Talk:Irish Free State

message: Shouldn't the currency be changed to euro?
: this is an article on a historic country that has not existed since 1937 Djegan 23:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euro 

message: I don't know anything about Ireland except what I have read in this encyclopedia, but I feel the authors use of italics and puctuation in sentences like "Recent calculations of Sinn Féin support in 1918, based on actual electoral battles at national and local level puts party support at in the region of 45–48%, less than a majority!" or "Had its original author, Michael Collins, survived, he might have been able to clarify its actual meaning..." and his or her parenthetical aside in the sentance "Furthermore, as one of the negotiators, Michael Collins, later admitted (and he was in a position to know, given his role in the independence war), the IRA at the time of the Truce was weeks..." introduces too much of an editorial nature into the article. While all these things might very well be true, the style seems slanted to me. - 133.6.156.69
Anonymous user. No one seems to actually disagree with you so instead of putting a NPOV warning at the start of the article please go and fix the wording yourself if you feel it should be more neutral. The motto on Wikipedia is Be bold! Also, please put your messages at the bottom of this talkpage instead of the top. Most users will look straight at the bottom so they might miss your messages. Iota 20:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Why is this section 'a stub to be expanded'?  Why is it even a section?  Did something dramatic or of some importance happen there?  What am I missing? --ClemMcGann 15:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite correct (we did not even win a single medal) - notwithstanding that it is not in the correct section at all.Djegan 18:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish Free State at the British Empire Games

message: In the infobox would anyone have any issues if I replaced the image of Coat of Arms of the Republic of Ireland with that of the image of the Great Seal of the Irish Free State. The coat of arms (particularily the harp) as it is currently presented in the infobox is more of a post 1937 Constitution of Ireland creation and is out of place and is not of a design existing at the time. Any opinions or discussions or dissent? Djegan 11:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox: Future COA vs. Great Seal

message: Just wondering if there should not be at least an outline of the historical events that took place during this fifteen-year period, such as the ongoing murders and bank robberys by Sinn Fein/IRA (and early Fianna Fail); the Blueshirts; the Papal Congress; Ardnacrusha; the near-extermination of the IRA/Sinn Fein by De Valera; the Treaty Ports; the Econmic War with the UK; so on and so forth. Or would this be better written under the section "History of the Irish Free State"? Fergananim 15:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Incidents in the Irish Free State

message: A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp.  Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Poll:_Ireland_article_titles|Poll: Ireland article titles]] 

message: The Tricolour of the Irish Republic (and later Republic of Ireland) was not the flag of the Irish Free State, which was a Green Flag with the Union Flag in Canton with a Harp emblazoned, then the old Green Flag with an uncrowned harp as Eire before finally adopting the Tricolour as the official flag in 1948.
67th Tigers 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Flag 

message: If the Parliament of Northern Ireland had not made such a declaration, under Article 14 of the Treaty Northern Ireland, its Parliament and government would have continued in being but the Oireachtas would have had jurisdiction to legislate for Northern Ireland in matters not delegated to Northern Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act. This, of course, never came to pass.
The implication of this section seems to be that if Northern Ireland hadn't chosen to opt out, the Stormont Parliament would have remained in operation as a devolved entity within a 32 county Irish Free State. Was this just an accidental consequence of the Treaty or a rare deliberate attempt to offer northern Unionists some incentive to be in an all-Ireland state? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Timrollpickering  - Re the above. Your reading is largely correct. It was a deliberate attempt (on paper at least) to make joining the IFS seem more palatable to Unionists. I don't think it's entirely fair to say it was a "rare" initiative. The Constitution of the Irish Free State was in several places intentionally drafted to assuage Unionist (both in the North and South) fears: e.g. Senate representation; the constitution's secularism; and PR voting. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Ireland opts out 

message: The article says it was always certain that NI would opt out.
NI did not opt out till after the Irish Civil war.  How can anyone be certain what would have happened, if the civil war had not occurred?
It seems to me the sentence is conjecture, and the factual accuracy of the article would be improved by deleting it.
Tim2718281 (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim2718281 - Re the above. NI's parliament resolved to opt out of the IFS the day after the IFS was established (i.e. on 7 December 1922). The civil war had not ended by then. The majority of NI politicians and the NI government had always been consistent in their view they did not wish to be part of any new Irish state so I think the statement is fair and accurate. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was it certain that Northern Ireland would opt out? 

message: What it offered was dominion status, as a state of the British Empire (now called the Commonwealth of Nations), equal to Canada, Newfoundland, Australia and New Zealand.
Surely it's not appropriate to equate the British Empire with the Commonwealth of Nations - the latter an entirely voluntary union of sovereign states, in complete contrast to the Empire. In any case, what relevance does it have to an article on an entity which was defunct long before the Commonwealth was born?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousequakes (talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its giving an unreferenced interpretation of Dev's motives. Over simplistic POV. RashersTierney (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just re-read this article and it has far too much to say on the events leading up to the establishment of the IFS and relatively little on the 15 years of its existence. The article needs substantial  work. RashersTierney (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Background 

message: I would like to see a section on the lasting achievements of the Irish Free State, including for instance:
* 2RN in Dublin (later Radio Éireann), 1926
* The Electricity Supply Board, 1927
* The Currency Commission (later the Central Bank), 1927
etc.
PeterClarke 16:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy and achievements of the Irish Free State 

message: A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly.  Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one.  Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on Ireland (xxx) 

message: I've added this template as most sections of the article, other than "Northern Ireland opts out", have few or no references.  Most of the material is factual and well documented, so this shouldn't be too difficult to fix. -- Pertusaria (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Refimprove template added

message: Wasn't this just a different constitutional arrangement? The various republics of France (for instance) are referred to as "governments" rather than "states"--even the monarchies and empires are considered to be in continuity with the modern state of France--so why is the change from the Irish Free State to a republic described as the creation of a new state? 67.187.92.105 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please quote the section in question? RashersTierney (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate state? 

message: Should there be a note in the infobox describing the ambiguity of Ireland's head of state in between 1937 and 1949? While it's true the Irish Free State ceased to exist when the infobox says it did, the succeeding state being the Republic of Ireland might not be a total reflection of fact. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, it didn't become the Republic of Ireland until 1949. So they should really change the date in the article from 1937 to 1949 as although the new constitution did remove nearly all things involving The King, he was still there and still recognised as the head of state until the republic was established in 1949. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note? 

message: This article is OK on the constitutional issues but doesn't say anything on the economy and demographics as seen in 1922 - 37. The IFS was set up to stop emigration but failed; most of the poor remained poor or became poorer. Images like
thumb|right|200px|Population (in millions) from 1841 - 2006
could be added.86.43.186.42 (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree fully that the article is overly weighted on the 'constitutional' issue. Per suggestion above, there should be more on the Shannon Scheme and other economic and cultural matters. Not sure that this particular graph is very informative, nor that independence was primarily about emigration (just my POV, of coarse). RashersTierney (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Realities of life?

message: After a two-year ban imposed by Arbcom, a page move discussion for the Republic of Ireland can be entertained.
* (Discuss)–Republic of Ireland → Kauffner (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Ireland page move discussion

message: There is a discussion taking place at TALK:Commonwealth realm, where Ireland is listed as a "Former Commonwealth Realm." This strikes me as odd, because it is not a term ever associated with the Irish Free State at the time, nor with the Republic of Ireland now. Neither article in Wikipedia contains that word. The discussion could perhaps benefit from Irish eyes. --Pete (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Realm of the Irish Free State 

message: The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 shows the oath to be taken ;
"The oath to be taken by Members of the Parliament of the Irish Free State shall be in the following form:- 
I ……. do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established and that I will be faithful to H.M. King George V., his heirs and successors by law, in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations."''
My emphisis. Murry1975 (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That wording was only used here in Ireland to placate the rebels. At Westminster the Free State was described as a Dominion of the Empire. The British Commonwealth of Nations did not formally exist until 1931, nine years after the creation of the Free State. (92.11.207.181 (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The above editor is a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Can you show a source to state otherwise? If not.... Murry1975 (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The above editor is a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Try Frank Pakenhams book "Peace by ordeal: an account, from first-hand sources of the negotiation and signature of the Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921", it became a statutory legal phrase when used in the Treaty and as an oath. It doesnt matter that. Also the IFS never adopted the Statute of Westminster- so where does that leave them? Murry1975 (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth of Nations 

message: The Free State was a Dominion of the British Empire when it was created in 1922. Although the Oath of Allegiance described the state as a "Dominion of the British Commonwealth of Nations", this did not actually exist until the 1931 Statute of Westminster, nine years later. (92.11.207.181 (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a gradual transition from Empire to Commonwealth. The Statute of Westminster 1931 gave all the dominions de jure independence, however many such as the Irish Free State already had de facto independence. To define the Statute of Westminster 1931 as the date of the transition is p.o.v.. The Irish Free State is described in law as part of the Commonwealth, not Empire, so it makes sense to use that term. Rob (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Free State did not have independence in foreign policy until 1938, unlike the other Dominions. Westminster only used the term Empire, except in documents pertaining to within the Free State itself. Just as Churchill deliberately used the term "English-speaking peoples" when dealing with American audiences who did not approve of the British Empire. (92.11.207.181 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide reference please. The UK had no influence over the decisions of the Irish Government, I don't see how the Irish Free State, an independent country, could be described being part of another country's empire. Rob (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the UK retained the Treaty ports they controlled all of our foreign policy. The Free State was not a country and it was not fully independent, as Michael Collins admitted. Ireland played an enormous role in building the Empire, which was called British because it was created by the British Isles. (92.11.207.181 (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit conflict: Why would controlling 3 ports allow them to control the states foreign policy? Again, provide a source please. I agree it wasn't fully independent, but Britain still had no influence over the decisions of the Irish Government, and you need to provide a source to suggest otherwise. After the creation of the Irish Free State, the Empire was in decline, and the Irish Free State barely participated in Commonwealth matters. As well as being irrelevant, you last point is also incorrect, it was called the "British Empire" because it belonged to "Britain". The common usage of "British Isles" in English only began in the 17th century, most likely because all of the British Isles were ruled by Britain (although the term was used earlier in other languages). Rob (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Had it not been for the handover of the Treaty ports we would have been in World War II. The ports would have been targetted by U-Boats and the Luftwaffe would have bombed Dublin and Cork every night. The only reason the Free State appeared to have control of foreign policy is because the UK was not involved in any wars between 1922 and 1938. The Empire expanded to its largest extent in 1922, the year the Free State was created. Ireland was not ruled by Britain in the 17th century, and Scotland had its own parliament. (92.11.207.181 (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "...only reason...": retrospective conjecture is neither history nor encyclopedic; is debatable for more reasons than one; and has little if anything to do with discussing an improvement to the article. Qexigator (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If the UK had gone to war in 1922-1938 the Royal Navy would have been using the Treaty ports to refuel and transport arms and ammunition, making all of Ireland an enemy target. (92.11.207.181 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That supposition has no bearing on the facts about which this article is reporting for the information of readers. What war? What enemy? Where? When? Why? How would other treaty obligations be affected in connection with League of Nations? What other options would have been available and expedient? Qexigator (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: War with Germany and Italy was always likely, and the possibility of war with Japan or the Soviet Union was always there. The League of Nations was not fit for purpose, just like the United Nations today in its handling of the Syrian civil war for example. (92.11.194.204 (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for confirming the retrospective conjecture point in that way. Qexigator (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

text: For the purposes of the article, the wording of the Treaty cannot properly be dismissed by POV/OR as "merely to placate the rebels", nor do the documents or practise of the period allow it to be categorically affirmed that the British Commonwealth of Nations formally came into existence in 1931. This was not exclusively a concern of the Irish people or those party to the Treaty or members of the IFS government, but also of India and of those countries which had begun as overseas colonies (when Ireland, which had once been a Dominion, had been made a kingdom of Henry VIII and his successors) and by then, following the events of the Great War and armistice, were considered to be approaching full independence from the Westminster parliament and UK government. The king (G.V and G.VI), and the UK and other governments owing allegiance to the Crown, had good reason to be acutely concerned with questions of international relations, including treaty-making, and hostilities and neutrality, as well as the local politics of the several territories. All this is signified by the successive London Conferences and Declarations. Qexigator (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The above editor is a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Again, completely unsourced POV. The Empire became the Commonwealth over a period of time. There is no legislation defining the transition, hence why both terms were used during this period. In context to the Free State, "Commonwealth" was preferred, so that is how the Free State should be described here. Rob (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: One editor has added a new map from 1933, omitting the area that left the IFS, another has also removed the 1922 and replaced it with it, niether have given any rational why a 1933 map should be used over a 1922 one which shows the IFS and NI highlighted and what is the relevance of 1933 in this article. The 1922 map is accurate and relevant to the article the 1933 is being used by one of the editors just because they created it. Murry1975 (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Murry1975 the same topic is again under discussion below. Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map 

message: Major claims such as this need equally major citations as evidence to support it. As of now, this one has none, so I have tagged it as 'dubious' until someone provides it. If someone wants to do the work, this is as far as I've got/am prepared to spend the time:
*At Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, there is a citation for the Vatican looking at it (before or after is not stated). 
*That citation in turn says 'de Valera went out of his way to secure the approval of the Holy See', citing Liberal Democracy, Natural Law, and Jurisprudence: Thomistic Notes on an Irish Debate. V. Bradley Lewis], page 147
* Lewis indeed uses the cited text and list in support a number of sources at footnote 34.
--Red King (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: '... was submitted twice to the Vatican ...' - citation needed

message: The Irish Republic was created by its proclamation on 24th April 1916. (ColmMcCrory (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I've no wish to be provocative. But can somebody please explain more clearly how the above (arguably at least apparently slightly provocative) statement is meant to help improve this article, as required by our Talk rules (WP:NOTFORUM)? I'm obliged by WP:AGF to assume that it does, so I assume it does, but how it does this is currently unclear, at least to me.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that the Irish republic was created by its proclamation during the Easter Rising, and the establishing of an Irish parliament was merely a continuation of the process of building the republic. The formal declaration of independence from the UK in 1919 did not mean the Irish republic had not already existed in the opinion of republicans since 1916. (ColmMcCrory (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm still not clear what it has to do with this article, but it has prompted me to attempt to add the 1916 Irish Republic to the article on Irish States since 1171 (though I suspect I'll be reverted, given that otherwise I'd have expected it to be there already). Come to think of it, I think I'll create it as a redirect article, which may be useful in future. So thanks for that, ColmMcCrory, even though I'm worried that by thanking you I may encourage you to continue ignoring WP:NOTFORUM, which would not be good for either you or Wikipedia. But thanks, anyway. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, ColmMcCrory - I now see from your most recent edits that you were not in fact violating WP:NOTFORUM. A tip for the future: Especially (but not only) if asked what one of your Talk sections has to do with the article, you can make it clear that it is relevant to the article by using a short phrase such as 'Contrary to what is said in the article' (ideally you can also indicate where in the article this is said, but that may often be far too much like hard work). Anyway, once again, my apologies. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, regarding your Edit Description that the Republic was proclaimed by Pearse, in 1916 the Irish Republic was proclaimed by the Proclamation's 7 signatories, of whom the one in a special position of prominence is not Patrick Pearse but Tom Clarke (and I suspect that therein may lie a rather interesting but possibly very controversial piece of hidden history - if you're interested in hearing a little more, you can ask me on my Talk page).  However, I'm clearly being an awful hypocrite, as this point, while just possibly useful information for you and perhaps for your future edits, doesn't seem to have much to do with the contents of this article :) (which is why any more discussion about it would have to take place elsewhere, such as on my Talk page, or perhaps the Pearse and/or Clarke Talk pages). Tlhslobus (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

text: To Murry1975, thanks for the useful link to Irish Declaration of Independence.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic founded in 1916 

message: *First, to ColmMcCrory, thanks for what turned out to be a usefully thought-provoking edit by you, and my apologies for reverting it, as with hindsight it turns out the edit I've now made could have been made without reverting you.
*Second, I feel the current edit improves things, by making it clear that the question is debatable, and guiding the reader to where it is debated. This seems better than either leaving it as if it were an agreed fact, or leaving my citation request from last month, which probably can't adequately be satisfied, because the relevant sources are hard to find and presumably contradict each other, and the wikilinked article presumably does (or, supposing it doesn't yet, can eventually do) a far better job of explaining things than a couple of conflicting citations ever could.
*Third, if anybody thinks the same general effect can be achieved with better wording or whatever, please feel free to try.
*Incidentally, it probably no longer matters, but purely as a minor point of interest, the claim in an edit description that George was undoubtedly King of the Irish Free State for a day is historically questionable, as arguably Edward VIII remained King for that day, as it is at least claimed that we refused to officially accept his abdication until we had rushed through legislation that arguably abolished the monarchy (whether or not it did is still debated by scholars and others, as per the wikilinked article). But in any case the dates given for George are (and already were) "1936-37", which is a lot more than a day.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  George VI 

message: The 1937 constitution stated that the "national territory [of the Irish state] consists of the whole island of Ireland". Did the Irish Free State formally claim Northern Ireland prior to this? Rob984 (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: the 1922 Constitution, doesnt lay any claim and I dont think any of the 27 amendments did either, I may be wrong. Murry1975 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim to Northern Ireland? 

message: The Republic of Ireland was only created in 1949, as the 1937 constitution did not say whether Eire was a republic. (DrymanDavies (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not described as a republic until 1949. However, there were no constitutional changes made in 1949. Éire (Ireland) was a republic from the coming into force of the 1937 constitution, even though the constitution did not make that explicit, for political reasons pertaining to partition.  Scolaire (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

text: There are massive controversies over the name as well so please seek consensus rather than making direct changes to the article.   This may even be covered by the arbitration ruling on the Troubles. ----Snowded TALK 13:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic of Ireland 

message: :"IF" there is only one main section allowed then why does the template allow more than one and even adds an s to "article" along with and to the extra wording.
* 
*
:A template error would usually result when trying to expand a template beyond what is allowed. With that in mind, inclusion of the "Coins of the Republic of Ireland", which I am almost certain qualifies as currency, is in order either to be included in the "main" template or as a "See also" template.
:I will look into the issue further but apparently it is actually allowed because a section, or subsection, can include broad content that might be covered more extensively in a relevant title, or more than one, such as this instance. This would necessitate linking to multiple relevant "main" articles. Otr500 (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a question of what is allowed but of what is needed. The subsection is "Currency"; the currency was the Irish pound; therefore the main article is "Irish pound". "Coins of the Republic of Ireland" is in no sense the main article for the "Currency" section of "Irish Free State". If it had been the case that some other currency had been introduced in the 1920s or early 1930s, then there would be a necessity for more than one main article. That's why the template has that facility. It's not intended as a "see also".  Scolaire (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to be an summary addition to the content to bring the "main article" in line with the article. The Irish pound was not actually the currency of the Irish Free State but of Ireland beginning in 1938. The Currency Act, 1927, Adaptation Order, 1938, did provide that the Irish pound would be substituted for the Saorstát pound, "in every place in which the latter expression occurs", and for correctness something along these lines needs to be included. Otr500 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I would maintain that there is no "Main" article at all. Neither the Irish pound article nor the Coins of the ROI article contain any information about the currency of the IFS that is not already in this section. One of the reasons for a "Main" template is to stop a section becoming bloated with content that is already available elsewhere, but that isn't going to happen here (another reason is to advise the reader that there is a full article on the topic, which in this case is untrue).  Scolaire (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And I agree. Otr500 (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of addition to main template in "Currency" subsection 

message: The predecessor state in the infobox has been Southern Ireland (1921–22), but the lead says, "On the day the Irish Free State was established, it comprised the entire island of Ireland". Therefore the predecessor state was the United Kingdom (including the whole of Ireland). I am changing it accordingly.  Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Did "Southern Ireland" ever even get off the theory stage to be a predecessor state? Mabuska (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it didn't. Four (unionist) MPs met in Dublin, elected a speaker, and adjourned sine die. That was it. No prime minister, no executive, no institutions, therefore no state.  Scolaire (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predecessor state in infobox 

message: There is a section in this article entitled Northern Ireland "opts out". Note that the headline of the section has the act of opting out in double quotation marks.
As the opting out was a technicality (and this seems to be supported in the article by virtue of the use of inverted commas in the headline), I elected to add that fact to the section.
The sentence, after my edit, read: "For about two days from 6 December 1922 Northern Ireland technically became part of the newly created Irish Free State."
There are no 'weasel words' in use here: the issue was a formality, or technicality. By all accounts, Northern Ireland never had any intention to remain or become a part of the Free State. Indeed, the notification was quite quick by the standards of the day. Had the events taken place in the last couple of decades, I have no doubt that a formal digital communique would have been sent instantaneously, thus rendering the statement as follows: "For about two minutes on the 6th of December 2012 Northern Ireland became part of the newly created Irish Free State."
While it is significant on a purely factual basis in the recounting of the history, the short amount of time that had passed is telling with regard to the fact that it was indeed a mere technicality.
This fact was little-known until the last decade or so, and certainly was never significant enough to have been mentioned in many history textbooks in schools and universities, or discussed in any detail.
That this was a technicality and a formality is not in question. Arguably it is actually 'weasel words' to suggest that Northern Ireland belonged to the Free State in any real sense, given that the Free State government was not given power transference immediately and so therefore did not actually have any jurisdiction over Northern Ireland during those two days. Effectively there was no change.
I'm honestly not quite sure why there is an objection, nor the suggestion that my edit comprised 'weasel words'.
If there are no further objections, I will be WP:BOLD and reinsert the word 'technically'. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would favour the addition of "technically" per WP:BLUE. Northern Ireland was never a part of the Free State in any real sense.  Scolaire (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Finding no source for  "opt out" in the artcle, I have added one. Qexigator (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

text: + Put back "technically". Qexigator (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words 

message: There is a sentence in the Northern Ireland "opts out" section which says that "for about two days from 6 December 1922 Northern Ireland technically became part of the newly created Irish Free State." This is cited with "Times, 6 December 1921 [recte 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 corresponding sentence in the lead) accordingly. I am copying this to Talk:History of Northern Ireland and Talk:Partition of Ireland, which both have similar sentences with the same citation.  Scolaire (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Times headline 

message: It says that the preceding state is the UK, but shouldn't it be the Irish Republic? That's the state that turned into the Irish Free State in 1922.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregie156 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preceding state 

message: For some reason people are removing "independent" in the lede.  This lacks a sense of history.  The IFS was independent in all but name. Obviously the treaty and dominion status was one thing in theory but in practice it was as fully independent as the other dominions. Zymurgy (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the distinction between legal theory and political reality.  In theory there were limits to Irish independence post 1922, in practice the country was fully independent.  The Statute of Westminster made no difference - the Imperial parliament did not purport to legislate for the IFS between 1922 and 1931 so stopping doing so changed nothing.  1931 was not "legislative independence" in any meaningful sense.  The civil war seems to still generate a lot of emotion and a lot of misunderstanding of actual historical fact.  Treaty ports yes but that doesn't mean IFS wasn't independent.  That's like saying Cyprus isn't independent because the British still have sovereign bases there. Zymurgy (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Zymurgy The irish free state was not able to alter the terms of the treaty until 1931 and therefore could not remove the oath of allegiance, elect their own head of state, remove the office of governor general, stop paying land annuities etc until 1931. How is that full independence?112.217.228.212 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Would a comment in the article on the Free State's legal status and the de facto political reality of its ability to legislate/form foreign relations/raise a military etc be useful? WatermillockCommon (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it didnt have complete legislative independence. If the Irish free state wished to repeal or change the anglo-irish treaty or any of the specific agreements in the treaty via legislation it would not have been able to pre-1931. I would agree that the fact that it was very close to independence should be mentioned.112.217.228.212 (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I don't think that's a great phrase - that's called quoting out of context! Consider the rest of the comments not just the first sentence.  Ireland today isn't completely independent either - do you want to change that article to say Ireland is quasi independent?  Quasi independent is a term for regions like Scotland or Catalonia or Quebec or something not for countries like the dominions in the 1920s.  Here's an example - Canada and the Irish Free State were sovereign members of the League of Nations yet were dominions.  If a country is independent enough to be a member of the UN or the League of Nations it can be called "independent". By the way - "admitted" is a bit adversarial - I'm trying to explain not to argue. I do accept the point you make that sovereignty was enhanced and increased in the years post-1922 but it is a matter of degree.   The largely symbolic restraints (eg oath = empty formula) that applied initially did not make the IFS any less independent than Canada or Australia.  Leave constitutional theory to one side - for all practical purposes Ireland was independent in 1922.  Zymurgy (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we would need a good reliable source for independent. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on sources, not editors own thoughts. Dmcq (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Well the dominion article refers to the free state and other dominions as "semi-independent polites", I think for the sake of being consistent the free state should not be refered to as indepenent. also as Dmcq points out any claim about independence should be reliably sourced.112.217.228.212 (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent state 

message: User:Scolaire reverted my correction on the above. Why? Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What follows "s1 =" in the infobox is automatically wikilinked, so your edit had the effect of changing it to Ireland, i.e. the island article. The article on the state, from 1937 on, is at Republic of Ireland. Looking back at the history now, I see it once said "Republic of IrelandIreland". I would have no problem with going back to that.  Scolaire (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which jurisdiction succeeded the Irish Free State? 

message: There is a well sourced explanation and discussion in the article about the fact that Irish law asserts that on 6 December 1922 Northern Ireland was de jure within the Irish Free State. The map showing the territory used to explain this with NI in light green & an explanation. Why was this deleted? Why has User:Scolaire deleted my explanation around this in the info box? Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I had forgotten about your addition in February 2022. That did indeed add an alternative point of view in the relevant section, on whether Northern Ireland became a part of the Irish Free State. But it is not strong enough to be able to say that "Irish law asserts", and it is not important enough to add it to the infobox. The whole business is trivia; the Free State was 26 counties, and the map accurately reflects that.  Scolaire (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was map showing territory of Irish Free State with Northern Ireland in light green because of IFS claim it was within IFS at formation deleted? 

message: In fact, the whole  section is massive undue weight: 700 words to say that the NI parliament did what it was always going to do. The article is about the Free State, not the minutiae of two days of Northern Ireland politics. We don't need the full wording of the address, or the Times report of the king receiving the Earl of Cromer, or the Hansard report of Mr. Craig's report of the king's response. I am taking the section out and replacing it with the simple facts of the Free State coming into being and the NI parliament voting to opt out. The question of whether NI was part of the IFS for a day or two days is an interesting foootnote, so I am leaving it as just that – a footnote. Scolaire (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable. Legally, there was a brief period when the whole island "moved out" but it was nominal and AFAIK, no action affecting the whole island was taken during that period of x number of hours, as all involved knew very well how the play would be performed, and the consequences if anyone had done anything other than what happened. So for 99.99% of its existence, and all governmental purposes, the Free State was 26 counties (but we note in passing the technical existence of a brief period of 32-county transition). SeoR (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the section