Talk:Partition of Ireland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Unionism in Ireland WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Unionism in Ireland. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.If you are a member of the project, please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | ||
|
Article Grading: WikiProject Unionism in Ireland tasks:
|
|||
Sorted out some spelling mistakes like committment / irrendist.Red Hurley (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Date NI left Free State?
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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
