Talk:Ireland and World War I

More information This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:, Associated task forces: ...

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	World War I task force

Close

Untitled

The military aspects of this article are total drivel. e,g, "Corporal E. Thomas of 4th Royal Irish Dragoon Guards had the distinction of firing the first shot in the War." first shot when, where, in what context ? "The 1st Battalion of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers and the Royal Munster Fusiliers with the Inniskilling Fusiliers participated in the attempted Y beech Landing at Cape Helles." ??? Rcbutcher (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Content from Talk:List of Irish people in World War I

To add to the list:

Above from Category:Irish people of World War I and some of its subcategories. Some already on the list, but many missing and could be added. I haven't looked at Category:Irish World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross or its subcategories yet. Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:List of Irish people in World War I (permalink) prior to it being redirected here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Irish people in World War I

I've just redirected List of Irish people in World War I (and its talk page) to this article. The version prior to redirection is here, in case anyone thinks content from there can be incorporated into this article. I did this following this discussion at the Military History WikiProject. If anyone disagrees with this, please feel free to undo it and discuss here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nat Vols and Irish Divisions

It is completely inncorrect, indeed misleading, to say that the National Volunteers formed the 10th and 16th Divisions.

The National Volunteers was a body of about 100,000 men at its peak. Of them, 24,000 joind various units of the British Army for the war. They did not join as an organisation or as a body. The British Army formed the 10th and 16th Irish Divisions as part of the New Army, officered them and filled them however it could.

The 16th Division had the strongest influence of National Volunteers in its ranks but by no stretch of the imgaination was it formed by them ,nor did they make up the majority of recruits. By the end of the war, indeed, as a result of casulaites and sluggish recruiting, most of the soldiers in it were not Irish at all.

Jdorney (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well referenced material continually being removed

Why does the following paragraph continue to be editted out of the entire article?

As Controversial as the war was in Ireland, the experience of an Irish Soldier fighting in the British Army was one of institutional discrimination, on average one British soldier out of every 3,000 were court martialed and executed by firing squad during the war, in comparison to the much higher, one out of every 600 Irish Soldiers. This displays that within the British army during the entire extent of the War there was a clear anti-Irish sentiment^[1]^[2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 22:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The first ref appears broken, the second does not directly support your contention. In other words it appears to be original research. Find a better reference, or change your edit to fit. RashersTierney (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The link may be dead but archive.org have a copy

The link may be dead but that does not mean it is inaccessible, Archive.org have a back up: This link will work: http://web.archive.org/web/20100714054820/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20050807/ai_n14861581/

I'm not familiar with the policy of linking through archive.org, but to suggest it is original research is false. The page loads perfectly, just click on the link to find out, or go to the waybackmachine youself on archive.org and plug the dead link URL in.

I also accept the reworking of the article, but the previous edit suggested that a total of only 26 Irish soldiers were executed, this was misleading. 26 have since been pardoned but a total of 333 were executed. Divide 200,000 by 600 and you'll get 333, and not 26. I'll accept this as an honest mistake but whomever reworked the information, presented by me, to suggest a total of only 26 were executed, are guilty of some very sloppy and misleading work. Boundarylayer (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you were Irish and died in the war then you have, just over a 1% chance of having been the victim of a British execution I also included that if the total Irish war dead was 30000, as this wiki page suggests, then that would translate into over 1% of all Irish dead being victims of British executions. Again I arrived at this figure by dividing 333/30,000 and then multiplying the answer by 100 to get the 1.11% precentage. The 333 figure is explained in this following link and above^[1].

This 1% dead by execution is pretty alarming, and should definitely be included in the opening section of this wiki page.

What do the rest of you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 09:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is nonsense. There were a total of 346 military executions in the entire British Army, including rapists and murderers. There were 306 in the entire British army executed for other offences. If you are saying that 28 were Irish, that's 0.09% of Irish casualties, and 0.01% of every Irishman that served. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.216.84 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem with using an archived reference. That still leaves the issue of 'original research', which has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. As example, source No1 says "There were 26 executions of soldiers serving in Irish regiments; 23 for desertion, one for striking an officer, one for quitting his post and one for disobedience." If, as you claim, 333 were in fact executed, you would need to supply a ref, perhaps more than one to counter this source. Doing the figures yourself is not acceptable. See also WP:SYNTH. Note also this source, "British and Commonwealth military command executed 306 of its own men during the Great War." for a total figure executed. RashersTierney (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to get a figure on the exact number of Irish soldiers executed? an entire list isn't available in the online British records nor in the Irish records. Very odd, perhaps someone could physically go to their respective records offices and request the information? This reaffirms the 1 in every 600 figure http://www.shotatdawn.info/page37.html although whether or not this was in fact the original source of the figure is unknown. However the website does have a reference list at the bottom of the page. including - Worthless Men. Race and Eugenics in the British Army 1914-1919 (1998)

This Belfast telegraph article states there were not 26 but 28 Irish executions http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/books/part-one-the-truth-behind-the-irish-soldiers-shot-at-dawn-13488027.html

346 officers and men were summarily executed at dawn following their court martials in the field between the outbreak of war in 1914 and the end of March 1920. Anthony Babington is the only writer who has been allowed access by the ministry of defence to all the files relating to these cases. He found that although the majority of the executed men were guilty, or technically guilty, of the charges laid against them, many were treated with considerable injustice and great inhumanity. This book reveals the grim and sometimes horrific details of the trials and executions. The disclosures it has revealed aroused a widespread sense of shame and have led to frequent parliamentry demands for posthumous pardons. About the Author Anthony Babington served in the Royal Ulster Rifles from 1939-1945. He was a Circuit Judge in London from 1972 until his retirement in 1988. His other books include A House in Bow Street, The English Bastille, and Military Intervention in Britain. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Example-Penguin-Classic-Military-History/dp/0141391006/ref=sr_1_1/202-0213039-9571844?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175959995&sr=1-1 Boundarylayer (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What this comes down to is you're making a big deal out of the small number executed without showing that it influenced Irish opinion on the war one way or another. In short you're gving this small detail too much prominence in the article. The information has been included in the releveant section. Leave it at that. Jdorney (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

On the Contrary, what this really comes down to is that YOU seem to think it's not a big deal. As this page is titled Ireland and World War I it certainly stands to reason that this information should be included. Boundarylayer (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It is included. You are giving it undue weight. Repeatedly. Stop please. Jdorney (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Republicanism v Nationalism

Edits made recently have replaced many (if not all) instances of "nationalist" with "republican". I personally don't think this is reasonable. "Republican" and "nationalist" are not synonymous. Many nationalists at the time (and as referred to in the article) were interested in devolution, increased autonomy, home rule and other changes - but not necessarily a republic. One of the edits even seems to suggest that John Redmond was a republican. Which is quite inappropriate. Unless there are arguments against, I think we should restore the (broader) nationalist label - as it is more inclusive and less misleading in those areas where republican and nationalist ideals overlapped. Guliolopez (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the IP's change of terminology hasn't been appropriate in all cases. RashersTierney (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this issue has cropped-up elsewhere as well. There seem to be at least 3 editors who have difficulty with the change (here and elsewhere) to refer to nationalism and republicanism as if they were the same thing. (Which is especially problematic when used in Home Rule context). Unless there are other opinions I am going to address the issues introduced on this article. Guliolopez (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that nationalism and republicanism are not the same thing and have reverted one or two of these edits.Hohenloh⁺ 17:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Easter rising was most certainly an Irish republican affair. They proclaimed Ireland a Republic, so that's pretty self evident, yet I've come to this page twice now to see it described, woefully inaccurately, as a nationalist affair.

Secondly, close friend's and supporters of the 16 men executed after the Easter Rising are therefore by extension, Republicans, like Ledwidge's friendship and poetry for Thomas MacDonagh.

Why's that so hard to grasp?

86.40.91.237 (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hiya. Welcome to the discussion - thanks for joining-in. As you might be aware, one of the key tenets of the project is to build consensus before making broad editorial changes - so your participation here is vital. In the spirit of CON, there is actually a pretty clear consensus (right now - though it might change) to avoid the less-inclusive "republican" label. Except where it makes sense. As you say, those involved in the Rising could safely be described as such. Agreed. I have no issue with that edit. However, using that justification you haven't just editted that one line - you've changed another 5 or 6 occurrences. Which wouldn't seem to be reasonable. Until there is consensus to make those changes, I'm going to switch them back. (But will leave the Rising label as you have it - coz that would certainly seem to make sense). I guess we can discuss your argument (and build consensus) for all the other cases. The first of these seems to be that Ledwidge was friends with members of the republican movement - and therefore was a republican - is not really reasonable. One of my best friends is a communist lesbian from Meath. I am none of those things. Political principles are not automatically transferred due to a friendship. I don't really think the Ledwidge argument holds-up. And I didn't see any arguments to support the other changes either. So will revert those (until we've discussed them), and we can start afresh on each CON topic. Cheers (and thanks again for engaging). Beir bua! Guliolopez (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I take your friends argument as humorously valid. However in Ledwidge's poem "O'Connell street" he most definitely displays a belief in, and longing for, the same republican aspirations or "dreams" as the Easter 1916 combatants, so calling him a "nationalist" is not exactly accurate. I've made changes to Ledwidge's page that now better reflect his politics with reference to this poem. See Francis Ledwidge.

As for the other questionable uses of the word "nationalist",

(1)the article reads - "For this reason, many nationalists were reluctant for many years to recognise the part that Irishmen had played in the world war on Britain's side". - I've attached citation needed tags to this sentence(which I'll get into at a later date) and also changed the adjective to republican. The reason? Ireland's a Republic for over 50 years now, so if this sentence was correct, it should be referring to the majority of Irish people right? and not only that, but were it cited, "nationalists", being descended from the Redmond Irish Volunteers, would be far more likely to commemorate them by using rhetoric such as -blood sacrifice in the British army for home rule etc.- than Irish republicans, who like me, would more likely regard the whole war a charade and a waste of life, and why commemorate cannon fodder, used as pawns by monarchists? Is that glorious? WWI was mostly a monarchist European "family affair" ala the The Great Game due to colonial power struggling. I am not at all sympathetic to those suckered into it under the pretense of defending Belgium...a country which had it's own Belgian colonial empire. So you see, if any Irish group was going to commemorate them it would be the nationalist lot.

(2) The article reads - "The fourth and perhaps most important reason was the rise of radical nationalism after the Easter Rising of 1916". This again is incorrect, as Sinn Féin support rose dramatically following the 1916 rising. At that time they were republicans and won the Irish general election, 1918 on a republican ticket. So it should read republican.

(3)"the more radical fringe of Irish nationalism, the remaining Irish Volunteers and the secretive Irish Republican Brotherhood"...So the IRB and their supporters from the fractioned Irish Volunteers weren't republicans...but nationalists? What???

(4)"the rise of militant nationalism in the country, which in many cases was hostile to those who had served in the British forces"...Surely you mean republicanism? Seen as after the war Sinn Féin had won on a republican ticket.

etc. 86.40.91.237 (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hiya. I might be interested to hear any other editors weigh-in at this point, but to be honest I don't really follow those arguments fully. In rationale #1 it sounds like you're bringing a POV/Subjective view-point into the argument. As a general rule I'd recommend avoiding that line of approach. I'd also avoid any "I think THIS means THAT, therefore the OTHER is true" type elaborations. As both have problems under WP guidelines. Fundamentally however, from arguments #2, #3 and #4 in particular, I'm getting a picture of two things.

Firstly it seems that you see Republican and Nationalism as fundamentally mutually exclusive in this period. However, during this period in Irish politics, to my view, the Republican movement was somewhat a sub-set of the broader Nationalist community. During the (cough) "Great War", different nationalist elements (IPP, AFIL, ISRP, etc) recognised each other in the nationalist camp - though would differ on means (although not on the Conscription issue). It is this super/subset labelling that influences the suggestion (from myself and others) that we favour the more inclusive Nationalist moniker where possible. As the Republican label would seem to somehow give one "corner" of the camp exclusive rights to dissatisfaction with the war and its impacts. (FYI - Don't get me wrong - if this article was written about events 4/5/+ years later, I'd be happy to support use of more specific terms. But for the stuff we're talking about, ascribing dissatisfaction and disquiet somehow exclusively to the ISRP and Sinn Féin? No)

Secondly, and somewhat related I guess, you seem to be extrapolating several years into the future, to a Pro/Anti-Treaty mindset from 1922/23, and then casting that back to 1916/17/18. (Or, in #1, the you've taken this even further. And cast 50 years hence: "sher we're a Republic now, therefore it must've been Republicans who did/said X"). This is quite a dangerous form of historical revisionism. IMO.

Anyway. Other opinions welcome. So we can move towards the CON goal we should be chasing. In the meantime it might be good to suggest compromise wording. Perhaps something that clarifies the sentences you have issue with. Rather than just "replacing" words to change (as I see it) the fundamental meaning. Guliolopez (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ireland and World War I

Untitled

Content from Talk:List of Irish people in World War I

List of Irish people in World War I

Nat Vols and Irish Divisions

Well referenced material continually being removed

Republicanism v Nationalism

Economic factors in recruitment

File:Irish WWI poster - Is Your Home Worth Fighting For? - Hely's Limited, Litho, Dublin.jpg to appear as POTD soon

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Wiki Education assignment: The Rhetoric of Archival Exploration

Related Articles