Talk:Irish War of Independence/Archive 5

Infobox result
DuncanHill, Johnbod, The Banner, thanks for chiming in. In order to avert analysis paralysis, let's work on some draft text with references that explains (i) Origins namely why, if Home Rule was on the cards in 1914, war was the only option in 1919 and (ii) Consequences if full independence was indeed the war aim, to what extent can we speak of Irish victory (versus stalemate) given that the Anglo-Irish Treaty did not establish full independence which was the cause of the Civil War. This article needs improvements to reach Good Article status and it currently does not have WP:CONS. Let's collegially step in that direction. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As the infobox states: Irish victory with a military stalemate but a political victory due to the treaty. A bunch of guerilla fighters force the mighty British Empire to the negotiating table because the British knew they could not win. From my Dutch (!) point of view, that is a victory. The Banner  talk 15:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and a point of view contradicted by the other side, the anti-Treaty IRA in the ensuing Irish Civil War, who were prepared to die and kill fellow Irishmen because they had (allegedly) sold out and caved in to the British, accepting Dominion status rather than full independence. We need article content to show the divergent points of view, per WP:NPOV. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Another reluctant signatory, George Gavan Duffy, thought Lloyd George’s bluff was a “monstrous iniquity”, but he concluded: “We lost the Republic of Ireland in order to save the people of Ireland.”
 * On 11 July 1921 a truce between both sides was agreed. It was a product of exhaustion, and did not signify a military victory for either side. By forcing the British government to meet the representatives of the republican movement in formal peace talks, the IRA had achieved a great deal. However, the decision of the republican leadership to negotiate inevitably meant that the demand for an Irish Republic would be compromised. / The end result of these negotiations was the Anglo-Irish Treaty, ratified by a narrow majority of the Dáil in January 1922, which ceded a significant degree of independence to a twenty-six county Irish Free State. However, by ensuring that Irish members of the Dáil were required to take an oath of fidelity to the British monarch, and that the Irish Free State would remain within the British Empire, the Anglo-Irish Treaty divided the republican movement and laid the foundations for the Civil War of 1922-1923.
 * In the spirit of WP:CONS I am inviting draft content to reflect this sourcing. As it stands the article does not adequately accommodate it.
 * Meanwhile the only Good Article version is in Portuguese where the infobox shows the result is ceasefire and Anglo-Irish Treaty, with no victory ascribed. I'm hereby making the change to the infobox.-Chumchum7 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile the only Good Article version is in Portuguese where the infobox shows the result is ceasefire and Anglo-Irish Treaty, with no victory ascribed. I'm hereby making the change to the infobox.-Chumchum7 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This discussion somehow morphed from the causes of the war to the results field of the infobox, but okay. FWIW, I wrote in May 2013 in favour of dropping "independence" (as it then was) from the infobox, so I'm not sorry to see "victory" dropped now. I do, however, have a couple of comments on by . First, while changing "Irish victory" to "Truce", it left in place the two refs that called it an Irish victory. Second, the truce marks the end of hostilities, but is not a result of the war, any more than the armistice of 11 November was a result of World War I. Since apparently the infobox may be edited at will without seeking a consensus on the talk page, I am going ahead and removing it.  Scolaire (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: the Portuguese article is very obviously a translation from an earlier version of this one. The fact that Portuguese Wikipedians decided it was a Good Article does not mean it is superior to this one, and the inclusion or omission of something from a field of the infobox is very unlikely to have been a factor in gaining GA status. Scolaire (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Truce" is not a result for the same reason "Ceasefire" is not a result when that was attempted. That's how virtually all wars end. FDW777 (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Also I feel the change in discusion topic from Causality without any clear notification is inappropriate when there is a pre-existing section on this talk page. FDW777 (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I see the references that have been in the article for well over six months are now being called dubious sources. A book published by Praeger Publishers and a journal article by the International Churchill Society (a publication described as an "acclaimed scholarly journal" are absolutely not "dubious". FDW777 (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I see now that strawman has been demolished, another flawed argument has been presented. Other than removalsby sockpuppets of a banned editor, the content has been in the article since it was added in May 2021 and is the consensus version of the infobox. It is the removal that requires consensus, I am not required to obtain a fresh consensus every time someone removes it. No policy based arguments against the content have been provided, merely people providing their own definition of what would constitute a victory and seeing if events match that definition. FDW777 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The result of ceasefire which had been unchanged for ten years was changed by yourself back in May 2021 as you said. There's no sound basis for said result. There are many sources which state the war was a stalemate. It says military stalemate in the infobox which is confusing for the reader as is. The result of the war was not a victory for either side. Partition, Dominion status & British retention of treaty ports resulted in Civil War. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You're also attempting to define victory and see if events meet that standard. FDW777 (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not definition victory when there was no victory at all. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * According to your definition of victory, which is irrelevant. Also "Ceasefire" is not a result, a result is who won and who lost and ultimately the gains were made by the Irish according to the references. FDW777 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * According to your definition of victory I haven't defined it all, I will show a number of sources that define it as stalemate. In which case as per guideline at MOS:MIL there should be a link to the relevant section of the article ie Aftermath / Truce. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's largely irrelevant, since the infobox states there was a military stalemate while also stating that the Irish still won the war. Not all wars are lost on battlefields. FDW777 (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not irrelevant, if it was then there would've been no partition and Civil War or even the failed IRA Northern campaign in 1922 Many Irish like De Valera resigned in protest. He cetainly didn't think it was victory. This you seem to ignore there are just as many reliable peer reviwed sources that describe the war's result as a stalemate or inconclusive, so why should we just insist on those 2 sources or you own judgement? Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was not aware de Valera was the sole arbiter of who won the war. As before, "stalemate" is already included and is not relevant to who won the war, since wars are not always won and lost on battlefields. FDW777 (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * He wasn't, I just used him as an example. The political situation was the same, as well as the military - so the whole war itself was a stalemate/inconclusive. That's what Im pointing out, which you seem to ignore. It's either victory or stalemate as per MOS:MIL, not both. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Talking about De Valera, it is more than likely that he expected a difficult compromise so he did send his arch-enemy to take the blame (and the bullets). The Banner  talk 15:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

And, if it were indeed an 'Irish victory', then there would be no question of 'blame'. You can certainly cite sources which claim 'Irish victory' if you like, but that didn't happen, and the cited Churchill Society article, by an American, is not good work. The victor tends to be the one who gets to dictate terms, and it was the British who got to dictate terms. They had no wish to claim victory, but Collins (who ought to know) said the IRA was on the verge of defeat when Lloyd George offered the truce. Collins was surprised by the offer because he did not understand his enemy (contrary to what the American writer of the Churchill Society article imagined). The British Army was obviously capable of gaining a military victory against the IRA (see, for instance, David Stafford, Oblivion Or Glory: 1921 and the Making of Winston Churchill), but the British did not want this victory because they would then be stuck with administering a resentful country they were trying to get rid of. Home Rule had been law since 1914, reinforced by the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The 'war' brought about a change from Home Rule to independent Dominion status for the Irish Free State, but that was not what the IRA were fighting for. They were fighting for the 'Irish Republic' which was actually abolished by the Anglo-Irish Treaty imposed by Britain. The Irish delegation did not write the Treaty. The British did, and the Irish delegation eventually had to accept it. While it modified the terms of independence in a direction favourable to Ireland ('Not complete freedom but the freedom to achieve it,' in Collins' view), it was a British creation that kept the Six Counties separate -- unless they chose to join the Free State within a time limit -- and eliminated the risk of a revolutionary republic allowing naval basing rights to a hostile foreign power. That's not a victory on either side, it's a compromise, the only outcome that was ever really possible. The Churchill Society article's claim that only one side compromised, and that side was Britain, is ignorant and mildly laughable. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The result is too concocted and distorted; it would be best to leave it blank as it does not represent the true outcome. Historians come to the agreement that it was a stalemate overall. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As above, in line with recent changes. The article mentions nothing in relation to an 'Irish victory'. Most historians see the outcome as a no win - militarily and politically: Examples;















This is just a snippet and are good exmaples than the two sourced cherry picked result. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have indeed noticed that some people even after 100 years can not live with the fact that Great Britain lost the Irish War of Independence and that they had to give up most of the island (26 of the 32 counties) to get some peace. The military stalemate between the Mighty British Army and a bunch of Irish rebels was already a defeat (see the discussion above) on its own. The Banner  talk 15:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC) And no, I might live in Ireland, I am still Dutch.
 * It's a rather naive comment - yes the IRA fought the British to standstill that much is without question but the sources speak for themselves. The aftermath certainly didn't reflect any kind of Irish victory - a bloody civil war followed. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It was a polite, short summary of the facts.
 * Beside that, none of your claims/quotes can be verified with the sources given. Your quote about the "land war" could even refer to the Land War, an agrarian conflict in another era. The Banner  talk 16:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Only two sources there for those FACTS one which is from Churchill Society article, the other is post-graduate research student and neither of those can be verified with the sources given. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The facts of the outcome of the War of Independence are beyond question. British rule was ended over 26 of 32 counties. Plenty of other things happened after the war, Civil War included, but that wasn't the outcome of the war. Please stop edit-warring over this. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 'facts of the outcome' - the sources need to be reliable and not cherry picked - from a Churchill Society website or from a PHD student pointing out an exaggeration when not fully understanding. Most historians view the outcome totally different - stalemate, deadlock, inconclusive etc as a result of the treaty, militarily and politically and give their reasons why. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)