Talk:British rule in Ireland

This article is a stub and needs expansion
This article needs some major overhaul. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. It strikes me as little more than a stub, really. Almost 100 years of history gets 5 paragraphs, some of which are just vague outlines themselves (the section on the middle ages, for instance: we are jumping hundreds of years between sentences without even an attempt at describing how things changed).
 * As it stands, this article cannot rightly be called an account of British rule in Ireland. It's an account of a very few disparate things that happened during that period, and that's all. 66.58.138.207 (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * RE: "little more than a stub / 100 years of history gets 5 paragraphs". While I'm unsure which hundred-year period is considered to be under-represented, it is worth noting that the History of Ireland article (and the History of Ireland series) covers the entire span. There is no value in turning this article into a WP:CFORK of other articles, covering the topic through another lens. That this article is an overview, grouping and linking related articles, is well within WP:SUMMARYSTYLE norms.
 * RE: "cannot rightly be called an account of British rule in Ireland". What additional content are you proposing to add? What events or aspects are lacking? And what sources are you proposing to support?
 * Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-neutral language
This article comes dangerously close to making the pseudohistorical argument that the Irish Famine was a genocide:

"At the time, trade agreements were controlled by the British government and whilst millions were suffering from hunger, Irish harvests of wheat and dairy products were exported to Britain and other overseas territories."

The export argument, which is usually used to promote false genocide claims, is simplistic and misleading to readers. Economic historian Liam Kennedy explains here.

The language in this article is certainly not-neutral.Jonathan f1 (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think the editor can address their concerns directly. Following this intriguingly-titled WP:ANI discussion, the editor was blocked from editing all articles. Otherwise it is unclear how the quoted text represents "non-neutral language". Certainly I see no WP:NPOV issues. And I'm not sure how one can "both sides" that text. It simply factually states that Whig policy (and it's application through Trevelyan) was less than helpful in the context. The speaker in the YouTube video talks about other (non-governmental) factors. But how that fits into an article about British administration in Ireland is questionable. Otherwise, the only issue I noted with that text was a WP:VER concern (in that the source read "hundreds of thousands were suffering" while we stated "millions were suffering"). Now addressed. Guliolopez (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It does not "factually state" Whig policy. It states information out of context and in a way that is often used to bolster pseudo-historical claims of genocide. The economic historian in that video doesn't just talk about "non-governmental factors" -he mentions the fact that more food was imported into Ireland than exported  during the period in question and so there was nothing nefarious going on with these exports. Remove the information from the article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. The existing text reflects the existing source. If anything, the text has significantly "toned down" the characterisation of the source. Where sources differ, we would generally reflect each. As discussed in this article, about the differences between Mitchel, Bourke and Donnelly's writings, it is not straight-forward either way. Personally, while I'm happy to discuss adding a short amount of additional text or context, I'm not in favour of just blanket removing reliably cited content. Guliolopez (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Pipelinks in opening sentence
Two pipelinks were recently added (and readded) to the opening sentence. While I have removed them, and the two edsumms explaining the rationale for removal were hopefully relatively clear, in terms of: Happy to discuss further if needed. Guliolopez (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * pipelinking "English" ("English [rule in Ireland]") to Kingdom of England, this seems a bit odd/unexpected. As the linked article deals with the period up to 1707. Only. When this article spans significantly beyond that. Going well beyond the early 18th century and up to (at least) the 20th century.
 * pipelinking "British control" ("British control [over some/all Ireland]") to Formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, this also seems unexpected. Something of an WP:EASTEREGG. As "Formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is not an analogous term to "British control". And, rather, has quite a different scope. That the same article is already linked from the body means the reader can still navigate to that article (without the EASTEREGG issues). So the article interlinking value is not "lost". While the "surprise" is...