Talk:Irish War of Independence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ireland (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Irish Republicanism (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject European history (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

True casualties figure?[edit]

What is the true casualties' figure for the War? This article appears to contradict itself - 2,014 dead in the box under 'Casualties and losses' versus "over 3,400" under the 'Casualties' section in the main article. The figures in the latter do not add up to 3,400. Does anybody have reliable figures and a reliable breakdown of them? 79.97.64.240 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Who paid compensation?[edit]

Reading Noel French's blog on the 'Burning of Trim' on 27 September 1920 by the Black and Tans - "200 of them" according to one cited source - I'm left wondering who paid compensation for all of the damage caused by these attacks? How much compensation in total was paid out? I hope the Irish delegation didn't accept responsibility for paying this as well. 79.97.64.240 (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The cost was waived in return for the government of the Free State accepting partition and the creation of Northern Ireland. (92.11.192.179 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC))
This is a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Please do not interact with anonymous editors from IP 92.x. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Who "waived" it? Did the British pay for all reconstruction before they left on 6 December 1922? Or was the nascent Free State left with a big bill for it, which Irish people had to pay? 79.97.64.240 (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Why would the British have paid for the damage? The Black and Tans - many of whom were Irish themselves - were only in Ireland to assist the RIC until partition came into effect. (92.11.202.70 (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC))
This is a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Please do not interact with anonymous editors from IP 92.x. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Because, obviously, the Black and Tans, like the Royal Irish Constabulary of which they were part, was a paramilitary arm of the British state, which paid its members' wages and for all the military paraphernalia which it used to implement its campaigns on the Irish civilian and commercial population. Ergo, when they destroyed towns like Trim, Balbriggan etc it would seem logical that the British state should have a duty to compensate the innocent civilians and companies in question. Does anybody know what the Anglo-Irish Treaty has to say on this issue? 79.97.64.240 (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
If compensation was verifiably paid by somebody, and you can cite reliable sources, please do so. Otherwise, please, both of you desist from pseudo-academical speculation on the article talk page. Scolaire (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
In fairness, asking a question about who paid compensation raises an issue which is not addressed in this article to date. Essentially requesting that somebody "shut up" for asking a mere question - who paid for war damage - which all comprehensive discussions of war deal with does nothing to aid the improvement of this article. 79.97.64.240 (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I offended you. I'm not asking you to "shut up" for asking the question. You asked the question, and nobody was able to provide reliable information. That's too bad. But the talk page is not a forum to discuss what you think might have or ought to have happened. Scolaire (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, the payment of compensation was governed by two pieces of legislation--the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Acts of 1919 and 1920. These were intended to deter agrarian and political crime and compensate its victims (especially police officers) by forcing local-government councils to pay for any resulting damages and injuries--in effect, by imposing a collective fine on the affected districts. From what I can tell, the Acts themselves remained in force in the Irish Free State until they were repealed by the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act of 1923. I would assume that the Free State government assumed the obligation of compensating its own civilians for their lost or damaged property, since, in their own way, they had made sacrifices in the struggle for independence. The Treaty only mentions that the Free State agreed to pay compensation to Irish (but not British) police and other public servants who retired or were discharged as a result of the change of government.--Cliodule (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Why police auxiliaries[edit]

British government[edit]

Not a war[edit]

The Conservatives wanted southern Ireland to leave the UK[edit]

Target of HarveyCarter socks[edit]

Banned user HarveyCarter continues to be interested in this topic. Please be very alert for disruptive comments and edits made by brand new accounts, or IPs generally from the 92.11.xx range. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

British commanders[edit]

Sparring with the HarveyCarter socks (see above) has made me aware that of the three British commanders in the infobox, only Neville Macready's name appears in the article, and that is only once, in the "Post-war" section! Since they were one-half of the war, that is a rather serious lack. I know I should do the reading up and write the content myself, but I don't think I will have the time. I'm just throwing it out here in case somebody else feels like writing something about them. Scolaire (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

French and Wilson certainly need to be mentioned in the article somewhere, not least because their role is discussed in their articles and the reader needs to be referred to that information (both almost entirely written by me as they stand at the moment - I have also contributed to Macready and Tudor). I've no interest in edit-warring about who should and should not be included in the infobox. Sadly I haven't had much time for serious wiki-writing in recent months, and I'm not hugely comfortable editing "Irish" articles (apart from the Curragh Incident) as I feel I'm treading on other people's toes/national creation myths and may end up causing inadvertent offence.Paulturtle (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Churchill[edit]

Commanders and leaders[edit]

I think it would make sense to include Lord FitzAlan of Derwent and Ian Macpherson on the British side. FitzAlan was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland during the war after Lord French and Macpherson was Chief Secretary for Ireland during the war before Hamar Greenwood. 64.132.0.200 (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Neither one of those men played a significant role in the war. Fitzalan was only Lord Lieutenant for a brief period during the war and the Lord Lieutenant was merely a figurehead position. The only reason why French is included is because he was a "Military Viceroy at the Head of a Quasi-Military Government" and exercised more executive power than the average Lord Lieutenant. The articles on French and Greenwood each explain the roles they played in the war while the ones on Fitzalan and Macpherson don't even mention their roles in the war (if they even had any). I think it's best to keep the infobox as clutter free as possible and only include people who played a significant role in the war. 130.156.152.188 (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay... POV or not?[edit]

To my opinion two edits of User:Pol098 are not neutral, so I reverted them. This was followed by an edit that gives me an ever greater concern. More eyes needed. The Banner talk 15:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Unclear to reader who doesn't know history; and term not sourced[edit]

The article as it stands has some deficiencies for those unfamiliar with the history of the period. a guerrilla war fought from 1919 to 1921 between the Irish Republican Army (the army of the Irish Republic) and the British security forces in Ireland gives the uninformed reader the impression of a war between two states. It is necessary to set the stage at the beginning of the article; I tried the wording ... (the army of the Irish Republic unilaterally declared in 1919, and not recognised by Britain, who ruled the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) and the British security forces in Ireland. but this was objected to (while, like the original text, it does not cite a source, it simply states the factual situation, I think, essentially following Irish Republic. Perhaps better wording could be chosen, but the basic facts need to be conveyed).

I don't know what is considered POV. "(the army of the Irish Republic unilaterally declared in 1919, and not recognised by Britain, who ruled the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland)" seems objectively true, a simple statement of fact. Ireland did declare independence, it was not accepted by Britain, they did rule the UK. I don't want either to misrepresent the facts or to use weasel wording. I'm not even sure what my POV is seen to be.

Also, the term "war of independence" is not sourced. It is, I think, highly relevant that the British Cabinet papers use this term, not just Irish sources, and I had added it as a source.

The article states that the Irish term is Cogadh na Saoirse. While this is correct, it is "sourced" by a ink to a translation into Gaelic of "War of Independence" - which doesn't come out as Cogadh na Saoirse!

The text as I edited it, which was reverted, can be seen in the differences.

While I have no great attachment to my own text, these issues in the all-important introduction need addressing. Pol098 (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC) PS This text was drafted before seeing the previous comment. I absolutely agree, more opinions please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pol098 (talkcontribs) 16:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not "unclear to a reader who doesn't know history". The Irish War of Independence, like the American War of Independence or any other war of independence, was fought between a nation that was ruled by foreigners, against the foreigners who ruled it, who naturally thought that they had a right to rule it, that it was an integral part etc. etc., and who naturally did not "recognise" it. Putting in stuff about "it was part of the UK" and such-like, especially expanding it to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" (on the pretext that that was its official title) is adding POV, not making it clearer. There is no need for a citation for any of this. It is self-evident from the title. But for your own comfort, here is a number of reputable sources, showing that "War of Independence" is indeed the term used for it. I have added a citation for "Cogadh na Saoirse". Incidentally, The "article as it stands" does not contain any of the deficiencies you mention. Who fought whom, and how, and for what reason, and in what circumstances, is all told in the second paragraph of the lead. It is neither necessary nor desirable to condense the whole lot into the first sentence. Scolaire (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Assuming that I don't know much about Irish history shows, to my opinion, not very nice. But even in Holland the war from 1919 to 1921 was known as "Ierse onafhankelijkheidsoorlog", what according to Google translate to "Irish War of Independence". The Banner talk 01:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
(I try to word comments as a general discussion among all editors, not a dialogue between two people, please don't misunderstand the way I express things.) First to the final point of Banner's contribution: "Assuming that I don't know much about Irish history shows, to my opinion, not very nice": I didn't and don't assume any such thing; in fact I wouldn't be surprised if Banner knew more than me. My entire point is what the article says to others, who may be from, say, Japan, without the slightest knowledge of the topic. I'm not sure if Banner disagrees with what I actually said (I really can't see that this expresses a POV); but we do disagree on the need to say it. My POV in any contentious matter on Wikipedia is that there are two (or more) points of view, and articles as far as is reasonable should reflect them both/all, and not favour one. A useful way to judge how an article seems to be others is to change details that one knows and may have an opinion of; if you change "Ireland 1919" to "Argentina 1852" and "Republican Army" by "Big Army", what can you infer? Was this unilateral? Was one side oppressive?
To some extent I must agree to disagree with Banner, and hope that others will participate in this discussion. I definitely think that the first paragraph (which is all some people will red, to get a quick general idea), should explain a little about the conflict; hence my suggested sentence, which I still recommend should be used, possibly tweaked a bit; ... (the army of the Irish Republic unilaterally declared in 1919, and not recognised by Britain, who ruled the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) and the British security forces in Ireland. Banner says

It is not "unclear to a reader who doesn't know history". The Irish War of Independence, like the American War of Independence or any other war of independence, was fought between a nation that was ruled by foreigners, against the foreigners who ruled it, who naturally thought that they had a right to rule it, that it was an integral part etc. etc., and who naturally did not "recognise" it.

I think the above idea is a definite POV. I don't take the opposite POV, but the factual situation is that at the time Britain ruled Ireland and considered it had the right to, and viewed these events as an insurrection against legitimate rule (I'm not saying this attitude is "true"). Besides being more neutral to acknowledge both sides, knowing this makes it easier to understand events.
"But for your own comfort, here is a number of reputable sources, showing that "War of Independence" is indeed the term used for it." This totally misunderstands my point. I am not trying to argue against use of the term, and in fact I found a reference in the British National Archives to it, and added it to the article. Of course the Irish called it a war of independence; it's noteworthy that the term was later used in Britain, at least to some extent. The second paragraph doesn't, despite what Banner says, doesn't make everything clear; e.g. "they formed a breakaway government (Dáil Éireann) and declared independence from Great Britain". Why? It's not said that GB considered Ireland part of the UK. Again, think in terms of Argentina 1852: why did Urquiza fight the Confederation?
Anyway, I'm getting bogged down in details. My first comment here, which I stand by, states what I see as the essential points: the first paragraph of the article should give a reader who know nothing about the subject a general idea (think of someone in Japan or India), and the use of the term "war of independence" and whether it is generally accepted, in particular in Britain, needs to be sourced. Pol098 (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You are wrong in your citation. That was not me, but our colleague Scolaire.
Secondly, what I stated that "War of Independence" is also the usual term used in The Netherlands, a country that clearly was not a party in the fighting then. The Banner talk 11:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the comments of Scolaire and The Banner; and the article as it currently stands has no major problems. Snappy (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not see how what I said can be characterised as a POV. It's a statement of the obvious. If the ruling power in any situation in any part of the world acknowledged that it was not a native government, that it did not have the right to rule, that the nation in question was a separate entity and that it had a right to independence, would there be a war of independence? If the people of any nation acknowledged that they were an integral part of a larger nation, that its rulers were the logical and the proper rulers, and that there was no case for independence, would there be a war of independence? What examples are there in history of a war of independence under either of those circumstances? None that I can think of. Therefore, a war of independence will always be between on the one hand the army of a "subordinate" people – who will declare themselves independent, and the current rulers unlawful – and on the other hand the forces of those rulers, who will declare themselves the legitimate rulers, and the opposing party as "rebels". In the case of this particular war of independence, the Irish revolutionaries declared themselves independent of Great Britain, and their army, the IRA, fought against the British security forces. This is all clearly explained in the opening paragraphs, and there is no reason for the reader from Japan to misunderstand.
I'm also still baffled by the insistence on using (and linking) the full title "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". For me at least, "Because that is what it was" is not enough. Do other articles begin with, for instance, "Troon is a town in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? They don't. And yet it would be accurate to say so. It's unnecessary in other articles, and it's unnecessary in articles relating to the Irish revolution. Scolaire (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For anybody else who comes to this discussion, the text I suggest for the first paragraph is something like the following (slightly modified from my original wording). It is intended to give someone who reads only the beginning of the article an idea of the issues. I use the British National Archives as a source for the name to illustrate that ultimately (not initially) both sides used the term.

The Irish War of Independence[1] (Irish: Cogadh na Saoirse[2]) or Anglo-Irish War was a guerrilla war fought from 1919 to 1921 between the Irish Republican Army (the army of the Irish Republic unilaterally declared in 1919, and not recognised by Britain, which considered Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) and the British security forces in Ireland. It was an escalation of the Irish revolutionary period into warfare.

Pol098 (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Outcomes of War[edit]

I tried to put a section about the outcomes of war up on this page that were thoroughly researched, however, it was deleted. I do not really understand what happened, but I would be more than willing to share my sources that were used to write my section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katmharr (talkcontribs) 02:45, 23 April 2015

The reasons for deletion were given by Hohenloh in his edit summary: "these section are written like an essay, unencyclopaedic and speculative." There is too much personal commentary in it, e.g. "Another outcome of this war was that it sent a message. It sent a message that the Irish were willing to do whatever it took to get Britain and whoever else wanted to try and control them out of their land." There are also some factual inaccuracies, e.g. "It set Ireland half of Ireland free from British rule" – it was five sixths of Ireland, and the difference is significant.
Please don't be discouraged. Your contribution is valued, even if it was reverted wholesale. Perhaps you ought to start with smaller edits that have less of an impact on the article. By all means share your sources with us, and perhaps an "Outcome" section can eventually be created, with a more encyclopaedic approach. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought long and hard about reverting this edit, but there were IMHO simply too many issues with it. As Scolaire has mentioned, the tone was closer to "personal commentary" than the objective neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) that an encyclopedia article requires. There were a number of factual inaccuracies and grammatical errors which would require correction - feel free to contact me for further details. And please don't be put off editing - your input is valued here.Hohenloh + 18:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)