Talk:Timeline of the Irish War of Independence

message: Can I make a few suggestions?
First, Wikipedia is telling us that this article may be too long.  A lot of this length is the result of including many very minor skirmishes.  Although this accurately reflects the nature of the conflict, perhaps it would be better to leave out little-known incidents that do not meet some kind of minimum casualty number--say, the deaths of three ordinary people, or the death or capture of an officer.  That would let us slim things down a bit, and still hit the highlights.
Second, Richard Abbot has published an excellent reference work, Police Casualties in Ireland 1919-1922, which lists every policeman and auxiliary killed in the War of Independence.  I have revised a few entries after checking them against Abbott, and I suggest others do the same.
Third, I have tried to add some information about important British political decisions and events, like the failure of the Summer assizes in 1920, the Cabinet meeting of 23 July 1920, the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, and Black Whitsun in May 1921.  I think that more information of this kind from the Republican side would be more useful than more details about ambushes and assassinations.  --Cliodule 16:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Clodule, good work on this article so far.
Re the length of the article. The 32k limit is only a guideline as certain browsers, my own included, cannot edit articles over this length in full. However many articles go over this limit and this one is only slightly over it. I do not feel that this article should be cut down from its present state.
Re the second point. The purpose of this article is to catalogue the events of the War of Independence. Most of these events were on a very small scale and this article should reflect this. If we were to apply a rule of only listing incidents where only three people were killed this would not only distort the picture, it would also mean leaving out seminal incidents like Soloheadbeg, where two RIC men were killed. Another advantage to this approach is that it means that much of the detail that still clutters the main article can be removed and moved to here. The main article, not this one, should confined to "highlights". Regarding political developments, I have nothing against their inclusion here, but I feel that wide-ranging or analytical points are better made in the main article.   
Re the Police casualties, I have got most of my information from Michael Hopkinson's "Irish War of Independence", if his figures are found to be incorrect, then I have no problem with them being changed.
Jdorney 17:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Regarding the Limerick Soviet section: (1) Is "Limerick Soviet" the name of the strike?  (2) The sentence: "The response was a general strike and boycott of the troops." seems ambiguous to me. --Kevin Murray 22:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Limerick Soviet article that's what the press called it. One Night In Hackney303 22:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: By my reading of it, Stapleton wounded another man, and Murhpy shot D.I. Hunt. One Night In Hackney303 22:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try: *23 June 1919: RIC Detective D.I. Hunt was killed in a gun battle with IRA men Jim Stapleton and James Murphy in Thurles, County Tipperary.  Jim Stapleton had been selected to shoot Hunt, but missed his shot wounding another man in the knee.  In the ensuing chaos Hunt was killed at close quarters by a shot from Murphy's pistol. --Kevin Murray 22:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty good. Wish I had the time to sort it out myself, but there's that many IR articles in need of improvement and the majority of them rely on offline sources so it's an arduous and time consuming job which doesn't leave much time for the simple but time-consuming tasks. One Night In Hackney303 22:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem.  I'm learning as I go.  I just need a bit of help with the ambiguities.  Thanks. --Kevin Murray 23:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: Sorry I hadn't kept up with the spring cleaning of this article, but I don't agree with the recent change from the present to the past tense. This is a timeline article, and the norm for such articles is that events are listed in the present tense. The idea is to show events unfolding as they happened, see for example Timeline of the Kashmir conflict for another example, among many.
Jdorney 13:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware all articles (with the exception of fiction) are written in the past tense, I've not seen any guidelines to say timelines or chronologies are any different. One Night In Hackney303 20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not a precedent. Guidelines state we write in the past tense. One Night In Hackney303 22:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agreed to clean up this article if it didn't end up in a pissing match.  Have at it! --Kevin Murray 15:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense 

message: Hi--I've noticed that this article uses the term "Black and Tan troops" in some places.  This is a contradiction in terms.  The word "troops" always means "soldiers".  Though the term was used loosely to include the Auxiliaries as well, the Black and Tans were British RIC constables.  Both the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries were police, not soldiers.
And I'd just like to say that, while I have no objection to my entries being rewritten to put them in the past tense, in my experience, most of these types of chronologies are written in the present tense, to give readers the sense of events unfolding before their eyes. But that's just my two cents--like I said, I don't mind, either way.Cliodule 06:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don't object to the proposal of changing the reference to troops.  --Kevin Murray 00:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I disagree with changing to present tense.  What once was clever has now become cliche and abused ad naseum. --Kevin Murray 00:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Black and Tan troops" 

message: This article has serious NPOV issues as do many articles on this subject. Many happening involving British brutality go unreferenced and weasle word are used throughout to make the British appear in an unfavourable light. These issues need to be addressed. 86.165.241.225 (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Although most of Sean Patrick Lynch is likely not true, there's a mention of a July 1918 ambush in Co. Cork which does appear to have happened. This is before the ambush that is thought to have kicked off the war of independence. A caption in the photo archives of the Irish Examiner calls it "The first armed attack on the Royal Irish Constabulary to occur in Ireland since the 1916 rising". The facts appear to be:
On 7 or 8 July 1918 at Beal a' Ghleanna ("Mouth of the Glen") on the road between Ballingeary and Ballyvourney, two armed RIC men on a horse-drawn side-car who had been stationed to stop a feis being held, Bennett and Butler, were ambushed - one was shot in the neck, the other beaten, and police carbines and ammunition were seized. The ambushers were Jonny/Sean Lynch, Tadhg Twomey, Liam Twomey, Jamie Moynihan, Dan Tady Sweeney/MacSweeney, Neilus Reilly/Cornelius O'Reilly, Jer./Jeremiah O'Shea, as recounted in Mícheál Ó Súilleabháin's 1965 book, "Where Mountainy Men Have Sown". It was called "an attack calculated to shake to its foundations all sense of public security" and was commemorated by Taoiseach Jack Lynch with Old IRA War of Independence veterans on 17 March 1970.
Sources: Where Mountainy Men Have Sown by Mícheál Ó Súilleabháin, Chapter Four "The Mouth of the Glen", p39-45, 1965; The I.R.A. and its enemies: violence and community in Cork, 1916-1923 By Peter Hart, p62; No other law: the story of Liam Lynch and the Irish Republican Army, 1916-1923 by Florence O'Donoghue. Irish Press, 1954, p29; The Capuchin annual, 1968, p343; Examiner Photographs > Pictures from the Examiner Archive > ghleanna.jpg; http://homepage.eircom.net/~corkcounty/beal.html; http://www.ballingearyhs.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45:ballingeary-volunteers-ballingeary-ira-1916-1920&catid=2:journal1996&Itemid=3; http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume5/issue4/letters/?id=113313.
Worth including a mention? Fences&Windows 09:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't put it in this article, since it is really for the conventional narrative. I do think it's worth a brief mention in Irish War of Independence#Initial hostilities, though. Possibly after the account of Soloheadbeg you could say, "This was not in fact the first armed action after 1916; in July 1918..."  Scolaire (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, I'd considered that too. I'll put a brief mention there about earlier clashes, this book mentions a few alongside that ambush. Fences&Windows 18:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job!  Scolaire (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little known July 1918 ambush 

message: The state was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and it's rather odd calling the Royal Irish Constabulary or indeed Constables Patrick MacDonnell and James O'Connell "British". While the term is colloquially used to refer to the UK, articles should be clear so I've modified the lead. . dave souza, talk 20:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: When was the last time you saw a news report referring to the "UK Army" or "UK troops"? It's not colloquial, it's standard practice in Britain and everywhere else to refer to "British forces". If you don't think Irish constables should be called "British" - and I see your point - then it might be better to delete "X state forces" altogether. That sentence is unwieldy as it is and the phrase adds nothing to it. The Tans and the Auxies were part of the RIC anyway! I'm reverting in the meantime because it just looks wrong as it is.  Scolaire (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agre that 'it looks wrong'. Also, at the time in question and later, the majority of newspaper reports books etc. used the term 'British' in reference to 'the opposing force'. RashersTierney (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: <ec> gulfnews : Gurkha services in UK forces to end,  BUDGET 2012: UK troops will receive 'full' council tax relief while deployed | Mail Online, UK troops in major op to clear IEDs | British Forces News, The Press Association: UK troops support Afghan offensive. "British" is often colloquial, and correctly in the British Army as that's what it's called, but daft in the "British Royal Irish Constabulary". . .  dave souza, talk 23:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrasing is still a bit of a pig's ear. RashersTierney (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It really is! Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: UK

message: I see that many entries to the timeline have no references, so how can their accuracy be confirmed? Parts of my contributions are being removed when they are clearly referenced. So why the double standards?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slogger3 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the linked newspaper reports, and I can see nothing in it to justify the statement: "They were killed, not for what they did, but for what they were deemed to have learned from their time in captivity." Somehow I can't imagine that the "correspondence from Army Finance Office concerning exhumation of the remains" will, either. Primary sources are not encouraged on Wikipedia, precisely because they are difficult to check. I reverted a previous edit of yours because it used emotive language, thereby introducing a POV into an article which should have an NPOV (neutral point of view). I agree with you that it would be preferable if all entries were referenced by reliable sources. It would also be better if the whole article was in either the present or past tense.  Scolaire (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing timeline events 

message: Is cairogang.com really a reliable source? It gives me an itchy feeling... The Banner talk 22:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. It contains a lot of primary sources, fine in their place, but it is essentially self-published. RashersTierney (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  cairogang.com 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Timeline of the 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/20120227183151/http://www.kildare-nationalist.ie/news/story/index.aspx?trs=kfididsnmh to http://www.kildare-nationalist.ie/news/story/index.aspx?trs=kfididsnmh
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Timeline of the 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/20070905215654/http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/june_1920.htm to http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/june_1920.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100330024621/http://www.dcu.ie:80/~foxs/irhist/march_1921.htm to http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/march_1921.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319151140/http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/february_1922.htm to http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/february_1922.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319151311/http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/march_1922.htm to http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/march_1922.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120630192658/http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/april_1922.htm to http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/april_1922.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: With all due respect to the edits of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, not all of them seem to be correct, neutral or relevant. So please take a look. The Banner talk 23:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. I am very proud of my edits. I rv a considerable amount of confessional language and POV terminology and added details which I read about in books by Peter de Rosa and Tim Pat Coogan. Just ensure that the extra eyes are equally "neutral". Quis separabit? 00:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a particular reason to doubt about that the extra eyes are equally "neutral".? The Banner talk 23:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  We all know (or should know) that certain topics inflame the passions. Quis separabit? 23:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you imagine that answers like that just make all the alarm bells go off? Assume good faith, please! The Banner talk 23:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right. I should have said: "We all know (or should know) that certain topics inflame the passions, that's why I am around, to cool things down". I usually do assume good faith in general -- you're the one who opened this thread, and merely saying "With all due respect", doesn't change your "correct, neutral or relevant" comment. So far, I have not had one edit reverted that I have made. I am improving the article. Quis separabit? 17:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Is it not amazing how many dead DCU-link you can restore to life with the Wayback Machine. 1919 is done by now.The Banner talk 21:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: All dcu links now replaced by working links. The Banner talk 02:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Did you remove both mirror sites? I can not find them in the article any more. The Banner talk 03:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am an almost 52 year old man and, by today's standards, a Luddite -- I don't even know how to upload a photograph online or use Wayback or TW[inkle] or ROLLBACK, etc. And I am OK with that. BTW: did you hurt yourself? You wrote "Ow" immediately above, like the sound a person makes when the hammer hits their finger and not the nail. LOL. Quis separabit? 02:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am only hurt because I became aware of your prior community ban and the reasons for that. The Banner talk 09:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  "I am only hurt because I became aware of your prior community ban and the reasons for that." -- it was about a decade ago, dude, let it go. Forgive and forget and move on, you know, like "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, ...":::I know I cannot compare in terms of impartiality and neutrality and good will and lack of bias as, say, One Night In Hackney303 or Sarah777 or Domer48. But please try to forgive me for my inferiority to these sterling editors. I am outta here. Do what you want with this article/timeline. I am removing it from my watchlist. Quis separabit? 17:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

text:  If this is supposed to be a timeline of events during the Irish War of Independence then it should include all events relevant to the war. If all you want to include is casualties then maybe create a new page titled A Timeline of Casualties of the Irish War of Independence.  Future Research (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

text: County Clare is in Ireland, which is on Ireland. The Banner talk 22:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is but people normally—and it is policy in encyclopedias and this site— locate smaller man-made land units to the next level of man-made land units not landmasses, unless of course your at the highest level of unit. For example Texas, USA, not Texas, North America. My point was that your wikilink was to the island not piped to the state, and that portrays the potential for pot calling kettle. Mabuska (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A few words before "County Clare" I stated my nationality and that I am import on that island. And yes, I sometimes make mistakes. The Banner talk 01:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

text:  I found the reflink (see Section VI). Quis separabit? 02:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: More eyes needed...

message: # 23 June 1919: IRA volunteers Jim Stapleton and James Murphy shoot D.I. Michael Hunt, chief intelligence officer, in the back, in Liberty Square, Thurles, County Tipperary. Hunt died of his injuries the same day. Without a source, how do you know he was shot in the back? The Banner talk 19:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found the reflink (see Section VI). Quis separabit? 02:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Doubtful edits

message: * This source indicates the deaths which occurred during 1919-23, and the few which have no connection to the conflict are indicated accordingly. The place of the incident is not included so I try checking other sites but it is very hard as a lot of people with similar names on both sides of the conflict were killed during the Troubles. The fact that the location is unknown has nothing to do with the relevance. Also this is the site which gives some details (like "shot in the back", unarmed, off-duty, etc). Quis separabit? 20:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: IN GENERAL