Talk:Irish Republic

Recognition by the Soviet Union

I am doubtful that the Soviet Union formally recognised the Irish Republic. My understanding of events is that 'McCartan returned home empty-handed in July'(Mitchell p192 and Docs on Irish Foreign Policy Vol. 1 p 185). A draft proposed Treaty of May 1920 was never ratified . Thoughts please. RashersTierney (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

At the time no other state recognised the Soviet Union, and both were really more concerned with internal affairs. The links were publicized in a 1921 British propaganda pamphlet "Intercourse between Bolshevism and Sinn Féin".Red Hurley (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There was an expectation of formal mutual recognition, but from the sources it doesn't appear to have happened. RashersTierney (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

afaik - you are correct - ClemMcGann (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Does not claim NI

Ireland does not claim Northern Ireland, the map at the top is wrong. This was voted on as part of the Belfast Agreement and removed from the constitution in 1999. Dmcq (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be a different Irish Republic to the one in this article. O Fenian (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, it should make that a bit clearer at the start. Dmcq (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a hatnote, and the introduction is written in past tense and gives no indication that it is referring to the current state in Ireland. That state has never officially been called "Irish Republic", although it is frequently described as that in British news reports. O Fenian (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the historic IR claimed the whole island; the Sinn Féin Manifesto 1918 aimed - "...to develop Ireland's social, political and industrial life, for the welfare of the whole people of Ireland."Red Hurley (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

cathal brugha

was he ceann comhairle or president of irish republic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girayhan (talk • contribs) 18:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Unrecognised state

The infobox states that the Irish Republic was an unrecognised state. This is not true. Although recognition was indeed extremely limited, the RSFSR recognsied the Irish Republic. To state categorically that the Irish Republic was unrecognised is highly inaccurate. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 13:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is the RSFSR?

Maybe a hatnote or something could be added to state that at least one state recognised it? Mabuska ^(talk) 13:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

RSFSR is the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, the biggest of the fifteen that made up the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). It used to state in the article that the Russian SSR recognised the Irish Republic, but now it says In June 1920 a "Draft Treaty between the new Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Republic of Ireland" was circulated in Dublin. E. H. Carr, the historian of early Bolshevism, considered that ".. the negotiations were not taken very seriously on either side. Personally, I've never understood why "recognition" is such a big issue with Wikipedians. You won't see much space devoted to it in the history books. Scolaire (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not really concerned about whether or not the recognition is mentioned. What I am concerned about is stating in one location (the body of the article) that there was recognition, while in another part of the article (in this case the infobox) stating there was categorically no recognition. As an aside to the conflicting information, the relationship between the RSFSR and Ireland was well established (apart from Russia being the only country to recognise the Irish Republic, the Irish Republic was one of only 4 countries to immediately recognise the RSFSR, including Finland, Lithuania and Latvia) and included several treaties between the two countries, including the borrowing by the RSFSR of moneys from the Irish Republic with the Russian Crown Jewels being used as collateral for the loans. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 14:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you got a citation for that recognition (let alone the loan of money - funds to Moscow for a change!!)? or the "several treaties"? The alleged recognition was on 'citation needed' for ages and the text says now that there was merely a draft treaty 'not taken seriously by either side' [with citation]. With friends like you... --Red King (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This may be irrelevant to this discussion, but for your interest. The agreement negioated by Frank Aiken and the United States Shipping Board for the SS Irish Oak (1919) and SS Irish Pine (1919) in 1941 was with the Irish Republic Lugnad (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean a deal done in 1941? By that stage this Irish Republic didn't exist in any form. Though then again never did the Second Irish Republic (the current one). Mabuska ^(talk) 13:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes - 1941 - which is why I said "irrelevant to this discussion". But the written agreement was signed by Frank Aiken on behalf of the Irish Republic Lugnad (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You can possibly scratch my initial query regarding the recognition by the RSFSR. It does indeed appear that there were only draft treaties, and as such there was no actual official recognition (even if Dublin initiated protocols to establish diplomatic relations). Although sources can be found which do suggest there was recognition, though they may simply be misinterpretations: such sources include 'The Haj to Utopia': Anti-colonial radicalism in the South Asian diaspora, 1905-1930 by Maria Ramnath (pp.358: 2008), Heresy: the battle of ideas in modern Ireland by Desmond Fennell (1993), A History of the Irish Working Class by Peter Berresford Ellis (pp.295: 1985), etc. Regarding the lending of the moneys - well Revolutionary government in Ireland: Dáil Éireann, 1919-22 by Arthur Mitchell (1995), as well as Irish Slavonic studies: Issue 21 by the Irish Slavists' Association (1998) and Eamon de Valera, 1882-1975 by The Irish Times (pp.33: 1976). ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 14:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Unilaterally declared independent state

The recent bout of editing on the intro has highlighted something that has bugged me for years: the phrase "unilaterally declared independent state" has always seemed to me an awkward description of the Irish Republic. I've left it alone, though, because I could never come up with a better one. If anybody can suggest an opening sentence that does a better job of describing it, and is consistent with the sources, I'd be grateful. I'm thinking something on the lines of "a revolutionary state which declared its independence of Great Britain in January 1919." Scolaire (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the extended version doesn't read particularly well - "was a unilaterally declared independent state of Ireland". "state of Ireland" sounds particularly bad given what precedes it. I think "revolutionary state" is maybe slightly problematic, due to the fact the people unilaterally declaring independence (at least the 1919 ones) were democratically elected, wheres "revolutionary" tends to suggest more of an uprising overthrowing an existing regime. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree there. Revolution, especially in a late 19th-early 20th century context, could be violent or democratic. Marxists, for instance, would have considered before WW1 that a democratic revolution in Germany was the most likely scenario (and a revolution of any sort in Russia the least likely!). Historians are increasingly referring to the 1916-1923 period in Ireland as "the Revolution" (see Google Books). --Scolaire (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Because people were continuing edit the "Unilaterally declared independent state" version I have gone ahead and changed it. Any further critiques or suggestions would be welcome. Scolaire (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Independence from Great Britain

When I wrote "independence from Great Britain" in the section above it was not a slip of the pen or an expression of POV. I believe "Independence from the United Kingdom [of Great Britain and Ireland]" is incorrect usage on two counts. It is a logical impossibility for Ireland to be independent of Great Britain and Ireland; Ireland could only become independent of Britain, at which point the Union would be dissolved. More to the point from a policy point of view, the sources tend far more towards "Britain" than "United Kingdom". "Irish Republic" is somewhat ambiguous as a search term, but searching for "de valera independence great britain on Google Books gets 5,000 hits on Google Books to 2,500 for de valera independence United kingdom. More importantly, in the books found in the second search, "United Kingdom" is virtually never used in the context of pre-independence relations between the two. For both logical and policy reasons, therefore, I believe "Great Britain" is the more appropriate usage. Scolaire (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think your reasoning implies that Great Britain is a state. Ireland declared independence from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It is not logically impossible for it to be independent of a state that includes the name of the part declaring independence as after all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is simply the full name of the state Ireland was part of. It wasn't the state. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mabuska here. You would never say that "Croatia declared independence from Serbia" or "Estonia declared independence from Russia". You would simply use the name of the state that existed just prior to the declaration of independence. i.e. you would say "Croatia declared independence from Yugoslavia" and "Estonia declared independence from the Soviet Union". ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 12:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I take your point. How would you respond to the sources argument, though? "Great Britain" is, to this day, used as a "short-form" alternative to "United Kingdom", per the United Kingdom article. In 1919-1922 it was used to a much greater extent, and most books on the period, old and recent, refer to the dominant power, or the IRA's enemy, as "Great Britain". Scolaire (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain is emphatically not to be used as a short form for the United Kingdom – you're thinking of "Britain", minus the Great. Great Britain is an island. JonChapple^Talk 15:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I emphatically did not say it was to be used. I said it is used, and that 90 years ago it was used, more frequently than today, and more frequently than "United Kingdom" was then. Whether WP users in 2011 think it ought to be, or ought to have been, is neither here nor there. Scolaire (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem with using "United Kingdom" piped to the UK of GB and I is. Regardless of its name, that's the state the Irish Republic declared its independence from. JonChapple^Talk 17:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And I don't understand why every time I make a policy-based, encyclopaedic edit or talk page post, the same little group of editors appear screaming "Official name! Official name!" It has nothing to do with anything. Scolaire (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't recall an occasion when we've personally clashed over something similar, and I'm sorry if it comes across that way. I just don't understand what's wrong with using "United Kingdom". It's incorrect, both now and then, to call the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland "Great Britain". Writers often used "England" for the whole UK until at least the post-war era, but it doesn't make it correct. You don't declare independence from an island, you declare it from a state. JonChapple^Talk 18:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That's not meant as a put-down. I'm just trying to explain that I want to go by the sources, not what is "correct". Scolaire (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's not verifiable that the territory which made up the Irish Republic was formerly part of the United Kingdom? JonChapple^Talk 18:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

To be blunt, JC, I'm saying that you have a bee in your bonnet, and it's boring! The edit I made to this article was based on the preponderance of the sources. You, if you are honest, have not the remotest interest in the subject of this article. You are scouring WP for an opportunity to scream "Official name! Official name!" Ideally I would like you to just stop and do something useful instead. Scolaire (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Charming. Well, you've certainly won me over with that completely unwarranted assumption of bad faith (not to mention an inaccurate and bemusing assumption that I'm somehow not interested in British/Irish history). Only MacTire, Mabuska and Red King to go now. Good luck, champ. JonChapple^Talk 19:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Add Asarlai to that as well seeing as he changed it to "United Kingdom" before Scolaire reverted it. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Him too. He clearly doesn't have any interest in this article's subject either. JonChapple^Talk 20:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem with using google. The search criteria you mentioned aren't strict enough. For example, how many of the hits for your first term based a result on "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". Removing United Kingdom from the same search you did for Great Britain yielded only 2,470 results. This seems quite equal to the 2500 hits for your "de valera independence United kingdom" search. We have to be careful when using Google. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 15:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You do have to be careful, and you missed the whole point of what I was saying with my searches. I didn't say that in books located with the first search "United Kingdom" never appears; that would be absurd. I said that "Great Britain" appears more times altogether than "United Kingdom" alone or with "Great Britain", and also that - if you look at the books in the respective searches - "Great Britain" or "Britain" is used more often in the context of the relationship between Irish republicans and the British state, whereas "United Kingdom" more often appears in a different context e.g. "comparisons with rates prevailing in the United Kingdom" in the second book. Scolaire (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

GB is correct in this case.--Domer48_'fenian' 16:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not. Great Britain wasn't the name of the state and hadn't been since 1800. JonChapple^Talk 17:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

GB is correct. And these constant debates over obscure terminology are tiresome. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Per above, it's still not. JonChapple^Talk 18:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow strong arguements from Domer48 and Republican Jacobite.

Why is using "United Kingdom" such a big no-no? Do we want to possibly confuse readers into thinking that Great Britain was a state rather than simply an island? Worse yet using just "Great Britain" could be considered suvbversive wording as it can imply that Ireland was an unrepresented part of the United Kingdom. It makes it sound like Great Britain controlled Ireland with Ireland having no say rather than the fact Irish MP's got elected to go Westminster to sit in the parliament of the state Ireland was a part of. Why is "United Kingdom" so faux pas here? Or have i hit the nail on the head? Mabuska ^(talk) 19:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mabuska. 'Independence from Great Britain' is a nonsense. We've clarified the island/state thing inanother place, don't reverse it here. Ireland sought independence from the United Kingdom. Full stop.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red King (talk • contribs) 19:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The island/state thing?? I'm struggling here. Are you trying to say that because people pipelink "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland" we must pipelink UK of GB&I to "United Kingdom", or what? And if 'Independence from Great Britain' is a nonsense, why do books on Egypt, never mind Ireland, talk of it? Scolaire (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Or if you want the specific phrase 'Independence from Great Britain', this page. --Scolaire (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Its probably up to the discretion of the sources editor(s) ;-) No comment on my response which does contain an actual concern with the wording regardless of the wikilink Scolaire? Or would that be struggling too much?

Great Britain may be commonly to informally mean the United Kingdom as all those sources no doubt are, and weight of sources is there, however i think in the case of Ireland, seeing as it was actually part of "Great Britain" and it elected MPs to its parliament and was not a protectorate like Egypt was, that it would make more sense to state United Kingdom. Also the wording problem as i mentioned above would need to be taken into account as it could be interpreted wrongly. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see anything in your response that is concerned with WP policy or encyclopaedic content, only the repetitive "Official name! Official name!" and the usual dark hints about "misleading readers". So yes, I would struggle to comment. Do you have anything to say about my concerns about WP:V and WP:RS? Scolaire (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you check the edit history i restored it as i accidentally deleted it. I did also add that you have weight of sources even though i never said anything about sources! However i'm glad you admit that you'd struggle to comment on my concern on the possible subjective wording of the sentence in question.

On WP:V and WP:RS - i'm not argueing about sources, and anyways i'm sure it'd hardly be called original research and against WP:V or WP:RS to state United Kingdom instead regardless of number of sources seeing as Great Britain is commonly used to mean the UK - which you've said yourself - which i even stated above. However what is wrong in providing clarity to prevent the possibility for misinterpretation? Or do you seek to intentionally imply in the article the concern i raised above about its wording?

Also your "Official name!" comment is the same as slamming a custard pie into your own face seeing as i've never went on about using the official name. Stating "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is way to long-winded for the point. The common short-hand "United Kingdom" is far more suitable. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No response at all? In that case seeing as most editors (other than two who just appeared to oppose with no reasons given at all) seem to agree that United Kingdom would be better for the sake of clarity, and the fact it's hardly controversial, and there is no issues with WP:V or WP:RS - seeing as you said yourself "Great Britain" is a shorthand for the United Kingdom - then i'll re-add the clarity to the article after a couple more days unless you decide to respond on the points made. It'll also help remove any chance of the concern i raised above about its possible subjective wording. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot respond to your concern about "possible subjective wording" because the wording is not subjective! It is based on reliable sources as linked above and cited in the article itself. Also your last post was so incoherent that I didn't know how to respond to it. Since Mac Tire and Red King have not argued against my sources (and Asarlaí never even commented on my edit), they have obviously accepted them. Domer and RJ succinctly said that "Great Britain" is correct, which is correct. That means we have a consensus. Editing against consensus is disruptive, as I believe I mentioned to you elsewhere. Edit-warring is even more so. Scolaire (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A thought: why not simply quote the source as it is? That way we can be true to the source material but not pass off its inaccurate terminology as correct. I've made the edit. JonC^Talk 15:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Jon, I'm sorry I was over the top the last time. I don't want to be offensive this time either, but really your edit just looks silly! It's not like we were quoting Shakespeare or something. This page, which is similar to the page I linked to before, shows straight off seven books that say Ireland declared, or wanted or won "independence from Great Britain." It is absolutely the correct terminology according to the published sources, and putting it in quotes is like putting "the sky is blue" in quotes because the identical wording appears in published sources. Having just told Mabuska that edit-warring is disruptive, I would prefer if you self-revert on this one. Scolaire (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, but, with all due respect, this is nothing like putting "the sky is blue" in quotes. The sky is blue; whereas the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was not called Great Britain (the clue's in the name – it's missing a bit!). The kingdom of Great Britain ceased to be with the Acts of Union, and by putting "Great Britain" for the UK and not putting it in as a direct quote, we're deliberately presenting inaccurate information to unsuspecting readers, piping it to the correct article. I can't believe this is still dragging on. JonC^Talk 15:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The information is not inaccurate if it is verifiable. Reputable authors say that Great Britain was a country in 1919. We can't just say they're wrong. Please have a read of WP:JDLI#Article content. I'm afraid that that is what your argument comes down to, and there's nothing I can do about that. Scolaire (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

After reading this and reading the compromise placed this morning I edited it to discribe the states involved in impartial terms (U.K. of G.B.&I. minus I. would be U.K. G.B. )"The Irish Republic was a revolutionary state that declared its independence and an end to the Act of Union from Britain in January 1919." Mentioning the Acts of Union would leave the term U.K. of G.B. the correct term . Please edit if I am wrong but to my knowledge this is correct terminology . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murry1975 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt, but the problem is that like a lot of "compromises" it makes the article less readable. Really my only concern here is to describe the Declaration of Independence in the terms that the historians use, in a way that is comprehensible to all. Scolaire (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No problems , I was trying to get the points everyone was making across with repect to the historic states by mentioning the Acts of Union I thaught it would help . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murry1975 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to inform the readers in this debate here as my name has been mentioned a few times. When I first commented it was based on Scolaire's phrase "It is a logical impossibility for Ireland to be independent of Great Britain and Ireland". I based my argument on the fact that a state can only secede from the original state which in this case was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It could not have seceded from any other entity. My second comment was based solely on the validity of Google searches which many in Wikipedia have already conceded is fallible. I am neither for Scolaire's proposals nor against them. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 16:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for clarifying. Scolaire (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a point about sources. Scolaire refers to contemporary sources using "Great Britain". But surely we should be going with current sources? I presume the WP articles about slavery or colonialism do not talk about "Negroes" and "Hottentots", etc., but instead use current language. Mooretwin (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Sources don't have to be cited using their exact language when intention is clear, as perfectly illustrated in the example you've provided. JonC^Talk 06:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Guys, read what I said again! These are all recent books - the oldest is 1991 - that say "independence from Great Britain". It is current practice to refer to the country as "Great Britain". To say it is not is your opinion, and verifiably wrong! I asked you to read WP:JDLI#Article content, but apparently neither of you did so I will quote it for you. "Editing disputes are expected to be settled by reasoned civil discourse, and editors are expected to base their arguments as to content upon what can be verified—without introducing their own arguments, analyses, hypotheses, and conclusions—from reliable and independent sources. The Neutral Point of View requires that we make the best efforts to leave our innate prejudices at the door when we edit here, be they political, social, geographic, linguistic, cultural, or otherwise." This is Wikipedia policy and you do have to follow it. Scolaire (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I already read it and I still don't see what point you're trying to make. Using "United Kingdom" can be verified, as it's clearly what "Great Britain" means in this case. Here's 129 results for "indepdence from England". Shall we use England instead? It's verifiable! JonC^Talk 06:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The sources aren't the same quality as the ones on the page I linked to. And yes, I already did the search with "United Kingdom", and the books are not the same quality. I'm not doing this to be awkward. I'm doing it because I want the article to be properly written. I thought carefully about how it should read and I did it based on the sources. Your objections are based solely on your own prejudices, and that is against policy. This "campaign" has gone on long enough. I am asking you to stop now because it is becoming disruptive. Scolaire (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain is obviously correct. Ireland declared independence from Great Britain, not the United Kingdom. United Kingdom would be correct if saying Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom, but since they declared independence not seceded that's a moot point. I suppose those pushing the "official name" line would say that, for example, if Herzegovina did something similar they would say "Herzegovina declared independence from Bosnia and Herzegovina"? Or would they choose the (obviously correct) "Herzegovina declared independence from Bosnia"? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't declare independence from a hunk of land. You declare it from a state. JonC^Talk 11:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As well as ignoring the question (probably because it proves what bullshit you're talking), you seem to be ignoring the face that once independence from Great Britain was declared, the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and "Great Britain" are one and the same. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I ignored it because it's a stupid question. Yes, you would say it declared independence from Bosnia-Herzegovina; just as you'd describe Aruba declaring independence from the Kingdom of the Netherlands, not the Netherlands, Curacao and Sint Maarten, etc.

The UK of GB and I wouldn't automatically revert back to being the kingdom of Great Britain upon the attempted succession of one of its parts either – do you think if California declared war on the US state (not Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Texas, etc, etc, etc) tomorrow there'd suddenly be 49 states? It may have got a new name post-1922 when secession was negotiated in a different form, but legally, the same state that the Irish Republic attempted to secede from still exists. JonC^Talk 12:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point by JonC , legally the name of the state was still U.K. of G.B. and I. , but the other point being made is as of a qoute from the declaration itself , this is causing some confusion at this stage . Maybe the direct qoute from the declaration used with citation clearly outlining the issue might be better , some editors might object to the long winded intro , its an odd bin alright .Murry1975 (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the quote from the Declaration that you are referring to? If the Declaration was quoted then it should be in quotation marks, but at the moment it isn't, and I can't honestly see any reason why it should be. Scolaire (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I did add in quote marks originally, but self-reverted pending consensus being reached. I think it may be the best way forward. JonC^Talk 12:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that , it seems a neutral approach while respecting the declaration and the states involved .Murry1975 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The best way forward is to stop this disruptive behaviour. I gather you (JC) are on Troubles probation, and it seems that what landed you in it was your "eagerness to try and enforce WP:MOSBIO". Your eagerness is going to land you with a block if you're not careful. Don't think that by latching on to other people's comments to pursue your non-policy-driven agenda, you will look innocent. We do not put quotation marks around straightforward, commonly-acknowledged facts, which this is. Please step back and stop this before it is too late. Scolaire (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Scolaire, could you explain exactly what it is I'm doing that would warrant a block? I haven't attacked anyone nor have I broken the terms of the Troubles probation, and I don't quite understand what you're angling at with that "latching onto other people's comments" quip. I also don't understand how what I'm suggesting is somehow not policy-based – which policy says that sources must be quoted exactly as they are? We've got "Great Britain" piped to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland article, so you yourself have recognised that by Great Britain the sources mean the UK. I've done nothing wrong. JonC^Talk 13:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." You have not cited any policy in support of your contention that referring to the UK as "Great Britain" is not allowed, or that the phrase "independence from Great Britain" may not be used without quotes. Instead, you repititiously answer policy-based arguments with your own arguments, analyses, hypotheses, and conclusions. You are therefore misusing the talk page by continuing to spin out this unproductive argument. I am asking you once again to stop. Scolaire (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)