Talk:Partition of Ireland

Untitled

Sorted out some spelling mistakes like committment / irrendist.Red Hurley (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Date NI left Free State? Answer: 8 December 1922

On 7 December 1922, Stormont resolves to make its address to leave Irish Free State; 13 December, PM Craig confirms King had received and responded to address (but what day did the King receive the address? - That is the relevant date). The Governor of Northern Ireland's office was established by Letters Patent on 9 December 1922. Possibly this is the relevant date as it might be unlikely that the office would have been established if the King had not received the Stormont address on or before then. Some one might know or find out the answer? Redking7 (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that, according to the (unwritten!) constitution of the UK, the moment of partition happened when the King gave Royal Assent to the request from Northern Ireland and not before. I should think it very likely that Craig would have announced it immediately he got it. But I accept that the source is not clear and consequently can't be used as a citation for a specific date. --Red King (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

N. Ireland was set up as a home-rule state by the Act of (December) 1920 and its parliament first sat in June 1921. The Treaty approved in December 1921-January 1922 allowed it to join the dominion to be known as the IFS, if it chose to do so. The Acts approving the draft IFS constitution were passed in the autumn of 1922, which was formalized on 6 December 1922. Some have said that NI was part of the IFS for a day (6 Dec 1922) and voted to leave it, but the reality is that it voted against joining it.86.42.200.74 (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:86.42.200.74. You are incorrect concerning the above. See the article. Redking7 (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, I found the date myself. It was 8 December 1922. I've updated the article and provided sources etc. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic tags

User:Redking7 has tagged many sections of the article as "Off topic" without any attempt to explain them here as required by the tag.

It seems to me that these sections are essential to understanding the background of the topic and summarise the key points of those larger articles that are germane to this article. Readers should not have to plough through a bunch of large articles to find relevant material, especially someone familiar with the material is prepared to extract the salient points.

Unless a convincing counterargument is offered, I propose to remove the tags. --Red King (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Red King - A decent grasp of Irish history is indeed necessary to fully understand the reasons for Irish partition etc. That's why readers can (and I think should) be directed to other leading relevant articles. But many (probably most) people who go to a specialist article like this already have a decent grasp of Irish history. Otherwise, they'd probably still be reading more general articles. For them the unending text which poorly covers so much ground that is better covered in other articles, is an unwieldy thing they have to wade through if they really just want to know about parition.

I am very glad I did not waste a lot of time editing and "sharpening up" this article. It would probably have been opposed. If you want to delete the tags, do so. I would be much more impressed if you would invest time in "sharpening up" or "editing" the article but do as you wish! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

PS!: Article states: "Éamon de Valera when leader of the opposition in the Irish Free State was arrested in Northern Ireland in February 1929. The ensuing Dáil debates aired the circumstances of partition at length.[9] The Dublin government's attitude had become a party political issue." - For the life of me, I can't think why this sort of stuff, in the scheme of things, should be in the article...but I suppose now that its in there it may well be vitally important. I shall defer to others. Redking7 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the article can be sharpened - the case you cite is indefensible. I thought that you had in mind to delete the sections completely. Please go ahead with clean-up. I'll help when I can. --Red King (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible concluding section - "Moves towards détente"

I think the article could do with something on modern developments such as the Belfast Agreement, the Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, the St. Andrews Agreement, the Common Travel Area, both states members of the EU. Conversely, the DUP has taken over as the main Unionist party and it is more hardline on maintaining the Union than ever. It seems to me that their position in the Government of NI is from a position of strength - they can see that nothing is going to change anytime soon so they may as well get on with the business of running the place until it becomes a credible issue. Ditto Sinn Féin. But I can't see how write such a thing without immediately being struck down as WP:Synthesis and WP:OR. Unless anybody knows of a citable neutral publication that says something like this? Or even comes to an entirely different conclusion? Comments? --Red King (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good points but it's not WP:OR as it has been mentioned in every newspaper since 1998 or 2005. The facts are that decommissioning and Articles 2 & 3 have been traded for freeing of prisoners, money and "parity of esteem". None of us were involved in 1920-22, so everyone on the island has inherited the situation of partition and our parents' attitudes towards it. Some groups tried to change it by force and failed. As far as we are concerned it was the default situation, but it has changed enormously in my lifetime (50 years so far...) and so have attitudes to it. Add your points into the last para that you removed, as it doesn't make sense to stop at 1983 or 1974.Red Hurley (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Partition and sport

Unfortunately, User:Pureditor has been removing text from this article in relation to the Olympics, and amending references to the "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland", presumably to give the impression that the Olympic team in question is an all-Ireland team. It isn't, however, hence the need to retain references to Republic of Ireland.Mooretwin (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. It is actually an all island Ireland team. Every team that represents the state of Ireland is called Ireland except in football because of an arragement with FIFA, the FAI and the IFA in order to solve disagreements as both wanted the Ireland name. Please only edit something when you are sure of the facts!Pureditor 12:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not an all-island team: it is the Republic of Ireland team (you may have noticed the big Tricolour at the opening ceremony!), for which some athletes from NI are eligible by virtue of playing sports which are organised on an all-Ireland basis - as I explained in the text that you keep removing. Perhaps you should take heed of your own advice, as per your last sentence. Mooretwin (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And what name is displayed? Ireland is. This is a factual encyclopedia, not some place for you to remove official names because it's not right in your POV.Pureditor 15:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so first, it seems that you are conceding that it is the Republic of Ireland team, and not an all-Ireland team, as previously asserted above. Second, you appear to argue that because the team is called "Ireland", therefore its name should be replicated here. Well, unfortunately the official name "Ireland" is ambiguous since - as you concede - it does not relate to Ireland, but to the Republic. Given the subject of this article (!) - namely, the partition of Ireland, it is necessary to make clear that the team is the ROI team and not an all-Ireland one. This is an encyclopaedia which should be clear and unambiguous. While in some contexts it may not be necessary to distinguish ROI from "Ireland", in this context - an article about which Olympic team people from either part of Ireland are eligible (!) - it clearly is necessary. Think about it. Mooretwin (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When the other olympic team is called Great Britain disambiguation between the state and island of Ireland is not necessary as there is no potential for confusion, especially when the official name for it is Ireland Do you ever hear a BBC commentator saying an athlete is represting the Republic of Ireland? Ireland is the common name and official name and per wikipedia regulations and the fact there is no confusion Ireland should remain.Pureditor 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'ved edited to take on board your point, by noting the "official" names of the ROI and UK teams - ironically, BOTH are anomalies. Re. your comment above, the "Great Britain" team is fully "Great Britain and Northern Ireland", so the basis for your point does not exist. Furhter, you actually reinforce the need for clarity here with your comment about commentators - the fact that commentators refer to "Ireland" reinforces the need for clarity here, since those without a detailed knowledge will be under the impression that it is an all-Ireland team. Hence the need for this article to explain it. I really don't see what your point is, unless - for political reasons - you are trying to reinforce a wrong impression that the ROI represents all of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"When the other olympic team is called Great Britain disambiguation between the state and island of Ireland is not necessary as there is no potential for confusion ..." - this really makes no sense whatsoever. The very fact that each team is inaccurately described is the VERY REASON that there is potential for confusion!! Going by the "official" names, one would be under the impression that the UK team only represented GB and the ROI team represented the whole island. Think about it. Mooretwin (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Origins from 1886

User:Pureditor has been inserting the word "violent" into the sentence: "Immediately an Ulster Unionist Party was founded and organised [violent] demonstrations in Belfast against the Bill ...". There is, however, no evidence that the Unionist Party organised violent demonstrations. Mooretwin (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not inserting it. You are removing it and I am reverting it as you are not explaining its removal and I feel there may be POV in your edit.Pureditor 12:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason is obvious. See above. If you want to revert, come up with some evidence that the Unionist Party organised violent demonstrations, and post it here. Mooretwin (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Background 1914–22

User:Pureditor has been removing the sentence "Unionists won a majority of seats in Ulster" from the discussion of the 1918 election. Yet this - rather obviously in an article about partition - is very relevant. Mooretwin (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

1925 correction

On the Boundary commission part I've changed this big mistake - 'The report of the Commission (and thus the terms of the agreement) has yet officially to be made public:" - in fact the agreement was made public about an hour after it was made (and the agreement meant that the Commission and its report were no longer needed). See this.Red Hurley (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How was the border decided?

It seems to me that this article has a glaring omission: how and by who was the border decided? On what basis was it chosen? It doesn't follow the borders of the historic province of Ulster and neither did it follow the boundaries between counties with a Protestant/Unionist majority and those with a Catholic/Nationalist majority. Booshank (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In a sense it did but the statistics are unclear and disputed. The 6-26 county split originated in discussions about excluding part or all of Ulster province from the jurisdiction of the proposed Dublin Home Rule parliament for a period. Note the reference in later legislation to "parliamentary counties" - this is more than just the historic ambiguity in British law over how a "county" is defined but also an indication of the way by which this was resolved. Taking the parliamentary election results in 1910 it was clear that it was the 6 counties of Antrim, Derry, Down, Armagh, Fermanagh and Tyrone which constituted the "Ulster problem" in a way that Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan didn't, whereby they were still returning Unionist MPs opposed to Home Rule, where feelings were strongest and where there was serious likelihood that implementation would not be possible on the ground. The 6 counties were agreed as the starting point for exclusion with the expectation that more detailed negotiations would refine the boundary. However such negotiations proved immensely problematic because the population wasn't distributed in such a neat way that a boundary could easily divide populations and it was this issue that brought down negotiations in 1914 (Churchill's famous comment about "the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone" is from a 1920s speech recollecting this).

Nevertheless for the next decade or so successive proposals (Home Rule, then the Free State) came with the intention that there would be a review and alteration of the boundary to create its final form. But the mid 1920s review suffered because different parties had different expectations of the remit & likely result, and consequently it was agreed to settle with what they already had. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fermanagh and Tyrone had Catholic majorities at the 1911 Census, but in addition, a majority of voters in 1918 voted for Nationalist candidates. 194.80.106.135 (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

True but population =/= electorate (and certainly didn't in 1911) though I believe it had been a factor influencing the 1914 negotiations that did try to crack this particular issue and didn't succeed. By the 1918 election the initial boundary had already been set down and it was expected that a detailed review would tidy it up. Re-opening the question of just how many counties would be excluded/included at the initial stage would have been adding another complication when it was expected that this would be eventually sorted out anyway. There's a tendency in discussing partition to focus on the events of 1918-1922 but the key decisions on Fermanagh and Tyrone really came in 1914 when the six county exclusion was agreed and 1925 when the Boundary Commission proposals were set aside and the existing boundary agreed as final. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I went to the trouble of explaining (twice) why your wording was plainly wrong. Here is my wording. Please do me the same favour of explaining exactly what you think is wrong in it:

"On 6 December 1922, in accordance with the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the entire island of Ireland became the Irish Free State, a dominion in the British Commonwealth. However, on 8 December 1922 the King was presented with an Address from the Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland by which Address Northern Ireland opted out of the new Dominion. The making of the Address had been passed in Belfast the previous day. Today Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom while the rest of the island is a sovereign state named Ireland."

Thanks. 84.203.65.99 (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference to British 1920 partition act in the lede

The key function of the lede is to give a terse summary of the most essential points in the article. Yes, it is certainly relevant to say that object of the 1920 Act was create two jurisdictions. But it is critical to say that HMG was thwarted in its attempts to make this work, that the first attempt at partition was only partially sucessful. Indeed from a Dáil perspective, the British Act merely 'purported to create' two jurisdictions in a foreign country where its previous authority to do so had been revoked. Obviously I wouldn't expect to put that in the lede! But to fail to record up front that the 1920 Act was simply ignored in most of Ireland is simply POV.

As a parallel, it would be outrageous to write a lede about Thatcher's Poll Tax without also saying that it met with a strom of protest and non-compliance, making it unworkable and forcing its repeal. --Red King (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the lede that Red King wants - with my comments:

The partition of Ireland between the north-eastern six counties of Ireland and the rest of the island took place on 3 May 1921 under the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The 1920 Act created two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland: Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland both of which were parts of the United Kingdom – though the the continuing Irish War of Independence [it ended about two months after Southern Ireland was established, just 1 month after the opening of the NI Parliament - Clearly the war did not continue for muc of SI's short life and is NOT the reason SI did not last long] meant that the latter did not achieve meaningful existence [Wrong on the first count (see my first box) and Wrong also because "meaningful existence" is POV or at least not approprate - SI existed in law. That is "meaningful"; SI's courts and civil service functioned too, that is very "meaningful".]

Given the problems with the above wording, I have reverted the change. Regards. Staighre (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that the Parliament of SI never sat until, to keep the British side happy, it met for less than one hour to repeat the decision of Dáil Éireann and ratifity the Treaty. met just once, with four Unionist members present. It adjourned sine die and never met again. 'Did not achieve meaningful existence' seems to me to be the best way to summarise that fact, but I welcome alternative wording. Everything that I have read suggests that that the only courts in operation were the Republican courts. Please provide a citation that says that SI had any effective courts or civil service. --Red King (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Red King, I like to be very accurate. Your latest addition - an off-topic one liner in the very opening para. saying only NI formed a government is not accurate....Yes, you are right that the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland was a differnt beast to that of NI....BUT it would not be correct to say a government of SI was never formed.....AND whether NI or SI est'd governments does not even strictly and directly relate to PARTITION - so there is absolutely no need for anything even along those lines in the opening para. I am happy to work with you and I hope you will go off and come back with further well sourced materials relating to the Partition - I would be delighted if you did some work on the more contemporary problems associated with the Martiime division off Rockall....BUT, I love accuracy, so use quotes extensively and ask youself, is my sentence coherent and does it make sense? That sort of contributions would be great. I would help!

I don't mean to be condescending but when some one tells me (and I am sure you were being very honest) that you thought that only the Sinn Fein Courts were active, I'm afraid that suggests you need to do quite a lot of basic reading up on the period. WP is an inclusive forum but it is tireing for the likes of me to effectively have to teach you in order to preserve the integrity of the articles. That the courts of "Southern Ireland" actively administered justice throughtout the life of SI is so well know....Here is just one example: "It should be noted that the offeror can only waive the need for acceptance to be communicated to him; he cannot oblige the offeree to respond to the offer by stipulating that failure to communicate rejection of the offer shall be deemed consent. This is illustrated by the facts of Russell & Baird v. Hoban.42 The defendant in Castlebar negotiated with the plaintiffs to purchase oatmeal. He asked the plaintiffs manager if they could supply a fixed amount. The plaintiffs manager, on his return to Dublin sent a note indicating that they could supply that amount. The note provided that "if .this sale note be retained beyond three days after this date, it will be held to have been acceptd by the buyer." The Court of Appeal for Southern Ireland held that there was no contract. Ronan L.J. observed "[n]o man can impose such conditions upon another. The document is conclusive evidence against the parties who sent it, that it was an offer which required acceptance." Because the defendant decided not to respond there was no contract" - google that and you can find where I pulled it from.

You sound like you are honest and bona fide and thats how I found you when I dealt with you previously. If you want to read more about what the Courts of Ireland and later Southern Ireland were doing in the revolutionary period....the Law Society of Ireland has back issues of its Gazette on its website and lsat year or therabouts it ran a good series on the history of the courts and at least one article covered that period and would make for interesting reading. You will have to find it though. I don't feel like doing it for you. Regards. Staighre (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

ps broadly in relation to the courts read Thomas Molony. I worked on it before and think its a good read. You will like it. Regards. Staighre (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In view of the unambiguous citation, I concede. --Red King (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Things to come back to....Sourcebook on public international law By Tim Hillier The law of the sea By Robin Rolf Churchill, Alan Vaughan Lowe The Maritime Border Areas of Ireland, North and South: An Assessment of Present Jurisdictional Ambiguities and International Precedents Relating to Delimitation of 'Border Bays' Author: Symmons, Clive R.1 Source: The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Volume 24, Number 3, 2009 , pp. 457-500(44)Publisher: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, an imprint of Brill. Staighre (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Secession of the Irish Free State"

Wouldn't this be the more historically accurate an NPOV title for this article? Irvine22 (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, because (a) partition happened some years before the Irish Free State and (b) it was perpetuated because Northern Ireland seceded from the Free State by exercising its option to opt out. --Red King (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Red King...besdides..."Scession of the Irish Free State" is a much broader topic....This article is concerned witht the Partition (i.e. the border). Panassonic (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation requested

There's a citation requested in the lede on "or, if differentiation between the state and the entire island, or the state and Northern Ireland is required, the state can be referred to as Republic of Ireland[citation needed])." I suggest that the entire piece in brackets is simply removed. It's not needed (especially in the lede), adds nothing, and will never be adequately de-politicized as a sentence. Arguably, there's no citation for the alternative "sometimes referred to as Republic of Ireland" either. --HighKing (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dates and facts

Hi this is what the opening para says right now:

On 6 December 1922, in accordance with the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the entire island of Ireland became the Irish Free State, a dominion in the British Commonwealth. However, on 8 December 1922 the King was presented with an Address from the Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland by which Address Northern Ireland requested that it not be part of the new Dominion [problem 1]. The making of the Address had been passed in Belfast the previous day. On 12 December the King declared that he had accepted the Address in accordance with the Act and directed that Northern Ireland should return to the United Kingdom. [Problem 2] Today Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom while the rest of the island is a sovereign state named Ireland.

• Problem 1 - the address did not refer to being "part of anything" so this is not factual.
• Problem 2 - (a) there was no requirement that the King "accept" anything, for NI to exercise its right, it merely had to make the Address...it wasn't the case that the King would then mull it over and decide whether to accept it etc....; (b) I think you have confused the fact that the NI Prime Minister reported that the King's response to the Address on 12 December (I think) with the King having actually done anything on 12 December....I don't think the King did anything on 12 December...12 December is not a relevant date in this sequence save that the NI Prime Minister reported on the matter on 12 December...that had no significance....; (c) the King never "directed that NI should return to the UK..."
• Suggestion - We go back to the text I had put in. It was very carefully considered wording sticking closely to the facts, the timeline and the real legal significance of each step....General point - all of this was governed by law which needs to be carefully read and understood...Thanks. 84.203.65.99 (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess we're talking about this 84.203.65.99 edit. Any problems with it? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I don't know technically how to show edits the way you have. The edit you have shown is what I would like the piece to go back to...The edit I have shown the problwms with is this edit "21:34, 31 October 2010 Red King". Thanks. 84.203.65.99 (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that some editors likely aren't too familiar with Art. 12 of te Anglo Irish Treaty. It's the relevant provision for what I have written about above. Here is the first two sentences of Art. 12 [I've added commentary in square brackets]: "12. If before the expiration of the said month, an address is presented [Note - Thats all that had to be done, it only had to be presented, His Majesty did not need to "mull it over" and decide whether to accept it etc] to His Majesty by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to that effect, the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland [Note this is the exact wording the NI Houses of Parliament used in their Address...there was nothing about ceasing to be "part" of anywhere etc - let's just stick to the facts. The wording speaks for itself], and the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, (including those relating to the Council of Ireland) shall so far as they relate to Northern Ireland, continue to be of full force and effect, and this instrument shall have effect subject to the necessary modifications." Thanks. 84.203.65.99 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there is any dispute about Dates and facts. Sometimes established editor might get confused by IP contributions and this might be a vandalism. At this point it is clear that you made every effort to follow dispute resolution by contacting involved editor on user talk page. There are welcome links on your user talk page. You could click "Undo" button. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I was incorrect to say that the King decided. I should have checked the Act. --Red King (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

and I have revised the text accordingly. But note that all of Ireland became a Dominion and NI left it, per 12. If before the expiration of the said month, an address is presented to His Majesty by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to that effect, the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland . --Red King (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This was the latest Red Kind wording:

On 6 December 1922, in accordance with the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the entire island of Ireland became the Irish Free State, a dominion in the British Commonwealth.[2] However and as provided for in the Treaty [this is an unnecessary simplification...the Treaty does stand alone. It was scheduled to an Act of Parliament etc and what do these words add any way..they are hardly needed in the lede when the detail is dealt with in the body...] , on 8 December 1922 the Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland presented the King with an Address in which Northern Ireland requested that it not be part of the new Dominion.[You know exactly what the NI Houses requested....the full text is in the Article...and they made no menition of any such thing...you don't seem to have accepted the points I have already made above...] The making of the Address had been passed in Belfast the previous day. On 12 December the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland reported that the King had directed that Northern Ireland should return to the United Kingdom. [This is wrong] Today Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom while the rest of the island is a sovereign state named Ireland.

...I have gone back to my version. If you disagree with any of the wording, say exactly why...No one is denying that NI was part of the IFS on 6-8 Dec. But the wording you are attributing is not factual. My wording is. You accepted that you were wrong but then went off and inserted basically the same wrong wording....84.203.65.99 (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I went to the trouble of explaining (twice) why your wording was plainly wrong. Here is my wording. Please do me the same favour of explaining exactly what you think is wrong in it:

"On 6 December 1922, in accordance with the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the entire island of Ireland became the Irish Free State, a dominion in the British Commonwealth. However, on 8 December 1922 the King was presented with an Address from the Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland by which Address Northern Ireland opted out of the new Dominion. The making of the Address had been passed in Belfast the previous day. Today Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom while the rest of the island is a sovereign state named Ireland."

Thanks. 84.203.65.99 (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

We may be at risk of rewriting the article in the lede, but I still think that we should give the legal basis for NI to opt out. A wlink to the Address would be good. --Red King (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know: The IP 84.203.65.99, is actually the banned editor Redking7. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

I've revised the introduction so that it can be simple and accessable to newcomers to Irish history. The pedantic, technical details should be left to the body of the article, however I have previously created a section called "Overview" that gives a good summary of the technical details left out of the lead. A couple of points:

• I think it's accurate to describe partition as an ongoing reality, not just an historical event. This also has the advantage that it makes it possible to word the lead in an accessable way.
• The intro should not refer to the 26 county territory by four different names, however technically accurate that may be. The place for explaining all of that is in the body of the article. The Overview section currently does a good job I think.
• The introduction should not state in a bald way that Northern Ireland "seceeded" from the Free State and "rejoined" the UK. That is entirely misleading unless the full context is given, because this was of course a legal fiction; the Free State never had any powers in Northern Ireland. The place to explain the labyrinthine detail of the Northern Ireland opt-out and other such matters is in the body of the article.

Iota (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have problems with the present revision, including the words "since partition began". Partition plainly is "an ongoing reality", but it is also a major historical event. There have been proposals for a different border, but no change has ever been made. It is not correct to say "the greater part of Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom", whereas it is correct to say that "Northern Ireland seceded from the Free State": that is exactly what happened and is not a legal fiction. Moonraker (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I can agree that we do not need to deal with that detail in the lead. Moonraker (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

1914

Plans for partition were drawn up after the Buckingham Palace Conference failed to reach an agreement. Everybody knew that if the Home Rule Bill was passed a civil war would break out in Ulster. Partition was not an idea that just appeared after World War I. (92.7.16.166 (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC))

No one is saying the idea of partition was new. It was after all discussed at the conference. What is in dispute is your speculation that without partition, (presumably as was applied in 1920, and not one of the several variants considered), civil war in 'Ulster' was inevitable. That leap is always going to be speculative. "Everybody knew"...please. RashersTierney (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The source I found says partitioning four of the northern counties was considered in April 1914. Of course civil war was inevitable, because the Ulster Volunteers felt they had nothing to lose. (92.7.16.166 (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC))

Or perhaps because the army could not be relied on to implement government policy...still, that is also just speculation. RashersTierney (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Changing views by Republic's parties

From this point on [May 1949], all the political parties in the Republic were formally in favour of ending partition, regardless of the opinion of the electorate in Northern Ireland.

I've never liked sweeping statements like "all political parties" - does it mean all the ones in the Dail or, in an era without formal registration, absolutely anything resembling a party including all hyper-local parties and single-issue parties with no policy on anything else who may never have even been asked about it?

The article doesn't really cover when the major parties in the Republic started to change their positions towards requiring a majority in Northern Ireland and whether that was explicit policy or implicit by support for the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. I seem to recall the Progressive Democrats held that position from their foundation but when/if did the others shift? Timrollpickering (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

NI and the Free State

To forestall anybody saying I was wrong to change "rejoined the United Kingdom" to "remained in the United Kingdom" in this edit to the lead, I provide refs here (they are not needed in the article): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. --Scolaire (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have also added a "citation needed" tag to the sentence in the "Overview" section that says, "in strict legal terms, Northern Ireland left the United Kingdom for two days along with the rest of Ireland, but then chose to opt out of the Free State and rejoin the Union." If you're going to talk "in strict legal terms", you need a legal source to back that up. One of the books that I cited above suggests that the opposite was the case: that the constitutional status of Northern Ireland remained the same, and would remain the same for one month even if its government opted to join the Free State.

The provisions [of the Treaty] in respect of Northern Ireland maintained the terms of the 1920 Government of Ireland Act for a month after the official establishment of the Irish Free State (this occurred when the Irish Free State Constitution Act received Royal assent on 6 December 1922), during which time Northern Ireland could opt out of the new settlement. If this happened, the status quo within Northern Ireland, as constituted in 1921, staying in the United Kingdom would remain. If Ulster chose to join the Free State the Northern Ireland Parliament would remain, but as a devolved assembly from Dublin...On 7 December 1922, Northern Ireland exercised its right under the treaty to remain outside the Irish Free State. (Gibbons, Ivan. The British Labour Party and the Establishment of the Irish Free State, 1918-1924. p. 107.)

The sentence should be edited accordingly. Scolaire (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Scolaire for that information. I was misled by that paragraph. It led me to think that the United Kingdom had been abolished on 6 December 1922 - which I think would have been the case if all Ireland had left union with Great Britain. Does this also mean that the Irish Free State never covered the whole island of Ireland for 2 days and that Northern Ireland never left the United Kingdom? AlwynJPie (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is an analysis by a reputable barrister that I found hidden away among the refs in this article: Austen Morgan, The Belfast Agreement. Morgan makes it clear that the answer to your question is "yes". On p. 66 he writes, "it was legally clear that the treaty, and the associated provisional parliament and government, applied only to the 26 counties", and later on the same page he says that Article 11 "implied politically – but not legally – that the Irish Free State had some right to Northern Ireland. But partition was acknowledged expressly in the treaty." On p. 68 he says that on 7 December 1922 the Northern Ireland parliament "requested that the powers of the parliament and government of the Irish Free State should no longer extend to Northern Ireland. This does not mean they had so extended on 6 December 1922." I would say that's pretty unambiguous. Scolaire (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If Northern Ireland never became part of the Irish Free State what were they "opting out" of? And what is the meaning of this address to the King?:

”MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN, We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Senators and Commons of Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, having learnt of the passing of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922, being the Act of Parliament for the ratification of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, do, by this humble Address, pray your Majesty that the powers of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland.”

Reading this, to me, saying that "the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland" means that the Irish Free State currently does extend to Northern Ireland.

Another thing is if all of Ireland left the United Kingdom than the United Kingdom would have ceased to exist as it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Therefore there would no longer be a United Kingdom for Northern Ireland to rejoin. I am confused. Someone please clarify. AlwynJPie (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody can clarify, because it was confusing. It was deliberately confusing, because British, Irish and Ulster unionist all had to keep face. That's why nobody looked for clarity at the time. The whole problem with so many of these articles (and why are there so many?) is that, in the past, Wikipedians put their own gloss on treaties, acts of parliament etc., instead of stating what was verifiable by reference to reliable secondary sources. We could speculate endlessly on what was the meaning of the address, but that is not what the talk page is for. Scolaire (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What are "reliable" secondary sources? I use Wikipedia to find out facts. After being misinformed a few times I now tend to check the history for edits and varify the information from other web pages on the subject. AlwynJPie (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I wasn't, by the way, referring to you when I talked about people putting their own gloss on things; that happened long before you joined. But now we have to end this thread. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Partition of Ireland article, not our personal experience of Wikipedia. Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Scolaire. Surely it is only through our personal experience of using Wikipedia that enable us to make a fair judgement. I am still reading and digesting the links you posted. I will finish reading all your links and any related articles I find and comment further then. AlwynJPie (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have just come across this passage:

"On 6 December 1922, Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland and the Irish Republic were replaced by the Irish Free State, with executive authority nominally vested in the King, but exercised by a cabinet called the Executive Council, presided over by a prime minister called the President of the Executive Council. On 7 December the House of Commons of Northern Ireland unanimously exercised its right under the Treaty to secede from the Irish Free State." AlwynJPie (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

In Provisional Government of Ireland (1922). Thank you for pointing that out. I'll remove that sentence now. Scolaire (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Times headline

There is a sentence in the Anglo-Irish Treaty section which says that "on 6 December 1922 Northern Ireland stopped being part of the United Kingdom and became part of the newly created Irish Free State." This is cited with "The Times, 6 December 1922, Ulster in the Free State, Voting-Out Today, Memorial to the King". There is a serious problem with this citation, however. I have got access to The Times Digital Archive, and that headline is nowhere to be seen in the issue of 6 December 1922. In fact, there are two separate news stories, one on the new Free State and the other on "Ulster", and neither one even hints that there is any connection between the two, never mind that one has become part of the other. How this situation arose I cannot guess, but as things stand the sentence is unverifiable, and I am removing it (and the sentence that follows on from it) accordingly. I am copying this to Talk:Irish Free State and Talk:History of Northern Ireland, which both have similar sentences with the same citation. Scolaire (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Scolaire that is very interesting! I will take a trip to the British Newspaper Library and read those and other newspapers issued at that time as soon as I can. At the moment I am trying to understand the meaning and the terms of the Ulster Month. AlwynJPie (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the names

When and how were the names Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland decided? Was there a debate on what to call the two territories? Being that Northern Ireland was just a small part of Ireland in north-east Ulster and the most northerly part of Ireland was in Southern Ireland, were any other names considered? AlwynJPie (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, though, go to the library, find a book, and read it. Twentieth-century Irish history is at 941.59, and history of Northern Ireland is right next to it at 941.6 (though maybe that's just in Ireland: it's around there anyway). Wikipedia isn't the place to look for tiny details like that. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. If you find the answer to your questions, you could drop me a note on my talk page, but these articles are bloated enough already without adding more detail. Scolaire (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't be so condescending, Scolaire. It's a good question, there's a good chance an editor here may know the answer, and there's no good reason it can't be included in the article. If the article is getting big, we'll identify a section that can have an article of its own and thus trim it down. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to know the history of AlwynJPie's editing, and especially his filibustering on multiple talk pages. With the reams of stuff that have been written on various articles about "Southern Ireland", if anybody knew how the name was decided you may be sure it would have been added years ago. Have a read of Talk:Southern Ireland#Southern Ireland: The Modern Meaning – you'll see that not only does nobody knows, but nobody cares. Scolaire (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we just ought to prohibit editing on historical articles altogether. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

To All It May Concern: Everything I have edited on Wikipedia has been purely to improve it. Occasionally I have made clerical errors which I have rectified as soon as these have come to my attention. In respect of my understanding of the term Southern Ireland, as I have said many times before, this has always meant the part of Ireland that is not Northern Ireland, i.e. the 26 counties. I was unaware before reading it in recent times that it had ever been an official name given to the area under the Government of Ireland Act 1920; I thought its use was purely because Southern is opposite to Northern. I even thought the Irish Free State was just another nick-name for the Republic of Ireland. Wikipedia has been very educational in lots of ways. AlwynJPie (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Not "reunification"

It would not be "reunification", as Northern Ireland has never been part of the Republic of Ireland. (LoweRobinson (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

No one ever said it was. It was part of the Kingdom of Ireland though. And it was considered as a single unit within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Would you just work from sources please rather than sticking in your own ideas. Dmcq (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Ireland was just a group of warring tribes who were not united until Ireland requested to join the UK in 1800. (LoweRobinson (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

Citation needed on your contention that unification is the right thing to say and Ireland has never been single a political entity. Dmcq (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Ireland's sectarian divisions had prevented the country from being united prior to the 1800 Acts of Union: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/11/economist-explains-4 (LoweRobinson (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

Note that the above is a sock of a banned user. Scolaire (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked at last, though I guess they'll be back under yet another name sometime. I was quite surprised about how very badly informed the Economist article he pointed at was, I 'd have thought they'd have tried a little harder. And it was published as from the Economist without any author's name. Even so it still didn't back up what they were saying about Ireland never having been one country. Dmcq (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Inasmuch as the European Union is a union, they have been together within a loosely-unified entity since 1992. Not for long but...78.19.211.155 (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Mother Machree

Scolaire, the ROI isn't the only thing known as Ireland. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's still wrong to say that the state is "usually" known as the Republic of Ireland. Scolaire (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you believe 'Ireland' is a more common term for it? Gob Lofa (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't. I just checked Google and 'Ireland' gets almost twice as many hits as 'Republic of Ireland'. Going by the first page, only a sixth refer to the ROI alone. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

When I google "Ireland" I get 928,000,000 hits, and more than half the hits on the first few pages are for organisations etc. in the 26 counties. When I google "Republic of Ireland" I get 80,900,000 hits, less than one-tenth of the former. Which shows how useful a Google search really is for this kind of thing. Still, maybe you should re-check your count. Did you leave out the quotation marks, for instance? That would include every page where the word "republic" appeared along with "Ireland", for example the Federal Republic of Germany. Scolaire (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I tried the same thing and a large proportion of the hits on 'Ireland' referred to the island rather than to the state. However many did refer to the Republic and to Northern Ireland. However none of the snippets in the first six pages which is as far as I went had the word 'Republic' in them - except for the very first return which was to the Wikipedia page on Ireland! I did the search anonymously so as to stop it assuming anything about me. I must admit I was rather surprised - I expected a couple of other mentions at least but there were none. Dmcq (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Same as before; 927,000,000 for Ireland, 541,000,000 for Republic of Ireland. When you say "more than half the hits on the first few pages are for organisations etc. in the 26 counties", do you mean solely in the 26? Because that's certainly not what I'm seeing; a majority of links on the first three pages of the Google search refer specifically to the island. Of those that don't, a majority are Irish government sites. I didn't use quotation marks. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

If you don't use quotes, you're not searching for "Republic of Ireland". You're searching for everything with the words "Ireland" and "republic" in it. It has to be enclosed in quotes to be a valid comparison. Scolaire (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to the important part of this discussion; Ireland usually refers to the island, not the state. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And you didn't answer my question. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well my search certainly convinced me that the state of Ireland was not usually referred to as the Republic of Ireland but just as Ireland. And I dismissed any I wa unsure about as probably referring to the island. It is possible that Google downgrades references which refer to Republic of Ireland when it searches for Ireland, it has quite a bit of intelligence in it, but that would be a bit perverse. Dmcq (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My Google search returns a lot of tourism stuff that is mostly all-Ireland, but then returns organisations and things like Government of Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, Central Statistics Office, Education in Ireland, Ireland Chambers of Commerce, IDA, Football Association of Ireland, Culture Ireland, Central Bank of Ireland, Geological Survey of Ireland etc., which are 26-county bodies.

The question here is not what people usually mean when they say "Ireland" (which is impossible to determine anyway) but how people usually refer to the 26-county state. And the answer is that they usually refer to it as "Ireland", not "the Republic of Ireland". That's why the quotes matter. Over 800,000,000 out of 900,000,000 sites contain "Ireland" but not the word combination "Republic of Ireland". Therefore it is wrong to say that the state is "usually" known as the Republic of Ireland. Scolaire (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What would you substitute for 'usually'? I don't want to use 'also' as I've already used it in that sentence. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I would write "is the sovereign state of Ireland, also known as the [[Republic of Ireland]]." There is zero chance of the smaller entity being confused with the larger, since the distinction is spelled out in the paragraph. Scolaire (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about zero. It's important to show both have the exact same name, which is why I put 'also' where I did. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I am happy with the origional name that was given to the 26 county territory when the Partition first happened. AlwynJPie (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have re-worded it, usually implies it is more common, it is not. If you want to phrase it as such, find a source that says it is "usually", anything elae Gob is unsourced, unsupported and factually unproven. Murry1975 (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links

I have updated the External Links section, but all of them have been there since the article was created in 2005, and I'm not sure that any of them is appropriate. Five of the eight are political tracts – four leftist and one Sinn Féin; one is essentially a catalogue of pamphlets in the LSE; and the remaining two are brief sketches by the BBC and the History channel that contain considerably less information than this article. I'm inclined to remove the lot. Scolaire (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Origins of the idea of partitioning Ireland

I want to add something on the origins of the concept of partitioning Ireland before 1914. I have read these articles: http://www.historyireland.com/revolutionary-period-1912-23/the-search-for-statutory-ulster/ and https://www.ucd.ie/ibis/filestore/wp2006/67/67_kr.pdf and would like to copy and paste some relevant text from them without violating copywrite laws. AlwynJPie (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no way to copy and paste text without violating copyright laws. Copying and pasting, except where text is out of copyright (the author has been dead for 70 years or more) or is made free by the author under a license such as the Creative Commons license, is by definition a violation of copyright, which is the exclusive right of an author to distribute his or her own work (i.e. not to have it reproduced elsewhere by a stranger). I agree that there should be mention of the 1912 proposals in the article. I will try to get around to doing it in the next few days, if somebody else doesn't do it first. Scolaire (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. --12:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Scolaire. Can you (or anyone else) shed some light on what was "mooted" in the 19th century about possible partition (and when, where and why), as mentioned in this extract from the links I posted earlier?

"The partition of Ireland had been mooted in the nineteenth century but it became a live political issue only from 1912 onwards..." [remainder redacted]

AlwynJPie (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you? It is a violation of copyright to copy large amounts of text to anywhere on Wikipedia, or anywhere on the web for that matter. You have to stop now or you will be blocked.

I don't know what the author was referring to when he said that partition had been mooted in the nineteenth century. Possibly to Randolph Churchilll saying "Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right", or some other bit of politicking around Ulster unionist opposition to the 1886 bill. The word "mooted" is vague enough that it could be made to apply to nearly anything. I do know that the partition of Ireland was never seriously discussed – if at all – before 1912, and that in 1912 Ulster unionists were not in favour of partition. It was only as the Home Rule Crisis unfolded that they began to see it as the only way they could maintain the Union in their corner of Ireland. So, unless you find something more definite that proves me wrong, we don't need to mention it in this article. Scolaire (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Scolaire. That was informative in itself. Of course you could say we had "partitions" of sorts prior to the 1920 Act, such as the Pale and Dál Riata and there have been many Irish kingdoms controlling different parts of Ireland at various times throughout history. But getting back to more recent times I've found this http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/E900031.html which I am reading now. AlwynJPie (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that bit about Dál Riata is used to justify the Plantation of Ulster - even though it was so long ago and had Highlands rather than Lowlands in it and covered a different area. I suppose people need that sort of thing. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@AlwynJPie: Enjoy the book. I think you'll find that it makes no reference either to "partition" by name or to the exclusion of Ulster from the provisions of any home rule bill. I'm confident it will back up what I said in my previous post. Scolaire (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Historically, the general contention in the Republic would appear to be that partition was first countenanced during the 1912-14 Home Rule crises, although from the 1880ies, partition was the one option explicitly envisaged by Ulster should home rule be forced on it. Background:

On 22 February 1886, a meeting was arranged in the Ulster Hall, Belfast. The Conservative leader Randolph Churchill was invited to give the main address and famously declared that ‘Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right’. Some elements within Belfast Protestantism took this rhetoric to heart. On 4 June, a summer-long season of rioting ensued in the town between Protestants, Catholics, and the constabulary. The rioting resulted in 32 deaths, 422 arrests, and the injury of 377 policemen. (from The development of Unionism before 1912, by Dr Andrew Holmes, QUB).

At the other end of the country it is interesting to note the Home Ruler’s seeming disregard for Belfast’s importance within the British economic structure. Parnell proclaimed in a speech in 1886 ‘Protestant Ulster…say they want a separate Parliament for this little patch up in the North East’ (Bardon 1992 p402). However ‘Parnell…underestimated how formidable the obstacle thrown up by Ulster Protestantism to Home Rule was. Parnell thought…Northern Unionists comprised only landlords, carpenters and ‘the artisans of towns such as Portadown’ (Bardon 1992 p402). However Northern Unionists were in control of Belfast’s industries, which were each the largest of their kind in the world. Such importance in worldwide economics meant Harland & Wolff’s economic security would take priority over the wants of Irish nationalists. (from: Harland & Wolff and the partition of Ulster, Glenn Simpson, 2011)

There followed the First Government of Ireland (Home Rule) Bill debate in the Commons during which W E Gladstone in his renowned 7 June 1886 speech made reference to a plan for The severance of Ulster (Hansard section 1220), saying: "The question of Ulster, or whatever the common name of the question may be, may be one of great importance; but I must say that while I in no respect recede from the statement made in regard to it at the opening of these debates, yet I cannot see that any certain plan for Ulster has made any serious or effective progress. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Major Saunderson) emphatically disclaims the severance of Ulster from the rest of Ireland, and the hon. Member for Cork has laid before us a reasoned and elaborate argument on that subject to-day, which, as it appears to me, requires the careful attention of those who propose such a plan for our acceptance. We retain, however, perfect freedom to judge the case upon its merits."

The bill was defeated and Gladstone retired as PM after which matters calmed for a while until he made know his intention of introducing a second bill. This triggered the Great Ulster Convention of 17 June 1892 in Belfast which attracted some 12,000 delegates, in all 20,000 opponents of Home Rule from throughout all the counties of Ulster who met at a specially constructed hall on Stranmillis plains in an attempt to show Gladstone and Irish Nationalists that unionism was not a movement of disgruntled landlords who deliberately injected sectarian hatred to bolster their cause. This was to be a precursor of the “Ulster Covenant” of 1912, (from The development of Unionism before 1912, by Dr Andrew Holmes, QUB).

The main article here already relates that home rule and partition went hand-in-hand, from Patrick Maume’s, The long Gestation, Irish Nationalist Life 1891-1918 (1999, p. 10) “Although the first bill was defeated Gladstone remained undaunted and introduced a Second Irish Home Rule Bill in 1893 which on this occasion passed the Commons. Accompanied by similar massed Unionist protests, Joseph Chamberlain called for a provincial government for Ulster even before the bill was rejected by the House of Lords. The seriousness of the situation highlighted when southern Unionists called conventions in Dublin and Belfast to oppose the bill and the proposed partition.”

That "partition" was "mooted" in the 19th century, is further reflected in Carla King’s Defenders of the Union (2000) (ch.7, p.153): that early in his political career Horace Plunkett had opposed home rule because of the danger of partition. In 1893 he asserted that one of the leading objections to the measure [home rule] was that if it were possible to force it on Ulster ……. it would intensify and perpetuate a state of things in which the Boyne seemed to be broader, deeper and stormier than the Irish Sea.

Is there any reason why these points cannot be integrated into the main article and mentioned in the lede, that partition had its embryonic roots in the 19th century? Osioni (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

That sort of thing is very relevant to the article and you have good sources so of course it is welcome, the Background subsection 1886-1914 deals with much of that already but could do with expansion. Dmcq (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

But let's not have 750 words like you've posted here. That would be undue weight. I would say one or two short sentences at most. You are also to a certain degree conflating of "mooting" of partition with Ulster unionist opposition to home rule ("Ulster will fight", rioting etc.). Added content should be confined to what is unequivocally about partition and to secondary sources i.e. Bardon, Holmes and Maume. Scolaire (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

No movement, so I have done it myself. --Scolaire (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Dmcq (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks also for the initiative, was away. There appears, as mentioned, to be a considerable duplication of material in the sections "Process" and "Background" which could do with merging sometime. Osioni (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, at some stage somebody added an "Overview" section, so that everything gets repeated at least once, and sometimes more than once. It needs a radical overhaul, but you'd need to be prepared to spend several days on it. Scolaire (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Free State was not independent

Closing discussion initiated by sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter, per WP:DENY. --Scolaire (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My grandfather was tortured and murdered by the National Army in 1922 because he would not accept anything less than full independence. (109.159.10.107 (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)) Ssshhh, you will offend the revionists, on both sides. Murry1975 (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC) I think it's POV for the article to say the Free State was independent - it would be more accurate to say that it left the UK. Full independence was not achieved until 1937/8. (109.159.10.107 (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)) We actually needed the UK to pass a bill to enable our independence, how independent was that indeed? Self governing? We we still swore allegiance to a monarch who we had no say over, and no ability to create foreign offices and passports were confiscated as illegal documents with the UK. We were a self-controlling dominion, but as I said dont tell the revisionists, it is a bit awkward. Murry1975 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC) I suppose you know you're talking to a HarveyCarter sock? Scolaire (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Nope, what gave it away Scolaire? Very few edits, I would not have got it that quick. Murry1975 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC) I'm not a sock of anyone. The Free State was not independent - that's why my grandfather was killed by the pro-Treaty side. (109.159.10.107 (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)) And your grandfather was the man who shot Michael Collins and your great-great-uncle was in the Black and Tans. --Scolaire (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC) They were other editors, not me. (109.159.10.107 (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)) Wrong answer, I believe my learned esteemed colleague. Bye. WP:DENY Murry1975 (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC) How is it a wrong answer? The Free State was part of the British Empire, not an independent country. (109.159.10.107 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC))

UK1

Scolaire, I don't see UK1 linked anywhere else in the article. Why delink? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:OVERLINK. The UK is the UK, and everybody knows where it is. Linking to the UKGBI article doesn't help the reader to understand this article. Scolaire (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

UK1 is not the same as UK2. Delinking UK1 doesn't help the reader understand that. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

If you didn't know, that's OK. I'll change it. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Didn't know what? The UK is the UK. Before 1922 all Ireland was a part of it, and after 1922 only Northern Ireland was. This is amply covered in the UK article. I know that there is a separate article named United Kingdom of Great Britain, but linking to it doesn't help the reader to understand this article. Scolaire (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

COuld you be more explicit about what UK1 refers to. I had a look at the history and I see Scolaire removed where you put a link to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in [9]. But that is already linked to at the start of the same paragraph so I think Scolaire was right about that being overlinking. Dmcq (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted, I hadn't noticed. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge with United Ireland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no merge Scolaire (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

---

I had been editing sections of the united Ireland page, as I noticed it was somewhat unstructured and had obvious gaps. Whereas this page covers most of the same ground, and is somewhat better maintained as a page. Rather than duplication between pages, I'd propose either merging them entirely, possibly under a new title (I appreciate the politics is sensitive), or considerably shortening one of the articles. —William Quill (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Both of the articles as they stand are hugely overblown. United Ireland is in effect just another "History of Ireland" article. Brian Boru, the Confederate Wars and Henry Grattan have nothing to do with "united Ireland", which is solely a post-1914 concept. Neither does North-South co-operation during and after the Troubles. On the other hand, directly relevant matter, such as de Valera's anti-partition campaign and the IRA campaigns of the 30s, 40s and 50s, is absent. Partition of Ireland is blown up with minute details (for example, the text of the Northern Ireland parliament's address to the king in 1922 and the Times report of same and the text of the king's reply), and the great majority of it is entirely sourced by primary sources, meaning it is original research. Merging the two as they are would only produce a single article that was twice as long and twice as confusing. If both articles were gutted, and re-written in an encyclopaedic manner, it would be easier to see whether they dealt with distinct topics, or whether they might be merged. Scolaire (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd largely agree with you on United Ireland, Scolaire, although I incorporated those in my recent edits, somewhat on the basis that if they were to be mentioned, they should be mentioned correctly. What I presume earlier editors intended with Brian Boru and Henry Grattan was to mention earlier periods when Ireland was a single political entity. What I think makes sense is that partition of Ireland refers to the actual partitioning in 1920, with brief background on Home Rule Crisis, and afterword on the Boundary Commission. Then united Ireland could include events from 1920 to the present, with a focus on attitudes and significant events specifically related to a united Ireland like the border campaign, Articles 2 and 3, etc. —William Quill (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Both articles should remain seperate but do however need a lot of work to make their content actually relevant. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose merge The Partition-related stuff should be here, though some may be rather off-topic, as above; the other article is too long, as regards history. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge This is a fairly well defined topic though it could be made more specific by removing some of the 'after partition stuff' I think. It doesn't need to be stuck in with an article that hasn't quite worked out what its topic is. Dmcq (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge but cut down articles heavily to reflect predominantly the entitled topics- with a "main article" or "see also" link to the other for the relevant information. As it stands, Partition of Ireland is not that far off the recommended 10k word limit for a wikipedia article. It may well be worth having a third article for political and public opinions on a united ireland, to help with that- as it's a quagmire that takes up a hell of a lot of space atm.--ERAGON (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Can we close the discussion yet? Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Partitionism

Might the partitionism article be merged into this article, maybe towards the end under a heading of attitudes towards partition? It's really no more than a collection of a few quotes? —William Quill (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: As with the previous merge suggestion, the article in question is all over the place. See my comments at Talk:Partitionism. It should be edited down to give a concise and accurate description of its topic before being merged into this article. I do, however, agree with merging in principle. Scolaire (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I would have though this article should just confine itself to the actual partition and comments around that time. Partitionism sounds mmore like a United Ireland sort of thing. Dmcq (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose merge I think the pages are about different topics, one is about a partition that happened and the other is about an ideology, it seems like there would be enough content for two articles. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Overview

The article has a huge mass of detail, from which it's difficult to see the big picture. My impression - which could be wrong - is that this is the situation:

1. Most people in the Republic of Ireland would like Ireland to be reuinited.
2. The British government would also be happy to see Ireland reunited, because Northern Ireland has never been anything but a messy problem ever since partition.
3. but - a lot of people in Northern Ireland don't want to be part of the Republic, for historical and other reasons
4. and the British government can't just hand over NI to the Republic against the wishes of a majority of its inhabitants, in addition to which the Good Friday agreement binds both the British and the Republic to respect the wishes of the majority of NI inhabitants.
5. A lot of people expect and hope that demographic changes in NI will eventually result in a majority for reunification there - thus ending the whole messy saga. Are there any documented, data-based projections of when "eventually" will be?

Sayitclearly (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

For a start, you are reading the wrong article. If you want to know about people's attitude towards a united Ireland, you need to read the United Ireland article. But I can tell you that the British government would be very unhappy to see a united Ireland tomorrow – because it relies on the votes of Northern Ireland MPs to stay in power. As for the people of the UK, a poll reported in the Belfast Newsletter last May "found that a clear majority of people across the UK are in favour of the Union in its current form. There was 68% support in England, 52% in Scotland, 66% in Wales and 59% in Northern Ireland." So I'd guess your impression is wrong. As for the projected date for the flipping of the demographics, I don't know what that is at the moment, but I can remember that not so very long ago it was 2010, so I would be wary of any estimates. Scolaire (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC).

I always thought that for decades polls of the mainland population had shown a majority in favour of somehow losing NI, & this is more-or-less Labour Party policy if a NI referendum approves it. Actually the poll evidence on no. 1, "Most people in the Republic of Ireland would like Ireland to be reuinited" is rather equivocal, as I recall. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)