Talk:Irish Declaration of Independence

Untitled
The original paragraph: "Many took this phrase to mean the garrison in uniform - the police and army - but as the war developed it legitimised attacks on loyalists and Protestants, even if their ancestors had lived on the island for 400 years. Many loyalists and Protestants subsequently left the island. In Ulster this phraseology and the subsequent attacks by the IRA motivated loyalists to accept the British 1920 formula for home rule in Northern Ireland ." is blatantly biased.

There is considerable debate about the even-handedness of Harte's research in this area. If the proposition that the Irish Declaration of Independence was used to justify attacks on "loyalists and Protestants", then reference should be made to IRA policy in this area, or even local commander orders. Just because P. Harte suspects that is so, does not make it unquestionable, and certain it does not deserve to be presented in such a matter of fact way.

The fact is that some IRA leaders themselves were Protestants. For example - Sam Maguire in West Cork - the area in which Harte makes his most significant claim of an anti-Protestant agenda.

Harte construes all attacks on Protestants at that time as being sectarian in nature. There is little hard evidence to prove this, and even less to suggest that it was actually Republican policy. And thus, there is absolutely no evidence that the Declaration of Independence was ever interpretted, formally or informally, as justification for attacks on Protestants.

"It was rivalled by the administration of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland". What does that mean? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"President Wilson of the USA had suggested that the Versailles Conference would be inclusive and even-handed,". Did Wilson actually recommend the inclusion of the Irish Free State, or is this an interpretation of what he said? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe "rivalled by" can be considered acceptable English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources and Importance

This is an article on a very important historical document and for such there is a severe lack of sources yet this has not been flagged by an moderators. While it is certain that today many people may not be aware that such a declaration was made, it is still a historical fact outside of debates about who claims ownership of the legacy of those times etc. This article needs much more information on the context on what was happening at the time, where in Irish history this falls into and perhaps subsequent developments. I am convinced that the declaration should be included in this article in Gaeilge, English and Francaise. ConsulHibernia 12:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Name of this article
Prior to February 2010, the name of this article was "Declaration of Independence (Ireland)", in the same style as Declaration of Independence (United States) and Declaration of Independence (Israel). Other styles are Declaration of Independence of Lower Canada. I have not been able to find any other 'Xish Declaration of Indepence". The change was done without discussion. Justifying the move, User:Cybercobra wrote (21:55, 7 February 2010) simply "more natural". With so terse an explanation, it is impossible to guess what Cybercobra had in mind: nevertheless it is difficult to resist inferring that he/she seeks to 'correct' history. The declaration was of the independence of Ireland, even though (like the other declarations) not all residents supported it.  As far as I can see, the very large majority of articles that refer to the article continue to do so using the form Declaration of Independence (Ireland).
 * I propose that the original name be reinstated, for the reasons I give above. --Red King (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the form Subject (qualifier) is far easier to use in articles where Subject doesn't need to be qualified, because editors can use the 'pipe trick' (viz. writing Subject (qualifier) will appear as just Subject with a html link to Subject (qualifier)). --Red King (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Cybercobra, appears to have been moved at the same time. That may be as a result of a decision elsewhere or a bold decision to tidy up article names. It may be worth asking Cybercobra if he/she remembers a reason for the move first.
 * There does appear to a naming convention to these sort of articles. I think it would be worthwhile moving all or moving none. Personally, I would prefer a Declaration of Independence (Ireland) style convention where Declaration of Independence is followed by the current state's name in parenthesis. If there were several for one country, a year could be added to distinguish them. That would strike me as following usual naming conventions more that at present. --RA (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have left a note with Cybercobra, though his/her response is likely to be late. I notice that he/she is a US citizen, so the conspiracy theory seems unlikely. The US case is 'US D of I'.--Red King (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I will agree with Red King on this one, and am adding a see also section for the other documents adopted the same day.Red Hurley (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to see that the XXX D of I form may be more accessible to naive visitors, which arguably should take precedence over editors convenience. --Red King (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was essentially my intent. My point was that parenthesized disambiguator suffixes (e.g. "(Ireland)") are not really used in everyday circumstances, and thus "unnatural" and should be avoided when feasible, as I believe is the case here. See also the 2nd bullet point of WP:PRECISE. I will admit "X-ian Declaration of Independence" and "Declaration of Independence of X" are equally "natural"; I went with the former since it was more concise, but my preference between the 2 is not strong. --Cyber cobra (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)