Talk:Irish War of Independence/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Part of the Revolutions of 1917–1923"

I added this to the infobox but it was reverted which surprised me. The Irish War of Independence is often considered to form part of the continent-wide unrest (like the Revolutions of 1848) which occurred in the aftermath of World War I. This does not imply a relationship to the Russian Revolution as the reverter claimed, nor that it does not form part of a wider Irish independence movement that pre-dated the war. For example, Robert Gerwarth writes in The Vanquished: Why the First World War Failed to End, 1917-1923 that:

"Ireland [...] seemed to follow a similar (albeit less violent) course to the central and eastern European states between 1918 and 1924. Yet the similarities between Ireland and central Europe did not escape astute contemporary observers in Dublin, who viewed Ireland's predicament as part of a much wider European malaise, an ongoing conflict that originated in the world crisis of 1914-1918 while also being distinct from it."

Gerwarth also writes (with John Horn) in War in Peace: Paramilitary Violence in Europe After the Great War:

"On the contrary, revolutions, counter-revolutions, ethnic strife, pogroms, wars of independence, civil conflicts and inter-state violence continued from 1917 to 1923 as the seismic forces unleashed by the cataclysm of the Great War transformed the political landscape of much of the old continent. One or more of these kinds of violence affected Russia, the Ukraine, Finland, the Baltic states, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Germany, Italy, Anatolia, and the Caucasus. Ireland experienced a war of independence and civil war in the same period."

See also Bitter Freedom: Ireland In A Revolutionary World 1918-1923. If there is no objection, I will re-add it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced it by a link to Irish revolutionary period, what is specific for Ireland and its turmoil. The Banner talk 20:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi.

I removed it. Because it was unexplained. Unreferenced. And not reflected in the body.

While I (now) hear and understand your rationale for adding it, I do not agree with that rationale. The association (of the War of Independence with events elsewhere, whether in Russia or Mexico or Egypt or elsewhere) is entirely academic and retrospective. Placing it in the infobox (without context or otherwise) might be inferred by the reader to mean that the War of Independence was part of some broader world-wide conflict. It wasn't. Ireland's move towards independence had no connection with Pancho Villa or Saad Zaghloul. It might be of interest to academics to draw parallels with movements and revolutionaries elsewhere. But I do not see the case for loose academic parallels to be given prominence (without context or explanation) in the infobox like that.

The Banner's proposal/change makes more sense. As the context and explanation is covered in the "origins" section.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is also not unusual for something to be "part of" several events. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, what you did was a clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IWANTITMYWAY. Reverted. The Banner talk 10:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Brigade Piron. It is not a case of "not liking it". It is a case of "not being convinced by it".

I have not read Gerwarth (2016), but the quote offered is less than convincing. As, within it, Gerwarth states that events in Ireland were "distinct from [events elsewhere]".

I have also not read Gerwarth & Horne (2013), but the quote offered is also less than forceful. In that, unlike the events elsewhere (which the author(s) seem to directly connect to each other), the language used for Ireland seems to describe the events as contemporaneous. Rather than as connected. ("Ireland experienced a war of independence and civil war in the same period".) Correlation rather than causation.

I have read Walsh (2015). It's a well-written and well-researched work. One of the best I've read about the period. I would note however that Walsh spends most of his energies drawing parallels with events elsewhere in the then British Empire. And Britain's response to them. With a lot of focus on parallels between Churchill's actions in Somaliland and Iraq. Rather than events in Mexico or Spain or similar. As such, Walsh is clear that events in Ireland didn't occur in a vacuum. (Nor am I arguing that that is the case BTW.) But Walsh doesn't draw the type of parallels being proposed.

In any event, my main concern is that, the infobox (and its contents) should summarise key features of the subject and the body. As per my note above, unless or until the body gives some context for the subject's inclusion in the proposed topic/list, then it just seems quite random. And unexplained. And unsupported. And not reflective of the body. Which was the concern I raised above. And which remains unaddressed. If you feel strongly about it, I am happy to discuss how best to update the body. To include some "not in a vacuum" content/context. But, until that's done, I don't see the case for including it in the infobox.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

What a nice way to deal with new contributors to an article. The edit I originally proposed (in line with WP:BRD incidentally) was pretty minor, and I am frankly surprised at this response and tone of your responses. Let's look at the arguments presented:

• I suggested that Ireland's revolutions have been considered as part of a wider global "wave" of revolutions in exactly the same period and added quotes to support it.
• The Banner says that the events in Ireland are part of the Irish revolutionary period. Fine, but this does not mean it is not also part of another historical event too. There are plenty of other conflicts which list several articles in the "part of" section - Russian Civil War as an example. There is no substantive argument here.
• Guliolopez says that s/he "does not agree" with the inclusion. The reasons proposed are (i) the parallels are only interesting to academics (this is a clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument) and (ii) it is unnecessary (ditto).
• Only after I have been accused of POV-pushing does Guliolopez add that (iii) the infobox should summarise the article (which is reasonable) and (iv) criticise the judgement of the sources cited (which is not as both are clear WP:RS).

Frankly, I don't much care about adding four words to this article but the issue is still important. Looking at the article's history and the difficulty that other users have had on the page in making even grammatical edits, it does seem that there is a sizable amount of WP:Page Ownership going on here (see the "tag team" section) and this is very unfortunate considering the very average quality of the article concerned.—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hiya.

In all honesty I'm more than a little taken-aback by some of the things in your note there. In short, RE:

1. POV. When/where was there an accusation of POV-pushing? I did, I accept, note and believe that there was perhaps an aspect of OR/SYNTH in the original inclusion. But that was because I could see no explanation for its addition in the edit summary. Or the sources or the body or otherwise. And hence that's what it looked like to me. I've since understood that that isn't the case. But don't remember suggesting that anyone had a particular POV or agenda to push.
2. RS. To clarify, I am not criticising the sources. I am questioning the interpretation of them. And noting that the quotes, from the sources, could be interpreted differently. Certainly I have interpreted them differently.
3. Part of multiple things. I don't like speaking for other editors. But I don't think The Banner was suggesting that the subject couldn't be "part of" more than on thing. I think the suggestion was that it is (primarily/initially/principally) considered to be part of other "local" social and political events. And that this was/is probably of more importance to note. A similar rationale to why, presumably, the Russian Civil War article infobox notes the subject as falling within the context of the Aftermath of World War I and Russian Revolution. Rather than primarily/solely drawing parallels to events in Egypt or Mexico or similar. (I would note that the Mexican Revolution article infobox doesn't feel the need to link the subject with events in further-flung parts of the world at all. Whether in Ireland or Russia or otherwise. Despite it, seemingly, falling within the scope of the same list/topic article.)
4. OWN/Tag team. I don't know what you mean by "tag team" section. So am unclear how to address any concern there.
5. Very average quality. As noted, if there are proposals for improvement to the body (to add content/context on how the War of Independence didn't occur in a global vacuum), then lets please discuss those proposed changes. I, for one, am always happy to help with improvements. As already stated, if we can improve/expand the body, to the extent that the change to the infobox is reflective of the body, then I'm happy with that. I just personally have concerns with changes that are unexplained or unclear to other editors. And, in particular, unclear to the reader.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind that I take the "tag-team"-accusation as an affront, close to an insult/personal attack.

Beside that, reading Revolutions of 1917–1923 I can only note that the part of Ireland needs some serious work. Like adding sources as proof. The War of Independence was a confused time, with the struggle mix of anti-colonial sentiment, anti-oppression sentiments with a lot of agrarian upheaval and a dose (mainly in the cities) of left politics (Source: "The Hand that held the gun" by Eoin Shanahan). Finding common ground in the struggle with other countries, still does not mean that is was connected. The Banner talk 14:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Given the electoral victory in 1918, many Irish voters expected that Sinn Fein would be a part of the Paris Peace Conference (1919–1920), but were rebuffed by Clemenceau. Yet the War of Independence had started in early 1919. The war was generally unpopular until the arrival of the Black and Tans in mid-1920, when it was seen as a defensive war. The result was far from a revolution in the sense of Lenin's revolution, as it harked back to the Gaelic Ireland of 700 years before.78.16.66.226 (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum to drop personal opinions. The Banner talk 12:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

New discussion, August 2020

Considering that Ireland is mentioned in considerable detail in both the Aftermath of World War I and Revolutions of 1917-1923 articles, would it not make sense to have at least some link to those articles on this page? Also, if the events in Ireland is mentioned on those pages, but this article ignores that altogether, then the don't those wikipedia articles basically contradict each other in regarding whether or not the Irish War of Independence was part of a wider "wave" of revolutions across the world?

Furthermore, there appears to be some confusion as to what linking this article to those pages means. Linking the Irish War of Independence to the Revolutions of 1917-1923 does not imply that the events in Ireland were linked or related to, say for example, the Russian Civil War. The clue in in the name of the article: both conflicts/revolutions occurred in the period 1917-1923. Similarly, if both the Irish War of Independence and Russian Civil War are mentioned in the article Aftermath of World War 1, again this does not imply that they were related or linked in any significant way other than they were both (atleast in part) caused by the events of the First World War.

To conclude, I do not see any problem with adding "Part of the Revolutions of 1917-1923 (or the Aftermath of World War One for that matter) to the 'part of' section, or atleast somewhere in this article. Iamdmonah (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with linking them somewhere in the article, provided they're introduced in an appropriate way – not just wedged into the text at random – and properly sourced. Since they're not currently in the article, they should on no account be added to the infobox. As I said on another talk page, MOS:INFOBOX says that its purpose is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article", and that "the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". Scolaire (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you show me how the revolutions mentioned in Revolutions of 1917–1923 are related to the Irish revolution? In the beginning of this discussion it was unclear, and in fact it is still unclear. It is also unclear how much the war of independence was influenced by the events in the aftermath of the war, as stated in Aftermath of World War I. But as a sign of goodwill, I have added both links to a new section "See also". The Banner talk 12:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that if it is unclear whether or not it was part of the Revolutions of 1917-1923, it should remain out of the infobox. But I believe the two articles I have mentioned above should be linked in this article, and I thank the Banner for adding them in.

To clarify my earlier statements: the Irish War of Independence occurred during the period 1917-1923. Therefore, it fits the criteria to feature in said article, and for that reason there is a piece on the war of Independence in that article. With that said, it is my belief that there should a mention of that in this article. However my main question regarding this is that, if the War of Independence is mentioned in the article about revolutions in 1917-1923, them why is the period not mentioned here?

Regarding the Aftermath of World War I, it is a well known fact that the Easter Rising was caused by the leaders of the Irish rebels seeing Britain's distraction in WW1 as an excellent opportunity to assert Irish independence. The execution of the leaders following the rebellion, coupled with other events such as the Conscription crisis of 1918 (also caused by the ongoing war) helped sway public opinion in Ireland in favour of the Republicans and against the British administration, which led to the war of independence and the First Dáil. Therefore, I would argue that there is a clear argument to show that the War of Independence is linked to the Aftermath of World War One. Again, even if not in the infobox, it deserves some mention.

The Banner. I have explained in my previous contribution to this discussion how the War of Independence is linked to the other conflicts mentioned in the two articles. If you need further clarification, I am happy to explain. Apologies for any confusion I have caused. Iamdmonah (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Iamdmonah: The first, very short, paragraph of the Bread article has links to Water, Agriculture and Recorded history, yet none of those articles contains any mention of bread. Why do you think that is? It's simply because there is no rule that a linked article has to link back to the article that links it. So, I'll repeat myself: if there is a "clear argument" to link those articles in the body text, bring forward a concrete proposal for doing so. Tell us what exactly the sentence or sentences should say, and where in the article it/they can be added without interrupting the flow of the article, and provide proper citations for the facts stated. Just saying "I think this should be done", and waiting for somebody else to do it for you, does nothing to improve the article. Scolaire (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, can you please learn to indent your posts in talk page discussions. I've fixed it for you this time, but not having proper indentation is very unsightly. Scolaire (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Scolaire. Apologies for the indentation, I am still relatively new to this. I believe I have fixed it now. Thanks for pointing that out.

Now, to be clear, I never said there was a rule that said a linked article must link back to the article that links it. My intention was to point out how having a detailed piece about the War on Independence on the two articles mentioned, without having atleast some sort of mention on this page about those articles, does not really make sense. I have already stated that I see no problem with @Brigade Piron:'s original move which was reverted, resulting in this discussion. However, I also agree with The Banner's move to link the two articles in a 'see also' section, which is perhaps the better option since the case has already been made by a number of editors as to why the two articles should not be mentioned in the 'part of' section. And I have already stated as to why I believe those two articles should be linked to this page in my own view.

With this out of the way, my proposal is as follows. We add a links Revolutions of 1917-1923 and perhaps Aftermath of World War I to the article. One way is the edit already made by The Banner. Another perhaps is a paragraph or section such as:

"Some historians (for example the ones mentioned by Brigade Piron above) have identified the Irish War of Independence as part of a wave of social and political upheaval across the world, known as the Revolutions of 1917-1923, and also part of the Aftermath of World War I. While the exact nature of the relationship between the events in Ireland and those elsewhere in the world is debated, the War of Independence did occur during the same period and many of the conflict's causes were related to or directly caused by the First World War."

Something along the lines of that. I would say perhaps in the extended introduction (below the infobox). I have not done this myself yet because I am awaiting a consensus for this discussion. If you wish to tweak or change my proposal in anyway, we can discuss it. If you disagree altogether, that is fine. Cheers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamdmonah (talk • contribs) 18:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

As you can read, Iamdmonah, preparations for the Easter Rising/major revolt started long before the World War I. True, WW1 did influence the timing but not the fact itself. The Banner talk 19:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Banner. Regardless of whether the Rising was planned earlier, the timing (during the First World War) influenced events significantly.

Both Republican groups and Unionist ones received arms from Germany as they were opposed to the British. Many soldiers in the IRA had fought in WW1 and their experience from the war was important in both the War of Independence and the later Civil War. And as I have already mentioned, other events such as the Conscription Crisis influenced public opinion in favour of independence. There were many other smaller factors as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamdmonah (talk • contribs) 09:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that WW1 was going on made that GB had far more soldiers available to suppress the Uprising. But it was the aftermath and the brutality showed that made the military defeat a moral victory. It is highly doubtable that the war had any influence of the actual uprising. The Banner talk 09:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Iamdmonah: There are two major (I would say fatal) flaws with your proposal. First, it perfectly illustrates what I called "wedging it into the text at random". You don't say in what context you propose to add those sentences – after which sentence and before which sentence – in order to preserve the flow of the article. You say it could go "perhaps in the extended introduction (below the infobox)." I presume you're using a phone. The part below the infobox on a phone is still part of the lead, and there is no way that such a trivial statement belongs in the lead. Second, "some historians say" cannot be considered as a serious discussion of those two topics. A short sentence or two in a book by a not-particularly-eminent historian does not make the topic relevant to this article, especially when these sentences are capable of more than one interpretation: see these well-thought-out comments on Brigade Piron's books by Guliolopez back in the February discussion. See also WP:UNDUE.

My Bread analogy is still valid. Neither of the articles you want to link to is an in-depth discussion clearly demonstrating that events in all the various countries in this period were connected. They are more in the nature of list articles saying "here's a bunch of countries where stuff happened and we have links in each of them if you want to learn more." There is no reason for every article in them to link back to them any more than every article about a city should say "there is a [[List of songs about cities|song about this city]]. Scolaire (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Scolaire:. FYI yes I am using a mobile phone. Also, apologies for my violation of WP:UNDUE. Anyway, you made following statement in your last contribution to this discussion:

"Neither of the articles you want to link to is an in-depth discussion clearly demonstrating that events in all the various countries in this period are connected."

I will repeat what I said in my first contribution. I do not need to prove the various articles about events in other nations are connected. Their only connections are they were all some sort of revolution and they all occured in the period 1917-1923. Any other similarity is technically coincidental. Of course, some of them were of the same nature so to speak, but that is not why they were included in the article. If the title of that article was "Communist Revolutions of 1917-1923" then yes, the Irish War of Independence would not feature in that article, as it was not a communist revolution. But since there is no criteria about inclusion in said article (other than, obviously, occurring in the period 1917-1923), I do not need the prove any connection between the events of the various nations. The Aftermath of WW1 is more tricky, but as I have discussed with The Banner, WW1 did have an affect on events in Ireland.

And you seem to have some misconception about my proposed linking of the articles. I would only be linking the two, or maybe even just the one (Revolutions of 1917-1923) article. It is not as if I am going off like "For similar events in other parts of the world during the same period, see Russian Civil War, Third Anglo-Afghan War, Turkish War of Independence" et cetera et cetera. I would just link the page Revolutions of 1917-1923. If the readers wants more information on those other conflicts, they can get there by going to the article Revolutions of 1917-1923.

Regarding your concerns about my placing of the text I proposed above, since you (and I don't mean this sarcastically) seem to know more about "wedging it into the text" than me, perhaps you could recommend a spot? I don't mean to seem lazy. I want to improve this article. I can add it if you propose an appropriate location in the article. But if you still have concerns about my proposal or don't want to implement it for any reason , as I have said, I am fine with the status quo (that being The Banner's edition of a 'see also' section), and since you have not reverted the edits made by The Banner, I assume you have no problem with it either. I hope this provides more clarity. In any event, thanks for your contributions.

WW1 had only a very limited effect on the Easter Rising. You make it sound as it was a major influence. The Banner talk 18:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: I respectfully disagree, but would point out that this article is about the Irish War of Independence, not the Easter Rising.

Yes, it is not the first time that you misinterpret things. By the way, it was one Iamdmonah who started over the Easter Rising. And can you please sign your edits? The Banner talk 23:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The Banner. As I had pointed out earlier, the Easter Rising was not the only thing related to WW1 that influenced events in Ireland. As I have already pointed out however, the Easter Rising was influenced by WW1, for example, Germany's willingness to send arms and ammunition to the rebels, (see Howth gun-running and Aud) because "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I'm sure you are familiar with that saying.

Anyway, you fail to see the bigger picture here. This discussion was originally about the inclusion of Revolutions of 1917-1923 in this article. I discussed perhaps adding Aftermath of WWI as well, but the former article is the main talking point of this discussion. Whether or not the Easter Rising influenced events in Ireland is irrelevant to whether or not the Revolutions of 1917-1923 should be included in this article. Yes, I brought it up, but there is no need for this exhaustive discussion on an irrelevant topic. Iamdmonah (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Iamdmonah: So you're still saying that you only want links in this article because this article is linked in them? You acknowledge there is no rule saying they should be and you're offering no good encyclopaedic reason why they should be in this case. You acknowledge that the articles are linked in the "See also" section, and you say you're fine with that. I don't see that there's anything left to be said. Scolaire (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The Howth gun-running took place before WW1, so was not influenced by it. The Easter Rising falls in the same time frame as WW1, but its connection with the war is at least dubious. If it was influenced by the war, other than the timing, is unclear. The rising would have come anyway. The Aud never reached Ireland, so it did not influence events in Ireland. Falling in the same time frame is not the same as being connected. See the discussion here: Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 6#Not part of World War 1. Please, get your facts straight. The Banner talk 09:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

And yes, I see the bigger picture of what is connected and what is not. And I also remember Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040#User:Iamdmonah and gross incompetence. The Banner talk 10:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Scolaire:. As I have not offered an encyclopedic reason as to it should be included you have not offered an encyclopedia reason as to why it should not be included. I have already explained to you why I believe it should he included in the 'part of' section. And no, my reason is not because that article links to this one and I believe this one should link back to that one. Yes, I am fine with the status quo. But I don't believe it to be the best option. I want to improve the article. Which is why I asked you for help in determining an appropriate location in the article in which to implement my proposal. Which you evidently ignored. To clarify and conclude: I am fine with the status quo. However, in my view, it is not the best option for this article. But since you obviously disagree with me, then yes, there is nothing left to be said. I had no intention of creating a long drawn-out discussion for no reason whatsoever. I was only looking to improve the article. Anyway, thank you for your time.

The good encyclopaedic reason for not including it is that it adds nothing to the article, just as including bread adds nothing to the Water article. You asked me to find an appropriate location in the article in which to add a "some historians say" sentence that I told you would disimprove the article – it was you who ignored my critique of the sentence when you asked me that. Goodbye and happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The Banner. This is the final time I will explain this to you. The Easter Rising was not the only WW1-related event that influenced the War of Independence. As I have already explained, other events influenced the war of independence, such as the Conscription crisis, perceived poor treatment of Irish divisions in the war by the British officers, along with the huge numbers of well trained, battle-hardened men that returned to Ireland from the war, and joined the IRA where their experience was crucial in fighting the British. You need to stop with this obsession with the Easter Rising. It was not the only event that influenced the War of Independence. Anyway, this conversation is evidently over, so no need to keep going on with this nonsense.

IRA strength

At different points in the article, there are the following passages

• Between 1919 and 1921 the IRA claimed to have a total strength of 70,000, but only about 3,000 were actively engaged in fighting against the Crown
• While the paper membership of the IRA, carried over from the Irish Volunteers, was over 100,000 men, Michael Collins estimated that only 15,000 were active in the IRA during the course of the war, with about 3,000 on active service at any time.

The latter is unreferenced, and potentially redundant (as well as differing from) the former. Any ideas on a solution? FDW777 (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

If the latter is unreferenced, it should probably be removed if it conflicts with a statement which actually has a source. Perhaps the author of the second passage confused the membership of the Irish Volunteers with that of the Irish Republican Army. Iamdmonah (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

When I read the book "Blood on the Banner" I notice that there were companies everywhere but that for serious actions only a handful from every company was called up in arms. And others were called up for scouting and signalling (i.e. not armed). So I believe the statement. Unfortunately, I have no straight and clear sources for the country as a whole. The Banner talk 16:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably my fault for being slightly vague, since the problem isn't just an ureferenced section. Simply removing it would have caused problems.

The former sentence appears at Irish War of Independence#Irish republican (a sub-section of "Forces" which details the British and Irish sides). The latter appears at Irish War of Independence#IRA organisation and operations (a sub-section of "Course of the war" which is self-explanatory).

I believe the latter section would be better off dealt with, for the most part in the former section. Not all information would be merged, some could go elsewhere. But it makes more sense to deal with IRA structure, and auxiliary organisations such as Cumann na mBan and Fianna Éireann in the "Forces" section rather than the "Course of the war" section.

Are there any objections to the sections being merged, with the caveat that some information may be merged to other sections where appropriate? FDW777 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Results

Other than an editor believing their opinion of what the result was takes precedence over everything else, is there any reason why the multiply referenced result should be excluded from the infobox? FDW777 (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777 It’s not really my opinion it’s a fact. This war can’t be considered a complete Irish victory as they wanted a 32 county republic and got a 26 county Dominion. It also isn’t a British victory as they were forced to give Ireland Dominion status. Both sides were unhappy with the result. Especially some IRA members as a civil war in Ireland broke out soon after because of the Anglo-Irish treaty. Why can’t we just keep the ceasefire result or put something like indecisive, inconclusive, draw, stalemate etc. (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

That you don't consider it a complete Irish victory is irrelevant. Victories don't have to be "complete" to be victories. FDW777 (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777 Yes but Ireland fought for an independent 32 county republic instead they got a 26 county British dominion. Going by your logic this war could also be considered a British victory as they were able to stop Ireland from becoming a fully United independent Republic. Inconclusive is the only sensible result. (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I suggest contacting the authors and ask them to retract their work, since your opinion clearly outranks theirs.... Also what you consider to be the result is of no relevance whatsoever to this discussion. FDW777 (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777 You have selectively chosen your sources to reflect your bias; the war was not an Irish victory, yet you chose opinion pieces that said it was as proof of it. Considering the vast majority of literature on this subject references it as a ceasefire, I believe you are mistaken in this instance.

Since you have attempted to class works by academics as "opinion pieces", I believe there is little more to say on this subject. FDW777 (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Although I will add the online article is a reprint of a journal article from Finest Hour, described as an acclaimed scholarly journal in publication since 1968. One thing it absolutely isn't is an "opinion piece". FDW777 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I just want to add my voice to the consensus that Irish victory belongs in the infobox, as it is supported by reliable sources. I agree with others that ceasefire is meaningless. I encourage opponents of this consensus to present their reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This dispute is older than tonight, and the bias that is shown by declaring it an Irish victory is absolutely staggering. The history of the article can bear out the idea that it is more complicated than that; and for every academic that would class it as a victory, there is another that would not. Would you dispute the idea that historians can disagree? Would us adding sources that describe it as a ceasefire do anything to change your mind? I somehow doubt it would, because you choose which sources to believe. I suggest we do what the jutland page does and either leave it off alltogether or mark it as disputed, or merely 'see below'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.201.173 (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree historians can disagree. I could definitely change my mind in the face of some convincing sources. I wouldn't suggest listing sources that describe a ceasefire, but instead ones that describe the overall result of the war in terms other than victory for the Irish. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I already pointed this out in an edit summary, but a ceasefire is not a result. Virtually all wars end in ceasefires, which is why they end. FDW777 (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777 Your bias is quite clear. You must have picked out the only two sources that state on Irish victory. All other sources simply list the result as the Anglo-Irish treaty which was a compromise. Tell me how can this war be considered an Irish victory if Ireland failed to become a 32 county republic which was its goal and still remained part of the British empire and to this day Northern Ireland is still part of the UK. How can a nation fight a war of independence not gain independence and be considered victorious? (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you quote some of those other sources? If the predominance of sources describe the result as a compromise, and state or imply that compromise wasn't one-sided, that would be good evidence to change the infobox. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, this is the second time in as many months that I've seen you claim, or at least support the "side" that was claiming, that an article's WP:STATUSQUO was different from what it actually was and that WP:BRD should favour the side opposite the side it actually favours. "good evidence to change the infobox", as FDW777 changed it from a long-standing status quo less than a month ago,[1] would be a predominance of sources describing the result as an Irish victory: I went and checked that the infobox said on the last days of 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, and it appears to have always said "ceasefire". This result is something that every Irish-educated person, at least of my generation, "knows" because it appears in our state-sponsored JCE history textbooks, but even if that were not the case the onus would be on the party wishing to change the infobox from the long-standing status quo; moreover, the fact that the Irish Civil War was a thing that happened makes the claim that this result was not a compromise WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Hijiri 88 (聖 やや) 01:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't suggested that 'Irish victory' was the status quo, nor have I seen anyone else saying so. I don't think BRD has come up at all. My contributions so far have been to revert once to a version I prefer and to comment twice to ask opponents of that version to provide some sources. I honestly wouldn't be too upset about getting the status quo wrong twice in two months! But, I don't think that's what is happening here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers ok I will provide some sources:

“in December 1921, an Irish delegation led by Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith, signed the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which disestablished the Irish Republic of 1919 but created the Irish Free State, an entity comprising 26 of Ireland’s 32 counties which had much more independence than the Home Rule Act of 1912 would have granted.

Much of the IRA was unhappy with the settlement though and this eventually led to civil war among nationalists in 1922-23, before the new Irish Free State government was established”.

Another source:

“Finally stalemate was reached and a truce was signed between the IRA and the British on 11 July 1921. After 4 months of negotiations a treaty was hammered out which Michael Collins signed on behalf of the IRA. However he did not fully consult his colleagues, many of whom were horrified that he had accepted partition. This is why he is now regarded by some as a traitor and this probably contributed to his assassination a short time later.

The 'Anglo-Irish Treaty', which was agreed between Collins and the British government, replaced the Dublin Home-Rule Parliament which had been created by the Government of Ireland Act. The new Act created an Ireland which was much more independent than it would have been under pure Home Rule, and certainly much more independent than the bit of Ireland ruled by the Northern Ireland government. The new country was to be called the 'Irish Free State' and would have its own army, although it would remain within the British Commonwealth”.

Another source:

“The conflict continued to escalate until the truce of 11 July 1921, when a military stalemate was admitted on both sides. On the Irish side it was recognized that lack of resources, chiefly arms and ammunition, prevented any outright victory, while the British realized the acute unpopularity, both at home and abroad, of their methods and the extreme difficulties of countering guerrilla warfare in the long term.”

Click on the links to view the source none of these sources claim an Irish victory, the explain the results of the Anglo-Irish which saw Ireland still remain part of the British empire/commonwealth until 1949 and Northern Ireland still part of the United Kingdom to this day. How this can be considered an Irish victory is beyond me it’s like if the American war of independence had resulted in 3 out of 13 colonies still remaining under direct British rule and the remaining 10 only being granted dominion status that wouldn’t be considered an American victory so why is this considered an Irish victory? (talk) 14:58 02 June 2021 (UTC)

None of those are remotely reliable, with the possible exception of the John Dorney article. Even if they did support your assertion which they don't. Your own definition of an Irish victory is of no relevance to this discussion, I've already explained this once. FDW777 (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Rebelrajan. The IRA fought for a republic of 32 counties, not for a 26 county dominion with an oath of allegiance. The IRA was certainly nowhere near a military victory by the time of the ceasefire, quite the contrary. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Great, contact the authors, make your case, and ask then to retract their work. Editors' opinions of the result are of no importance whatsoever. FDW777 (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll do that if I can get in writing that you will do the same with the authors who argue that this was not an Irish victory. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Which ones are those? FDW777 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the ones already listed by Rebelrajan, Costello (in the infobox) says it was a military stalemate. Heck, Collins himself even told Greenwood that the IRA could only have lasted another three weeks by the time the British called a truce. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

So unreliable references that don't even support the assertion in the first place? Not much to reply to there. Military stalemate has got nothing to do with victory, although I left it in to clarify the extent of the victory. Most liberation wars against foreign occupation by Britain weren't outright military victories since they didn't drive the British into the sea, but they made the political price of staying too high for them to remain. That isn't unique to national liberation wars, many throughout history have been lost by one side despite not being militarily defeated. That there was a military stalemate doesn't change the result. FDW777 (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

You keep bringing up how other people define "victory", but your own definition is certainly debatable as well. In any event, the IRA did not make the price too high for the British to remain; One can argue that the British, having understood the times and internalized that they would eventually have to leave Ireland, was able to secure very favorable terms for itself by keeping the north and the treaty ports - hence, compromise. We can play the cherry-picking game on Google scholar, and the only thing we'll establish is that while as good as everyone agrees that the IRA achieved something remarkable, there is no consensus on either party having "won the war". Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Not my definition, but one used by the references cited. Victories can be political rather than simply military, as Rebelrajan clearly conceded when attempting to add "Strategic Irish political victory" as a result. "Strategic Irish political victory" = "Irish victory", per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, Template:Infobox military conflict and the refernces cited. FDW777 (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Your definition of victory is simplistic and often unapplicable. Take the Suez Crisis. Egypt did not win a single battle, but "won" because Britain and France had to withdraw due to international pressure. Likewise, the Irish Republic "won" in the sense that it gained the most in the long run, but it certainly had to sacrifice much (including name and geographical size) to secure this, and the IRA was nowhere near a military victory. The two sides faced the options of an escalation or a negotiated compromise, and both chose the latter. Most importantly, there is no academic consensus that either side "won" the Anglo-Irish War. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You both seem to think the authors weren't aware of the full facts of the war and mistakenly assumed it to be an Irish victory, and that your opinion of who won takes precedence. That is not correct. FDW777 (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: Ok is this a reliable enough source for you.

J Bowyer Bell in his book The Secret army: The IRA states:

“The IRA tactics had not beaten the British nor had they won the war, they only prevented defeat - yet this in itself was a triumph”.

He acknowledges that the Ira were not victorious in this war but did not lose it either. Like I said you have cherry picked probably the only two sources that state an Irish victory also can you provide me a quote from that people’s war book to back up your claim? (talk) 11:10 08 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Quotes from 101 in People's War:

• "Sinn Féin and the IRA won the their [sic] war, but where did they fight correctly and where did they fail in their efforts and objectives?"
• "The Republic won in 1921, but what did it win?"

Here's a Google Books link with preview available (at least where I am). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

A quote that says IRA tactics didn't win the war is irrelevant (especially when Bowyer Bell's passage is quoted in full). The article does not say "IRA victory", quite deliberately so since it says "Military stalemate" which was left in the article as a sop. It was an Irish victory, not an IRA victory. FDW777 (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Colm Hayes states in his book "North Clare's Fight for Irish Freedom" that attacking the British forces came increasing difficult in the later stages of the war. Partly because the British stayed in their well defended barracks. Partly because when they ventured out, they did it in so great numbers that it was beyond the military capacity of the Volunteers. So the description of "Irish political victory, military stalemate" is correct in my eyes. The Banner talk 19:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX and Template:Infobox military conflict it should be simply "Irish" not "Irish political", as at present. FDW777 (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"Political victory" mainly because it was after all a compromise (26 counties, dominion status) over the ultimate goal (full independence for the whole island). And it was political pressure from outside and the military stalemate that forced the British to the negotiating table. The Banner talk 20:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

But when you refuse these nuances, I invite you to write an "Aftermath"-section with all the necessary nuances. The Banner talk 21:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

What nuance is being refused? The infobox specifically says it was a Military stalemate. FDW777 (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Rebelrajan is a confirmed sockpuppet, see here. FDW777 (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Even so, censorship and hiding of edits from other editors is NOT a good idea. Editwarring over this is also not a good idea. The Banner talk 20:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Petition to include the Rebel City Tour as an external link in this page...

My name is Dara and I'm the creator of the Rebel City tour of Cork. The tour is basically a free online resource that guides the visitor through the city, 100 years ago during the height of the war.

Before I tell you a little about the origins of the tour. First, let me apologize for unilaterally adding the link without due consideration from the community. If every marketer with a web app starting adding links to wikipedia, i'm sure the site would quickly become overloaded. So apologies on that score. I'm new to the wiki community as you can probably tell.

If I may tell you a little about the origins of the tour perhaps? The tour consists of 8 waypoints or stories set against the backdrop of the war in Cork city. Including the burning of Cork city, the assassination of RIC commissioner Smyth and the ambush on Barrack street. The online tour is basically a passion project of mine. Since I love tech and I love history. I haven't received any funding in any form for the tour. And it has taken considerable time, money and resources to produce. The online tour is free and will remain free.

So why is this tour 'useful, tasteful, informative and factual' and why does it deserve a precious external link from the wiki? Well, the tour has been thoroughly researched. Mainly from the Dara McGrath exhibit in the Crawford Art Gallery in Cork city and also from Kieran McCarthy's website CorkHertiage.ie. I've also talked to Kieran to get his advice on the tour. Both Kieran and Dara have attribution on the landing page under the FAQ - So, are you day-cent at history or what?

This tour is not a mobile app. Rather it's a web app. Or web page that is extremely lightweight and will work on a browser either in the city on a smartphone. Or remotely on a desktop from anywhere in the world. It should be fine over slower connection speeds. And requires zero installation or plugins.

I'm not sure whether any of this has convinced you. But I'd certainly love to have an external link from wikipedia. I'm well aware that there is no SEO benefit of such a link. But in terms of prestige and quality of visitors. To be included on the War Of Independence wiki page would be a great honour.

Lastly, I wasn't aware - from reading the External Links page - that tracking links weren't allowed? Simple link parameters that tell where a visitor came to the tour page from? Obviously, i'd have no problem removing this parameter if needs be.

Thanks for your consideration and keep up the great work,

https://hahamarketing.com/smartphone-tour/

Myuser007 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Please read WP:ELYES, WP:ELMAYBE and WP:ELNO. What you have described above falls within the scope of WP:ELNO (a link which is added to benefit the linked website rather than to inform the readers of this article). Whether it would be "a great honour" (for your website/org) or the product offered via that website is "thoroughly researched" by people "day-cent at history" is irrelevant. There is no content on that webpage that provides "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" (and so it doesn't meet ELYES). It is, effectively, a webpage which "primarily exist[s] to sell products or services" (so it falls under ELNO). While your note above may be enjoyable to read, it does not/cannot change those basic facts. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Causality

The short-term causes of the war may be obvious to editors who know it inside out, but as far as I can see there isn't a single line in this article that puts it in a nutshell. We do have "The Dáil reaffirmed the 1916 Proclamation with the Irish Declaration of Independence,[29] and issued a Message to the Free Nations of the World, which stated that there was an "existing state of war, between Ireland and England". That is what but not why. So I would like to work with editors to add this. Because it is not obvious to the newcomer why the 1919 Dáil knew the Brits would refuse to recognize the reaffirmation of the Irish Declaration of Independence and therefore declared war. It needs to be spelled out. Firstly with the British aim of retaining the majority-Protestant north? I'm hereby starting the draft:

"The Dáil reaffirmed the 1916 Proclamation with the Irish Declaration of Independence,[29] and knowing that the British would not accept Dublin rule over the majority-Unionist counties, issued a Message to the Free Nations of the World, which stated that there was an "existing state of war, between Ireland and England".

And I hereby invite criticism, derision, corrections and additions.

-Chumchum7 (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

That completely misstates the position. The British were not offering, and would not accept, the independence of any part of Ireland. The Irish had made clear in the 1916 Rising, and in the 1918 elections that led to the 1919 Dáil, that they would not accept anything less than complete independence for the whole of Ireland. That is the cause of the war in a nutshell. How to phrase that in the lead or the Origin section is another question. But the position of majority-Unionist counties wasn't addressed in either the Declaration of Independence or the Message to the Free Nations. Scolaire (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The second sentence of the Easter Rising article says, "The Rising was launched by Irish republicans against British rule in Ireland with the aim of establishing an independent Irish Republic". A similar sentence here might address Chumchum7's issue. Scolaire (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Very good, that's the point of working on a draft text, to improve the artictle to attend to this matter. So for starters I'll change the line to

"The Dáil reaffirmed the 1916 Proclamation with the Irish Declaration of Independence,[29] and with the aim of establishing an independent Irish Republic issued a Message to the Free Nations of the World, which stated that there was an "existing state of war, between Ireland and England"

More content is now required showing that the British were not offering, and would not accept, the independence of any part of Ireland, with references. That is a paradox given Britain supporting the independence of European nations post-WWI, and what the British would have accepted needs to be added. The whole background of the Home Rule debate, the conscription crisis and the shift in public sentiment after the Easter Rising needs to be thoroughly connected to the aim of independence and therefore the outbreak of war. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the contention that "the British were not offering, and would not accept, the independence of any part of Ireland" is rather problematic. Which British? What meaning of "independence"? "The Irish had made clear in the 1916 Rising, and in the 1918 elections that led to the 1919 Dáil, that they would not accept anything less than complete independence for the whole of Ireland" - again, and as alluded to above, which "Irish"? Don't try to over-simplify something which was, on all sides, very complex. DuncanHill (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

DuncanHill, yes - please propose content to add. The article shows the British government had committed to Home Rule in 1914, and at the time the elected representatives of Ireland were also - as were the masses of Irishmen who joined the WWI British Army in support of Home Rule. So a clear explanation as to why by 1919 the Irish government could not accept Home Rule and the British government could not accept independence is needed. Also, at the end of the war, in the Anglo-Irish Treaty, was there any difference between the government in the "south" and the 1914 proposals for Home Rule? Doesn't seem clear in our article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I know Redmond and others wrote some pamphlets in 1916 about the Cabinet's (and Asquith's) rejection of Lloyd George's efforts, but they are rare as hen's teeth and I haven't been able to find them on line - but am sure they would shed some light. DuncanHill (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an important issue for our article because if full independence was the aim then it could be a view that the Irish War of Independence failed to achieve its aim of full independence, and only established for the "south" what had been offered by Westminster in 1914 for the whole island. From a certain perspective that does not make it an "Irish victory" as we have it in our infobox. Which AFAIU is the main cause of the Civil War, in that the anti-Treaty side did not recognize the Treaty as a victory but a defeat. With WP:NPOV in mind we have to ask whether an anti-Treaty fighter would concur that the War of Independece was an Irish victory. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: Please don't make any changes until you know what you're doing. Adding that phrase doesn't have the effect of suddenly making everything clear, and it's not that particular sentence that needs to be clarified. Issues as important as this need to be thrashed out on the talk page. Let people suggest edits here on the talk page, and they can be discussed here on the talk page. Scolaire (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: I offered Chumchum7 my view of the causes of the war in a nutshell. It's a bit silly to then tell me not to over-simplify! But here goes:

• Which British? Lloyd George, the British government, the British parliament, the people who elected that parliament. Which British do you think were in favour of Irish independence in January 1919?
• What meaning of "independence"? Full and complete independence. Not some form of home rule. What other meaning of "independence" is there?
• Which Irish? Éamon de Valera, the Dáil government, the Dáil, the people who elected the Dáil, Irish nationalists, the majority of the Irish people. Would you disagree with that?

Scolaire (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Scolaire, so please propose content and I will give it hearty engagement. Steady on with who knows what they're doing: for what it's worth, I've been working on Wikipedia for 12 years, and subscribe to going WP:BOLD in order to keep things moving. Your expertise is most welcome so show us what you've got by way of draft text. Here is at least one source [2] (which should be much improved upon, by way of peer-reviewed academic sourcing, etc) which refers to this war as ending in stalemate, not Irish victory. Kisses, -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Scolaire: Full and complete independence like Canada? Or full and complete independence like the Thirteen Colonies? And that's just the beginning of the stumbling blocks. The Cabinet in 1919 were not of one mind on Ireland ( to put it very mildly) and hadn't been since long before the first coalition, and divisions in Parliament and across Great Britain were just as deep. The 1918 Election produced a 47% vote for Sinn Fein, which doesn't make support for a republic the kind of monolith that's implied - and yes, I know the results can be played with in lots of ways to account for unopposed candidates, local pacts, etc - it is, as I said, complicated. DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with DuncanHill - this is not an area where nutshells are useful. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the 47%: The percentage of votes given is a percentage of the total number of votes cast and therefore does not take into account the preferences of voters in constituencies where no contest occurred because of the overwhelming support for Sinn Féin there. It is impossible to know with certainty what the final shares of votes cast might have been had all constituencies been contested. See: 1918 Irish general election. So the real support was significantly higher but not carved in stone as competitors knew that running in those districts was useless. The Banner talk 22:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)