Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Spellings

The document uses British spellings ("offences", "endeavoured"). Is this correct? Danceswithzerglings (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the answer is 'yes' (don't have a copy in front of me now), but after all, they were British subjects when they wrote the document... Shearonink (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

adding an external link

I added an external link to a master's thesis on the Declaration of Independence, and it was deleted for a reason that I think was mistaken, so I added it back and am opening this section to get feedback if necessary. WP:ELMAYBE lists, under the category of external links to be considered, "sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." So, I think that the link I added is worth considering. If there are any objections, well, let's talk about it. The reasons for removing the link were that it was apparently unpublished and veered off into original research. I don't see how either reason is relevant (per WP:ELMAYBE), but perhaps I'm missing something, or perhaps there are other reasons to not post this particular link. Other Choices (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Master's theses probably fall into the original-research category (and "published" is also in a different sense, due to their limited scope and audience). TEDickey (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
My two points about the link being for a master's thesis is that the document is virtually inaccessible - the link is only to a one-paragraph non-footnoted summary (20 pages of the thesis's Introduction being available through the website's Preview option). Also, a Master's thesis, at its very core, can be deemed to be almost certainly original research seeing as how that's what it's supposed to be. Tedickey's point about the thesis having a limited scope and audience is also valid. I don't think WP:ELMAYBE applies in this case, since there is no sourced information contained in the link provided. Shearonink (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some basic confusion here, perhaps on my part. Here is the way I see things...
--That link to the master's thesis contains a link to the ENTIRE thesis, if you access it from a good university research library. If you access it from ordinary university libraries, then you can access the first 24 pages (as mentioned in that link); this includes most of the introduction.
--It seems to me that this master's thesis is indeed "published" online, as it is accessible to anyone anywhere who wants to pay for access; and it is accessible free to anybody who accesses it from a good research library. Perhaps others will differ; I'm not sure about the exact criteria for online sources.
--I agree that this master's thesis contains original research. But this is an external link, not part of the body of the article. Please let me know if there is any prohibition on original research in external links. Perhaps the "original research" criterion isn't relevant here. Many if not most of the sources cited in the body of the article are original research.
--I think that it is not appropriate to use this master's thesis as a source for the main body of the article. (Presumably everybody will agree with that one.) However, this thesis -- by its very nature -- went through a scholarly review and editing process, and it is thoroughly documented, and it presents thoughtful discussion of the Declaration that isn't available elsewhere; so for those reasons I think it is worthy of inclusion as an external link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 12:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure there could be a brazillion theses about the Declaration. What's special about this one? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, this thesis argues that the Continental Congress gave explicit definitions to the terms "happiness" and "safety" in the spring of 1776; that the definition of "happiness" is derived from Cicero and reappears in other legal and philosophical works; that the association of natural right with happiness goes back via Burlamaqui to Leibniz, who built on a Ciceronian foundation; and that Cicero's conceptions of natural law and human nature are directly opposed to those of John Locke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
External links are supposed to be subject to the same requirements as the rest of the article and most people interested in verifying the material do not have access to any type of decent research library much less a good university research library (so any assertions about the content and even the explanatory title placed here seem to remain somewhat unverifiable). But, as always, whatever the consensus of interested editors is?...fine by me. Shearonink (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A master's thesis is by definition a work of original research; that is not an issue here. If the thesis was fully and freely available to everyone, and on a topic with few other useful links, then we'd might want to include the link. But there's a lot of material on the Declaration out there. Since this thesis is only freely viewable by few readers, and since most people would have to purchase a copy to read the whole thing, it fails WP:ELNO #6 & #7. I don't think we lose anything by not having the link, since the material is probably too technical for general readers anyway. Anyone with the requisite background in political philosophy to appreciate the material doesn't need Wikipedia to direct them to academic theses. —Kevin Myers 14:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Slavery

The section on slavery doesn't address the problems in 1776 concerning slaves; 19th century info is largely irrelevant. There is no discussion of the term "merciless Indian savages", a racist statement. Jefferson opposed arming the slaves & indigenous peoples to fight against the colonies on the side of the British - he said it in the Declaration. Why not cover it?Ebanony (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The section on slavery is in the "Legacy" section, where 19th century info is completely relevant. But you're right that the "merciless Indian savages" and "excited domestic insurrections" line could use with some discussion. That belongs in the "Text" section, which is the only underdeveloped section of the article. Jefferson's comments directed against the British attempt to foment a race war were completely conventional, of course, and was a point made earlier by Paine's Common Sense, which said that the British "stirred up the Indians and the Negroes to destroy us". Less conventional was Jefferson's mention of "Scotch mercenaries", which is why Congress deleted that line. All of this should be discussed in an improved "Text" section. —Kevin Myers 13:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Right, I should have said "interesting" but not "relevant". However, I concede they've got some merit, but they're just not as important as the Dunmore, which had a direct impact on this. If anything I'd recommend condensing it, but ok with me either way. As to Paine, very true. The "Scotch" part - any particular references or writers you'd suggest using? Also, did I miss it or is there not much on the deletion from the fisrt draft with the slave trade? Any suggestions would be appreciated.Ebanony (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article perpetuate the myth that the the existance of slavery was a contradiction despite "all men are created equal?" I've done some reading on this and found out that by "all men are created equal," they were referring to men in a state of nature before God, not that all men were equal in talent and virtue. This allowed for slavery to exist since the many from that time period would argue that slaves were inferior in talent and virtue, therefore filled a certain niche. Emperor001 (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's good that you've "done some reading". Do some more, and you'll soon find competing interpretations, and not just one definitive explanation of what "they were referring to". Our job is to summarize the various interpretations, rather than picking the winners. —Kevin Myers 09:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Article Lead

I have reverted a number of unexplained and unsourced changes to the article lead. Among the POV changes were the attempt to reintroduce secession in the article (dismissed by consensus when raised by same editor -- see Archive 4 "Is "secede" a dirty word?") and to renew attacks on Abraham Lincoln that also date back to that time period. Consensus can change, but the place to demonstrate that change is here on the discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A few people were against using the more accurate "secede," but I'm hoping cooler, more rational, heads will prevail now. There is no doubt that Lincoln violated "consent of the governed" and the right of revolution of the south. Even northern newspapers said that the southern states should be allowed to secede.
In 1860 the right of states to nullify laws or seceed from the union was taught at West Point and standard constitutional theory. So though it has always been surrounded by controversy, being the resort of the politically less powerful, it's legal foundation was pretty much undisputed. The case against any given secession was based on practicality, not the right itself.
Even after seven states seceeded, northern newspapers were writing things like: "We believe that the right of any member of this confederacy to dissolve it's political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute." - Cincinatti Daily Press 11/21/1860. "The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration is ... that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed ... They have a right to do so [secede]." - New York Tribune 2/5/1861. "Public opinion in the North seems to be gradually settling down in favor of recognition of the New Confederacy by the Federal Government." - Hartford Daily Courant 4/12/1861.
Hopefully, the pro-authoritarian clique that earlier controlled this article has dissipated by now. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Referring to the subject of the article, if the founding fathers had wanted to call the Declaration of Independence the "Declaration of Secession" I think they were learned enough to have chosen that word if they had wanted to. I'm not sure that "secede" is more accurate. In my understanding "independence" carries the meaning of standing apart with the meaning being explicit, secede carries the meaning of standing apart but the meaning is implicit. Shearonink (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

PhilLiberty is mistaken about how Wikipedia articles are written. All we do here is summarize the writings of the leading scholars on the Declaration. What each of us thinks about the meaning of the word "secession", or how each of us interprets newspaper articles or other period documents, etc., is completely irrelevant to our job here. Wikipedia readers don't care about our interpretations; they just want an overview of the reliable sources. If you want to write a piece that uses the Declaration to justify the legitimacy of the Confederate States, that's fine, but Wikipedia isn't the forum for that. —Kevin Myers 05:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
If there were sufficient reliable sources that stated a particular synthesis of the facts, then it is possible that that synthesis itself could be notable enough for inclusion on these pages, but on the whole I agree with your assessment. Shearonink (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Reverted today yet another effort to add "secession" to this article. Source added (DiLorenzo) is, at best, a fringe source and his book on Lincoln has no relevance to this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yet again. Look Phil, you're just wrong when you say 'There is no doubt that Lincoln violated "consent of the governed" and the right of revolution of the south.' The signers of the Declaration understood that when you invoke the 'right of revolution' you take your chances — and that the stakes were "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor". King George was under no obligation to accept the colonists' bid for independence, and neither was Lincoln.
—WWoods (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Secession and Consent of the Governed

Secession says more than simply repeating "declaration of independence." Also, we should not hide the fact that presidents ignored the 'consent of the governed' principle. North Shoreman seems to favor a victor's history whitewashing of what the Dec of Ind says and its later shredding by Lincoln. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

From the article itself: "This article is about the United States historical document.'" If an editor wants to write up a separate article about "Differing views of the United States Declaration of Independence" or "How Presidents used the United States Declaration of Independence" or something similar then maybe that's a viable option. Shearonink (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Secession & Lede

Could we please discuss this issue and not just have an ongoing series of edits and reversions? Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is basically a one person crusade to advance a POV that has been repeatedly rejected in the past. The issue is the same one that caused the crusader to be blocked three times in the past. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Philip Mazzei

{{edit semi-protected}} Phillipe Mazzei's contribution is not listed in this entry.

70.160.154.46 (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see what your question is. Shearonink (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Probably talking about Jefferson's friend Philip Mazzei and the claim (apparently modern) that Mazzei coined the phrase, "All men are created equal". The idea is often promoted in books celebrating immigration and Italian-American contributions, and was once mentioned by JFK, but I'm not aware of any scholars who endorse it. The Wikipedia article on the phrase currently reports it as true, but it cites no scholars. —Kevin Myers 15:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, well, that makes sense now (mostly).
Dealing with attribution of the phrase... The Virginia Gazette reference in All men are created equal does not cite the page, the edition or the date so that isn't useful at all and should probably be archive on Talk:All men are created equal until attribution can be cleared up (Reliable sources and all that). And actually, the phrase should more properly be ascribed to the ancient Roman maxim of "omnes homines natura aequales sunt" (I am assuming assume that Jefferson was familiar with Latin and ancient Roman sayings) which (roughly translated) is rendered as "all men by nature are equal or "all men are naturally equal" Government or human evolution by Edmond Kelly and The life and times of Niccolò Machiavelli, Volume 2 By Pasquale Villari etc. Not disregarding Mazzei's possible contributions, but I think is is safe to say that Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia and one of the most learned man of his age, was already familiar with Latin and ancient Roman sayings before he even met or knew Mazzei. -- Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Nicely put. Sounds like you are just the editor to fix up the All men are created equal article! Jefferson always said that the ideas in the Declaration were widely held at the time. I imagine a modern writer noticed that Mazzei expressed the sentiment in 1774 and, not realizing that the idea was a commonplace among educated Virginians, thought that Mazzei must have coined the expression and passed it along to Jefferson. I know historian Pauline Maier has pointed out other phrases, like pursuit of happiness, that have produced similar speculation, but she points out that these ideas and phrases could be found in many places before 1776. —Kevin Myers 16:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Whose grievances?

The text incorrectly says "the Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances". "Colonial" is the wrong word because it includes the Loyalists -- only Patriots wrote up the grievances in July 1776. Rjensen (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good point to me. —Kevin Myers 13:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It is common usage to refer to the governments of nations (or colonies, in this case) as if they represent the collective voice of the nation that they respresent. The grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence reflected the views of the various colonial governments, as the congressional delegates were appointed by these governments and in many cases consulted closely with them. I agree that only Patriots (or "whigs", as Jefferson would say) wrote up grievances in July 1776, but by this point revolutionary leaders controlled the governments of every one of the thirteen colonies. I won't lose any sleep over this point, but "colonial" seems to reflect official views, while "Patriot" suggests a faction that didn't have political power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
How about if the sentence went something like... "the Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing various colonial Patriot grievances" ? That way the particular colonial group is clearly delineated, after all, the Tory/Loyalist faction were colonials but they didn't have the grievances against the King's government that their Whig/Patriot brethren did. Shearonink (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that many loyalists shared the grievances, but they didn't think they were worth fighting for. Many colonial leaders who as late as 1774 raised their voices against British policies ultimately stayed loyal to the crown. So for that reason as well, "colonial grievances" seems to be a fitting phrase, but it might not be the best.--Other Choices (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Loyalists did share some grievances but we're talking about the list in the Declaration, which are intensely anti-king. This is the most famous single document of the Patriots and they deserve full credit for it. There is no reason to use the word "colonial" here unless we mean to include the Loyalists and neutrals, and we do not. Rjensen (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps that is overstated, Rjensen. I gave a reason for using "colonial" which you simply ignored. The list of grievances in the Declaration was very similar to the list of grievances endorsed by the First Continental Congress in 1774, before independence was widely advocated: see [1774 Declaration of Rights and Grievances] The difference, as you mentioned, was that the focus in 1776 was on the king, not Parliament. However, the grievances were the same.--Other Choices (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
the Loyalists did NOT support the Declaration but the ambiguity in the text allows that possibility. that is a flaw. How about "grievances of the American Patriots." Rjensen (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The simplest approach is to just remove the adjective: "The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing grievances against King George III...." This works fine, unless people think we should link Patriot (American Revolution) in the lede. —Kevin Myers 16:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll go along with Rjensen's suggestion; I like the idea of linking to Patriot in the lede. However, I'm concerned about the simple statement that the grievances justified independence. The grievances were examples given in conjunction with the philosophy of legitimate government and revolution expounded in the Declaration's second paragraph. Maybe we can revisit that one later.--Other Choices (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
how about "The Declaration proclaimed the grievances of the Patriots against the king." Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
My gut feeling is that "proclaim" and "grievances" don't go well together. Maybe, as Kevin Myers suggests, it's simply best to delete "colonial."--Other Choices (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bomba96, 23 May 2011

Please put the information in precise order PLEASE

Bomba96 (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

By which you mean what exactly? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Delaration was not forgotten after July 4, 1776

Hello It is time to correct the myth that the Declaration was forgotten after it was written. This idea was a main premise of Pauline Maier's book, American Scripture, but she failed to substaniate this charge in her book.- NB Maier in her introduction stated the Declaration has been "hyped out of all proportion" and that should have raised a red flag as to the intent of her book. It is important to all americans that the truth about the Declaration is told and transmitted to the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.27.146 (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Write your idea up as a book or article, get it published by a reputable publisher, and then we may be able to work it into this article. Until then, you'll want to read this. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 18:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Support--Redirect to Declaration of Independence (United States)

I support a redirect to Declaration of Independence (United States) for the following reasons: 1. This is the title commonly used in the United States educational system, and in the judicial, legislative, and executive branches, and in U.S. publications (minus the parenthetical addition) 2. It was pre4viously listed this way in Wikipedia, in 2006 3. It is consistent with the several other Declarations of Independence (e.g. Israel, Ukraine, Turkey) that are listed in Wikipedia 4. It avoids charge of jingoism or special treatment of the United States by an organization (Wikipedia) that is purportedly international in its goals, ideals, and products 5. It educates users. That is, U.S. users who search for the Declaration of Independence will discover that theirs is not the only Declaration of Independence in the world. On the other hand, users from Ukraine, Israel, and Turkey will also see that there is a rich tradition of such declarations beyond their own. 6. It is a compromise between those who wish the listing to be United States/U.S. Declaration of Independence, and those who wish the listing to be Declaration of Independence, ignoring the fact that the world has many such declarations. It ably redirects users from all over the world, the United states included vriley2Vriley2 (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Why give undue weight to non-English speaking countries on English Wikipedia. If 99% of sources refer to the US with the English phrase "Declaration of Independence", why is this even a discussion? It's not jingoism... it's hyper-sensitive political correctness. We have a policy for this - follow it. Morphh (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
There is also the fact that when the Declaration was written, the United States did not yet exist!--BillFlis (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
True, I thought of that myself. haha Morphh (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Number of broadsides

In one place, this article says Dunlap printed 200 to 500. In another place, it says he printed "around 200." 68.104.186.85 (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up. The 500 number was added a few months ago by an editor using an unreliable source. It has been removed. It's possible that a scholar has somewhere estimated the number of broadsides as high as 500, since this is all a matter of guesswork, but I don't recall seeing such a high estimate in a reliable source. —Kevin Myers 21:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tomgrom, 28 June 2011

It's quite minor, however in the Text section, in the fourth sentence of the preamble, should there perhaps be a comma between the words "Object" and "evinces", as it is shown on the Dunlap broadside? Thanks for providing an opportunity to contribute in some small way! Tomgrom (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. The Dunlap broadside pictured in the section has a comma, but most other sources—such as the National Archives transcript—do not. We should go with most reliable sources, and that seems to be to omit the comma. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The other version on the page, [1] which is supposed to be a facsimile, also does not have the comma. So I think the comma should stay out for now. As a result I'm closing your edit request, but it is a very interesting anomaly. Monty845 02:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
When comparing different iterations of a text of this era, minor differences in punctuation (and capitalization) are to be expected. The Dunlap and Goddard broadsides have the comma in question, but the engrossed copy does not. When transcribing the text of the Declaration, people usually defer to the engrossed copy, since it was the text signed by the delegates and therefore seems more "official". —Kevin Myers 04:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

'disolutions' typo

There is a typo in the transcript: 'disolutions' should be 'dissolutions'.

Frettsy (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks for noticing. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

More on the date DOI was signed

Rush in his letter to Adams substantiates the signing of the actual Declaration of Independence that was approved by all states except New York. It makes sense that any legislative body would record the vote on such an important document. When NY signed and they had a clean printed copy the delegates that were present on August 2nd and later signed for their states.

Rush's letter.

Benjamin Rush (a signer of the DOI) in a letter to John Adams dated July 20, 1811 asked Adams

....Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants? The silence and gloom of the morning were interrupted, I well recollect, only for a moment by Colonel Harrison of VA who said to Mr Gerry at the table: 'I shall die in a few minutes, but from the lightness of your body you will dance in the air an hour or two before you are dead'.

— (Spur of Fame p 182-83 Rush to Adam. editor's note refers reader to verification of comment by Gerry see Rush to Adams sept 4, 1811 letters v 2 page 1102)

So why hasn't this been included in the discussion of the date of signing?

We know the records of the Continental Congress have not been discovered yet but until that time we can reconstruct the accurate history by examination of the records we do have.

Another instance not followed-up by paid historians is the reference that the DOI was sent to the Provinical Congresses for ratification. Records of this could be recovered and would help explain the actions of the states in regard to the DOI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.27.161 (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that information. That famous quote from Rush is a good one. We should put it in the article Signing the United States Declaration of Independence. Rush doesn't really pinpoint a date on which the Declaration is signed, which is why historians don't use his letter to try to confirm the signing date. Plus, it was written decades after the fact, too long to be a good source for a precise date, had he provided one.
By the way, Congress did not send the Declaration to the states for ratification. (You may be thinking of the Constitution.) The Declaration was "pre-ratified". That is, Congress issued it only after the state governments have given them permission to do so. —Kevin Myers 17:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I dunno I think the delegates signed their approval of the DOI on July 4th as the direct testimony of Jefferson, Adams Franklin and Rush say they signed the document that day. Otherwise what is the proof who was there and their vote? Certainly this should have been researched by professional historians. I am aware of the "pre approval" instructions but there might be some worth in exploring the ratification fo the DOI mentioned in a letter by JAdams in august 1776 to a penn correspondent. I will get date and name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.27.23 (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Declaration of Independence" redirect

A discussion regarding whether Declaration of Independence should redirect here (as it currently does) is taking place at Talk:Declaration of independence#DoI_redirect. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move page as suggested. There may be consensus to move to Declaration of Independence (United States), but this is a case where I'd like to see a separate discussion of that proposal before pushing it through. - GTBacchus(talk) 00:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


United States Declaration of Independence → Declaration of Independence – In the above noted discussion about the DoI redirect, the consensus was that the name "Declaration of Independence" was by far the common name for this document. People rarely if ever call this document the "United States Declaration of Independence". So in accord with the policy found at WP:COMMONNAME, this article's title should reflect what readers would find to be familiar, and the familiar name is "Declaration of Independence". – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  23:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Although it may be the most common name, there are many other examples of declarations of independence that are notable. Singling out the United States would approach a violation of WP:NPOV. In other countries, "Declaration of Independence" alone probably usually refers to their declaration of independence, not the United States'. "Declaration of Independence" alone should redirect to the article about all declarations of independence, and there should be a disambiguation link at the top of the page, as there currently is, to the United States document. To follow NPOV, I will change the redirect at Declaration of Independence so it redirects to Declaration of independence rather than United States Declaration of Independence. I continue to oppose this move --Nat682 (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Let me suggest that before you once again for the umpteenth time reroute the redirect to the Doi page, you please read the talk page for that redirect and the discussion that was generated as noted above, the one at Talk:Declaration of independence#Doi redirect. As I stated above, the consensus was that "Declaration of Independence" was the common and familiar name for the USDoI. Also, there was no consensus to reroute the DoI redirect to the Doi page, as you wish to do. So your edit will probably be reverted in accord with that lack of consensus. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  00:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose highly generic term. Declaration of Independence (United States) would be the alternate form. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose since there's a page called Declaration of independence and distinguishing articles by a single capital letter should be avoided.. Put hatnote atop Declaration of independence, perhaps rename DOI to Declaration of Independence (USA). Perhaps Declaration of Independence could be a disambig page rather than a redirect. See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Irish_Declaration_of_Independence and http://www.msc.edu.ph/centennial/declaration.html for other Declarations of Independence apparently in English--JimWae (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • There was a hatnote, but it was decided at Talk:Doi to remove it. Your dab idea is good, because ideally, DoI should redirect to both the USDoI and the Doi pages. However, since the Doi page is just a list, it might be better to make that page a dab page, except that many of the documents that are called "declarations of independence" on that page are not actually called that by anyone. Needs some cleanup? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  01:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose; Declaration of Independence should redirect to Declaration of independence. Powers T 12:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • This has been tried several times in its page history, even by myself. There appear to be several links to that redirect that would be "broken" if what you suggest is done. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  01:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose To put this another way: WP:COMMONNAME has two aspects: that the title be the most common descriptionn for the subject (true here) and that the subject be the most common meaning of the title. These are related, but not identical; and when the second is false, the title is ambiguous and cannot be used for any of the subjects it would apply to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The second is not false in this case. To demonstrate this: go to Google (or another search engine) and type Declaration of Independence. See how far you go before finding another country other than the United States, then type that country's name at the end of the - operand. After a dozen pages I still can't find a reference to that country's Declaration of Independence. Now try using even up to five or ten exclusion operands to try to remove any mention of the United States' Declaration of Independence from showing up in the first page of the search "Declaration of Independence". I haven't been able to do it. If that doesn't fit the definition of WP:COMMONNAME, nothing does. - SudoGhost™ 22:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
And that's why we don't rely on www.ggoggle.com; the wev is not a reliable source, and it is certainly not an unbiased source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Google is not a source, but we do rely on search engines to determine things such as WP:COMMONNAME. To try to accuse bias when determining a common name is a bit counter to what a common name means, as per WP:WEIGHT. - SudoGhost™ 23:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Do read the page you cite: In most cases, a search engine test is a first-pass heuristic or "rule of thumb"; we do not rely on it. In particular, it has a section on search engine biases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, you've provided no policy that says so. Determining a common name is not one of those "rule of thumb" cases. WP:COMMONNAME even suggests Google as a useful tool for determining the common name, pending technical biases (which, given the data supplied above, have been demonstrably avoided). - SudoGhost™ 23:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
To avoid a possible confusion with my Oppose below, I thought I'd clarify. I don't think the name should be changed, but I think that saying the United States document is not the WP:COMMONNAME is incorrect, as it can be demonstrably proved that the United States' Declaration of Independence falls under WP:COMMONNAME. However, I think the fact that there is already a Declaration of independence article (which is about the general concept, not a specific DoI) overrides WP:COMMONNAME in this regard. - SudoGhost™ 23:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though I would support Declaration of Independence (United States) for the reasons given by nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not as per WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NPOV, but because Declaration of Independence (United States) would be a better name, due to the fact that the only difference between Declaration of Independence and Declaration of independence is a single capital letter, which is not enough to distinguish between the United States' document and the article about the general type of document. I would highly support a change to Declaration of Independence (United States). - SudoGhost™ 23:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Since the DoI redirect is involved as the move target, I would have to ask, "What happens to that redirect if a qualifier in parentheses is used to name this article?" Most likely, it will be kept as a redirect to this article, so it may as well become the title of this article. If "Declaration of Independence" redirects here, then it is because (a) there are many links to it that would be broken otherwise, and (b) it is the COMMONNAME for this document (and needs no qualifier). 00:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
    • It's also good to note that Declaration of Independence (United States) was moved to this title back in 2006. The edit summary was: "Parentheses look bad, and it's probably best to avoid them." – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
      • It is policy to use natural forms of disambiguation when they exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, that was brought up in another similar conversation. Policy states: ". . . if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation." And we know that when disambiguating, if there is an article that would be by far the most familiar, then that article is linked to at the top of the dab page. "Declaration of Independence" would fill this bill. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  21:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ah, no. A commonly-used name. And Declaration of Independence should redirect to Declaration of independence. Rennell435 (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "People rarely if ever call this document the "United States Declaration of Independence"." In the United States probably they don't. In the rest of the world, I'd say that was the common name for it. It's certainly the term I'd use. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Excellent point, Necrothesp. However, the vast majority of readers who come to read this article appear to live in the US, as per studies mentioned in the original discussion cited above. So the initial "United States", which could also be mentioned in the lead or even a hatnote, is an unnecessary addition to the article title. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  21:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Britannica says "Declaration of Independence". So does Columbia and Encarta. Nobody else calls it, "United States Declaration of Independence". See this ngram. Move the content of "Declaration of independence" to "Declarations of independence" and then make it a redirect to here. Kauffner (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Excellent, Kauffner! Another possibility for the "Declaration of independence" redirect would be to have an RCAT of {{Redirect to plural}} and be routed to "Declarations of independence". – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  09:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move based on above discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move - Wikipedia's precision and disambiguation guidelines support natural modes of disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation. Neelix (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


United States Declaration of Independence → Declaration of Independence (United States) – Per the above discussion and closure comment, this would be an improvement based upon the fact that "Declaration of Independence" is by far the term that is most commonly used to refer to this document. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  04:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  • PS. Please note that this is a "move-back" as shown by this 2006 edit.
Actually, I am sure I have often heard it referred to as United States Declaration of Independence or U.S. Declaration of Independence, and think that would be the simplest way to refer to it when addressing non-residents of the US.--JimWae (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen any references refer to it as such, all the references on this page (granted I picked quite a few randomly, did not look at each one) all refer to it simply as the Declaration of Independence. WP:COMMONNAME says that the article should be "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." In this case, even if there are some sources that refer to it as the United States Declaration of Independence, the sources overwhelmingly refer to it simply as the Declaration of Independence. It is for this reason that I believe the article should be renamed to Declaration of Independence (United States). - SudoGhost™ 05:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
That suggested move has already met its end - this suggestion is to move it to Declaration of Independence (United States), which it most certainly is never referred to as in speech--JimWae (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Read my above statement again. I was talking about reasons for renaming to Declaration of Independence (United States), not any other name. You've provided no sources that show it as the United States Declaration of Independence, so naming it as such makes no sense. It is, in every source in the page, referred to as Declaration of Independence, the (United States) in the rename is used to differentiate between this and the others. - SudoGhost™ 23:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't get you, Jim. Do you mean the part in parentheses is never said? That's just the "qualifier", and parenthetical qualifiers are used widely on Wikipedia. Such qualifiers are not actually part of the article title, which is clearly shown by italicized articles that use qualifiers, such as Pinta (ship). Since the qualifier, "(ship)", is not actually part of the article title, it does not get italicized. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  23:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
My point is that it is actually often called United States Declaration of Independence, so why use parentheses? I also remind others (below, since the discussion seems to have overlooked this) of Declarations of Independence in other countries that speak English
You've still yet to provide a single reliable source to show that it is "often" called the United States Declaration of Independence, I've never heard of it being referred to as such, and none of the sources in use on the article refer to it as such. Google results are useless as you are presenting them, as they can reflect anything. There are over 4,000 results for "answer declaration of independence". There is no "Answer Declaration of Independence". Quotes around a search term ignore sentence structures, so "...was from the United States. Declaration of Independence author..." would return be a result for "United States Declaration of Independence". WP:GOOGLE: Appearance in an index alone is not usually proof of anything. - SudoGhost™ 05:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
You really want to argue that of 242,000 sources, NONE are reliable ones? Here are four:
It is the simplest thing to call it when the audience is not the US --JimWae (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The first one says All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License at the bottom. The second one uses that as the title, but never mentions it outside of it being the title. The third is an opinion piece. Two out of three are not reliable sources, and the book uses it only as a title. The simplest thing to do is to call it what every source on this article calls it, the Declaration of Independence, using the (United States) as a clarification as to which Declaration of Independence it is, if necessary.- SudoGhost™ 06:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I checked these out a little more thoroughly--JimWae (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
What part of WP:COMMONNAME applies to this issue?
Some google searches
WP:COMMONNAME says use what the sources use, not what Google reflects (your data fails to show "Declaration of Independence", which gives over 10 million results, and skimming through the pages, well over 90% are concerning the U.S. document). None of the sources used as references in this article use the term "United States Declaration of Independence". WP:COMMONNAME says the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources, not Google results. I doubt all 173,000 results are reliable sources. - SudoGhost™ 01:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
You're not suggesting a move to "Declaration of Independence", which I would support based on COMMONNAME, but to "Declaration of Independence (United States)". This seems to invalidate your argument with regard to COMMONNAME, since your not moving it to the name you reference. With well over 90% referring to this document, we're being overly sensitive to WP:WORLDVIEW - the term clearly should go to this article with a disambig to any other countries. Morphh (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's not conflate most common name with disambiguation. The most common name for this topic is Declaration of Independence; I presume no one disputes that. There is, apparently, no consensus that this topic is primary for that name (see previous discussion). Therefore, the remaining issue is how to disambiguate. We can add precision to the title, by prepending the most common name with United States, which of course is the current title, but that can be easily misconstrued to mean that the name of this topic is United States Declaration of Independence, which is simply wrong. This is why the standard manner of disambiguation in Wikipedia is to add the precision to the end of the title in parentheses - that way the name remains obvious and clearly delineated from the disambiguator in parentheses, which is exactly what this proposal accomplishes.

That said, how anyone can honestly hold that this topic is not primary for "Declaration of Independence" is beyond me, but that's a separate issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Support as per my response to JimWae, and as per my comments in the previous move discussion. - SudoGhost™ 05:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Natural disambiguation is much preferred to awkward parenthetical disambiguation. Powers T 11:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Awkward? Parenthetical qualifiers are used widely on Wikipedia. Just exactly what is awkward about them? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  23:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, widely used on Wikipedia, but not in usual English writing. They are a necessary evil in many cases, but where they can be avoided by selecting a more natural phrasing, they should be. See WP:PRECISION: "If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that instead." Powers T 18:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support WP:NPOV applies to the US too! Sotonchris (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • What does NPOV have to do with anything? Powers T 12:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Apologies, should have made my point in a cearer fashion. The naming convention used for other declarations of independence should be adhered to here in order to avoid the appearance of bias Sotonchris (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Your support on these grounds doesn't make much sense with regard to bias, since the original title contains United States. How is one bias and the other not? The vote is for a formatting change, not content. But to address your point, aspects of NPOV and bias take into account due weight on English Wikipedia for English-speaking countries. If the super vast majority of sources refer to this topic, then it's counter bias to not make this the primary link. Morphh (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Since the full phrase is rarely used, it seems more awkward to me than the parenthetical disambiguation. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I might support moving to Declaration of Independence with a hatnote for other countries depending on the article traffic. Also the Google search hits above are irrelevant because parenthetical disambiguation isn't widely used outside of Wikipedia. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose based on JimWae comments and WP:COMMONNAME. 90%+ hit rate should clearly move this article to Declaration_of_Independence with a hatnote to a disambig page for other countries. Morphh (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how one is any better then the other - they're both wrong per our standards. I think I prefer this version over the () suggestion, but I'd try putting forward more evidence for the direct link and make the argument again for the vast super majority of visitors target the term on English Wikipedia for the US article. It makes little sense to give such undue weight to such a tiny minority for the sake of some oversensitivity to worldview. Morphh (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I can't say I completely disagree with you, Morphh. It must be remembered, though, that anything that follows an article title in parentheses is not actually a part of the article title. This can be seen readily in titles that must be italicized, such as book titles, ship names, biological genera. Examples:
The words in parentheses are not italicized because they are not part of the article title. Parentheses are widely used on Wikipedia merely to qualify (disambiguate) the article title. This is why any search that includes the parenthetical qualifier would be an invalid resource for comparison purposes. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough... I'll withdraw opposition. Morphh (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Morphh! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. A much better proposal. Rennell435 (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as discussed above, the current name (United States Declaration of Independence) is an already existing way to distinguish the US DoI -- with considerable currency. The simplest way to distinguish this article is by using nomenclature already found in normal discourse and writing, rather than using a parenthetical expression. Here btw, is yet another Declaration of Independence in English. I think we need to consider whether Declaration of Independence should redirect to Declaration of independence --JimWae (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The parenthetical disambiguator is a way to distinguish this article and at the same time to make the title more precise. Whether or not to redirect the DoI page to here or the Doi article/list has been discussed on this page, and there was no consensus to reroute the redirect. Do you have something new to add to that reasoning? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "United States Declaration of Independence" is not used with considerable currency. What was established above is that it was used, not used with frequency. No source in the article uses "United States Declaration of Independence", and use in common English is infrequent at best. As has been established above, "Declaration of Independence" is by far the WP:COMMONNAME for the article's subject, and Declaration of Independence (United States) is to differentiate between this Declaration of Independence and the generic Declaration of independence article. Both frequency of usage and Wikipedia's policies argue in favor of changing the name. - SudoGhost™ 20:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia policy and practice suggest that "United States Declaration of Independence" is the best title. As WP:PRECISION says, "If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English", use it instead of other means of disambiguation. "United States Declaration of Independence" is that "natural mode of disambiguation". Sources used in this article don't use disambiguation because of course the subject matter is understood, just as a book on the American Civil War doesn't have to tell you which civil war they're talking about. Rather than invent a parenthetical disambiguation, better to look at how other sources about broad, international topics disambiguate the American declaration when referring to it. Looking just at books that predate Wikipedia, I find numerous examples of the current title. The Human Rights Reader (Micheline Ishay, 1997, p. 127), calls it the "United States Declaration of Independence". So does Empire: The British Imperial Experience from 1765 to the Present by Denis Judd. So does Constitutionalism and rights: the influence of the United States (Rosenthal & Henkin, Columbia University Press, 1990), as does The mark of the Scots: their astonishing contributions to history... (1998, Duncan Bruce). It's the title used by the Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment, and I even see this term used in the U.S. code. People before us have figured out how to disambiguate this subject using a "natural mode", so there's no need for us to use a clunky one. —Kevin Myers 00:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Now I am confused. Kevin, what do you suppose the PRECISION part of the policy means when it states, "For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article 'United States Apollo program (1961–75)' over 'Apollo program'"? It appears to me that PRECISION states just the opposite of what you wrote in your opposition !vote. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  02:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • We agree that you are confused. ;-) This is not rocket science, if you'll pardon the pun. The Apollo program example is meant to illustrate that concise titles are preferable when possible: since there are no other articles competing for the title "Apollo program", one doesn't need extraneous disambiguating information in the title, such as "United States" and "(1961–75)". Countries all over the world don't have their own Apollo programs, so "United States" is not needed in the title to clarify which Apollo program we are talking about. The same is not true for declarations of independence, of course, and so the Apollo program example has no real relevance here. —Kevin Myers 07:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That makes a lot of sense, and is precisely what I thought you meant. It's your reasoning that is confusing. If you will please take the time to go back and read the discussion that started these move requests, you will find that very few, if any, of those countries listed on the Doi page actually refer to their documents as "Declarations of Independence". Yes, there is that column that calls some of the documents that, but the nations don't actually call them that. So the reasoning for the Apollo program applies also to the Declaration of Independence, which is why the initial move request was to remove the unnecessary "United States" qualifier completely. I still feel that such a qualifier is unnecessary; however, there was no concensus for that. There was a strong opinion that the "United States" didn't need to be an actual part of the article title, but did still need to be there as a disambiguator, which calls for this move that transforms the "United States" into a parenthetical disambiguator. We now do not want to remove the "United States" entirely, but instead use the common name for this document as the article title and keep the "United States" at the end in parentheses as a qualifier. In my humble, confused opinion, PRECISION really does call for this move. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  21:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Well okay then, Kevin. When the COMMONNAME and PRECISION policy sections collide, one might ask, "Which of them should come out alive?" I would have to agree that you have a very good point; however, it seems to me that going for the more commonly used term, "Declaration of Independence", as the actual article title (evidently with a quieter disambiguator in parentheses) complies with both PRECISION and COMMONNAME. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  09:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be the "Declaration of Independence of the United States of America" I mean that's what it says on it. I have never heard anyone refer to it as the United States Declaration, or the United States of America Declaration. besides this is more than a description, it is a title of a document. the short form title is "the Declaration of Independence" the parenthetical method is used with other works that share a title. I don't see how US Declaration of Independence can be correct. perhaps United States' Declaration, or American Declaration. Otherwise you are using a noun as an adjective. Tinynanorobots (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
No, the document does not say "Declaration of Independence of the United States of America" on it. It has a heading but no "title" as we would use the term now. It took a few years for people to settle on calling the document the "Declaration of Independence", a phrase they previously used to describe Congress' act of declaring independence. If you are unfamiliar with nouns used as adjectives, look around you more closely, or do a Google search of "using nouns as adjectives" to discover how commonplace this is. Or consider relevant examples such as United States Army, United States Congress, United States Constitution, etc. etc. etc. —Kevin Myers 02:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on the arguments made above. I can't see any existing problem that requires a name change. It is absolutely clear from the existing title what the article is about and nobody has suggested that readers have any problem finding the article -- this article is the third one on the list when a Google search is done for Declaration of Independence. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Readers have little problem finding this article because the vast majority type in "Declaration of Independence" and get redirected here. And that's the whole point. This article was initially (and correctly) titled Declaration of Independence (United States). The only reason an editor renamed it to "United States Declaration of Independence" was because they didn't like the parentheses, which, to me, is an extremely poor reason to move to a title that is seldom, if ever, used by the vast majority of readers who come to read this article. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  09:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The renaming you refer to occurred over five years ago -- it seems like it has withstood the test of time. Why is it any better that a reader who types in Declaration of Independence would get redirected to Declaration of Independence (United States) rather than here? Are you claiming that the proposed change is NOT "seldom, if ever, used by the vast majority of readers who come to read this article"? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Forgive me, please, Tom; I'm so sorry I missed your questions! This page was created in October of 2001, so the "withstood the test of time" argument may apply to both article titles. Personally, I have to agree that few if any people would type in "Declaration of Independence (United States)". That is why I originally proposed the most frequently used title: "Declaration of Independence". And you can see above how that turned out. For me, the addition of the parenthetical disambiguator is an agreeable compromise. The important thing to remember is that this article is about a certain document. Yes, that document that this article is about is most assuredly a document pertaining to the United States. However, the actual document's name does not include "United States", so "United States" should not be a part of the article title. The reason that I consider putting the "United States" in parentheses a viable compromise is due to the fact that any qualifier/disambiguator that is in parentheses is not actually a part of the article title. This is seen most readily in article titles that must be italicized, such as Common Sense (pamphlet). The "pamphlet" in parentheses is not italicized because it's not part of the article title. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, following 1-2-4-5-6-7-8-10 by the deterministic titling algorithm at WP:How2title. The current title of this article incorrectly implies that the name of this topic is "United States Declaration of Independence". That's just wrong, and intolerable. One of the main benefits of putting the disambiguator in parentheses is it clearly distinguishes the name of the topic (in this case Declaration of Independence), from the disambiguator. This proposal achieves exactly that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC) --Born2cycle (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:How2title is an essay that looks pretty good, but it is written by a single user (you) and does not fully take into account the WP:PRECISION policy, so it doesn't yet carry a lot of weight in a discussion like this. Or, in the wording of the essay template: "Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this [essay]." If you believe that the PRECISION policy of "natural mode of disambiguation" needs changing, you should confront it directly, rather than circumventing it in an essay. —Kevin Myers 01:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think the "natural mode of disambiguation" section of WP:PRECISION needs changing. It already makes the point that parenthetical disambiguations "have the advantage that the non-parenthesized part of the title may most clearly convey what the subject is called in English.". The emphasis of that section is on concision, having relevance in situations where the "natural mode of disambiguation" form is significantly more concise than the parenthetical disambiguation form, which is not the case here. That point, however, is reflected at WP:How2title.

    That said, perhaps the point on clearly conveying what the subject is called in English needs to be more clearly stated. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I added some clarification to WP:How2title [2]. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Primary Topic?

I'm looking at all this and see that Declaration of Independence has had a tumultuous history of being changed back and forth between redirecting to this article at United States Declaration of Independence and to Declaration of independence, but currently it points to this article. Here are some view stats:

Almost ten times as many page views, and that's with Declaration of independence undoubtedly getting significant traffic actually seeking United States Declaration of Independence. There can be no question about primary topic here. Oddly, the issue has hardly been mentioned in the previous discussions. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The dilemma there is probably the "global view" situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
But WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't say anything about a "global view". After all, this is the English language Wikipedia, not the "global" Wikipedia. Is there any doubt that, in English, this article is the "primary topic" for the term "Declaration of Independence"? —Kevin Myers 05:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What does the "global view" situation have to do with it? "Global view" is not relevant to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which is defined quite simply solely in terms of search likelihoods: "highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box" --Born2cycle (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, so currently Declaration of Independence is a disambiguation page. So you would rename that to Declaration of Independence (disambiguation) and rename United States Declaration of Independence to just Declaration of Independence, right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
No, Declaration of Independence is currently a redirect to this page.

I would just move this article there, and create hat note links to Declaration of independence and to Declaration of Independence (disambiguation) which should be created with links to all Countryname Declaration of Independence articles. That's what WP:AT and WP:D call for, as best as I can tell. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. Then how about renaming the ambiguous title Declaration of independence to List of declarations of independence? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The only problem is that this won't work if someone comes along and turns it to a proper "broad-concept article" on the subject. That is when the "global view" situation definitely will be put into play. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realize that article had that list. So we probably don't need Declaration of independence (disambiguation). In any case, whether it stays where it is or is changed into a pure list and renamed accordingly, or made a dab page and renamed accordingly, seems like a related but separate issue from what to title this article. Either way I would make a hatnote link to it from Declaration of Independence. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

National Archives featured article contest

The Charters of Freedom on display at the National Archives' rotunda.

I would like to announce the first featured article contest for the National Archives project. The National Archives has graciously provided us with prizes to give out to winners, including National Archives publications, tote bags, and other swag. The first contest is a challenge to get any of the articles on the three documents on display in the National Archives building's rotunda—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights—featured (in any language).

There is a one-month timeline for this contest, with the deadline tentatively set for August 20. Please read more about how to participate here. Good luck! Dominic·t 20:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty tight deadline for getting an article to featured status. How many people can, in a month, write an article that is "comprehensive" and "well-researched" (per the featured criteria) and get the thing through the featured article process? I dunno, but it seems tight. I might be able to do it with this article, simply because I've already done lots of work on it over the years. I've read most of the reliable sources and have many of them on hand. But I can't imagine producing a featured article in one month without this kind of head start. Getting books through interlibrary loan—a must for serious historical research—can take a week or more. For many people, the contest would be half over before they had their hands on the reliable sources! A short contest like this could unintentionally promote superficial research—people skimming stuff on the Internet rather than really reading the sources. Of course, people do that all the time on Wikipedia, but we shouldn't encourage it. —Kevin Myers 06:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You're right, and after similar feedback, I've made two big changes. First, there is no real deadline any longer. (I did say "tentatively"! :-) ) I was mainly worried about being able to deliver on the promise of prizes after I left the National Archives in August, but that is no longer an issue. Second, I have added an intermediate prize for GA status, a step along the way anyway, so that editors can still be rewarded even if they don't make it all the way to FA. Obviously, I really don't want to scare anyone away who was thinking of participating because of poorly thought-out rules. The whole idea is to inspire Wikipedians to to good work and to show our appreciate for that work. Dominic·t 21:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, I threw it in GA queue. You are the real owner of this thing though. Your point on timeline is a good one. I was thinking something like 4 months. 2 months of work and then 2 months at FAC. Just being realistic that the thing will draw major attention and not "fly through" even with making it as good as we can.TCO (reviews needed) 01:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, it will attract attention at FAC and take some time to get through. It's one of those topics that every American knows at least a little bit about, so we might get more reviews than average. Plus, it would be nice if the naming issue was settled before this achieves featured status. I'm glad that Dominic extended the contest and that you did the GA nomination. It's time to cross the finishing line, even if it takes a few more months. I'll be happy when this is a FA so I can stop thinking about it! —Kevin Myers 20:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Initial thoughts on reading

TCO impressions

1. I kind of like it. Seems like there is a lot of content. Lot of good writing prose style. Lots of well formatted footnotes.

2. Like to find the old GA nomination review and delisting and read the comments.

3. Seems like text does a good job of describing how the country was at war and the scrunch factor as they moved to sign the thing. But then the payoff is not well described. Surely just the act of getting together, removing state congresses, etc. played a role in making the war increase in intensity? No? If not, if we can have a source to say that would be good. Just feels like too little the one reading to the troops and the British secret response.

4. The duality of the act of declaration and the text needs to be considered and developed in article. Effort has been made, but this is a thing we need to chew on. Feels a little too much on the text, early in the article (i.e. the narrative) and not enough on the act.

5. Some little wiki gnome things.

6. I haven't read all the talk page stuff. Seemed like most of it was pretty low value dealing with POV types. On the move wars, as an American would prefer the other location, but I am pretty fine with it as is also (only bad thing is it really hurts our Google ranking). Obviously within article, I would just refer to it by the familiar usage. TCO (reviews needed) 02:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Found the GA delist discussion

Here: [5].

Major issues were poor footnoting format. Looking at our article now, footnotes seem much more extensive and well formatted (although I have not done the FAC class power brushup review). Also the article itself is MUCH longer and better than what existed when it was delisted: [6].

Seems like going to GA is not unreasonable. And someone (Kevin?) has done substantial work and is to be commended.TCO (reviews needed) 02:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a completely different article now, to be sure. At that time, no one had taken it upon themselves to roll up their sleeves and consult the scholarly sources on the Declaration, so I volunteered myself for the mission. It's fun, but it seems like there's always another source to read. I'd say we're easily at a GA now, though perhaps the "In popular culture" section might trouble a reviewer. —Kevin Myers 20:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope this is interesting. I am reviewing it to learn some details.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:LEAD
  • How precise is the phrase? "were independent states"? Maybe regarded themselves as independent states. I think the British did not at that time believe that statement to be true.
    • I see that this has been fixed. – Quadell (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Does the phrase "The passage has often been used to promote the rights of marginalized people" refer to marginalized people in the United States or does this motivate international marginalized people?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I read that as marginalized people all over the world. The sentence has certainly been used internationally. – Quadell (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Background
Toward independence
  • I don't know what the sources say, but logic seems to suggest that "one colonial government would need to specifically instruct its delegation to propose a declaration of independence in Congress" should read something like "one colonial government would need to specifically instruct (or grant permission for) its delegation to propose a declaration of independence in Congress". I.e., it seems possible that during the course of debate representatives might be permitted to initiate a declaration. Not sure though.
  • It is not clear to me how Congress relates to the prior terms First and Second Continental Congress. Is there a link for the Congress that you are now referring to?
    • Examining the Hazelton source, I'm confident this refers to the Second Continental Congress, or at least to the possibility (in the abstract) of a Continental Congress in general. I'm not sure how to phrase this in the section, but I'm open to suggestions. – Quadell (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • You can either request a third opinion from someone at one of the projects associated with this article (see the talk page) or I can put in a 2nd opinion request through GAC. Your choice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay, I see that the Second CC was in effect throughout the entire period discussed in the "Toward independence" section. As such, I linked (in this edit) the first instance of "Congress" to Second Continental Congress there. Does that clear up the ambiguity? – Quadell (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Richard Henry Lee should be linked on first use. Not second.
  • You need to explain or link exigencies.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The term Royal Governor needs a link.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Text
Influences
  • I think the phrase "in turn" needs to be set of with commas although I am not sure.
  • I would like to see more of today's prominent thinkers (living people under the age of 65) in this section, but that is just my preference. However, it is important to make it clear that some of these controversial opinions have yet to be resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Contemporary historians Garry Wills and Dennis J. Mahoney are now cited. Wills is getting older, but I guess that can't be helped. I think the text now indicates the controversial and unresolved nature of certain interpretations, especially these. – Quadell (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Signing
  • "Fifty-six delegates eventually signed the Declaration." should come earlier in the section. It may belong as the first sentence of the section, but if not a first paragraph placement would be good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I moved and reworded this. – Quadell (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
History of the documents
Legacy
  • It is unclear what period of time the first paragraph refers to (a few years or a century)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The sources make clear it was a few years, during the war and just after. Fixed. – Quadell (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Can you make it clear that this paragraph refers to late 18th century if that is the case.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I changed it from "was initially neglected following the American Revolution" to "was initially neglected in the years immediately following the American Revolution". I don't feel comfortable making it much more specific, since the sources don't give very clear dates for it, and it would be my own interpretation to say exactly when it stopped being neglected, I think.
Influence in other countries
  • The opening sentence belies the rest of the paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The way it is currently written, there doesn't seem to be a conflict. – Quadell (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • The sentence beginning with "The Manifesto of the Province of Flanders" seems to say something different than the first sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see what you mean. In this edit I reworded to show that some leaders were not directly influenced, but others were. – Quadell (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Revival of interest
  • "had lost none of its relevance" doesn't really make a proper statement about its relevance.
    • I reworded. – Quadell (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "But the Declaration would have its most prominent influence on the debate over slavery." should be cited. It also belongs as an introductory statement in the next section rather than here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Moved, and sourced. – Quadell (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Slavery and the Declaration
  • Thomas Day seems to be making a statement about Jefferson or other patriots and signers who owned slaves. Please clearly explain his statement.
    • I clarified. – Quadell (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "From this time forward, defenders of slavery, from John Randolph in the 1820s to John C. Calhoun in the 1840s" presents a confusing time period to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I reworded. – Quadell (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is clearly the result of a lot of scholarly research. With a few minor changes, it will be a GA.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The article could benefit from the British historical perspective
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I think this is written from the American perspective. I pointed out in the review of the WP:LEAD that this article might be written without regard to the British perspective.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I will have to review the images
    Images are all tagged correctly. Two WP:CAPTIONS use periods at the end of phrases that are not complete sentences. Either remove the periods or reword.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I could require some British perspective, but I am not sure what is out there and a bit is incorporated. Not enough is truly included for me to believe this is ready for FA, but it serves the purpose for most history students. With a few changes I think it will be GA quality.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I have been informed that there may be a new editor taking over the nomination in the absence of a vanished nominator. I will check back in seven days to evaluate progress.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I just saw this today. I am willing to take over this nomination. I will look over the suggestions and make improvements. – Quadell (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hancock's signature

I have added information on the signing of the Declaration. According to the State Department, Hancock signed the Declaration on July 4, 1776. This would make that act legally binding on July 4 since Hancock was the President of the Continental Congress. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Summary of new substitute nominator

I've addressed all the itemized concerns above. I'm afraid I don't have the ability to do a thorough reword to make sure the British perspective is adequately given. It looks good to me as I read it, but then again, I'm a yank. I know the stuff against King George was quite slanted, but that's the nature of the document, and I understand old George doesn't have many admirers in England either. I hope it's up to GA standard at this point! – Quadell (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see your feedback. We're very close. I think I can get all those finalized today. – Quadell (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I've made my second round of fixes. Let me know what you think. – Quadell (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell for your contributions to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Signing controversy

Before going to good article I believe there needs to be some discussion on the signing controversy. Wills relies on an 1884 State Department investigation. The 1911 State Department states Hancock signed the Declaration, not the Parchment copy, on July 4. I believe this is crucial in terms of deciding when the United States became independent. Is Wills reliable? I have read the source page. Seems to be he does not believe Hancock signed on July 4. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't see Willis in the text right now. I am satisfied with the content that you added, if the replacement nominator is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • My lone other remaining issue is the unresolved image issues from the checklist above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah, I'd missed that! You're right, that was a grammar error. I removed one stray full-stop, and reworded the other (since I think it's obvious that it's his signature pictured). – Quadell (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I am glad there is agreement on the signing controversy. I just believe that from an American standpoint there needs to be some clarification as to when the United States became independent. From what I understand, Hancock and others signed the Declaration on July 4, 1776. Copies were made and passed around states to be read by the military officers or legislators. Then a special Parchment copy was made that many signed on August 2, 1776. That would mean Hancock signed twice on July 4, and then on August 2. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I do not have any objections on making this a good article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Coemgenus (talk) might have some opinion on the matter of the Declaration signing controversy. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I am going to pass it as it is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks TonyTheTiger for giving the U.S. Declaration article GA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Good work everybody. I was off-wiki while this was going on, so I'm glad to see that people worked on this even after the original nominator vanished. Drinks all around. —Kevin Myers 03:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The article incorrectly uses capital 'U' in the word 'united',

It can be seen clearly from the original document that the authors used the word 'united' as an adjective. Please change the title to "Declaration of Independence of the united States of America". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.118.143 (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

oy...
This has come up before. If it comes up again, perhaps we'll want to make a FAQ. The answer is no, there is no significance to how "united" is capitalized on the signed copy of the Declaration. Capitalization could be erratic back then and did not confer the meaning that we now associate with proper nouns. The first two "official" releases of the Declaration used the capitalization united states of america. Jefferson used used that, as well as "united States" and "United States", in his drafts. Whoever wrote the signed version went with united States of America. This seems inconsistent to us now, but no one noticed or cared back then, since capitalization was largely a matter of personal style. Jefferson usually didn't even capitalize the first word of his sentences. —Kevin Myers 06:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
If you were in on the previous discussion, you may recall that some nut went so far as to rename the article "united States Declaration of Independence. "Oy" is right. And you're right, it's risky to read too much into capitalization. Notice the pattern that it's the nouns that are capitalized. This was a convention left over from German - which still does it that way, while it was dropped in English in the 19th century. The U.S. Constitution is also full of capitalized nouns. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, to be consistent, if you're arguing "united states" is descriptive, not a name, then the s in states should be lowercase as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
In the original context of the Declaration, "States" is a noun and "united" is their status in relation to the Declaration, not the actual name of the country. That came later. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but we don't capitalize nouns unless they're part of names. At the time of the Declaration was the union of the new states known as anything? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes in practice, but officially it took awhile. The Articles of Confederation, which was drafted soon after but took years to get ratified, codified the new name: "The Style of this confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'", with a capital "U" even. —Kevin Myers 06:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Names get retrofitted, which is why "united States" is not used. A somewhat parallel example: The ballpark known as the Polo Grounds was originally referred to in newspapers as the "polo grounds", because it was not yet a proper name. But we don't title the article "polo grounds", we go with what it's eventual proper name became. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If this is just a matter of writing style (as you and others have pointed out) then I think it does not matter much. However, if the authors INTENTIONALLY used lower case to signify that there was no concept of a central government and all of the States of America had independently agreed to this declaration, then this simple change would change the context of the document significantly.
Yeah, that would be interesting if a central meaning of the document hinged upon one smallcase letter. Had Congress intended that, they messed up by keeping it a secret. As I pointed out when this discussion came up on a previous occasion, it's important to keep in mind that, during the revolutionary era, the public never saw the signed version of the Declaration. It was signed, filed away, and mostly forgotten about for years. What the public saw were the various broadsides that used a capital "U". The only people who knew about the smallcase "u" in the original were the clerks and the guys who signed the document, most of whom presumably didn't notice or care. —Kevin Myers 01:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

RM decision challenged

I'm challenging the above RM decision. First, it goes against the consensus of those participating (7 in favor, 4 opposed). I understand that consensus is not determined by counting !votes, but that's a starting point, and you do need a strong argument to go against.

Since that decision rests on an apparent misreading of what WP:PRECISION (which is part of WP:AT) means, I've explained my objection in detail there: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Clarification_of_WP:PRECISION. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence (USA) or something similar would be better than the current, non-intuitive title. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I suppose we can restart the whole thing. I was hoping the previous one would simply be reversed, however. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Is the general pattern for these kinds of articles "Declaration of Independence ([nation])"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If you mean specifically declaration of independence articles, the answer is no: Albanian Declaration of Independence, Argentine Declaration of Independence, Bangladeshi Declaration of Independence, Bosnian Declaration of Independence, etc. The current name (United States Declaration of Independence) is consistent with Wikipedia naming practices for declarations of independence. If we rename this, we should consider renaming them all. And if we rename this but not the others, we should at least explain the inconsistency. —Kevin Myers 05:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
To keep it as an adjective, you'd need to call it "American Declaration of Independence". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That's a misconception addressed in the previous discussion. "United States", like other nouns, is commonly used as an adjective, e.g. United States Congress, United States Army, United States Constitution, etc. —Kevin Myers 05:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I see. So in effect it's already an adjective, and could stay as-is and be consistent with the other articles? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Declaration of Independence (United States) would be an odd name for an article when compared to the others. —Kevin Myers 05:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing odd about naming the article about, say, the Bosnian Declaration of Independence as Bosnian Declaration of Independence if "Bosnian Declaration of Independence" is what that subject is commonly called in English reliable sources.

At the same time there is nothing odd about titling the American Declaration as Declaration of Independence (United States) if it is most commonly called "Declaration of Independence". This is the problem with giving "consistency" too much priority. If all other general naming criteria don't indicate a clear and obvious name, then looking at other similar articles for consistency makes sense. But to give an article a title "to be consistent" when that title does not reflect the actual name of the topic as another title clearly does, well that's the problem.

WP:How2title accounts for all these considerations in a consistent and objective fashion. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me like the most intuitive names for all the articles would be "Declaration of Independence ([nation])" rather than "[nation's] "Declaration of Independence". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that's most intuitive... for all but one: this one (since this one is clearly the primary topic - see next section). So that issue is separate from this one. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
You could have Declaration of Independence redirect to Declaration of Independence (USA) or vice versa. Either way works, and either way is better than what it is now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Having Declaration of Independence redirect to either Declaration of Independence (United States) (as it does now) or to Declaration of Independence (USA) is not favored by any of the general naming criteria, and disfavored by the Concision criterion. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not following all that, but I'm guessing you're saying there needs to be one item that doesn't have a parenthetic item, as the most common name, which supposedly is the USA's. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that too - but that's the point made below - that this use is the primary topic for "Declaration of Independence". If there was no primary topic, then "Declaration of Independence" should be a dab page.

What I'm saying here is that we're supposed to decide titles based on the general naming criteria listed at Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title:

  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
  • Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.)
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistent titling, below.)

Thus, when deciding whether to use Declaration of Independence or Declaration of Independence (USA) as the title for this article, we look at each of the criteria. In terms of Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision and Consistency we have a wash - but the shorter one clearly wins on Conciseness. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Without having checked the history of the situation, I have a hunch that the reason we ended up where we are is to avoid giving favoritism to one nation over another. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Going in circles alert... you already said this below, and several of us noted that this point is irrelevant to determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It's also irrelevant to the criteria used to determine titles I just listed.

I mean, Avoid favoritism could be a naming criteria (if there was basis for it), and it might say something like "Titles are expected to not favor one nation over another". But there is no such criterion, and it's pure WP:JDLI rationalization to make decisions about titles as if it exists. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

JDLI is why this article was titled this way in the first place. An editor didn't like parens used to qualify/disambiguate, so the page was moved to its present, against-policy name. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  00:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Declaration_of_Independence/Archive_6&oldid=1145615365"