Talk:Great Famine (Ireland): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:06, 3 November 2007 editBuirechain (talk \| contribs)169 edits →Seeking consensus on "the list"← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:43, 5 January 2025 edit undoJohn (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers215,520 edits →Removal: ct (ec)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~skiptotoctalk~~}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header\|search=no\|noarchives=yes}}
	{{talkheader}}
			{{Troubles restriction}}
	{{Irelandproj\|class=B\|importance=top}}
			{{round in circles}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|collapsed=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Ireland \|importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject Death\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Disaster management\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject European history \|importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject Human rights \|importance=Top}}
			}}
			{{Banner holder \|collapsed=yes \|1=
			{{Hiberno-English}}
			{{Article history
			\|action1=GAN
			\|action1date=15:28, 26 March 2006
			\|action1result=not listed
			\|action1oldid=45142528

			\|action2=GAN
			\|action2date=20:04, 26 September 2008
			\|action2link=Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/GA1
			\|action2result=not listed
			\|action2oldid=240766470

			\|currentstatus=FGAN
	{{failedGA}}
			\|otd1date=2004-06-27\|otd1oldid=5183762
	'''Where are the suggestions? We need help to upgrade this article, please.''' (] 02:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
			\|otd2date=2005-06-27\|otd2oldid=16335272
			\|otd3date=2006-06-27\|otd3oldid=60925392
			}}
			{{Old moves
			\| list =
			* RM, Great Famine (Ireland) → Great Irish Famine (or Irish Potato Famine), '''No consensus for move''', 5 April 2019, ]
			* RM, Great Famine (Ireland) → The Great Hunger, '''No consensus for move''', 2 March 2010, ]
			* RM, Great Famine (Ireland) → Irish Potato Famine, '''No consensus for move''', 4 July 2008, ]
			* RM, The Great Hunger → Great Famine (Ireland), '''Move following lengthy consensus discussion''', 1 July 2008‎, ]
			* RM, Irish Potato Famine → The Great Hunger, '''Move following discussion''', 30 May 2008, ]
			* ''(At least and ] between late 2007 and mid 2008)''
			* RM, Great Irish Famine → The Great Hunger, '''Move following discussion''', 20 December 2007‎, ]
			* ''(Multiple other ] and prior to December 2007)''
			}}
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive index
			\|mask=Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 200K
			\|counter = 17
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{archives\|archive_age=3\|archive_units=months\|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}

			== Imported Grain Used As Livestock Feed ==
	{{OnThisDay\|June 27}}
	Can't find the event. (] 12:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC))
	----

			These edits added the claim.
	Past entries in this famous discussion are archived in:

			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=887787383
	]
	, ]
	, ]
	, ]
	, ]
	, ]
	, ]
	, ]
	, ]
	, ]
	, ]...

			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=1170685821

			This claim seems to be completely unsupported by the given sources or the literature. ] (]) 03:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
	==Name change again==
	The last name change was somewhat rushed. Should the name be<br> ]<br>or<br>]<br> It is normally known as the ''Great Famine'', and ''Great Irish Famine'' is somewhat of a neologism. Please comment. ] 21:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

			== "genocide" ==
	:With hindsight, I'd say the latter. It would be consistent with the other article, ]. If a move is proposed, complete with a proper debate and notice via the proposed move template, I'd support it. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

			In the genocide section, there is a statement claiming that a non-scholarly "assessment" by two law professors who argued that the Irish Famine was a genocide in order to reshape a history curriculum in New Jersey has been "'''supported by various later genocide scholars'''," and it then links to one chapter, in one book, by one scholar, Neysa King. Considering this same source has been used to include a section on the Irish Famine in the main article for genocide, there seems to be a deliberate effort to elevate a theory that's got little scholarly backing (and, as we will soon learn, even this is a generous description of how this theory's been received by professional historians).
	::In Ireland the name given is An Gorta Mór, translated "The Great Hunger." This would defiantly satisfy the criteria on Irish names in wiki policy, that is, it should be the English version. Since re-directs will bring you to the same page, I was hoping that would be the preferred option. If you look at the translation, it is less POV than any of them. As to the ], that in Ireland is called the "Forgotten Famine." Like I said, the utility of the re-directs, should be employed. --] 23:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

			When this issue was previously raised on this page, user 'SeoR' made the following statement which I think is a good basis to start a discussion:
	:::In ''Irish'', the name given is An Gorta Mór. In English, in Ireland, its 'The Famine' or 'The Great Famine'. This is the English-language Misplaced Pages, and noone calls it the Great Hunger in English. No problem with redirects from 'An Gorta Mór' or 'The Great Hunger' to this article, though, wherever it ends up. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

			''"It is quite clear '''that few but not no historians see genocide as a key factor''', but how this is presented can be explored.."''''
	:::''Gorta'' means ''famine'', not just ''hunger'', I've always found its translation as "hunger" grating in the context - it sounds so twee and leprechaunish. For "Great Irish Famine" being a neologism, see contemporary uses of the description, such as (of ''Fields of Athenry'' fame) or , both from 1848. I would leave it as it is, without any need for dates. Adding them would really be quite pointless as it really is ''the'' Great Irish Famine, earlier contenders for the description really pale in significance. 99 times out of 100, a reader entering the phrase in the search bar would be looking this article not anything else. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

			So, expanding on this point, let's revisit two of the rules we're expected to honor when we edit this encyclopedia:
	::::]<sup>]</sup>, I have pointed out that in Ireland, in English, it is known by the name The Great Hunger, or simply, The Great Famine. Are you intimating that no one calls it the Great Hunger in England, as opposed to English. --] 12:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

			* An acknowledgement that Misplaced Pages is a '''mainstream encyclopedia''', and not a laboratory for testing novel ideas.
	:::::Sure Sony-youth, ''Great Irish Famine'' has been used before, but not in the general. The name almost supposes that there was a Great English Famine, a Great Welsh Famine etc etc for all countries. Maybe after a couple of days, draw up a list of options that can be voted on. ] 18:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

			* That it is not enough to demonstrate that '''some minority ''' of scholars hold a view, but rather that the minority view is significant.
	::::::Such as the Great Ukrainian Famine, Great Indian Famine, Great Chinese Famine, Great Highland Famine, Great Bengal Famine, Great North Korean Famine, Great Finnish Famine, Great Ethiopian Famine, etc. etc. ... ? Regarding the name not being used in general, please see the many and . As I wrote before, however, the original article title (''Irish Potato Famine'') would appear to be the most widely used (see and ). But be warned that that name was exposed before as some kind of 'British imperialist plot by people who knew nothing about Irish history etc. etc.', hence the move, and as a neologism as well (on that count see it being used as far back as 1870, ). --]<sup>]</sup> 19:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Fine Sony, but not part of a singular contemporaneous wide-scale famine. I don't see conspiracy theories, or plots here. Don't generally believe in them. ] 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

			Now let's look at how the source in question opens the chapter:
	::::::::The "singular contemporaneous wide-scale famine" is known as the ''European Potato Famine'' (see , , ), which includes the less-well-known ''Belgian Potato Famine'', ''Dutch Potoato Famine'', ''English Potato Famine'', ''French Potato Famine'', ''German Potato Famine'', ''Polish Potato Famine'' and ''Scottish Potato Famine''. --]<sup>]</sup> 20:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

			''"Today, '''Irish and British historians categorically reject''' the notion that British actions during the Great Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) amounted to genocide."''
	], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. Sony-youth, maybe some articles have to be created, none of your titles linked. ] 21:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

			So, the first sentence in this chapter acknowledges that the theory is not just rejected by academics, but "categorically" so.
	:::::Wow! All them starvin' potatoes. Did they run out of fertilizer or somethin'?(] 11:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

			Another source I'd add is Mark McGowan's piece in the journal Genocide Studies International:
	:The European Potato Famine maybe, the other's can be treated under that. Of all, only the Irish famine resulted in a decrease in population. See for a comparative analysis of the crisis: "Relative to Ireland, the death toll of the famine years 1845-1847 in the rest of Europe was small, some 100,000’s at the most." --]<sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
	::If it helps (and it probably doesn't, since this is anecdotal) I've only ever really heard of it referred to as the ''Irish Potato Famine'' or the ''Great Irish Potato Famine''. I'm not sure how the 'British imperialist plot by people who knew nothing about Irish history etc. etc.' that Sony-youth referred to is derived from the inclusion of the word "potato". ] 12:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	From what I learned in school it was always called the Great Potato Famine or else the Irish potato famine and as ] says it is only anecdotal and have no ref. for it being called either so that is my two cents so to say.--] 12:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

			''"The fact that '''virtually all historians of Ireland''' have reached a verdict that eschews position, be they Irish-born scholars from Britain, North America or Australasia, has weakened the traditional populist account."''
	:::Neither do I. You'll have to see the from that title and try to figure that one out for yourself. :) --]<sup>]</sup> 12:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

			So, language like "categorically reject" and "virtually all historians" tells us exactly how the information should be presented: as a fringe perspective that's only mentioned insofar as we are telling readers it's a theory that's been widely rejected by the mainstream of Irish academic history.
	::Is "Great Irish Famine" a case of academic terminology being used in Misplaced Pages? There's often competition in Misplaced Pages between the common name for something and the "scientific" term for it. I've not heard the phrase outside academic texts. ] 12:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

			Discuss. ] (]) 21:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
	:::Plus the usual unscientific Google survey....
			*The King source is a conference proceedings book; the article is short and doesn't cite much, and the presentation was by someone who may have gotten a Master's degree but does not work (and publish) in academia. ] (]) 22:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
			**Which raises even more questions.. ] (]) 00:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
			***Sure, but that's not necessarily for here. One question I have is who added that. Another is what all this says about Brill, and that's even sadder. ] (]) 15:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
			***:Probably the same person who went into the article on ] and added the same content into a Great Famine section which shouldn't even be there. This is very simple: the view that the GF was a genocide is fringe and should never be mentioned on here except to say that it's a fringe pov pushed mainly by people who don't have the relevant background in economic, social or political history for the period in question. The endless iterations of John Mitchel's polemic about "food exports" is case in point. ] (]) 19:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

			== Overlong lead ==
	:::Exact phrase: '''Irish Potato Famine''' ... 159,000 hits
			I agree that the lead is far too long but the recently reverted quote from a future PM actually supported the prior, unreferenced sentence - "Additionally, the famine indirectly resulted in tens of thousands of households being evicted, exacerbated by a provision forbidding access to workhouse aid while in possession of more than one-quarter acre of land." The subject of the reverted quote is found in several statistics in the Eviction section.
			Because this very strong quote was made near the beginning of the disaster and was made by the future Prime Minister I thought its placement in the lead section was appropriate. I believe the quote belongs somewhere in this very long article, either in the Lead or the Eviction section.] (]) 14:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			:Then put it in the Evictions section, since the objection was to the length of the lead and to the inclusion of material in the lead that is not in the article body. ] (]) 15:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			::Go to talk prior to revert. ] (]) 22:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::I don't understand why you've written this comment because we've both followed the ] and neither of us has broken the 1 revert per 24 hours editing restriction on this article. It is also obvious that I'm not going to revert an edit that I have already agreed to. It is also obvious that I'm not going to revert an edit that occurred 6 hours before you made this comment at a time when I was clearly active on wikipedia. Consequently, it looks like an unnecessarily offensive and aggressive demand that is designed to insult and provoke. I will therefore not obey it and I will revert whenever and wherever it is reasonable and justifiable to do so. ] (]) 17:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

			== Genocide section ==
	:::Exact phrase: '''Great Irish Famine''' ... 56,000 hits

			Please note that the editor Cdjp1 has added controversial content to the genocide section today. This issue is currently in dispute resolution and these additions should probably be reverted until it's resolved. ] (]) 23:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::Exact phrase: '''Potato Famine''' ... 364,000 hits ] 13:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

			:This is a mischaracterisation of how you have framed your arguments in the Genocides in History (before World War 1) talk page and the DR discussion. You have maintained your issue is the great famine's inclusion in that article, and you even suggested that any information from the scholars present in that article should instead appear in the relevant section in this article. -- ] (]) 14:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::::And '''"Great famine"''' = 285,000 . Forget Google. You can prove anything with Google, that's if you really want to. ] 10:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
			::What I had tried to say was, any discussion of genocide theories belongs in this article in the relevant section, but that the Great Famine should not be listed in an article about pre-WW1 genocides considering scholars don't believe it was a genocide. I also said that this article covers the genocide controversy rather well (and never said I thought the section needed to be expanded). I also don't think scholars who have backgrounds in famines in other countries and continents are authoritative on this subject. All scholars that study famines agree that every famine is political -that hunger can happen naturally but when it rises to the level of famine there's politics involved. But that also highlights why the most reliable sources on the Irish Famine are historians with some expertise in British/Irish political history. As far as Robbie McVeigh goes -he only ever writes about Ireland from one colonial perspective, and we have to wonder why his opinion is so at odds with the mainstream. ] (]) 19:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Removal ==
	::::::Not to forget '''Irish + potatoe + genocide''' 243,000 (] 11:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

			I noticed edit, which removes material apparently on the basis that it is allegedly from a partisan source, and is "over 150 years old". I wasn't aware that we were not able to use sources older than a certain age. {{u\|DrKay}}, can you shed any light on this? ] (]) 18:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::I didn't look past the first hit: "Indifference, not genocide." --]<sup>]</sup> 16:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
			:See ] and ] for guidance, in particular "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history", "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest", "in academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed" and "cite current scholarly consensus when available". ] (]) 22:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Indeed. I was thinking about ] which I thought applicable to exactly this sort of situation. I'd imagine you to be familiar with it. If not, it's definitely worth a read. I also found the reference to the source's age a bit weird. What was that about? Older sources and biased sources can be very useful if they are properly used. We can use ''Mein Kampf'' on an article about Hitler. So, why did you remove that material? Note that at this stage that I'm not contesting the removal, just saying the edit summary makes no sense. ] (]) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I have already answered. ] (]) 08:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I had the same question, as ] indicates that older sources only need to be removed if more recent developments supersede the older information, and I see nothing on ] about age of source. Thank you for raising this discussion, John. ] (]) 23:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I have already answered. ] (]) 08:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Not in any way that makes sense though. Are you able to explain in plain language why the article is better without this material? ] (]) 09:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::If you wish to restore the material, please find a better source, as was requested four and a half years ago. There are three talk page sections above this one contesting the genocide theory. We shouldn't be using a source promoting the genocide theory that was written over 160 years ago without context. It doesn't reflect modern scholarship. ] (]) 11:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::There's only one use of the word "genocide" in that passage and it's fully attributed to Mitchel. Is the problem that Mitchel's claims are being given in Wiki-voice? Surely Mitchel's views and statements on the crisis are wholly relevant to the narrative. Or is the problem that Mitchel's writings are being used as a primary source here? Thanks. ] (]) 11:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I see no reason to confuse the issue. The passage relating to Mitchel on that score is retained. Indeed, the same quote is in the article twice. ] (]) 11:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::You've removed the three Mitchel references wholesale? ] (]) 12:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::It's fine to use ] and as sources for Mitchel's views. Though I believe Thomas Gallagher was an amateur historian, his book received favorable reviews, so I have no problem with its use. ] (]) 13:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::My question is not with your removal but why the reason for "better source needed" given as that the source is old. (I believe someone else marked this years ago.) I don't see anywhere in the Misplaced Pages policies that a source should be removed solely due to its age, so if I'm missing something please let me know where I can read more about this policy. I believe this is the same question that John had. Was the source removed due to age or bias? Just trying to understand the rationale behind the edit(s). ] (]) 19:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::See my previous comments regarding the use of out-dated partisan sources with a conflict of interest, e.g.: "" "" ""
			::::::See also ]: it is disruptive to "repeatedly disregard other editors' explanations for their edits". It is disruptive to ask me the same question over and over and over again when it has already been answered three times (four times now). ] (]) 22:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::If you think Mitchel's published work of 1861, 1869 and 1876 work has been discredited or invalidated by later academic analysis, aren't you obliged to say where and how? Otherwise isn't this just ] him? I'm really not sure where "reporting what Mitchel actually said" stops and "using a source promoting the genocide theory" begins. But of course, if you think I'm commenting here just to be disruptive, then yes you'll need to report me at ]. ] (]) 22:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I already did. I pointed you at Daly. She is quoted in the article text, " seems to imply that Mitchel's case is more credible than recent scholars suggest; few would agree." I also mentioned two other sources and the three talk page sections above this one that cast doubt on the genocide theory. There are other talk page sections in the archives as well as a sub-section in the article that begins "The vast majority of historians reject the claim that the British government's response to the famine constituted a genocide" and then goes on to quote a few. ] (]) 22:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Jolly good. So there's still some replacement, e.g. of Mitchel by Daly, that needs to happen? ] (]) 23:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Not seeing {{u\|DrKay}}'s reply to this, I'll assume the answer to be "yes". DrKay, from the same guideline you quoted from above, we also have {{tq\|"Fails to engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. Fails to recognize, rejects, or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors."}} Your removal has been queried, by three separate editors; the onus on you is to build a consensus for it, or for a compromise version. Go for it! ] (]) 16:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I have answered the queries about the removal already. I am under no obligation to comment on Martin's future removals, additions or replacements since those are not edits of mine. ] (]) 16:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::What "future removals" are these? I have no knowledge of any such planned edits. Your argument here seems to have been that Mitchel has been discredited by later historians/ commentators. So one might have expected you to retain mention of Mitchel, along the lines of "Mitchel said xyz, but now A. N. Other has said he was exaggerating because of abc.." etc. But instead you seem to intend the later criticism of Mitchel to mean that the reader does not even deserve to see what he said, quite regardless of whether it was right or wrong. Which to me looks very much like "cancelling" him, or "airbrushing him out". Perhaps you could clarify? Many thanks. ] (]) 17:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) p.s. you could do a complete sign, thanks.
			::::::::::::::I already said at 11:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC), "The passage relating to Mitchel on that score is retained. Indeed, the same quote is in the article twice." I said at 22:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "I pointed you at Daly. She is quoted in the article text, " seems to imply that Mitchel's case is more credible than recent scholars suggest; few would agree." Daly's, Duffy's and Gallagher's commentary on Mitchel is retained. I have not removed this material. I have not cancelled him. I have not airbrushed him out. What you're suggesting {{xt\|one might have expected you to retain mention of Mitchel, along the lines of "Mitchel said xyz}}, '''is exactly what I did'''. In addition to the passage I quoted at 22:58 3 January, the article also reads: {{xt\|John Mitchel, one of the leading Irish nationalists, later wrote one of the first widely circulated tracts on the famine, The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps), published in 1861. It proposed that British actions during the famine and their treatment of the Irish were a deliberate effort at genocide. It contained a sentence that has since become famous: "The Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight, but the English created the Famine.}} and further down the article again, {{xt\|John Mitchel, one of the leaders of the Young Ireland Movement, wrote in 1860: }}. ] (]) 17:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::Many thanks. But your edit took out three sources for Mitchel? Perhaps you now see them as superfluous. I can see the footnote for Daly, but I can't find Duffy's and Gallagher's direct commentary on Mitchel, sorry. ] (]) 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::That diff also shows me retaining Duffy's commentary in the 'Reaction in Ireland' section, with me adding the phrase "], one of the leading Irish nationalists," to place it in context. Gallagher's quote from Mitchel is further down in the 'Contemporary analysis' section. ] (]) 17:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::Thanks. Perhaps it was because Duffy is not named there, and the fact it's just a quote, not "commentary"? Do you think ''The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps)'' deserves a direct source? Yes, Gallagher's quote of Mitchel seems to be a good secondary source, although it doesn't say if Gallagher agreed with him. ] (]) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			I'm finding this discussion distressing, so I think this will be my final word in this section. I think it is a sad state of affairs when editors question the removal of material sourced to a revolting white supremacist who believed slaves should be kept "to their work by flogging". Above Martin asks me about Mitchel's 1876 work and questions whether it "has been discredited or invalidated". This is a book that promotes public hanging for forgery, burglary and robbery. I should not have to prove that such views are no longer held by modern scholars. It should be patently obvious that such views are discredited. I shouldn't have to defend the removal of such distasteful sources as these. To say the least, Mitchel's views are obsolete and questionable. The article should be based on modern scholarship not out-dated books from over 160 years ago written by a disgusting racist whose views are long-discredited. ] (]) 19:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Yeah Sony, that kind of denial pees me off too. But I notice that if you offer the 'Dan Quayle' spelling and put in '''Irish + potato + potatoe + genocide''' you get '''480,000''' hits. Haven't tried spelling 'genocide' with a 's' yet; that should bring in some more. (] 16:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC))
			:Thank you for your clear replies to my queries. I trust you will no longer be considering reporting me for "disruption". I'm sorry to say that I find that point of view quite distressing. Yes, we might all agree that "Mitchel's views are obsolete and questionable", but not to reference them and offer explicit criticism against them ''still'' looks to me like cancelling. I'm not arguing that Michel's work should be celebrated. I'm saying that his work should be referenced and discussed appropriately. Would you advocate ], perhaps? I'd like to remind you that your original edit summary said "partisan source over 150 years old", suggesting that sources beyond a certain age should not be mentioned or used. Other editors may still wish to bring different points here for discussion. ] (]) 19:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Aw, that's a shame, I was just beginning to get the gist of what you were trying to do. I'm not familiar with Mitchel; was he worse than Hitler, whose 1925 book ''Mein Kampf'' we use as a source on the ] article? We do not necessarily remove sources because they are old or even because they are ]. Neither can we automatically remove sources because their author supported hanging and flogging, which was a mainstream belief at the time. It is not patently obvious to me that Mitchel is "obsolete" in relation to this article, which is not about hanging or flogging, but about the Great Famine in Ireland. I would need to see evidence for that. ] (]) 19:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::::::See . --]<sup>]</sup> 17:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

	::::::::::::::Which kinda proves the point I was making to Mark, below. (] 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

	:::::::::::::::Compare with . --]<sup>]</sup> 19:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

	::Sony, would you not be better off defending me at Arb.com and being a bit outraged at the notion of a ONE YEAR BAN than twiddling around with Google? (] 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

	:::::I think if we are going to be in some way "guided" by Google results, they need to be exact phrase searches and not strings of words, otherwise the way Google works it just becomes a numbers game and not useful for guidance. ] 12:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::Well Mark, I think being guided by Google is rather dodgy; which is the point I was making really. I'm aware that getting the article renamed "The Great Genocide" would meet with some carping opposition and allegations of "POV pushing" in these here parts -:) (] 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

	::::That's a viewpoint, but that search you just ran Gold heart tends to support the case that there is confusion around these names; note that the second result on Google for "Great Famine" is ], and there are of course many other famines such as the Ukrainian forced starvation under Stalin that are sometimes called that or similar phrases. ] 10:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

	:::::Ok, that's fine. What is your objective? ] 11:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

	::::In Ireland the name given is An Gorta Mór, translated "The Great Hunger," now I know I'm not the only one who knows this . An Gorta Mór, is also the official name given in Ireland. Irish is a descriptive language, to illustrate this I would use the following, “Níl aon tinteán mar do titeán féin. The English equivalent being “There is no place like home.” Yet if we translate the Irish version, directly it becomes “There is no fire like your home fire.” The title also I consider to be more neutral “The Great Hunger.” After all, how can you have a famine in a country with an abundance of food? Like I have said before, the Article can be called The Great Hunger, and the re-directs, regardless of your search, will bring you to the article you want. --] 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

	:::::"Official" name? Who/what made it official, and where? Sure, its ''sometimes'' known as "The Great Hunger" in Ireland (in English) - but far more commonly known as The Famine, The Great Famine, or the Potato Famine. Interestingly, the Famine Museum (patron: ] calls it "The Great Irish famine" in its intro.. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

	::::::That does sound fairly "official" Bastun, would you agree? I don't personally like the term purely because from a US/British educational background have always heard it called the Irish Potato Famine but am willing to accept the current version if it's in some way "official". ] 11:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::Nope - I don't think a naturally occurring event ''can'' acquire an official name - with an obvious few exceptions such as the naming of hurricanes and tropical storms. They usually go by their common name. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::What the heck is the "official name"?? Hits from Ireland: vs. . --]<sup>]</sup> 16:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

	If I could just point out that the intro to a web site dose not make it official, but since you are willing to accept that, then the transcript of the Irish Presidents speech should suffice . If an intro was enough for some, this should be accepted don’t you think. Now as to editors not from an Irish educational background, I thought this might be sufficient . As to the Irish languge I think this would be enough , but what ties this all together is and is beyond dispute, what Irish people refer to as '”Bunreacht na hÉireann',” or in English “The “Constitution of Ireland.” And in the Irish Constitution, as Irish people can attest to is section 8 which states that “Irish is declared as "the national language" and "the first official language", and English as "a second official language.” It then continues “The Irish text of the constitution takes precedence over the English text (Articles 25 and 63).” This is what gives An Gorta Mór, translated “The Great Hunger,” it’s “official” status. --] 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

	:Hehehe. So a president's say-so makes something official now?! Christ, America is ******! (I've a "Crazy things Dubya said" plugin for my google homepage). Er, no. 'Fraid not - except, in Ireland's case, when she's signing a bill into law on the say so of the Oireachtas. Though I do note she also calls it the "Irish potato famine" - so maybe... ;-) Even were this not the English-language Misplaced Pages, ] and consensus is what decides things. Which is why the ] article resides at ] and not ] or even ], for example. Bottom line - there is '''no''' "official" name for the famine. Unless you can provide a source saying exactly that? Now, time to go do something with my riomhaire (the pocket one, I mean, for totting up a bill, not the riomhaire I'm sitting in front of now that's more powerful than the riomhairí NASA used for the moon landings...) Regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 18:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

	I love a bit of sarcasam in the evening, we all know that ] is not saying because the president said it, it is official but just drawing attention to you using an intro to a web site as if this tome some how has the scoope on the "official" name. Surely this fine web site is can be question the same way the President can and she is the patron of said muesuem. ] 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Peel ==

	"During the 1846–49 Irish Famine, Tory government head Sir Robert Peel bought some foreign maize for delivery to Ireland, and repealed the Corn Laws, which prohibited imports of cheaper foreign grain to Ireland. The Irish called the maize imported by the government 'Peel's brimstone' — partly because of maize's yellow colour, partly that it had to be ground twice, partly that maize does not have--as potatoes do have--Vitamin C. Repeal of the Corn Laws during 1846 to 1849, came too late to help the starving Irish, and was politically unpopular, ending Sir Robert's ministry."

	This isn't quite correct. First of all, the formal name of Peel's party after the Reform Bill was Conservative, not Tory. Second, the Corn Laws didn't prohibit the importation of cheaper foreign grain to Ireland, they simply maintained an artifically high price of domestic grain, like most tariffs. The sentence as worded implies a specifically anti-Irish intent of the law. Third, repeal had the support of the Whigs, the Liberals, the Radicals, the Irish, and about one-third of the Conservative Party. Peel carried repeal against the wishes of his own followers, yes, but the measure was broadly popular. The Crown also supported the measure, in a rare show of partisanship. In so doing Peel broke the party in half, with the protectionists following ] and ]. The protectionists were mostly country gentlemen and did not command wide support either in the House of Commons or outside of it, and that faction did not command a majority until 1874 (at which point it looked a good deal different). While the split occurred over the Corn Laws; Peel's government actually fell over the second reading of separate Coercion Bill on June 25, 1846 (the same day the Corn Laws passed the Lords). I'd suggest this wording:

	"In ] Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel took steps to alleviate the growing famine in Ireland: he purchased American ], which was then re-sold for a penny a pound, and in ] moved to repeal the ], ]s on grain which kept the price of bread artificially high. The Irish called the maize imported by the government 'Peel's brimstone' — partly because of maize's yellow colour, partly that it had to be ground twice, partly that maize does not have--as potatoes do have--Vitamin C. Repeal of the ] in ] did little to help the starving Irish; the measure split the ], leading to the fall of Peel's ministry."<nowiki><ref>Blake, 221-241.</ref></nowiki>

	The reference in question is ]'s biography of ]. Cheers, ] ] 19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

	:Since the concept of ] wasn't even invented until 1912, I seriously doubt that the Irish of 1846 had any worries about the lack of Vitamin C in their diet. ] 21:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
	::In addition, the repeal of the Corn Laws, resulting in Irish farmers getting less for their crops, which payed their rents (not actually reciving money), with the result that the Landlords did not get their rent. This then increased the number of evictions. --] 08:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Missing note about economics - higher prices leads to bigger demand. ==

	Usually demand decreases as price of a commodity increases. However, an economist noticed the opposite in regard to this famine. The reason was that potatoes were both the cheapest commodity bought by a typical family and at the same time the main thing being eaten. Therefore, as prices of potatoes increased even less money was available to other food. Then all money had to be used to buy the cheapest food, i.e. potatoes, and prices increased even more. In economics even today this is taught at universities as an example of a market functioning in a very peculiar fashion. I don't remember the name of the economist, but I believe his surname began with the letter G. I think a short discussion of these mechanisms should be included in the article. --] 20:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

	Now I've actually found some more information in this subject. This kind of commodities is called ] from the economist ], although according to the Misplaced Pages article about Robert Giffen he doesn't seem to have described such goods and this mechanism anywhere. Also, I found an article on the below homepage, which is discussing the economics behind this famine and claiming that during the famine demand for potatoes did not increase due to an increase of the price. This is the link: http://www.slate.com/?id=102180. According to the Misplaced Pages article about giffen good today among present economists it's disputed whether demand increased due to price increases during the great Irish famine. --] 21:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Finally, the Irish are gone==

	Good to see that the real authority took control of this article and banned those Irish from telling the Irish side of the story. Now, this article can be wonderfully impartial. No better people than the British for being impartial about what that ] termed 'those barbarous wretches'. ] 22:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	:I haven't gone away you know! (] 23:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

	:: And even if it was the case, which I'm glad to see it's not, there's a bunch of neutral folks who don't want EITHER side to dominate this, and will block people making ].. like the one you're getting. ] 00:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

	:::Oddly (and thankfully) the attacks have virtually ceased in the past two weeks! Maybe the "bad guys" are on holidays"??!(] 00:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

	==Could we add something on survivor guilt?==
	Given the long-term effects of this disaster, as with so many others, the concept of ] must be considered. The feeling of guilt by the 88% who survived - who ate their last mouthful because otherwise they would join their dying neighbours - including my ancestors - hasn't ever been explored. Also I don't see anything on ] campaign to end the union with Britain in the 1830s; by the time of the famine one attitude in England was that the Irish clearly didn't want to be a part of Britain and should look after themselves.] 10:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

	== The Slea Head Famine Cottages ==

	Not included in the memorials section are the Slea Head Famine Cottages, near ] County Kerry. . This is an original cottage from the 1840s now set out a a museum with antique furnishings, explanatory panels on the famine , and a collection of local breeds of farm animal. ] 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Background to Famine ==

	Can we not put in a section that leads up to these tragic events to give the reader a better perspective on the arguments that are taking place re this article.] 12:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

	:Good idea. But we'll probably fight about whether we should start with the introduction of the potato or the introduction of the English! (] 13:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

	==]==

	This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The article ] is placed under the ] of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. The mentors are to have a free hand, do not have veto over each other's actions, will be communicating closely and will generally trust each other's judgement. Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing ] or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at ]. When possible, mentors should favor article bans over page protection. The Committee will review the mentorship arrangement in approximately one month upon request of any involved editor and again at future points if warranted. If a review reveals that the mentors agree that the article has demonstrated the ability to grow without strife, the mentorship may be ended. Otherwise, the mentorship will continue for one year.

	This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Further information concerning the selection of the appointed mentors will follow. ] 21:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
	:So who decides on the mentors? ] 11:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
	::The Arbitration Committee. ] ] 12:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

	== A disinterested party's opinion ==

	I am a thinking person... I LIKE the fact that there was information that was provided that does not meet with the stereotypical "the victors write history" view of things. I can sort out what is said, and why someone might have said it, and how much credence I am going to give any given person's views.

	It is no secret that many of the British did intend genocide. The very fact that it is discussed as "The Irish Problem" speaks volumes, in my opinion. While I have not done the exhaustive research necessary to pick apart the finer points of this history, to deny the heated nature of the Irish/British controversy by censorship (which a good deal of the objection seems to me to be), and to pretend that the darker parts of British history didnt happen, runs contrary to the whole point of having information available.

	My unsolicited opinion: Dont change anyone else's work. Post your own work, offering alternative points of view, with supporting facts and figures. This is not a very difficult thing to do. "An alternative point of view on this matter is..."

	And as those who have made this whole thing personal: Thumper's mother says... "If you cant say something nice, don't say anything at all." It's good advice.

	] 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Lee Merrick, Sept 5, 5:23 pm Central

	== Aftermath - style ==

	These two sentences don't link up properly:
	<blockquote>These killed few people, partly because they were less severe, but mainly for a complex range of reasons. However, on the other hand, the population in Ireland soon shrank...</blockquote>
	On rereading it becomes clear that the shrinking population is one of the "complex reasons". The second sentence should read: "First, the population of Ireland soon shrank..."

	BTW, I find the article as it stands pretty clear and balanced on the genocide controversy.

	It may be helpful to point out that the term ''genocide'' is recent and was unknown in the 1840s; contemporaries woul dhave spoken about extermination, murder, etc. The modern term was coined by Raphael Lemkin in the 1930s to express a wider concept than extermination, as in the . Lemkin defined genocide as <blockquote>A coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.</blockquote> It would therefore include the Nazi plans to enslave the Poles and assimilate the Czechs.

	So in assessing British guilt for the Irish Famine you have to distinguish between the concept available at the time (extermination; and the historians don't seem to support this), and the retrospective application of a modern term, in the sense of a campaign to break Irish identity, reduce the population, and assimilate the survivors to English farmers. I think the latter, a much more plausible claim, is what is really being claimed by what looks like the Irish nationalist side in the editing dispute.

	--] 11:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC) 8 September 2007
	stay in school amigo's <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	==Peel's brimstone==
	''"The Irish called the maize imported by the government 'Peel's brimstone' — partly because of maize's yellow colour, partly that it had to be ground twice, partly that maize does not have--as potatoes do have--Vitamin C."''
	:This cannot be entirely correct. Vitamins were not identified until 1912 and Vitamin C was not isolated until the 1930s. ] 22:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
	::Yea, it a mixing up of two things commonly mentioned at once in histories of the famine - the nickname given to the maize and a consequent of it (scurvy from lack of V.C.). The vitamin thing of course was not known at the time. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::Also according to our page; ]es have 20mg per 100g Vitamin C, whilst ] has a not incomparable 7mg per 100g (90mg being the current UK ]). So unless the variety of maize prevalent at the time contained considerably less Vitamin C it would appear that the latter clause, as quoted above, seems to be entirely incorrect. Of course one would have to eat 3 times as much corn as potatoes to obtain the same amount of vitamin C and one would imagine that such an intake would bee very unlikely, however I would also assume that the RDA would far exceed the absolute minimum requirements. ] 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::I'm not a doctor, so I don't know, but I suspect the flaw in your reasoning may lie, as you hit at yourself, in that it would be very unlikely that people would have been able to eat 3 times as much weight of corn as they had previously eaten of potatoes - or in fact anything like it. A famine that resulted in 1 million deaths and 1 million refugees was underway. So, yes, that would seem unlikely. (Remember the rule of thumb: famine = less food.) Like, I said, I'm not a doctor, so I don't know, but maybe can help you. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Another important point is that, as far as I recall, the Whig government which replaced Peel in mid-1846 stopped these imports altogether. ] ] 12:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::::No I don't doubt that under normal conditions, let alone famine conditions eating three times as much corn as potatoes is very unlikely and I didn't hint at this I stated that openly that this was very unlikely. There's no flaw in my reasoning, for I am not reasoning that everything should have been great because they has this wonderful corn substitute, or any argument along those lines. I'm merely pointing out that the statement ''"maize does not have--as potatoes do have--Vitamin C."'' is not correct. If the ratio was 1:10 or higher rather than 1:3 I think one might allow the statement. According to 10mg of Vit-C will prevent the symptoms of scurvy. If the line was changed (and moved as it is out of context) to say that there was not as much Vit-C in corn as in potatoes then that would be more accurate. ] 14:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Seriously, Jooler. What's the point of this discussion? So we can surmise that the average Irishman and woman (living, apparantly in the richest and most powerful country in the world at the time) ate less than 150mg of maize per day during the famine? Just remove the Vit.C. stuff, we know its untrue ("... 'Peel's brimstone' — partly because of maize's yellow colour, partly that it had to be ground twice.") Vit. C. and survy stuff for somewhere else. --]<sup>]</sup> 14:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::That's exactly what I'm saying. ] 15:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::A very long-winded way of saying it since I agreed with you from the start. --]<sup>]</sup> 16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::Suggestions of a "flaw in your reasoning" followed by a sarcastic comment like "rule of thumb: famine = less food." both appeared to suggest that I was affirming some kind of revisionism The final shoulder shrug of "I don't know - " - prompted a response from me to clarify my view and provide more information. Mackensen has now edited out the VitC clause. ] 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Fair enough - it was the medical theorising that got on my nerves. See page 151 in (in relation to vitamin B, not C) for why it doesn't work out so simply. The suggestion to "look at these" book, while not phrased very politely, was intended genuinely: the answer is in the secondary sources not in guessing the answer by gluing bits and pieces together from here and there on Misplaced Pages. --]<sup>]</sup> 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::The theorising was limited to that required to contest the statement in the article that said that Vitamin C was absent in Maize. There would be a certain point, at which the low level of Vitamin C might as well be zero, because one would have to eat more than would be physically practicable, especially true when the resource is limited or rationed in some way. My theorising was merely on whether the level of Vitamin C in maize was low enough to let the statement stand. The incidence of Pellagra is an entirely different subject. ] 20:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

	==]==
	I take it that this article should be in ]/] rather than ]. There are a few instances of the latter. ] 20:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Citation Tags ==

	I have added some tags which need to be addressed. Some of the older tags I will remove the unreferenced information and I will reference some of the information which has not been tagged. The references need to be cleaned up, and I will do that while I reference.--] 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

	== Background suggested title ==

	Currently the article has no background information which would place the potato blight in some sort of context. I would propose the following, in an attempt to address this:

	{{cquote\|From 1801 Ireland had been governed, under the Act of Union, as part of the United Kingdom. Executive power lay in the hands of a Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary, both of whom were appointed by the British cabinet. Within the United Kingdom parliament Ireland was represented by 105 MP’s out of a total of 656, and in addition by representative Irish peers sitting in the House of Lords. Between 1832 and 1859 seventy percent of Irish representatives were landowners or the sons of landowners. <ref name="Cathal Poirteir"/>

	Catholic emancipation had been achieved in 1829, and Catholics made up 80% of the population. The bulk of that population lived in conditions of poverty and insecurity. At the top of the “social pyramid” was the “Ascendancy class,” the English and Anglo-Irish families who owned most of the land, and had more or less limitless power over their tenants. Some of their estates were vast — the Earl of Lucan, for example, owned over 60,000 acres. Many of these landlords lived in England and were called ‘absentees’. They used agents to administer their property for them, with the revenue generated being sent to England. <ref name="Helen Litton"> Helen Litton, ''The Irish Famine'': An Illustrated History, Wolfhound Press, 1994, ISBN 0 86327-912-0</ref> A number of the absentee landlords living in England never set foot in Ireland. They simply took their profitable rents from their “impoverished tenants” or paid them minimal wages to raise crops and livestock for export. <ref name="Edward Laxton"/>

	In 1841 the census showed that the population of Ireland had peaked at just above 8 million. Two-thirds of those depended on agriculture for their survival, but they rarely received a working wage. They had to work for their Landlords in return for the patch of land they needed, in order to grow enough food for their own families. This was the system which forced Ireland and her peasantry to rely on a single crop, as only the potato could be grown in sufficient quantity on these tiny scraps of soil. The rights to a plot of land in Ireland meant the difference between life and death in the early 1800s. <ref name="Edward Laxton"/>

	The period of the potato blight 1845—51 in Ireland was full of political confrontation. This period saw the final phases of the movement for ] of the ], the secession from ] Repeal movement of the ] party, who were to lead an armed insurrection in ]. <ref name="Cathal Poirteir"> Cathal Póirtéir, ''The Great Irish Famine'', RTE/Mercier Press, 1995, ISBN 1 856351114.</ref>


	The blight occurred within the British imperial homeland at a time well into the modern prosperity of the ] and ]. Ireland at the time of the blight was, according to the Act of Union of 1801, an integral part of the British imperial homeland, “the richest empire on the globe,” and was “the most fertile portion of that empire,” in addition; Ireland was sheltered by both "...Habeas Corpus and trial by jury...". <ref name="John Mitchel"> ''Last Conquest Of Ireland'' (Perhaps)], John Mitchel, Lynch, Cole & Meehan 1873 </ref>

	Ireland's elected representatives seemed powerless to act on the countries behalf as Members to the British Parliament. The country was to lose two and a half millions of its people through starvation and fever, the consequence of hunger, and emigration to escape from hunger, in the space of five years. <ref name="John Mitchel"/>

	During this time Ireland was, even during the blight, a net exporter of food. The immediate effect on Ireland was devastating, and its long-term effects proved immense, permanently changing Irish culture and tradition for generations. <ref name="Peter Berresford Ellis"/>}}

	It may need to be edited down a bit, but this just gives an outline. --] 21:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

	:Looks good and reads well - my only question would be on "...sheltered by both the British Constitution and Habeas Corpus." - as Britain didn't (still doesn't) have a written constitution. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

	I have adjusted the reference, based on the point you raise, I would think he was refering the "crown," but since that is not in the reference I used what was. --] 23:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

	:I have put the section in place. Like I said, it may have to be edited down a bit, but at least if gives some context. --] 10:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

	== "The Irish Holocaust" ==

	The current intro, stating that the Famine is "known as '''The Irish Holocaust''' to some", was introduced in on 26th September. This is '''very much''' a minority term and does not deserve the prominence of being included in the lead. The references lead to a website "irishholocaust.org" and a Google book search for the term, among others. Tellingly, many of the books put the phrase in scare quotes and discuss it in the context of language. I therefore propose that this phrase be removed from the lead - it is adequately covered, in context, under the 'Suggestions of Genocide' heading. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

	:I take your point on the lead section, and would offer this Lead as an alternative. The references used on the holocaust could be placed in one of two places, in the external sources or as additional referencing in the “Suggestions of genocide” section. Though I’m not familiar with that style of referencing. I’ve removed some of the repetition from the lead, which appears later on in the article.


	{{cquote\|The '''Great Irish Famine''' (known as '''The Great Hunger,''' '''''An Gorta Mór''''' in ], or '''''An Drochshaol,''''' '''the Bad Life'''), was a ], and its aftermath, in ] between 1845 and 1851. The famine was caused initially by ], which almost instantly destroyed the primary food source for the majority of the ]. The blight explains the crop failure but the dramatic and deadly effect of the famine was exacerbated by other factors of economic, political, and social origin. The impact of the Great Famine in Ireland remains unparalleled, relativity speaking in terms of the demographic decline, the Irish population falling by approximately 25 per cent in just six years, due to a combination of “excess mortality and mass emigration.” <ref> This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52, Christine Kinealy, Gill & Macmillan, Dublin, 1994, 2006, ISBN 13 978 0 7171 4011 4</ref> <ref>Christine Kinealy in “This Great Calamity” points out that “proportionately, fewer people have died in modern famines than during the Great Famine,” a point echoed by Cormac Ó Gráda in “The Great Famine and Today’s Famines” also in Cathal Póirtéir, The Great Irish Famine (Mercier Press 1995).</ref>}}

	I think this is a bit more concise? --] 09:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

	:Ihave introduced the proposed changes. Most of the information was repeated in the text of the article. This I consider to be a concise account on the article. --] 08:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

	::Why the quotes around "relatively speaking"? ]<sup>]</sup> 11:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

	It was the term used by the author, if you think it can do without them please remove them. --] 11:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

	== Citation Tags ==

	Would editors be willing to address some of the citation tags on this article. How long should they be on, before the information is challanged and removed? --] 19:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

	== My edits are being edited or deleted ==

	Hello. I'm new to Misplaced Pages, so please be patient as I learn the ropes.

	I just posted details from the 1851 census which showed that 21,770 died from starvation in the previous decade and included a reference to John Killen's '''The Famine decade'''. This was deleted in its entirety. What did I do wrong?

	Also, I amended a section which used 'blight' as a metaphor for famine, changing blight to famine, and this was undone. My aim was to enhance clarity. Don't you think that hand-me-down metaphors like that may not always work in a certain context?

	Asmaybe <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:On your first point, you can add the reference, but you should discuss it here first, the reason I say this, is, the figure of deaths by most if not all authors is 1 million +. Therefore it is a minority view, and would have to be presented as such. On your second point, 'blight' was not being used as a metaphor for "famine." That is your opinion. I have told you about your changes, and what is required. I have resorted to reminding you on your talk page, please read the links that have been provided, they will help you with your editing. So they best way to proceed from here is, discuss first, and then apply the changes. Thanks --] 21:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

	How can the 1851 census be taken as a 'minority view'? It's a primary source. ] 21:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

	:Did they count dead people in the 1851 census? (] 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

	They asked survivors what people had died off. The point is, it's a primary source, something later histories rely on. Where else does the death total come from?
	] 22:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

	:Who did they ask when whole villages had disappeared? (Don't know of any history claiming only 20k died in the famine - so it can't be relied on that much). (] 01:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

	If you Google "21770" and "1851" match it with appropriate contextual search terms related to the Famine you come up with a fair number of references. I think sheds some light on the subject. The 21770 figure is for reported deaths by starvation as opposed to other indirect or direct or unrelated causes. , published in 1857 has more info on the figures in the census. ] 01:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

	:Bit of an "Angels on a pinhead point" though; very few folk EVER die from starvation in any famine; infectious diseases usually finish them off. And how could the "survivors" distinguish; they were hardly medically qualified! (] 02:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC))
	True enough that in a weakened condition caused by famine, disease is a bigger killer than starvation itself, and "starvation" might actually cover such things as heart and kidney failure. Thus if worded in a particular way, quoting a figure of 21,770 deaths through starvation can definitely be misleading. However it is an official figure and the census gives figures for deaths through other causes which certainly indicate that a catastrophe was occurring, I think it can do no harm to work these figures into the article to support the guestimate or uncited figures. ] 02:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

	:Its also worth noting from the book that the famine coincided (perhaps not unnaturally) with a major ] epidemic. Our Typhus article notes "a major typhus epidemic occurred during the Great Irish Famine between 1846 and 1849. The Irish typhus spread to England, where it was sometimes called "Irish fever" and was noted for its virulence. It killed people of all social classes, since lice were endemic and inescapable, but it hit particularly hard in the lower or "unwashed" social strata.". This Famine article barely mentions Typhus and indeed the only mention has a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag on it. ] 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

	All relevant verifiable facts should be included, I'd agree. (I'm not actually the one editing/reverting them!) I was merely taken by the notion of a census counting dead people! - and this led to a concern that it was being implied that the famine only killed 20k people. The disease issue should be fully covered in the article. (I recently read a similar debate re Iraq between the various body-counts; one set of figures included deaths from typhus etc caused by the loss of sewerage, electricity, clean water and the other argued that they couldn't be classed as "civilians killed as a result of the invasion". Put the FACTS out and let people draw their own conclusions. (] 03:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

	:Lord John Russell, the British Prime Minister after 1846, refused to keep a register of famine mortality, a request made by Benjamin Disraeli and other MP’s in the House of Commons. Christine Kinealy. In Ireland the population in 1841, stood at 8, 175, 124. In 1851, the population was 6, 515, 794, a drop of 1, 659, 33 that is according to the Census, of 1851 (Thom’s Official Directory). The Typhus did not coincide with the famine, it was as a result of it. There is enough information by a number of authors to totally refute the figures produced. But that is not the point, this information replaced the original reference. So with all the interest now created, rather than bog ourselves down with this, lets reference or remove the unreferenced material, and then fine tune the information we have. --] 08:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

	] I don't think it can do no harm to work these figures into the article to support the guesstimate or uncited figures. There are plenty of authors whose figures can be cited. That they are all in and around the same figure on the number of deaths is important, not because they tally, but because they come from diverse sources. Lets remember also, that people did not die from a lack of potatoes, they died from a lack of food. This is hardly addressed in the article also. --] 08:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

	:Domer: I don't want to sound like a a Nazi apologist stating that the vast majority of deaths in concentration camps were through disease (Belsen springs to mind of course), but I think it is very important to be clear on what ] is. Typhus is associated with squalid conditions not lack of food. It is caused by being a host to infected lice, or in the case of endemic typhus is spread by infected rats. In the days before antibiotics and proper hygiene typhus killed a vast number of people whether they were well-fed or not. That said, as in Belsen, those already in a weakened condition are certain to suffer greatly and die if they are afflicted by the disease. Sarah: "one set of figures included deaths from typhus" - Please. I would like to know where this set of figures is. People today, even in Iraq, are not hosts to body lice in the way they once were, and Typhus is now easily treatable with antibiotics. I hesitate to say that I find what you say (specifically in respect of Typhus) unlikely. But by all means prove me wrong. ] 10:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

	:::Hi Jools - my apologies, I was quoting from a casual read some days back, can't remember where. It was obviously TYPHOID and not TYPHUS they were talking about as ]. But none of this really has any bearing on my comment - which is that disease kills most famine victims worldwide and the survivors questioned in 1851 were hardly any more medically qualified than I am! (] 13:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

	Starvation is not a necessary condition for typhus to occur. That is to say, typhus can occur in the absence of starvation. An example was the Irish Typhus Epidemic of 1836-1840: "Four-year visitation of typhus fever that reached epidemic numbers in many areas of Ireland, especially in counties in the north and west. The worst years were 1837 and 1840...Unlike many other serious outbreaks of typhus fever in Ireland, the epidemic of 1836-1840 was not precipitated by crop failures or economic stagnation. These conditions usually caused extensive social dislocation and thus accelerated the spread of infection, as vagrants transferred their body-lice, which carry the disease, to people with whom they came into contact in their wanderings in Ireland. Outbreaks of typhus fever, however, were not dependent upon, but merely worsened by, acute economic and farming calamities." ('''Encyclopedia of plague and pestilence: from ancient times to the present'''. edited by George C. Kohn. 1995)

	Regarding the 1851 census, while it gave figures of 21,770 and 400,720 for deaths by starvation and disease, it's overall tally for famine deaths was 985,366. So there was an inconsistency. But the census commissioners derived the higher figure from an estimate of what the population might have been if the famine hadn't occured. Isn't there something dubious about using fictitious statistics? For instance, the number of marriages dropped during the famine so the birthrate also dropped. What sense is there in counting births that might have occurred, but actually didn't occur?

	In the death section here, reference is also made to later emigration up to 1911. Surely a red herring.

	] 11:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

	:"Isn't there something dubious about using fictitious statistics?" Was it not you who cited the cencus figures as "a primary source, something later histories rely on." Even ] has said "quoting a figure of 21,770 deaths through starvation can definitely be misleading." Lord John Russell, the British Prime Minister after 1846, refused to keep a register of famine mortality, a request made by Benjamin Disraeli and other MP’s in the House of Commons. How would this effect the "Official" figures? The cencus commissioners calculated that at the normal rate of increase the population should have been around 9,018,799, giving a drop of 2.5 million. So you are being selective in your use of the figures, accept one conclusion, and reject the other. There are enough authors who would refute the figures. Splitting hairs between starvation and disease serves no useful purpose, unless you wish to illustrate how the figures have been used by some to mitigate the actual number of deaths! Typhus was the result of the conditions under which the people were forced to live, as was the effects of the blight. Like I have said, the people did not die from a lack of potatoes, they died from a lack of food. Lee's figures in the graph illustrate my point well, and are supported by many authors. You replaced this with information which can be described as "definitely be misleading" --] 12:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

	The 1851 census is a primary source, albeit one with problems. Later histories rely on it as indeed you have just done by quoting the 9,018,799 figure. Selectively quoting, I should say, because you don't accept its starvation and disease totals. By citing those totals, the article would be improved, as they draw attention to the more speculative famine statistics. The 9m figure is as much guesswork as 21,770. I don't know of anyone who has "mitigated the actual number of deaths". But someone should mitigate the speculative number. Also, post-famine emigrants didn't die during the famine so reference to emigration up to 1911 in the death section is beside the point. It serves to obscure the issue. I amended that entry and it was promptly restored by yourself. So if I add a reference to the 1851 census, noting its limitations, will it deleted again? ] 13:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

	:''The 9m figure is as much guesswork as 21,770''. Hardly. It being easier to count live people than dead ones. (] 14:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

	] It was you who used the 1851 census as a point of reference , I simply used it to illustrate my point. I also used Lord John Russell to point out it's failings. As a "primary source" and as for "histories rely on it," I would beg to differ, is that not why I put "Official" in quotation marks. Most authors now use a variety or sources, such as the records kept by the poor law unions, the Quakers, and some first hand accounts. On your use of the census, in the article, you did not quote the census, you quoted an authors use of that information. While the census can be considered "a primary source," it can "definitely be misleading," the author can like wise. I have placed a citation tag beside the reference to emigration, but since the decline in population is mentioned in a number of places, and referenced I don't have a problem with it. The point that the population continued to decline is a valid point, and that is why the referenced points should stay. As to amending unreferenced information, that simply compounds the problem. Changing referenced information, and altering it's meaning should also be avoided. As to adding a reference to the census figures, and "noting it's limitations," which are many, I think you have already answered your own question.--] 14:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

	:Domer I object to your use of the phrase "Even Jooler..." which suggests that I have some kind of extremist agenda. Please withdraw it. ] 15:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

	"Even Jooler has said 'quoting a figure of 21,770 deaths through starvation can definitely be misleading'." "which suggests that I have some kind of extremist agenda. Please withdraw it." What are you going on about? Answer on my talk page, I'd really like to hear how you worked that out. Strick through ''you own'' comment, if you now think it suggests that you have some kind of extremist agenda. --] 15:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

	:Its' the words "'''Even Jooler''' I'm talking about and that I object to. By prefixing your comment with that phrase you suggest that I am trying to push a POV that would make the statement that follows it an admission of something that negates from the thrust of that point of view. If this is not what you intended then please explain why you used such a phrase. If this is what you meant then it as a personal attack and I would like you to withdraw it. ] 15:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

	Domer48, I'm not sure what point you're making in regard to Lord John Russell. Are you saying that his failure to keep a register meant that any 'official' statistics that were gathered were unreliable? If you are, could you explain the connection please? It would have been helpful to have such a register, but its absence doesn't nullify the 1851 census. And again, regarding post-famine emigration, your response avoided the issue. When it's included in the death section there's an implication that emigrants died as a result of the famine, which is an absurd proposition. There may be an association, but including it in this section is misleading. ] 16:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

	:Official figures were unreliable, a point conceded by William Wilde. So if you wish to use the figure of 21,770 you are going to have to preface it with an outline of the use of the term marasmus and dropsy as opposed to famine-induced diseases. Having done that, you will have to point out that this figure is still a poor indicator of starvation, which will become obvious from the above. That should satisfy some of the medical background to that figure. As to the political background, the request of Lord John Russell should be explained since it would have some bearing on the unreliability of the figures. One question which could be asked is why was their a reluctance on the part of the authorities to return a verdict of “death by starvation” at inquests? I will to lend a hand with this, but still think addressing the unreferenced text first is the best approach. --] 22:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

	== Referencing the Article ==

	This article is in a very sorry state a the moment with a large amount of unreferenced information. Could we not deal with the unreferenced information first, before we start to add more of it. I would be willing to address some of it, but it would require some amount of time. Could editors discuss changes here first, as to avoid problems later. Thanks. --] 21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

	== Census 1851 ==

	The figures contained in this census should be treated with caution. That is not to say that the report should be rejected either. The work of William Wilde provides vital information in relation to disease and starvation.

	*“To give a precise figure for deaths during the famine would be impossible; the data in the 1851 census are clearly defective.” ''Ireland Before the Famine 1798-1848'', Gearóid Ó Tuathaigh, Gill & Macmillian, p.182

	*“In 1851, the Census Commissioners attempted to produce a table of mortality for each year since 1841… The statistics provided were flawed and probably under-estimated the level of mortality…” ''This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-1852'', Christine Kinealy, Gill & Macmillian, p. 167

	*“…in the 1851 census of Ireland. While these death tables have been rightly criticised as under estimating the true extent of mortality…” ''Mapping the Great Irish Famine'', Líam Kennedy, Paul S. Ell, E. M. Crawford & L. A. Clarkson, Four Courts Press, p. 37

	*“It is based largely on the reworking of a famous but flawed source, the Tables of Death… for the 1851 census.” ''Ireland’s Great Famine'', Cormac Ó Gráda, University College Dublin Press, p. 3

	*“The mortality statistics of the 1851 census, which suggest almost one million deaths in total, including ‘normal’ and famine deaths for the years 1846 are undoubtedly an underestimate as they rely on the recollections of survivors to record family deaths…” ''The Famine in Ireland'', Mary E. Daly, Dublin Historical Association, p.98

	I hope this can move the discussion along, and while I consider it a vital section, sorting out what we have already will then allow us to expand the sections together. I would like to point out also, that in some cases the authors disagree on different aspects of this subject, so their views could not be considered uniform.--] 20:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

	:Agree - the census ''should'' be included, but as the references point out, its figures are deeply flawed - who records the deaths from a wiped out village, or deaths in a family where the survivors all took coffin ships west? ]<sup>]</sup> 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

	OK. It's flawed, but I think it should be worked in somewhere and shall return to that topic. On a related matter, in the deaths section there's a reference to Joe Lee's 'Modernization of Irish Society' as an authority for this statement: "Modern historians and statisticians estimate that between 500,000 and 2,000,000 died from disease and starvation. " In fact what Lee says is 'at least 800,000 people died' (page 1), so this isn't a correct citation. I would like to change that sentence to 'between 775,000 and 1,500,000', citing R.F.Foster's 'Modern Ireland 1600-1972' as authority instead of Lee. Would that be acceptable? Foster writes: "At least 775,000 died, mostly through disease, including cholera in the latter stages of the holocaust. Here again the authorities disagree. A recent sophisticated computation estimates excess deaths from 1846 to 1851 as between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000, varying widely from county to county, as usual: after a careful critique of this, other statisticians arrive at a figure of 1,000,000." While he goes on to express reservations about how an 'excess' population can be measured, as a reference he's a better authority than Lee. ] 22:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

	:I think Domer, we cannot avoid some reference to the 21k census figure, however ridiculous it is. As someone who was bitterly opposed to attempts to excise any reference to "genocide" in the article I believe that censorship is not the way to deal with these issues. I really don't believe '''anyone''' here believes that is an accurate figure as all educated opinion seems to argue between 800,000 and several million; reference the massive body of contra-indicators and the facts speak for themselves. (] 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC))
	Hi Sarah, I have no problem with the 21k figure, provided that it is prefaced because its deeply flawed. ], the use of R.F.Foster is problematic, as his work has been heavily criticized, for bias and his revisionist theories. Joe Lee is only being used as a reference and I would not consider him to be an "authority." Christine Kinealy on the other hand, would be a much better reference to use, her work has both depth and detail, and references all her work, something which is lacking in others. --] 23:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

	:Asmaybe is right in wanting to add the referenced source to the 1851 census figure; it should not just have been deleted; and the thing to do if you want to raise doubts about the quality or relevance of the source (in this case a primary one so they have to be good sources raising good doubts) is to add referenced material challenging it and explaining why. Have you added it back in Asmaybe? I would support it's inclusion in the article. ] 09:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
	The criteria for the inclusion of this information I have outlined , . You can not get a better source than William Wilde’s to challenge the figures. In addition, the references used above to challenged the 1851 census are all accepted. --] 12:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

	:"The work of William Wilde provides vital information in relation to disease and starvation." "You can not get a better source than William Wilde’s to challenge the figures."
	:Domer48, what is your source for these statements? ] 12:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	The source is the 1851 census, the figure you wish to use was provided by William Wilde, I thought you knew that? --] 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	:So you're relying on the 1851 census to show that the 1851 census was unreliable? Not very logical. That's like saying, 'Everthing I tell you is a lie', which is self-refuting. Even if the death tables are incomplete there's a lot of value in showing the proportionate causes of death: most historians agree with its findings that more died from disease than starvation. ] 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	No, what I’m saying is that you are trying to use information that ''you know is flawed''. ''A fact'', which is supported by most historians. It has also become obvious; that you did not even know who William Wilde was, and yet you could quote his figures as being factual. This despite Wilde himself pointing to the numerous short comings. It is you, who wishes to use the census figures and the death tables, and “see value in showing the proportionate causes of death,” despite Wilde, and a whole host of historians saying ''they are flawed''. And finally, most historians agree that more died from disease than starvation? Cite that! The figure most historians agree on is a figure of 1.5 million who died from starvation and starvation related diseases. Might I suggest you read the reports of Mokyr, Cousens, and the conclusions of Ó Gráda based on Cousens. Even then, it is suggest the figures are too low. And yes, in answering your question, I am using the ''reports'' of the 1851 census, to challenge your attempt to use it as factual. A very logical way to deal with it. Asmaybe the death table figures are not “incomplete,” ''they are wrong''. --] 16:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	: "And finally, most historians agree that more died from disease than starvation? Cite that!"

	:Try these.

	:"Disease in fact, accounted for many more fatalities during the Famine than deaths from starvation" Christine Kinealy, This Great Calamity, p171

	:"The total of those who died during the fever epidemic and of famine diseases will never by known, but probably about ten times more died of disease than of starvation". Cecil Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, p204

	:"The overwhelming majority of deaths during the Famine was due to disease." Cathal Póirtéir, Famine Echoes, p100

	:"At least 1,000,000 Irish lives were sacrificed to death and disease in the mid- and late 1840s. The vast majority succumbed to epidemic infection, some to deficiency diseases, the remainder to starvation." Laurence Geary, 'what people died of during the Famine', Famine 150, edited by Cormac Ó Gráda, p95

	:"Relatively few died of literal starvation during the Great Famine; dysentery, typhus, typhoid fever, and other hunger-induced infectious diseases did most of the damage." Cormac Ó Gráda, 'The Great Famine and other famines', Famine 150, p137

	:Domer48, you say the death table figures are not incomplete, they are wrong. Well these historians are agreed that more people died from disease than starvation, which is exactly what the 1851 census shows.

	:You have once again deleted my contribution on this subject, even though I indicated that the census data on the cause of death was gathered 'informally'. This means its not cast in stone. Nevertheless, the proportions of deaths are accurate judging by the above quotes. Statistics make that case very quickly and they belong in the article. You should let people make up their own minds on this and stop deleting my contributions. ] 17:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
	The census figures are flawed. “OK. It's flawed” ] 22:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC). And still you insist in putting them in. The criteria for the inclusion of this information I have outlined . You have not done that, and the use of the word “informal,” dose not do it. "Well these historians are agreed that more people died from disease than starvation," what figures do the give? Do they give the census figures no! Because they all agree they were falwed.--] 18:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	: Yes, the census findings were incomplete. But would more complete information have shown that starvation actually killed more than infectious diseases? I'm not sure. I'm also not convinced that you have William Wilde on your side because you haven't given convincing evidence of this. Blithely referring me to the 1851 census doesn't suffice. So I would like to see something more substantial from you, such as an exact quotation.

	:I have already responded to your criteria for including the 21,772 figure. John Russell's failure to keep a journal didn't invalidate the 1851 census. Your remark about coroners' reports not bringing in verdicts of 'death by starvation' is historically wrong. There are many such verdicts mentioned in Woodham-Smith's book. Dropsy is not fatal as far as I can tell from reading the Misplaced Pages article, and marasmus can be considered a synonym for malnutrition, which is included under 'deaths by starvation'. ] 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	::"I have no problem with the 21k figure, provided that it is prefaced because its deeply flawed." ] 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	No you have not. "Informal" dose not cover the criteria outlined. --] 09:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

	:Your objections aren't reasonable. Neither dropsy nor marasmus are mentioned in the 1851 table. Dropsy isn't fatal and marasmus simply means malnutrition. So requiring me to mention them doesn't make sense. Typhus and smallpox are not famine-induced. Bacillary dysentery can occur independently of famine and is really a question of sanitation. If I was to go into detail on these that's what I'd say. I'm not going to pretend that deaths from disease were really caused by malnutrition.

	:John Russell was caught out by a parliamentary opponent who wished to score a political point. To refer to that in the context of death statistics would be inappropriate.

	:What I'm doing is adding 1851 census data to the article. If saying they were collected informally isn't enough, I could perhaps say 'disputed', and quote one of your historians. Would that be acceptable? ] 12:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Death toll ==

	] I have referenced that bit in Death Toll section re 4.4 million. Now that it is referenced, why do you not move it down to the "Aftermath" section. If that is any use to ye, if you have a problem with it there. Just a suggestion. Not to happy with the reference though, but I had remembered reading it and found the book at the back of my shelf! --] 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

	:This paragraph will flow better without it, as the final sentence already refers to emigration: "In addition, in excess of one million Irish emigrated to Great Britain, United States, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere, while more than one million emigrated over following decades." ] 11:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

	== Young Ireland Book list ==

	The Young Irelanders were members on the Repeal Association, prior to establishing the Irish Confederation. The influence through writing and public speaking had on politics at this time was profound. In their publications during this period they gave detailed accounts of both the progress of the blight and its effects. Their publications are still used today as both primary and secondary sources. Any study of this period would have to be cognisant of there views and opinions. --] 13:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	:I completely agree! I'm in no way suggesting that the YI movement and its writings are somehow irrelevant to the Great Famine. I'm not even suggesting that the list doesn't have value, which it clearly does...and its use in the ] article is obviously appropriate. It makes much less sense within the Famine article, however. The fact that the YI was a contemporary movement that was heavily influenced by the Famine means that they should probably receive a prominent mention in a description of the famine's social and political effects, but that doesn't mean that a catalog of YI's publications should receive its own section in the article. I'm merely trying to rein in what appears to be a bit of listmania. ] 13:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	:One other thing I meant to add--where possible, we should use/quote the YI sources to reinforce & illustrate ideas presented in recent historical scholarship. Again, I've no quarrel with the sources themselves...merely the list-style presentation. ] 13:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

	The merit of the YI book section is obvious, a point you accept yourself. That you also accept their prominent influence in the social and political effects relevant to the subject matter would alone warrant its inclusion. That they wrote almost exclusively on this subject, giving first hand accounts make them ideal primary sources. Anyone interested in studying this subject in more detail would find this information invaluable. The books are interesting, informative, relevant and encyclopaedic, which enhance the depth and coverage of the article. I suggest that the list be added, as its rational for inclusion is obvious. It should not be seen in the context of simply a book list, as I have illustrated, it is much more than that. --] 20:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	:A list does very little to "enhance the depth and coverage of the article." It's only a list. Try to look at the article from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about the subject. If the article employed and cited actual content from the books, that would be one thing. As a standalone list, it's a non sequitur. ] 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	The Young Irelanders are mentioned 3 times in the article. Therefore, it dose in fact add depth and coverage to the article. It is not therefore a stand alone “list.” As to using them as references, simply read the discussion page. I have repeatedly asked for the article to be referenced before additional information is added. I have every intension of using these books as sources. So, considering you have yet to provide a rational reason why you removed the list, could I suggest you add it back. --] 21:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	:This is an article on the Great Famine, not Young Ireland. YI has its own article--which includes this same exact list. YI's peripheral connection to the topic doesn't warrant the inclusion of YI's corpus in an encyclopedia article on that topic. I've provided several rational reasons for removing the list; I might add that referring to other editors' motivations as irrational isn't going to do much to help you build consensus around here. If you insist on re-adding the list, I'm not going to remove it again, but I will probably put out a call for other interested editors to join the discussion. Thanks, ] 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	"referring to other editors' motivations as irrational," were did I call you "irrational?" Thats right no where! "YI's peripheral connection to the topic?" Sorry wrong again, they play a central part on so many levels to the subject of the article. "Put out a call for other interested editors to join the discussion." Canvass away, the more editors intrested in the subject the better for the article. That is what you had in mind is it not? "isn't going to do much to help you build consensus around here," an intresting phrase? You have provided no policy based reason for removing this information. When you do provide a policy based reason, please use the discussion page first, before you remove the information. Removing information without discussion "isn't going to do much to help you build consensus around here." --] 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	:Neither you nor I nor any other editor needs "a policy-based reason" to make good-faith edits. You may want to review ]. ] 22:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	Might I suggest you read , in particular an article. You will notice how important are in an article. I have read ] a number of times, so might I suggest you play the ball and not the player. You have used the term “list” a number of times and never cited any of the criteria on ] to justify removal of information. I on the other hand have addressed every point you have raised. I will give you the opportunity to replace the section, because it is the right thing to do. If you then wish to continue this discussion I’m more than willing. Just use some policy based reasons. --] 23:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	:I'm afraid we're really talking past each other, here, and I'm no longer hopeful of reaching a consensus unless some more voices join the discussion. My objection to the book list is one of basic outlining and organization of information. The main heading of this article is "Great Irish Famine." Each subheading of the article should have a primary relationship to the main heading (e.g., history, causes, response, domestic/international reaction, aftermath, etc.). A list of books authored by the members of ] does not meet this criterion, and would not even if the books were ''explicitly'' about the famine, which they are not. You apparently disagree. Unless I've badly misunderstood, I think we're stuck here until some others chime in. ] 00:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

	It seems to me that the list should not be included as it adds nothing obvious to this article and it appears slightly intrusive as a separate "list". If individual books are used as references they can be included in the normal way. I will include a wl to the ] article in the further reading section which may be a sort of compromise. ] 01:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	:The fact remains, the books take nothing away from the article, they in fact, add to it. As to having to have a “primary relationship,” to the article, without Young Ireland the article would be like talking about the famine without mentioning the blight. The Young Irelanders are as much apart of this article as the blight. As a navigation tool between historical and contemporary sources they are invaluable in organizing information in an article. So we have a section which is relevant, that provides information, can be used as a navigation tool, and can be used in the development of the article. The content of the section is obvious from the title, as opposed to say “related topics” or “reference list.” Finally the content of this section is encyclopaedic, the only failing being that it will have to be put in chronological order. So the only question is, should it be listed in a) by author or b) publication date? --] 09:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	Once again, Domer, I doubt anyone familiar with the period would dispute that Young Ireland should be mentioned in the Famine narrative. I might even agree that a well-written summary of the movement, with a pointer to the main ] article, would be an appropriate subsection for this article...something to complement or replace the '1848 rebellion' paragraph that exists now. It would be a good place to elaborate on the Famine's role in the genesis of Irish republicanism. But a book list, ''in and of itself'' (a very important distinction I'm trying to communicate), does not rise to the same level of relevance to the main topic. I think your ] may be blinding you to the big encyclopedic picture. As I said above, I'm not going to revert again if you re-insert it, but I deeply doubt that it will survive if/when this article goes through a sustained improvement drive to reach GA or FA status. ] 14:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	:I agree with Dppwowell's comment above - clearly it should be described and summarised but the list belongs in ]. ] 14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	And the list already ''is'' in ], so it's not as though its removal here blots it off the face of Misplaced Pages. ] 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	:Since I have pointed you in the direction of ] it being your main contension, and you have not raised any issue based on ] I will re-add the books. When the citations have been addressed, I intend to add a great deal of information, using primary sources most of the time. Rather than a summary of the movement, I was going to add there comments on the economic, social, cultural and political aspects of the period as each topic is raised. I don't doubt that it will survive a sustained improvement drive to reach GA or FA status, based on the rational I have used. Now if you would like to help in the drive to reach GA it would be more than welcome. --] 15:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	I'd love to, but the fact that a basic, necessary repair of the outline resulted in a disagreement of this magnitude doesn't exactly have me chomping at the bit. I can only imagine what might happen if I were to make an edit which differed from your favored historical interpretation! The subject is important enough that I'm sure a more community-based effort to improve it will get underway eventually. When that happens, I hope you'll be more willing to work with the contributions of other editors. And I'll be pleased to lend my assistance. ] 15:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

	:I've reversed it; can we try to achieve consensus Domer48 in particular? I feel that you are determined to add the list come what may and the arguments you put in favor don't seem to several of us to justify re-insertion. Why do you not feel that it should really be in ] alone since that is the key article? If we can clarify that first we can make progress. ] 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	Whatever we do, let's please not get into an edit/revert war over this list. Domer's willingness to re-add it in the face of opposition from three editors is very troubling, but in spite of his attitude, I also believe that he's knowledgeable about the subject and is editing in good faith. If there's no room for compromise on something this basic, I don't have high hopes for the immediate future of the article. ] 16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

	:I should add that I've been watching the article closely for some time and on the whole have agreed with many of Domer48's edits, so please be assured this is not something personal; I do however feel that the list would be wrong in this article, and would like Domer48 to explain it further and to have consensus on it, but it isn't a do-or-die issue of course! ] 16:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

	I didn't think it was anything personal on your part, Mark--sorry if I gave that impression. ] 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	:So we are on to the subject of consensus now? Where was the consensus to remove the information? It’s a valid question, and I’d like a clear reason for its removal. Now the whole thing has revolved around what editors have described as a “list.” Not one editor has mentioned ], or the guidelines contained on it. I pointed editors to ] and still no one cited it as a reason for the removal of the information. So all you have is your opinion as to its removal, and nothing else. So here once again is the link ], how dose it fail to meet the criteria ]?Oh and your juvenile attempts to make me out to be unreasonable, don’t work, Admin’s can read they are not stupid. --] 17:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	Domer, I gave an extremely clear reason for its removal. Two other editors seem to agree with me. I'm not prepared to call three vs. one "consensus," but it's definitely headed in that direction. It doesn't need to be unanimous. Your insistence that the entire discussion must be framed within ] is a strawman. Nobody is ''trying'' to make you seem unreasonable, but you're doing a fairly good job of presenting that impression yourself. Also, please mind your tone. You previously described my reasoning as irrational ("you have yet to provide a rational reason") and now you're alleging that other editors are "juvenile" vis-a-vis their contributions to the discussion. Please ]. ] 18:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	:Was there consensus to remove the information? No. To replace the information, you now need consensus! It was you who described it as a list, and have continually referred to it as such. I point you to ] and you call it a ]! I think you should ] first, before you cite it. So first things first, no consensus to remove / consensus need to replace. Have I got that right? It’s acceptable according to ] but because we are not talking about ] , were talking about Your “LIST” based on your definition and criteria, and it fails. Have I got that right? Now since you continue to address me and not the edits . While you are there you should also read ] and it pretty much covers what you have been doing. Now answer the questions I asked re:Consensus and “LINK.”--] 19:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	I've already said everything I think there is to say about the book list and its appropriateness for this article. You seem to be suggesting that the original edit needed to be approved before it was made. I don't think that's what you mean. ] 19:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	:I take it that you are devoid of any answer to my valid and reasonable questions. That being the case, I see no reason why the information should have being removed, the only objection being your opinion. I will again allow you the opportunity to replace it, failing that I will. Should it again be removed, and consensus is cited, I will insist on it being replaced by an admin, and consensus be established first, before it can be removed. I would also put editors on notice, should they continue to attempt to personalise this discussion, I will consider it disruptive. --] 19:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	Domer, I'm not the last person who removed the list. And frankly, the questions you're asking don't make any sense. You're throwing half-digested chunks of policy around, demanding explanations for edits, baldly asserting the correctness of your version of the article, and now you're threatening administrative action against editors who remove the list from the article. Not to put too fine a point on it, but your permission is not required to make that edit. As I said above, I agree that there's not quite a consensus, but by the same token, consensus does not mean "Domer48 agrees."] 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

	:As no concensus was reached in the first place I feel edits by MarkThomas and Dppowell pre empt this discussion. ] 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	Hi, BigDunc. Thanks for chiming in--would you elaborate? ] 20:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

	:My reading of is that any changes should be disscused before changes are made. ] 20:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	] you are again trying to personalise this discussion. I strongly suggest you remain ] and stop with the ] attacks. Please read the discussion page on articles, and you might learn that you do have to discuss first on this article . Having now been made aware of this, I hope you will stop and think before you engage in your attacks on me. --] 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	:Domer, you're free to allege to anyone who will listen that I am attacking you or being uncivil. I'm comfortable with the way I've conducted myself in this discussion and would welcome a review by anyone dauntless enough to wade through this entire thread. This discussion isn't productive right now, so I'm stepping back for the moment. ] 20:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

	I'm not sure that a Young Irelanders list is ideal, however, when I got a chance to look at how it fits in I'm not violently opposed to it. Rather I think the information could be safely included if we have it as part of a list of primary sources which includes the YI material (it should probably be reviewed whether all of it needs to be present, of course) but should also include material. That would make it seem to fit better into the page in my opinion. ] 14:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

	=== YI Books tangentially related to the main topic ===

	] could you explaine how the YI Books are only tangentially related to the main topic. Could you cite sources to back this up. And we should really deal with the question of ] also, as you comment could be seen as suggesting being ]. --] 00:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Domer, I've already explained that position , , , and . As to the other, I've said three or four times now that if you'd like to report my allegedly disruptive edits, along with the myriad of other violations you've accused me of, please be my guest. ]. I'd be pleased to have an experienced admin or two review both this discussion and the recent edit/reversion activity in the article history. I've resisted the temptation to do it myself, because I know that admins are busy and that as disruptions to the encyclopedia go, this situation is probably around a 2 or 3 on a 1-to-10 scale. But don't let that stop you. ] 00:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	Could you cite sources to back up assertions, all you have provided is opinion, your opinion. If you look at the above discussion, that is how its done. Editors bring sourced content to the talk page, and we discuss it. So cite sources which support your opinion. --] 01:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Does anyone else other than Domer48 seriously believe the above referenced comment by Dppowell is evidence of "disruption"? Really, this is nonsense! Can an admin take a look at what's going on here and ask Domer48 to stop casting allegations around please? ] 09:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::LV, if you'd like to make a report to ], feel free. I'm reluctant to do so because in the grand scheme of Misplaced Pages, this is a relatively minor disruption...and because there's an arbitration decision which is supposed to govern what's going on here. Queries about the status of the mentoring have been made to the ArbCom, so I'm taking a hands-off approach until one of their representatives chimes in.] 17:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	::I don't. And on the matter of the YI books list, IMHO they're just clutter. Condensing them to "Several ] make reference to the Great Irish Famine" is more than enough. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::I find it a bit of a turn-off to see editors personally picking at eachother, and it makes me reluctant to enter my opinion. Nevertheless, I would suggest that these primary sources should be noted, and should recieve a broad mention in the article at the very least. ] 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

	Let me repeat myself. If these books are cited in the article they should be in the reference section I've started putting together. If they are a demonstrably significant part of the historiography of the famine they may deserve mention in that section. Otherwise, I think moving the list out to the ] article makes a good deal of sense. ] ] 17:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Yes the Young Irelanders did play a significant role during the period, in both the Repeal Association and the Irish Confederation. Their newspaper the Nation became the most dominant influence in the whole course of the blight. New Laws had to be rushed through Parliament (Treason Felony Act) to curb their activities, transporting the Leaders to penal colonies. The subsequent papers The United Irishmen, The Felon and The Tribune were all suppressed, and the owners transported. They witnessed starvation, and wrote of their experiences and gave graphic accounts. This they carried to the United States, which was to have a profound effect on Irish politics. Those who escaped Ireland and fled to the States were the founding member of the Fenian’s there, and in Ireland the IRB. They were to go on to stage the Ester Rebellion of 1916. There is not one account of the suffering caused in the article. I will be quoting extensively from these books, on the effect of the physical blight, on the policies suggest by the Irish Leaders, and the ones adopted by the Government. The effects of those polices, and the view adopted by future historians. Like I have already said, to talk about the famine without the Young Irelanders, would be like not mentioning the blight. --] 18:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

	:Can I paraphrase your response Domer? No, there's nothing in the article that currently references those works. So I plan to add a load. Correct? ] 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	No. --] 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	:It appears now that we are back to list again, so could editors tell me how it fails ]? Could Editors tell me why we have reading lists? Could Editors tell me why we have Additional Reading lists?--] 19:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	I think ]’s is an reasonable . Reduce it to Mitchel and Doheny, as they are cited, and I will add the others as I use them. --] 19:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	:If they're in the reference section, as he describes, I think that's a perfectly good solution. ] 19:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	"the list of books by Young Irelanders, it seems to me that inclusion is warranted if the books therein are cited in the text." So if I cite them they go in the list. OK --] 19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	:, not in a list of their own. ] 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	No don't think so. It appears now that we are back to list again, so could editors tell me how it fails ]? Could Editors tell me why we have reading lists? Could Editors tell me why we have Additional Reading lists? --] 19:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

	In answer to the question of the subject heading I would quote the following authors:

	Patrick O’Farrell has said, the enduring influence of the famine was mostly down to the journalist-historian John Mitchel (1815—75) and may be traced to two works: Jail Journal of Five Years in British Prisons (New York: 1854), and The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps) (New York: 186O). Patrick O’Farrell, ‘Whose reality? The Irish Famine in history and literature’, Historical Studies, Vol. 20, 1982, pp. 1—13.

	Graham Davis says, Historically, the importance of the Mitchel thesis lay not only in its early acceptance among Irish emigrants, but in the influence it was to effect over later historians. Authors such as Canon J. O’Rourke, ''The Great Irish Famine'', Veritas, Dublin, 1989, first published 1874, Charles Gavan Duffy, ''Four Years of Irish History'', Cassell, Getter, Galpin, London, 1883, P. S. O’Hegarty, ''History of Ireland under the Union'', Methuen, London, 1952, Cecil Woodham-Smith, ''The Great Hunger'', Hamish Hamilton, London, 1962, Robert Kee, ''The Green Flag'', Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1972, Thomas Gallagher, ''Paddy’s Lament: Ireland 1846-47: Prelude to Hatred'', Ward River Press, Dublin, 1985 and Christine Kinealy, ''This Great Calamity'': The Irish Famine, Gill and Macmillan, Dublin, 1994. Graham Davis, The Meaning of the Famine, Volume Six, The Irish World Wide, edited by Patrick O’Sullivan, Leicester University Press, 1997.

	That is sufficient for that topic I think. I have started a new section to deal with the outstanding issue ]. --] 20:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

	=== ] Young Ireland Books ===

	Could editors tell me how it fails ]? --] 20:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	:There is nothing wrong with the list, all by itself. It's a fine list. It properly appears, IMHO, in ]. ], however, doesn't address whether a list is appropriate for use in a given article...and that's the core of the issue currently being disputed. ] 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	Tell me how it fails ]? What dose ]address, it addresses whether a list is appropriate for use in a given article. --] 21:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

	If no one minds, I'd like to consolidate all the discussions concerning the Young Ireland books under one heading. Does anyone object? ] ] 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	:No problems here. ] 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	Ye work away. --] 21:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Tell me how it fails ]? What dose ]address, it addresses whether a list is appropriate for use in a given article?--] 22:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	::I honestly don't understand the continual referrals to ]. It describes how to organize and format a list. There's nothing wrong with the organization and formatting of the YI book list. As I've said numerous times, the subject and scope of the list do not warrant their own exclusive section in the article. Those titles, if used in the body of the article, . ] 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	::], according to its description indicates "This guideline explains when and how to use lists appropriately". As far as I can tell, most of the page is for how to use lists - what to include, formatting, title, etc. The when is very general, and is mostly listed in the first section "Purpose of Lists". There it lists three types of lists, of which this is clearly an information list (it is not a development list, and it is not a navigation list). Regarding such lists it says "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." This does not, I believe, give sufficient information on how we should decide whether or not a particular list is pertinent to a particular article, which is the question at hand (but I expect is the subject of some other guide). If there is a section I am overlooking which gives suggestions on when a list is appropriate to a given article, please mention it. Other wise, I cannot see how WP:LIST is pertinent to this conversation. (I started this before Dppowell's comment, it's somewhat redundant, but I'm going to put it in anyways)] 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	Agreed, that as far as ] goes, its done correctly. Now as to its value? It clearly denotes a particular group (which makes it encyclopaedic in and of itself). We are providing the reader with precise information. All of which are primary sources (beneficial to both readers and editors), and clearly differentiates between contemporary and historical. It only includes their books which are relevant to this subject (they produced a lot more). Their work has impacted on all contemporary historical writing on this subject, which denotes their uniqueness. To subsume them in the main book list would diminish the encyclopaedic value to readers, suggesting we lack the ability or the knowledge of the subject to provide this qualification / classification of information. Dose it detract from the encyclopaedic nature of the article, no, it enhances it. --] 09:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	It's not clear to me how this list is related to the article's subject, which is the phenomenon known variously as the Great Hunger, Great Irish Famine, Irish Potato Famine, etc. While the Young Ireland movement played a role, I don't see how its role was more important than any of the other actors involved. Furthermore, the books listed are primary accounts which by our own guidelines would be used only for quotation and contemporary views, and not for secondary referencing. An encyclopedic article needs rely on secondary sources as much as possible, and they're not lacking here. The list certainly belongs in the ] article, but I cannot agree to its inclusion here in its entirety. ] ] 13:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	== order of the sections ==

	I was wondering if editors could review the article. In particular the chronological order of the sections. There is also a doubling up of some information. And as usual, with me, the unreferenced material. Can it be cited or removed? --] 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

	:Some of the information is repeated or repetitive, I agree. Reading through it, I also notice a fair bit of what looks like "tactical" use of the cite tag - facts that appear to support one view are not tagged for cite but treat very specific facts as referenced by whole books without page numbers, etc. Other places where this is done supporting a "contrary" opinion, the whole work is not trusted as a reference but instead the paragraph is sprayed with cite tags. An example of the latter is the plant pathology notes in the "Causes and contributing factors" section. Really the whole article could do now with a few more editors taking a good look through - it's also much too long now and some of the material just reflects determined efforts to try to "support a case" rather than write well. There is no need for much of this as the earlier "battles" here were really about small points of concensus rather than the general impact of the famine, which all agree was appalling. ] 16:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

	Do you need to be remineded of ] and also I am sure you are aware of ] but have a read before you accuse editors of <i>tactical</i> editing. ] 21:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

	:I doubt that it's incivil to suggest that cite tags have been placed tactically; MarkThomas doesn't suggest any particular individual did it. The above remark seems quite offensive in itself; is Misplaced Pages always this vituperative? ] 18:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	:I suspect MarkThomas is well aware of the arbitration ruling. In no way is the ruling intended to enjoin editors from reasonable editorial commentary. ] ] 18:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	::I never accused MarkThomas of directing his comments at any one editor just his use of <i>tactical</i> is not Assuming good faith on editors of this article. ] 11:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Citation Tags redux==

	I have asked for to be addressed a number of times and not much has happened. Is it safe to assume that this unreferenced information can now be removed? I will then start to go through the article section by section and offer suggestions. --] 21:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	:Agreed. Gotta be ] betimes. (] 01:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

	::I strongly disagree and I also have to say it's pretty obvious what is happening here. Looking back over this article it had quite a long period with no editing allowed any my opinion is this should happen again. I will request it as evidently things are heading back into ignoring consensus-building, as above. ] 18:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	:::One other note, I have checked the policies carefully and it looks to me as though Domer48 is edit-warring with his/her repeated insistence against other editors on re-inserting the Young Ireland booklist; would you agree Mackensen? Thanks for any help in this. ] 19:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	LiberalViews on the one hand your saying "we need to achieve consensus on the talk page before any change where it is disputed," and on the other that I'm "edit-warring with his/her repeated insistence against other editors on re-inserting the Young Ireland." So I edit warring by replacing it, and no one else is by removing it not trying to "achieve consensus on the talk page before any change." Can you explaine? --] 19:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	:My question was to Mackensen. Domer48 is edit-warring because a number of editors now have stated that they oppose re-inserting the list and have removed it, and each time Domer48 has replaced it and raised spurious grounds for doing so. ] 19:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
	Provide the diff's for my "spurious grounds"? Comment and opinion count for nothing. So if I go around removing all the reading lists on wiki which are attached to articles you would agree with it? Are we not talking about ], tell me how it fails the criteria? --] 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	:If the dispute's over the list of books by Young Irelanders, it seems to me that inclusion is warranted if the books therein are cited in the text. I haven't read over the whole article in a while; how many of these works does the article quote from? ] ] 20:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
	::If one of the works is quoted from, it should be ] and appear in the references, like any other source. If they're not cited in the text, they shouldn't appear at all. There's no reason the Young Ireland books, none of which are exclusively about the Famine, require special placement in the article, never mind their own section. Given the political slant of the books, I could even make a case that giving the books special placement is a NPOV violation. ] 23:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	I have already raised this issue earlier, you may have missed it, , to date John Mitchel and Michael Doheny are referenced. A cursory glance of the reference list will show a complete lack of contemporary sources from this period. So although there are a wealth of primary sources available, none are used. I intend to change that. I will also include a list of newspapers from the period, and quote from them also, and the diversity of opinion within them. This is also true of Young Ireland, with Charles Gavan Duffy and Darcy McGee disagreeing with Mitchel and Doheny. I will use Duffy and McGee in the section we are currently working on now, I will just select the appropriate topic, possibly Duffy on Corn Laws, and McGee on the affect on them in Westminster? What do you think? --] 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	You will notice ] comment above, and me agree with them. Now if you wish to now change the nature of your objection to ] start a new section, and we can discuss it.--] 23:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
	:My original objection still stands. The titles are only tangentially related to the main topic and do not warrant placement as a list with its own section. The NPOV angle is merely another ''potential'' objection; I don't see it as the main problem. ] 00:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Arbitration followup ==

	This message is to advise all interested editors that I'm seeking follow-up on the arbitration case that closed at the beginning of September. Mentors were apparently supposed to be assigned to this article, but they don't seem to have made themselves known. I'm attempting to ascertain whether mentors have been assigned and, if so, to request their review of the recent activity here.] 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	:Thanks Dppowell, I would also support that. In particular I would propose we need to achieve consensus on the talk page before any change where it is disputed. ] 18:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
	] we need to achieve consensus on the talk page before any change where it is disputed.--] 19:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	::I don't understand this last comment. Can you explain please Domer48? Thanks. ] 19:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
	There was no discussion prior to it being removed. --] 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	I agree with ], to request mentors views of the recent activity here. In particular the following which I signed up to. While I agree with them, that is immaterial, because the are binding on everyone regardless of weather they were involved in the arbitration. --] 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Government response ==

	''The initial British government policy towards the famine was, in the view of historians such as ], "very delayed and slow".''

	Our article cites F. S. L. Lyons's book ''Ireland Since the Famine'', p42, on this point. I've got the 1971 edition of the book in front of me and I simply cannot locate such a statement. His main treatment of the famine is in Chapter 2, section ii (in this edition pages 30-34), and he opens his discussion of government response with this:

	<blockquote>"''The response of the government to this ''débâcle'', though prompt and relatively successful while Sir Robert Peel was prime minister, became increasingly inadequate when in 1846, at the height of the crisis, he gave place to Lord John Russell, whose Whig administration was dominated by the prevailing laissez-faire doctrines of the age.''" (p 30)</blockquote>

	Lyons goes on to describe the progression of Russell's government: public works from July through December, 1846, at which point the government abandoned public works and switched over to direct relief. The whole section on the government response suffers from a lack of citations, and in this case the citation misrepresents Lyons' view on the matter and skates over the important fact that the UK government changed hands during the crisis. I'm not sure what wording I would substitute but the passage shouldn't stand as is. ] ] 19:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	:I suspect there are a number of misleading references and for this reason I have ordered several of the books that are frequently referenced off amazon to go through myself. Thanks for pointing this one out Mackensen - I feel sure there are others. ] 19:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	I agree ] I have the 1973, and your quote appears on page 42. If you replace that section with a reworded version of the quote above it should be fine. --] 19:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	:] could we insert the following into this section:

	{{cquote\|The £100,000 worth of Indian corn and corn meal had to be secretly purchased in America. Baring Bros & Co. had to act as agents of the government. The government hoped that they would not “stifle private enterprise” or that their actions act as a disincentive to local relief efforts. Due to weather conditions, the first shipment did not arrive in Ireland and until the beginning of February 1846. The corn had not been ground and was inedible. This task involved a long and complicated process if it was to be done correctly and it was unlikely to be carried out locally. Before the Indian meal could be consumed, it had to be ‘very much’ cooked again, or eating it could result in severe bowel complaints. <ref name="This Great Calamity"/>}}

	I will of course expand on it, outlining how Peel had decided at least four years before 1845 about repealing the corn laws, as one might assume it was only as a result of the blight. --] 20:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


	:] would it be possible to remove "Some historians, such as" as we would probably have to specify who those historians are, for example Christine Kinealy’s acclaimed study of the Famine, This Great Calamity, a highly professional and scholarly work says:{{cquote\|there was no shortage of resources to avoid the tragedy of a Famine. Within Ireland itself, there were substantial resources of food which, had the political will existed, could have been diverted, even on a short-term measure to supply a starving people. Instead the government pursued the objective of economic, social and agrarian reform as a long-term aim, although the price paid for this ultimately elusive goal was privation, disease, emigration, mortality and an enduring legacy of disenchantment.}}
	:It is just a small point, but one mentioning now. Might I also add, that it is great to be doing something productive for a change. Thanks --] 21:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
	::By all means, let's incorporate that. Again, though, which government? It's no minor point; the fall of Peel's administration represented in many ways the triumph of party politics over the ministerialist ("Queen's ministers") approach. As we've seen, Peel pursued numerous short-term expedients while addressing what he saw as the long-term structural problems. I'll need to consult Kinealy's book. Thanks! ] ] 21:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
	::Here, I've got Kinealy in front of me now (1995 edition). What page is that quotation from? ] ] 12:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

	:Kinealy, 2006 edition pg 359 (Conclusions). --] 18:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

	On Peel and the Corn Laws, I'm not sure he'd really decided as early as '41 to repeal. Both Norman Gash and Robert Blake are doubtful on this point, but they do agree that his decision to go for repeal in late '45 had as much to do with structural factors as the immediate crisis. Feel free to work in that passage on "Peel's brimstone." There were other attempts at purchasing that might be worth mentioning, depending on how much detail the article needs. ] ] 21:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Sorry ] I was referring to removing "Some historians, such as" being the minor point. I just used Kinealy to illustrate the point. Which Government is important though. I will try find the quote from Peel were he said no one died of starvation when he was in office. Thanks for that. I'll start on that in the morning, and put it on the talk page before I place it onto the article. --] 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
	] I just read the ] article. Only one mention of Ireland. It’s stark to think of it, when one considers the effect repeal had on the Irish. One would think the article would have had more on it? --] 22:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Our article on the Corn Laws isn't especially good. It's been on my list to fix for years but I've never gotten to it. ] ] 22:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)



	==Typhus==
	I regret to see that typhus is still barely mentioned. Ref Misplaced Pages article on ] - "''.. yet another major typhus epidemic occurred during the ] between 1846 and 1849. The Irish typhus spread to England, where it was sometimes called "Irish fever" and was noted for its virulence. It killed people of all social classes, since lice were endemic and inescapable, but it hit particularly hard in the lower or "unwashed" social strata.''" ] 09:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

	:There are two reasons why typhus is overlooked in this article. One is that contemporaries didn't know how it spread so they assumed it was caused by famine. Fever and famine were continuously linked at the time. A much used phrase was 'famine and related illnesses', one that appears on famine memorials to this day. I've seen coroners' reports which describe typhus symptons perfectly and then reached a 'death by starvation' verdict. Based on the knowledge at the time, they couldn't be faulted.

	:The other reason is that later historians continue to link the two, even though modern medecine shows typhus is a separate virus. For instance, Kinealy says that fever follows inevitably from famine: " claimed that......had the added benefit of reducing the likelihood of fever, no mean feat as fever '''inevitably''' followed during periods of distress" (p47). And later on page 64: "Fever appeared sporadically in Ireland and '''always''' in the wake of a period of extraordinary distress". It may have frequently accompanied 'distress' (a euphemism for fever itself?) but not always or inevitably. ] 11:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Adding material ==

	] could you explain to me how it works with me adding ? Should I post it on the talk page first, and have it reviewed by my fellow editors, or just mentors? Or add them to the article, as you and Asmaybe have done, and they will be reviewed from there. Thanks --] 19:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	*Well, we don't have mentors at the moment, so I suggest editing with reference to the talk page. I don't think we need to post all revisions here first. On the other hand, if there's a dispute, it needs to be discussed here and consensus obtained before the questioned passage changes again. ] ] 20:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	Thanks for that ]. In the last part are you saying that I can add referenced text, but if it's challanged, it must be discussed here ''first'', before it is removed? --] 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	*I don't think there's any need to get hung up on mechanics. If there's a dispute then it needs to be discussed--reverting the article accomplishes exactly nothing, and encourages further reverts. If you think your text will raise eyebrows then post it here first. Anyone editing this article should be paying close attention to this page. ] ] 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	Thats grand then. Thanks for that, will get my edits together. --] 21:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	:If your edits are reverted for good faith reasons (such as with the Young Irish list) you will naturally seek consensus on this talk page before simply reinstating them? ] 10:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
	The removel was made dispite the ArbCom discision. It's really that simple. I do not doubth that they were good faith reasons, but having being made aware of the ArbCom discision, they were reverted in good faith, and a discussion started. It's really that simple. --] 10:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Where in the decision does it say that lists cannot be removed to improve the article? ] 10:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
	"'''All content reversions''' on this page must be discussed on the article talk page." I think that covers is. Don't you. --] 10:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
	::I have said what I think, I will leave it to others to comment now. If they don't, then so be it ... ] to worry. ] 11:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
	You could not respond to "'''All content reversions''', that I understand. That you could not address you error, I can't. --] 12:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	===Transferred from personal talk page because more relevant here===
	Please read the talk page before you make any changes to this article. The article is currently under probation and mentorship. , having now been made of this, you should use the article talk page before any changes are made. Your changes pre-empted the discussion, and have been reverted. Thanks --] 11:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	:Thanks for noticing my attempt at a compromise but the words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind. ] 10:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

	Please read before you make any further changes to this article. ] 16:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	*Already done, what's your point?] 21:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	You again removed the list, which was removed origionally without any discussion in the first instant. You have been made aware above about discussion first. Read the page history, and stop edit warring. --] 08:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	:I presume you mean the list that you inserted without discussion and that the weight of editor opinion on the talk page wishes to see removed? I have replaced the list with a compromise cross reference to where the list can be found; this compromise solution is liked by other editors. I suggest you heed your own advice, stop edit warring and, having failed to achieve consensus for your view, move on to more productive editing. I have been in your situation and I understand that it is difficult when you know you are "right" but everyone else stupidly can't see it - edit warring is not the answer. ] 09:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	::The list was added months ago prior to the arbitration, and was there until recently, despite the arbitration. I suggest you read , it clearly states “All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page.” You have again ignored this. There is still , which you have chosen to ignore. There is also clarification of removing material , which again you have ignored. I suggest you revert it now, having been made aware of all of this, and should you persist, I would consider your actions as running contrary to both the Arbitration Committee, an Administrator not to mention your fellow editors. --] 10:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	:Several of my "fellow editors" have stated on the talk page that they see no place for the list in the article and that they prefer my compromise solution. You have continued to ignore this and reinstated a list for which there is no consensus. As to the arbitration, I see nothing in that which prevents improving the article ... and this is what I am attempting in my small way. I suggest you put your energies into gaining consensus for your views on the article talk page rather than badgering me on mine. ] 10:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
	There is still , which you have chosen to ignore. Who closed the discussion? You. And were was the discission reached? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::It appears to me that ] is intent on starting an edit war on this issue he is ignoring the discussion and just reverting could you make yourself familiar with ] and dont edit war. ] 13:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	:::It appears to me that the complete opposite is true. Most editors, including at least one admin, are of the view thatg the list does not reflect a citation need in the article, and is therefore best suited to ]. Domer48 has consistently ignored this and holds a minority view and instead of seeking to gain consensus on it, has attempted to muddle the issue and declared it to be a WP:LIST point, which it manifestly is not. It isn't Abtract who is at fault here, he is just trying to defend the article against what LiberalViews has quite rightly declared to be "nonsense". Also, please note the findings of fact in the recent arbitration decision which declared that Domer48 had "edited disruptively" and used "tendentious edit summaries". Since this is happening again, is there any chance that the original arbitrators could review his actions? Thanks for any help. ] 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	:::In line with the above, I have reverted the pointless re-insertion of the book list; clearly we need to establish a consensus before including it, and at the moment that consensus is to not include it. ] 13:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::Quick comment on that, Mark; whether an editor is an admin doesn't (and shouldn't) have any bearing on the weight of his/her opinion in the discussion. Agree otherwise. ] 14:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	::::Excuse my ignorance but could you show me where the consensus was reached on this matter. My reading of it and correct me if I am wrong but it was removed without discussion or consensus thanks. ] 13:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	Consensus does not mean "everyone agrees." It certainly appears, however, that consensus is going against the inclusion of the list in the article. By my reckoning, Domer48 and BigDunc are the only people who've supported the inclusion of the list. Have I missed anyone? ] 14:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	:I would again remind editors of the in relation to this article. "'''All content reversions''' on this page must be discussed on the article talk page." This notice was given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee (]). Might I also remind editors which are deemed to be uncivil, considered personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may be blocked."When possible, mentors should favor article bans over page protection." In addition, "if there's a dispute, it needs to be discussed here and consensus obtained before the questioned passage changes again," (])"If there's a dispute then it needs to be discussed--reverting the article accomplishes exactly nothing, and encourages further reverts." (]) This is all inline with the arbitration. Since ] has now accused me of "edited disruptively" or "tendentious edit summaries," I will allow them the oppertunity make an official complaint or stricke their remarks. Their involvment in an edit war, and the removal of material, without consus is also noted. --] 14:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	I eagerly await the arrival of the article's mentors, as, I imagine, do several other editors in this discussion. Given the colossal effort that will be required to improve this article to GA status, the fact that the entire editing process is hung up on two people objecting to the removal of a largely irrelevant list is absurd...and bodes poorly for the article's near-term prospects. ] 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Your dismissive attitude towards the process of discussion is lamentable. Your inability to provide sufficient justification for the removal of information makes your attitude understandable. Having disregarded the direction of arbitrators and an administrator your attitude towards moderators is at least encouraging. --] 15:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	:Thankfully we now have page protection on. I propose it be left on until such time as Domer48 shows some willingness towards genuine discussion and consensus-building. Alas, the latest comment above shows why this has become neccessary. This is not your personal page Domer48. ] 16:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
	Yes page protection again, some would seem to prefer that alright. Having nothing else to offer but comment and opinion, with a Diffs’less attempt at reducing discussion to facile personalisation. But on a lighter note, “When possible, mentors should favor article bans over page protection.” Might I suggest you make a formal complaint, or possibly a RfC, though you would have to be able to back up your assertions? While I will tolerate some ] of bad faith, and tolerate some ], in an attempt at being reasonable, I do have limits, as dose Administrators. You should read ] and consider adopting a better attitude. Since the last few contributions have provided nothing to the discussion, should I take it, you have no other justification for the removal of information. --] 16:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Government response redux==

	] you might want to re-write that bit I put in. Was that page number any help? I will put one of the YI comments in their also, one of C. G. Duffy's. --] 15:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	==Seeking consensus on "the list"==
	Since the stated purpose of the current protection is to allow consensus to be found, I suggest we indicate which of the following options are preferred:
	*'''A) List alone'''. Inclusion of the Young Ireland book list without the so-called compromise wikilink to the list.
	*'''B) List and Wikilink'''. Inclusion of both the list and the wikilink.
	*'''C) Link but no list'''. Exclusion of the list but inclusion of the link.
	*'''D) Exlude both'''. Make no mention of the list or the link.
	*'''E) Some other solution'''
	In all cases it is understood that any suitable book, whether on the list or not, may naturally be included as a specific citation.
	===Editors' preferences and comments===
	*'''C) Link but no list'''. To no-one's surprise I support the compromise solution of showing a link direct to the list but exluding the actual list, which imho is intrusive, non-standard and adds nothing to the article. ] 17:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
	*'''C) Link but no list'''. This is obviously right and apparently supported by all but two editors. ] 17:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	(E)I had suggested above that we might compromise by creating a list which included the YI sources as well as other primary sources so that the information is included but does not focus solely on the YI. ] 18:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:43, 5 January 2025

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Great Famine (Ireland) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Ireland Top‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Top‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other talk page banners

This page is written in Hiberno-English, which uses the same spelling as British English: colour, realise, travelled. Some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Great Famine (Ireland) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 26, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 26, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 27, 2004, June 27, 2005, and June 27, 2006.

Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

RM, Great Famine (Ireland) → Great Irish Famine (or Irish Potato Famine), No consensus for move, 5 April 2019, Requested move 5 April 2019
RM, Great Famine (Ireland) → The Great Hunger, No consensus for move, 2 March 2010, Archive 16#Article name
RM, Great Famine (Ireland) → Irish Potato Famine, No consensus for move, 4 July 2008, Archive 14#Worldwide?
RM, The Great Hunger → Great Famine (Ireland), Move following lengthy consensus discussion, 1 July 2008‎, Archive 13#Fourth (and final?) straw poll
RM, Irish Potato Famine → The Great Hunger, Move following discussion, 30 May 2008, Archive 12#Irish Potato Famine
(At least one move and several related discussions between late 2007 and mid 2008)
RM, Great Irish Famine → The Great Hunger, Move following discussion, 20 December 2007‎, Archive 11#Name change again
(Multiple other discussions and moves prior to December 2007)

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Imported Grain Used As Livestock Feed

These edits added the claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=887787383

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=1170685821

This claim seems to be completely unsupported by the given sources or the literature. Cheezypeaz (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"genocide"

In the genocide section, there is a statement claiming that a non-scholarly "assessment" by two law professors who argued that the Irish Famine was a genocide in order to reshape a history curriculum in New Jersey has been "supported by various later genocide scholars," and it then links to one chapter, in one book, by one scholar, Neysa King. Considering this same source has been used to include a section on the Irish Famine in the main article for genocide, there seems to be a deliberate effort to elevate a theory that's got little scholarly backing (and, as we will soon learn, even this is a generous description of how this theory's been received by professional historians).

When this issue was previously raised on this page, user 'SeoR' made the following statement which I think is a good basis to start a discussion:

"It is quite clear that *few* but not *no* historians see genocide as a key factor', but how this is presented can be explored.."'

So, expanding on this point, let's revisit two of the rules we're expected to honor when we edit this encyclopedia:

An acknowledgement that Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia, and not a laboratory for testing novel ideas.

That it is not enough to demonstrate that some minority of scholars hold a view, but rather that the minority view is significant.

Now let's look at how the source in question opens the chapter:

"Today, Irish and British historians categorically reject the notion that British actions during the Great Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) amounted to genocide."

So, the first sentence in this chapter acknowledges that the theory is not just rejected by academics, but "categorically" so.

Another source I'd add is Mark McGowan's piece in the journal Genocide Studies International:

"The fact that virtually all historians of Ireland have reached a verdict that eschews position, be they Irish-born scholars from Britain, North America or Australasia, has weakened the traditional populist account."

So, language like "categorically reject" and "virtually all historians" tells us exactly how the information should be presented: as a fringe perspective that's only mentioned insofar as we are telling readers it's a theory that's been widely rejected by the mainstream of Irish academic history.

Discuss. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The King source is a conference proceedings book; the article is short and doesn't cite much, and the presentation was by someone who may have gotten a Master's degree but does not work (and publish) in academia. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Which raises even more questions.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  - Sure, but that's not necessarily for here. One question I have is who added that. Another is what all this says about Brill, and that's even sadder. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    Probably the same person who went into the article on historical genocides and added the same content into a Great Famine section which shouldn't even be there. This is very simple: the view that the GF was a genocide is fringe and should never be mentioned on here except to say that it's a fringe pov pushed mainly by people who don't have the relevant background in economic, social or political history for the period in question. The endless iterations of John Mitchel's polemic about "food exports" is case in point. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Overlong lead

I agree that the lead is far too long but the recently reverted quote from a future PM actually supported the prior, unreferenced sentence - "Additionally, the famine indirectly resulted in tens of thousands of households being evicted, exacerbated by a provision forbidding access to workhouse aid while in possession of more than one-quarter acre of land." The subject of the reverted quote is found in several statistics in the Eviction section. Because this very strong quote was made near the beginning of the disaster and was made by the future Prime Minister I thought its placement in the lead section was appropriate. I believe the quote belongs somewhere in this very long article, either in the Lead or the Eviction section.Palisades1 (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Then put it in the Evictions section, since the objection was to the length of the lead and to the inclusion of material in the lead that is not in the article body. DrKay (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Go to talk prior to revert. Palisades1 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you've written this comment because we've both followed the Misplaced Pages:Bold, revert, discuss cycle and neither of us has broken the 1 revert per 24 hours editing restriction on this article. It is also obvious that I'm not going to revert an edit that I have already agreed to. It is also obvious that I'm not going to revert an edit that occurred 6 hours before you made this comment at a time when I was clearly active on wikipedia. Consequently, it looks like an unnecessarily offensive and aggressive demand that is designed to insult and provoke. I will therefore not obey it and I will revert whenever and wherever it is reasonable and justifiable to do so. DrKay (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Genocide section

Please note that the editor Cdjp1 has added controversial content to the genocide section today. This issue is currently in dispute resolution and these additions should probably be reverted until it's resolved. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a mischaracterisation of how you have framed your arguments in the Genocides in History (before World War 1) talk page and the DR discussion. You have maintained your issue is the great famine's inclusion in that article, and you even suggested that any information from the scholars present in that article should instead appear in the relevant section in this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What I had tried to say was, any discussion of genocide theories belongs in this article in the relevant section, but that the Great Famine should not be listed in an article about pre-WW1 genocides considering scholars don't believe it was a genocide. I also said that this article covers the genocide controversy rather well (and never said I thought the section needed to be expanded). I also don't think scholars who have backgrounds in famines in other countries and continents are authoritative on this subject. All scholars that study famines agree that every famine is political -that hunger can happen naturally but when it rises to the level of famine there's politics involved. But that also highlights why the most reliable sources on the Irish Famine are historians with some expertise in British/Irish political history. As far as Robbie McVeigh goes -he only ever writes about Ireland from one colonial perspective, and we have to wonder why his opinion is so at odds with the mainstream. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Removal

I noticed this edit, which removes material apparently on the basis that it is allegedly from a partisan source, and is "over 150 years old". I wasn't aware that we were not able to use sources older than a certain age. DrKay, can you shed any light on this? John (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources for guidance, in particular "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history", "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest", "in academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed" and "cite current scholarly consensus when available". DrKay (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. I was thinking about WP:BIASED which I thought applicable to exactly this sort of situation. I'd imagine you to be familiar with it. If not, it's definitely worth a read. I also found the reference to the source's age a bit weird. What was that about? Older sources and biased sources can be very useful if they are properly used. We can use Mein Kampf on an article about Hitler. So, why did you remove that material? Note that at this stage that I'm not contesting the removal, just saying the edit summary makes no sense. John (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I have already answered. DrKay (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I had the same question, as Template:Obsolete source indicates that older sources only need to be removed if more recent developments supersede the older information, and I see nothing on Template:Better source needed about age of source. Thank you for raising this discussion, John. Littlemisssunshine22 (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I have already answered. DrKay (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Not in any way that makes sense though. Are you able to explain in plain language why the article is better without this material? John (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to restore the material, please find a better source, as was requested four and a half years ago. There are three talk page sections above this one contesting the genocide theory. We shouldn't be using a source promoting the genocide theory that was written over 160 years ago without context. It doesn't reflect modern scholarship. DrKay (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There's only one use of the word "genocide" in that passage and it's fully attributed to Mitchel. Is the problem that Mitchel's claims are being given in Wiki-voice? Surely Mitchel's views and statements on the crisis are wholly relevant to the narrative. Or is the problem that Mitchel's writings are being used as a primary source here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason to confuse the issue. The passage relating to Mitchel on that score is retained. Indeed, the same quote is in the article twice. DrKay (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You've removed the three Mitchel references wholesale? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It's fine to use Mary E. Daly and Peter Duffy as sources for Mitchel's views. Though I believe Thomas Gallagher was an amateur historian, his book received favorable reviews, so I have no problem with its use. DrKay (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

My question is not with your removal but why the reason for "better source needed" given as that the source is old. (I believe someone else marked this years ago.) I don't see anywhere in the Misplaced Pages policies that a source should be removed solely due to its age, so if I'm missing something please let me know where I can read more about this policy. I believe this is the same question that John had. Was the source removed due to age or bias? Just trying to understand the rationale behind the edit(s). Littlemisssunshine22 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

See my previous comments regarding the use of out-dated partisan sources with a conflict of interest, e.g.: "See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources for guidance, in particular "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history", "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest", "in academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed" and "cite current scholarly consensus when available"." "We shouldn't be using a source promoting the genocide theory" "tagged for over 4 years | partisan source"

See also Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing#Examples of disruptive editing: it is disruptive to "repeatedly disregard other editors' explanations for their edits". It is disruptive to ask me the same question over and over and over again when it has already been answered three times (four times now). DrKay (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If you think Mitchel's published work of 1861, 1869 and 1876 work has been discredited or invalidated by later academic analysis, aren't you obliged to say where and how? Otherwise isn't this just canceling him? I'm really not sure where "reporting what Mitchel actually said" stops and "using a source promoting the genocide theory" begins. But of course, if you think I'm commenting here just to be disruptive, then yes you'll need to report me at WP:AN/I. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I already did. I pointed you at Daly. She is quoted in the article text, " seems to imply that Mitchel's case is more credible than recent scholars suggest; few would agree." I also mentioned two other sources and the three talk page sections above this one that cast doubt on the genocide theory. There are other talk page sections in the archives as well as a sub-section in the article that begins "The vast majority of historians reject the claim that the British government's response to the famine constituted a genocide" and then goes on to quote a few. DrKay (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Jolly good. So there's still some replacement, e.g. of Mitchel by Daly, that needs to happen? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Not seeing DrKay's reply to this, I'll assume the answer to be "yes". DrKay, from the same guideline you quoted from above, we also have "Fails to engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. Fails to recognize, rejects, or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors." Your removal has been queried, by three separate editors; the onus on you is to build a consensus for it, or for a compromise version. Go for it! John (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I have answered the queries about the removal already. I am under no obligation to comment on Martin's future removals, additions or replacements since those are not edits of mine. DrKay (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

What "future removals" are these? I have no knowledge of any such planned edits. Your argument here seems to have been that Mitchel has been discredited by later historians/ commentators. So one might have expected you to retain mention of Mitchel, along the lines of "Mitchel said xyz, but now A. N. Other has said he was exaggerating because of abc.." etc. But instead you seem to intend the later criticism of Mitchel to mean that the reader does not even deserve to see what he said, quite regardless of whether it was right or wrong. Which to me looks very much like "cancelling" him, or "airbrushing him out". Perhaps you could clarify? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) p.s. you could do a complete sign, thanks.

I already said at 11:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC), "The passage relating to Mitchel on that score is retained. Indeed, the same quote is in the article twice." I said at 22:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "I pointed you at Daly. She is quoted in the article text, " seems to imply that Mitchel's case is more credible than recent scholars suggest; few would agree." Daly's, Duffy's and Gallagher's commentary on Mitchel is retained. I have not removed this material. I have not cancelled him. I have not airbrushed him out. What you're suggesting one might have expected you to retain mention of Mitchel, along the lines of "Mitchel said xyz, is exactly what I did. In addition to the passage I quoted at 22:58 3 January, the article also reads: John Mitchel, one of the leading Irish nationalists, later wrote one of the first widely circulated tracts on the famine, The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps), published in 1861. It proposed that British actions during the famine and their treatment of the Irish were a deliberate effort at genocide. It contained a sentence that has since become famous: "The Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight, but the English created the Famine. and further down the article again, John Mitchel, one of the leaders of the Young Ireland Movement, wrote in 1860: . DrKay (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks. But your edit here took out three sources for Mitchel? Perhaps you now see them as superfluous. I can see the footnote for Daly, but I can't find Duffy's and Gallagher's direct commentary on Mitchel, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

That diff also shows me retaining Duffy's commentary in the 'Reaction in Ireland' section, with me adding the phrase "John Mitchel, one of the leading Irish nationalists," to place it in context. Gallagher's quote from Mitchel is further down in the 'Contemporary analysis' section. DrKay (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps it was because Duffy is not named there, and the fact it's just a quote, not "commentary"? Do you think The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps) deserves a direct source? Yes, Gallagher's quote of Mitchel seems to be a good secondary source, although it doesn't say if Gallagher agreed with him. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm finding this discussion distressing, so I think this will be my final word in this section. I think it is a sad state of affairs when editors question the removal of material sourced to a revolting white supremacist who believed slaves should be kept "to their work by flogging". Above Martin asks me about Mitchel's 1876 work and questions whether it "has been discredited or invalidated". This is a book that promotes public hanging for forgery, burglary and robbery. I should not have to prove that such views are no longer held by modern scholars. It should be patently obvious that such views are discredited. I shouldn't have to defend the removal of such distasteful sources as these. To say the least, Mitchel's views are obsolete and questionable. The article should be based on modern scholarship not out-dated books from over 160 years ago written by a disgusting racist whose views are long-discredited. DrKay (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear replies to my queries. I trust you will no longer be considering reporting me for "disruption". I'm sorry to say that I find that point of view quite distressing. Yes, we might all agree that "Mitchel's views are obsolete and questionable", but not to reference them and offer explicit criticism against them still looks to me like cancelling. I'm not arguing that Michel's work should be celebrated. I'm saying that his work should be referenced and discussed appropriately. Would you advocate public burning, perhaps? I'd like to remind you that your original edit summary said "partisan source over 150 years old", suggesting that sources beyond a certain age should not be mentioned or used. Other editors may still wish to bring different points here for discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Aw, that's a shame, I was just beginning to get the gist of what you were trying to do. I'm not familiar with Mitchel; was he worse than Hitler, whose 1925 book Mein Kampf we use as a source on the Adolf Hitler article? We do not necessarily remove sources because they are old or even because they are biased. Neither can we automatically remove sources because their author supported hanging and flogging, which was a mainstream belief at the time. It is not patently obvious to me that Mitchel is "obsolete" in relation to this article, which is not about hanging or flogging, but about the Great Famine in Ireland. I would need to see evidence for that. John (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: