Talk:Ulster loyalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of the Unionism in Ireland WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Unionism in Ireland. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

WikiProject Unionism in Ireland tasks:

Contents

[edit] Accuracy

Recently, many unionists have stopped describing themselves as loyalist, as this term has become synonymous with militant extremism, violence and terrorism.

This is not a recent phenomenon.

Upon Irish independence in 1921, the six counties of Ulster

Upon Irish independence in 1921, the four counties of Ulster

Both these statements are inaccurate. Ulster had, and still has, nine counties.

They took two other counties with them, as their combined population still had a unionist majority.

This implies that the six counties had left the country they had been part of. In actual fact, it remained in the same country and it was the Free State who had changed their status.

in favour of reuniting with the Republic of Ireland to form one country

This is ambiguous. The implication could be that people desire that the Republic of Ireland re-unite with Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. In fact, Ireland was never united as a single entity except under British rule. "Uniting", on the other hand, implies that the island be united for the first time in its existance as a separate sovereign state.

although the British state has long struggled to convince many of its legitimacy.

It hasn't.


  • "Recently, many unionists have stopped describing themselves as loyalist, as this term has become synonymous with militant extremism, violence and terrorism.
This is not a recent phenomenon."
Yes it is. I would date it to about the start of the peace process.

You might date it to the mid-1990's, but it is an older phenomenon than that. I am talking from experience.--Mal 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • "Upon Irish independence in 1921, the six counties of Ulster
Upon Irish independence in 1921, the four counties of Ulster
Both these statements are inaccurate. Ulster had, and still has, nine counties."
I wrote "the four counties of Ulster that had Protestant majorities". There's a difference.

Now that you have explained your meaning, I understand it. But it is ambiguous and could easily be taken to mean that Ulster had four counties.--Mal 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


  • "They took two other counties with them, as their combined population still had a unionist majority.
This implies that the six counties had left the country they had been part of. In actual fact, it remained in the same country and it was the Free State who had changed their status."
Funnily enough, the six counties did leave. See Anglo-Irish Treaty.

It was 26 counties that left. Six counties remain.--Mal 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is ambiguous. The implication could be that people desire that the Republic of Ireland re-unite with Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. In fact, Ireland was never united as a single entity except under British rule. "Uniting", on the other hand, implies that the island be united for the first time in its existance as a separate sovereign state."
I don't accept your definition of unity.

Nevertheless, your statement is ambiguous. My revision is more easily understood.--Mal 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


  • "although the British state has long struggled to convince many of its legitimacy.
It hasn't."
It strikes me there are many people who (sometimes violently) reject any notion that Britain has a right to involve itself in Irish affairs. I believe a lot of people were killed over this very issue. Maybe you heard something about that. See the Troubles article, and Anglo-Irish War.

The United Kingdom, as it stands now and from 1922, is recognised by every country in the world, including the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland has even amended its constitution to reflect the official and legitimate position. The United Kingdom has never had to "struggle to convince" anyone of its legitimacy.--Mal 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist 03:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no country called Britain. Southern Ireland become independent in 1922. The island of Ireland has never existed as an independent state let alone a republic. For reunification to occur, Southern Ireland would have to rejoin Northern Ireland in the UK. That's real Irish unity as well as British Isles unity which is what is of paramount importance. No sense in 26 counties of the British Isles not being in union with the rest. The United Kingdom does not involve itself in Irish affairs. On the contrary, it is the Irish Republic that keeps sticking its nose in where it is not wanted in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom's Ulster province! Northern "Ireland" ceased being any of Southern Ireland's business the day it left the Union!YourPTR! 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

I propose moving this page to Ulster loyalism, as per Unionism (Ireland), Irish nationalism and Irish Republicanism. Any takers? Irish Republicanism should be moved to Irish republicanism too, with the redirect page switching. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What is your thinking on moving Unionism (Ireland) to Irish unionism Stu (and others)? The article deals with Unionism throughout the island - not only within Northern Ireland. Also, perhaps there should be an article about Unionism in general terms regarding ideology. The fact is that Unionism is a type of Nationalism, and I believe there is already an article about the latter.
I appreciate that a number of unionists don't like to label themselves particularly as "Irish", though I would personally describe those people more as loyalists. However, as the existing article pertains to the whole island, it is appropriate.
I'd support your suggestions.
On another note, does anyone know of any opinion polls taken amongst Northern Irish people pertaining to their views on the British monarchy? Personally, I'm neither for it too much, nor agin' it too much.. but I am aware of unionists who are most definately anti-monarchy (and, by definition therefore, republicans!). --Mal 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You will find that throughout the United Kingdom though not just Northern Ireland and its still a small but significant minority. They are republicans only in the sense they would like to see the United Kingdom become a United Republic and not that they want to join the Irish Republic!YourPTR! 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The section 'Upon Irish independence in 1921, despite a national majority desiring unity' is written from an Irish republican perspective. It assumes that 'unity' can only refer to the unity of Ireland rather than the unity of The Union which the majority opposed. Please change this to something NPOV.66.162.71.130 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I think some of that is due to a recent change by an anonymous editor. Not being an expert on the history of Northern Ireland, I tried to make a comprimise by combining both versions. This article desparately needs reliable neutral references in order to back up factual claims and maintain a NPOV status. Spylab 20:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the references?

This article has been tagged since March for lacking references. An article about a controversial topic such as this really needs to have some reliable sources. I don't know enough about the topic to seek out those references, but anyone who adds claims to the article should be able to provide sources to back up those claims. I haven't personally added any new facts or claims to this article, but do recognize when someone is trying to push a point of view, and have attempted to maintain the neutrality and accuracy of the article. Spylab 16:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Militant

  • The word militant is used in the first sentence, surely this isn't necessarily the case? --Counter-revolutionary 18:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)