Talk:United Ireland/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Lead

While recent edits by William Quill [now known as Iveagh Gardens – 16:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)] and others have improved what was a poorly-written article, I don't like the current lead at all. For a start, a united Ireland is not a "proposal", it is a place, albeit a virtual place. The previous wording, "a proposed sovereign state", while a bit awkwardly worded, is the more accurate. But more importantly, the previously neutral lead has been replaced with one that is entirely Northern Ireland-centred. So a "state covering all of the thirty-two traditional counties of Ireland" – as in the cited source and other sources such as Jonathan Tonge – has become "Northern Ireland, which is currently part of the United Kingdom, would become part of the sovereign state of Ireland", and the second half of the lead is about the demographics of Northern Ireland and attitudes there. I propose that it be reverted to the earlier version unless and until it is re-written to properly reflect the article's topic and content. Scolaire (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A united Ireland is a political proposition, just like Scottish independence or German unification prior to 1990, even as they refer to places (I'm not sure what you mean by a virtual one in this context). Since 1998 there is also a clear legal framework in both jurisdictions for a united Ireland, in the 1998 Act and Article 3.1, which I cited. Just as German unification ultimately meant that the DDR became part of FDR, in the case of a united Ireland, Northern Ireland would become part of the current state of Ireland. I would also suggest that it does make sense to include Northern Ireland attitudes near the start, as to an outsider it explains why there is not a united Ireland at present. Further, if there are sections of what I've written that you take issue with, edit those. A wholescale reversion goes against the collaborative spirit of wiki-editing, aiming to seek the best consensus. I have also proposed a consolidation between the content on this page and on partition of Ireland, as there is currently considerable duplication between them. You may wish to consider that too before any wholescale editing or reversion. —William Quill (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Coming new to this, the lead seems ok as far as it goes, & I agree with the points just above, but it hardly summarizes all the article. There is some space left, & a summary of the polls would be useful (more so than eg the lip-service positions of many of the political parties). I'd be tempted to do a major rejig of the sequence of the sections, with recent stuff at the top & the history at the bottom. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood what I said. I am not talking about editing or reverting sections of the article, I am only talking about the two short paragraphs of the lead. A united Ireland is, if you like "a political proposition" (which is not the same thing as a "proposal") subscribed to by nationalists throughout Ireland for the whole of Ireland to be united as an independent state. To change that to "Northern Ireland...would become part of the sovereign state of Ireland" is to put a spin on it that wasn't there before, and that isn't in the sources. To go on and say that "the legally distinct region of Northern Ireland has been in existence since May 1921" is to strengthen this POV by accentuating something that forms only a tiny part of the article. And then to have all the remainder of the lead talking about demographics and attitudes in NI completes the impression that it's only a modern thing, that it's purely a Northern Ireland issue and that it's only a rowdy minority that wants it anyway. There's no way I can edit your edit to the lead to make it better. If you or somebody else are not willing to re-write the lead to properly reflect the topic of the article, then it should go back to the way it was before. Scolaire (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

United Ireland, in the sense of the article, has only become an issue since Partition, because before then Ireland had been politically united for many centuries. The issue revolves around the status of NI, & the proposal, proposition or aspiration is to rejoin NI with the Republic. The article is entirely right to concentrate on this, and yes, much of the older history is given in too much detail for here. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's only become an issue since Partition – and I agree that most of the "history" should go – but it's a nationalist/republican issue, and an all-Ireland one. Nationalists coined the term "united Ireland"; republicans fought for it; the Republic campaigned for it. This has never been brought out particularly well in the article, but now the lead has been re-written to underscore the exclusion of nationalists and republicans, north and south, from the story that they were central to. Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't really agree - the issue is what happens to NI, & the article is right to focus there. If anything, the problem with the treatment is that it overplays the keenness of the southern establishment for it to happen, at least on their watch. Analysis of the actual likely modern economic & political implications would be useful, especially in the light of Brexit. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed wording

I Propose the following, which to my mind serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents:

A united Ireland is a political proposition that the whole of Ireland—the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland—should be united as a single sovereign country independent of the United Kingdom It is a central tenet of both mainstream and dissident Irish republican political and paramilitary organisations, and also aspired to by many Irish nationalists, both north and south. Unionists and many British nationalists support Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom, and therefore oppose Irish unification.

Ireland has been partitioned since May 1921, when the implementation of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 created the state of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. The Anglo-Irish Treaty, by which the Irish Free State became independent, recognised partition, but this was opposed by anti-Treaty republicans. When the anti-Treaty Fianna Fáil party came to power in the 1930s, it adopted a new constitution which claimed sovereignty over the entire island. The Irish Republican Army (IRA) had a united Ireland as its goal during the thirty-year conflict with British security forces known as The Troubles. The 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which ended the conflict, acknowledged the legitimacy of the desire for a united Ireland, as well as the desire of unionists for the maintenance of the union with Britain.

In demographic terms, the six counties of Northern Ireland taken as a whole contain a majority of Ulster Protestants who almost all favour continued union with Great Britain, although individually four of the six counties have Irish Catholic majorities and majorities voting for Irish nationalist parties. The religious denominations of the citizens of Northern Ireland are only a generalised guide to likely political preferences, as there are both Protestant nationalists and Catholic unionists. Surveys identify a significant number of Catholics who favour the continuation union without identifying themselves as unionists or British.

Note that it leaves the "demographic" paragraph unchanged. It does not take out anything that is currently there, but it provides a proper context for it. Scolaire (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Thanks for your suggestion Scolaire. The issue I'd have is that the state sovereign state of Ireland is already independent from the United Kingdom. If and when a united Ireland is to occur, it is essentially a land swap between two independent countries, rather a new political entity. Suppose (admittedly unlikely), the people of Gibraltar voted to become part of Spain. We would phrase that as "Gibraltar leaves the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and become part of Spain", rather than a need to mention the independence of Spain. It goes without saying that if Northern Ireland leaves the United Kingdom and becomes part of the state of Ireland that it is independent of the UK. You mightn't like its provenance, but the 1998 NIA explains the proposition as simply to me.

Having said that, otherwise the lead here is good. What I was going to suggest was a single line, after mentioning the implementation of the 1920 Act, " ; this partition of Ireland was opposed by Irish nationalists and republicans from the start", but your suggestion here is more comprehensive, while not being cumbersome. —William Quill (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I take your point about sovereignty and independence, but the question here is one of verifiability and no original research. The article is not titled "Irish land swap", and I've never seen the phrase in any source, reliable or otherwise. The definition in my proposal is the definition in both the CAIN and the Tonge sources. Not alone is it verifiable, but it would take a very strong reliable source to say that it is inaccurate. Needless to say, you are welcome to tweak the wording. That's why it's on the talk page. You might, for instance, say, "as a single country, with Britain renouncing sovereignty over Northern Ireland." Scolaire (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a loss of clarity here. Incidentally the claim that "many British nationalists support Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom" does not appear to be repeated lower down (in terms of anything recent & outside NI), and so is unreferenced; it might I think be hard to reference well. Again, now that the Irish constitution has been changed, would a referendum in the Republic be necessary? A point to cover if there is an answer. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't propose using the term "land swap" on the page itself! It was as an analogy. Take say, Alsace-Lorraine becoming part of France rather than Germany in 1919. We wouldn't in that context make a reference to France being independent from Germany. So the same here for Ireland in the case of a future united Ireland. As to the phrasing, a combination perhaps of the wording in Article 3 of the Constitution and that in the Northern Ireland Act would have the authority of being legal sources, and also the benefit of being the wording used for any eventual agreement on unity. I believe the CAIN text predates the GFA, and so the legislative and constitutional framework that came from it, but in any case that doesn't use the term 'independent' to describe a united Ireland either. I don't think in any case my wording can be described as original research. It is an accurate description of what a united Ireland would be, as is yours. But I think my phrasing better recognises the current sovereignty of the state of Ireland, as it has existed to a partial extent since 1922, and more fully in 1937/49. I have encountered people that because of the confusion of Northern Ireland don't realise that (the Republic of) Ireland is a sovereign state, so I believe the current wording I have there avoids that.

To clarify again, what is misleading or inaccurate about the opening sentence as I had edited it? A united Ireland is a proposal that Northern Ireland, which is currently part of the United Kingdom, would become part of the sovereign state of Ireland; the state would then comprise of the entire island of Ireland and its islands. —William Quill (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The Northern Ireland Act 1998 did not define "united Ireland". It specified what would have to happen in order for Northern Ireland to cease being a part of the UK and "form part" of an undefined "united Ireland". The amended Irish constitution says only that it is the "will of the Irish Nation...to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland", and again says what would have to happen for this "united Ireland" to be brought about. Specifically, they do not say that a united Ireland involves Northern Ireland becoming part of the currently existing state of Ireland, which would then enlarge to "comprise" the entire island. That is your interpretation of them and, I repeat, a pretty unique interpretation that I have not seen anywhere else. If you read the Good Friday Agreement (pp. 3–5, 30), you will see that such an interpretation is studiously avoided throughout. Are there alternatives? Of course there are. A united Ireland might involve the creation of a new state, with a new constitution and new institutions elected under a different system. The IRA didn't fight for thirty years to attach Northern Ireland to the "Free State"; it didn't recognise the legitimacy of either state.

So, to clarify again, how we define "united Ireland" in the first sentence has to reflect how it is defined in the sources. The date of the CAIN text is neither here nor there; the term "united Ireland" is as old as partition and its meaning didn't suddenly change with the Good Friday Agreement. Can you find a different definition in reliable secondary sources? If not, can you suggest a wording that reflects the definition in the current sources better than my wording? If not, why should my wording not be used? Scolaire (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Current EU negotiations, for example. Enda Kenny received a reassurance that in the case of a united Ireland, Northern Ireland would then be part of the European Union, in the same manner as German reunification in 1990. This was the context that I thought the current lead did not explain the idea clearly enough. There is also the text of Article 3 in both its original and current form. Whether you say "Pending the re-integration of the national territory..." or "Until then...", in either case it anticipates that in the case of a united Ireland, the Constitution of Ireland would apply to the whole of Ireland, if with less of a sense of imminence in the current version. The possibility of a united Ireland allowed (although effectively blocking it) under the Treaty involved the Parliament of Northern Ireland voting to become part of the Irish Free State. I do think the republican legitimist argument should be covered here, it was something I hoped to add in my piecemeal editing of the page. But the proposal of a united Ireland as it now stands is Northern Ireland becoming part of the current sovereign state of Ireland, even as the page should rightly acknowledge in the history, or even within the lead, the different views there have been. As an encyclopedia, it should primarily be practical and informative to who want to know more. —William Quill (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Your arguments are intelligent and well rehearsed, and would look good in a newspaper or magazine article, but this is neither, and you have completely failed to address the Wikipedia policies of verifiability, reliable sources and no original research. NOR says that you cannot interpret a phrase like "until then" in a primary source, you can only cite an interpretation of it in a secondary source. As regards the post-Brexit situation, I appreciate that it has revived the interest of readers in the topic, but it has not become the primary meaning of "united Ireland", and the definition should not be changed on the basis of a few newspaper headlines. I say headlines, because if you read this story you will see that although Kenny did use the phrase "allowed East Germany to join West Germany" he pointedly avoided saying "allow Northern Ireland to join the Republic". Likewise, Sinn Féin made no mention of the Republic (or the Free State or the 26 counties) in their most recent policy document – using instead "a new and unified Ireland" – despite the Irish Times headline of "Republic could afford united Ireland, says Sinn Féin". And this multi-national post-Brexit economic study didn't say anything about the North joining the Republic either, again despite the headline of "Both Republic and North 'could benefit from united Ireland'."

I will add a couple of sentences on the current debate to the lead. I will also change the wording "a single sovereign country independent of the United Kingdom", which was your only concrete objection to my text, and leave out the reference to British nationalists per Johnbod's comment. Scolaire (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the opening is an improvement, nor do you have consensus for the changes here. I don't actually believe that there is any substantive difference here. As I understand it, even the most theologically-minded strands of Republicanism don't propose that the UI state would be a new entity, without continuity with the existing Republic. The great advantage of the previous revised version is that it was a LOT CLEARER, for teenagers in Idaho or Lagos etc. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you missed my previous post, where I linked to the most recent Sinn Féin policy. As it happens, the document proposes precisely what you say no republican would: "The type of nation-building and island-wide reconciliation that Sinn Féin is working towards is not about grafting the North onto the current political, cultural and economic status quo of the South. It is, rather, about the creation of a new, agreed Ireland for all of us who share this island." As for clarity, what exactly is unclear about "A united Ireland is a proposition that the whole of Ireland should be a single sovereign state"? Are you seriously saying that teenagers in Idaho or Lagos would have trouble getting their heads around that? Or that they would find "A united Ireland is a proposal that Northern Ireland, which is currently part of the United Kingdom, would become part of the sovereign state of Ireland; the state would then comprise of the entire island of Ireland and its islands" a model of clarity by comparison? My only concern in this discussion is that the lead, in particular, be encyclopaedic i.e. not only policy-compliant but clear. I am quite satisfied that the current lead, as edited by William Quill and others, is both. Scolaire (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I certainly didn't bother reading it. Ok, I under-rated the enduring appeal of a theological approach to some. I should have known better. But it certainly won't come to that, and this is mere manifesto moonshine. Any "new, agreed Ireland" would follow the transfer of NI to the Republic, no doubt with many constitutional changes dictated not by Sinn Féin but Unionist concerns. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeeed, Johnbod, I would agree that our target audience should be the intelligent newcomer, who as you suggest might be from Idaho or Lagos. I do think it a strained reading of Enda Kenny's statement to think that he did not imagine that a united Ireland would a continuation of the current Republic of Ireland, and indeed was surprised that Scolaire proceeded to edit the page as if there were such a consensus. But not having the energy for a protracted edit war, I'm content for the moment to tweak it to address some of the issues within.

On a separate matter, perhaps too much of the history was deleted. The intelligent teenager should probably have on this page a little more of the background to why there is not a united Ireland. No more than perhaps a paragraph on Unionist opposition to the Home Rule Bills from 1886 to 1912? Happy to add these over the weekend perhaps. —William Quill (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see you add that. Scolaire (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• The situation here is still unacceptable. For a start the first sentence of the article remains completely ungrammatical. Scholaire's strange Legitimist insistence on keeping a clear expression of what would happen out of the lead is increasingly out of tune with the latest developments - even Gerry Adams does not talk like this any more. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop with the histrionics. My position is not "legitimist". My interest, as I've said, is in keeping the article encyclopaedic. The topic of the article is not "what would happen". The first sentence states what a united Ireland means, which is, unsurprisingly, the two parts of Ireland uniting. It is clear as a bell for your hypothetical Nigerian or Idahoan teenager (Oh, and it's perfectly grammatical: it has a subject, a verb and an object followed by a dependent clause). "What would happen" is a matter of conjecture, which might be covered later in the article if there was a major academic work or even a major party policy statement to say, in so many words, that that is what would happen. Even yesterday's draft EU27 minutes made no mention of leaving or joining or the Republic; it said, "the entire territory of such a united Ireland would thus be part of the European Union". If they had meant to say "Northern Ireland would join the Republic as part of the European Union", they would have said so. Produce some reliable sources for what you think is obviously going to happen, or let it go. Scolaire (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"A united Ireland is a proposition that...." You really don't see any any problems with that?! If so, that would explain your views on the clarity of the rest of the first para. I don't think anything is "obviously going to happen" (a bizarre but 5typical accusation), but it has been made clear what would happen, if anything does, and you insist on keeping that out of the lead. Johnbod (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Who made it clear what would happen, and where did they make it clear, and what was the precise wording that they used? If you don't think anything is obviously going to happen, how can you say what it is that would happen, if it were to happen, which it's not? All I'm asking for is reliable sources. That's Wikipedia policy. Scolaire (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The wording from 11 March 2017 until William Quill changed it a year later was "A united Ireland is a proposed future sovereign state covering all of the thirty-two traditional counties of Ireland." If you think that is grammatically better, then we can revert to that. Scolaire (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Grammatically yes, but it implies there is no present sovereign state, which is no good. The title does not have to be in the first few words, and the start should avoid "A united Ireland" which obviously doesn't mean, but does rather suggest, that there is a choice of several united Irelands. To answer your previous question: both governments and the legislation of both countries, not to mention the stated positions of Sinn Féin & all other Irish political parties. You know this perfectly well, and are not "asking for reliable sources" but gerrymandering this discussion. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"A united Ireland" at the start does not in any way suggest that there is a choice of several united Irelands, any more than "A birthday" suggests that there is a choice of several birthdays. This is just obfuscation. Grammar apart, you have not said why the the wording "a proposition that the whole of Ireland should be a single sovereign state" is unclear. Which part of it is unclear? "The whole of Ireland"? "a single state"? "sovereign". The first sentence follows WP:BEGIN: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." "Since the partition of Ireland in 1921 the possibility of a return to a politically united Ireland, with the whole of Ireland a single sovereign state, has remained an issue in Irish politics." doesn't. With a little rewording, it might work as a second sentence, but we're not in need of a second sentence; we've got a perfectly good one. Scolaire (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

My proposal gives context to those unfamiliar with the subject (and they certainly exist). They are likely to be so bemused by "A united Ireland is a proposition that..." that what follows barely registers. Needless to say, Scolaire does not actually raise any specific issues with my version, which of course meets WP:BEGIN far better than the existing one. Comments from others would be good. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the fact that nobody else has commented for all but a month, plus the fact that the first sentence as edited by William Quill / Iveagh Gardens (not my edit) lasted the same length of time, through 48 revisions by 13 users, speaks volumes.

My issue with your version is that it is the opposite of clear. Those unfamiliar with the subject won't understand "since the partition of Ireland", won't have any idea what "the possibility of a return to a politically united Ireland" means, and won't be enlightened by being told that it "has remained an issue in Irish politics." Scolaire (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh course no one has commented, given the length of this thread and the density and circularity of the arguments in it (mostly by guess who). What exactly is your preferred first sentence (or two)? We clearly have very different ideas as to the English language works, or the minds of a general readership. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

So, let's see. You said that the version of Iveagh Gardens was a LOT CLEARER, for teenagers in Idaho or Lagos etc., but now you want to change it to something not remotely similar. You complained that I had edited without consensus, but you then waited until a revision of my edit had gained a clear consensus – one month and 48 revisions by 13 users without it being altered or objected to – before you changed it to your new version without consensus and without even proposing it here on the talk page. You say that the current first sentence is "unacceptable" because for a start the first sentence of the article remains completely ungrammatical, even though this ungrammatical abomination , "A united Ireland is a proposition that....", is almost identical to Iveagh Gardens's "A united Ireland is a proposal that...", which you said was "a LOT CLEARER"; and when I suggest a wording that would correct the grammar, you reject it out of hand. You complain that I insist on keeping (what would happen) out of the lead, but this fine new sentence of yours says nothing about "what would happen". Then suddenly you decide that the start should avoid "A united Ireland" for some complicated reason, when that had never been a problem for you previously. You complain that Scolaire does not actually raise any specific issues with my version, but you ignore my repeated requests to say where the lack of clarity is in "a proposition that the whole of Ireland should be a single sovereign state." Now you ask, What exactly is your preferred first sentence (or two)?, when you already know that my preference is keeping the current wording as it is. It's not so much a circular argument as you moving the goalposts with every post. If I was paranoid, I'd say that your attitude was "I don't like Scolaire, so whatever he agrees with I'm against." But I'm not paranoid, so I honestly don't know what to make of you. Scolaire (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

'Including' or 'particularly of'

I amended the following sentence

'Achieving a united Ireland is a central tenet of Irish nationalism, particularly of both mainstream and dissident Irish republican political and paramilitary organisations'

to

'Achieving a united Ireland is a central tenet of Irish nationalism, including both mainstream and dissident Irish republican political and paramilitary organisations'

because a united Ireland is equally as central a tenet of non-violent nationalism as it is of republicanism, and so it is incorrect to say that it is particularly a central tenet of republicanism. It makes better sense to say that it is a central tenet of nationalism (i.e. as a whole), including republicanism.

Scolaire has reverted, with the explanation that '"nationalists" didn't wage a 30-year campaign of violence for a united Ireland; republicans did'. Yet the proposed new wording does not suggest that nationalists waged any campaign of violence, it merely states that nationalism wants a united Ireland, and this includes republicans. If the subtext of the objection is that republicans are not nationalists (which in itself is a controversial assertion), then this objection applies equally to the original wording.

Might it be better to reword along the lines 'Achieving a united Ireland is a central tenet of both constitutional nationalism and physical force republicanism'? Mooretwin (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

In my original edit, I said "It is a central tenet of both mainstream and dissident Irish republican political and paramilitary organisations, and also aspired to by many Irish nationalists, both north and south." That was changed by somebody else, and I didn't fight it. But I think it is important to draw a distinction between organisations whose raison d'être is the achievement of a united Ireland and those who have it as one of their long-term goals. I called the latter "nationalists" in my edit summary only in order to distinguish them from the former. Irish governments from Jack Lynch onwards refrained from demanding a united Ireland, as did Eddie McAteer's Nationalists, as did the SDLP, although it was stated as a goal somewhere in their published platforms. Sinn Féin and the IRA and their offshoots demanded it loudly and often, and still do. You can split hairs and say that a united Ireland is a "central tenet" of all nationalists organisations even when it's not at or near the top of their agenda, but hair-splitting is all it is. There is a distinction between the attitudes of republicans and other nationalists towards a united Ireland. It's discussed in the article, and it should be in the lead. And in case people start talking about Enda Kenny and the European Council, neither of them has said that there should or must be a united Ireland, only that if there was, the whole of it should be in the EU. Scolaire (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 SDLP election manifesto; 2016 Fianna Fáil election manifesto; 2016 Fine Gael election manifesto. Aggregate number of references to a united Ireland: zero. Central tenet? Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever priority it is given short or long term, it is a central tenet of nationalism. It is the very basis of what Irish nationalism is and why it is diametric to unionism. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, including seems better to me. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree.Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

People's referendum

In May 2013 an unofficial "people's referendum" was held in Upper Creggan in County Louth and Crossmaglen in County Armagh. 1000 people took part with 92% in favour of a United Ireland.[66] In November 2013 another "people's referendum" was held in Lifford in County Donegal and Strabane in Couty Tyrone. It is claimed 93.4% voted in favor of a united Ireland and that 25.7% of the registered electorate in the areas attended.[67]

Is this really notable enough to be included in this article? It seems like WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM to me. Essentially a highly localised propaganda exercise of little significance. Mooretwin (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. 1,000 people in two nationalist townlands is hardly notable. Maybe I'll poll 1,000 people on the Newtownards Road and the Derry Waterside and add my own findings. — Jon C.^ॐ 10:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It's hard to think how such a polling could have been stacked in favour of a particular outcome more. Canterbury Tail talk 11:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've had another think and the Irish Time did cover it, The idea was to have a border poll rather than a referendum on a united Ireland so the questions were a bit misleading as put into the article. Dmcq (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19980525042836/http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/man/lab83.htm to http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/man/lab83.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lucidtalk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/BelTelePollRes-Oct2014.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610101003/http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/1999/Community_Relations/IRISH.html to http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/1999/Community_Relations/IRISH.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220090428/http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/1999/Community_Relations/IRISH.html to http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/1999/Community_Relations/IRISH.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)