Talk:Northern Ireland

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Stay Safe[edit]

This section is in need of monitoring. I have rewritten the first part of the section. What I replaced was poorly written nonsense that wilfully glossed over the problems that unfortunately still blight our little corner of the world. The statement that the likelihood of Islamic terror attacks in England might outweigh that of dissident attacks in NI is statistically ludicrous and simply not true by any standard.

Visitors to NI are still anxious about the security situation, and this is a shame. However, we do them no service at all to claim that news accounts about the province are 'sensationalised'. I would argue, in fact, that NI issues are given very little air time on UK news programmes. Also, the notion that security alerts do not affect tourists is a lie - look at recent targeting of Santander branches by bombers and car bombs in Derry/Londonderry that force the evacuation of tourist hotels.

It is the unfortunate truth that NI is still at a high risk of terror attacks. Tourists need to be aware of this and deserve to know the facts prior to visiting. (WT-en) Jamezcd 12:53, 22 February 2012 (EST)

Social Issues question[edit]

Where did you find information about the violence against people of East Asian heritage?  I can't find any articles supporting this claim or mentioning this incident.

is comprised of[edit]

"comprise" means "include". "is comprised of" is an error caused by confusion of "is composed of" and "comprises", which mean about the same thing. The OED has "comprise of" (obsolete), "is comprised in", and even "is comprised upon", but not "is comprised of". It's common, but wrong. See [1], [2]. You can also say "consists of". -(WT-en) phma 12:53, 18 Aug 2004 (EDT)

From the latest online edition of the OED. 
"    c. pass. To be composed of, to consist of.  1874 Art of Paper-Making ii. 10 Thirds, or Mixed, are comprised of either or both of the above. 1928 Daily Tel. 17 July 10/7 The voluntary boards of management, comprised..of very zealous and able laymen. 1964 E. PALMER tr. Martinet's Elem. Gen. Ling. i. 28 Many of these words are comprised of monemes. 1970 Nature 27 June 1206/2 Internally, the chloroplast is comprised of a system of flattened membrane sacs."
They seem to be under the impression that it is fine for use, and sincedefinitive source of correct English I'm willing to go with that. '(WT-en) Ben W Bell 07:04, 19 Aug 2004 (EDT)'

I think that you should put a red hand of Ulster flag rather than the Union Jack as the flag of Northern Ireland, and maybe a smaller image of the Union Jack beside it??

Flag issue[edit]

The Red Hand flag is not an official banner for Northern Ireland. Perhaps a Union Jack would be better?

  • The 'Ulster Banner' (St George's cross with red hand in six pointed star) stopped being the official flag in Northern Ireland in 1973, therefore the only flag of Northern Ireland is that of the UK - the Union Jack. If the Ulster Banner is shown then so should the Irish tricolour as neither represent it, but represent the two main communities.
I agree with the above. The Ulster Banner has absolutely no official status in Northern Ireland, and should not be represented as the flag of that territory. I am unsure why Sertmann has chosen to revert my edit removing the Ulster Banner, and I wish he would discuss it here.163.1.234.109 22:08, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
Quickbars add very little in a country article, and add even less to these provincal articles.  Just about everyhing on the quickbar is the same as that for the UK, and the couple of items that vary are at best sloppy, and at worst wrong.  The flag is wrong, the government is unenlightening, and the language is unhelpful (Although I am keen to brush up my Ulster Scot).  I'm in favour of ditching the whole quickbar.  --(WT-en) Inas 22:23, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
Now that you mention it, I'd also be in favor of this--at least for sub-state units. I know the analogy with the UK home nations isn't a very good one, but I think it's instructive that neither Canadian provinces nor U.S. states have the sidebar. It's hard to see how this particular collection of miscellaneous facts really helps the traveller; the whole thing seems more suited to Wikipedia than Wikivoyage.163.1.234.109 14:08, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
I fully support the proposal to strip this article of its quickbar, and suggest bringing up this topic for the other home nations at Talk:United Kingdom.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:27, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
While I don't object to the removal of the quickboxes for the home nations, let me just say on the account of the Ulster banner, that my reason for reverting is we don't need to take the precautions on this matter that, say, Wikipedia does - I don't want to speak against someone obviously more knowledgeable on the matter than I am - But in Denmark, it is the de facto flag of Northern Ireland when we compete against Northern Irish sporting teams etc. and even FIFA uses it too, hence my reversions - but I do tend to do those a bit blindfolded for anonymous edits on guides like Northern Ireland, Catalonia and Israel. Anyway, now that I got an explanation, please feel free to revert it back. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 15:47, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
After making sure all the info was elsewhere in the article, I removed the quickbar.  Lets see if the move gets acceptance before moving onto the relatively bigger targets of the other UK provinces.  --(WT-en) Inas 19:36, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Naming[edit]

I notice we are gathering a Naming section again here.  I'll make the point that no visitor to Northern Ireland is going to go there and call it the six counties - that is a phrasing reserved for those who are knowledgeable enough to know the story.  Neither is anyone likely to refer to Britain as the mainland unless they are deliberately making a point.  Last time this complex series of instructions was whittled down to the fact that visitors should just refer to the place as Northern Ireland - nice and simple.  --(WT-en) Inas 17:27, 5 December 2011 (EST)


Citizenship[edit]

Frank, nobody argued that there is an NI citizenship, instead they have two (Irish and UK). I think that is relevant for travellers because due to an historic agreement people don't have to decide which country they intend/want belong to. That is part of the culture. You try to make something totally different from it. jan (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Good Friday Agreement says that every NI can be Irish or British or both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland#Citizenship_and_identity If you don't like the wording, this can be argued but it is true and interesting to see that people can be both and don't have to decide (if they wish so). Such role models could be a good solution for other conflicts. jan (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Frank, when we agree that there is no NI citizenship why you intervene so hard? It is an interesting point and especially travellers from outside of the European context might be interested in the conflict resolution in Northern Ireland. As stated again, i'm open to discuss the wording but it is relevant for travellers to understand on what base this solution is built. jan (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"all citizens of Northern Ireland are automatically granted dual British and Irish citizenship" ! ? ![edit]

There is no such thing as NI citizenship, of course.

Many folks that are foreign to the North East Atlantic Archipelago/British Isles, do not realise that all citizens of Ireland and the UK have always been able to vote in all elections and stand for the legislatures of both countries and the "Good Friday agreement" did not change that.

There has never been any citizenship bar or test to a citizen of the Republic of Ireland becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and, equally, there has never been any citizenship bar or test to a citizen of the United Kingdom becoming the Taoiseach of Ireland.

It was, therefore a complete non sequitur to write in an edit summary: "I think it is relevant because people can political participate in two countries and share that with travellers" there was no obstacle to full political participation before the "Good Friday agreement" and no direct improvement afterwards. The "Good Friday agreement" had (and has) absolutely no effect on political participation - so the question of whether "citizens" can share that untrue perspective "with travellers" simply does not arise.

Citizens of Ireland and the UK have never been treated as "aliens" in either Ireland or the UK and the "Good Friday agreement" did not change that.

Notwithstanding the complexities of the agreement, very little of it is relevant to visitors, apart from the greater feelings of safety and peace it has produced.

I'm not going to revert this silly nonsense inaccurate and irrelevant edit, but perhaps someone else can research the position and correct this double reversion so we don't appear less authoritative and irrelevant than we need to. --W. Frankemailtalk 16:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm German and, if I'm a visitor to Northern Ireland, I couldn't give two hoots whether the person who serves me in a Belfast bar has an Irish, British or Lithuanian passport. The citizenship of the locals is simply not relevant to most travellers.

I'm German and if I, leave my abode in Glasgow and, become resident in (or a citizen of, in another meaning of the word) Belfast, the "Good Friday agreement" changed nothing for me too. Just by living in Northern Ireland for any length of time, I don't suddenly and "automatically" get "granted dual British and Irish citizenship"! I remain a bloody German ! The "Good Friday agreement" did not materially change the naturalisation laws of either country.

The only important thing that the "Good Friday agreement" changed regarding citizenship was the right of either the Irish or UK governments to withdraw citizenship in the future as a result of changes in the status of Northern Ireland. Nobody either gained or lost citizenship as the direct or indirect result of the "Good Friday agreement" whether they were born there or were just long time residents.

That's why I reverted this irrelevant and factually WRONG addition and why someone else should now remove its re-addition and then, if they think it vital to a travel article on NI propose alternative wording below so that wording can be checked for both factual accuracy and relevance. --W. Frankemailtalk 16:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Would a good compromise be perhaps to say residents rather than citizens? --Nick talk 22:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Blessed are the peacemakers, Nick, but unfortunately "all residents of Northern Ireland are automatically granted dual British and Irish citizenship" is just as wrong and just as irrelevant to most travellers. If you follow both my edits and sermons, you know that I rarely revert anything that is not a copyvio or vandalism. This phrase was neither, but I can see no way to rescue either its accuracy or relevancy - or I would have done so already. That's not to say it's impossible - just that I don't know how to do it. --W. Frankemailtalk 22:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
First of all, I understand this edit was added by the user TheDog2, who actually seems to go around all the countries in the world adding 'quick facts'. I often have to fix the ones he/she does in South Korea. Secondly, the statement is in fact false. People in Northern Ireland are not automatically Irish citizens, however they are free choose to be British, Irish or both as they so choose: (from the Wikipedia page on the Good Friday Agreement)
"...it is the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly [the two governments] confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland."
I would just change the text to say that "People born in Northern Ireland are free to choose British Citizenship, Irish Citizenship, or both". Any objections? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) That's certainly much closer to the truth and if that was what had been originally added I wouldn't have batted an eyelid.
(Edit conflict) However, if your parents are (for example) both Iraqui asylum seekers without permanent residence rights in either Ireland or the UK and you are born in Belfast, that would still be an incorrect statement (ie you could not choose British Citizenship nor Irish Citizenship) since the Irish nationality laws were changed from a pure jus soli (the right to citizenship of the country of birth) basis on 1 Jan 2005 and the British nationality laws have been subject to a whole series of successive changes since 1 Jan 1983.
(Edit conflict) Nationality law is a really complex subject (British nationality and right of residence laws are now probably the most complex in the world) and I really think we do more of a dis-service by mentioning them at all. I'd hold that view (ie we need several pages to explain the topic adequately) if we were an encyclopaedia; since we're a travel guide, I still think the whole topic of the nationality of the locals doesn't need to be mentioned at all. I really don't think that a more accurate passage such as: "People born in Northern Ireland were free to choose British, Irish or any other nationality according to the relevant nationality law; the "Good Friday Agreement" did not change that. Ireland and the UK, in common with many Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth countries, raise no problems with its citizens also holding other nationalities." is either needed or relevant and the offending passage should simply be removed as factually wrong and irrelevant. --W. Frankemailtalk 10:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I just went ahead and changed to: "As part of the agreement, all people born in Northern Ireland may choose British, Irish or duel citizenship." I hope this is now accurate and will allow us to focus on the travel guide aspect of this? :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Andresssi2: Thank you for your effort! jan (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no huge urgency to add these kind of passages. Let's try and agree a passage that is both accurate and relevant here on the discussion page before adding (or not adding) it to the article.

You asked for objections a couple of hours ago, Andrewssi2, and while I was writing my objection you went ahead and added another wrong passage. Please actually read the agreement (http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IE%20GB_980410_Northern%20Ireland%20Agreement.pdf) and then tell me the part that actually changed the nationality régime NOW (rather than in some hypothetical future)? --W. Frankemailtalk 10:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that I was too hasty in the edit, although rather than read through the whole 'Good Friday Agreement' I simply referred to the wikipedia entry on the same subject. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland#Citizenship_and_identity ) and I don't agree that my change was wrong.
Now, the statement I wrote was actually slightly incorrect. It should be: "As part of the agreement, all people born in Northern Ireland with at least one British or Irish parent may choose British, Irish or duel citizenship.". This is still simplified, since the UK holds that all people born with a British parent are automatically UK citizens (who may however renounce this citizenship) and the Republic of Ireland extends Irish nationality to those born in Northern Ireland who wish to take on Irish citizenship. Still have objections? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
BTW, the 'Good Friday Agreement' (as you say) is not a law in itself. The constitution was subsequently changed in the Republic of Ireland to adapt to it in 2004. (The British law did not require a change). Does this meet your criterion for a change in the law? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why this is so difficult. I suspect it is because people are just taking a few moments to read Wikipedia's (sometimes right, sometimes wrong) summaries rather than putting in the hours of study needed for this complex subject. When I was running a company, back in the nineties and noughties our HR department and myself put in weeks of study finding loopholes to gain Irish and or British nationality for Russian, Ukrainian and Moldovan programmers that we wanted to import - that's why my own knowledge of this complex topic is not insignificant.
There are at least two reasons why your suggested phrase should not be added.
Relevancy We have (previously) managed to have a relatively small and condensed "History" section. The part about the Good Friday agreement already occupies about 20% of this whole History of Northern Ireland section:
"In 1998, after years of sporadic negotiations between the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the paramilitary groups and local political parties, The Agreement was signed, signalling the end of violence in the province. This is often referred to as the Belfast Agreement or the Good Friday Agreement after the place or day on which it was signed. Although there was an almost immediate drop in the level of terrorist acts and rioting, it took several years for stability to settle on the region and for agreement to be reached concerning the devolved government."
I simply fail to see how adding a section on nationality law is either relevant or proportionate.
Accuracy Please see above where, many times, I point out that the Agreement changed NOTHING as far as nationality law or passports. It may have an effect in some hypothetical future where NI became an integral part of the Republic since the agreement would forbid either government changing their nationality laws to withdraw UK citizenship from those folks who were already entitled to it by virtue of birth in NI before the border change. I'm sorry to labour the point, but please find and quote me the part in the Agreement which means "As part of the agreement, all people born in Northern Ireland with at least one British or Irish parent may choose British, Irish or duel (sic) citizenship." I really don't think you even begin to appreciate the nuances of the nationality laws here (which were not changed by the Agreement). Let's take my Iraqi asylum seekers without permanent residence rights in either Ireland or the UK as an example and change their nationality to Rohingya Muslims, who are not recognised as Burmese citizens and can not acquire Myanmar passports. If their sprog is born in Belfast, he would not have "at least one British or Irish parent" but the sprog would still be entitled to both British and Irish Citizenship not because of anything in or not in the Agreement but because when the Irish nationality laws were changed from a pure jus soli (the right to citizenship of the country of birth) basis on 1 Jan 2005 (and the British nationality laws since 1 Jan 1983), both legislatures inserted "lifeboat" clauses to ensure that any child born that would otherwise be without a valid citizenship, would still acquire jus soli rights.
Now, turning to Wikipedia. If you read it carefully (and bear in mind that it is a fallible summary and not the original agreement - which was, perhaps, deliberately ambiguous) it says "Irrespective of Northern Ireland's constitutional status within the United Kingdom, or part of a united Ireland, the right of people in Northern Ireland "to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both" (as well as their right to hold either or both British and Irish citizenship) was recognised." Note that word "recognised". Something that already existed was "recognised" - not established or re-established or changed. I repeat (probably ad nauseam by now) THE AGREEMENT DID NOT CHANGE, OR PURPORT TO CHANGE, OR ENCOURAGE CHANGE OF, NATIONALITY OR PASSPORT LAWS.
The changes to the Irish Constitution actually weakened the rights of people born in Northern Ireland to an Irish passport if they did anything at all directly regarding nationality. The old wording of Article 2 was
"The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas."
The new wording, adopted as a direct result of the provision in the Belfast Agreements, was to allow the people of Northern Ireland, if they wish, to feel included in the 'nation' without making what might be perceived as an extraterritorial claim:
"It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage."
It is at least arguable whether the 2005 law change was unconstitutional, since if you're deprived of the right to an Irish passport because at least one of your parents isn't British or Irish, I don't see how that squares with your constitutional right "to be part of the Irish Nation"!
--W. Frankemailtalk 11:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Frank, you make a big fuzz about a small thing. I think the phrase Andrewssi wrote is valid for more than 90% of the people born in NI. There are always loopholes when people gain or lose citizenship. If people don't have legal resident rights, common sense tells every sane people, that there will be trouble with the citizenship for the kids. See Hong Kong and pregnant Chinese mums for just one example. I think we need to see the realities, there are asylum seekers in NI but there are a tiny community in relation to the entire community. Based on Project:No_advice_from_Captain_Obvious everyone knows that generalisations always apply to the majority of cases but not each and every individual case. jan (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That wouldn't be obvious at all to an American, because in the US, it doesn't matter at all who your parents are or how they got to the country: If you are born in the US, you are an American citizen, period (unless you renounce your citizenship). Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
And the other point is that if what Frank is saying is accurate, the agreement didn't change these laws, anyway. I know we're not trying to give people immigration advice, but I don't agree with intentionally posting incorrect things, if that is what you propose to do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Frank, I think you are taking a very simple situation and making it extremely complicated. The intention of my statement was to reflect accurately what does indeed happen today, that generally people born in NI can (legally) choose their nationality or nationalities. I would suggest working towards a simple alternative to my statement rather than throw around arguments about Rohingya muslims. In any case I don't see how this discussion can be steered back onto a constructive path and therefore I respectfully withdraw from it.--Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
(same time edit as Andrewssi2) Ikan, as stated above, i'm happy about any change in wording. I think the Good Friday Agreement and the whole NI issue is a good case for peaceful conflict resolution. I think it is noteworthy to say that people do have dual citizenship because inclusive societies has not been the standard in Europe for decades (see conflicts with the Basques etc.). I liked Andrewssi2 formulation because it is simple but made others can phrase it better. jan (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I do agree that the dual citizenship thing is interesting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
What I don't know is how to make a reasonably simple, interesting statement that is still accurate. That's really above my depth, as I have no knowledge about British and Irish citizenship laws. Is there any relatively simple explanation on Wikipedia that we could quote or paraphrase with a citation? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
One of Alice's family members is entitled, as a matter of law, to passports from 7 different countries simultaneously - it's an interesting topic but not really appropriate in a travel article about Northern Ireland. It might make an interesting travel topic - leaving aside the topic of Jewish mums, did you know that if you go and learn terrific Turkish, even if you have no other connection to Turkey, there is a procedure for claiming a Turkish passport? --W. Frankemailtalk 12:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
No, but that would be an interesting thing to briefly mention in the Turkey article. Why do you think the choice of dual citizenship for such a large percentage of the Northern Irish population isn't an appropriate thing to mention? Not everything in the articles on this site is of obvious practical use to travellers; some of it (notably, a lot of the content in "Understand" sections) is merely interesting information that helps give readers some context to understand a bit about the place they may visit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The ability to claim an Irish passport is not limited to (probably) 98% of Northern Irelanders. Most people in Great Britain can also claim an Irish Passport if they want because they have a parent or grandparent with an Irish connection and the same "loophole" is taken advantage of by many Australians, Canadians, Kiwis and Sotuh Africans on their big "Overseas Experience" (OE) each year. Yanks are buggered, of course, because of their Zimbawean-like citizenship laws which means their conscious act of free will in applying for an Irish passport means they may lose their US citizenship. --W. Frankemailtalk 12:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I have two reactions to this: (1) I think you just came up with a good formulation for the article: 98% of Northern Irelanders can choose British, Irish, or dual citizenship. (2) There's no harm in stating that everyone (or most people, however it works out) who can show they have a parent or grandparent who came from Ireland can claim Irish citizenship, but that should be mentioned in the Ireland article, not here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth the thing about US citizens risking a loss of their US citizenship when applying for a foreign one is just simply not true. In fact it's really really hard to get rid of US citizenship. Once they have you they really don't want to let go. -- Mark (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that's broadly correct, Mark. The Philippines changed their dual allegiance laws in a similarly weasel worded, have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too way, relatively recently too. This is good news! The number of Paddies can increase exponentially! However, I still don't see the relevancy of any of this for our NI article - even if we could write something that was both short and accurate. --W. Frankemailtalk 14:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

Restore the "History" article text to the position it was in before this discussion began: https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&oldid=2395410#History

Start a new travel topic article entitled Multiple citizenship and legitimate foreign passport acquisition and then link to the Irish and British subsections from the "Get in" section of this NI article.

Any objections (hopefully that do not just reiterate the arguments in the main section) ? --W. Frankemailtalk 14:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm reading this right, is the only change you're proposing to make in the Northern Ireland article the deletion of the following sentence? "As part of the agreement, all people born in Northern Ireland may choose British, Irish or dual citizenship."
Yes. --W. Frankemailtalk 15:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I will say that I do think your proposed new travel topic is a travel-related topic because having multiple passports can make travel to certain countries easier, safer - even possible instead of impossible. But I tend to take a broad view of the scope of allowable topics, and therefore, I would say that this proposed topic should be discussed before any writing about it is begun. I can't think of anyplace more appropriate than Requested articles, but maybe someone else will have a better idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Frank, maybe i don't get the point: Where do you compromised concerning the article? jan (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't read for you, Jan, you'll have to do your own research on the accuracy (or otherwise) of the current (protected) text that you reverted to.
I don't think I wish to interact any further with you, but it's nice to see that you're taking an interest in Turkish currency now, too.
What are your concrete proposals, please? (If you don't reply, I will assume you favour letting the current inaccurate statement stand). --W. Frankemailtalk 16:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Usually we have a status quo bias and since User:The dog2 has not written here in support of her original edit and even you now concede it was inaccurate, I do think that's the sensible way to proceed. --W. Frankemailtalk 16:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Frank, so many false accusations on one day? I didn't say the sentence is inaccurate but that i'm open to rephrase the sentence. I believe in the content and i don't depend on own formulations. Please mind your words, in my opinion you are almost asking for a block. jan (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no polite and euphemistic way to say this, Jan: you don't seem to understand what is being written here. If you still think "the sentence" is - in any sense or substantial degree - factually accurate, then you've either not bothered to check the facts or read or understood what you read and that is written in the sections above. Email me in German and perhaps I can explain better in our own language the intricacies and complexities of UK and Irish nationality laws and whether or not they were changed to any material degree by any part of the "agreement"(s) signed by two state actors and eight non-state actors in Belfast in 1998. Good night.
Whoops, I forgot: What are your concrete proposals, please? --W. Frankemailtalk 21:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be having trouble discussing this topic in a dispassionate way, but I would nevertheless ask whether there's a factual problem in simply asserting the following, making sure it is not ordered in such a way that the reader would associate it with the Good Friday Agreement: "It is interesting to note that about 98% of Northern Irish can choose to be either British, Irish, or dual citizens." This could be followed up by a link, eventually: "For more information on how to legally acquire multiple citizenship in different countries around the world, see the Multiple citizenship and legitimate foreign passport acquisition topic." Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
No problem as to fact and if you really think it's appropriate (but surely not in the "History" section), I'd suggest this slightly shorter, punchier and historically accurate tweak:
It's interesting to note that most Northern Irish have, for nearly 90 years, been able to choose to have either or both British or Irish passports.
Good night. --W. Frankemailtalk 21:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
That looks good. Would the end of the "People" subsection be the best place to put it? It seems to follow from the rest of the section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. --W. Frankemailtalk 21:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and insert that language, but I'll leave out the content about the proposed new travel topic for later. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the acceptable wording and positioning. I think the travel topic is an interesting one, but Alice is the more knowledgeable person to start it rather than me - especially given Alice's practical airline industry perspective and experience (where most check-in staff now have to do the practical work of immigration officers or their airline is fined megabucks for flying passengers without the relevant visa/entry requirements) and multinational family background. I think someone will need to apologise for the nonsensical sock puppet allegations before Alice ever edits here again, though. --W. Frankemailtalk 22:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of administrators privileges[edit]

Although I actually agree with part of the sentiments expressed in the protection summary, I do not feel it appropriate that User:Jmh649 (Jan) - a "participant" in the discussion above - unilaterally and, without warning or request from others, protects our Northern Ireland article four minutes after making this revert. If Jan felt, after prior discussion on this talk page, that protection were necessary, then he should have recused himself (as an active participant in edit warring) and asked another admin to make the protection.

For the record, Jan's previous reverts to this article included:

http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&diff=2420582&oldid=2419991 and
http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&diff=next&oldid=2420589 and
http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&diff=next&oldid=2421180

--W. Frankemailtalk 13:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Frank, you are completely wrong! User:Jmh649 is James from Canada and was not involved at all in the above discussion. I'm User:jc8136 and commonly called Jan. I think before you claim abuse of rights you get the facts clear. Think a second and say sorry. jan (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
You guys must develop consensus on the talk page. I do not know which one of you is right. This is not about being right this is about procedure. I am Jmh649. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Jan: You're right, I'm wrong and I apologise for my sloppy mistake. So that this unjustified slur does not remain on this talk page, I assume I have everyone's permission to remove this entire section from the page? --W. Frankemailtalk 14:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Frank, lets keep it on the page as the solution was easy and i'm rather more amused than offended. As James said discuss a consensual solution with others and not try to find dividing points. If the result is that we converge towards a solution we all learned a valuable lesson. jan (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Region map[edit]

I understand why it is various shades of green but it really does not help the reader. Could someone create a new version with more distinguishable colours. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

For equal treatment, dare we use orange for some regions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean politically-speaking? I'm not sure it would be appropriate, considering all the baggage that comes with the colours. Is there anything stopping us using a different colour for each region, like we would in a country article? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively, the colours wouldn't matter if the region names were incorporated into the map. It's not like there's an excess of detail they'd be covering up! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was making an ironic comment about Northern Irish politics. It's probably best for us to avoid both green and orange and use only other colors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Using either or both is fine, as long as they're used alongside other neutral colours. Sorry, I missed the humour in your comment --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Very easy to miss, as my humor was wry and without emoticons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Scallions and craic[edit]

I have reverted two edits made by anonymous User:45.116.182.57, concerning the words "scallions" / "spring onion" and "craic". I have also invited him or her to come and chat, rather than engaging in an edit war across different IP addresses.

Regarding the recipe for champ, I have found recipes (here, here and here) that use both terms interchangeably. Since scallions and spring onions are essentially the same thing, but the word use varies all over the world, I feel it is entirely justifiable to include a note in the article like this: "scallions". If people would prefer, it could look like this instead: "spring onions". The combination doesn't matter, but both words should be included so as to best serve the traveller.

Now, regarding "craic", and whether or not it should be noted that it doesn't refer to drugs (i.e. crack). The words 'crack' and 'craic' sound identical, and if a traveller is unfamiliar with the Irish term, there is potential for misunderstanding, as other pages directed at people unfamiliar with Irish culture note. Once again, I believe noting ""craic" (a good time/fun/a laugh, with no connotations of any controlled substances whatsoever.)" is the best way to serve the traveller.

Hopefully, we can come to an agreement. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Unclear sentence[edit]

I do not understand this sentence:

In the 2016 vote on leaving the European Union ("Brexit") that resulted in an overall majority of just under 52% of those voting in favour of leaving the United Kingdom Northern Ireland as a whole voted in favour of staying inside the EU.

Was there a vote to leave the United Kingdom or should that be the EU? Is what is meant simply that a majority in Northern Ireland voted "stay", while a slight majority overall voted "leave"?

--LPfi (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The vote was on whether to leave the EU. It won in the UK, overall, but was heavily opposed in Northern Ireland. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that is my understanding also, but I find no way to read the sentence in that way. --LPfi (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I have a busted 3rd finger. Why don't you edit it for accuracy? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I thought there might be some point that I had missed, so was not confident enough to do it myself. Thanks to Ground Zero, who fixed it. --LPfi (talk) 09:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)