This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Irish Army rank insignia page were merged into Irish Army on 29 November 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This Article needs serious Work, not that the stuff there isn't good, but there is allot more info. that could be put in. For instance surely there should be parts about the Army's equipment, Guns, Vehicles etc. It needs links to Steyr Aug, Scorpion Tank etc. I don't know if I'll be able to do all that's needed as I'm pretty new to this, but this could be made into a good article if someone is willing to work on it. Hibernian
I agree, I recently finished compiling a list of DF equipment, vehicles & weapons in the equipment section which includes many pictures. I feel that we need a seperate page for history, peace-keeping missions, the ARW, a list of DF barracks, description of the Brigade areas & the easter parade. Likewise the Reserve page is in dire need of a clean up. I'll start preparing these tonight, but would need help creating the link box(that says Irish Army & has links to all Irish Army r articles.) -Chris
Okay, so I've added a section on Uniforms, Vehicles & Weapons. I still need these to be placed in that linkbox if somebody would do that it'd be great. -Chris
As a former member of the Irish DF I would not be, in any way, happy to see the country's defence plans being posted on the internet. Such material would be very harmful to the our defence forces. Likewise Seeing if we could win a war... seems a bit pointless. Wars are unpredictable.
On the other hand I do like your other suggestions and would like to see them being implemented into articles.
I would like to see the main 'Irish Army' page being cleaned up, it seems to drag on too much. Perhaps some of the topics mentioned on that page would be better if they were in their own article. For example, brigades & structure.
We need a photo for the rank structure area. If somebody could maybe get a photo of a general or the chief of staff that would be great.-- Onynyo 00:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a note on the section on Ranks. Cadets are potential officers, and are not commisionned officers ( http://www.military.ie/army/org/ranks/index.htm) - Donal@troddyn.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.62.41 ( talk) 20:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
31st of July: I added the new Army Corps section today, with pictures for most of the corps. Some photos for the MP section would be great, if anyone can help? -- Onynyo 00:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
who keeps eiditing out the photos on the different Irish military pages, surly he can't own the copyrights to them all?
Is it worth mentioning anywhere the support the Army give to the police when money deliveries are made to banks in the Republic? Does this still occur? Its been a while since I popped across the border for fuel Alastairward 11:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure where to put this but at the start of the article it states the army is responsible for internal state security. this is obviously inaccurate as An Garda Siochana handled all internal state security (ie terrorist attack). Its even in the Garda mission statement and website. the Irish army is responsible for state security and protection from EXTERNAL threats. Pretty much the primary purpose of most armed defence forces. (KC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.76.42.171 (
talk) 23:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a note, that the RDF didn't take over from the FCÁ until 2005, and so it was members of the FCÁ who were extras in Saving Private Ryan - Donal@troddyn.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.62.41 ( talk) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This page needs a lot more referencing. 4 references and 2 external links for such a large topic isnt nearly good enough. Prose is fine, and so are the supporting material. A bit more information could be added to the sections, but otherwise, this article is pretty decent. T/ @ Sniperz11 edits sign 21:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
anyone have any information on how many foreign nationals serve in the army/defence forces? because, i might be wrong on this, aren't eu nationals allowed to serve? Jimjom ( talk) 18:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Was watching reeling in the years just a few days ago and the army where only ever sent to the border to offer medical aid. There where suggestions of an invasion but nothing official 86.42.65.219 ( talk) 15:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
This page should be for the irish army as a whole not just Permanent or Reserve. Other pages can be created if needed or the name of this one changed.
A seperate page on history of the defence forces needs to be done in order to declutter this page.
The current deployments needs updating.
What do others think?
SnackerViking ( talk) 10:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Under the heading "Peacekeeping Missions" Darfur is listed as one of the counties Irish troops where deployed. Ignoring the fact that Darfur is not a country but a region in Sudan, Irish troops where never part of any mission there. Irish peacekeepers in Chad, part of EUFOR Chad/CAR and MINURCAT did protect refugees fleeing from Darfur into Chad but never crossed the border into Sudan to do so. Darfur should be removed from the heading "Darfur and Chad". MFIreland ( talk) 14:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with MFIreland on this one! It gives the impression that the DF were depolyed in Darfur. SnackerViking ( talk) 06:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I agree with that and the Clarification re deployment should be included though.
SnackerViking (
talk) 12:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
What User:MFIreland has termed vandalism is the inclusion of the following articles of the Defence Forces Provisions Act of 1923.
^ DEFENCE FORCES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1923
These unambiguously show that the Army after this Act was the same force as the one established in 1922 and which participated in the Civil War.
I really don't see what the argument here is. The answer to the question, "was there a new Army formed in 1923?" is clear. "Organisation shall be as at present existing", "all orders continue to be in effect". "All soldiers shall be liable to continue to serve" etc. It was a not a new army simple as that. The current version is factually wrong.
Furthermore, currently cited as evidence that it was a new force is the pdf pictorial history of the Army http://www.military.ie/dfhq/pubrel/publications/DFHistory.pdf However this does NOT state that a new force was formed. What it says is; "At the end of the Civil War the new state set about providing a legal status for its armed forces. Under the Defence Forces(Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923 the Executive Council formally established Óglaigh na hÉireann on 1 October 1924."
Which again says that it was not a new force but a formal, legal establishment of the old one.
Jdorney ( talk) 14:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I would tend to agree with the points being made by the two editors commenting above. WP:3, though, is meant to try to help resolve disputes between only two editors in disagreement. Nevertheless I will invite the editor who seems to be in disagreement with the above to comment here about it, and then try from there to perhaps reach a consensus on the key issue. Otherwise, some other remedy may need to be sought per WP:DISPUTE.— Wikiscient (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
Per the above discussion, the intro probably needs a minor reword. From the current text it could be inferred that the 1922 force was completely separate to that subsequently established in law in 1923/1924. As has been noted (with ref to the act in question on the statute books), we need to be careful with a wording that suggests the force was "disbanded" and then reestablished. The 1923/24 Act did effect a significant restructuring and reorganisation - but it was an act applied to the existing force. Again, thoughts/compromise on how to address this issue should be put forward here. (Not further misuse of the undo button). Guliolopez ( talk) 23:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The Irish Defence Forces was established on 1 October 1924, its origins officially date from 1913 and not 1922. The history section includes the history of the army from 1913 to the present in the same way the Army Reserve article includes its origins from 1927 even though it was only established on 1 October 2005 (the same date as the regular army for historical reasons). -- MFIreland ( talk) 20:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
As a non Irish person (im South African) I find hard to understand the current intro. It would be better to revert the intro back to the version used on 31/8/2010 and fix it to make sense.
My suggestion for intro-The Irish Army is the main branch of the Irish Defence Forces. The Army was established on the 1st October 1924 and at this time it was the only branch of the Defence Forces, as the Air Corps was still an Army Corps and the Naval Service was not formed until 1946. The Irish Army is involved in peacekeeping efforts around the world as well as its main role of defending the State.
As for the debate over 1913, 1922 or 1924 it most be remembered that this article is about the current Army. The histroy section does give information on its links to the other forces which I think is good. Many armys around the world have there roots in militia, rebel, guerrilla and even terrorist groups. The US, Israeli, South African etc, all have there origins in irregular militarys just like the Irish. South Africa is a good example. The army that exists today was created in 1994 but has its origins with the 1957-1994 and 1912-1957 state forces and with militias before that. I hope my suggestion is of help and remember that most people who will read this article are not Irish. 217.42.115.62 ( talk) 14:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The above suggestion is much better. Keep the histroy to the histroy section and out of the intro. On military.ie histroy page it dates the army back to the 25th November 1913 with its establishing on the 1st October 1924. The weapons section could do with a clean-up with details of artillery guns. There is no mention of the Nordic Battlegroup. Plusused ( talk) 19:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The official history on military.ie says there establishment was on the 1st October 1924. The National Army was put on the Statute Book on the 3rd August 1923 and not at any time during 1924 as Jdorney claims. They had been in existence since the 25th November 1913 with the founding of the Irish Volunteers not at any time during 1922 as Jdorney also claims. Looking at Jdorney's contributions he/she may a political agenda. Plusused ( talk) 21:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately it seems that there has been a return to WP:TEND and WP:SOCK style behaviour to promote a position that is contrary to consensus on this subject. (Essentially an editor seems to be using multiple IPs to engage in tendentious editing). Is it disruptive enough to warrant pursuing under semi-protection guidelines? Guliolopez ( talk) 10:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Irish Army → Army (Ireland) – This would align the article with Army Reserve (Ireland), Air Corps (Ireland) and Naval Service (Ireland). Most armed forces articles follow the "French Army", "German Army" et al. format, but this is not universal - take for example Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, or (looking further afield) Armée de terre in French Wikipedia. -- Kwekubo ( talk) 11:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the emblem being used for the army in the info box is probably in either in need of considerable touching up, or else replacement with the logo of the Irish Defence Forces without a background colour. While appreciating the good intentions of the editor who uploaded it, I think its probably too amateur for use in this page. If there is a higher quality emblem with the red background for the PDF (and green for the RDF) then thse should of course be put in. But for now, for the sake of a more professional looking page, I suggest the removal of the current logo. -- 104066481 ( talk) 20:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
With the Western Brigade now disbanded, does anyone know which units were disbanded along with it? and which units were transferred to the the remaining two brigades? thanks, noclador ( talk) 23:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. An (editwarring and likely block evading) anon keeps removing reference to the fact that the brigades are organised as "Southern" and "Northern". To my view, there is plenty of precedent for the brigades being described in this way. However, if the anon or any other editors have specific reason to explain why the "Southern" and "Northern" descriptors should be removed or reworded, let's discuss here (with rationale and per WP:CON convention) before affecting further changes. Looking forward to some discussion on this under the guidelines. Guliolopez ( talk) 19:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Per my previous note on the topic (and relevant WP:CFORK guidelines and WP:SPLIT convention), I've moved the large list/table of weapons to the existing " weapons of the Irish Army" sub-article. If there's a case to be made for including here, more than happy to discuss it, but I think it's a little weighty/impactful here (and already covered with the appropriate summary and "see more here" type standard - per WP:SS guidelines). Any other thoughts graciously welcomed. Guliolopez ( talk) 10:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Irish Army. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Someone could add a link to the 1969 plan " Exercise Armageddon" to the Troubles section. Nothing ensued, but its planning was requested by the government and paid for by the taxpayer. 78.17.38.186 ( talk) 11:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I changed "English equivalent" to "English language equivalent" because although Ceannfort translates as "Commandant", the equivalent British/US/Commonwealth rank is Major. (Commandant was briefly used in the UK instead of Brigadier.) Richard75 ( talk) 22:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish Army. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm deleting the Roles of the Army section. It is unsourced and reads like a mission statement. Meesher ( talk) 07:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Irish Army rank insignia page were merged into Irish Army on 29 November 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This Article needs serious Work, not that the stuff there isn't good, but there is allot more info. that could be put in. For instance surely there should be parts about the Army's equipment, Guns, Vehicles etc. It needs links to Steyr Aug, Scorpion Tank etc. I don't know if I'll be able to do all that's needed as I'm pretty new to this, but this could be made into a good article if someone is willing to work on it. Hibernian
I agree, I recently finished compiling a list of DF equipment, vehicles & weapons in the equipment section which includes many pictures. I feel that we need a seperate page for history, peace-keeping missions, the ARW, a list of DF barracks, description of the Brigade areas & the easter parade. Likewise the Reserve page is in dire need of a clean up. I'll start preparing these tonight, but would need help creating the link box(that says Irish Army & has links to all Irish Army r articles.) -Chris
Okay, so I've added a section on Uniforms, Vehicles & Weapons. I still need these to be placed in that linkbox if somebody would do that it'd be great. -Chris
As a former member of the Irish DF I would not be, in any way, happy to see the country's defence plans being posted on the internet. Such material would be very harmful to the our defence forces. Likewise Seeing if we could win a war... seems a bit pointless. Wars are unpredictable.
On the other hand I do like your other suggestions and would like to see them being implemented into articles.
I would like to see the main 'Irish Army' page being cleaned up, it seems to drag on too much. Perhaps some of the topics mentioned on that page would be better if they were in their own article. For example, brigades & structure.
We need a photo for the rank structure area. If somebody could maybe get a photo of a general or the chief of staff that would be great.-- Onynyo 00:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a note on the section on Ranks. Cadets are potential officers, and are not commisionned officers ( http://www.military.ie/army/org/ranks/index.htm) - Donal@troddyn.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.62.41 ( talk) 20:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
31st of July: I added the new Army Corps section today, with pictures for most of the corps. Some photos for the MP section would be great, if anyone can help? -- Onynyo 00:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
who keeps eiditing out the photos on the different Irish military pages, surly he can't own the copyrights to them all?
Is it worth mentioning anywhere the support the Army give to the police when money deliveries are made to banks in the Republic? Does this still occur? Its been a while since I popped across the border for fuel Alastairward 11:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure where to put this but at the start of the article it states the army is responsible for internal state security. this is obviously inaccurate as An Garda Siochana handled all internal state security (ie terrorist attack). Its even in the Garda mission statement and website. the Irish army is responsible for state security and protection from EXTERNAL threats. Pretty much the primary purpose of most armed defence forces. (KC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.76.42.171 (
talk) 23:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a note, that the RDF didn't take over from the FCÁ until 2005, and so it was members of the FCÁ who were extras in Saving Private Ryan - Donal@troddyn.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.62.41 ( talk) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This page needs a lot more referencing. 4 references and 2 external links for such a large topic isnt nearly good enough. Prose is fine, and so are the supporting material. A bit more information could be added to the sections, but otherwise, this article is pretty decent. T/ @ Sniperz11 edits sign 21:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
anyone have any information on how many foreign nationals serve in the army/defence forces? because, i might be wrong on this, aren't eu nationals allowed to serve? Jimjom ( talk) 18:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Was watching reeling in the years just a few days ago and the army where only ever sent to the border to offer medical aid. There where suggestions of an invasion but nothing official 86.42.65.219 ( talk) 15:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
This page should be for the irish army as a whole not just Permanent or Reserve. Other pages can be created if needed or the name of this one changed.
A seperate page on history of the defence forces needs to be done in order to declutter this page.
The current deployments needs updating.
What do others think?
SnackerViking ( talk) 10:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Under the heading "Peacekeeping Missions" Darfur is listed as one of the counties Irish troops where deployed. Ignoring the fact that Darfur is not a country but a region in Sudan, Irish troops where never part of any mission there. Irish peacekeepers in Chad, part of EUFOR Chad/CAR and MINURCAT did protect refugees fleeing from Darfur into Chad but never crossed the border into Sudan to do so. Darfur should be removed from the heading "Darfur and Chad". MFIreland ( talk) 14:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with MFIreland on this one! It gives the impression that the DF were depolyed in Darfur. SnackerViking ( talk) 06:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I agree with that and the Clarification re deployment should be included though.
SnackerViking (
talk) 12:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
What User:MFIreland has termed vandalism is the inclusion of the following articles of the Defence Forces Provisions Act of 1923.
^ DEFENCE FORCES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1923
These unambiguously show that the Army after this Act was the same force as the one established in 1922 and which participated in the Civil War.
I really don't see what the argument here is. The answer to the question, "was there a new Army formed in 1923?" is clear. "Organisation shall be as at present existing", "all orders continue to be in effect". "All soldiers shall be liable to continue to serve" etc. It was a not a new army simple as that. The current version is factually wrong.
Furthermore, currently cited as evidence that it was a new force is the pdf pictorial history of the Army http://www.military.ie/dfhq/pubrel/publications/DFHistory.pdf However this does NOT state that a new force was formed. What it says is; "At the end of the Civil War the new state set about providing a legal status for its armed forces. Under the Defence Forces(Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923 the Executive Council formally established Óglaigh na hÉireann on 1 October 1924."
Which again says that it was not a new force but a formal, legal establishment of the old one.
Jdorney ( talk) 14:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I would tend to agree with the points being made by the two editors commenting above. WP:3, though, is meant to try to help resolve disputes between only two editors in disagreement. Nevertheless I will invite the editor who seems to be in disagreement with the above to comment here about it, and then try from there to perhaps reach a consensus on the key issue. Otherwise, some other remedy may need to be sought per WP:DISPUTE.— Wikiscient (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
Per the above discussion, the intro probably needs a minor reword. From the current text it could be inferred that the 1922 force was completely separate to that subsequently established in law in 1923/1924. As has been noted (with ref to the act in question on the statute books), we need to be careful with a wording that suggests the force was "disbanded" and then reestablished. The 1923/24 Act did effect a significant restructuring and reorganisation - but it was an act applied to the existing force. Again, thoughts/compromise on how to address this issue should be put forward here. (Not further misuse of the undo button). Guliolopez ( talk) 23:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The Irish Defence Forces was established on 1 October 1924, its origins officially date from 1913 and not 1922. The history section includes the history of the army from 1913 to the present in the same way the Army Reserve article includes its origins from 1927 even though it was only established on 1 October 2005 (the same date as the regular army for historical reasons). -- MFIreland ( talk) 20:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
As a non Irish person (im South African) I find hard to understand the current intro. It would be better to revert the intro back to the version used on 31/8/2010 and fix it to make sense.
My suggestion for intro-The Irish Army is the main branch of the Irish Defence Forces. The Army was established on the 1st October 1924 and at this time it was the only branch of the Defence Forces, as the Air Corps was still an Army Corps and the Naval Service was not formed until 1946. The Irish Army is involved in peacekeeping efforts around the world as well as its main role of defending the State.
As for the debate over 1913, 1922 or 1924 it most be remembered that this article is about the current Army. The histroy section does give information on its links to the other forces which I think is good. Many armys around the world have there roots in militia, rebel, guerrilla and even terrorist groups. The US, Israeli, South African etc, all have there origins in irregular militarys just like the Irish. South Africa is a good example. The army that exists today was created in 1994 but has its origins with the 1957-1994 and 1912-1957 state forces and with militias before that. I hope my suggestion is of help and remember that most people who will read this article are not Irish. 217.42.115.62 ( talk) 14:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The above suggestion is much better. Keep the histroy to the histroy section and out of the intro. On military.ie histroy page it dates the army back to the 25th November 1913 with its establishing on the 1st October 1924. The weapons section could do with a clean-up with details of artillery guns. There is no mention of the Nordic Battlegroup. Plusused ( talk) 19:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The official history on military.ie says there establishment was on the 1st October 1924. The National Army was put on the Statute Book on the 3rd August 1923 and not at any time during 1924 as Jdorney claims. They had been in existence since the 25th November 1913 with the founding of the Irish Volunteers not at any time during 1922 as Jdorney also claims. Looking at Jdorney's contributions he/she may a political agenda. Plusused ( talk) 21:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately it seems that there has been a return to WP:TEND and WP:SOCK style behaviour to promote a position that is contrary to consensus on this subject. (Essentially an editor seems to be using multiple IPs to engage in tendentious editing). Is it disruptive enough to warrant pursuing under semi-protection guidelines? Guliolopez ( talk) 10:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Irish Army → Army (Ireland) – This would align the article with Army Reserve (Ireland), Air Corps (Ireland) and Naval Service (Ireland). Most armed forces articles follow the "French Army", "German Army" et al. format, but this is not universal - take for example Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, or (looking further afield) Armée de terre in French Wikipedia. -- Kwekubo ( talk) 11:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the emblem being used for the army in the info box is probably in either in need of considerable touching up, or else replacement with the logo of the Irish Defence Forces without a background colour. While appreciating the good intentions of the editor who uploaded it, I think its probably too amateur for use in this page. If there is a higher quality emblem with the red background for the PDF (and green for the RDF) then thse should of course be put in. But for now, for the sake of a more professional looking page, I suggest the removal of the current logo. -- 104066481 ( talk) 20:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
With the Western Brigade now disbanded, does anyone know which units were disbanded along with it? and which units were transferred to the the remaining two brigades? thanks, noclador ( talk) 23:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. An (editwarring and likely block evading) anon keeps removing reference to the fact that the brigades are organised as "Southern" and "Northern". To my view, there is plenty of precedent for the brigades being described in this way. However, if the anon or any other editors have specific reason to explain why the "Southern" and "Northern" descriptors should be removed or reworded, let's discuss here (with rationale and per WP:CON convention) before affecting further changes. Looking forward to some discussion on this under the guidelines. Guliolopez ( talk) 19:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Per my previous note on the topic (and relevant WP:CFORK guidelines and WP:SPLIT convention), I've moved the large list/table of weapons to the existing " weapons of the Irish Army" sub-article. If there's a case to be made for including here, more than happy to discuss it, but I think it's a little weighty/impactful here (and already covered with the appropriate summary and "see more here" type standard - per WP:SS guidelines). Any other thoughts graciously welcomed. Guliolopez ( talk) 10:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Irish Army. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Someone could add a link to the 1969 plan " Exercise Armageddon" to the Troubles section. Nothing ensued, but its planning was requested by the government and paid for by the taxpayer. 78.17.38.186 ( talk) 11:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I changed "English equivalent" to "English language equivalent" because although Ceannfort translates as "Commandant", the equivalent British/US/Commonwealth rank is Major. (Commandant was briefly used in the UK instead of Brigadier.) Richard75 ( talk) 22:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish Army. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm deleting the Roles of the Army section. It is unsourced and reads like a mission statement. Meesher ( talk) 07:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)