Talk:Southern Ireland (1921–1922)

Southern Ireland still exists.

It was only after the Statute Law Revision Act 2007 which repealled the Government of Ireland Act 1920 that Southern Ireland as a political entity was legally abolished. But I have found nothing that says that Southern Ireland as the term for the geographical area that the current Republic of Ireland administers was ever legally abolished. Added to that, Southern Ireland and the Free State is often used when referring to the Republic of Ireland to distinguish it frm Northern Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The political entity 's existence expired long before the SLRA tidy up, per article. Every land mass on the face of the globe, from continents to islets, has a northern and southern part. This page is for proposing improvements to the article. As the hatnote makes clear This article is about the 1921–22 autonomous region. What seems to be the problem? Qexigator (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to the article, Souhern Ireland's existence as a political entity did not end on 6 December 1922. Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland became autonomous regions of the newly created Irish Free State on 6 December 1922 under terms of the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922. I cannot find evidence that Southern Ireland ever ended. I speculate that the term Southern Ireland may not have been used because the Free State and the Republic of Ireland claimed sovereignty over the whole island in their constitutions. I would be greatful if someone can shed light on this. AlwynJPie (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please quote in full anything which you consider supports the notion that the statutory provisions creating "Southern Ireland" remained in operation for any known and accepted purpose, and had not expired long before SLRA. It is doubtful whether the proposition is even arguable, from the point of view of the laws of any part of the the island of Ireland, or any part of UK, or according to international law or diplomatic practice: is there anything else which could be invoked? Qexigator (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The political status of Southern Ireland has changed a few times since the Partition but the term Southern Ireland continues to be used when referring to Ireland even in debates in the UK parliament. Here is a link to one of many examples of UK parliamentary verbatim available where the term Southern Ireland is used for the said context: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmniaf/886/6020107.htm AlwynJPie (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The term continues to be used to refer to the independent state. AlwynJPie (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Shorter lead, improve narrative sequence

The first paragraph of the present version[1] is nearly all that is needed for the lead, at the top of the article, together with: No Government of Southern Ireland was ever established, although a Provisional Government was established pursuant to the Anglo Irish Treaty. In the narrative sequence of the article, the rest of the present lead, describing what the Act "envisaged", would be better placed to follow the content of the "Home Rule" section, which describes the situation as it was, and then letting the narrative continue with what happened as described in the section "1921 general election". Would that be acceptable? Qexigator (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision now done. [2] --Qexigator (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The modern meaning and use of the term Southern Ireland

Most people these days use the term Southern Ireland to mean the part of Ireland that is not Northern Ireland, i.e. the Republic of Ireland. Until recently I was unaware Southern Ireland was ever an official name for the larger of the two territories that the island of Ireland was partitioned into; I thought they were named Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State. I was also unaware that initially the Irish Free State covered the whole of Ireland and that Northern Ireland opted out of it. Perhaps the article should deal with the modern meaning and the political entity that was called Southern Ireland should be transfered to another article such as the Government of Southern Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, AlwynJPie. I've now added a link to the disambiguation article for Southern Ireland.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Article title

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration:

Re this, it might not be a bad idea to move Southern Ireland. The term is far more commonly used to mean either the Irish state or the southern counties of Ireland than it is to refer to an early 20th-century political entity that never existed in fact. Southern Ireland (Autonomous region of the United Kingdom) is a hideous title, as well as being inaccurate, since there are no reliable sources saying that it was such a thing, but possibly "Southern Ireland (Government of Ireland Act 1920)" would be a less awful alternative. I would suggest that "Southern Ireland" should then become a redirect to Republic of Ireland, with an appropriate hatnote on that article. Scolaire (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest a disam page, with electoral and sub-regions that also use SI. Murry1975 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

What electoral and sub-regions would they be? Not that I disagree with your idea. Scolaire (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A dab page would seem far better than a simple redirect. I'm not sure what Murry1975 is referring to but no doubt we shall find out in due course. ww2censor (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirects are just an alternative to google and not as good, if a name could be used for an article it should be unless a disambiguation page would be better. We should not move an article from a natural name just to have a redirect using the name. Thus I prefer either the article as it is or a disambiguation page - though just having two entries seems silly. Dmcq (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Done and done. --Scolaire (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Scolaire. I've now added a link to your disambiguation article.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead

A part of the lead as of now is original research, relying on subjective interpretation of primary sources. I am replacing it with a single short sentence citing secondary sources (i.e. books). Scolaire (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The current lede starts off with the mouthful that the country was a "de jure polity". That's not suitable. The descriptions should be similar to those for Northern Ireland as it had the exact same status. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Country

Recently there have been several edits on the articles adding Country as the status for Southern Ireland, however there is no source that Southern Ireland was a country. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It had the same status as Northern Ireland, which is described as a "constituent county of the United Kingdom". Do you have a source for "autonomous region"? Scolaire (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I was not the one who added autonomous region, that was just where I reverted it too. Do you have a source for Southern Ireland being described as a constituent country? Elevatorrailfan (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one reverting you. It seems to me that the onus is the same on both sides to produce a source. I would be quite happy to see it left as "part". Scolaire (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The current lede starts off with the mouthful that the country was a "de jure polity". That's not suitable. The descriptions should be similar to those for Northern Ireland as it had the exact same status.Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It depends on how you define country. In many respects the political status of Southern Ireland as set up under the Better Government of Ireland Act 1920 fulfilled that of what a country is. Both Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland had their own parliaments and judiciary but they also shared some common institutions. AlwynJPie (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

But there seems to be no fully accepted definition:

"How many countries in the world? The answer to that question is surprisingly difficult....

APPLY online for visa-free entry to the United States and the Department for Homeland Security offers 251 choices for “country where you live”. The wide but rum selection includes Bouvet Island, an uninhabitable icy knoll belonging to Norway in the South Atlantic; South Yemen (which stopped being a state in 1990); and the “Neutral Zone”—a diamond-shaped bit of desert between Saudi Arabia and Iraq that vanished after the 1991 Gulf war.

That is the trouble with such lists. Places that are not real states at all end up on them. And places that approximate a bit more closely to countries (at least in their own eyes) may be absent. America's list, for example, excludes Abkhazia and South Ossetia, self-proclaimed states that broke away from Georgia with Russian backing. Just three other countries—Nicaragua, Venezuela and the islet of Nauru—recognise those breakaway statelets as independent. Meanwhile nobody at all in the outside world seems ready—yet—to give southern Sudan a label of its own, though that day may not be far off.

Private-sector lists are just as odd as those compiled by governments. Hotmail offers 242 “countries/territories” from which you can register an e-mail account. Web-savvy penguins may be pleased that Bouvet Island is on the list. But human beings in Kosovo (recognised by 65 states) and Western Sahara (more than 80) will search in vain for their homeland.

Any attempt to find a clear definition of a country soon runs into a thicket of exceptions and anomalies. Diplomatic recognition is clearly not much guide to real life. In the early years of the cold war most countries recognised the Chinese regime in Taiwan (“Free China”) while the mainland communists (“Red China”) were isolated. Now the absurdity is the other way round. The number of countries with formal diplomatic ties to Taiwan has shrivelled to just 23—mostly small, cash-strapped islands. Yet Taiwan is not just a country, but a rather important one. Under mainland-pleasing names such as “Chinese Taipei” it is a member of the Asian Development Bank and the World Trade Organisation, and an observer at some OECD panels. It has nearly 100 “trade offices” around the world.

If diplomatic recognition is not the main thing that marks out a country, what does? Is it the ability to issue passports that are of some use to the holder, or simply actual control of a stretch of land? Again, the picture is cloudy. Legitimacy, physical control and the capacity to issue documents that other people accept don't always coincide. For example, lots of countries that do not recognise Kosovo accept travellers bearing its passports. For decades, Lithuania's exiled diplomats issued usable passports even though their country was under Soviet rule. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a do-gooding outfit with crusader roots, issues not only passports but postage stamps (and has diplomatic relations with over 100 countries). Its territory is just two nice buildings in Rome. Vatican City, an enclave of just 44 hectares in the middle of Italy's capital, is only a little bigger—but it very much sees itself as a sovereign state. Yet the Vatican's diplomats serve the papacy—the Holy See—rather than the state where it is based. And the See, not the statelet, is an observer at the United Nations.

Not that presence or absence from the UN is much help to anyone seeking clarity. Israel joined the world body in 1949, but 19 of its 192 members do not accept the Jewish state's existence, and many avoid uttering its name, preferring formulas like “Zionist entity”. A third of UN members do recognise Kosovo, but the UN itself does not.

Living in limbo

In reality, UN membership is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for functioning statehood. Being outside the UN means that Kosovo is still waiting for its own internet domain name, phone prefix and chance to play international football. But Taiwan, recognised by even fewer countries, manages to have all three.

The Turkish-backed administration in northern Cyprus proclaimed independence in 1983 but it has been recognised only by Turkey and remains in a state of partial economic isolation. Attempts have been made to start direct air links with Britain, but in 2009 a court ruled that this would contravene international law which gives the island's internationally recognised government (which controls the Greek-speaking part of the island) sovereignty over its airspace.

A German thinker, Max Weber, defined statehood as “the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence”. That may be a practical approach but it doesn't end the confusion. Chaotic Somalia spectacularly fails to meet this criterion, yet still counts as a sovereign state. Yet its northern bit, Somaliland, has met this standard with increasing impressiveness since it declared independence in 1991. It has a currency, car registrations and even biometric passports. But only private firms such as DHL, a courier company, link it to the outside world. International postal service requires membership of the Universal Postal Union, which for non-members of the UN need approval by at least two-thirds of that body's members. The African Union refuses to recognise Somaliland's independence because it dislikes changing any African borders. Outsiders hold back until African countries change their minds.

One reason for confusion is simple laziness. Deleting countries that have disappeared or places that have always been uninhabited should be easy (the Department of Homeland Security blames out-of-date historical data for its list and says it will change it soon). But sheer inertia, and a feeling among many sovereign states that changes of boundary and status set a bad precedent, makes changes less likely.

How far a populated patch of land qualifies as a country is ultimately a subjective question for politicians; it will never be settled by lawyers in a way that everybody accepts. And the fact that there are degrees of recognition—ranging from full diplomatic ties to virtually denying a state's existence—gives governments a calibrated set of tools which can be used to reward good behaviour and penalise bad.

And whatever diplomatic theory says, life goes on. Taiwan is celebrating a friendly resolution from the European Parliament, and dishing out aid to Haiti. Kosovo rents dialling codes from Monaco and Slovenia. A football championship for teams from unrecognised countries is due to start next month in Malta. And a delegation of senior politicians from Somaliland had a friendly meeting at the White House on April 3rd. Presumably they had squared things with immigration control." AlwynJPie (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent change to the Article's title

There has been an article about the short-lived UK country called Southern Ireland which existed from 1921-1922 on Wikipedia for years. It was always titled Southern Ireland. Just as its sister country, Northern Ireland is so titled. The short-lived country is referenced hundreds of places on Wikipedia. Recently, on 6 Feb., an editor (i) changed the title to "Southern Ireland (1921-1922)" and (ii) created a dab page for Southern Ireland. This followed a discussion on this page over all of five (yes FIVE) days with no posting being made on the requested moves page.

It is really frustrating that every time we must now properly reference this former UK country we must type "Southern Ireland (1921-1922)|Southern Ireland". This change was entirely unnecessary and is retrograde. Did any editor or reader ever experience confusion on account of its name? Well, if they had, there was a perfectly good hat note at the top of the article. The title the article has had for years should be restored to it. "Southern Ireland" plain and simple. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Three editors were in agreement. I also agree with the move. It's been two months.

I think most people searching the term would be looking for the modern country, not the historical constituent country. It's irrelevant that 'we must type "Southern Ireland (1921-1922)|Southern Ireland"'. Usage on Wikipedia is not a determining factor. See WP:DAB#Determining a primary topic.

We could measure traffic statistics for the links from the disambiguation page.

Rob984 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Frenchmalawi in that "Southern Ireland (1921-1922)" should go back to "Southern Ireland". Southern Ireland is so rarely used to mean anything but the 26 counties that it does not warrent being a disambiguation article. As Frenchmalawi pointed out there was a perfectly good hatnote at the top of the article to assist those who were looking for something else such as the Free State or the South (European Parliament constituency). AlwynJPie (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead again

Once and for all, Southern Ireland never had any real existence. For a start, the Government of Ireland Act did not even say that there would be a country called Southern Ireland (or for that matter, a country called Northern Ireland). It said there would be a parliament of Southern Ireland. But in effect there never was. Four elected member turned up to the "opening" of the parliament, elected a speaker, and adjourned sine die. There was no executive, as required by the Act. Therefore, there was no country. The 26 counties continued under the Dublin Castle administration until that administration handed over power to the Provisional Government in January 1922. The descriptions should not be similar to those for Northern Ireland because Northern Ireland convened a parliament, elected a government and became a de facto as well as a de jure polity. This lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects, and it uses proper sources, i.e. books, instead of "statutory rules" and "court circulars". Reverting to "the way it was for years" goes against the whole philosophy of Wikipedia, which is about improving articles. Scolaire (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Remove 'polity'?

As mentioned in a recent edit summary[3] calling SI a 'de jure polity' is unsuited to the lead. I do not see that wording sourced anywhere, and 'polity' is an unusual word, which we should avoid if some other wording can be used. Given the bare facts described in the article, would the following revision to the first sentence be acceptable?

Southern Ireland was a de jure polity created by subdivision of Ireland named in the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as part the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the establishment of a parliament and other institutions for the internal government of the southern counties of Ireland.

That is accurate and suffices when followed by the information which immediately follows. Qexigator (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't object in principle, but it won't make a lot of sense to a new reader. Is there not some better way of phrasing it? "Ireland's southern counties" is completely wrong. As the next sentence but one tells us, it was for 26 out of 32 counties – Ireland's southern counties are Kerry, Cork, Waterford and Wexford. Scolaire (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Better, but still not explaining the article well. The Act didn't just select 26 counties, or about five-sixths of the island, at random, it partitioned the country into Northern Ireland and "Southern Ireland". If it's to be phrased that way, it would be better to say "...for the establishment of a parliament and other institutions for the internal government of Ireland, minus the six counties of Northern Ireland", or some such. Scolaire (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 April 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

---

• Southern Ireland (1921–22) → Southern Ireland
• Southern Ireland → Southern Ireland (disambiguation)

– Southern Ireland was the title used on Wikipedia for the former UK country for many years. The country is referenced hundreds of places, mostly in history articles. In February 2015 this was changed to the current arrangement without any discussion on this project page. The change left us with a horendously cumbersome "Southern Ireland (1921-1922)" title page for the country. Now, every time we want to reference the country we have to type "Southern Ireland (1921-1922)|Southern Ireland". There was no real need for a DAB page but I am happy for it to be kept but at its own titled page. Frenchmalawi (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose move. This "former UK country" never existed in fact, as the article tells. It may well be "referenced hundreds of places" (because the web is a big place) but it never gets more than the briefest of mentions. There is no reason it should be the primary topic, hence the recent – agreed – move to its current title. Scolaire (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It was never a 'former' UK country, even de jure. Qexigator (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. User: Scolaire made the recent moves I am trying to change. His remark above that Southern Ireland never existed is telling. Maybe that's why he thinks Southern Ireland is of so little importance that it doesn't deserve to be the primary topic. I absolutely disagree. Southern Ireland existed and was really important!!! It existed at law, it had its own government (direct rule followed by a provisional government), it had its own courts, it had its own police etc., its own elections etc. Saying S.I. didn't exist is just like saying Northern Ireland didn't exist during the times its Parliament or Assembly were suspended. Does that make sense to you? How can we say it is of so little importance that it does not deserve to be the primary topic when it has a bunch of affiliated articles which are now inconsistently titled: Parliament of Southern Ireland, Provisional Government of Southern Ireland etc. Have a look at the Dab page. The idea that S.I. could be confused with the R.O.I, or an EU constituency is the reason given for this change. Does that sound like a good enough reason to dump the country as the primary topic? Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inconvenient or not the new title is much more WP:RECOGNIZABLE In ictu oculi (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, for same reason as In ictu oculi, and never was a country. Qexigator (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not important in what sense the whatever-it-was existed. It's not important to save a few keystrokes. (29 per link, for an article that's only been linked on 244 pages. Compare that to the keystrokes spent trying to save those keystrokes.) The readers are important. No-one has yet made a good case that readers who type in "Southern Ireland" wish to or expect to find this article. NebY (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per NebY. Objecting to this recent move, which is obviously commonsense, is false pedantry. Most readers aren't going to think that "Southern Ireland" is going to lead them to this limited period article. It's an aspect of WP:COMMONNAME: that it was an "official" name for a limited period doesn't give the reader enough clues as to what this article is about, as opposed to what the average reader may think it's about. "Horrendously cumbersome". I don't think so: it seems a reasonable pithy compromise given that if we were to be going for WP:PRECISION it should be Southern Ireland (Entity created by the Government of Ireland Act 1920 but never really existed and even in theory lasted only a few months) DeCausa (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Scolaire and per NebY. "Horrendously cumbersome" my hat! Snappy (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. A search for "Southern Ireland" on DuckDuckGo yields various pages that promote tours of Kenmare, Baltimore, and Dungarvan, but nothing about this entity. The initializer (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. To most people, I would think Southern Ireland refers generically to the Republic of Ireland as it still exists today, not the country in a specific period. British people of my parents' generation generally still refer to the Republic as Southern Ireland. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, outcome is clear enough. All very silly. Suspect there'll be lots of links to a silly, unnecessary DAB page. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"false pedantry" etc. DeCausa, do you think that's respectful of me? I don't. FYI, I've contributed a lot to this particular article in the past. It really is disappointing to see snotty things like that being said in response to a good faith content discussion. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Qexigator, User:Necrothesp, User:The initializer, User:DeCausa, User:Snappy, User talk:Scolaire: Accepting my proposal that the country remain the primary topic has been rejected: Are any of you guys going to fix the hundreds of links that now seem to go to a DAB page: [4]... Great outcome; even when these pages are fixed, there willd doubtless be tonnes more in the future too. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Re "hundreds of links", 107 pages[5] link to Southern Ireland, nearly all of them talk pages. Two are in article-space and both of those are redirects.[6] NebY (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Frenchmalawi, the page was tagged by a bot on 10 March, and the tag was removed 12 hours later with the edit summary "removing incoming links template; fewer than 25 links". In fact there were no articles linked on that date, except the two redirects that are supposed to link to here, because the editors had already done the spadework. Scolaire (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Rome Rule

I'm reasonably open on this if we have references, However the phrase "Unionists feared that a nationalist government in Dublin would discriminate against Protestants and would impose tariffs that would unduly hit the north-eastern counties of the province of Ulster" obviously includes Rome Rule, bit it is less clear that it is confined to that. Discrimination is not the same thing as subjugation to the rule of a Church.----Snowded ^TALK 15:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You're not insisting on an academic reference this time? Gob Lofa (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking for an argument to justify the inclusion of that pipe link Gob Lofa. If there is evidence that Rome Rule is the same 'set' as discrimination then the pipe link is OK. Please try and use the talk page to present evidence/argument rather than to continue issues you have on other articles ----Snowded ^TALK 15:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've no intention of forgetting your troublesome behaviour elsewhere every time you kick up a new fuss. I'm glad to see you're no longer attempting to convince other editors that they bear a heavier burden of proof than is actually the case; I find this encouraging. So try to keep your nose clean. Rome Rule was a unionist fear; I see neither a problem with the pipe, nor any excuse for your edit-warring on a topic demonstrably outside your comfort zone. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No question that Rome Rule was a Unionist fear, but have you got some evidence (other than your own opinion) that all fears of discrimination are covered by it? Its a pretty simply question. A reference is all that is needed----Snowded ^TALK 16:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You're no stranger to simple questions; you've refused to answer enough of them. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

So no reference to support your assertion and the proposed change? ----Snowded ^TALK 16:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

See previous comments. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

None of them contain a reference, one asserts your opinion. Do I need to refer you to wikipedia policy on sourcing? ----Snowded ^TALK 16:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Take a look yourself, see what needs academic sources and what doesn't. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Anything challenged needs sourcing. Academic is good but its not the only possibility ----Snowded ^TALK 17:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

See? It's not hard to change your ways. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Some context require academic references, some don't. Now do you have any to support the assertion that Rome Rule is the same as discrimination in this case? ----Snowded ^TALK 17:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You're coming along nicely. Now see previous comments. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Well I can see a problem with saying increasing tariffs is part of a Rome Rule fear. Perhaps if the sentence was broken in two it would make a bit more sense. Dmcq (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree ----Snowded ^TALK 23:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Following this understanding I have created a second sentence "They also feared a nationalist government could discriminate against Protestants after gaining political power over their interests in Ireland." with the edit note "this was also a relevant factor why in the end they established a protestant state for a protestant people in the north." Osioni (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

1RR violation

Snowded, some admins may consider this article to come under the Troubles-related restrictions. You've reverted twice in less than 15 minutes. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Flag?

Did it have any kind of flag? I've seen at least one article (History of Ireland (1801–1923)) linking to here that uses the Union Jack as its flag, which seems odd and quite likely wrong, as we don't get that for links to other parts of the UK, except occasionally Northern Ireland (probably incorrectly since NI has its own Red Hand of Ulster flag, which is used everywhere else in Wikipedia).Tlhslobus (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It had no real existence so no there was no special flag set up for it, the Irish Republic used the Irish tricolour and had effective control of most of the area. It was a creation of the parliament in Westminster so I think representing it with the Union Jack is probably best. The Ulster Banner was only made the official flag of Northern Ireland a few years after its creation. Dmcq (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The Ulster Banner is no longer the official flag of Northern Ireland, it has no special official flag of its own. See Flag of Northern Ireland. Probably St Patrick's Saltire would be better now but I'm happy enough wih a small Ulster Banner just to show it as a distinct place. Dmcq (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)