Talk:Irish Army

Ways to improve the article

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

Hi Onynyo. Great work with the new pages, however I think it would be good if we could have a section about the Army's Weapons and Equipment on this page. I think it should be about the stuff they have historically used, as well as an analysis of these and their effectiveness etc.

Some time ago I was trying to write just such a section, however I go side-tracked and never finished it (I also accidentally posted it into the article unfinished a while ago, because I pressed the wrong button, lol).

Here's what I wrote so far, I may finish it some time or perhaps you (or others) could include it (or parts of it) into the article.

==Weapons and Equipment==

The Irish Army has historically purchased and used Weapons and equipment from other western countries, mainly from European nations and especially from Britain. Generally all equipment is of NATO standards design, Ireland usually doesn't produce it's own Armaments and has a very limited Arms Industry (almost non-existent).

In the beginning the Army used the British Lee-Enfield Rifle, which would be the mainstay for many decades after independence. In the 1960's some modernization came with the introduction of the Belgian made FN FAL 7.62 mm assault rifle.

Currently the standard weapon for an Irish Army soldier is the Austrian made Steyr AUG 5.56 mm assault rifle (also used in the other branches of the Defence force). The Steyr began to replace the older FAL in 1988, although some of the Reserve forces continued to use the FAL until 2002.

Other weapons in use by Irish Army are the FN MAG know as the General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG), the FGM-148 Javelin Anti-tank guided missile (replacing the MILAN).

===Vehicles===

The Irish Army has Historically preferred Light vehicles to the heavy Armour types used by other European nations, and this preference continues today. The most recent purchase was of a large number of the Swiss made Mowag Piranha Armoured fighting vehicles which have become the Army's primary vehicle in the Mechanized infantry role (these are equipped with 12.7 mm HMGs).

The Army's only Tank type is the British made FV101 Scorpion Light tank, with a 76.2 mm main gun.

Other Vehicles include the Panhard AML (with 90 mm gun).

(Note: the formatting of it here is not how it would appear in the article).

The main problem I encountered was lack of detailed information on the Net, the dates of introduction are especially hard to find (I hope someone knows these and can included them) this list is not complete by any means and is basically a rough draft, which needs improvement.

One other thing I would like to add to this article is what possible plans/strategies the Irish army actually has in the event of a serious war (such as invasion), It would be good to do an analysis to see whether our forces could actually defend the country against an aggressor.

--Hibernian 05:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

I do not mean like secret plans or stuff like that, I simply mean info that is already available in the public domain (and probably already on the internet), like the Irish army's composition and strengths and weaknesses compared to others. Lots of Wiki Military articles have stuff like this about other armies.

It's just that I think explaining how the defence forces would actually go about defending the country if it needed to be defended, would be a good thing to have in an article about it. For instance what are the Defence Forces main strategies/tactics?, for other countries like say America you can say they rely on Combined arms, Armoured assaults, Air superiority, special forces etc. So what are the Irish army's main strategies/tactics? Presumably we can't rely on armour or air power, since we don't have much of either, so what is their style of warfare?

With allot of Infantry and APCs and the like, our army is light, so this limits its options, would they perhaps practice some form of Guerrilla warfare?

Well anyway I hope that wasn't to rambling, but my point is we should have something in the article about how the army would intend to fight a war.

Oh and on another note, I remember that I have lots of pictures of Army vehicles from the 2006 Easter 1916 parade and from a recent military vehicles show, so some of those may be useful here.

Oh and also, you are meant to sign your username after each comment so everyone knows who's talking and where one person's comment ends and another's begins.

--Hibernian 06:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

I've just uploaded this picture [1], I took it at the 2006 Easter Parade in Dublin. This is the guy who was leading the Parade, but I don't know who he is or what Rank he is (I assume he must be pretty high ranking). It's not a great picture, but Perhaps this can be used for the area you suggested. I have a few more good pictures of Troops and vehicles from that parade that I could upload that might be useful.--Hibernian 18:53, 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)

New Additions...

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?

There are unfortunately getting deleted because they are not allowed by Wikipedia rules, because they didn't have any source information. If you want a picture to stay on Wiki it has to be legally free for use, the person who uploaded them needs to prove that they are allowed under wiki's rules, otherwise people will delete them.

By the way, that reminds me, I just uploaded some of my pictures of Irish Military stuff (which have no copyright) the other day, so if anyone wants to put those images on some of these pages you're welcome to (You can see them here, My Images). (I do need some help in identifying some of the vehicles in the pics though).--Hibernian 19:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Army and Gardai

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)

An Garda Siochana have primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State. The Defence Forces also carry out internal security missions under the role of Aid The Civil Power (ATCP), providing security at vital installations and armed escort for cash, prisoners, explosive etc. See Border duties and aid to the civil power section.--MFIreland • ^Talk 23:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Braveheart movie?

• Is it true that extras in Braveheart were members of the Irish Army Reserves?

Yes. Many of the battle scenes (like the cavalry charge deflected by the "wall of spikes", Battle of Stirling Bridge, attack on York, etc) were all filmed in Ireland, and members of the (then) FCÁ populated both armies. The RDF also composed a majority of the extras used in the filming of the Omaha Beach scences in Saving Private Ryan. [2]. Guliolopez 13:17, 11 June 2007 (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)

They also took part in the 1944 production of Shakespeare's Henry V with Laurence Olivier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.226 (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

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)

Foreign nationals

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)

Irish_Army#Border_duties_and_aid_to_the_civil_power_1969-present

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)

Updating?

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)

Peacekeeping Missions

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)

Removing all references to Darfur in relation to this mission (why?) would be to completely ignore the elephant in the corner. It was to a large extent the instability emanating from there that prompted the mission. And no-one said Darfur was a state, any more than they said Kosovo is one (don't even think of going there!). RashersTierney (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Im not asking for all references to Darfur to be removed just from the heading. The heading 'Kosovo' is there because Irish troops are in Kosovo but never in Darfur. MFIreland (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The heading gives a context. I really don't see the need. If you think it should be made explicit in the section that Irish troops weren't deployed to Darfur, I don't see a problem with that. RashersTierney (talk) 20:25, 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)

The Darfur refugee issue was fundamental to the mission and this needs to be flagged in the section title; see The carnage in Darfur coupled with the multiple conflicts in the border areas between Darfur, Chad and the Central African Republic has scarred the lives of countless thousands of innocent men, women and children. It will be our job to help and protect them and today the Government accepted my recommendation to deploy to the region,” stated Minister O’Dea.[3]. To separate the mission in Chad from its stated objective/justification (Darfur refugee crisis) would be to tell only part of the story. Clarification re deployment can be included if thought necessary. RashersTierney (talk) 12:39, 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)

Done. RashersTierney (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Establishment of DF

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

• - 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.

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)

I agree. The text of the act (as above and on the statute book) would seem to reinforce that the army (as extant today) was a progression from, rather than a replacement of, the existing force. In fact, the cite currently provided also reinforces this - Stating as it does that:

In the Autumn of 1923 the tasks facing the government were to reduce the strength of the army and to reorganise on recognised military lines as a regular, peacetime army.

I think though that we probably don't need a big "revamp" to address this point. (And we certainly don't need another editwar). We probably just need a minor reword of the sentence which reads "The Army had a new establishment, organisation, rank markings, head dress and orders of dress". As this could be read as meaning the force was newly established. (Rather than giving a new legal basis to the existing force.)

Guliolopez (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. I have no interest in an edit war, but this a purely factual thing. It wasn't a new army. Gulio if you'd like to reword, that's fine by me. Jdorney (talk) 15:05, 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)

Ah, I see this has already been done. I'll keep an eye out for further developments, but if this cannot be resolved through discussion here I would recommend (and support) taking the next step per WP:DRR, eg. perhaps calling in WP:MedCab...? (Unless of course it becomes further just outright disruptive). Wikiscient (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Intro

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)

Will not undo for now, for sake of compromise, but am at abit of a loss as to why the change has been reverted. An explanation here would be nice.

I think it's been clearly established that the Army has its origins in 1922 and that it was formally legislated for and organised in the subsequent years. It has also been established at talk:Irish National Army, that there was no such body as the INA separate from the subsequent force. Jdorney (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Section 235 of the DEFENCE FORCES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1923 is relevant, but you need to read section 234 PART IV of the act to understand it.

234 —"Until the Forces have been established under Section twenty-two of this Act, the provisions hereinafter mentioned shall have effect".

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 until the 1st October 1924 when the Forces was established.

The history section of the Irish Army clearly article traces the origins of the force from 1913.

— Preceding text originally posted on User_talk:Guliolopez (diff) by MFIreland (talk⋅contribs) 19:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi MFIreland. Thanks for engaging. For the sake of continuity (and to ensure the discussion continues in this thread), I've copied your note above from my talk page.

I've read (and re-read) your note above, and the sections of the act you've pointed out, and - put simply - I'm unsure how it makes Jdorney's tweak to the intro either incorrect or inappropriate. All that edit did was clarify that the act gave legal standing to the existing force. Where specifically do you see issue with this? If there is a problem, can you suggest a better wording? (And why it's better?)

In the same vein, as you note above, the history section draws the link from the volunteers, through the war of ind and civil war to the current force. Why then would we have a lead which states flatly that "The Irish Defence Forces were established on 1 October 1924"? Without ref to the pre-existing force? (Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the main points. It becomes problematic if the lead says one thing, and the body something else).Guliolopez (talk) 19:42, 5 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)

OK. It seems like we're largely on the same page here - but are talking at cross purposes some how. As you note, the force has it's origins in the volunteers (1913), and the pro-treaty forces (1922). It seems that your problem is therefore not with the reference to the pre-existing force - but with the wording. As myself and Jdorney have stated, we think the previous lead wording ("The Irish Defence Forces were established on 1 October 1924") was problematic. Because no ref was made in the lead to the pre-existing force. I thought that Jdorney's tweak addressed this issue by retaining the legal (1924) establishment date - but clarifying that this date marked the provision of legal standing to the existing force. If you think this wording to be incorrect (or could be improved), can you suggest a new wording here? Or create a sandbox that we can all work on together? Or just explain what you think the problem is so I can suggest a solution? Guliolopez (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My last edit for the intro was: The Irish Army (Irish: Arm na hÉireann) is the main branch of the Irish Defence Forces (Irish: Óglaigh na hÉireann). The Irish Defence Forces were established on 1 October 1924. At this time the Army was the only branch of this force as the Air Corps was still an Army Corps and the Naval Service was not formed until 1946. Today approximately 8,500 men and women serve in the Army. --MFIreland (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I know that. I can read that. But what I don't understand is why you think that's "better" than the wording which explains the evolution from the existing forces(?) Also - yet again - I see you've decided to go ahead and alter a cited statement which explains that the act gave legal standing to the existing force. Please let's try to discuss these changes here for a bit - making changes in parallel is not in the spirit of WP:CON. Guliolopez (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just on the 1913 issue. The Irish Volunteers and the 1919-21 IRA are connected indirectly to the modern Irish Army, but were not comparable organisations. One was a non-state militia, the other a revolutionary guerrilla force. The Irish Army, as the regular, paid and structured force of the Irish state, dates to early 1922. What happened in 1923-1924 was an evolution, not a replacement, of a force already established. Jdorney (talk) 10:50, 6 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)

Right, but the point here is that the 1922-24 force was not a different army from the subsequent one. Hence the foundation date is 1922 not 1924. Jdorney (talk) 16:17, 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)

But, again, the point here is that the Army was not founded in 1924, it was put on the statute books then but had been in existence since 1922. It's purely a factual question. Jdorney (talk) 20:17, 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)

Hi. A couple of things here:

1. The "leave history to the history section" argument is not in keeping with the relevant guidelines. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the body, and shouldn't contain information which is at odds (or could be interpreted as being as odds) with either the body or the facts.
2. Irrespective of date specifics, the current intro gives the impression that the force was freshly established in 1924 - which is misleading. The act did not disband the existing and raise a separate force. It has been verifiably cited that the act gave legal standing to the existing force.
3. While it would be great to hear another voice in this discussion, this pattern of editing is more than a little suspicious. (And if it persists, will be pursued through the appropriate channels).
4. Finally, for myself, I am more than open to hearing an argument (any argument) as to why it is appropriate to quote the act's establishment dates - and then completely ignore those sections of the act (sections 239, 237 and 235 in particular) which clarify that the act was giving legal standing to the force "[already] constituted and existing".

Pointing out date errors, claiming COI, and abusing multiple accounts is not addressing the key issue. And is therefore not going to get us to a solution. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Starting to look like sock puppetry here. Re politcal bias, I'm not even going to go down that road, exept to that that's not the case. The army was founded in 1922. If it were otherwise then I'd be arguing that. Jdorney (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion still ongoing? There is no question of a 'new army' being established in 1924. Strains of I-DONT-HEAR-THAT, no matter how loudly or frequently shouted don't cut any ice. This over-indulgence of a fringe view has got to end. (ps any socking to promote a position on this topic would be a major 'tactical error'!)RashersTierney (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:TEND/WP:SOCK

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)

As above, this has continued, so I've moved for temp semi-protection until user engages in-line with guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• Oppose - 'Irish Army' seems to comply better with WP:COMMONNAME. Following the above logic, every article on the project dealing with any army of any state and from any era should be dabbed parenthetically Army (wxyz). (wxyz) would soon become ridiculously convoluted and confusing.) See also "Parenthetical disambiguation" at WP:PRECISE. RashersTierney (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This is something of an exaggeration; the Italian army's formal name is "Esercito Italiano", not simply "Esercito", so "Italian Army" would be the more appropriate article title. --Kwekubo (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It is, but even if it wasn't, this would not be the place to discuss a move of that article. RashersTierney (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Oppose. No need for it. Jdorney (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. No need for it and it's the common name. Bjmullan (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. No need. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose though perhaps the RN/RAF should be called British X per many uses in reputable sources that add the adjective. 70.24.249.190 (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. No need. benzband (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Army Badge

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)

Western Brigade - new structure

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)

Brigades

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)

Weapons list

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071118204316/http://www.military.ie/dfhq/pubrel/publications/DFHistory.pdf to http://www.military.ie/dfhq/pubrel/publications/DFHistory.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Exercise Armageddon

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)

Ranks template

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)

External links modified (January 2018)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716134929/http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/Document+ID/836834F88ECF185E8025739A00440BFF?editDocument to http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/Document+ID/836834F88ECF185E8025739A00440BFF?editDocument

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"Roles of the Army"

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)