Talk:National Army (Ireland)

Untitled

This is Irish National Army (1922-1924) and not part of the Irish Defence Forces, Irish Republican Army and has no links with the Irish National Liberation Army.MFIreland (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

It is important that this article is and remains NPOV. Some of the initial material was very biased towards the Anti-Treaty point of view: it needs to be balanced. It also should not aim to rewrite material that is already covered better in specific articles about the Civil War. --Red King (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are some editors trying to create an alternative version of the Civil War here, and a very POV one at that. "Ireland less the six counties" is blatant provo POV. --Red King (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Ireland less the six counties" is from the taken from the Irish Defence Forces website. See: Southern Ireland section below. MFIreland (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Commencement

When exactly did recruitment to the 'Irish National Army' commence and from what fund were wages paid? RashersTierney (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

From Irish Defence Forces website "In February 1922, the Department of Defence under the new Provisional Government began to recruit volunteers into the National Army" MFIreland (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

So it had a membership before recruitment into it began? RashersTierney (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Its first troops where pro-treaty IRA volunteers. (I have updated article to state this).MFIreland (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Southern Ireland

The statement in the lead, the Irish Free State [which] replaced Southern Ireland. is highly questionable, particularly since the sources given are primary documents widely open to interpretation. This is a very novel interpretation of Irish constitutional law and the succession of authority in Ireland at this time. The Provisional Government claimed no authority deriving from the Government of Ireland Act nor did the Irish Free State. How did this 'state' of Southern Ireland exist without a government, as this source indicates. The English Question. I would incline to be guided by Bob Hazell, Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London on this issue, rather than wikipedia editors of untried capacities in constitutional law. The statement, which adds nothing to the article, should be removed or backed up by reliable secondary sources. RashersTierney (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If the Irish Free State did not replaced Southern Ireland what did it replace? If the Provisional Government was not the government of Southern Ireland what was it administering.MFIreland (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Dublin Castle no longer governed. What was replaced was either direct rule by Westminster or the 'Second Dáil', as a sovereign government, depending on your take as to which constituted the legitimate government.[1] The proto-IFS styled themselves Rialtas Sealadach na hÉireann or Provisional Government of Ireland,[2] and never accepted the term provisional Government of Southern Ireland. RashersTierney (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What did the Provisional Government use for the name of the state (26 counties) between 16 January 1922 and 6 December 1922? MFIreland (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

From Documents on Irish Foreign Policy, they generally used the ambiguous term 'Ireland', for example GG Duffy to M Collins 31 March 22 re 'application to be made for Ireland's admission to the Universal Postal Union'. When Denis McCullough travelled to the US in March '22 on behalf of the Provisional Government as 'Special Commissioner', he was given, as part of his credentials and passport, an Emigration Permit issued in the name of the Irish Republic. The name Southern Ireland as the name of a state, appears in no document issued by them that I have ever seen. RashersTierney ([User talk:RashersTierney|talk]) 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced Southern Ireland with "Ireland less the six counties" untill something better can be found. Its quoted from the Irish Defence Forces website (see: Provisional Government section)[3] MFIreland (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? it was named Southern Ireland from May 1921 to December 1922. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The devolved parliament and government of Southern Ireland as envisaged in the 1920 act never became functional. Introduced at the height of the War of Independence, it may have been a name used by some (and totally rejected by others), but it was no state in any meaningful sense of the word. It was a concept stillborn. 'No legislation without representation'. RashersTierney (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

During the War of Independence, this is arguable (though its courts certainly operated) but between the Treaty and the coming into operation of the Free State, it certainly did exist - see Provisional Government of Southern Ireland as a for instance. The IDF citation is not encyclopedic in this context. The term "six counties" is not meaningful outside Ireland anyway [Wikipedia is international] and its recognised name is Northern Ireland. There are thousands of citations for this, we can't just pick one that supports a particular POV and is meaningless internationally.

Re-name or even delete?

There is a massive conceptual problem with the basis of this article.

There was no such body as the "Irish National Army" as distinct from the Irish Army as currently constituted. It was certainly not demobilised and replaced in 1924. It's size was cut yes and it was re-structured, but it was not disbanded and replaced by a new force. What the act quoted here shows is that the existing force was put on firm legislative footing which is not the same thing thing at all.

The term "National Army" was the term the government used and instructed the press to use regarding its armed forces during and after the civil war. It was not a legal term and was not a distinct organisation from the later army. The use of the term Oglaigh na hEireann, and in fact the "Official IRA" was made for the Provisional Government's troops in the early days of the civil war - so this is not a new name either.

So either this article should be re-named "History of the Irish Army 1922-1924" or it should be deleted altogether.

As far as I can see the text itself is cut and pasted from other articles on the civil war or the Irish Army here on wikipedia. The whole 'history' section appears to be cut and pasted in this way. So what does this article add that is new? Jdorney (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(Re the copy/paste - I did that to replace a load of tendentious and unhistorical waffle. After I found out about attribution [see user talk:Red King#Help wanted], I came back to apply it. But the waffle was back again so I didn't bother). --Red King (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Couple of quotes from the act to demonstrate the above point.

235. —The armed forces of the State as at present constituted and existing (hereinafter referred to as the National Forces) shall be deemed to be the armed forces to be raised under Article 46 of the Constitution and the maintenance thereof is hereby declared to be legal.

237. —The organisation of the National Forces shall be as at present existing. The Minister may however make such changes therein as he may deem necessary.

238. —All orders and regulations now in force in the National Forces shall continue to be in full force and effect.

239. —All soldiers now serving in the National Forces by virtue of any agreement or attestation shall be liable to continue to serve in accordance with the terms of such agreement or attestation.

It is quite clearly the same force, now established with proper legality and not a new Army. Jdorney (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"History of the Irish Army 1922-1924" as the article title is fine by me, for many of the reasons set out above. The current title gives the impression of some entirely separate force from what came before and what followed. RashersTierney (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "National Army" was certainly used and needs an explanatory article. The section of uniforms and materiél is of historic interest - it could be retrofitted to the Irish Army article but I don't see that it would fit well there. That article has a brief section on the history of the Army 1921 – 24 and that seems to me to be about right. The big problem with this is that a one or two editors seem intent on using it to write an alternative (historically inaccurate) fork of Irish Civil War. If this is removed, we have an article that can and should stand.--Red King (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this article then to concern itself with explaining the name 'National Army'. If that is the case it will be short indeed. RashersTierney (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is already an article using the name National Army so "Irish" had to be added to the name.MFIreland (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Achieving consensus

We can't go on edit warring. So let's start with some generic Wikipedia principles:

1. The lede needs to introduce the topic for international readers then briefly summarise its most important elements.
2. Per WP:cfork, the article should not seek to write an alternative version of another article (and a well researched one at that). Ideally it should have a brief summary of the material in the main article, such as is contained of its lede.
3. Articles should be verifiable.
4. Avoid weasel words
5. We should avoid loaded terms.
6. Be transparent

--Red King (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So, IMO,

(a) the lede must begin with a sentence on what the National Army was for international readers, and only then go into the Beggars Bush Barracks handover.

(b) we must not write a fork of the Irish Civil War article (and a very partial one at that). It would be great to have a short summary, but even the main Civil War article fails to do that. So a textual redirect is the least worst solutiuon.

(c) The material needs more citations, The citations that we include should reflect the wide general consensus on naming (like 'six counties' isn't).

(d) Avoid tems like 'it was labelled'. Say who labelled it that, If we don't know, it doesn't go in.

(e) Terms like 'six counties' are loaded and should be avoided.

(f) Avoid constructions like [[black|white]]

--Red King (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:MFIreland has declined to engage in any process leading to compromise. Nevertheless, I recognise that he/she wants more text about the Civil War than a one line rubric saying see the Civil War article, and I can accept that there is merit in that view. But we still can't contravene Wikipedia policy on alternative articles about the same thing - and particularly because other editors have spent a lot of time and effort to hammer out an agreed text at the Civil War article. So the most equitable solution was to copy the lede to that article here (with attribution), which I have done. --Red King (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have retrospecively amended the text above, to cite WP:content fork (which is what I intended, rather than WP:fork whic deals with external forks. --Red King (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A Complete Article On The National Army.

This article was designed to be a complete detailed article of the National Army with a short intro and sections on its histroy, organisation, uniforms, rank markings, vehicles, aircraft and weapons etc. None of this info is available in any other single wiki article. Its very hard to find info on these subjects on the web. The histroy section is an important part of this article and should not have been deleted. MFIreland (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should have this article, for the info on organisation, uniforms, rank markings, vehicles, aircraft and weapons etc., and have already said so above. BUT, per WP:cfork, we can't have an alternative history of the civil war, it is a simple as that. Please engage with the discussion I opened above on finding a compromise. Finally, although you did a lot of work on this article and we all respect that, it is not your article: it is now in the public domain and anybondy can edit it. --Red King (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If the material on the organisation, uniforms, rank markings, vehicles, aircraft and weapons etc. are to be recognised as authoritive, they must be cited. Please give the source of this information – you can follow the templates at wp:citing sources. --Red King (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923

It is not ever so easy to find using google. It is at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1923/en/act/pub/0030/index.html
On the specific question of whether the Defence Forces are the same as the National Army, that it is just a rename, this is the relevant paragraph and seems to me to support the contention:

235.—The armed forces of the State as at present constituted and existing (hereinafter referred to as the National Forces) shall be deemed to be the armed forces to be raised under Article 46 of the Constitution and the maintenance thereof is hereby declared to be legal.

--Red King (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Article 234 clearly says —"Until the Forces have been established under Section twenty-two of this Act, the provisions hereinafter mentioned shall have effect".

The Act was passed on 3rd August 1923. The Forces where established on the 1st October 1924. The "provisions hereinafter mentioned" is all of PART IV of the act (thats articles 234-246).

Part IV of the act was to make the National Army the legal military force of the state from the passing of the Act on the 3rd August 1923 untill the 1st October 1924. MFIreland (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, and where is the evidence to show that it was a new force?? Jdorney (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Name of the force...'then and now'

There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding the 'official' name of the Irish Army. These two reliable sources give it as Óglaigh na hÉireann, since its foundation;

• LIEUT COL DUGGAN traces the origins of the Irish Army to the foundation of the Irish Volunteers, 'Oglaigh na hEireann', in 1913. He is at pains to make the point that 'Oglaigh na hEireann' is still the official name ofthe army
• ...Irish version of the name, was suggested by Piaras Beaslai, and has remained ever since the official name of the Irish army...

The force was known by many names, particularly during the Civil War. One (of several) terms promoted by the pro-treaty side was 'National Army'. This was not a term adopted or accepted by the anti-treaty side, and to dismiss the propaganda element of the terminology seems to me to be both ahistorical and a blatant attempt at reification of a disputed term. In fact, even 'officially', the term 'National Army' was far more usual than 'Irish National Army', a term favoured for some ill-defined reason, in this article. RashersTierney (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There is already an article named National Army so it could not be used. Other military forces use the name National Army, eg: Afghan National Army. Another name that could be used is National Army (Ireland) as its not in use.--MFIreland • ^Talk 18:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

...or why not just merge with Irish army. If the continuity of the force is accepted (from 1913, according to sources), then we are simply talking about terminology rather than a 'new' army, as has been discussed. RashersTierney (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the National Army from 1922 until it was demobilised in 1924. The National army had a completely different establishment, organisation, ranks, uniforms etc than the army that was established in 1924. The only thing they share is their cap badge and uniform buttons, which came from the Irish Volunteers.--MFIreland • ^Talk 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable secondary sources for that assertion of establishment in 1922 and disestablishment in 1924? (forget the trivia re. buttons etc. and significant demobilisation of members after crisis had passed) RashersTierney (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the term Defence Forces of the Irish Free State and provision for such a force was made in the final text of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, obviously predating the civil war by some time. RashersTierney (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)