Talk:16th (Irish) Division

Infobox conversion

Converted infobox to new Infobox Military Unit as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. —ERcheck @ 02:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No Irish officers?

At Joseph Devlin#Home Rule compromised, there is a statement that the 16th had no Irish officers because the General Staff either doubted their loyalty or their competence. Is this true? --Red King (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If true, it's certainly very notable. But it shouldn't be stated in the article without a source. Mooretwin (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it can't be true, as many IPP MPs served, e.g. Willie Redmond and Tom Kettle. I'd be flabbergasted if they weren't officers. Mooretwin (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is possible all or most of the Irish officers died at the Somme and other battles, and that the later officers were non-Irish. Tom Kettle died at the Somme in 1916, while Willie Redmond died at Messines in 1917, and both were indeed officers. Carcharoth (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it right?

I've just finished copyediting this page. In one or two instances, I've taken a few liberties with the article, (see below); i.e. 'Unit'/'Formation' and 'Divsion'/'Battalion'. If they're wrong, please change them.

1. I've changed 'Unit' to 'Formation'. We're talking about a division here.
2. I changed 'Division' to 'Battalion', (the text mentions a 'Welsh Division'!). I don't think a division would contain another division. So I put 'Battalion' instead. (See OOB for 47th Bde).
3. I am not 100% sure if para 1 of the 'History' section is correct, particularly about training in Fermoy and Buttevant. But the earlier version of thi paragraph did not make sense.
4. I also changed 'Formation' to 'Order of Battle' (OOB) - better choice of words.

RASAM (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Significance of religion

I'm not sure it's right to have such a statement as "More Irish Catholics enlisted than Protestants". To start with, it seems needlessly morally judgemental. Secondly, and most importantly, there were (and still are) more Roman Catholics on the island of Ireland than Protestants. If all things were equal, then it would only be natural that more Roman Catholics enlisted than Protestants.

Taking the example of the island of Great Britain, Roman Catholics there are out-numbered by about 10-to-1. So it would make sense that recruitment numbers might reflect this same ratio.

If nobody has any objections, or if the sentence isn't qualified somehow, I'm going to remove it. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is made in context - Catholic Belgium - and is cited. May bear expansion, with respect to the effect on 16th Division of recruitment to the 36th Division. Hamish59 (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I can certainly understand the point with regard to Belgium (and Poland is highly Roman Catholic too, for that matter). But I'm not sure it's fair to say that "more Catholics enlisted than Protestant", as it appears Protestants didn't care, or were somehow lesser than Roman Catholics. That seems to be the inference with the statement as it reads currently. In my personal opinion, it was a very positive, heartening and saddening thing to know that so many people from both the UVF and the Irish Volunteers enlisted and even fought side-by-side, and that so many sacrificed themselves from both 'sides' of Ireland's local conflict. This statement would seem to diminish, specifically, the input of Irish Protestants. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit: I would also like to see the source paragraph from what ever publication is cited, for context. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point, completely.

Re Belgium - it was causus belli for the UK to go to war, so pertinent.

Re the source - regretfully the online snippet does not include the pages cited.

By the way, have you thought of getting an account? Hamish59 (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 16th (Irish) Division. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060508090432/http://www.webmatters.net:80/belgium/ww1_mesen_2.htm to http://www.webmatters.net/belgium/ww1_mesen_2.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110515223110/http://www.webmatters.net/monuments/ww1_irish_mesen_1.htm to http://www.webmatters.net/monuments/ww1_irish_mesen_1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 19:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 16th (Irish) Division. 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/20130728041814/http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Historical_Information/1916_Commemorations/Irish_Soldiers_in_the_First_World_War.html to http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Historical_Information/1916_Commemorations/Irish_Soldiers_in_the_First_World_War.html

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).

• 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) 06:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)