Talk:Southern Ireland (1921–1922)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Section headers

I have sectioned this article and removed the section tag, hopefully the headings will be suitable.--padraig3uk 11:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Southern Ireland

The below text is a copy of a discussion which took place on the Northern Ireland talk page and was copied and pasted here by User:Sarah777. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As, indeed, User:Sarah777 had already pointed out in a signed comment!(Sarah777 14:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

---

What's this Southern Ireland article about with Southern Ireland ?? This "state" co-existed in the same space and time as the Irish Republic/Free State, did it? How does that work?!!(Sarah777 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Southern Ireland was the state the British tried to create with partition, the election in 1921 was supposed to be an election to this, but was regarded by Sinn Féin as an election to the second Dáil, the Southern Ireland House of Commons met only twice the first time only 5 members attended, and the second time to endorce the treaty, but only after this was already passed by Dáil Éireann first and was just a formality.--padraig3uk 22:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So it was a state of mind rather than a state! Can we write an article on the sovereign state of Ruritania? I believe Groucho Marx was it's President sometime in the 1930s - seems to have rather more reality than "Southern Ireland"? (Sarah777 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Well according to British constitutional law it existed, but under Irish constitutional law it didn't, either way it was replaced by the Irish Free State.--padraig3uk 23:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Southern Ireland existed and, regardless of its brevity, its importance to Irish and British history is notable.

FYI: There is an article on Ruritania. It was a fictional state and not an Irish one so it does not belong in the template. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

When did it exist? And how could it co-exist in space and time with another state? (Sarah777 10:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Sarah if you read the article it will explain when it existed, the fact is it did exist and is part of Ireland history, even if it wasn't recognised by the majority of people elected to it, I have also split this discussion off from the template debate above.--padraig3uk 11:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, take it to the Southern Ireland talk page. This page is for Northern Ireland. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope folks, read the article. It clearly didn't exist - any more than Ruritania did. Therein lies the solution perhaps. As explained, it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for two different states to co-exist in the same space and time. Therefore all counter-arguments fall. Self-evidently. (Sarah777 11:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Are you still here? Go to Talk:Southern Ireland. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Sony, still here.

The amended template would run something like as follows:

... Irish Republic | Southern Ireland | Northern Ireland | Irish Free State ... [Sony, 20th April, on this page]

So it's part of the discussion, is it not? I would have trouble with any template including fictional states in the stream of Irish history. And please don't tell me to 'go away'. I'm sure that breaches several Wiki policies. (Sarah777 11:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Sarah, it is not our purpose here to write out of history everything we may disagree with, Southern Ireland existed in law and that fact cannot be ignored, shall we also ignore the 1921 election that created it as well, the same election that Sinn Féin used to elect the Second Dáil.--padraig3uk 11:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, I will point out the obvious: it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for two different states to co-exist in the same space and time. So, it didn't exist. The elections held were for the Second Dail, which formed immediately and was successor to the First. Unless you are saying that the decision of the elected representatives of the Irish people has no weight and that the Second Dail didn't exist? This is not 'wishing' anything; it is establishing fact and removing POV. "Southern Ireland" was a British legal fiction. Not a real state in any sense of the word. (Sarah777 12:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Sarah the first and second Dáil, whilst recognised by the Irish people existed along side a British administration during the War of Independence. Now if you want to discuss this further take it to the Southern Ireland talkpage.--padraig3uk 12:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Padraig, the inclusion of a fictional state in any Ireland-related template is a matter of concern. I'm not sure the issues can be separated. If the two states existed ALONGSIDE one another then the 'stream' of states in the template is completely misleading. Also, I will categorise "Southern Ireland" under both "Short-Lived" and "Fictional" states until this issue is resolved. Regards (Sarah777 12:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

---

Sony, I specifically asked that you not revert my correction to the infobox. This template appears in the article:

Can you please explain why the Irish Republic precedes "Southern Ireland" here - but not at the top of the article? (Sarah777 14:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Because the template is wrong, and needs updating.--padraig3uk 14:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I updated the template to include the dates.--padraig3uk 14:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Padraig, at least now it is consistent. I am starting to get rather annoyed when some folk here refer to corrections made to blindingly obvious errors as "vandalism". Especially when they have admitted in the past that they don't assume good faith. (I don't refer to padraig3uk (Sarah777 15:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Mixing personal attacks and discussion again, Sarah? --sony-youth^pléigh 15:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The tempate shows the states as they appear in chronology:

1801 - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

1916 - Irish Republic

1921 - Southern Ireland

1922 - Irish Free State

The info box shows how the states as the appear in succession:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland -> Irish Republic

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland -> Southern Ireland

Irish Republic/Southern Ireland -> Irish Free State

Please see other former states infoboxes for further examples. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Sony, it is much better now, thanks to my efforts to point out the errors. (And Padraig of course). As you well know I have a strict policy of NEVER indulging in personal attacks except in RESPONSE to personal attacks. Polite folk will never read a harsh word from me.

You really are keeping a close eye on me - I don't know whether to be flattered or annoyed. (Sarah777 15:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Sarah, I watch the pages in my watchlist for the content editors contribute to them, not which editors contribute to them. We obviously share the same watchlist, but little else.

Exactly what "errors" you pointed out - I thought from you contributions copied from the NI page, copied above, that Southern Ireland was a "fictional" state and that it way "physically impossible" (emphasis removed, you had it capitalised) that two states could exist alongside each other?

The states template has the been source of a lot of interest of late (me also, fixing flags etc.), I'm planning of re-arrengint it to show succession rather than chronology. Think it may be better (clearer, more informative). You? --sony-youth^pléigh 16:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sony, I read your outrageous comments about me on the "British" Isles Talk. Were I very sensitive I would not reply too you. The ERROR was that before Padraig fixed it, the template implied there was no Irish Republic in 1922. When I pointed out that the template at the bottom would imply the flag sequence in the top box should go tricolour-jack-tricolour and changed the flag you reverted to the inconsistent version. Padraig, seeing the problem, fixed the bottom template.

This is about internal consistency; the issue of having an article about a fictional state (which "Southern Ireland" clearly is) is a separate matter. However I think this dispute can be simply resolved by placing "Southern Ireland" along with Ruritania in the "Fictional States" category (there actually is one!).

Any objections to this proposal? (Sarah777 16:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Clearly there would be, but if that's a tree in your POV forest then by all means bark up it. My only response will be to post a notice that you have done so on the Ireland project page and ask for comment.

However, at least we are agreed about the template? Personally, I didn't see an issue before, nor would I have called it an internal inconsistency, but, if you have no problem with me changing the template to reflect succession, I do up a trial first and post it on the talk page there. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, I think you would get many objections to such a proposal, I would revert any attempt to do.--padraig3uk 16:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sony - need to see it first, not 100% sure what you are proposing. Padraig; you have already done so once - you'd run out of reverts! I take it from both of you that is a "no"? (Sarah777 17:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

It's worth noting, though I am a while late for this discussion, that separate states often exist in the same place at the same time. See, for example the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus... legally, it doesn't exist anywhere but in Turkey yet it is the de facto government in the areas it claims. Or the Palestinian Authority for that matter. -MichiganCharms 19:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Southern Ireland as an unofficial name for the Republic of Ireland

The article originally said that "Southern Ireland" was an "unofficial" name for the Republic of Ireland. However, I have not spoken to a single Irish person who would refer to the Republic of Ireland as "Southern Ireland". However, I have met many tourists who erroneously refer to the country as "Southern Ireland" as they don't know its official name but are aware that the territory in the North is referred to as "Northern Ireland" - whether they actually realise it is considered a separate country is another issue entirely! I was in Australia recently and overheard two young Englishmen planning the next leg of their world tour. They decided to finish up in Ireland. They decided "Northern Ireland" was probably a safer option for them, as being from England they were more likely to run into trouble in "Southern Ireland." (The opposite is probably true!) Also, of the two links that are given to support the assertion that "Southern Ireland" is a legitimate "unofficial name", one of them is dead, while the other could easily be referring to the more southern part of the Republic of Ireland (e.g. counties Kerry, Cork, Clare) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.60.88 (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your new edit is fine. Thanks for the input. Logoistic 13:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"(The opposite is probably true!)" what a slanderous and totally inaccurate and unsubstantiated comment !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionysus99 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have experienced the term Southern Ireland being informally used my many, many people, both Irish and non-Irish when referring to the region of Ireland that excludes Northern Ireland, i.e. the part of Ireland currently administered by the government of the Republic of Ireland and formally by the governments of the Irish Free State (after Northern Ireland opted out). The term Southern Ireland is not just used informally, it had been used in both UK houses of parliament in reference to the said area of Ireland years after the Free State came into existence. As far as I am aware the official term Southern Ireland has never been abolished. In 1937 the Free State was renamed Ireland purely because the state claimed sovereignty over the whole of the island. AlwynJPie (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

To show 'Republic', or not to show

Ah yes, this is an old (but recurring) dispute. How should the Republic be shown? Republic of Ireland or Ireland? -- GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed it was Ireland! Sarah777 (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Where and when was this agreed Sarah? Where DAB is an issue (in particular, in a DAB template), links shouldn't be piped. It's one of the basic premises of WP:D. Not everyone reading this article (or others) is going to understand the complex history of the state/name, and so being clear about the fact that "Southern Ireland" (as counter to "Northern Ireland"), is NOT a synonym of "Republic of Ireland". Despite some (ill-informed) people's vernacular. Piping "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland" makes it difficult for these people to redirect themselves appropriately. The two changes to pipe Ireland were done with a note that WP:IMOS says you should. IMOS does not such thing. IMOS states a compromise consensus for piping "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland" in the introductions to articles on Irish places (town/villages/etc). This is not an introduction. This is a DAB template, where clarity is absolutely required. Claiming "consensus/guideline" is therefore not accurate by any stretch. Certainly not where very clear and universal DAB guidelines already exist. Guliolopez (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Resp to Sarah. I've no problem with showing 'Ireland'. I was just hoping to stop the edit warring & get you both to 'dooke-it-out' here. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "edit-warring"; that was my last edit - Gulio may now revert to he sees fit - though I continue to dissent, quietly, in my own mind. I promise it won't make me bitter. Really. Go Gulio. Sarah777 (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Thanks. I will remove the pipe again for clarity. To repeat: My main point is that we need to redirect any "ill-informed people" (who drop onto "Southern Ireland" looking for the modern state) to the right place. And do so clearly.

I also have to say that, in the same edit, I will be restoring the Union Flag. The whole point about "Southern Ireland" was that it was "failed state" of the UK's "home rule" legislation. And as such was a UK construct under UK terms. It was not acknowledged by the burgeoning Irish state. As a result, placing it under the tricolour is not appropriate. Further, replacing the union flag with the tricolour to represent the "United Kingdom of GB and Ireland" is inappropriate - and borders on historical revisionism. Guliolopez (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Gulio - I'm 100% behind you having done a complete U-turn on this issue! Sarah777 (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Tri-Color Flag

Southern Ireland was a constituent country. Every other constituent country article has their own flag shown. Just because its status ended doesn't mean it shouldn't have its own flag!WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 13:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to put this as plainly as I possibly can. The tricolour was NEVER the flag of the UK constituent called "Southern Ireland". This is why the union flag is here. Any other flag is just plain wrong. The government of the Irish Republic did not acknowledge the legitamacy of "Southern Ireland", and so the tricolour was NEVER flown as its symbol. I stated this quite clearly above. (Enthusiasm is one thing, but please STOP making changes to things that you are not familiar with.) Guliolopez (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I see now the tricolour was used from 1922 onwards. But as Southern Ireland was a constituent country it must have had its own flag like England or Scotland. As a constitunet country article, a flag like the Flag of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland or whatever was used is more accurate the the whole UK flag.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 13:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A case could be made for having the Lord Lieutenant's flag, but the Union flag is probably more accurate. The only time the state's parliament met (a meeting which was adjoured sine die), it was under the flag of the Union. (The Lord Lieutenant opened the procedings, but his standard was rarely flown in a context like this to represent a national assembly. It would have been flown alongside the union flag, but would not have been considered the "national flag" as suggested.) Besides which, the standard of the Lord Lieutenant is simply the Union flag defaced with the Coat of Arms of Ireland, and a change to use it here adds limited appreciable value. Guliolopez (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying there was never a national flag to represent Ireland under the UK as a constituent country? Thats a bit puzzling considering the English flag was in existance since the 16th century. There must have been something used as a flag of Ireland! What about Saint Patrick's Flag? As a constituent country article it'd be important to the constituent's fag right.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I am. As a "failed state", the construct that was "Southern Ireland" didn't have an officially sanctioned flag (the parliament not meeting to chose one, and the Government of Ireland Act 1920 not proscribing one). The Union flag was the defacto symbol of the continuing administration of the time, and so it's probably the best choice. Alien as it may seem to those of us who are used to the modern independent Republic, the "de facto" flag of Ireland under the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (even under the partially devolved "Southern Ireland" construct) was the Union Flag. It was flown on national government buildings, municipal administrative buildings, and even shops and other institutions. Try and get your hands on any contemporary photos, or even the Mitchell and Kenyon films from the early 1900s, and you'll see it fluttering freely in Cork and elsewhere. The flag of the Lord Lieutenant was seen at times, but as a "standard of office", rather than a national flag (IE: It was associated to the position of the Lord Lieutenant, rather than the country. It was flown over Dublin Castle, not because it was the flag of the Dublin Castle administration per sé, but because the Lord Lieutenant was based there.) It was SOMETIMES used in official circumstances to represent the broader administrative offices of the country, and so there MAY be a case to be made for its use to represent Southern Ireland. However, as above, the Union flag was the "inherited" flag (from the previous administration), and may be the safest and most accurate one to use. (Because using the LL flag isn't strictly accurate.) Guliolopez (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

O Gulio, Gulio - I love it when you say "failed state"! Sarah777 (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. Just so we are clear. When I refer to "Southern Ireland" as a failed state, I do so without bias, empathy, emotion or any partisan view point. I do so in a historical context, based on the failure of the constitutional theory which instituted the construct to realise it in practical terms. There are other "failed state" examples in the constitutional theory of the "other camp". Namely, the Munster Republic and Free Derry. Again, without emotion or bias, I would just as readily reject any changes to (for example) reduce the clarity of a DAB to Munster, or the symbols attached to these or their contemporaries under conflicting constitutional theories. Unlike some editors, I am not here to push a particular POV, view point, political bias or other. I'm just trying to ensure that all articles (and particular those related to Ireland) are balanced, neutral and accurate. In fact, it bothers me (as you might have guessed) when I see people (from any "camp") being selective with facts, playing the system, "interpretting" guidelines, or seeking out and tweaking references to suit their own perspective on the world. Lack of imagination to see the other guys point of view is what leads to wars and sectarian BS in the first place. (Both here and in the real world.) Historical revisionism - in particular - is dangerous in the extreme. Guliolopez (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is - which is why I put such effort into countering it. Sarah777 (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Short lived?

I'm probably being pedantic, but is there any chance we can swap "short lived" for something more like:

"Southern Ireland was, form 1921 to 1922, a..."

"Short lived" is open to POV - is it 5 seconds, a week, month, decade, century? Giving the dates is presenting the facts as they are found. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. I understand the comment on "short lived" potentially been open to POV - if there was no additional context. The sentence in which "short lived" appears however also includes the dates - so there can be no question as to the length of time involved. It currently reads: "Southern Ireland was the short lived autonomous region of the UK established in 1921 and dissolved in 1922." It's not a long sentence, and all the context for "short lived" is there. Guliolopez (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Southern Ireland still exists as the geographical region of Ireland currently administered by the sovereign state known as Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Anonymous user(s)(?) including User: 82.152.221.125 have now twice made wide-ranging changes to the article. The changes contain serious inaccuracies e.g. statements like:

• Partition, which was introduced in the Government of Ireland Act, was intended as a temporary solution to the problem that would allow Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland to be separately governed as regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.- Just who intended it would be temporary etc. This is very simplistic, misleading and is POV.
• Southern Ireland was the name to be given to the entity that would have been formed under Home Rule proposals prior to 1921, including the twenty-six-county autonomous region of the United Kingdom described in the Government of Ireland Act 1920.

Southern Ireland was legally established ...there is no “would have been” about it. Arguably, its courts were its most successful institutions.

Constructive contributions to the article would be welcome but before any contribution, a basic understanding by an editor is needed. That is lacking here. Furthermore, major changes require consensus and there was no consensus for these “changes”. Regards.Redking7 (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it was VN per sé, but definitely agree that wideranging "re-definition" such as the above should be discussed before such broad changes are made. Guliolopez (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks good now. Someone had mentioned that SI was a "Crown Colony" from mid-1921. The reality there was that the 1920 Home Rule Act provided (section 72) for SI to be run as a crown colony by London, but they never bothered to implement it. The Truce of July 1921 suggested that a treaty would soon emerge, and so SI continued to be run (if / where it was run) as before.86.42.201.52 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Area

Presumably Southern Ireland covered exactly the same area as the Republic does today, but the article does not say. Rothorpe (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)