Talk:Irish Republic

Northern Ireland came from the Irish Free State...

...not the Irish Republic. Shouldn't Northern Ireland succeed the Irish Free State, not the Irish Republic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.124.72 (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Technically yes for a couple of days they were part of the Irish Free State. It had already been set up by the Government of Ireland Act though. What is this about? Dmcq (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I presume it's about this edit, and that it's related to the attempted inclusion of NI as a successor state in the Irish Free State infobox – see this edit. But Wikipedia does not deal with legal technicalities (except in legal articles), it deals with verifiable facts. Northern Ireland succeeded the Irish Republic – or the UKGBI, depending on your point of view – after the required process had been gone through. That's what all the sources say. You won't find any reliable source that says it succeeded the Free State, for the simple reason that it existed alonside the Free State for fifteen years before the Free State changed its name and constitution. Scolaire (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree it definitely should not be in the infobox for this article the Irish Free State. Dmcq (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean you agree it should be in the infobox in this article and not in the Free State article? Scolaire (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry yes it definitely shouldn't be in the infobox of the Irish Free State article. I'm not altogether sure it should be in the infobox of this article either as the Irish Republic never had any real standing in Northern Ireland but it's not a strong objection. Dmcq (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Succeeded? How could Northern Ireland seceded from the UK when it-albeit for an over emphasised few days-never ceased to be part of the UK? To secede wouldn't Northern Ireland have needed to become a sovereign state or region independent from that from which it was part of? If anything Northern Ireland seceded from the "country" within the UK that was called Ireland. Legal technicalities aside you can hardly argue that Northern Ireland was truly ever a part of the Irish Free State during those few days. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The reality is the position was that Northern Ireland did not become part of the Irish Free State, but the technicalities of the treaty have caused the confusion. The Treaty that created the Irish Free State provided an opt-out for Northern Ireland instead of an opt-in, so it has been argued that NI was part of the Free State for two days.

However the Treaty did not say that Northern Ireland ceased to be part of the United Kingdom nor that it would be part of the Free State. It provided that for the one-month period the government and parliament of the Free State had no authority in Northern Ireland and instead the Government of Ireland Act continued to apply as before. Had there been no address to the King, then NI would have become an autonomous part of the Irish Free State at the end of the month. In the event, the opt-out was exercised within the first week and at no point did the Free State extend to Northern Ireland. Howard Alexander (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I must actually apologise, I mistook what Scolaire was saying I thought when he typed succeed I thought he meant secede due to the similarity of the spellings. My bad. However I agree with Howard Alexander, and now have to think of attempts to claim NI was actually a part of the FS even if just for a few days to be an example of historical revisionism - a revisionism I have only ever seen propagated on Wikipedia. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Technically, no - the Irish Republic ended when the Irish Free State was set up in December 1922. Northern Ireland had a month, the so-called "Ulster Month" to vote to join, or not join, the Irish Free State.PatrickGuinness (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: speedily closed per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions: "According to an ArbCom ruling of June 2009, confirmed in September 2011, discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles (Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation)) must occur at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, unless it is agreed there to hold the discussion elsewhere. Any requested move affecting these articles that is opened on the article talk pages or any other venue should be speedily closed, with a link to the ArbCom ruling." As this appears to fall under that ruling, please move this discussion to the other venue. Dekimasuよ! 19:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Irish Republic → Irish Republic (1919–1922) – No clear primary topic. See [1]. Many sources refer to the Republic of Ireland, eg:

Showcasing globalisation? The political economy of the Irish Republic, Nicola Jo-Anne Smith (2005)

Chasing Progress in the Irish Republic: Ideology, Democracy and Dependent Development, John Kurt Jacobsen (1994)

"Home Rule was granted in 1922; the Irish Republic formed in 1949."
The Folklore Historian, Simon Bronner (2005)

"This was the time when the 'Celtic Tiger' economy of the Irish Republic was in full action."
The Celtic Languages in Contact, Hildegard L. C. Tristram (2007)

"During the last decade however, the Irish Republic has experienced an economic boom..."
Comparative Spatial Deprivation in Ireland, Combat Poverty Agency (2000)

I think "Irish Republic" should direct to a disambiguation page: "Irish Republic may refer to: Republic of Ireland, Irish Republic (1919–1922), Irish Republic (1916)". Rob984 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is a clear primary topic. The Irish Republic was verifiably a revolutionary state that declared independence in 1919. It is not the name of any other entity, notwithstanding the lazy use of the term for modern Ireland by some writers. The modern state is pointed to in the hatnote. Scolaire (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a clear primary topic.

A Google Books search suggests otherwise. This is an accepted method of determining the primary topic. Can you please explain how you came to your conclusion?

It is not the name of any other entity, notwithstanding the lazy use of the term for modern Ireland by some writers.

How is calling a state what it is, 'lazy' or incorrect? The state is a republic and it's Irish... so how is calling it 'the Irish Republic' wrong? Further, according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, correctness isn't generally a determining factor.

Rob984 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I have removed Irish Republic (1916) from the hatnote, because it is simply a redirect to the Easter Rising. The Irish Republic proclaimed in Easter 1916 was identical to the one that was formally established by Dáil Éireann in 1919, as is made clear in this article. Scolaire (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - it is at the primary topic. No disambiguation is required. Patient12 (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A Google Books search suggests otherwise. This is an accepted method of determining the primary topic. Can you please explain how you came to your conclusion? Rob984 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Lead is uncomprehendible to those without some background knowledge.

I have tried to change the lead in this article so that it makes some sense to those with little knowledge of the subject by using more accepted terms and adding important background information and useful links but my changes are continually being reverted without giving good and clear reasons. If someone feels there is something wrong please explain and debate before changing.

Here is an extract of Wiki policy:

The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph.

The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read, and for many, it may be the only section read. A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

Please comment. AlwynJPie (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears that some information that I added to the lead about the Easter Rising was inaccurate. I removed this. AlwynJPie (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I do not see how it "makes sense to those with little knowledge of the subject" to say that the Provisional Government "was set up to administer Southern Ireland" when there was an overwhelming consensus at Talk:Provisional Government of Ireland (1922) that that assertion is unverifiable and untrue. Nor does it "make sense to those with little knowledge of the subject" to say that all Ireland became the Irish Free State when I produced abundant evidence at Talk:Partition of Ireland that that did not happen in fact or even in theory, and no evidence to the contrary was produced except subjective commentary on certain primary sources. Nor does it "make sense to those with little knowledge of the subject" to say that "the former Southern Ireland became the Irish Free State" when the above inaccuracies are taken into consideration; it makes more sense to say that the 26 counties that were not Northern Ireland became the Free State, as discussed at Talk:Republic of Ireland. I do not see that this edit "simplifies the lead so that it now makes some sense to the layman." I see only another attempt to add fringe views that are not held by anybody else – either in the Wikipedia community or the academic community – to yet another article. Scolaire (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rob984: now your latest edit did actually provide information which was of value to the reader. It was an improvement on mine, which was done in a rush in an attempt to remedy the awkward "claimed Ireland" phrasing. It is always to be appreciated when somebody does actually do the work required to make the lead more informative to the reader, and it's all the more welcome in a situation where somebody else is trying to truck his fringe theories all over Wikipedia. With regard to "British armed forces" and "British security forces", I take the point that the first is usually taken to mean the army, but I dislike the second because it's an anachronism. "Security forces" is commonly used in reference to the Northern Ireland Troubles, but not the earlier Troubles. What's really needed is a succinct way of saying "the British Army and the armed police force, the RIC, which was supplemented by British recruits known as the Black and Tans and the Auxilliaries." Can you think of a way of saying that in 5–10 words? Scolaire (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There was also the Ulster Special Constabulary. Anything that isn't ambiguous: "British state forces", "British state security forces", "the British Army and other state forces", "the British Army and other armed security forces", "the British Army and armed police", or simply "British forces". Rob984 (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The Provisional Government was set up to govern Southern Ireland; the Parliament and Governmental institutions for Northern Ireland were reasonably established. In contrast, the Parliament and Governmental institutions for Southern Ireland failed to function or take root. This was because of the political circumstances in Ireland at the time – with the very large majority of Irish Members of Parliament giving their allegiance to Dáil Éireann and supporting the republican effort in the Irish War of Independence.

Article 17 of the Anglo-Irish Treaty provided that: By way of provisional arrangement for the administration of Southern Ireland during the interval which must elapse between the date hereof [6 December 1921] and the constitution of a Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State [This ultimately occurred on 6 December 1922] in accordance therewith, steps shall be taken forthwith for summoning a meeting of members of Parliament elected for constituencies in Southern Ireland since the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and for constituting a provisional Government, and the British Government shall take the steps necessary to transfer to such provisional Government the powers and machinery requisite for the discharge of its duties, provided that every member of such provisional Government shall have signified in writing his or her acceptance of this instrument [the Treaty]. But this arrangement shall not continue in force beyond the expiration of twelve months from the date hereof. AlwynJPie (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The Provisional Government had some delegates from the area of Northern Ireland as well. It was Britain that recognized it for the purposes of the treaty. Dmcq (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@AlwynJPie: You have been bold, you have been reverted, we have discussed. Please do not edit-war. Scolaire (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am NOT edit warring. I am correcting misleading information.

Firstly, Ireland was not a dependant of Great Britain as implied: it was PART of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Secondly, the article states that Northern Ireland opting out of the Free State led to the Partition of Ireland when the Partition of Ireland is generally understood to mean the partition that took place on 3 May 1921 (under the Government of Ireland Act 1920). The Irish Free State, came into existence when its constitution became law on 6 December 1922. This was over 19 months after the partition under the Govt of Ireland Act 1920.

Thirdly, the 26 counties that made up the Irish Free State after Northern Ireland opted out was known officially as Southern Ireland (see Govt of Ireland Act 1920). This important point has been ommited.

Fourthly, the Provisional Government of Ireland administered Southern Ireland from 16 January 1922 to 5 December 1922. Northern Ireland was still operating under the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The government was set-up as a transitional administration for the period between the ratifying of the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the establishment of the Irish Free State. Although its legitimacy was disputed by the Anti-Treaty delegates to Dáil Éireann.

AlwynJPie (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You ARE edit-warring. Repeatedly restoring a contested edit is edit-warring. That you are kidding yourself that you are correcting misleading information is not an excuse for edit-warring.

Your third and fourth assertions are the same ones that you have been making for over a year now, without ever managing to find a reliable, published secondary source to verify them. Instead you are providing your own commentary on primary sources (e.g. the text of the Government of Ireland Act), which is against WP:No original research. See my post above for links to discussions where those assertions have been shown to be wrong. Repeatedly adding your own pet theory against consensus is disruptive, and shows you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you want to publish your ideas you should get a Wordpress page and do it there.

As regards "independence from Great Britain", there is a long and involved discussion above, but the bottom line is that "independence from Great Britain" is by far the most-used description, both in modern books and in the literature of the time, and indeed "Great Britain" was used in the Treaty itself and in British documents concerning the Treaty. The wording has been stable since September 2011, and to repeadedly change it just on a whim is disruptive, and shows you are not here to build an encyclopedia. You are of course, free to use "the United Kingdom" on your Worpress page if you start one.

As regards partition, I will concede that it is not altogether chronologically accurate. Although I don't think it misinforms, there is no harm in re-wording it to make the chronology clear. I will do that now.

Scolaire (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not reverted your edits. Instead I am trying to understand you.

I read all the talk posts in Irish Republic in the Independence from Great Britain section.

As I have already said The Irish Republic was a revolutionary state that declared its independence from Great Britain in January 1919 sounds like Great Britain had political control over Ireland. Legally Ireland was PART of “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”. Seperated politically from Great Britain would be more accurate as it was before the Constitution of 1782 that the Irish parliament was subservient to the Parliament of England (and following the union of England and Scotland, the Parliament of Great Britain).

Great Britain is the term used for the island which contains the bulk of England, Wales and Scotland. It is also used in another sense to mean the island plus the surrounding smaller islands that come under England, Wales and Scotland politically such as England's Isle of Wight, Wales's Anglesey and Scotland's Inner Hebrides, Outer Hebrides, Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands.

I understand that there are many people that use the term “Great Britain” to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (or the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) but this is not usually found in official publications where accuracy is important.

I am not sure if you used Great Britain as an abbreviation, if so than you should link it to the article United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Personally I think the United Kingdom or the UK would be more acceptable and less confusing abbreviations.

I also prefer the term Southern Ireland to the 26 counties.

AlwynJPie (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Independence from Great Britain is correct. The union would no longer be, it would cease to exist. There would be no point in saying it was independent of a union of itself and another, it would be independent of the other. Besides that and it is what sources say.

It would be more convenient if Southern Ireland meant something. But it has very little meaning in this context. The Irish Republic did not control all the 26 counties, crown forces were still in control in some major towns including Dublin. If the Syrian government declared there was an area called North East Syria what would be the point when it contained government forces, forces against Sadat and forces of IS plus a bits controlled by Kurds? Even if they were happy enough to talk to the government about a handover there would be no point unless they accepted the name. It might be a convenient name to use for the time but it wouldn't be the name of the area even at the time. In this case the Dáil set up a Provisional Governmentu rather than accepting having a Commons of Southern Ireland. That hardly sounds like acceptance of Southern Ireland as a name for the area they governed. Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since you read all the posts in the "Independence from Great Britain" section, you will be aware that all you are doing is recycling the arguments that were used there. While none of what people said then, and you say now, is incorrect, all of it was and is irrelevant. This article is not an article on geographical terminology, it is an article on the history of Ireland. Therefore, the only criterion for whether a sentence should stand is whether it passes WP:Verifiability. Allow me to recycle some of my arguments from that discussion:

• A Google Books search will show that a wide range of books on Irish and world history, political science, social science, (American) national security and even international insurance use the phrase "independence from Great Britain".
• Content is not inaccurate if it is verifiable by reference to multiple reliable secondary sources. Reputable authors say that Great Britain was a country in 1919. We can't just say they're wrong. Please have a read of Wikipedia:I just don't like it#Article content. I'm afraid that that is what your argument comes down to, and there's nothing I can do about that.
• I refer you to the Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, signed at London, December 6, 1921 and the Commons debate on the address to King George, which says, "we are ready to confirm and ratify these Articles in order that the same may be established for ever by the mutual consent of the peoples of Great Britain and Ireland". When the parliament and government of Great Britain calls Great Britain "Great Britain", it seems a bit absurd to say that there is no country called "Great Britain".

Bottom line, there is no policy-based reason for changing that sentence, and you have failed to achieve any consensus, or even support, for changing it, so please leave it alone. The same applies to "26 counties". Scolaire (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The country that Ireland was a part of was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland NOT Great Britain. Ireland was NOT a part of Great Britain which, as I have already explained, means the island that contains England, Wales and Scotland. If you are using Great Britain as a short form of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland than you should pipe a link to the latter. Although UK would be easier.

Some people may argue that Ireland was, or at least many of the people of Ireland were, unofficially ruled, or controlled, by England or Great Britain. Indeed, as I already said, before the Constitution of 1782 the Irish parliament was subordinate to the Parliament of Great Britain and previous to the union of England and Scotland in 1707 it was subservient to the Parliament of England for centuries. Before the Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801 many MPs of the Irish Parliament were against the Union and voted to reject it in 1799. However, a concerted campaign by the British government overcame the reluctance of the Irish Parliament.

Only Anglicans were permitted to become members of the Parliament of Ireland, though the great majority of the Irish population were Roman Catholic, with many Presbyterians in Ulster. In 1793 Roman Catholics regained the right to vote if they owned or rented property worth £2 p.a. The Catholic hierarchy was strongly in favour of union, hoping for rapid emancipation – the right to sit as MPs – which was however delayed until 1829.

From the perspective of Great Britain, the union was required because of the uncertainty that followed the Irish Rebellion of 1798 and the French Revolution of 1789, which inspired the rebels; if Ireland adopted Catholic Emancipation, willingly or not, a Roman Catholic parliament could break away from Britain and ally with the French, while the same measure within a united kingdom would exclude that possibility. Also the Irish and British parliaments, when creating a regency during King George III's "madness", gave the Prince Regent different powers. These considerations led Great Britain to decide to merge the two kingdoms and their parliaments.

The final passage of the Act in the Irish Parliament was achieved with substantial majorities, achieved in part according to contemporary documents through bribery to get their votes.

So the rebels that declared independance from Great Britain in 1919 may have used the term Great Britain because they didn't recognise the Union between Great Britain and Ireland, instead they felt that Ireland and its people were under the control of Great Britain which had a much larger representation in Westminster.

AlwynJPie (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? The British negotiators used the term "Great Britain". The British House of Commons used the term "Great Britain". Was it because the British didn't recognise the Union between Great Britain and Ireland, instead they felt that Ireland and its people were under the control of Great Britain which had a much larger representation in Westminster? I don't know, but I doubt it. I think they used it because the country was popularly called Great Britain. The rest of your TL;DR history lesson has no bearing on the case whatsoever. It only shows once again that you are arguing just to get attention, not because you have any genuine interest in improving articles. I have indulged you longer than I should have. I will not respond to you again. Scolaire (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are using the term "Great Britain" to mean the UK than please link it to UK to stop confusion. AlwynJPie (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

They declared independence from Great Britain. They couldn't declare independence from a UK including Ireland, that would mean declaring independence from themselves. What is so difficult in that? Great Britain is what is meant and is what is in the sources. Dmcq (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Plus please don't write essays here especially ones which have nothing to do with the point. Dmcq (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't mean declaring independance from itself. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is just a name of a country and as such it does not have to be accurate geographically. The name of the country that the Irish Republic were declaring Ireland independant from was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. When the Irish Free State was established in 1922, Ireland was no longer part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland but the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland continued to be called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland even though Ireland was no longer part of it. It was only after the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 that the formal name was changed to its current form. AlwynJPie (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

How about just following the sources? Yes of course in politics nobody has to do anything logical or sensible. What the sources say is that they declared the Irish Republic independent of Great Britain rather than saying the Irish Republic would be independent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I'm pretty sure they envisaged that the United Kingdom would have to remove the 'Ireland' part from their name and consist almost entirely of Great Britain. There are no sources backing up what you say and you have been asked to provide sources for what you say and you haven't. A citation is needed if you want to bring this up again. Wikipedia is based on WP:Verifiability not the ruminations of editors that really they were declaring independence from the title of the country that would require time to change rather than what they actually said and what other sources from Westminster say. Dmcq (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"Great Britain" ceased to exist with the 1800 Acts of Union. The Irish Republic declared independence from the United Kingdom, not from "Great Britain" which had not existed for nearly 120 years. (LoweRobinson (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

Great Britain still exists. Please provide a citation for what you are saying rather than trying to apply your own logic to politics. Dmcq (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Great Britain ceased to exist when it became the UK in May 1800. Ireland was part of the UK, it was not part of Great Britain. (LoweRobinson (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

Please stop applying your logic and follow sources as per the Wikipedia policy WP:Verifiability. Whaat you are doing is called WP:Original research on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've had another look at the sources and I have not found a single instance where it has said they wanted independence from or declared independence from the United Kingdom. However most of the sources say Britain or British rule rather than Great Britain. A couple say English or England. I think a wikilink to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is okay to show the state but using the name United Kingdom or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as the text is just wrong by the sources. Dmcq (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Then the sources are wrong, because Ireland let the UK. It doesn't matter that it was part of the UK. Many countries declared independence from the Soviet Union, not from Russia. Many countries declared independence from the British Empire, not from the UK itself. Ireland was part of the UK from 1800 to 1922, so in 1919 it was declaring its independence from the UK. "British rule" is inaccurate as Ireland was represented by MPs at Westminster throughout its time in the UK. (LoweRobinson (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

Note that the above is a sock of a banned user. Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I put a note on his user page about WP:5 section 2 but that bit about 'Then the sources are wrong' and reverting you with 'FUCK OFF' pretty much shows they are not willing to work cooperatively within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Dmcq (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Scolaire is a troll who should be banned. Ireland left the UK, it was never part of Great Britain (which only existed from 1707 to 1800). (LoweRobinson (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

Looking at your edit comments I do not believe you are a new user and I think Scolaire may well be right. The important point here is that you seem unwilling to work within the straightforward principles in WP:5P on verifiability, original research, courtesy or cooperation to even a basic degree. Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Ireland declared independence from the UK. It was never part of Britain. (LoweRobinson (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

{{citation needed}}. I don't know where you get the idea that Ireland needed to be part of Britain to declare independence from Britain. Dependence is a control relationship not an inclusion relationship. Dmcq (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There was no "control" at all. Ireland and Scotland were both massively overrepresented at Westminster given their tiny populations. (LoweRobinson (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

The majority has control. It is not about how good the parliament was or democratic or whatever. Long before 1916 people in Ireland were being asked why they wanted their own government when Westminster was a good parliament and treated people well and the answer was basically that yes an Irish parliament might be much worse but it would be their own parliament. Dmcq (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Having two parliaments was a waste of money. (LoweRobinson (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

With respect, I consider Ireland just as British as Great Britain. The terms are ancient. Ptolemy referred to the larger island as great Britain and to Ireland as little Britain in his work, Almagest in 147–148 AD centuries before the union of England and Scotland. And the island of Ireland existed for thousands of years before Great Britain became an island. AlwynJPie (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

LoweRobinson been banned indefinitely now. Dmcq (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

That's ashame. Why was he banned? AlwynJPie (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Because he was a sockpuppet of HarveyCarter who has set up some hundreds of accounts so far in the last nine years to abuse Wikipedia. So you think it is a shame he was banned, presumably because you agreed with him - would you like it if someone you disagreed with did what he did? Do you want a trustworthy encyclopaedia based on reliable sources or one based on editors own ideas of the 'truth' and edit-warring? There are enough forums out there for internet yobs to shout their ideas in and insult each other, abusers like that would turn Wikipedia into another one if they had the chance. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think some of the points he was making in this section were good but I don't know his history. Ideally I would like Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information. I realise through my personal experience that it is a good idea to check the articles history and sourses and cross-check with other sites and books. AlwynJPie (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Simplified the Lead to make it clear and concise with a neutral point of view as per guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. AlwynJPie (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I think the introduction is fairly neutral. You edit simply removed information and made it less neutral. For example "was the unilaterally declared independent Irish state"—is both inaccurate and POV. "The Dáil asserted that it possessed the right to declare Ireland independent"; for one, it didn't, and again it's just unnecessary. Nothing in the stated currently infers the state was legitimate. To state it was illegitimate, and infer the British occupation of Ireland was legitimate, is not a neutral point of view. Rob984 (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Independence from GB instead of UK

I am still unhappy with the lead stating ".... declared its independence from Great Britain." It is confusing. It would make sense if it read "....declared Ireland independent of the United Kingdom."... which is what it was did. Although the UK government DOES use the term Great Britain. It is used to mean England and Wales and Scotland (i.e. the UK minus Northern Ireland, or the UK minus Ireland when ALL Ireland was within the UK). For example the GB driving licence is issued to those living in England and Wales or Scotland. Northern Ireland has a seperate vehicle and driver licencing authority. Historically, before the union of 1801, the parliament of Ireland was subordinate to the parliament of Great Britain. And before the union of England and Scotland the parliament of Ireland was subordinate to the parliament England. In 1919 all Ireland was part of the UK. Great Britain is often used wrongly to mean the UK. Sometimes it is used as an abbreviation for the UK. Whatever its meaning is supposed to be in this article it looks like an error. To those who don't know the history of Ireland they may think that Great Britain officially "ruled" Ireland. Some people feel that "England" ruled Ireland even after 1801 when the union was formed but this was not official. AlwynJPie (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Produce a reliable source saying something similar to what you want to say and then we can look at that. All the rest of what you are saying is WP:OR. Dmcq (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is one sourse: http://alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html AlwynJPie (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything like what you want the article to say. Find something like for instance [2] which talks about '... whose first session marked the 1919 start of the War of Independence against Britain'. Surely you can match that fairly low bar at least? Dmcq (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Its the way it reads that I am unhappy about. AlwynJPie (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is it saying declared independent from Great Britain? Great Britain was a part of the UK just as (all) Ireland was. Ireland was not (officially) ruled by Great Britain. Could Great Britain have declared indepenence from Ireland? Am I the only one that is not happy by the way the lead is written? I have tried to edit but my edits keep getting reverted. Can others please explain to me why Great Britain needs to be included? AlwynJPie (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Read this section and the section before. It has been explained to you several times why "Great Britain" is right. Please stop your disruptive editing flogging dead horses on the talk page now. Scolaire (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

AlwynJPie, I agree entirely. "Great Britain" is an island adjacent to Ireland. This article is about a revolutionary state that fought for independence against the United Kingdom—a state that spanned Great Britain, Ireland, and a number of other islands. It might not be strictly wrong to refer to "Great Britain", but it certainly is unnecessary and misleading. It's also obvious POV use of terminology. "Britain" would be a fair neutral compromise, and probably my preference. There is only currently one source for "Great Britain", but I doubt it would be difficult to find reliable sources for "Britain" or "United Kingdom" since they are both equally, if not more correct. I don't really have the time right now but maybe you can have a look? Then a RFC can probably get a satisfactory consensus on the issue. Else I might have a look when I don't have a dissertation AND a software dev project to finish (although this isn't very high up on my list of crap to sort out on Wikipedia). Rob984 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There aren't sources for United Kingdom. It isn't even as if it was a minority opinion in the sources. That's the problem for what AlwynJPie keeps pushing here. I agree Britain would be better than Great Britain and is supported by the sources so I'll try that. Dmcq (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Rob. Being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is used by people of all levels of knowledge so we have to be careful how we word things. I wouldn't mind so much if Great Britain was in quotes or highlighted with a link to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; or even if independent of Westminster or even London was used instead. But left bare with nothing but a reference to a source, it implies that Ireland was under the control of the larger island, which may well have been the case, some may argue, but this was NOT the legal status of Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you stop doing changes against what the sources say and against consensus. Your 'logic' is not enough to do things differently in Wikipedia against consensus and sources. Please topic ban yourself as you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to get your own opinions into articles about Ireland. You are being disruptive. Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Messing with the lead

Just to note that AlwynJPie's edit of early this morning ("Simplified lead") was in fact a revert to the first paragraph of the version of August 2006. If this is AlWynJPie's idea of improving the article, then I think we need to look at WP:Competence is required and ask ourselves whether he should be editing at all. Scolaire (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that was plain disruptive editing and not acceptable. I think they can either choose to acknowledge this as a mistake, or otherwise be reported at WP:AN/I. Rob984 (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy if they could just learn to WP:Drop the stick after discussing something on the talk page and finding that the consensus there is against what they want to do. There's better things to spend one's life on than arguing with other editors. It isn't as if the matters brought up are even cases of trying to right great wrongs which is the usual case for people going on like that. Dmcq (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

All the edits I have done have been to improve articles. The lead in this article had become a misleading mess; the lead that I changed to was clear and concise and accurate; the way it is supposed to be. And because 24 April will mark 100 years since the start of the Easter Rebellion, this subject is currenly popular and many students' first port of call is Wikipedia when accessing online information. AlwynJPie (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

See also Talk:Irish Free State#Lead. This guy learned everything he thinks he knows from Wikipedia articles. He can't grasp the fact that for all those years the articles he treated as gospel were wrong, and instead of accepting the correct version he wants to take us back to the incorrect one. Scolaire (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irish Republic. 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/20071119184338/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191901210004.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191901210004.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Footnotes not displaying properly

At least on my computer, the Infobox Footnotes are not displaying properly. In other words, when my cursor hovers over superscripts a, b, or c (beside Brugha, Griffith and Cosgrave), no window appears as I would have expected, and I have to go looking for the footnotes. A quickish solution would be to replace them with ordinary footnotes which would then appear as n 1, n 2, n 3 (or nb 1, nb 2, nb 3, etc). However this may be a problem with my computer (its operating system is Windows XP, which is obsolete), or with the way the footnote_a, footnote_b, and footnote_c fields in the infobox have been implemented in this instance, or with how such footnotes are implemented everywhere. And there may be other reasons why a, b, c is preferred to n 1, n 2, n 3. So I'd like to give a little time to get some possible feedback before deciding whether or not to try the above-mentioned quickish solution. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The footnotes are not linked, they're just letters in superscript, with the footnotes written at the bottom of the infobox. At any rate, they are far too detailed to be in the infobox, which is only meant to be a quick summary. I'm going to zap them. Scolaire (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Independence from GB instead of UK, continued

I've replaced "from Britain" (without quotation marks) by "from Great Britain" (with quotation marks) as this is per the cited source (which says "declared formal independence from Great Britain", as well as quoting the words of the oath taken in the Mansion House calling for "complete separation from Great Britain"). The actual declaration of independence (here) makes no mention of Britain, GB, UK, or 'from ...', but instead refers to "English rule", "English garrison", "foreign usurpation", and "foreign government in Ireland" (which is declared to be "an invasion of our national right"), none of which is particularly clear to the uninformed reader, nor particularly NPOV (unless used with quotation marks backed by explanatory citations, and even then probably does not belong in the lead, and probably belongs more appropriately, if anywhere, somewhere in the Irish Declaration of Independence article). There was (and is) no state called either Britain or Great Britain (so neither name is 'clear'), and it seems (according to Dmcq above at 10.05 on 30 January 2016) that there are no sources for UK. So quoting the wording of the source, and using quotation marks to indicate this, seems least unclear of the necessarily unsatisfactory options available. However for those wanting to know what "Great Britain" means in this confusing context, the least bad option seems to be to wikilink it to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as the relevant internationally recognized state at the time. So I've done that too. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Incidentally Britain, with 3 meanings (or 4 in French) is more ambiguous (and thus unclear) than Great Britain (with 2 meanings). GB is England+Wales+Scotland, and can be short for UK. Britain is England+Wales, and can also be short for GB, or for UK (and a further point, though perhaps a trivial one, is that in French Grande Bretagne is GB, but Bretagne is Brittany, so Britain on its own just might also create problems for French speakers reading the article under Google translate, though this would surprise me).Tlhslobus (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but the use of quotation marks is the worst of all options. It implies that "from Great Britain" was in the Declaration of Independence when, as you say, Great Britain wasn't mentioned at all. The point about "independence from Great Britain" (1) is not that it happens to be used in some random book, but that it is used in many, many books written as recently as this year. Now, if Bloomsbury Publishing don't think that "Great Britain" will be confusing to American readers of a biography of an American politician, why should we assume that it will be confusing to readers of Wikipedia? (2) "Great Britain" is how the British referred to their own country in 1919–21. See the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland as signed: articles 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10.

It is a fallacy that "there was (and is) no state called either Britain or Great Britain". There is a state that is frequently called Great Britain, and furthermore, everybody who hears it called that knows what state it refers to. A Google Ngram shows that "Great Britain" was the more common use until relatively recently, and far more common in the 1919–21 period. That's why "independence from Great Britain" is the more appropriate use in this article. The idea that it needs to be linked to the UKGBI article or nobody will know where we're talking about is a bit of a silly one, in my opinion. Scolaire (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Confusing wording in the lead

The article claims in the lead that the Irish Republic proclaimed in 1916 was somehow different to the subject of this article. This simply isn't the case. In the eyes of republicans, 1916 announced the Irish Republic and 1919 established its parliamentary and other institutions de facto. The Irish Republic was just without a government from its physical extermination by the Empire in 1916 until the sitting of the First Dáil in 1919. This isn't that usual, Belgium recently went 589 days without a government, but Belgium was still a thing. To give a modern comparison; the British public have just voted to exit the EU, Brexit has been "proclaimed" by the British government, but it has not yet fully brought about its de facto separation from the EU itself. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That was a very recent addition, and the only edit ever by that user. I have reverted. Scolaire (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Irish Republic. 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/20110609123341/http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/DT/D.F.C.192008060089.html to http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/DT/D.F.C.192008060089.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070502072425/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/en.toc.D.F.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/en.toc.D.F.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irish Republic. 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/20110606104829/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.S.192205190004.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.S.192205190004.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Volunteers under the control of the Dail?

In the lede:

At the same time, the Irish Volunteers, who came under the control of the Dáil and became known as the Irish Republican Army, fought against British state forces in the Irish War of Independence.

The evidence is that they swore oaths and had the same aims, but the Dáil never declared war on Britain, and therefore never took responsibility for the acts of the IRA until months after the war. It's fairer to say that they were affiliated and alongside each other, but the IRA was certainly not under the control of the Dáil. The Dáil discussed declaring war twice, in January and March 1921, but never took that final step.78.18.192.136 (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit simplistic all right. It's okay to say "At the same time, the Irish Volunteers, who became known as the Irish Republican Army, fought against British state forces in the Irish War of Independence." The rest is less clear-cut.

• On 20 August 1919 the Dáil passed a motion requiring an oath of allegiance to the Irish government to be taken by all members of the Dáil and of the Volunteers (Dáil debates). The Minister for Defence (Cathal Brugha) said he believed the Volunteers should be subject to the government. Brian Murphy, in History Ireland, says that with the passing of the motion, "the IRA was now subordinate to Dáil Éireann". Stair na hÉireann says that Ernie O'Malley said that "with this oath the Irish Volunteers became the Irish Republican Army (IRA)", but that's plain wrong – the name "Irish Republican Army" was in use long before there was a Dáil.
• In March 1921 de Valera made a statement to the effect that the Dáil took responsibility for the actions of the IRA (The Irish Story).
• After the start of the Truce in July 1921, Brugha was still trying to bring the Volunteers/IRA under the control of the Dáil, and at least succeeded in having the Army Council suspended (IrishVolunteers.org).

We should decide how we want to present this in the body of the article, but the lead should only have the current sentence, minus "who came under the control of the Dáil". Scolaire (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)