Talk:Irish War of Independence

Misquote removed

Superfopp's edit is unacceptable. After being shown that this is an unreliable source despite his assertion to the contrary, information from that page was then used and claimed to cite the original sources. This was however not the case, as the quote from "Raids and Rallies" had been altered in terms of punctuation, and the quote from Daniel Colahan is a misquote. You clearly have not seen the original source for this (Coogan), which I have in front of me right now and Seamus Fox has got it very wrong. Citing original sources without seeing them is a complete breach of Wikipedia:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 27#Personal web sites as a source made it clear that source was unreliable, and also that the sources he used should be checked, when this has not been done. O Fenian (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"of course I've seen the source" falsely claims Superfopp. If that is the case, why is the wording of Daniel Colahan's decree a direct copy and paste from this unreliable source? If you have seen the original source, what does it say? Why have you changed the punctuation on the O'Malley cite? O Fenian (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Finnegan's quote was verbal and not written, I assumed it would be fine to correct some punctuation. But I'm not bothered. As for Colahan's decree, the original wording, as taken from page 201 of Michael Collins says

...anyone, be he a subject of this diocese or an extern, who, within the diocese of Cork, shall organise or take part in ambushes or kidnappings, or shall otherwise be guilty of murder or attempted murder, shall incur by the very fact the censure of excommunication.

~Asarlaí 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have removed Churchill from the list of British commanders; as far as I know, he held no military commands in this period (did he even set foot in Ireland during the war?). I assume this was added by a vandal. This article seems to attract a lot of vandalism for some reason. Drutt (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

He was not a commander, but Secretary of State for War.86.46.193.83 (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Who will object if, in a week, I listed Macready (army) and Tudor (RIC), and remove Lloyd-G and Churchill? The last 2 were political "commanders" only, and in many ways it was a political war, but if the article is to be mainly about the military war then they don't belong.Red Hurley (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Done.Red Hurley (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Year of the Disappearances

While this is an interesting and significant new book, it does not warrant it's own paragraph in an article of this type, as has recently been added.

The import of the para should be added to the relevant part of the article -and perhaps we need a whole para on the issue of IRA shooting of spies and informers.

Jdorney (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Should it really be called a war?

Since Britain did not acknowledge the terrorist campaign as a war the title of this article is misleading. (92.8.146.102 (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

You'll need to back-up that claim with reliable sources. ~Asarlaí 16:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The BBC says the conflict wasn't seen as a war because government around the world refused to accept the Irish government as legitimate. The IRA were viewed as terrorists rather than soldiers because they wore no uniforms and launched indiscriminate attacks on soldiers, policemen and civilians. (92.8.146.102 (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

I'm not seeing any reliable sources. ~Asarlaí 16:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing a fair bit of pov though. Really what's the point of debates like this? Btw Happy New Year everyone! Jdorney (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well we don't regard Al Queda as soldiers so why should we regard the IRA as an army when they didn't wear uniforms? The British government did not regard the conflict as a war, simply a terrorist campaign. (92.4.17.55 (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

What part of Non Point of View is giving you trouble here? Jdorney (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not my point of view. The article should mention the fact that the British never recognised the conflict as a war, and they did not recognise the IRA as an army. (92.4.17.55 (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

Sources?Jdorney (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is actually mentioned in the article. The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army (1994) doesn't even mention the so-called Irish "War". The article for the Battle of Lexington mentions that it wasn't really a battle at all, just a minor skirmish. Of course it is different in the case of the American Revolutionary War, because Britain accepted it was at war and the colonists wore uniforms which proved they were soldiers, unlike the IRA. (92.4.17.55 (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

I suggest that you read Asymmetric warfare and Unconventional warfare. --Red King (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If we are to call the conflict of 1919-1922 a war then we would have to call the IRA's terrorist activities in the 1970s and 1980s a war as well. The Irish Civil War was clearly different since the pro-Treaty IRA were wearing uniforms. (92.4.17.55 (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

The 'official voice' of one side questioning the legitimacy of the other side can't overcome the reliable, third party source' arguments per WP:SELFPUBLISH. One of this sources, the 1983 Pluto Press book, The War Atlas: Armed Conflict, Armed Peace, by Michael Kidron and Dan Smith (ISBN 0435354965), classify as war any conflict in which at least one uniformed, regular force is involved. Therefore, not only the Irish War of Independence, but The Troubles or the current conflict in Afghanistan should be called wars.--Darius (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

People no disrespect to anyone but this tiresome kind of pov 'debate' is really not worth having. The anonymous user has laid out his/her pov -he/she wants to state his point that IRA of the 70s and 80s were terrorists by analogy with the orginal IRA who were also, to his/her mind terrorists. Fine for a message board. For wikipedia? Waste of time. If the said user can provide sources showing that relevant and credible sources dispute that this was a 'war', then we can a a line in the intro to this effect. Otherwise this is quite clearly a 'coat rack' type deal that only attracts pov pushers of whatever set of opinions - almost always to the detriment of the quality of the article in question. Jdorney (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army does not acknowledge the terrorist campaign of 1919-1922 as a war, and neither does the British government. (92.11.253.184 (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

This page is Not A Forum. The term is sufficiently referenced to WP:Reliable Sources. RashersTierney (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to describe the conflict as a rebellion by terrorist factions. Britain only acknowledged the American Revolutionary War as an actual war when the French, Spanish and Dutch declared war on Britain. (92.11.253.184 (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

Wikipedia relies on third-party sources, not on the British official history. Keep an eye on WP:FORUM, or your comments will be deleted.--Darius (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it should be classified as a war as the sources in the British National Archive show: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/irish-independence.htm#Truce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.101.251 (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It was more like a real war than the Anglo-Irish Trade War or the Land war. But how many winners of wars pay compensation afterwards? Was this not supremely generous and practical?86.42.207.45 (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It should definitely be called a war, for five reasons.

1. This conflict is now almost universally referred to as a war. Every book on the subject that I have read calls it the Irish War of Independence, or the Anglo-Irish War, or something similar. The article should follow this convention.

2. A common rule of thumb used by historians and social scientists is that any armed conflict resulting in more than a thousand deaths per year can be classified as a war. The Irish War of Independence met this requirement between 1920 and 1921. (Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge, the Troubles in Northern Ireland never did meet this requirement.)

3. By the end of the conflict, the British Government was, in fact, acknowledging that a state of war existed in Ireland. This acknowledgement was made by the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Birkenhead, in a speech to the House of Lords on 21 June 1921, as the government was simultaneously offering an olive branch, in the form of the King's speech to the Northern Irish parliament, while nerving itself to escalate the conflict if their olive branch was rejected.

4. As Sir John Harrington said: "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." The same could be said for rebellion. Ultimately, the difference between a 'rebellion' and a 'war of independence' rests on the outcome. If the rebels win, they cease to be rebels, and their rebellion becomes a war of independence. While anti-treaty Irish republicans might argue this point, this conflict did end (as the article says) with the secession of most of Ireland from the United Kingdom. As a result, what might have gone down in history as just another Irish rebellion has instead gone down in history as a war of independence. (And once again, the same could not be said about the Troubles: Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom to this day)

5. If we accept the argument that the Irish War of Independence was not a war, simply because the British government said it wasn't, then it seems to me that consistency demands that we reclassify and rename every similar conflict as a mere rebellion--beginning with the American Revolutionary War/American War of Independence. Good luck with that. --Cliodule (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Cliodule. This is a non debate, to not refer to it as a war would be to go against all existing historical literature on the subject and would make this article more political by doing so. I am currently writing a Thesis on this subject and can confirm that the literature does always refer to it as a war.Nome3000 (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, if this is a non-debate why did you both rush into print ten months after the IP gave up and went home? Scolaire (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that you're asking that question just out of curiosity. In any case--I never said that this was a non-debate, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't try to associate me with someone else's position. As for why I "rushed into print"--I was browsing the discussion page, noticed this topic for the first time, and thought I could add something, in case it ever came up again. If this is such a dead issue, and there's no need to talk about it any further, then what are YOU doing here?--Cliodule (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist, and I saw this section had been edited after being dormant for ten months, and I was curious - no more than that - as to why there was a flurry of activity. No offence intended, and your post is well-argued and useful if it ever comes up again. Scolaire (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Giffith

Arthur griffith needs to be mentioned as one of the ledars of the War of independance. I will do it myself if this is not regonised —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.172.176 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If have seen your addition of Arthur Griffith as military leader, and removed it. Even in his own article there is no mention about military activities. If you want to add it again, please make sure you add reliable sources. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC).Template:UnsignedIP -->

Griffith founded Sinn féin in 1905. he later became vice-preisdent and minister for home affairs of the rebel parliament. In the juonior certificat book the past today, it quotes the following. "The two most important leaders of the free state goverment died within a short space of each other. Griffith died on 12 August 1922 of a brain haemorrhage. Collins was killed ten days later in an ambush at Béal na mBláth, Co.Cork." If grifith was an "important leader" he had to have had an active part in the War of Independance and the Irish Civil War. Griffith was one of the delagets of the Anglo-Irish treaty thus he must of been important. Also in the wikipedia article it states Commanders and leaders not MILITARY Commanders and leaders. If you User:Night of the Big Wind belevie that he should not be added you might as well remove De Valera as he was in America for most of the war and was only a MIlitary leader in the Easter Rising Not In the war of Independece. Obviously you should not remove De Valera but Giriffth had an equal part to play in the war of independance.

Griffith founded Sinn féin in 1905. he later became vice-preisdent and minister for home affairs of the rebel parliament. In the juonior certificat book the past today, it quotes the following. "The two most important leaders of the free state goverment died within a short space of each other. Griffith died on 12 August 1922 of a brain haemorrhage. Collins was killed ten days later in an ambush at Béal na mBláth, Co.Cork." If grifith was an "important leader" he had to have had an active part in the War of Independance and the Irish Civil War. Griffith was one of the delagets of the Anglo-Irish treaty thus he must of been important. Also in the wikipedia article it states Commanders and leaders not MILITARY Commanders and leaders. If you User:Night of the Big Wind belevie that he should not be added you might as well remove De Valera as he was in America for most of the war and was only a MIlitary leader in the Easter Rising Not In the war of Independece. Obviously you should not remove De Valera but Giriffth had an equal part to play in the war of independance.

Please, relax! I have modified the infobox a tiny bit so that the military commanders and political leaders are seperated now. We don't need another civil war about that

On the other hand I doubt if De Valera was still influential during the War. In my opinion he let others do the dirty jobs, like fighting wars and signing treaties.

Night of the Big Wind (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

hi oh thoughtyou ought to know griffith is still not there...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.37.172 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Griffith preferred strikes and non-violent protest to war. He was therefore the most motivated to sign the Treaty, and was the first to do so.Red Hurley (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Description of Northern Ireland in lead paragraph

I don't want to start a food fight, and I'm certainly no expert on the Anglo-Irish Treaty, but my reading of the article on it suggests that this description is not quite correct: "This treaty ended British rule in most of Ireland and, after a ten-month transitional period overseen by a provisional government, the Irish Free State was established. However, six northern counties remained within the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland, with its own devolved parliament."

I think something like this would be more accurate: "This treaty ended British rule Ireland, although it left Northern Ireland the option to rejoin the United Kingdom, and, after a ten-month transitional period overseen by a provisional government, the Irish Free State was established. The six northern counties immediately chose to rejoin the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland, one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland."

Anyone object to my changing the wording?Rks13 (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Treaty - or rather its implementation - was complicated on the issue of the six counties. They were given one month after the ratification of the Treaty to opt out, but there was much coming and going on the question of when that month began in practice. In the end, it began and ended sometime in the middle of the year 1922, but I can't remember exactly when or what the rationale was. At any rate, it's too complex to sum up in half a sentence in the lead of an article on the war. The only thing I can say for sure is that "the Irish Free State was established; the six northern counties immediately chose to rejoin the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland" is definitely incorrect. Scolaire (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

But if you only have half a sentence, it's actually quite a good summary and accurate too. See the articles on the Treaty, the associated Acts that gave it legal status in the UK, the History of NI, and the Partition of Ireland.

The formal legal sequence was this: (a) all of Ireland left the UK to become the Irish Free State; (b) the Goverment of the Free State was not to exercise its jurisdiction over NI for one month [see so-called "Ulster Month"]; (c) the parliament of NI was given that month to decide whether or not it wished to remain part of the Free State, or whether it would exercise the option given in the Acts to secede from the FS and rejoin the UK; (d) the parliament of of NI took just one session to decide to exercise that right and wrote to the King to say so; (e) the King said 'make it so' (or words to that effect) and NI duly seceded from the IFS and rejoined the UK.

But yes, the reference to a ten-month period is confusing in this context as it refers to the time between the signing of the Treaty (to allow for its ratification in the Dáil and the UK Parliament and to allow for the enabling Acts of the UK P to be drafted, enacted and come into force. So I'd definitely leave out the reference to '10 months' in this context as it just muddies the waters. --Red King (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, the constitutional ins and outs are indeed interesting but there is a danger of confusing the reader and also of giving too much weight to semantics. I mean, in theory NI was included in the Treaty etc, in reality, it had been up and running as a devolved administration since mid 1921 - ie before the Treaty was ever engotiated, let alone signed. And there was no real prospect of changing this in the Treaty negotiations. So I think there's something to be said for the orginal wording. Jdorney (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the existing wording: it sounds perfectly accurate. The suggested alternative that "This Treaty ended British rule [in] Ireland" sounds politically motivated and is decidedly incorrect, as at least 700,000 people under British rule in Ireland today could confirm. 109.76.251.112 (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Incorrect use"

Hi. I have made an edit to this article to correct what I consider to be a statement made from a certain point of view. It is my understanding that there is a policy here whereby articles should be non-POV.

Twice now, two different editors (once each) have reverted my edits with the rather ambiguous statement in the edit summary, "incorrect use of authorities".

Is it possible to explain how use of the word "authorities" is "incorrect?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.93.185.123 (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Since when was there a "co-ordinated armed campaign against British authorities"? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Since when was there a "co-ordinated armed campaign against the British presence", given that all the Irish people were, at that time, British, and that a substantial proportion were happy enough about that? The Sinn Fein Dail described a war against "England" apparently, and the previous paragraphs in the article specify war and action against, variously, "the British administration", "British rule" or "the British government".

The phrase, as it stands, does two things - and neither are particularly non-POV. 1) It suggests that the Sinn Feiners or the Irish Volunteers were bent on ethnic cleansing. Were they? If so, that would need to be proven. 2) It also suggests that "Ireland" (ie the people thereof) didn't want a "British presence", which is obviously completely wrong as can be proven by voting records and political campaigns by, for example, Irish Unionists.

British authority was simply government authority, which included the police force, the militia and the army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.93.185.123 (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought I should mention, NPOV stands for "neutral point of view", not "non-point of view".

Both words are potentially ambiguous. I for one would not consider rank-and-file police or soldiers as "the authorities", although the RIC Inspector-General and/or the army GOC might be included. On the other hand, "British presence", you feel, could be considered to include Irish unionists - who considered themselves British - even though the previous sentence talks about an increase in the "British military presence". I suggest that rather than use either word we use "British forces", or perhaps even "British forces or RIC". Scolaire (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Scolaire ("teacher"? "student"?).

Well, I don't know what authority a country (any country) uses, other than the democratic process combined with its civil and military might - police and army. I feel sure there is probably a definition out there somewhere, created by political experts, which tells us that "the authorities" are the police and army of a given country, and that any given country (including non-democratic countries of course) stamp their authority on their populations with the use of police and army.

Certainly I feel that "British presence" is a phrase used from a particular point of view - specifically republican or nationalist. Even if it only refers specifically to police or army (or militia such as the special constabulary who acted, loosely, on government instruction and authority).

The political upheaval was, ostensibly (and ignoring the hatred often voiced regarding the English or "the British" by some nationalists and republicans throughout history), a reaction against the peoples' own government. That that government was British was a given, considering the whole country at that time was in fact British. Specifying, and specifying constantly, is reinforcement of a political point of view.

Anyway, I'm more inclined to accept your alternative, as it is much less POV than the original I had read. I gather that, although many civilians were killed by the Irish Volunteers, their main impetus had been the authorities or, as you put it, the "forces". So they weren't necessarily bent on a mission to rid the island of a British "presence". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.93.185.123 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Student. Scolaire (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Separate article on the Truce?

The section is good but too long, and I propose to start a new article on the Truce including its terms, with a shorter section. Any ideas on that?Red Hurley (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Fighting till October 1922?

According to an IP fighting continued till October/Autumn 1922. Not impossible, but that should be sourced. I remved the unsourced edits but IP seems to want to start an editwar over it. The Banner _talk 19:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The article itself states that the violence continued until 5 October 1922 in the "Failed IRA offensive" section. Also Collins had already stopped sending weapons north over a week before he was killed. (92.7.6.31 (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

That sentence does not claim that the killing on 5 October was part of the War of Independence, it refers to the violence in the north. The Banner _talk 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with The Banner. I beleev that refers to sectarian violence between Catholics and Protestants in Belfast, not violence between the IRA and British forces. The IRA campain in the North fizzled-out when the Civil War began. That same section also says: "The largest single clash came in June, when British troops used artillery to dislodge an IRA unit from the village of Pettigo ... This was the last major confrontation between the IRA and British forces in the period 1919–1922" and "The outbreak of the civil war in the South ended the violence in the North". ~Asarlaí 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Secession

Secession is a unilateral act by a state or a people to withdraw from a larger entity, for example the secession of the secession of the Southern United States from the Union in 1860. It is commonly the cause of war, but never the result of a treaty. This is not specifically stated in the Secession article (IMO it should be), but reading the whole article will make it clear, as will a look at the List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements. It is therefore wrong to say that the result of the war was the "secession of 26 of Ireland's 32 counties (the Irish Free State) from the United Kingdom." 92 says that "the south did not have full independence until 1938." This is a point of view, but the fact is that the sources describe the Free State as "independent", and that is why the war was called the "War of Independence". Scolaire (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Since southern Ireland left the UK by force I think the word secession is appropriate. It is fair to say that the Free State was not fully independent, as it was only the handover of the Treaty ports in 1938 that ensured it could remain neutral during World War II. Before the 1931 Statute of Westminster it would be more accurate to say that the Free State was a Dominion of the Empire, as the word Commonwealth was only widely used after 1931 although the Chanak Crisis had already demomstrated that other countries were following their own independent foreign policy. In any case, it could well be argued that Ireland did not achieve full independence until 18th April 1949 when it formally became a republic. Churchill did not respect the right of the Free State to remain neutral in World War II as the 1937 constitution had not made clear whether Eire was a republic or not, so he felt the whole island of Ireland was automatically committed by the King's declaration of war on 3rd September 1939. (92.7.25.105 (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC))

There was a secession—in January 1919, not December 1921 or December 1922. It was the cause of the War of Independence, not the result. You can "well argue" whatever you like, but the sources say that the 26 counties were made independent by the treaty signed by British ministers in December 1921, as a result of the war. Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The secession was on 6th December 1922 when southern Ireland left the UK. The cause of the IRA's terrorist campaign was World War I. The Anglo-Irish Treaty was the result of the Home Rule Bill in 1914, not the IRA's failed campaign. Southern Ireland did not become fully independent until at least 1938, and possibly 1949. It was only the handover of the Treaty ports in 1938 that enabled the south to remain out of the war, otherwise it would have been bombed much more heavily by the Luftwaffe. In any case secret plans were drawn up by Churchill to seize the ports so they could be used as naval bases to refuel the ships of the Royal Navy during the Battle of the Atlantic. (92.7.18.219 (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC))

If the Treaty signed on 6th December 1921 had meant independence then there would not have been the subsequent civil war. (Herscvhell (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC))

I would prefer if you discussed this either as an IP or a registered user. Scolaire (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

To claim the Treaty was independence is biased and an insult to the anti-Treaty side, who started a civil war precisely because they felt it was not independence. Even Michael Collins never pretended the agreement he had signed on 6th December 1921 was independence, merely stating that he believed it gave Ireland the means to achieve full independence over time. (92.7.16.128 (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC))

Arguing an opinion without using sources (and editing on that basis) is disruptive. Please either use sources to support your argument or stop wasting people's time ----Snowded ^TALK 14:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

From Eamon de Valera's article: "He also was concerned that Ireland could not have an independent foreign policy as part of the British Commonwealth when the British retained several naval ports (see Treaty Ports) around Ireland's coast." (92.7.4.47 (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC))

The Free State wasn't independent, which is why the IRA fought the civil war. (MrFalala (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC))

3rr report made

Disruption has gone on for long enough. Report here ----Snowded ^TALK 15:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The Irish Free State was not independent

What do you think the civil war was about? (92.7.4.47 (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC))

I could write an essay on what the civil war was about, but for certain it was not about whether the creation of the Free State was "independence" or "secession", so there is no more to be said. Scolaire (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It was because the anti-Treaty side did not regard the Anglo-Irish Treaty as full independence, which is why they decided to continue fighting. Tom Barry gave a very good description of why he did not regard the Treaty as independence in a video uploaded on youtube. The fact is that while the King remained Head of State all of Ireland would automatically be committed by the King's declaration of war. Had the Treaty ports not been handed over in 1938 then all of Ireland would have been in World War II. (92.7.16.187 (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC))

So Tom Barry argued that the creation of the Free State represented secession, did he? Surely committing Ireland to follow the king into war is the very opposite of secession? Scolaire (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you call it secession or independence, the fact is that the Free State was not independent. Since Michael Collins never pretended the Treaty equated independence I don't see why you should. (92.7.16.187 (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC))

Michael Collins did not say the Treaty equated secession. It should not under any circumstances say secession in the infobox. Scolaire (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't independence though. Of course southern Ireland seceded from the UK, as it was done by the use of force. (92.7.16.187 (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC))

And Tom Barry objected to Ireland seceding through the use of force? Is that the point you're making? Scolaire (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Barry supported seceding through force, but he fought on the anti-Treaty side in the civil war because the Free State was not independent. (92.7.16.187 (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC))

Then secession is wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it. Scolaire (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Free State was not independent when it seceded from the UK on 6 December 1922, as the British retained the Treaty ports. This ensured all of Ireland would be involved if the UK went to war. (MrFalala (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC))

Civil War

As the introduction mentions that fighting continued in Northern Ireland until October 1922, it should also mention the Irish Civil War as that was a direct consequence of the Treaty. (92.7.16.187 (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC))

Please stop this. This page was semi-protected specifically because of your edits, so you know your ongoing campaign is disruptive. And now you're starting the same thing on Irish republicanism too! Scolaire (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Free State was a Dominion of the British Empire from 1922 to 1931, then a Dominion of the British Commonwealth from 1931 to 1949. That is fact. It was not independent in foreign policy, which is why Churchill could have overrun all of Ireland at any time during World War II. (92.7.16.187 (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC))

The Free State was NOT independent

Why do you think there was a civil war in which the British armed the Free State army to keep Ireland in the Empire? The Treaty did not give Ireland independence, which is why the IRA killed Michael Collins. As long as the British retained the Treaty ports all of Ireland would be involved in a war. (MrFalala (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC))

Nonsense. And by the way, you are blocked for disruptive editing. Go on like this and the next one will follow quick. The Banner talk 22:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Free State was not independent at all. If a major war began all of Ireland would be at war. (92.7.12.36 (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC))

The Treaty did not equal independence

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ireland could not be independent in foreign affairs while the British retained control of the Treaty ports. In any major European war all of Ireland would be involved, and the ports would be bombed from the air and sea by the enemy. Real independence only came in 1938 when the Treaty ports were handed over. Even after that all of Ireland was committed to World War II by the King's declaration of war on 3rd September 1939. (92.7.12.36 (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)) You have opened five threads with the same assertion. You have been answered each time. Stop now. Scolaire (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Not an assertion - fact. So glad my great-grandfather blew Michael Collins' skull apart in 1922! (92.7.12.36 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)) No, your opinion. And the (disputed) fact your great grandfather killed someone has nothing to do with proving this and if you keep making such irrelevant statements they will be removed as Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss your ancestors. If you wish to prove it didn't equal independence then provide sources to support your edits, as plenty of sources say what the article currently states. Canterbury Tail talk 21:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Eamon de Valera said the Treaty did not equal independence because the British still retained the Treaty ports, meaning that all of Ireland would be involved if the UK was in another major war like World War I. As it happened, although the ports were handed over to Eire in 1938, it was only having naval bases in Iceland that prevented Churchill from seizing them back in 1940. Even Michael Collins never pretended that the Free State was fully independent of the UK, saying instead that the Treaty provided Ireland with the "freedom to achieve freedom" over the years. (92.7.13.179 (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)) Do you really trust De Valera in this? The same man that rallied his men to war? The same man who send out a few inexperienced negotiators to deal with the most sleazy negotiators in the world? The same man who refused to sign the treaty as he should have done as de facto head of state because he knew that the others had sign their own death-warrant? Do you really trust him in this? Start doing your homework, lad! The Banner talk 10:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish War

There are 16,900-odd hits for this name in a Google Book search, including the titles of the books The Anglo-Irish War: The Troubles of 1913-1922, The Anglo-Irish War, 1916-1921: a People's War, Dublin Castle and the Anglo-Irish War: Counter Insurgency and Conflict and Michael Collins and the Anglo-Irish War, all of which were published post-2006.

Per MOS:BOLDSYN it should be bolded in its current position anyway, but it's common enough that I think it should also be in the lead sentence. This was the name for the conflict in Britain until comparatively very recently. — Jon C.^ॐ 20:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish War sounds familiar enough to me. I'd have no problem with it being in the first sentence. That whole second paragraph is an awful mess! "Tan War" by anti-Treaty republicans only? I'd like to see a citation for that. I suggest "Irish War of Independence (Irish: Cogadh na Saoirse), Anglo-Irish War or Tan War" in the first sentence, and lose that second paragraph altogether. Scolaire (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've seen it, but I wouldn't have seen it as being that common. I could be wrong though, it would not be the first time :-) Maybe (per Scolaire) sort the whole section? ----Snowded ^TALK 00:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems "Black and Tan War" is in use, too, with 10,500 results for both.

How about: "The 'Irish War of Independence (Irish: Cogadh na Saoirse) or Anglo-Irish War, also called the Tan War or Black and Tan War..." and ditch the second para? — Jon C.^ॐ 08:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Names of anything in conflict are always an issue. Civil War or War of Northern Aggression for example. We probably need to give some context on use and origin of names if we are going to use them ----Snowded ^TALK 08:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right, there. Neither "Black and Tan War" nor "Tan War" make any sense out of context. I notice, by the way, that there isn't a separate section on the Tans, although they are discussed at length in the "Martial law" and "Escalation" sections. How's this for a suggestion: (1) have 'Irish War of Independence and Anglo-Irish War only in the first sentence; (2) delete the current second paragraph; and (3) actually write something about the war between "It began..." and "Both sides agreed to a ceasefire", including the Black and Tans, and saying that because of them it is known as the "Black and Tan War" or "Tan War"? Scolaire (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with that ----Snowded ^TALK 10:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Results

Now that the trolling seems to have abated, It might be worthwhile to discuss the "Results" field of the infobox. It certainly is true that a lot of people then, and quite a lot of people now, would argue that "independence" was not achieved. Also, since it says in the lead that "Ireland had already been partitioned by the Government of Ireland Act 1920", it is probably wrong to state partition as a result. I suggest that it be changed to a very simple "Anglo-Irish Treaty; creation of the Irish Free State". Scolaire (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That sounds much better. I think it would be more accurate if the introduction said that the Free State was "self-governing in domestic affairs, with practical independence in foreign policy". Although the partition of Ireland was confirmed by the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which is another reason why the anti-Treaty side could not accept the agreement. (92.7.1.205 (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC))

Churchill's role in war making?

Can this article not cover to some degree at least the role of Winston Churchill in military policy against the Irish during the War? To what extent does he bear responsibility for, say, martial law? What was his view on the shoot-to-kill policies which the British state implemented - was he behind them? And so on. 89.101.41.216 (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)