This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 16th (Irish) Division article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Converted infobox to new Infobox Military Unit as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. —ERcheck @ 02:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
AtJoseph 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)Reply
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.
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)Reply
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
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:
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) 06:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply