Talk:Irish War of Independence/Archive 3

Unclear to reader who doesn't know history; and term not sourced
The article as it stands has some deficiencies for those unfamiliar with the history of the period. a guerrilla war fought from 1919 to 1921 between the Irish Republican Army (the army of the Irish Republic) and the British security forces in Ireland gives the uninformed reader the impression of a war between two states. It is necessary to set the stage at the beginning of the article; I tried the wording ... (the army of the Irish Republic unilaterally declared in 1919, and not recognised by Britain, who ruled the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) and the British security forces in Ireland. but this was objected to (while, like the original text, it does not cite a source, it simply states the factual situation, I think, essentially following Irish Republic. Perhaps better wording could be chosen, but the basic facts need to be conveyed).

I don't know what is considered POV. "(the army of the Irish Republic unilaterally declared in 1919, and not recognised by Britain, who ruled the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland)" seems objectively true, a simple statement of fact. Ireland did declare independence, it was not accepted by Britain, they did rule the UK. I don't want either to misrepresent the facts or to use weasel wording. I'm not even sure what my POV is seen to be.

Also, the term "war of independence" is not sourced. It is, I think, highly relevant that the British Cabinet papers use this term, not just Irish sources, and I had added it as a source.

The article states that the Irish term is Cogadh na Saoirse. While this is correct, it is "sourced" by a ink to a translation into Gaelic of "War of Independence" - which doesn't come out as Cogadh na Saoirse!

The text as I edited it, which was reverted, can be seen in the differences.

While I have no great attachment to my own text, these issues in the all-important introduction need addressing. Pol098 (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC) PS This text was drafted before seeing the previous comment. I absolutely agree, more opinions please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pol098 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not "unclear to a reader who doesn't know history". The Irish War of Independence, like the American War of Independence or any other war of independence, was fought between a nation that was ruled by foreigners, against the foreigners who ruled it, who naturally thought that they had a right to rule it, that it was an integral part etc. etc., and who naturally did not "recognise" it. Putting in stuff about "it was part of the UK" and such-like, especially expanding it to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" (on the pretext that that was its official title) is adding POV, not making it clearer. There is no need for a citation for any of this. It is self-evident from the title. But for your own comfort, here is a number of reputable sources, showing that "War of Independence" is indeed the term used for it. I have added a citation for "Cogadh na Saoirse". Incidentally, The "article as it stands" does not contain any of the deficiencies you mention. Who fought whom, and how, and for what reason, and in what circumstances, is all told in the second paragraph of the lead. It is neither necessary nor desirable to condense the whole lot into the first sentence. Scolaire (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Assuming that I don't know much about Irish history shows, to my opinion, not very nice. But even in Holland the war from 1919 to 1921 was known as "Ierse onafhankelijkheidsoorlog", what according to Google translate to "Irish War of Independence". The Banner talk 01:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (I try to word comments as a general discussion among all editors, not a dialogue between two people, please don't misunderstand the way I express things.) First to the final point of Banner's contribution: "Assuming that I don't know much about Irish history shows, to my opinion, not very nice": I didn't and don't assume any such thing; in fact I wouldn't be surprised if Banner knew more than me. My entire point is what the article says to others, who may be from, say, Japan, without the slightest knowledge of the topic. I'm not sure if Banner disagrees with what I actually said (I really can't see that this expresses a POV); but we do disagree on the need to say it. My POV in any contentious matter on Wikipedia is that there are two (or more) points of view, and articles as far as is reasonable should reflect them both/all, and not favour one. A useful way to judge how an article seems to be others is to change details that one knows and may have an opinion of; if you change "Ireland 1919" to "Argentina 1852" and "Republican Army" by "Big Army", what can you infer? Was this unilateral? Was one side oppressive?


 * To some extent I must agree to disagree with Banner, and hope that others will participate in this discussion. I definitely think that the first paragraph (which is all some people will red, to get a quick general idea), should explain a little about the conflict; hence my suggested sentence, which I still recommend should be used, possibly tweaked a bit; ... (the army of the Irish Republic unilaterally declared in 1919, and not recognised by Britain, who ruled the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) and the British security forces in Ireland. Banner says


 * I think the above idea is a definite POV. I don't take the opposite POV, but the factual situation is that at the time Britain ruled Ireland and considered it had the right to, and viewed these events as an insurrection against legitimate rule (I'm not saying this attitude is "true"). Besides being more neutral to acknowledge both sides, knowing this makes it easier to understand events.
 * "But for your own comfort, here is a number of reputable sources, showing that "War of Independence" is indeed the term used for it." This totally misunderstands my point. I am not trying to argue against use of the term, and in fact I found a reference in the British National Archives to it, and added it to the article. Of course the Irish called it a war of independence; it's noteworthy that the term was later used in Britain, at least to some extent. The second paragraph doesn't, despite what Banner says, doesn't make everything clear; e.g. "they formed a breakaway government (Dáil Éireann) and declared independence from Great Britain". Why? It's not said that GB considered Ireland part of the UK. Again, think in terms of Argentina 1852: why did Urquiza fight the Confederation?
 * Anyway, I'm getting bogged down in details. My first comment here, which I stand by, states what I see as the essential points: the first paragraph of the article should give a reader who know nothing about the subject a general idea (think of someone in Japan or India), and the use of the term "war of independence" and whether it is generally accepted, in particular in Britain, needs to be sourced. Pol098 (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are wrong in your citation. That was not me, but our colleague Scolaire.
 * Secondly, what I stated that "War of Independence" is also the usual term used in The Netherlands, a country that clearly was not a party in the fighting then. The Banner talk 11:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comments of Scolaire and The Banner; and the article as it currently stands has no major problems. Snappy (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not see how what I said can be characterised as a POV. It's a statement of the obvious. If the ruling power in any situation in any part of the world acknowledged that it was not a native government, that it did not have the right to rule, that the nation in question was a separate entity and that it had a right to independence, would there be a war of independence? If the people of any nation acknowledged that they were an integral part of a larger nation, that its rulers were the logical and the proper rulers, and that there was no case for independence, would there be a war of independence? What examples are there in history of a war of independence under either of those circumstances? None that I can think of. Therefore, a war of independence will always be between on the one hand the army of a "subordinate" people – who will declare themselves independent, and the current rulers unlawful – and on the other hand the forces of those rulers, who will declare themselves the legitimate rulers, and the opposing party as "rebels". In the case of this particular war of independence, the Irish revolutionaries declared themselves independent of Great Britain, and their army, the IRA, fought against the British security forces. This is all clearly explained in the opening paragraphs, and there is no reason for the reader from Japan to misunderstand.
 * I'm also still baffled by the insistence on using (and linking) the full title "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". For me at least, "Because that is what it was" is not enough. Do other articles begin with, for instance, "Troon is a town in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? They don't. And yet it would be accurate to say so. It's unnecessary in other articles, and it's unnecessary in articles relating to the Irish revolution. Scolaire (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

For anybody else who comes to this discussion, the text I suggest for the first paragraph is something like the following (slightly modified from my original wording). It is intended to give someone who reads only the beginning of the article an idea of the issues. I use the British National Archives as a source for the name to illustrate that ultimately (not initially) both sides used the term.

Pol098 (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The correct title of the UK at the time should be used. Britain did not "rule" us as we were represented at the UK parliament. (GavinHerlihy (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC))
 * It's clear from the conversation above why that change is an issue. I have reverted here and on another article.   Await consensus for change at the moment you don't have it.   You might want to tell us if you have edited Wikipedia under another name  Snowded  TALK 15:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He doesn't need to: it's User:HarveyCarter. --Scolaire (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not again, I should have spotted it. Are you doing the sock report?  Snowded  TALK 17:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have experience in sock reports. I've alerted Binksternet, but that needn't stop you doing it if he hasn't already. Scolaire (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Independence from Great Britain
With regard to this edit summary: "Don't see the problem here", the short answer is that it is customary to revert banned users on sight, and a slightly longer answer is that it was a deliberately provocative edit by a banned user. As regards the phraseology, "independence from Great Britain", this is the common usage in books on history, politics, sociology and art, e.g. The Anglo-Irish War, 1916-1921, The Geography of War and Peace : From Death Camps to Diplomats, Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Ireland and the European Union, Civil War Citizens: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity in America’s Bloodiest Conflict, The Great Reimagining: Public Art, Urban Space, and the Symbolic Landscapes of a 'New' Northern Ireland, Historical Dictionary of the British Empire (if any author was going to insist on "independence from the United Kingdom" you would expect it to be a "British Empire" author), and in particular Global Elites: The Opaque Nature of Transnational Policy Determination, in which we are told that the 1921 Treaty was officially called "Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland". If "Great Britain" was used officially by the British government, and is still used by reliable modern sources, there is no good reason for it not to be used on Wikipedia. Scolaire (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed?
The following sentence has been given a "citation needed" tag: I am at a loss to know what is controversial here. The dates 1919–21 fall within the timeline of the Irish revolutionary period. Between May 1916 and January 1919 there was no open warfare but there was revolutionary activity (by-election campaigns, the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis, the anti-conscription campaign, the general election campaign). After January 1919 there was open warfare (hence "War of Independence"). Therefore, it was an escalation of the Irish revolutionary period into warfare. What precisely is being challenged? Scolaire (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was an escalation of the Irish revolutionary period into warfare.


 * How are you defining warfare? 1919 doesn't strike me as particularly war-like; maybe 25 dead? The early 1990s in Ulster saw more deaths per year (and that's without allowing for the population differential), and we don't refer to the Troubles as warfare. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It was the War of Independence. You don't need a citation to say that the War of Independence was a war. How it strikes you, or me, is of no importance. If the sources say it was a war then it was a war. Scolaire (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Do the sources say it was warfare? Gob Lofa (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, are you saying we need a source to say that warfare is what happens in a war? Scolaire (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Is it of any importance how that strikes me? Gob Lofa (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand that question at all. Look, if it's the word "warfare" that bothers you, why don't you just change it to "armed conflict"? I'm not wedded to the text in any way. My only concern is the use of tags. Scolaire (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously this whole issue is ridiculous. Mabuska (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Irish War of Independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080307171018/http://www.psni.police.uk:80/index/pg_police_museum/pg_ric_to_ruc.htm to http://www.psni.police.uk/index/pg_police_museum/pg_ric_to_ruc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Confusing edit summary
What straightforward terms are deemed not to require explanation? What things are considered to have been purposelessly removed from the lede? What irrelevancies have been deemed to have been inserted? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 'state' when just two words on it is classed as a Dominion. 'reprisal' is also a straightforward term, this isn't a dictionary.
 * The way the bit about Northern Ireland was changed it could easily be misread that the south and west referred to Ireland as a whole. It also was not quite right if one looks at a map. ' despite the fact that County Fermanagh, Tyrone, Derry City and border regions had voted by a majority for nationalist candidates in the 1918 General Election' shows very explicitly that it refers to the area of Northern Ireland. Not totally accurate but good enough for the purpose.
 * Looking again I can see that 'in the city' probably is okay, somebody might not connect the Dublin earlier in the sentence with the killings. I'll stick that back. I must admit I wonder about the IRA bit too. They were the IRA but it was rather a different thing from what one thinks of nowadays, but not totally different. I've stuck that bit in too as it defines what the IRA was for the article. Dmcq (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've never come across anyone arguing before that the Irish Free State wasn't a state. That description (County Fermanagh, Tyrone, Derry City 'and' border regions) isn't good enough at all, it's all over the place. What map are you looking at? Much of Fermanagh and Tyrone is on the border, as is Derry, and why exclude such a large settlement as Newry? It's an arbitrary and garbled description, and can't stand. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Have a look for instance at the map of the 1918 elections, it is a fair enough description as far as I can see. Much better than what you put in. I did not argue the Irish Free State wasn't a state. I said it was silly linking to state and that in addition it was more closely described as a Dominion only two word further on in the text. Dmcq (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

True casualties figure?
What is the true casualties' figure for the War? This article appears to contradict itself - 2,014 dead in the box under 'Casualties and losses' versus "over 3,400" under the 'Casualties' section in the main article. The figures in the latter do not add up to 3,400. Does anybody have reliable figures and a reliable breakdown of them? 79.97.64.240 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The entire article is a farce and rife with bias. Read some proper historiography; compare and contrast; then come up with your own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.73.153 (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Can't help you on that but I'm restoring the captured figure as I have a reputable source and I don't know why it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamrockawakening (talk • contribs) 22:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Biased or not?
To my opinion this edit is not an helpful edit. The first part is, to my opinion, biased and whitewashing the facts. The second part of the edit is a "randomly throw something down and claim it is properly sourced".

More opinions needed. The Banner talk 23:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see it, I must admit. The first part is the removal of unsourced content. Cairo Gang doesn't say anything about collaborators, and I can't see any mention of collaborators on the web, except for content lifted verbatim from this article. So good call, I'd say. The second is simply a figure for republican prisoners c. 1921, citing Michael T. Foy's Michael Collins's Intelligence War. The citation is poorly formatted, and the second ref is superfluous (I'm guessing it was Foy's source), but WP:AGF requires us to assume it is correct. I reverted the addition of the prisoner information to the infobox, but I can see no reason not to add it to the article body. Scolaire (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Results section
The section should just say "Creation of Irish Free State". (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:4480:9FA1:FC0C:362 (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC))

The Irish War of Independence ... aka 'the Black and Tan War'?
I just removed this as it was uncited, but why exactly is this term even used? The war was going for over a year (January 1919-March 1920) by the time the Black and Tans turned up. Yet some folk insist on it, though they never explain exactly why. What's going on? Fergananim (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason it is sometimes referred to as the tan war.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your removal but added three sources. A quick search on Google gives you far more... The Banner talk 19:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * How about reading the article Black and Tans? There's citations there too that can be copied over. Dmcq (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looked a bit more at that other article and it doesn't have much about the terminology "Black and Tan War" but a use of 'Google Books' with a search on 'Black and "Tan War"' gives a load of books that refer to the phrase. The first few that I checked were okay were William Henry "Blood for Blood: The Black and Tan War in Galway", Richard Bennett "The Black and Tans", Jonathan R White "Terrorism and Homeland Security", Joe Ambrose "Seán Treacy and the Tan War", Pat Coogan "Michael Collins: The Man Who Made Ireland" Dmcq (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Casualties
Are all the British dead only those killed by the IRA and such? If not maybe it should be mentioned that not all of the 260 so British servicemen were killed by enemy action? In the page on Operation Banner it mentions the number that died not due to direct engagements with the paramilitaries. Perhaps where it says "Of these, 363 were police personnel, 261 were from the regular British Army[...]" it could be said not all who were killed by enemy action, if this article doesn't already exclude them. If you include the at least 56 British soldiers "accidently killed by firearms in Ireland 1919-21" then the total number would be significantly less than 260, not counting other causes that were not related to firearms and I don't believe suicides are included because it's not really accidental. 2604:2000:814B:B300:294B:2C61:D63D:5B16 (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Operation Banner is part of a completely different conflict: The Troubles. It has no relation to the War of Independence. The Banner talk</i> 15:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm completely aware that it was a different conflict, but I'm just pointing out another precedent. I'm just suggesting it should be noted that not all were killed by enemy action, because the Anglo-Irish war was a pretty short "war", and AFAIK not many people died in the first year of 1919, with much less casualties than a typical war, and it might be misleading seeing over 261 killed thinking that they all perished in combat. I'm just proposing a short addition to the sentence to clarify this. 2604:2000:814B:B300:294B:2C61:D63D:5B16 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

General Election of 1918
The General Election of December 1918 was not a referendum on ending the UK. (86.133.255.178 (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC))
 * In effect it was. Either way one of the argument for partition was that it was the democratic wish of the people in the 6 counties that would remain a part of the UK, which is clearly inaccurate as parts were anti-partition.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The UK government did not accept the General Election was a referendum, and neither did any party other than Sinn Fein. Ireland was partitioned mainly to prevent genocide in Ulster if the IRA won. (86.133.255.178 (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC))
 * Genocide? You have got to be joking. Do you have any proof of this supposed genocide that was going to take place?Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think would have happened to the loyalists if the IRA had won? Michael Collins had planned to invade Northern Ireland prior to the Anglo-Irish Treaty. (86.133.255.178 (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC))
 * Even if that was true what does any of this have to do with my original point?Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You wrote partition happened for democratic reasons, but preventing genocide was the main reason. There was never a referendum on independence. (86.133.255.178 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC))
 * No I said that was one of the arguments given for partition.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The words should either be amended or removed. Saying the 1918 GE was a referendum on Irish partition/independence is like saying the 2015 GE was a referendum on Scottish independence, as the SNP won 56 out of 59 seats. (86.133.255.178 (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC))
 * I think we really need a citation on this business about a genocide being feared. It sounds pretty silly to me. Dmcq (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear we're dealing with another sock. See the recent edits to the Easter Rising article by a similar IP, and another similar IP in last month's sockpuppet investigation. Scolaire (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What we really need is a citation for the disputed unattributed text:. Looking at the results there where only eight border regions that would become part of Northern Ireland and four voted unionist. That does not equate to a nationalist/republican majority. Rather the statement should be changed to state the commonly thrown about statement of County Fermanagh and Tyrone having Catholic majorities.

For Londonderry city wasn't a border constituency and just because it was won by nationalists isn't an excuse to throw it in with the four border ones that also voted nationalist to give a majority on the border. May as well throw in the rest of what became NI that voted unionist to counter balance as well as Trinity College whose two seats where won by unionists. Mabuska (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree a citation should be provided. Tyrone and Fermanagh had/have nationalist majorities I believe. It should be stated that they voted against the union. Derry is a significant city so it is worthwhile to mention it while Trinity College clearly is not notable at all.Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be making flash reverts because you "believe" but because you know. Trinity is actually quite a notable place however Londonderry city's result means little as together with the county there was a unionist/Protestant majority. Does that mean that we should throw in Toome and Moyle as well?
 * Unless you can source such a claim that they where voting against the union then we shouldn't be engaging in synthesis and original research. Mabuska (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that any claims should be sourced. I do think though you are making rather a strong claim yourself in saying that any division should have been on county boundaries or that the vote needed to be explicitly for anything rather than just being evidence for those doing a partition. Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying any of that and simply stating to change it too the most commonly used statement on the issue. What is in the article is inaccurate OR where the adder has most likely not even bothered to look at the election results. Any additional statements should be equally sourced. Mabuska (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The disputed clause does not correspond to anything in the article body, and therefore should not be in the lead. I stayed out of this discussion initially because it was started by a sock of a banned editor, but I'm going to be bold now and remove it. Voting patterns in constituencies that made up the new Northern Ireland state are well enough documented in books and articles if somebody wants to add sourced content to the article proper. Scolaire (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. We shouldn't have stuff in the lead which isn't in the article. Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So the fact the statement was utter nonsense wasn't good enough Dmcq? Ah well at least its gone now. Doesn't matter if it was inadvertently highlighted by a sock if there is an actual issue that needs sorted. Mabuska (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Faction of the IRA that refused to accept the Anglo-Irish Treaty - Reasons?
I. A fascinating subject. To someone with no previous knowledge of this subject, Irish Revolution, Irish War of Independence, and Irish Civil War was a bit confusing, but I get it now. What I still don't understand is the basis for some IRA leaders rejecting the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Was this due to their not being consulted during the negotiations or was there some substantive disagreement? If the latter, what was it? My best guess would be that they disagreed with the partition of Ireland into a north and south portion. Was this it? Alternatively, maybe they didn't like the terms or the governance structure. I can see that they would object to turning in their weapons as a pre-condition to the Treaty, but if this were the case, why did they continue objecting after that condition was dropped? It just seems odd that a Civil War is described, but the reason for the disagreement isn't clear. If it's there and I missed it, please let me know. I skimmed the article on the Irish Civil War and it says that the opposing faction saw it as a betrayal of the "Irish Republic," but is that because it left northern Ireland within British dominion (like Canada & Australia), or is it because the proposed autonomous situation for southern Ireland was insufficiently independent, i.e., not a separate country? [Further confusing things is the mention in the Irish Civil War article that both factions of the IRA fought the Orange forces in the north.]

II. A slightly unrelated question, why isn't the post-partition violence in Northern Ireland a civil war? It appears that the side fighting the Protestants was [according to the Civil War article, both factions of] the IRA from southern Ireland, but is it clear that Irish citizens in the north did not participate in the violence and/or weren't part of the IRA? The article seems to indicate that a protestant paramilitary force took revenge/reprisals on northern Catholic civilians for actions performed by the southern Ireland IRA. it still seems like one group of Irish fighting another. Is it considered to be part of the same civil war or a second civil war? I didn't get that from reading this nor the separate article on the Civil War. Does the activity during this period of time in the north-east have a name? Is this part of "The Troubles"? Ileanadu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 10 October 2017‎ (UTC)


 * Re-reading the article from your point of view, I agree that the cause of the Civil War is very poorly explained. It was this: The Treaty created the Irish Free State as a dominion, with the king at its head. It also stipulated that members elected to the parliament of the Free State would have to take an oath of fidelity to the king. The signatories of the Treaty and their supporters argued that that was the best that could be achieved at that time, and that it was a stepping-stone to eventual full independence. Those who opposed it said that they had taken an oath of allegiance to the Irish Republic, and they could not in all conscience accept a situation in which they or their parliamentary representatives would give allegiance to a foreign king. Each side was passionate in its belief, and the result was that former comrades-in-arms found themselves facing each other as enemies. Partition would become an issue later on, but it was not a critical factor in the Treaty debate, and it is probable that republicans would have accepted partition (at least in the short term) if it hadn't been for the oath. I would favour editing the article (and the Civil War article) to make this more clear.
 * The violence in the north can be – and has been – described as a civil war, but it was separate from the Civil War. As you say, both pro- and anti-Treaty IRA fought to protect the nationalists of the north from the "Orange forces". It doesn't really have a name. Nationalists sometimes refer to it as the "pogrom". It was certainly an important part of the background to the Troubles. Scolaire (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Irish War of Independence. 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/20110607105722/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191904100004.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191904100004.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607123609/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.C.192103110061.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.C.192103110061.html
 * Added tag to http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/talks/limerick.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305163652/http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/september_1919.htm to http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/september_1919.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006110737/http://www.irishdemocrat.co.uk/anonn-is-anall/isdlgb-1919-24/ to http://www.irishdemocrat.co.uk/anonn-is-anall/isdlgb-1919-24/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211135910/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.C.191908200012.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.C.191908200012.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328010559/http://irishhistorypodcast.ie/2011/02/28/photos-and-notes-grangegorman-military-cemetery-notes/ to http://irishhistorypodcast.ie/2011/02/28/photos-and-notes-grangegorman-military-cemetery-notes/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Irish War of Independence. 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/20110607123530/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.C.192101250030.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.C.192101250030.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721130634/http://www.southernstar.ie/article.php?id=846 to http://www.southernstar.ie/article.php?id=846

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Acceptance of a state of war in 1921
I've clarified the text on the Dail debate on 11 March 1921; (link here). De Valera weighed up the pros and cons and "... discussed the arguments for and against formal acceptance and said it was a very serious decision to take, and he would like the meeting to consider it carefully. If the acceptance were agreed to they could instruct their Consuls abroad to look for belligerent rights. His opinion was they should agree to the acceptance of a state of war. It meant every member would take an equal responsibility."

Then the Dáil voted unanimously: "That the Dáil approves of the President's being empowered to draw up a statement on the lines indicated verbally by him, and that this be done at whatever time was considered most opportune."

So far as the historical record shows, he never did draw up that statement.78.16.100.92 (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)