Talk:Irish War of Independence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Bias

I find this article to be biased in its treatment of the various atrocities. Those carried out by the British regiments are clearly shown but the IRA murder of civilians gains little mention. There is one paragraph which begins; "The years between the Easter Rising of 1916 and the beginning of the War of Independence in 1919 were not bloodless." This is an understatment. Clearly there is dispute over the numbers provided by, say, Peter Hart in his work but the fact that the IRA did murder civilians is indisputable. There is a further reference as below; "Much of the IRA's popularity arose from the excessive reaction of the British forces to IRA activity. When Éamon de Valera returned from the United States, he demanded in the Dáil that the IRA desist from the ambushes and assassinations, which were allowing the British to portray it as a terrorist group and to take on the British forces with conventional military methods. The proposal was immediately dismissed" I think it important to note the violence carried out by the IRA and that there is a large unknown quantity. This IRA violence as hinted by the reference above is what caused many of the atrocities of the British army. It was these atrocities that garnered so much support from the general public both in Ireland and the UK. I will consider drafting some proposed changes but I would like to hear a few opinions on my statements.

87.115.7.142 (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, 87. There are very few editors who care about Ireland on here, and the ones who do are almost entirely of the nationalist/republican persuasion. If some of these articles read like they were edited by Gerry Adams, it's because they probably were.
Regarding bias in this particular article -even calling it a "war" is a stretch. The British government did not declare war on Ireland, trade relations between Ireland and Britain continued as normal, while Irish emigrants were settling primarily in English cities throughout the period. The IRA were attacking the RIC in the south, while Irish nationalists fought Irish unionists in the north. It was a civil conflict within Ireland and hardly a "war" with Britain.
But again, good luck trying to negotiate with these editors; their M.O. is usually to ignore these requests, especially when you're challenging one of their sacred cows. You're better off doing what I usually do and warning people that when it comes to Irish history, Wikipedia is far from a reliable source. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add my voice to this for what it's worth. It's impossible to make chances to this article because the Wolfe Tones or Gerry Adams will be along in moments to change it right back to something hideously pro-IRA and biased. People should be very wary about trusting anything on this page, but as it stands its become a hill to die on for Irish nationalists, and I've got better things to do with my days than edit war. Alooulla (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think your statements will be hard to swallow for some, but they are in my opinion, necessary changes to make. It was a dirty war and we get nowhere pretending the dirtyness was all down to one side. I say make your changes because as it stands its very biased. 146.200.201.141 (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of the above editors proposing an actual change or changes? Guliolopez (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would making the article protected help? Seemed to help a lot with the War of 1812 article, but I suppose even long-time registered users can be less than objective. Alooulla (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alooulla: By any chance are you the same person as Jonathan f1? --Scolaire (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I assume their name is Jonathan given the username, which is definitely not me. Believe me I've checked. Alooulla (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "Would making the article protected help?". Help what? Help allow newer/unspecified editors make unclear and unexplained changes, while (what?) preventing other/existing/unspecified editors from contributing? What problem would that solve, exactly? And how would it be in keeping with
WP:PP
?
RE: "impossible to make chances to this article". Again, I ask, what changes are you proposing to make to this article? Guliolopez (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread; I thought you were asking about changes to the meta of the article. My mistake. Doesn't protecting an article restrict its edits to registered users who are active on the platform? Edit wars seem to disappear with such things.
As others have said, the article is quite light on IRA atrocities, and of course there's the whole 'Irish victory' thing that was argued about extensively below. I am clearly not the only user unhappy with it, but it seems like a settled matter, yet I can't help regarding it as misinformation. Alooulla (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not the same person, just two people who happen to agree that there's too much editorial bias in this space. However, I have decided not to bother trying to improve Ireland-related articles for the simple fact that it's not worth my time. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the AN/I thread. And the fact that you're still blocked from editing articles. That might be a factor, too. 🤣 BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is rather funny how editors in the Ireland space blithely ignore the encyclopedia's neutrality standards and get away with it. "..a guerrilla war fought in Ireland from 1919 to 1921 between the Irish Republican Army (IRA, the army of the Irish Republic) and British forces.. Irish republicans launched the Easter Rising against British rule .." 🤣 Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! I would love to see how you, with the aid of reliable sources, prove that that was not true. The Banner talk 17:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone going to propose an actual change? If not, what is this thread "for"? Guliolopez (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one reliable source which calls into question the styling of this conflict as a war between Britain and Ireland. It self-evidently was not an actual war, although I realize we are not supposed to be publishing what is obvious or true, but what reliable sources say. But there is a source which disputes the nationalist version of the nature of this conflict, and I would propose considering it. Although this proposal isn't likely to go very far with this crowd. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From this review of Liam Kennedy's 2017 book,
"In the author's view, the 'war of independence' is an ideological construct which distorts and conceals the reality of Irish life in the period 1919 -21."(p. 125[1].)
What realities you might ask? Well there's the fact that anywhere from 130 -200 thousand Irishmen[2][3] served in the British Army during the Great War, which coincided with Ireland's 'revolutionary' period and dwarfs even the most bloated estimates of active IRA fighters.
I'm curious what British military units were deployed to Ireland during the war of independence? Did the British government declare war on Ireland? Which Irish cities were shelled during this conflict? What economic measures were in place seeing how this was a war and certainly there must've been some disruption in trade? Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So no actual changes then. Just (another) monologue about things a single editor is curious about. This thread is just noise. I'm out.... Guliolopez (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thread is calling out what is seen as a problem by some, and Jonathan is presenting sources and an argument, which I agree with. Your attitude isn't actually very helpful, in a kind of work-to-rule manner. It's probably best that you are out in that case. Alooulla (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To start with your last question: a battalion of
Rineen Ambush. The IRA-commander was a former British soldier. What you claim on the numbers of British soldiers, says nothing about the number of IRA-active duty members. The Banner talk 21:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd really suggest people stop responding to the troll, who, lest we forget, has actually been blocked from editing articles for over two years now! You can point to Bloody Sunday (1920) or the Burning of Cork and they'll just come back with some guff about most of the perpetrators not being regulars. Really, there's no gain to be had for the article or the project in engaging with him. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Rineen Ambush and the Burning of Cork both involved the IRA targeting the RIC; the 'British Auxiliaries' were a 'paramilitary' unit (ie not officially part of the British Army) that operated through the RIC. This proves nothing in the way of dispelling Kennedy's contention that the British government wasn't actually at war with Ireland and tried handling the situation via police action as opposed to large-scale deployment of military units and machinery.
And no it's not 'guff' but facts. And yes it's strange that no artillery was used if we are to believe that the largest empire in the world was at war with little Ireland -Britain could've leveled every Irish city overnight if the Westminster government had actually wanted to. They didn't because public sentiment in Britain was firmly opposed to war with Ireland.
You guys do whatever you want, as I am clearly outnumbered in opinion and probably sources as well. Just note I'm not the only 'troll' here who has smelled a rat. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, you just made clear that you are not here to create a encyclopedia. And you also made clear that your actual knowledge of Irish history is at least lacking. The Banner talk 00:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the Conflict

The first section of Origins of the Conflict starts by saying this: "Since the 1870s, Irish nationalists in the Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) had been demanding Home Rule, or self-government, from Britain, while not ruling out eventual complete independence. Fringe organisations, such as Arthur Griffith's Sinn Féin, instead argued for some form of immediate Irish independence, but they were in a small minority." That's about all it says about the origins. So what were the Irish grievances? This piece says nothing. The Origins section needs a subsection describing the state of the country in the decades before the Easter Rising. We need to see something about the absentee landlords, the state of the Democracy and why the Irish felt it was inadequate, and the socio-economic conditions. — MiguelMunoz (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A plethora of grammatical errors

This edit by Ahsanullah Al Mamun (Fixed a plethora of grammatical errors and added clarity to the article) gives the impression that the editor fed the article through Microsoft Word grammar check or equivalent, and made any changes the machine suggested, without looking at the sense of the sentences, or their context, or even the variety of English in use. For instance:

  1. "republican party Sinn Féin" is fine; "the" does not need to be added
  2. "acting on their own initiative" is correct; removing "own" changes the meaning
  3. "an RIC barracks" is correct, not "a RIC barracks" – see "Use Hiberno-English" at the top of the edit page
  4. "an incident occurred on 21 January 1919" is not preceded by a full stop, so shouldn't start with a capital letter
  5. "the RICs" is meaningless
  6. "enforcing its own law, maintaining its own armed forces and collecting its own taxes" is correct – see above
  7. "an 'IRA' meeting, which in fact consisted of Irish and foreign journalists" is correct; the "in fact" is important
  8. "afterwards" and "spiralling" are correct – again, Hiberno-English
  9. "it is not by reason of their religion, but rather because they are under suspicion as Loyalist" is part of a quotation; it should not be changed
  10. "good will" is not the same thing as "goodwill"
  11. commas have been added where not necessary, and some have been added where they are inappropriate.

I have reverted. Scolaire (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support the revert. The Banner talk 19:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And again, these edits by Primergrey seem to be based on what that editor sees as correct capitalisation, without looking at context, and oblivious to the fact that many of the words or phrases changed to lowercase are in fact proper names (especially "the North" and "the Republic"). I have reverted the most egregious ones. Scolaire (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Think we have a problem here. Primergrey is insisting that Treaty is incorrect and backs that up with insults. The Banner talk 18:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on his talk page, not noticing that you already had. I also mentioned that the article falls under 1RR at the Troubles ArbCom. From scanning his talk page, it's clear that he's on a mission to change to lowercase across Wikipedia, and isn't interested in collaboration or consensus. Scolaire (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back from a working holiday and what did I get for Christmas? A steaming portion of irony that is a 1RR warning in the same breath as a wild speculation of my motivations ("on a mission" indeed). Nevermind, this precious article and its dearth of pageviews is now off my watchlist. Any further comments directed to me will be nothing more than performative, face-saving, exercises in vanity. Happy holidays. Primergrey (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proclaimed

Hello, I haven't used talk pages before so apologies if this is the wrong format. I'm confused by the phrase "Sinn Féin was proclaimed in County Cork" in the summary. Is it missing a word (i.e. "Sinn Féin was proclaimed the rightful government of County Cork")? If not, what does it mean to proclaim Sinn Féin? I certainly don't know, and I doubt that the average English-speaking reader knows either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.172.17.58 (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wiktionary: in a historical context it means "make [something] the subject of an official proclamation bringing it within the scope of emergency powers". Scolaire (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 174.172.17.58. Great pick up on the usage of the word proclaimed. In the dictionary the definition reads: "4. [Rare] to outlaw, ban or otherwise restrict by a proclamation." I will insert an explanation. Thanks, Palisades1 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders and leaders

I think it would make more sense to have Cathal Brugha listed as a political leader rather than a military commander since he was President of Dáil Éireann at the start of the war and then Minister for Defense afterwards. I also think that James Macmahon and John Anderson should be listed as British political leaders since they were the Under-Secretaries for Ireland and thus heads of the administration in Ireland during the war. 2601:84:847F:2DF0:5C9D:F54F:6FED:EA3 (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point about Cathal Brugha. James Macmahon and John Anderson should not be in the infobox , since they are not mentioned in the article. Scolaire (talk)
Understood, but nobody on the British side is mentioned in the article except for Macready, Lloyd George and Greenwood. Should the others be removed? I certainly think that the British side could be reworked. It includes people like FitzAlan and Macpherson, who not only aren’t mentioned in the article, but the articles on them make no mention of their roles in the war (I can at least see the reason for including Shaw, Tudor and French). It also doesn’t include Sir Henry Wilson, who played a very important role in the war and is mentioned in the article. 2601:84:847F:2DF0:1D72:394:8150:553 (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't argue with that. Scolaire (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brugha was a little more than 2 months (21 January - 1 April 1919) President of Dáil Éireann while he served years in military roles. So leaving him as military leader makes sense. The Banner talk 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the article:

In theory, both Collins and Mulcahy were responsible to Cathal Brugha, the Dáil's Minister of Defence, but, in practice, Brugha had only a supervisory role, recommending or objecting to specific actions. A great deal also depended on IRA leaders in local areas (such as Liam Lynch, Tom Barry, Seán Moylan, Seán Mac Eoin and Ernie O'Malley) who organised guerrilla activity, largely on their own initiative.

I think Brugha should probably stay as a military leader, but the IP has a valid point. Scolaire (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sounds good. Does anyone have any suggestions to improve the British side? I certainly think that it could be cleaned up and unmentioned and unimportant people like FitzAlan and Macpherson could be removed and I think that Wilson could be added considering his vital role in the war. 4.30.215.194 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:BOLD. --Scolaire (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irish_War_of_Independence&oldid=1217878439"