 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Untitled edit
I don't think Long "intrigued" against Home Rule, as he was very open in his opposition to it.86.42.199.103 (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the point you make. I have replaced intrigued with conspired. It you have a better phrase then please propose it, or simply re-edit in the article. From what I have gathered, he was not just simply openly against Home Rule, but he also worked and pulled strings in the background to condsiderably undermine it. Osioni (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This whole article is written as a lament from the point of view of someone who regarded a very limited version of Home Rule as a full andfair settlement of the Irish question. As such it is an opinion piece and exhibits fatal levels of bias. 2405:4803:C81D:74D0:469B:B13:CABF:661A (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your special contribution. Yes, it is a record of events as they happened, a fatal path for the better.... History is as history was, regrettably, gladly or otherwise.Osioni (talk)
POV edit
While many might agree with some of the editorializing in this article, it is not encyclopedic and should be amended. Straw Cat (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- The article has been almost entirely stable since 2011. There might be the odd phrase here or there, probably unconscious, but I really don't see anything non-neutral in the general tone of the article. Tagging it gives a very false impression.Paulturtle (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)