Talk:History of Ireland (1801–1923)
|WikiProject Ireland||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
I have removed some of the text added by User:RAA. While some of it was good quality, other parts of it were POV and misleading. For example, the "Radical War" and the Chartist agitation of the 1830s in Britain had nothing to do with the aftermath of the 1798 rebellion in Ireland and nothing to do with Catholic Emancipation either. Re the Act of Union, it is widely accepted that Cornwallis used peerages as bribes in getting the act passed and not, as stated, for services to the British state. Re "other encouragments", well if there was no other bribery, ok, lets hear the evidence. Finally, use of the word "revisionist" as a term of abuse is pointless. Its not as if there was once a "correct" version of history that some nasty people have "revised" on us. Let the facts speak for themselves. Also, the Fenians did have a substantial presence in rural Ireland in the 19th century, there's no allegedly about it.
Jdorney 14:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Kevrob 18:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Removed description of the Irish Republican Brotherhood as "Jesuit". The Roman Catholic Church, of which the Society of Jesus is an order, condemned membership in secret societies such as the IRB.
Thanks for that, clearly vandalism, don't know how it slipped in Jdorney 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Needs References added tag
This article needs to be referenced! I do not think it right to remove un-referenced material without giving editors the opportunity the chance to reference their material, but it must have some time frame. Regards --Domer48 20:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
no canals and the famine
No canals in the 1840s? There were plenty but they didn't run into the worst areas of starvation.Red Hurley 22:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
References are needed!
I’m a relatively new User, and one of the first things I learned was the material you contribute, has to be referenced. I learned this the hard way, by having whole sections removed on me. As the Tag states at the top of the Article, editors would be well within their rights to turn this article into a stub. I would be willing to take on sections of this article, but would need some support. Regards --Domer48 18:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I've been trying to find sources supporting some of the claims. I can't seem to find one backing this one though: The financial cost of such events, political backlash and concerns for the safety of the subjects of Ireland must also have been paramount. I'll try looking through some books rather than the internet, but that statement may need to be altered. --Danfly (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Reliablility of the famine section
So far I have found 2 factual inaccuracies in the famine section. This has led me to seriously question its reliability. If anyone else has an interest in improving this article I suggest you look at this section in particular --Danfly (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Irishrep.jpg
The image Image:Irishrep.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Rename as political history?
- I agree, nothing on the industrial revolution or the economy. It's the perfect angle if you're a left wing sociology lecturer in Dublin. It needs broadening to what was going on, starting with some statistics: http://www.ssisi.ie/ .PatrickGuinness (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
RFC: Irish history series
1925 Boundary deal
I don't agree with this: "Initially, Northern Ireland comprised the north-east six counties of Ulster, while the remaining twenty-six formed the Free State: on receiving the report of the Boundary Commission, the Heads of Government declined to make any change to this arrangement." Firstly it's after 1923, and the report was shelved anyway. The deal was done before the report was produced; in effect the Free State's share of debt was waived and the boundary was unchanged.PatrickGuinness (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- The phrasing is poor, but the history is accurate. The setting up of the Boundary Commission was a part of the Treaty (and hence part of pre-1923 history), and the outcome of the Boundary Commission was that the border was essentially unchanged. I recommend a re-write, preferably with a citation. Scolaire (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)