Talk:French expedition to Ireland (1796)

Inaccuracy

A further, successful attempt was made in 1798, resulting in the Irish Rebellion of 1798.

Hardly! The second successful attempt by the French occurred after the risings in Wexford and Antrim, so to say it resulted in the rebellion is a bit misleading. --MacTire02 (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Name

Why is the title in French? Expédition d'Irlande is a pretty generic name and seems like it could easily be translated to "Ireland Expedition." Do English-speaking historians really keep the French name? Funnyhat (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no recognised name for this campaign in English histories, but there is one in French. As this is a French operation, it seems pointless to invent a name when one exists, albeit in a foreign language.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

As a courtesy I am leaving a notice that I am preparing a new, expanded and sourced version of this article in my Userspace (using the current page as a basis). It should be pasted up here in a week or two. If anyone has any comments then by all means drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Expanded version has been copied in. For the history of my edits in creating the article, see User:Jackyd101/Expédition d'Irlande.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Expédition d'Irlande/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Lead, P2, S1: I don't like the phrase "in memory" in the lead. (Whose memory, any way?) The weather is actually discussed twice in the paragraph. Perhaps you could take the later 'worst-since-1708' mention and integrate that phrase here instead?

   Changed to "of the eighteenth century".--Jackyd101 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Much better. — Bellhalla (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Departure, P4, S6: Using the word telegraph here could be confusing with telegraphy. How about dispatched (despatched in UK?)

   I'd forgotten, but this came up on the talk page for Action of 13 January 1797, when a reviwer insisted that telegraphy was a later invention. However, after some deeper research it emerged that the correct link was to an early form of telegraph system: Semaphore line. I'll change it in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   The other reviewer was conflating telegraphy with electric telegraphy, which is understandable. — Bellhalla (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   • In Voyage to "Collapse of the expedition", P2, Suffren is captured (and, the sentence notes, recaptured later). In "Retreat", P3, Suffren is recaptured (presumably the previously noted recapturing). How and when did Suffren escape? Or was she released? Or…?

   Thought I'd explained this, but apparently not. It should be clearer now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, it is now. — Bellhalla (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   • I made changes for several minor spelling and punctuation issues, and also shortened a few sentences. I hope that you will take a look at the changes (diff) and make sure that the latter changes do not change the meaning.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • I converted the "Notes" section to a single column layout. Previously (on my system, at least) the one discursive note was awkwardly split.
   • Just as an FYI, in {{cite book}} there's an origyear parameter designed for works that have been reprinted. Using it allows the format to match other articles on Wikipedia. I've added it to the works in the Bibliography (I also did this on Action of 10 February 1809)
   • I'd recommend adding the location to the works in the Bibliography that don't already have it before pursuing higher (A-Class, FA) assessments

I'll work on this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Just the three prose issues above keep this from passing on first reading. The article covers an event that I'd never heard of before, so it was interesting reading. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I've addressed them, thankyou very much for the review and I'm glad you enjoyed it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

POV weasel words, framing of conflict, historical context, etc

Section moved from Ledenierhomme's talk page Hi there, thanks for your interest in this article. Please can you discuss the changes you are currently enacting on the talk page before making them as they are both unsourced and in violation of the neutral point of view - this article is not the place to discuss the positives and negatives of British rule in Ireland in the late eighteenth century. --Jackyd101 (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you have seen fit to revert me without any attempt at discussion, I am going to lay out here why your edits are unhelpful and give you another chance to discuss the problem either here, at my talk page or on the article talk page: if you continue to ignore me then I will ask for independant arbitration from the Military History Wikiproject.

1. As I mentioned above, this article is not the place to discuss in detail either the composition of the United Irishmen or the nature of British rule in Ireland. It is also not appropriate to use terms like "British imperial rule" in this context: it is both POV and gross oversimplification of the political structure in Ireland at the time. If you think more discussion is needed of these points then please discuss it first as your edits do not improve the situation.
2. As I noted above, none of your assertions are sourced, while all of the material you removed or changed was. Please provide sources to back up your statements.
3. Your use of the term "liberate" without sources is especially troubling as it indicates that you do not understand either the situation in Ireland in the late eighteenth century or the intentions of Revolutionary France. Firstly, to a great many Irishmen who saw British rule as a beneficial system (including for example the future Duke of Wellington) the French were not liberators but an invading enemy: the use of the term "liberate" therefore only covers a proportion of the population, not the whole of Ireland. Secondly, the sources already used in the article state that the French were not seeking to "liberate" any part of Ireland: their armies, once in the country, were intended to remain and prepare for an invasion of Britain across the Irish Sea. The United Irishmen would have been a puppet government at best. If you have sources the claim differently then please produce them.
4. I think two terms in use in the article need clarifying for you as they were selected specifically and you have removed them without explanation. Describing the UI as an "illegal" organisation was not an attempt to demean it but to make it clear that it was operating "underground" rather than as a "legitimate" political party. "Illegal rebel" is also appropriate if you prefer. Secondly, "invasion" is a neutral term: it describes an action rather than an emotion (for example, D-Day was an invasion, even though it was welcomed by the French). Your equation of invade and liberate is therfore an inaccurate comparison, and tacking "depending on the political perspective" on the end is a clear example of WP:Weasel Words.
5. Changing "influence" into the cliche "turn the tide" is poor writing and unclear.

I will be reverting your changes and I hope to hear from you before you make any more. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

End of section

So it seems this article has been created/dominated by someone with a fetish for British military history. Aside from the de rigueur Wiki issues of inappropriate length, undue weight, etc - the introductory paragraph and "Background" section is plagued by an historical perspective one might reasonably expect from a hobbyist of the British Empire (but not an encyclopedia article!).

The user Jackyd101 immediately reverted my edits, and wrote a lengthy explanation, or polemic, on my talk page. I will address each point in turn...

• This is an historical event, thus it requires placement in some kind of historical context. Why would Ireland be receptive to a French invasion/intervention? Who were the United Irishman? 1798 is a celebrated event in Ireland (your accusation of ignorance is amusing, I've actually lived in the country for a year!). It forms a canonical part of the Nationalist/Republican narrative in the Irish consciousness. Your reference to Wellington and assertion that "a great many Irishman" (Wellington didn't consider himself one, FYI) loved being the subjects of a foreign Empire disenfranchised, in systematic servitude, etc, well, I don't think that requires any comment from me.

• The vast and overwhelming majority of the population of Ireland, desired "Home Rule" - that is to say, parliamentary independence, and ultimately, a Republic free of the British Crown. Thus, the French invasion was, I hate to break it to you, welcomed by both and peasant and the tiny middle-class of Ireland.

• The United Irishman may have been "illegal", but so was, according to the British Penal Laws: Catholics voting; marrying a Catholic; ALL Presbyterian marriages; owning firearms (if you were Catholic); any Catholic education, building Catholic cathedrals, etc, etc... the article as it stood, does not provide any of this context. It doesn't even allude to what the French Revolution was!

• Yes, "turning the tide" is a cliche. But the sentence was incorrect, the Battle of Castlebar, for example, was a decisive French-Irish victory.

- Ledenierhomme (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for discussing these changes, although in future perhaps you should try to be less insulting in the way you do it. In the interests of painting a full picture of the discussion so far, I have brought over the section from your talk page that you refer to in your reply.

In response to the actual text of your reply, it appears that I am apparently not the only one prone to writing "polemics". I am well aware of how the event is viewed in Ireland, having lived there myself in the past, but we don't write articles based on what you may think happened, but what is described in sources, and you still have not provided any.

1) If you think there is a paucity of historical context in the article then we can certainly add some more. However we should avoid cluttering this article with a blow by blow of the French Revolution or with a long list of grievences some of the Irish had against the British.

2) You say "The vast and overwhelming majority of the population of Ireland, desired "Home Rule"", which I dispute. Can you supply a source that states this was the case in 1796? If so please produce it. If it is indeed true, then how do you explain the milita armies raised in Ireland in 1798 to combat the rebellion?

3) This article is about the failed French invasion, not the United Irishmen or the situation in Ireland, although more context can be added if required.

4) The sentance can be changed if needed, but try to write in prose rather than cliche.

I think it would be wise for both of us to avoid making further edits to the article until this discussion is complete. I will be asking for input from the Military History Wikiproject on the subject and I advise you to find some sources to backup your assertions.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What assertions? - Ledenierhomme (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. It also occurs to me that you are a little confused by the term home rule: home rule was Irish self government within a British government framework, but it was not the same thing as independance, and certainly was not the same thing as invasion and occupation by the armies of Republican France. Check that your terminology is correct.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you are a little confused by the English language. Read the sentence again. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"You say "The vast and overwhelming majority of the population of Ireland, desired "Home Rule"", which I dispute. Can you supply a source that states this was the case in 1796? If so please produce it. If it is indeed true, then how do you explain the milita armies raised in Ireland in 1798 to combat the rebellion?" - Oh. My. God. It's not my place to educate you in 18th/19th century Irish politics. If you "dispute" something - look it up. I've better things to do with my time. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It is your place to provide sources to back up changes you make to the article - if you can't be bothered to do the legwork then don't make the edits.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Out of the interest of stability, I suggest that both Jackyd101 and Ledenierhomme stop editing the article until the current dispute is arbitrated. Otherwise, the dispute will escalate and the incentive to reach a solution will be reduced. I have no knowledge on the topic, and so I have no way of verifying what is factually accurate and what is not. Nevertheless, Jackyd101 is absolutely correct in saying that—because of the very fact that the majority of the encyclopedia's readers are not well-read on the subject—referenced material outweighs unreferenced material. From the nature of the edits, it seems to me that Jackyd101's complaints that the edits are made without attribution to verifiable sources is justified. Futhermore, sentences attributed to source X are changed and the attribution remains—obviously, this eradicates the accuracy of the statement relevant to the reference it is attributed to. Overall, this makes the article very messy, and it is difficult to discern whether or not the article is factually accurate in general.

Since it seems that both parties have a vested interest in the article, I suggest that a list be compiled of wanted edits on the talk page, Then, all interested can partake in an objective debate on which changes to make. Furthermore, it is absolutely necessary that these changes follow the guidelines for factual accuracy (not what you think is accurate, rather what verifiable sources think is accurate). Only through debate and mutual intellectual exchange will this edit war end without having absolutely destroying the value of the article.

How does this sound? JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this will be a good start. I'd also request that Ledeinierhomme tones their comments down a little bit. There are some clear attempts to misrepresent Jackyd's stance in your last post, and accusations of bias in the way you have presented them have no place here. You might not realise this, but its doing you no favours. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is arrant nonsense. If anyone has any objection to any specific change, please raise it. Otherwise, Simply reverting and/or asking friends to revert because you don't like the edits or my "tone", is immature and unacceptable. None of the changes are controversial, none require a "source" - except perhaps for the fact that British rule in Ireland was incredibly unpopular in the 1790s, of which, well I don't even know where to start, you may as well ask for a source stating African-Americans didn't like being slaves - Jacky, you can take your pick from literally hundreds of sources, I am sure there are dozens of examples easily accessible on Google Books. I'm too bored with the whole prospect to bother looking myself. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "simply" revert - I left several messages on your talkpage regarding this dispute which you first ignored and then insulted. I also didn't ask anyone to make a revert themselves: the text of my post on the Military History Wikiproject is available for all to see on my contributions and deliberately makes no recommendation on how to act. If you are so bored with this article that you can't source your edits properly, then I suggest you stop editing it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is already a well sourced Good Article. If you wish to make changes, especially disputable or controversial ones, you require sources. You haven't added any in your changes, so I have reverted you once again. You might not like it, but I'm afraid that this is the way that wikipedia works. If you are unwilling to find anything to back your edits, or can't be bothered to educate us about the reason you are adding things to the article (erm... which is the whole point of wikipedia, in a nutshell believe it or not), then it would be best if you stopped editing the article. Ranger Steve ^Talk 22:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are "too bored with the whole prospect" then maybe you should just avoid editing the article? JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits in question

The edits at the centre of this dispute are as follows:

• the addition of "or liberate, depending on the political perspective" to the first sentence. I have a problem with this because I feel that the "depending on . . ." is weasel wording and I have a problem with the unqualified and unsourced use of the term "liberate" as outlined above.
• Changing "an illegal" to "a rebel". I've discussed above why I chose the word illegal for that sentence and I don't see why it shouldn't be used. I have no problem with the addition of "rebel".
• The removal of "but was also intended to be the first stage of an eventual invasion of Britain itself" and the addition of "as a subset of the broader French Revolutionary Wars". The addition is a repeat of something written in the first sentence, while the removed section is an important point that is sourced and no reason has been given for its removal.
• Addition of "mostly". No problem with the addition, but I think "largely" scans better.
• Addition of "the ultimate outcome of" and removal of "and again losing significant numbers of men and ships." No reason given for the removal, but I have no problem with the addition.
• Addition of "- both Protestant and Catholic - " and replacement of "the British government" with "British imperial rule". I don't think the make up of the United Irishmen is strictly relevant to this article, but the addition is not inaccurate and could stay. The replacement of a neutral term with a specifically POV (and possibly technically inaccurate) one (in this context) is problematic.
• Addition of "British rule was enormously unpopular, as the Catholics of Ireland were subject to the harsh Penal Laws that disenfranchised them - while". This is true to an extent, but should be sourced. It also highlights only one of a number of factors that led to the creation of the United Irishmen, and would I feel be better on that page where the idea can be properly developed and discussed alongside other factors. If it is felt that the context in the article as a whole is weak, then I am open to discussions as to how to improve it.

This covers the scope of the edits in this conflict and I am happy to participate in any further discussion on the issue.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Without comment on the editing tactics (be civil and all that), it is my opinion that the background would benefit from a few sentences on the reasons for Irish discontent (disenfranchisement, Catholic emancipation, home rule, whatever) and some characterization of the level of support British rule and the United Irishmen had (despite the latter's legal status); this would counter bias inherent in words like "illegal", even if they are otherwise appropriate. I don't think the religious demographic makeup of the organization is particularly important unless it has bearing on events leading to the expedition, although if a single word like "nonsectarian" (please pick a different word if you don't think this one suitable) is present, it wouldn't hurt. Magic♪piano 00:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok Jacky, how about I make each edit individually, and even find a totally redundant source on Google Books if necessary, and then you can revert/dispute each individual edit? -

I think it would be better to discuss the edits here and come to an agreed text first, rather than editing and re-editing article until agreement is reached.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also support talking about individual edits on this talkpage before making changes, as many of the edits that have been made seem quite dubious and full of POV. Skinny87 (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For example? - Ledenierhomme (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As do I. We are now in a discussion about the content that Jacky has initiated. Rather than taking matters into your own hands without discussion, you would be better advised to present your references here. So far you haven't and are reinserting content without any consensus. As such I am reverting your edits until this is sorted out (note I'll use rollback for convenience, purely because so many edits have been made without any discussion on your part). I also recommend you read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that changes had already been made when I wrote my last message. Looking at them there are some significant improvements on the previously proposed changes, and although some of the wording is contentious we seem to be moving in the right direction.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good. Feel free to revert my revert and improve the wording if you like, but I'd be happier if it was all discussed here first, per WP:BRD. Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD???? Then why are you reverting my edits without explanation? What objections do you have, specifically? - Ledenierhomme (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you can figure it out if you read the page. If your first edits are reverted, before reinserting them it is preferred that they are discussed and consensus is reached first. You have pointedly failed to do that. It isn't policy, but it is good manners. Ranger Steve ^Talk 18:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, manners... right.... should I copy and paste my edit summaries here to the talk page?

-16:14, 3 October 2010 Ledenierhomme (talk | contribs) (40,482 bytes) (more even handing wording in intro/lede) -16:15, 3 October 2010 Ledenierhomme (talk | contribs) (40,395 bytes) (bold claim, no source.) -16:18, 3 October 2010 Ledenierhomme (talk | contribs) (40,165 bytes) (reference to the details of a separate event (1798 Rebellion) is quite irrelevant in an introductory paragraph I believe) -16:19, 3 October 2010 Ledenierhomme (talk | contribs) (40,178 bytes) (→Background: clarification of differing government times) *types -16:22, 3 October 2010 Ledenierhomme (talk | contribs) (40,169 bytes) (→Background: no "religious groups" were involved) -16:29, 3 October 2010 Ledenierhomme (talk | contribs) (40,613 bytes) (→Background: added historical context) -16:38, 3 October 2010 Ledenierhomme (talk | contribs) (41,019 bytes) (→Background: more context for invasion/liberation -16:39, 3 October 2010 Ledenierhomme (talk | contribs) m (41,027 bytes) (→Background: typos) - Ledenierhomme (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have some specific problems, but I'm too busy to run through them at the moment. I'll lay them out by tomorrow and we can move forwards. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Specific is good. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you should respond to Jackie's concerns and lay out your own ideas and sources here. If it goes far enough you may want to post your entire intended wording here first for discussion. In an ideal world this would all take place before you make edits to the article itself - not before. But I'm sure you knew that. I won't be engaging in a revert war with you, instead I've asked for more help from the Milhist talk page. Ranger Steve ^Talk 18:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It might be time to enlist help from an admin. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If Ledenierhomme was willing to revert himself and discuss the edits here first, I'd hope that could be avoided. Unlikely to happen though. I have limited opinion on the content, but the approach this editor is taking is becoming more disruptive. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Second set of edits in question

• Addition of "liberate Ireland at the invitation of the United Irishman" with references. I think it is problematic to use "liberate" in the lead in this way, sourced or not. "Invade" is a neutral word that reflects a physical action, not an emotional response - I feel that discussion of the motivations for the invasion are better discussed in full in the main body of the article, not in the lead. The use of the term specifically is problematic on two fronts. Firstly, it only reflects the feelings of a proportion of the Irish population at the time: there were many Irish people, mainly from the upper class and portions of the middle classes, who would not have considered the French invasion a liberation: when the rebellion of 1798 broke out, supported by a French invasion, more than 40,000 Irish men joined the government forces to oppose it. Using the term in an unqualified way ignores this significant sector of the country. The second problem is that the very nature of French intentions in invading are open to question. Although the French would have installed a United Irishmen government, that regime would likely have had little real independence from France itself, who were intending to use Ireland as a staging point of a future invasion of Britain and who did not respect the independence of other European countries they overran. I have sources to back both of these positions up. I am not opposed to the discussion of the liberation question somewhere in the article (although an in depth analysis would I feel be better on another page), but the lead does not seem to be the correct place for it.
• Change of "an illegal" to "an outlawed rebel". I have no problem with this change.
• Removal of "but was also intended to be the first stage of an eventual invasion of Britain itself." Why was this removed from the lead? It was a significant part of the French motivation to invade and is sourced elsewhere in the article.
• Addition of "mostly". Again, I don' mind this but I think "largely" is a better word to use.
• Removal of end of lead "but the French were encouraged to launch a second attempt in 1798 . . ." Reason given is that it is not relevant, but I disagree - a repeat effort two years later has to be relevant to this subject surely? There was an edit made to this last time it was changed that I have no problem with incorporating.
• Addition of "by the Kingdom of". No problem with this, although the link should cover the full title.
• Addition of "imposition of the hated Penal Laws which harshly persecuted the Catholic majority, followed by the". This is correct as far as it goes, but is I feel too simplistic an analysis of the origins of the United Irishmen. In addition, the use of the term "harshly" is a pretty severe breach of NPOV (I'm not saying they weren't harsh, just that the article should be neutral in tone).
• Replacement of "religious and social" with "nonsectarian". No problem with change.
• Addition of "At the same time the British . . ." at end of first Background paragraph - no problem with this, although an effort to make the citations follow the same format as the rest of the article would help.
• Additon of section beginning "Although originally founded by Ulster Presbyterians . . .". This is a useful addition to the article's context, although the term "reeling" is unencyclopedic and should be changed.

Awaiting further discussion.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Focusing on the removal of "but was also intended to be the first stage of an eventual invasion of Britain itself." Ledenierhomme in his edit summary said "bold claim, no source", apparently unaware that citation/sourcing is not generally required for the lead, since its statements are supported in the rest of the article. This one certainly is, 3rd paragraph of background: do you take issue with its source (Come, 1952)? Magic♪piano 00:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

After looking over the edits made by Ledennierhomme, I agree with Jackyd's responses in the above section. Most of them seem quite good changes, but the POV needs to be sorted out and toned down to a neutral style, and I would urge Ledennierhomme to avoid POV edits like 'imposition of the hated Penal Laws' and so forth. I'm glad to see that BRD is being followed and that this will hopefully be sorted out soon. Skinny87 (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Because edit-warring has continued in the last 24 hours I've protected the wrong version of the article for a few days to allow consensus to be reached here without undue distractions. Once consensus has been reached, or if protection expires in the meantime, further disruptive edits are likely to attract sanctions. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 08:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Your problem Jacky, is that your article slyly mixes in political content with military history. The article is about an historical event - that of a failed naval expedition. I understand that the military aspect may be your own inidividual primary concern, but this is an encyclopedia, requiring a general perspective.

• LIBERATE/INVADE - invasion is, of course, not neutral. We typically use the term "invade" to refer to an uninvited act of aggression. In this case, however, the French were invited by the popular political leadership of the Irish people. Did the French also invade the United States when they came to the former's aide against GB?The French were engaged in a serious of defensive wars (the Revolutionary Wars), of which the Kingdom of GB was one of the aggressors - again, this context is completely absent from your article.

"the popular political leadership of the Irish people" - please provide suitable demographic data to justify this. Magic♪piano 17:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no point us "debating" Irish history. You referred to Wellington as an Irishman - that shows the depths of your understanding. The rest of yoru paragraph is ahistorical, politicized nonsense, and I have no idea where you could pluck the figure of 40,000 from - but there were hundreds of thousands of Irish in the British Army at the time - there was certainly no mass enlistment at any event.

• Removal of "but was also intended to be the first stage of an eventual invasion of Britain itself." - Where is the source for this?
  • Please address my comment above on this point. Magic♪piano 17:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Addition of "imposition of the hated Penal Laws which harshly persecuted the Catholic majority, followed by the". - POV??? They were hated, they were harsh. How is that POV? Not being allowed to vote? Own firearms? Marry who you want? Worship how you want? Don't be ridiculous.

- Ledenierhomme (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to be reasonable on this, but I am getting pretty sick of the way you are "speaking" to me combined with your failure to do basic research. Although I produced the figure from a reliable source, the 40,000 Irish militia men in British service that I referred to is obvious to anyone with a simple click at Irish Rebellion of 1798, and your failure to do so indicates that you have opinions so entrenched that facts make no impression on them. For starters you say that invade is not neutral, when of course it is: an invasion is simply an armed encroachment on territory not your own: the French certainly "invaded" the nascent United States in 1778 and more recently the Allied "invaded" France in 1944 - there is no judgement in the term, unlike your preferred "liberate". You also say that the French were not invading because they were "invited by the popular political leadership of the Irish people" - on what basis does this prevent the French expedition being an invasion force (and as MagicPiano notes, please also supply demographic data backing your statement)?

You also show a complete lack of understanding of either the origin of the French Revolutionary Wars or how an article on a historic event should be constructed. The French Republic declared war on Britain in 1793, not the other way around. The British were certainly unfriendly towards the new French government, but it was a French desire to spread the revolution across Europe that caused them to initiate a conflict with Britain that they were frankly unprepared for. I also do not think there is any need to go into detail about why the British and French were at war in 1796 - if you want that there is a perfectly good article at French Revolutionary Wars, likewise the origins of the United Irishmen should be discussed at that article, not here.

I probably should not have used Wellington as an example (although he was Irish born and referred to himself as "Irish" on more than one occassion). I must admit that I was condescending to someone whom I believed (apparently correctly) had a poor understanding of Irish history. Your denials that there were significant sections of the Irish population (largely from the Protestant middle and upper class) who opposed the United Irishmen is I'm afraid a sign that you need to read more thoroughly into this subject before you continue to insist on poorly researched changes to this article. I am also surprised that someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you have doesn't understand the problem with using "hated" and "harshly" in that unqualified and partisan way - I'm not actual disputing that they were harsh or that they were hated by many, simply that to say so in such a blatantly POV way cheapens the article.

Lastly, as MagicPiano has pointed out, I have sourced the fact that they French were not intending to simply grant independence, but to use Ireland as a base for future operations against Britain. Please stop removing it simply becuase you haven't read the source in question. Finally, please amend your language: your mixture of insults, accusations and aggressive unsourced assertions are totally contrary to the ethos of Wikipedia and are very tiresome.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(1)"the French certainly "invaded" the nascent United States in 1778" - hmm, notice the quotation marks?; (2)"the 40,000 Irish militia men in British service" - oh, so they didn't spontaneously join in opposition to the United Irishman then?; (3) "I probably should not have used Wellington as an example (although he was Irish born and referred to himself as "Irish" on more than one occassion)"; (4) "it was a French desire to spread the revolution across Europe that caused them to initiate a conflict with Britain that they were frankly unprepared for"; Four more reasons why I should never have bothered trying to engage you on this in the first place.

Believe what you want, advocate what you want, but your objections to my edits amount to nothing more than "I don't like it!" - Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean you will stop attempting to insert unresearched opinions into the article?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if what you say about Jacky is true, you have not addressed my objections, which are "you seem to be unable to support that with reliable sources", and "you have not addressed Jacky's sourcing", not "I don't like it". Brusque dismissals like the above do not further improvement of the article; providing and discussing sources does. (If the support for the UI was as widespread as you imply, this should be (1) easy to document, and (2) make a useful improvement to Society of United Irishmen, which does not currently contain useful demographic numbers about its support. Go for it...) Magic♪piano 20:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: Ledenierhomme has been blocked for a week for edit warring (on a different article). Quelle surprise. Magic♪piano 20:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of moving forward, would it be out of process for me to re-edit the article, incorporating parts of the recent changes as laid out at the head of this sub-section above?--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that his less objectionable contributions should be incorporated, and his more blatantly unjustified removals reversed. I can do this if you'd rather not. Magic♪piano 21:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I'd like to do them myself (obviously with input if others think that my edits are unjustified). I'm just worried that this will be seen as improper at this stage.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Any edits made in line with consensus are fine. If Ledenierhomme is unable to contribute because of the consequences of their edit-warring elsewhere (incidentally, if they hadn't already been blocked I would have done so for this revert), frankly that's their problem, not yours. EyeSerene^talk 09:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and make any changes you feel need making. Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made changes, leaving out the POV violations and more contentious material. I have for the moment also left out the section that begins "Although originally founded by Ulster Presbyterians . . ." This part is not inaccurate, but I realised that it repeats earlier information and is also out of place where it has been added, which is about French invasion plans not the make up of the United Irishmen. I am still of the belief that this material is tangental to the point of the article, but if others disagree I am open to discussion. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ledenierhomme has been indef-blocked for editing this (and presumably the other articles he was edit-warring on) in contentious ways after the first block expired. One wonders when the next sock will show up... Magic♪piano 01:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The tone of this article is that of a British military fetishist, political perspective is required - "consensus" requires the contribution of Uninvolved Editors and those without a clear Conflict of Interest. How about making a "Request for Comment"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.22.35.13 (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Requests for Comments by sockpuppets of blocked editors are generally frowned upon, I believe. Skinny87 (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noting here that I've semi-protected the article for a short time due to the IP-hopping disruption. This can be extended as necessary. EyeSerene^talk 08:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

minor changes to the introductory sentences

Some added historical context, as there are some little problems with emphasis and perspective. The previous introduction merely mentioned the United Irishmen by name, but didn't assign to them an active role. The article seems to be written from the perspective of purely military history between France and England/UK.

The second point, regarding the staging of an invasion of Great Britain itself, should always be asserted as a possibility. Historians have been perennially divided as to at what point during the Revolutionary Wars, and especially the Napoleonic Wars, there was any real political will to launch a costly, and potentially disastrous invasion of England. Attempts in previous centuries had all been catastrophes, so we can't say for certain what the intentions of the Directory. (Most likely they didn't really know themselves).

On another unrelated note, I think the title of the article requires a date, as in French the term "Expédition d'Irlande" is usually understood to mean Humbert's 1798 expeditionary force. LouisDesaix (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these changes, I think they improved the article but left out some important points - the intentions of the French once they were in Ireland itself were not mentioned, leading to a significant sequential gap. I also included the context of the French Revolutionary Wars and the dates in a more prosaic format as in the revised version they did not read well. I have further revised it to incorporate these necessary changes while retaining the information you have added. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Title

The French Wiki has another Expédition d'Irlande taking place two years later. Is Expédition d'Irlande really the best name for this page? Srnec (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

At the moment the 1798 invasion does not have its own article (although Battle of Tory Island covers it a bit). If one were created then they should be disambiguated by year in parenthesis as on the French Wikipedia. For now I don't think its such a problem.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 26 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. (closed by page mover) Bradv 23:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Expédition d'Irlande → French expedition to Ireland (1796) – The title is not only not the common name, but it is neither English nor unambiguous (see section above). The proposed title is used, e.g., by E. H. Stuart Jones, An Invasion that Failed: The French Expedition to Ireland, 1796 (Oxford, 1950). Srnec (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree to the move but should we put this in the lede.

• The French Expedition to Ireland also known as the Expédition d'Irlande.. ?Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

As the original main author of this article I disagree. As an entirely French operation with almost no British intervention, the French name (see Expédition d'Irlande) seems appropriate here and I don't think anyone reading the article or clicking on the link is going to remotely confused by the title; the proposed name is just a description in any case, not any kind of formal alternative. Other than potentially adding a (1796) after the title (and there is no other article with this name in English, which is why I didn't use a disambiguator in the first place). This seems like a solution in search of a problem to me.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused: why does its being "an entirely French operation with almost no British intervention" have any bearing on the name? The problem is that in English we do not call this event by its French name. We do not in general call foreign military operations by foreign names. Moreover, the current title is ambiguous: this wasn't the only French expedition/expédition to Ireland/Irlande—another one took place just two years later. Srnec (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should then leave the article as is, but make it more prominent to have

• The Expédition d'Irlande also known as the French Expedition to Ireland.. ?Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I've no objection to Easfarthingan's compromise, and should consensus go the way of Srnec's proposal I don't mind that much either. My objection here is that this operation doesn't have any sort of designated official name in English. The Battle of Waterloo, the Battle of the Nile, or the Glorious First of June have specifically English names; in other languages (usually French) the name for these operations is completely different. The proposed English name given here isn't an official title however, it is just a description. This operation does however have a title in French, which is hardly surprising as it is a French operation. Where such an official French name exists, why do we need to make up an English one simply because this is the English language Wikipedia? The English language borrows foreign names and terms all the time.

The obvious comparisons are the Croisière du Grand Hiver (which I didn't create) or the Croisière de Bruix (which I did). These were entirely French planned and executed operations, with the British reactive if involved at all - they have no standard name in English, and so the standard French name fits them perfectly well. Should we change these to "Cruise of the Great Winter" or "Cruise of Bruix"? If so why? Does it aid comprehension or navigation in any meaningful way? As for it not being the only French expedition, I am well aware, having taken Battle of Tory Island to FA - I have already said I'd have no objection to the addition of a (1796) disambiguator, although I should also note that the 1798 operation does not have its own article divisible from the Tory Island one. In any case, I feel I've stated my opinion on this clearly and am happy to follow community consensus at the conclusion of the move debate.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

As a final PS point, I have a sneaking suspicion I took the French name from William James, which would make it sourced in English. I'll check later and let you know.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

My objection here is that this operation doesn't have any sort of designated official name in English. Lots of operations won't have official names in English. We should use the most common name in English sources or else fall back on a descriptive title. Should we change these to "Cruise of the Great Winter" or "Cruise of Bruix"? If so why? "Cruise of Bruix" is more common in English sources than Croisière de Bruix, which doesn't even seem common in French sources. This isn't my area, and I know how relying on the internet can be dangerous... but the English term I can find in reliable sources quickly, while the French term is rare outside of 19th-century French works. "Cruise" would definitely seem more helpful the English reader than croisière. Srnec (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UE Academicoffee71 (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support per User:Srnec and rewrite the introduction sentence with the English title first. After all this is the enwiki not the frwiki. ww2censor (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. To say that there is no name in English appears to indicate rather poor research (or perhaps none, from the lack of evidence offered), I get 4740 ghits most of which look relevant. French expedition to Ireland should be a DAB , pointing to this article and at least two others (which don't seem to have their own articles but are notable and for now the DAB can point to a mention in another article). Andrewa (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: for those who might consider writing the 1798 article jstor, if you have access, has a number of good sources, such as McAnally, The Government Forces Engaged at Castlebar in 1798 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30006153 and Hogan, 1798 Remembered: Casualties Sustained by Government Forces during the Humbert Episode, August-September, 1798 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25550193 ww2censor (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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

I see the consensus was to move the article, and although I find this move unimaginative and disappointing, I accept the result. It is however encouraging to see all of you deomnstrate your passion for this subject, and I look forward to seeing meaningful contributions to this area of the encyclopaedia from all of you in the future. In one case above however, I do take strong exception to the argument made. To use blind google search metrics in a debate such as this, presented uncritically and with obviously no effort made to analyse or understand the results, as evidence with which to rudely criticise the research and opinion of an experienced editor with numerous valuable contributions in this field is very disappointing conduct and not the type of behaviour I would have expected from a fellow editor acting in good faith.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

1795 treatise 'On the Defense of Ireland'

Apologies if this has been mentioned previously but I thought this brief treatise on the vulnerability of Britain/Ireland's defense might win attention. https://archive.org/details/ondefenceofirela00keat/page/n19 Ireland was invaded the following year 1796 and the French did try to use Bantry as warned they might in this tract. Was the Act of Union, 1801, a defense against further attempts to invade Ireland? Peace was made with France the following year, 1802 when they (the French) concluded (?) that to attack Ireland would be to attack two? and so no longer worth risking. Great stuff. Thank you for the page (and apologies if folks have been rude regarding your efforts).