Talk:Battle of Dublin

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 21 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dillon davidson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Congrats

My sincerest congradulations to the creators of this page. Its outstanding. Pages like this are incredibly illumanating for anyone with any interest in our history. Is mise, le meas mor, Fergananim 00:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Occupation of the Four courts

I finally found the date and ref for the Four Courts occupation; 14 April.Red Hurley (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, Red. Weren't there other buildings occupied as well, before the June stand-off? Maybe I'll manage to look that one up myself. Scolaire (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate shelling

I'm intrigued at the An Phoblacht source given that says: "The first shots fired did not hit their target but, ironically, landed in the headquarters of the British under Gerald Macready from where the guns had been borrowed." How could you aim north of the river and have shells land on Kilmainham, several miles to the west? It sounds like wishful thinking.86.42.199.49 (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know really. Unless they were firing east to west and Macready's headquarters was what is now Collins barracks? I used the an phoblacht source only for the republican casualties in the Four Courts. Maybe the shelling thing is aurban myth? Jdorney (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides Tim Healys memoirs and the National Army's claims is there any other sources that claim the explosion in the Four Courts was as a resuly of booby traps? The Army had excellent reasons for spreading a falsehood to this effect given the possibility that their shelling of the building caused the fire that led to the explosion. Both would have been eager to show the irregulars as bloodthirsty philistines and the irish Free state as blameless. The Oscar Traynor comment is meaningless, it sounds to me like a joke on his part, and O'malleys comments, repeated in the singing flame seem to be taken out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.120.10 (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

To be frank, an Phoblacht is not exactly a source with a Neutral Point of View of either the Free State troops or the British Army. It should be cited with a health warning that it has always been heavily linked to the armed Republican movement, and a vehicle for linked propaganda. It's a bit like citing a Hamas newspaper for a comment on the Israeli army. Michael of Lucan (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Destruction of historical records

Nearly a century later, we can see that the true tragedy of the Four Courts battle was that it completed the destruction of much of the records of the Irish people and their history. Apart from destroying the Public Records Office, the occupiers used the records in the Probate Office and other offices as part of their defences, destroying or damaging many of them as well.

With the appalling bombing of the Custom House in 1921, a huge proportion of official records of the Irish people were destroyed. They did not destroy "British" records but a large chunk of the Irish nation's history. Ironically, some people still think the Custom House bombing was a victory over the British government. It was a crippling defeat for Ireland, but none are so blind as those who refuse to see.

I have added only a short section to record this. It could be much longer, but it would not have Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View if it expressed the nauseous disgust that Irish historians feel at the idiots who shredded their own history in 1921 and 1922. - Michael of Lucan (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Who would these idiots be? The Garrison or the Army outside? Its unclear who was to blame and unlikely that the garrison would booby trap their store room and then surrender. The TM Healy remarks should be removed. Neither he nor the national army can be trusted. I think that it should be stated that the causer of the explosion was uncertain and that both sides blamed the other. Its all that can be said with any accuracy on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.198.252 (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Further to above, I've removed the section that quotes TM Healy and the remark by Ernie O'Malley. Ernie O'Malley was so concerned about putting up an 'honourable' fight that its unlikely that he would have ordered the mining of the PRO. Its furthermore unlikely that his order would have even been obeyed by volunteers who are getting ready to surrender. Why leave booby traps to kill an enemy then surrender to that enemy, leaving oneself vulnerable to reprisal. So basically, the quote is out of context and unlikely (given O'Malleys desire to fight a conventional fight) to have referred to booby traps.

As for TM Healy, he can't be trusted for the same reason An Phoblacht cannot be trusted - he could (and in my view probably is) spouting anti-IRA propaganda. Given the fact that its unlikely to ever to be answered satisfactorily what exactly happened to cause the detonation, and its just as likely to have been an accident caused by the shelling as any deliberate Anti-Treatyite action, I think its the only fair thing to include.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.198.252 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 15 August 2009

I agree with its removal. What is currently there is sufficient for this article. Scolaire (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

PS Please remember to sign your posts. Just type ~~~~ after them. Scolaire (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, will do going forward. I think it looks a lot better now - it reflects that basically noone knows or can say for certain what caused the explosion. Well done to whoever added extra to the piece. There is a random line regarding TM Healy that looks like it may not even be a full sentance and is stating the obvious anyway. This should really be removed to clean the paragraph up because it adds nothing. Regards Paddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.178.165 (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

But you still didn't :-) The "random line" was somebody's attempt to condense the previous long quote. I'm tidying it and putting it in the previous paragraph, where it belongs - if it belongs at all; I still think it could be left out altogether. Scolaire (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Healy got his info from Free State officers and so he was reflecting their POV. His opponents had to give their POV. Either could be right, or wrong, so both must be mentioned. It seems that neither side was interested in the ancient records, just in winning. Surely the Free Staters could have starved O'Connor into surrender?86.46.212.194 (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Politically impossible though. It was a case for Collins of acting now or watching the British take the Four Courts - an act that would probably have meant the end of the Free State. Jdorney (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It could be that the building was entitled to protection by the Hague Conventions. Wait a minute, someone used the building as a hide-out. So if no Hague convention exists....--82.134.28.194 (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Background section: Editing conflict

I want to add my congratulations to all who've worked on this page. It's really quite well done. I've been adding some points of clarification, re-arranging a couple paragraphs in the "Background" section. While reading back & correcting my typos, I'm getting a "editing conflict" alert. Would whoever's working on it at the same moment care to engage? Thanks Puma prowler (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit history shows that you were the only one editing. I don't know why you got that message. Did you perhaps edit in two different windows or something, so that you were conflicting with yourself? Scolaire (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I get that sometimes, I reckon it's my mouse key sticking and clicking twice. The edit should be saved if that's what's happening to you. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Dublin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023170901/http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/C405A2905C07523880256DA900495EE2 to http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/Library3.nsf/pagecurrent/C405A2905C07523880256DA900495EE2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)