Talk:Partition of Ireland

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: User talk:86.42.200.74. You are incorrect concerning the above. See the article. Redking7 (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Date NI left Free State? Answer: 8 December 1922

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible concluding section - "Moves towards ''détente''" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Partition and sport 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:   Origins from 1886 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Background 1914–22 

message: 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)
thread_title: 1925 correction

message: 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)
thread_title: Notes

message: Wouldn't this be the more historically accurate an NPOV title for this article? Irvine22 (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Secession of the Irish Free State" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation requested 

message: 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.Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922 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].Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922 - Note: the Houses and not the Parliament of Northern of Ireland per se exercised this right.The Times, 9 December 1922 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)
replies: text: I guess we're talking about this 84.203.65.99 edit. Any problems with it? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Dates and facts 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  1914 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Changing views by Republic's parties 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Times headline 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps we just ought to prohibit editing on historical articles altogether. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Origin of the names 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Note that the above is a sock of a banned user.  Scolaire (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not "reunification" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Go for it. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ssshhh, you will offend the revionists, on both sides. Murry1975 (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I suppose you know you're talking to a HarveyCarter sock?  Scolaire (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: They were other editors, not me. (109.159.10.107 (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Wrong answer, I believe my learned esteemed colleague. Bye. WP:DENY Murry1975 (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Free State was not independent 

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

text: If you didn't know, that's OK. I'll change it. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You're contradicting yourself. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 . 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)
replies: text: Well spotted, I hadn't noticed. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK1 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd largely agree with you on United Ireland, , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge with United Ireland 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Partitionism 

message: 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:
# Most people in the Republic of Ireland would like Ireland to be reuinited.
# 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.
# but - a lot of people in Northern Ireland don't want to be part of the Republic, for historical and other reasons
# 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.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Overview