![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is Irish National Army (1922-1924) and not part of the Irish Defence Forces, Irish Republican Army and has no links with the Irish National Liberation Army. MFIreland ( talk) 00:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It is important that this article is and remains NPOV. Some of the initial material was very biased towards the Anti-Treaty point of view: it needs to be balanced. It also should not aim to rewrite material that is already covered better in specific articles about the Civil War. -- Red King ( talk) 13:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
When exactly did recruitment to the 'Irish National Army' commence and from what fund were wages paid? RashersTierney ( talk) 16:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
From Irish Defence Forces website "In February 1922, the Department of Defence under the new Provisional Government began to recruit volunteers into the National Army" MFIreland ( talk) 17:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The statement in the lead, the Irish Free State [which] replaced Southern Ireland. is highly questionable, particularly since the sources given are primary documents widely open to interpretation. This is a very novel interpretation of Irish constitutional law and the succession of authority in Ireland at this time. The Provisional Government claimed no authority deriving from the Government of Ireland Act nor did the Irish Free State. How did this 'state' of Southern Ireland exist without a government, as this source indicates. The English Question. I would incline to be guided by Bob Hazell, Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London on this issue, rather than wikipedia editors of untried capacities in constitutional law. The statement, which adds nothing to the article, should be removed or backed up by reliable secondary sources. RashersTierney ( talk) 22:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I have replaced Southern Ireland with "Ireland less the six counties" untill something better can be found. Its quoted from the Irish Defence Forces website (see: Provisional Government section) [3] MFIreland ( talk) 20:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a massive conceptual problem with the basis of this article.
There was no such body as the "Irish National Army" as distinct from the Irish Army as currently constituted. It was certainly not demobilised and replaced in 1924. It's size was cut yes and it was re-structured, but it was not disbanded and replaced by a new force. What the act quoted here shows is that the existing force was put on firm legislative footing which is not the same thing thing at all.
The term "National Army" was the term the government used and instructed the press to use regarding its armed forces during and after the civil war. It was not a legal term and was not a distinct organisation from the later army. The use of the term Oglaigh na hEireann, and in fact the "Official IRA" was made for the Provisional Government's troops in the early days of the civil war - so this is not a new name either.
So either this article should be re-named "History of the Irish Army 1922-1924" or it should be deleted altogether.
As far as I can see the text itself is cut and pasted from other articles on the civil war or the Irish Army here on wikipedia. The whole 'history' section appears to be cut and pasted in this way. So what does this article add that is new? Jdorney ( talk) 20:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Couple of quotes from the act to demonstrate the above point.
235. —The armed forces of the State as at present constituted and existing (hereinafter referred to as the National Forces) shall be deemed to be the armed forces to be raised under Article 46 of the Constitution and the maintenance thereof is hereby declared to be legal.
237. —The organisation of the National Forces shall be as at present existing. The Minister may however make such changes therein as he may deem necessary.
238. —All orders and regulations now in force in the National Forces shall continue to be in full force and effect.
239. —All soldiers now serving in the National Forces by virtue of any agreement or attestation shall be liable to continue to serve in accordance with the terms of such agreement or attestation.
It is quite clearly the same force, now established with proper legality and not a new Army. Jdorney ( talk) 21:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
We can't go on edit warring. So let's start with some generic Wikipedia principles:
-- Red King ( talk) 13:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This article was designed to be a complete detailed article of the National Army with a short intro and sections on its histroy, organisation, uniforms, rank markings, vehicles, aircraft and weapons etc. None of this info is available in any other single wiki article. Its very hard to find info on these subjects on the web. The histroy section is an important part of this article and should not have been deleted. MFIreland ( talk) 18:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not ever so easy to find using google. It is at
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1923/en/act/pub/0030/index.html
On the specific question of whether the Defence Forces are the same as the National Army, that it is just a rename, this is the relevant paragraph and seems to me to support the contention:
235.—The armed forces of the State as at present constituted and existing (hereinafter referred to as the National Forces) shall be deemed to be the armed forces to be raised under Article 46 of the Constitution and the maintenance thereof is hereby declared to be legal.
-- Red King ( talk) 00:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The Act was passed on 3rd August 1923. The Forces where established on the 1st October 1924. The "provisions hereinafter mentioned" is all of PART IV of the act (thats articles 234-246).
Part IV of the act was to make the National Army the legal military force of the state from the passing of the Act on the 3rd August 1923 untill the 1st October 1924. MFIreland ( talk) 13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding the 'official' name of the Irish Army. These two reliable sources give it as Óglaigh na hÉireann, since its foundation;
The force was known by many names, particularly during the Civil War. One (of several) terms promoted by the pro-treaty side was 'National Army'. This was not a term adopted or accepted by the anti-treaty side, and to dismiss the propaganda element of the terminology seems to me to be both ahistorical and a blatant attempt at reification of a disputed term. In fact, even 'officially', the term 'National Army' was far more usual than 'Irish National Army', a term favoured for some ill-defined reason, in this article. RashersTierney ( talk) 18:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is Irish National Army (1922-1924) and not part of the Irish Defence Forces, Irish Republican Army and has no links with the Irish National Liberation Army. MFIreland ( talk) 00:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It is important that this article is and remains NPOV. Some of the initial material was very biased towards the Anti-Treaty point of view: it needs to be balanced. It also should not aim to rewrite material that is already covered better in specific articles about the Civil War. -- Red King ( talk) 13:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
When exactly did recruitment to the 'Irish National Army' commence and from what fund were wages paid? RashersTierney ( talk) 16:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
From Irish Defence Forces website "In February 1922, the Department of Defence under the new Provisional Government began to recruit volunteers into the National Army" MFIreland ( talk) 17:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The statement in the lead, the Irish Free State [which] replaced Southern Ireland. is highly questionable, particularly since the sources given are primary documents widely open to interpretation. This is a very novel interpretation of Irish constitutional law and the succession of authority in Ireland at this time. The Provisional Government claimed no authority deriving from the Government of Ireland Act nor did the Irish Free State. How did this 'state' of Southern Ireland exist without a government, as this source indicates. The English Question. I would incline to be guided by Bob Hazell, Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London on this issue, rather than wikipedia editors of untried capacities in constitutional law. The statement, which adds nothing to the article, should be removed or backed up by reliable secondary sources. RashersTierney ( talk) 22:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I have replaced Southern Ireland with "Ireland less the six counties" untill something better can be found. Its quoted from the Irish Defence Forces website (see: Provisional Government section) [3] MFIreland ( talk) 20:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a massive conceptual problem with the basis of this article.
There was no such body as the "Irish National Army" as distinct from the Irish Army as currently constituted. It was certainly not demobilised and replaced in 1924. It's size was cut yes and it was re-structured, but it was not disbanded and replaced by a new force. What the act quoted here shows is that the existing force was put on firm legislative footing which is not the same thing thing at all.
The term "National Army" was the term the government used and instructed the press to use regarding its armed forces during and after the civil war. It was not a legal term and was not a distinct organisation from the later army. The use of the term Oglaigh na hEireann, and in fact the "Official IRA" was made for the Provisional Government's troops in the early days of the civil war - so this is not a new name either.
So either this article should be re-named "History of the Irish Army 1922-1924" or it should be deleted altogether.
As far as I can see the text itself is cut and pasted from other articles on the civil war or the Irish Army here on wikipedia. The whole 'history' section appears to be cut and pasted in this way. So what does this article add that is new? Jdorney ( talk) 20:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Couple of quotes from the act to demonstrate the above point.
235. —The armed forces of the State as at present constituted and existing (hereinafter referred to as the National Forces) shall be deemed to be the armed forces to be raised under Article 46 of the Constitution and the maintenance thereof is hereby declared to be legal.
237. —The organisation of the National Forces shall be as at present existing. The Minister may however make such changes therein as he may deem necessary.
238. —All orders and regulations now in force in the National Forces shall continue to be in full force and effect.
239. —All soldiers now serving in the National Forces by virtue of any agreement or attestation shall be liable to continue to serve in accordance with the terms of such agreement or attestation.
It is quite clearly the same force, now established with proper legality and not a new Army. Jdorney ( talk) 21:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
We can't go on edit warring. So let's start with some generic Wikipedia principles:
-- Red King ( talk) 13:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This article was designed to be a complete detailed article of the National Army with a short intro and sections on its histroy, organisation, uniforms, rank markings, vehicles, aircraft and weapons etc. None of this info is available in any other single wiki article. Its very hard to find info on these subjects on the web. The histroy section is an important part of this article and should not have been deleted. MFIreland ( talk) 18:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not ever so easy to find using google. It is at
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1923/en/act/pub/0030/index.html
On the specific question of whether the Defence Forces are the same as the National Army, that it is just a rename, this is the relevant paragraph and seems to me to support the contention:
235.—The armed forces of the State as at present constituted and existing (hereinafter referred to as the National Forces) shall be deemed to be the armed forces to be raised under Article 46 of the Constitution and the maintenance thereof is hereby declared to be legal.
-- Red King ( talk) 00:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The Act was passed on 3rd August 1923. The Forces where established on the 1st October 1924. The "provisions hereinafter mentioned" is all of PART IV of the act (thats articles 234-246).
Part IV of the act was to make the National Army the legal military force of the state from the passing of the Act on the 3rd August 1923 untill the 1st October 1924. MFIreland ( talk) 13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding the 'official' name of the Irish Army. These two reliable sources give it as Óglaigh na hÉireann, since its foundation;
The force was known by many names, particularly during the Civil War. One (of several) terms promoted by the pro-treaty side was 'National Army'. This was not a term adopted or accepted by the anti-treaty side, and to dismiss the propaganda element of the terminology seems to me to be both ahistorical and a blatant attempt at reification of a disputed term. In fact, even 'officially', the term 'National Army' was far more usual than 'Irish National Army', a term favoured for some ill-defined reason, in this article. RashersTierney ( talk) 18:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)