ("republicans") Insist on referring to it as "the six counties" or even "occupied Ireland". In casual conversation the terms "the North" and "the South" are widely accepted (despite the most Northerly point on the Island actually being in "the South") but only makes sense when all the speakers are actually IN Ireland 87.113.19.12 18:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Whatever we do, let's not forget Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan are part of Ulster, but not part of Northern Ireland (or the North/Occupied Ireland/Six Counties, etc) -
EmpComm
20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
What in the world is the Donegal Progressive Party? Dermo69 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Does this group still exist? They sound like a splendid group of people with a very worthy cause! Donegal should have never been included in the Republic. It's inclusion was a sad mistake of history. YourPTR! 16:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
According to the Politics.ie Wiki # they last contested a local election in 1999 according to this posting on Boards.ie they are still registered as a party but dont have a website They also get brief mentions here and here 80.229.222.48 21:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Are there any viable running disputes that really merit the inclusion of this tag. If so, could we please have them outlined and addressed. Thanks.-- Breadandcheese ( talk) 04:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the logic behind: "Irish unionists opposed Home Rule for many reasons. Much of their support in southern and western Ireland (the provinces of Munster, Leinster and Connacht) came from landed gentry who feared that a nationalist assembly would introduce property and taxation laws more suitable to a small island than the laws imposed from Westminster, which were designed for a much larger area, the entire United Kingdom." I fail to see how Ireland being a slightly smaller island than Britian is at all relevent. Other factors may have made UK law less just in Ireland than in Britian, but not island size. matturn 02:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
"I fail to see how Ireland being a slightly smaller island than Britian is at all relevent"- This statement betrays a misunderstanding of the authors argument. Ireland at this point was part of the United Kingdom, or Britain. He was not comparing the size of Ireland with mainland Britain, rather Ireland with the entire United Kingdom-including the island of Ireland. I think that it is a fair point to argue that the United Kingdom in its entirety was a much larger area, and that a different set of property and taxation laws would plausibly be appropriate there than in a self-determined area the size Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.63.116.72 ( talk) 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is seriously bad in large areas. It mucks up terminology, makes sweeping generalisations, veers from a pro-republican bias (I should have known
Lapsed Pacifist had edited it!) to an over-the-top Unionist bias, then jumps between the two. It contains a lot of POV crap about "neo-Unionists" (except in Sinn Féin-speak there ain't no such thing). Oh gawd, it is so substandard and unencyclopaediac it is almost funny. BTW Ivan Yates is retired from the Dáil years ago!!! The fact that the article cannot even get that fact speaks volumes for how bad it is. And who the heck is so bad at spelling? Senete??? For crying out loud! This article is a thorough embarrassment.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
04:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
There IS such thing as a neo-Unionist. Not many but more than most people realise. I am a neo-Unionist although admitidely I no longer live in the Republic 87.113.19.12 18:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph does state that "the number of Unionists in what is now the Republic of Ireland declined to a point where their numbers were widely regarded as almost insignificant" So wheres the dispute ? As for inaccuracies regarding spelling, numbers of representitives in parliament etc why dont you correct it instead of complaining about it in here ? Oh and yes there are a few of us left. Southern Unionism may not exactly be fashionable (for now ?) but it certainly still exists 194.165.161.133 13:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is appalling. It mentions the partition of Ireland without any attempt to put it into context, it's blatantly politically biased throughout.
This article is missing the very start of unionist organisation - the opposition ot the Repeal of the union in the 1840s. You can read an article aspects of this here http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/01/20/loyal-dublin-the-dublin-protestant-operative-association/ . I'm going to write a paragraph on this for the history section. Regards. Jdorney ( talk) 15:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Added citation needed to the following line. Discrimination, however, took place, particularly in the areas of housing, employment and local government representation. The extent of such discrimination is disputed,[citation needed] and there was also widespread poverty among Protestants.
The fact that there was discrimination is undisputed as there is overwhelming evidence that there was. The added line (The extent of such discrimination is disputed) looks strange in this context and looks like it was added by a different editor who is not happy that this is mentioned. It is used to cast doubt on what are known to be facts but rather than delete the entry I will give the editor a chance to back up that statement with facts. Who disputes this? Are they notable? Do you have any sources to back this up? Tcla75 ( talk) 11:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Unionism in the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 15:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Snappy, why are you removing " Ulster" from the description of Ulster Protestant people? Gob Lofa ( talk) 20:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
As I stated in my first comment, we can call blue for some matters which we know to be true. Most Unionists in Ireland are Ulster Protestants. Mabuska (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think we've gone a bit off what the original issue here is, and I think I have found the obvious solution that was always on Wiki. Snappy opposes Gob Lofa's wish to link Protestant and Catholic to Irish Catholic and Ulster Protestants. I can understand the opposition to it, however there are two better wikilinks we can use that shouldn't be any trouble: Protestantism in Ireland and Roman Catholicism in Ireland. Surely that is the most common sense solution that makes more sense than just linking to Protestant and Catholic and makes more sense than just linking to Ulster Protestant and Irish Catholic? Mabuska (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I assume this redirect is the one you are on about: "Snappy, where were your references when you redirected [Ulster Protestants] to Unionism in Ireland? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)" - None are needed because Ulster Protestants redirects to Protestants of Ulster. Mabuska (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Unionism in Ireland. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hard to believe only two editors (including nominator) had anything to say, during 1st nomination, which resulted in non admin closure due to lack of consensus, which is an intolerable and inexplicable outcome. See here. Quis separabit? 15:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Unionism in Ireland. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://cormembers.cor.eu.int/cormembers.aspx?critName=&critCountry=GB&critFunction=MEM%7CALT&critGroup=&critDossier=&iaction=Search{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.openrepublic.org/open_republic/20050619_vol1_no1/content/20050619_ru.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://irishloyal.awardspace.info/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=28{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vhKILW7FcTMJ:www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_n4393_v127/ai_20967818+%22Ethnic+cleansing+in+the+free+state+%22&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=2When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Unionism in Ireland. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
This article has undergone some rather significant changes over the last couple of days, from this version to the current version by @ ManfredHugh:. Personally, I think the current version is an absolute disaster. Taking just one section as an example Unionism in Ireland#Protestant unity and the New Reformation is full of unencyclopedic language such as:
What should be done to this article, that now resembles several badly written essays? Revert back to the previous version? Revert just some of the recent changes? Leave it as it is? FDW777 ( talk) 16:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, maybe this is language open to misinterpretation and needs to be partly reworked. Whatever the difficulties, which I think can be ironed out, the the version had even more seriously problems and omissions. ManfredHugh — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManfredHugh ( talk • contribs)
Actually the more I consider it, the more I agree with the criticism. Among other problems, my revisions are too "essay" like for an encyclopaedic articles--though obviously I believe they some merit and the previous version does have serious problems. But for now I think it is best to revert to the version as of 6 February. ManfredHugh
Well we could start by taking out the section you have cited as an example of broader problems, on Cooke and the call for Protestant Unity. Cooke and the New Reformation are critical to the history of Irish Unionism--and acknowledged as such in the scholarship. But this does need reworking. Faced with something which was just a jumble with very limited references, I did get a bit carried away. ManfredHugh
I have not looked at the article in depth, but I see sentences such as The dismay of many was compounded by the seemingly easy relationship he developed with Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, an admitted former member (and it was widely believed, former Chief of Staff) of the IRA, routinely denounced by Paisley as "vermin."
that is supposedly referenced by
this BBC article. Please ensure any text already in the article, and that is added in future, is what the references say. If this is not done shortly I will not hesitate to remove policy violating sentences per
WP:BURDEN.
FDW777 (
talk)
13:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The title is Unionism in Ireland however the focus is Unionism in Northern Ireland. There is a separate wiki article on the Irish Unionist Alliance which perhaps could usefully be merged in as well as mention of Irish politicians such as Conor Cruise O'Brien who have stood as Unionist candidates for Dáil and Seanad. There is some very positional language, such as referring to the government of Ireland as "the Dublin government". I am not familiar enough with the material to correct this myself. 83.217.149.238 ( talk) 19:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The title Unionism in Ireland goes back several years to an original entry. Perhaps there might be a case for two separate articles: one on Irish Unionism (i.e. Unionism until 1922) and another on Unionism in Northern Ireland, although there is a lot we can't understand about the later without knowledge of the former.
Very "positional language"--that is a problem if it is the case. But as to "the Dublin government" I don't know what the implied position might be. I think it is just used for variation. But if you think "Government of the Free State," or "Government of the Republic of Ireland", or simply "the Irish Government" would in all cases be better, that can be changed. ManfredHugh ( talk) 17:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Proposed mass reversion of two articles. Thank you. FDW777 ( talk) 20:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
(Please note that in my following questions and discussion, I mean no value judgment whatsoever on the merits of any particular religious group, religious persuasion, or ethnic group. I hope for universal friendship and love.)
I find some of this article confusing, esp. w/ regard to the various Protestant churches extant in Ireland in the last 2+ centuries. Notably, were most adherents of the Church of Ireland, which is Anglican ("Episcopal" in the US), part of unionism? Were most adherents of ALL "noncomformist churches" (an "Isles", but not US, term) part of unionism? It would be helpful if the article clarified these, without too much "Isles" jargon.
It appears from the article as it currently reads, that most of the 19th century Protestant adherents on the Irish island were Presbyterian, Methodist, and Anglican. Is this true? I have assumed from what I've read elsewhere that most Presbyterians on the Irish Isle are descended from immigrants from Scotland, and that the Methodists and Anglicans there are mostly descended from immigrants from England & Wales, but perhaps I am misinformed. (However, if I am not misinformed, this leads to a sadly ironic conclusion that the two main politically-opposed groups in 20th century Northern Ireland were both ethnically mostly Celtic - of Irish-Scottish origins, except that anyone named "Fitz-Something" also had paternal Norman ancestry - that is, French-Viking.)
Clarification of my confusion: I am not familiar with all of the subtleties of the history of Protestantism in the "Isles"; I myself was raised and remain in the US (although dual citizen by virtue of being born in UK, of a UK dad and a US mom who remained together for life, neither of whom adhered to any particular religion). I note also that most US readers have no clue what a "noncomformist church" means, in any context. (I personally have only recently come to understand that, in the "Isles", "noncomformist" means all, or almost all, Protestant churches other than Anglican. I have not yet figured out whether Lutheran churches (of which there are a lot in the US) would also be considered "noncomformist" in the "Isles".) I suspect that some Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders would understand this stuff a bit better than US residents would. OTH, modern residents of the "Isles" are likely aware that most US residents adhere to a huge variety of Christian religions, plus many others.
(I note the British Isles naming dispute. Therefore, here I just call them the "Isles".) Acwilson9 ( talk) 02:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Still atrocious, since it's an editor's personal sandbox for their unencyclopedic essay prose. My browser counts over 500 quotation marks in the article, granted there will be a few reasonable quotes but there's still plenty of rubbish. Examples, not just limited to overuse of quotations, include
That's just a few that jumped off the page up to the Partition section, the essay writing continues throughout. Other issues include problematic synthesis of references to suit a particular agenda. Example
David Cameron was responsible for the Brexit referendum. He came to power in 2010. So, enlighten me, what do references from 2005 and 2007 have to do with a sentence about Brexit? I think, to use a micro-quote of my own, "absolutely nothing" would be the answer to that question. The one reference that is anything to do with Brexit doesn't reference the "necessary measure" part of the sentence.
The problems with the editor responsible's prose were summarised
here, the most relevant part is The concept is that your style of writing is not fit for purpose. You are not writing a book on history, you are not writing an essay or a thesis. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia which needs to be as accessible by everyone as possible. There is a manner of writing which is considered the standard. You may not like it, but as long as you don't submit to using it, you will find yourself facing this criticism in every article you touch
. This article is a mess, and is in dire need of a rewrite by someone capable of writing in an acceptable style.
FDW777 (
talk)
18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
-This is from R. F. Foster's standard reference and the same point is made by many other historians of the period: namely that in delaying Emancipation thirty years, Britain may have passed up the opportunity to reconcile Irish Catholics to the Union as a minority (as distinct from the majority they would form in a separate Irish parliament). But if you don't think the use of Foster's exact phrase helpful, we can just say minority.
-Personal witness and New Reformation are not "micro quotations" but terms put in quotation marks because they are concepts within a particular time and place. The basic point made by Prof. Andrew Holmes (who is referenced) is critical: the new 19th century Protestant revivalism in emphasising personal religious experience and testimony de-emphasised the various denominational differences between Protestants, and that became opportunity for the likes of the Rev Cooke to preach and advance Protestant political unity.
-It is clear from the proceeding sentence, that this is what Cooke proposed. Does the meaning of "common safety" need to spelled out? I think in the context it is clear, and is made clearer in what follows.
-This is the basic dynamic underscored by all histories of the period and of unionism: as Nationalists gained influence at Westminster, Protestant unionists progressively sank their differences to create a unionist alliance embracing all denominations and classes of Protestants. True unionism here does not need to be in quotation.
-This is proceeded by a description of the severe limitations on the Irish legislature envisaged by the first Home Rule Bill. The point of quoted Shaw is to illustrate that even unionists didn't believe acceptable to nationalists, and that unionists agreed with many nationalists that for Ireland the only alternative to complete integration with Great Britain was complete separation.
-Perhaps we could just say, 'a noted critic of Orangism'. What is discussed here is how the Convention was reported in the unionist press, namely as a first gathering of unionists of all different persuasions and interests (so that Orangemen could attend of convention convened by one of their leading opponents within the broader Protestant community)
-Yes maybe scrap "on behalf of ... " etc.
-Yes the original language is a bit arcane and perhaps needs interpretation. But again the point is critical: as early as 1846, the unionist press was seeking to turn the nationalists' argument for separation from Britain against them by suggesting that ethnicity and religion could equally argue for a separation of north and south.
-While this is the observation just about every history makes, it needs to be made clear that the language is republican
-again, I am having to guess at the issues, but maybe the quotation could be dispensed with, and the point more simply made that Craig believed that having at least the appearances of a separate government in Belfast, a hostile majority in Westminster would find it more difficult to push Northern Ireland toward unification with the South.
At a time when Sinn Féin was citing the cross-border, all-island, economic activity facilitated and supported by the EU as a further argument for Irish unity[1][2] there was a sense that Brexit would restore a necessary measure of "distance" from Dublin.[3]~ David Cameron was responsible for the Brexit referendum. He came to power in 2010. So, enlighten me, what do references from 2005 and 2007 have to do with a sentence about Brexit? I think, to use a micro-quote of my own, "absolutely nothing" would be the answer to that question. The one reference that is anything to do with Brexit doesn't reference the "necessary measure" part of the sentence. --What is being discussed is not Cameron's decision to commit a Conservative government to a referendum on EU membership. It is why the DUP, when given the opportunity to vote on the issue in 2016, opted for leave, and a number of commentators suggest that one reason was that Sinn Fein (which had originally opposed the EU) increasingly depicted cross-border EU membership as a glide rail to increasing north-south integration. If you don't think the references support that there would be plenty where they came from.
This Wiki entry is for a two-hundred year history of what is ultimately the political tradition, not of a party, but of a society with many and conflicting political, social and economic elements. For the years since the Good Friday to be sure, I have had to drawn more on press reports and commentary as histories of the period have yet to be written. Regards ManfredHugh ( talk)
Contingents of republican Irish Volunteers and Connolly's Citizen Army, ensured that while Irishmen, at Redmond's urging, were sacrificing themselves for the sake of “Catholic Belgium,” Britain could be seen on the streets of Dublin in Easter 1916 suppressing an Irish "strike for freedom"
As the militants saw it, contingents of republican Irish Volunteers and Connolly's Citizen Army ensured that while Irishmen, at Redmond's urging, were sacrificing themselves for the sake of Belgium, Britain could be seen on the streets of Dublin in Easter 1916 suppressing an Irish strike for freedom
No, you have never "explained the multiple problems" with my writing, although I have repeatedly invited you to do so. You have simply relied on dismissive descriptors like "atrocious" and "mess which while they express your displeasure don't offer any constructive suggestion of how it might be improved. ManfredHugh ( talk) 10:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
References
This graph is particularly egregious as on first impression it appears as if there are twice as many Protestants compared to Catholics when the difference is only roughly 2%, I recommend it be removed entirely or be replaced by a more fair graph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.16.49 ( talk) 02:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I do understand, but the "egregiousness" of the Sinn Fein flyer in this respect (also objected to by some within SF) is the point: it is an illustration of a communal politics of that focuses on sectarian head counts. The graph is identified as coming from an SF election flyer. Maybe it should read, "detail from a CONTROVERSIAL Sinn Fein election flyer". ManfredHugh ( talk)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Ulster Unionism and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Ulster Unionism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Heanor (
talk)
19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Unionist (Northern Ireland) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Unionist (Northern Ireland) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Heanor (
talk)
19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Unionism (North Ireland) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Unionism (North Ireland) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Heanor (
talk)
19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Ulster unionism and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Ulster unionism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Heanor (
talk)
19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Ulster unionists and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Ulster unionists until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Heanor (
talk)
19:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Ulster unionist and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#Ulster unionist until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Heanor (
talk)
19:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)