Talk:Irish Republic/Archive 1

Paved the way

Contrary to a claim, paved the way is not POV. It is an accurate historical reference. Prior to the Irish Republic the political aspirations of the vast majority of the Irish people was potentially met by home rule within the United Kingdom. The existence of a theoretically self-governing republic marked a substantial change in attitudes. It established a principle for self government that went far beyond home rule. The principle it established was then reflected in the dominion status of the Irish Free State, which was a dramatic step up from the home rule previously desired and on offer. So the republic unambiguously paved the way for the the IFS that followed. It is not by any means a POV term, merely an accurate historical expression of how theoretical independence bred a demand for independence and an unwillingness to accept anything less. FearÉIREANN 07:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree. "Preceded" implies that an absence of causality and is thus even more PoV. --Red King 08:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Ireland article titles

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)

Irish Republic: Notes

1. UDI is an outmoded term which was really only ever used for Rhodesia in 1965 (need to edit Declaration of Independence page). Substitute a more useful term.

2. Extra-legal is another slightly emotive term - could be couched in more neutral language.

3. 1918 general election - suggest substitute '1918 British general election'

4. Príomh Aire - remove remaining fadas.

5. "Though the Irish Republic's validity was accepted or tolerated by many though not all Irish nationalists and no Irish Unionists, it received the recognition of only one other state, the Russian SFSR. Despite this, some of its structure were used as the basis for the Irish Free State, which was recognised as being outside the UK by the British and by other countries. The use of the name "Irish Republic" was then discontinued from use when the Free State was established": Scrappy paragraph - suggest expand and tidy up.

6. Poblacht is in no way a simple gaelicisation of republic. It is derived from the Irish word pobail (people) wheras the Enlgish word is a simple anglicisation of the Latin res publica.

7. "Pearse preferred a monarchy (see above)": I don't see anything above, and I don't remember reading that Pearse preferred a monarchy. It was, of course, the preferred system of Arthur Griffith's Sinn Féin.

8. Establishment of the Sinn Féin party - resolved differences between Griffith and De Valera. There was no split as such.

9. The volatile question of the unionists of the northeast.

10. 'Ulster Unionists' - ? make it a single link to Ulster Unionists.

11. Bertie Ahern and John Bruton - define more precisely their relationship to Civil War parties.

12. The Taoiseach is the head of government, not the Prime Minister, which is an English term not applicable to the ROI.

13. True reason for not recognising the 3rd Dáil.

Scolaire 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Agree, but just plain english.
2. Extra-legal means that it was outside the formal law, meaning UK law. "Illegal" is worse!
3. Disagree. It was a UK (of GB&I) election, not just a GB election. Precise selection of words is critical.
4. Agree - Aire, not Áire.
5. Yes, scrappy - and doesn't belong in the intro paragraph in any case. The intro should be a very succinct summary.
6. Derivation of Poblacht is arguable. The Dáil deputies grasp of Irish was very shaky.
7. Agreed. Pearse merely said that, if there has to be a monarchy, it should not be a British one.
8. Split came after the treaty.
9. Agree
10. Agree
11. Agree
12. Agree
13. Didn't have time to look at this one. "Truth" is in the eye of the beholder.

--Red King 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Some more notes

I think "26 counties" is preferable to "83%" as the division was made by county boundaries.

"...and set the party against any compromise that might involve initial all-Ireland self-government under the Home Rule Act 1914": the exclusion of the North-East was effected at the same time as the enactment of the Home Rule Act, so there is no reason to believe that all-Ireland self-government under the Act was ever on the agenda.

"Irish Free Constitution Act": I presume this was a typo. If I'm wrong feel free to change it back.

Scolaire 16:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Irish Republic flag

Is anyone up for making a recreation of the flag to put on the page, I mean, the picture is good, but I'm just a stickler for drawn images of flags. I mean FOTW has an image, here; [1]. I was considering to upload, but I was unsure of it's copyright status, since it's a recreation by someone. --Saint-Paddy 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long in replying, Saint-Paddy.
In general, I agree with you on drawn images, but this particular flag was a one-off, and the image of the tattered flag itself is kind of iconic, a bit like the pic of Neil Armstrong reflected in Buzz Aldrin's helmet, so I'm inclined to leave it.
Scolaire 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

While everything in the opening paragraph is relevant and important, most of it does not belong in an opening paragraph. Indeed, it is almost an article in itself. What I am going to propose is that something like the following be substituted, and the remainder be moved down into the body of the article (assuming it is not already replicated there). I would welcome people's views on the proposed edit.
BTW, the reversal of UK and IRA in the first paragraph has nothing to do with nationalist feelings. It's simply that I think that 'the Irish War of Independence' should be between the Irish and somebody else.
Scolaire 21:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The Irish Republic (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann or Saorstát Éireann) was a unilaterally declared independent state of Ireland proclaimed in the Easter Rising in 1916 and established in 1919 by Dáil Éireann. Its existence coincided with the Irish War of Independence of 1919-1922 between the Irish Republican Army and the forces of the United Kingdom.

It formally ceased to exist in 1922 with the ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty that ended the war, when 26 of the country's 32 counties became the Irish Free State and the remaining 6 continued within the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland.

---

As it turned out, all of what I removed was replicated elsewhere, except the paragraph beginning 'In many respects, the declared state had the function of an independent country'. I have moved this to a section of its own. Scolaire 14:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I don't know if anybody agrees, but I find the infobox as it currently stands actually interferes with my reading of the article. I have shuffled it and the picture of the First Dáil a bit so that the opening paragraph goes back to the top of the article and the rather alarming gap under the 'Establishment' heading is closed, but I feel it still suffers from information overload, and contains much that belongs (and in fact is included) in the article proper, e.g.

• Head of State / Head of Government: this is very complicated due to the fact that the leaders kept changing their title, as discussed in the article, but additionally, there is another infobox below which repeats the information. Can we not (re)combine these two headings under some generic heading (Head of State / Head of Government if all else fails) and go back to just names and dates, without titles or notes (Except maybe "see Institutions of government" at the bottom)?
• Legislature: why is "House of Assembly" in brackets here? It is not a literal translation of Dáil Éireann, and if a translation is needed, again it should go in the article, not the infobox.
• Rival states claiming Irish sovereignty: again I feel that the bit in brackets is superfluous. And could we not make it a piped link to United Kingdom just here, and explain the difference between the old UK and the current UK elsewhere?

Scolaire 20:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with all of above. The "infobox first" method really mess up Google too. The "Southern Ireland" claim to sovereignty should come out (since it would never have been sovereign and it never achieved de facto existence) - plain UK of GB&I is fine. In the spirit of what you've already done, I'll go ahead and do that. --Red King 22:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to put in the "see Institutions of government" bit, I've edited the relevant section to put in sub-headings, and also made some textual changes that I hope won't be too controversial, among them:

• Príomh does actually translate as prime e.g. prime land, or the Divine Office, Prime
• AFAIK the Volunteers were never actually 'renamed' the IRA, the name just came into use.

Scolaire 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The changes are incorrect.

• As Farrell et al have pointed out the Republic for complex reasons opted not to have a head of state in 1919 but only a prime minister. In August 1921 it created an office of head of state. They were not the same. Head of State and Head of Government are not the same and that fact has to be communicated. It is also standard in each box to state who a head of state was, or if there was not one (and there was not one until late August 1921) to state that fact.
• The official translation of the Republic's Dáil was House of Assembly, in contrast to the Free State's Chamber of Deputies and Éire/the Republic of Ireland's House of Representatives. While the Irish state likes to pretend that they are all the one, the constitutions make quite clear that each constitution created a whole new legislature which just happened to use the same Irish names but with different translations for Dáil. (In 1937 they even considered scrapping TD and replacing it by something else for the new parliamentarians in the new parliament.) So House of Assembly is a must as a qualifier. It is standard to have them in infoboxes. That is what an infobox is for.
• 'Príomh Aire was deliberately not translated as Prime Minister in 1919 to avoid the appearance that the new Irish constitution was aping the British. It was translated as First Minister.
• The Volunteers were formally renamed after a series of meetings held with the movement's leadership by Richard Mulcahy, who met them on behalf of the Aireacht to tell them their name had to change to denote the movement's role as the state's army. The name change was ordered try (not totally successfully) to bring the movement under Aireacht control by saying 'you are our army. We are the government. As the national army you must do what the national government says.'
• As to the piping of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the answer is 'no. We can't. International readers may not be au fait with the fact that the UK in question is not the current UK. It is standard in those circumstances to use the full name to avoid confusion. That that is covered in the text is irrelevant. Many people browsing through pages don't read articles. They read the infoboxes, etc. So key information has to be in them. We cannot simply put a minimal amount of information in boxes and presume people will read the pages. Boxes are designed to give an accurate, factual summary to those who don't read the article, not a partial 'missing key facts' summary.

Because the changes, though well intentioned, are both factually incorrect and fail to provide the required information I am reverting the changes. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 19:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)}

BTW Red King's removal of Southern Ireland was also factually wrong. While SI may not have been a reality on the ground, legally it did exist. It was as its prime minister that Michael Collins headed the Provisional Government, technically the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland and it the approval of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland was required for the Treaty to come into effect. Hence the Dáil met in December 1921 and passed the Treaty, then pretty much the same people (minus the Anti-Treatyites who boycotted it) assembled in (I think it was) the Mansion House in January 1922 as the House of Commons of Southern Ireland to ratify the Treaty. While in Nationalist theory Collins met with the Lord Lieutenant to "accept the surrender of Dublin Castle" in British constitutional theory he met with the Lord Lieutenant to Kiss Hands and receive the King's commission to form a government. (When it comes to Kissing Hands, no documents are signed. The mere fact of the meeting validates an appointment.) So in British theory power went from Southern Ireland through its Provisional Government to the Irish Free State. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)}

I missed this entirely - my perfectly valid edits were reverted - not further edited - without any acknowledgement of the new 'Institutions' paragraph. Discussion is good but show proper respect!
I don't have a problem with SI per se. My original suggestion was to replace "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" with "United kingdom" - which would link to the former. My only interest is to free up space. Look at the featured articles for the month of August and you will see that in every case the graphics/infoboxes are secondary to the text. Recent edits on a wide variety if Irish topics have introduced graphics which have had a very negative affect on the text. My concern here is that the article be readable. That is all. There is no POV involved here. I am a Wikipedian who wants to be able to read and understand every article every time, without distraction from infoboxes or graphics that editors consider clever, artistic, intellectual, "essential" or anything else. Please let the article speak for itself!. If you want people to learn about Irish history, that is the only way to go. Please believe me! Scolaire 20:11, 22 August 2006

The trouble is that those templates are standard. They have to be to enable readers going from country to country to be told the same information in the same structure. So merging head of state and head of government (apart from being someone that is constitutionally a faux pas) is not an option. Both are separated and have to be in templates. For that reason I have reinserted the standard box. It is standard because it is . . . well standard.

There were a couple of really dodgy edits from god knows when in there, which were so far from NPOV it was embarrassing (and funny). I've toned them down. There also were some clangers in terms of historic facts. The claim that the Ulster Unionists demanded partition is crap, for example. The suggestion came from Walter Long in 1918 and was originally opposed by them, then mildly accepted because it seemed to be the best worst-deal on offer.

I didn't notice your new paragraph when I reverted to the standard box before. Apologies. I look for those things to see if a reversion or edit is needed. I guess I must have been blind that day. My apologies. I have added in some information and tweaked some others. Hopefully the article is now better. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 00:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)}

I have read your edit of the article and at first glance it is well written. I agree that there was some stuff in there that will not be missed. I had left it when I was working on the 'Institutions' paragraph so as not to do too much too quickly. There are two things, though, that I strongly disagree with, and I would like you to consider changing them:

1. The term 'UDI' was only ever used for Rhodesia in 1965. It sounds wrong here and I pointed that out in March when I removed it from the opening line (see Irish Republic: Notes, above). 99% of Wikipedia readers probably have never heard of it anyway. Yes, I know that that's what the link is for but surely there's another way to say it in plain English?
2. The Irish for first is céad. Príomh is the Irish for prime. Whatever the reasoning behind the translation of Príomh Aire, you cannot actually say "literally First Minister" because that is not so.

As regards the infobox, I hear everything you're saying. But would you not at least consider leaving out the notes under HOS and HOG i.e. "Note: Griffith and Cosgrave called themselves "President of Dáil Éireann" and "Post replaced by President of the Republic under a constitutional amendment in August 1921" respectively? If somebody reads the infobox and not the article that information will mean nothing, indeed it is positively confusing since the two headings are (of necessity) chronologically reversed. Again my only concern is to make the thing readable, not to mess with facts.

One more small thing that I did in my edit of the infobox, and I really do think it improves it, was to change "width=300" to "width=280" at the top. Would you consider making that change?
Scolaire 18:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

UDI though most widely used for Rhodesia, is used to describe any declaration of independence that failed (ie, the entity that declared it didn't survive). The Irish example was a classic UDI. A political grouping declared themselves a state, and then had their state declare independence. No-one (well in the Irish case, just one, the Russians) accepted it and the UDI state failed to survive, being replaced by a new legal state some years later. Where a term exists it is standard to use it, particularly if it is a term that because of the small number of places it applies to (most UDIs take hold and are accepted, so become accepted declarations of independence – sometimes called Retrospectively Accepted Declarations of Independence or RADIs) may not be widely known.

Re first minister all the primary documents I have seen from the period at the point where the Dáil constitution was adopted called it first minister. I've seen personal papers (I can't remember off the top of my head whether it was de Valera's papers of Dick Mulcahy's papers. It might have been some other ones) where it was indicated that they did not intend to be translated as prime minister for fear that it would be seen to ape the Brits. Of course when people than didn't know what the heck a first minister was they then began using prime minister to clarify it (just as they started using president in the States to clarify what a prime minister was). Farrell makes the interesting point about they copying a system they knew well, the British system. But while copying it they didn't want to be seen to copy it. So tried to use new terms (Dáil, Priomh Aire, TD) that really meant something they had copied from Britain (parliament, prime minister, MP).

re location of head of state and head of government: that is standard in infoboxes. A head of state is higher in standing to a head of government. For that reason it is always listed first, even if chronologically it was created second. (That is why WP articles on countries put pictures of the Queen before pictures of Blair, pictures of President McAleese ahead of Ahern, and in Commonwealth states puts it in standard constitutional format of Queen, Governor-General, Prime Minister.) Prime Ministers are never listed before Presidents or monarchs. It is seen as misleading of status to put them in reverse order of seniority, irrespective of chronological creation.

Re size. The standard size is 300 but if it is better in your view at 280 or smaller that is no problem. Once it is reasonably close to the standard size that is all that matters. (The template, BTW is of the old smaller size than the new template used. The newer template, if on this page, would be wider again.) I hope that helps. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 19:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)}

1. "Where a term exists it is standard to use it" - what happens if several terms apply to the same thing? Must they all be used together every time? I have never seen the term UDI applied to the Irish Republic anywhere except in this article. Besides, an assembly is not a declaration, therefore 'a UDI Assembly' is a nonsense. It should read something like "an assembly unilaterally established by the majority of Irish MPs elected in the 1918 general election."
2. "Re first minister all the primary documents I have seen from the period at the point where the Dáil constitution was adopted called it first minister." That whole paragraph is exactly what I was talking about when I said "whatever the reasoning behind the translation of Príomh Aire, you cannot actually say "literally First Minister", because Príomh Aire is not literally First Minister, it is literally Prime Minister. Again it is only a matter of changing the wording to say what you're trying to say without saying something that is wrong.
3. "re location of head of state and head of government: that is standard in infoboxes." Read what I wrote again and you will see that I acknowledged that. I only said that because of that those notes in the infobox are not helpful, but only confusing, to anybody reading the infobox alone, and the infobox would look tidier and be more informative without them.

Since the width is not controversial I have changed it.
Scolaire 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rival institutions claiming sovereignty

The reason that I took out "Southern Ireland" is becaus by no stretch of imagination did it claim sovereignty. It didn't even exist as a quisling government. If it had, it wouldn't have had sovereignty because that continued to rest with the UK of GB&I. I think it should come out. --Red King 20:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"the state" and "the North"

At the end of this section, [2], the article says:

"the state" and "the North"

Shouldn't that be 'the South' and 'the North' ? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 14:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the South is referred to as "the state" i.e. The Free State. The thinking is that "Republic" can only be used for a 32-county republic. Scolaire 20:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of term "Irish Republic" by British media

The use of the term "Irish Republic" for the current independent part of the island particularly by the BBC but also by other sections of the British media is highly offensive to many Irish people in the sense that it refuses to recognise the normal designations of Ireland or Republic of Ireland that are widely acceptable. They may excuse their use of the term "Irish Republic" as "house style" but it seems to many Irish people as an entirely alien description - except, ironically, by the tiny minority of Irish republicans who have never recognised the state in the first place. The article should cover this issue in neutral terms (if that is possible!). Peter Clarke 17:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is dealt with at some length in footnote 1 (just click the ^[1] on the very top line of the article). I don't think that any further elaboration is necessary. Scolaire 18:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct Scolaire - the topic is adequately covered. Peter Clarke 11:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

I deleted the bit about Bertie Ahern as what Bertie Ahern thinks about the Irish Free State seems irrelevant to an article about the Irish Republic as such its inclusion smacks of POV. The source in question also does not reflect the content as, as far as I can tell, Bertie Ahern does not concede that 'the date from which Irish independence should be measured was not the formation of the Irish Republic in 1919, but the 1922 establishment of the Irish Free State'. The source is rather ambiguous and seems all Bertie Ahern acknowledges was that the 75th anniversary should be commemorated. Again it smacks of POV. In fact the source could be interpreted a different way to say that John Bruton acknowledges that the Irish Republic should be the measure for Independence. So unless there is another unambiguous source I think this is POV. Cliste 17:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of NPOV is to challenge editors who are expressing their own POV. It is legitimate to report the POVs of notable people, no matter how reprehensible you find them. Of course you can (indeed should) find opposing views. So if John Bruton has said otherwise, find it, quote it and cite the source. Deleting editor POV makes a better encyclopedia, deleting genuine material you don't like is censorship. Accordingly I'm reverting your deletion pending further discussion. Your challenge is genuine one but its a controversial one and the text has to stay until consensus is reached. --Red King 19:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to Cliste's point of view. The legacy of the Irish Republic was independence for the 26 counties. How anybody defines the date of that independence is not really relevant. The Free State came into being on 6 December 1922 and that's all that needs to be said. I suspect that that paragraph was put in originally by somebody with an axe to grind - that the republicans were wrong to go on fighting for the Second Dáil etc. etc. I think that's what Cliste has in mind when he says it "smacks of POV." Of course John Bruton doesn't have an opposing POV - the paragraph itself says he and Bertie agreed. The question is whether it has anything at all to do with the subject of the article. Scolaire 20:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My main point regards this section is that when one reads the source for this the Dáil Debate29 April 1997[3]it doesn't back up what is in the article. I don't think Berte Ahern does acknowledge 'the date from which Irish independence should be measured was not the formation of the Irish Republic in 1919, but the 1922 establishment of the Irish Free State'. That appears to be a liberal interpretation of his words. That to me seems to be POV. My pont re John Bruton is that one could easily offer the opposite view, that it's Bruton who acknowledges the Irish republic as the date from which Independence should be measured, from the very same source! Cliste 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right! I hadn't actually read the debate before. What is said is that "there are different views on the date" of the foundation of the state, but that 75th the anniversary "of the establishment of the Irish Free State" should be celebrated. Therefore the paragraph as it stands is incorrect and it should be deleted. Scolaire 22:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Irish Republic from 1798?

I'm fine with the present title of this article, and I look forward to the end of this partition phase. However, for the sake of accuracy, I was just perusing the Manchester Martyrs article and it says that 'Kelly had been declared the chief executive of the Irish Republic'. That got me to thinking: did the boys of '98 ever declare an Irish Republic? I know- or at least I think I know- that Thomas Francis Meagher first unfurled the Tricolour of the Irish Republic in 1848. What, precisely, was the name of what the lads (and, no doubt, the more fiery women) were going for in '98 and '48 and '67? 86.42.76.166 20:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the above and 1918-early 1919 is that SF had a democratic mandate to aim at "securing the establishment of that republic". I could unfurl a banner in the morning and declare a republic but that doesn't usually cut any ice.Red Hurley 20:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually. from the point of view of history, it's the democratic mandate that doesn't cut any ice. History is solely concerned with who did what (e.g. unfurl a banner) and when. The Irish Republic proclaimed in 1916, which delared it's independence in 1919, did indeed have it's origins in the United Irishmen and the rebellion of 1798, and that is something that ought to be dealt with in this article. Scolaire 08:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

An Irish Republic was declared in 1798 but the closest that came to "cutting ice" was the Republic of Connacht which lastest just a fortnight. See [BBC summary of events in Mayo]. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationalist "rebels"

Does referring to the native forces of resistance to British colonial occupation as "rebels" imply that the British were some popular legitimate rulers of our country? A dictionary definition of 'rebel' would say so. It was Mary MacSwiney, in an interview with the New York Times in, I think, 1920, who particularly rejected the title "rebel" for Irish people fighting British colonial rule in Ireland. 86.42.76.166 20:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Name

The following sentence is rather unsatisfactory, and unnecessarily attempts to link the introduction of (in Irish) Poblacht na hEireann (Republic of Ireland in English) to 1937 - After the Irish state became "Ireland" in 1937, for example, the description of the state in Irish became Poblacht na hÉireann in 1949.

The point being made is that, in Irish, "Poblacht" replaced "Saorstat" as the favoured word in 1949. 1949 therefore is the pertinent event and 1937 is not relevant. The sentence should read: "After the Irish state proclaimed its official description as "Republic of Ireland" in 1949, for example, the description of the state in Irish became Poblacht na hÉireann.

Mooretwin (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been changed and is now very clear on names and descriptions etc.Cosiman (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Much better. Mooretwin (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland in 1922

Some articles in Wikipedia suggests that Northern Ireland remained within the UK at all times, whereas the opening paragraph of this article suggests Northern Ireland was actually part of the Irish Free State from the 6th to 8th of December, 1922, before returning to the UK. Which was actually the case, or does it simply boil down as to whether you interpret the matter from the point of view of Irish or British constitutional theory? My understanding - which may well be flawed - is that only the 3rd Dáil/Provisional Parliament ratified the Free State constitution. Northern Ireland did not, and so continued under its home rule parliament, per the 1920 Act (?). Petecollier (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Under the terms of the Treaty, Northern Ireland was given the option to 'opt out' following endorsement, which they exercised. There was never the slightest doubt that it wouldn't, given that choice. RashersTierney (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Both states were "pariah states" at the time, and so neither was generally recognised. That's not to say they didn't have millions of admirers worldwide, but you'd need to read up on Public international law as it was in the 1920s to understand why. The section on recognition is pretty good.PatrickGuinness (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2014 (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)

I'm happy with unrecognised in the infobox but an editor stuck it into the first line of the lead as if it was something very important. Since it isn't cited I have remove it from there. If it isn't important enough to be mentioned normally it shouldn't be made important here. Dmcq (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2013 (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)

Under international law the Irish Republic failed to get recognition though it tried very hard. Recognition is a bit different / easier today, but the IR was trying in 1919-21. It was a UDI state at international law but many individuals and groups recognised it. Even recognition of the IFS after 1922 was a slow enough process.Red Hurley (talk) 13:08, 26 November 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)

[Late response] No, Great Britain is 'the island thing'. Islands don't seek independence from islands. Prospective political entities seek independence from political entities - in this the the Irish Republic from the United Kingdom. Frankly I'm baffled that there is a debate about it. --Red King (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Convenience break

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)

"alien government" was used in the declaration , which was the U.K. of G.B. and I. government , in the declaration there is no mention of U.K. or G.B. , as which it seems logical to use U.K. of G.B. and I. in the article when refering to the state . The war of indenpendence was faught between the Irish Republic and the U.K. of G.B. and I , it would appear odd to go from U.K. of G.B. and then during the insueing war back to U.K. of G.B. and I .Murry1975 (talk) 13:55, 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)

Don't play that card, you are asking me to stop because I disagree with you; which I will, because this just isn't worth the hassle. Congratulations, you win – this article is now wrong and you've whipped out the rules to make Wikipedia just a little bit less accurate. Good effort. JonC^Talk 14:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"9. The ports of Great Britain and the Irish Free State shall be freely open to the ships of the other country on payment of the customary port and other dues." http://www.nationalarchives.ie/topics/anglo_irish/dfaexhib2.html does actual show the UK referring to itself as Great Britain in the Anglo-Irish Treaty 1922 .Murry1975 (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So can we say "case closed", then? Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Like I said above, GB is correct.--Domer48_'fenian' 16:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In which case, see Reductio ad absurdum. --Red King (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Correct. JonC^Talk 23:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If the UK hadnt referred to itself as GB instead of UK in an international treaty relating directly to the article it would be Reductio ad absurdum , but as they have it is citeable evidence . If the had referred to them selves as GB and I that would have been Reductio ad absurdum .Murry1975 (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, when the government of Great Britain calls Great Britain "Great Britain", it does seem a bit absurd to say that there is no country called "Great Britain". Scolaire (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The government does not use the term "Great Britain" because it is the UK. (LoweRobinson (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

Not quite, the UK government DOES use the term Great Britain. It is often used to mean England and Wales and Scotland (i.e. the UK minus Northern Ireland, or the UK minus Ireland when all Ireland was within the UK), such as the GB driving licence which is issued to those living in England and Wales or Scotland. Northern Ireland has a seperate vehicle and driver licencing authority. Before the union of 1801 the parliament of Ireland was subordinate to the parliament of Great Britain. Before the union of England and Scotland the parliament of Ireland was subordinate to the parliament England. In 1919 all Ireland was part of the UK. AlwynJPie (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Second break

Glad to see all my points where gleefully ignored. You say it doesn't sound subjective, but to me it does and that is all i am asking for clarification on. Now why don't you explain your opposition to simply using UK? It has nothing to do with sources as the sky is blue and we don't need sources for that and there is no RS or V violations.

I can offer a compromise - that in the lede somewhere we make it clear that the "Irish Republic", seceded (not just independence) from "Great Britain", as afterall it was part of Great Britain "the country" and elected MP's to its parliament. Secession gets that point across better than independence, for Egypt may have got independence from Great Britain, but it never seceded from it. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all you will will need to clarify, Mabuska. What does "subjective" mean? According to Wiktionary it means "formed, as in opinions, based upon subjective feelings or intuition, not upon observation or reasoning, which can be influenced by preconception; coming more from within the observer rather than from observations of the external environment." I need to understand how writing a sentence in accordance with a large number of reliable sources can in any way be said to come from within the writer rather than from observations of the external environment i.e. the wonderful world of books, and websites like the one cited by Murry1975. And also, I need to understand what there is in your objection to it that is not based on your own subjective feelings and intuition. Until you can clarify that for me, I will continue to struggle to answer that particular point. But you say I am gleefully ignoring all your points. Can you repeat all your other points, please?

Thank you for your offer of a "compromise" (between subjectivity and objectivity, perhaps?). Can you just point me to the reliable sources that say that the Irish Republic "seceded (not just independence) from 'Great Britain', as afterall it was part of Great Britain 'the country' and elected MP's to its parliament"? Scolaire (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Just my 2c. In this case Scolaire is correct as the Irish Republic was a state taking in the entire island, so it was announcing independence from Great Britain. It's also why, to this day still, some Irish republicans chose to refer to the "compromised" state as "The Republic" since in their heads, all 32 states still belong to the country of Ireland, and by calling the "compromised" state by it's "real name!" would be to admit a defeat of the original ideals, and to finally give up on the 6 northern counties. --HighKing (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

HighKing, Great Britain is an island and a common name for the UK, however in the articles wording it makes it appear that an island is declaring independence from an island. Ireland incorporating the whole island declared independence from the state (UK of GB and I) that is commonly referred to as Great Britain. If your arguement is valid then why is the wikilink to the UK of GB and I and not Great Britain the island?

Scolaire where is the need for sources? There is no need for any at all seeng as this is clearest case of WP:BLUE you could ever find other than that the sky is blue and that grass is green. Are you denying that the Irish Republic seceeded from the United Kingdom? Was the territory the Irish Republic covered not actually part of the country that governed it according to the Act of Union? This is starting to look like the worst case of denial i've ever seen. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska, I have engaged with you because you were upset that I wasn't engaging with you. I'm not obliged to come back to this talk page every day or twice a day just to massage your ego. Now, I have made a simple, verifiable edit to this article. I am not claiming, denying, pretending or protesting anything - it was a simple edit and it has been shown to be correct. So, I will repeat to you what I said to another editor a few days ago: you have not cited any policy in support of your contention that referring to the UK as "Great Britain" is not allowed. 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) 12:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask you to stop avoiding the question and answer it. Address my point of WP:BLUE (though last time i actually remembered what the policy was called), and how are sources needed for what was proposed? Its a simple question and you have consistantly failed to answer it. If you don't want to answer it then by all means don't, you are within your right, but i'll remember this discussion for a time you might decide to call WP:BLUE. We'll stop "discussing" and let the article include the ambigious wording despite the fact several editors disagreed with it. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm wasn't really required ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 12:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)