Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:05, 17 May 2007

Template:Irelandproj

Great Famine (Ireland) was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

An event mentioned in this article is a June 27 selected anniversary

Past entries in this famous discussion are archived in:

.1 , .2 , .3 , .4 , .5 , .6 , .7 , .8 , .9 (empty) , .10 (empty)...

Malthusian Argument

How come this article doesn't explicity mention population demographic. It is just buried in landholding arrangment/argument (which has implication that it was a fault of "British" system). I know Amartya Sen pointed out that many famine happen even when food are plenty and often the economic/political system is at fault. But he did examine population/food aspect first before making his case. Nothing of this kind is done in this article. As with any controvercial topic, narrative should start from "fact" (whatever that mean). Generally, narrative order or article should be in order of historical event (such as potatoe blight), followed by demographic fact (including population and deathtoll and immigration), followed by economic, plolitical and social argument. Why Genocide topic, which many, in the context of Irish famine, consider it as ideological topic or identity politics (i.e. silly ass argument on both side debate) is put at the begining? FWBOarticle

For a number of reasons, but here's the best one: One of the essential elements of Malthus' model is the belief that "Population level is severely limited by subsistence" (quote: Malthus,1798 Essay). Malthus believed that a society's agricultural/industrial development would ultimately lead to: a) unsustainable population growth; b) overconsumption of native resources; and, c) inevitable economic collapse. Thus, if you were going to search for a Malthusian explanation to the Irish Potato Famine the only possible arguement is this: the British successfully avoided points a), b) and c) through the colonization of other regions throughout the world. This point may be entirely valid, but, at the same time, there is no question that the economic gain from the colonization of Ireland was irrelevant compared to the wealth that came from other regions colonized far later in history (India, the African colonies, North America). Furthermore, I've never seen a history which contends that the British really depended on resources which came from the Irish colony (that is, I've never seen a history which argued that, without this colony, the Empire would have been at a great risk of economic collapse). The same can not be said for the Indian and African possessions (without them, the British would have faced massive cuts, especially within the military). Finally, there is no debate among historians that the Irish, who existed at the lowest level of subsistence during the British colonial period, had a far more wholesome and diverse diet before the British invaded, destroyed the native polity and reduced the native population to a status little higher than Serfdom. Malthusian theory can be interesting, but I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who believes that it can be honestly applied to the plight of the Irish. --(Mingus ah um 21:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

Narrative Structure

I just googled "Irish Potato Famine". All these articles which came up on top of google list talk about potato, blight and famine frirst. After all, this article is about "Potato" "Famine". Why do non-Irish/British wikipedian need to read about political/economical "background" of Brits and Irish first? Only "background", which may deserve mention before blight is landholding section. Failure of British political system become apparent "after" bright struck. Mudslinging between brits and irish should be confined to appropriate section (like "genocide" section). Because the narrative structure is upside down, same argument are often duplicated in subsequent sections. FWBOarticle

I rearranged the section in more chronologically consistent manner. "Genocide" section probably should be put at the bottom while "Failiure/Indifference of Brits" should be between "Famine events" and "Aftermass". May be "Brits" section should be above "Famine and Deathtoll". My advice is to split "Famine and Deathtoll". Famine should deal with description of famine. There must be some comtemporarly records giving first hand account of famine. Then Brits section can come between "Famine" and "Deathtoll Estimate" section. FWBOarticle

I finished rearrangement. I believe my revamp made it obvious that previous version focused too much on politics, which, in my view, caused to neglect the famine itself. Total lack of contents concering the first accounts of famine is bit unbelievable to me given the current overall size of this article. Hope this narrative structure allow more constructive editing of this controvercial topic. FWBOarticle

Fail GA

I have removed this article from Misplaced Pages:Good_articles/Nominations because:

1. The article has several stub sections, and a lengthy first hand account of the effects of the Famine with no source or authorial context given.
2. There are some statements like "the vast majority of its MPs and government ministers had never set foot in Ireland" that really needs specific citation. Andrew Levine 18:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree. There's also some dubious language - "perverse farce" caught my eye. The article also lacks context (as usual). How does the Irish famine compare with Scotland in the same period (or, indeed, in the 1830s famine) ? How does the reponse by Westminster and/or landlords compare ? There's no mention of the general European food shortage which led to price increases in 1846: the famine in Flanders was particularly serious. This needs a lot of work. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Famine Section

I think there should be a decent introduction to any personal descriptions, especially those that start mid-sentence. If anyone out there has (or has access to) the quoted source, any elaboration would be useful. --(Mingus ah um 02:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Reformed "Response" Section

The section previously described Lord Russell as "laissez-faire" reformer. The author must have been confused, since Sir Peel was the free trade advocate and lost his job for it. There was also a section in the middle going off on a tangent about the author's pet theory on how the famine could have been avoided, and which also inaccurately stated that Lord Russell "refused" to import corn. The rest was just an irrelevant bit on the Act of Union. Salvor Hardin 09:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

People also starving in england at the time

"The notable difference between the Famine and other humanitarian crises was that it occurred within the imperial homeland, at a time well into the modern prosperity of the Victorian and Industrial age."

It ought to be noted that people also starved in England at the time - you only have to read Dickens. Victorian times were not "prosperous" for the majority of people, and certainly not by modern standards. Because of the poor communications of those times, lack of photos etc, then Ireland may have been seen as being further away than the US is nowerdays. In Victorian times, it was thought wrong for the government to interfere in people's private lives. I imagine it was rather like US governance nowerdays - and we know that nothing was done to help the hurricane victims in the southern US.

I think it is a big mistake to judge those times by modern standards of prosperity, affluence, communications, governance, and so on.

Paddy.

Paddy, Paddy, Paddy... Of course "people also starved in England at the time"... Throughout the 19th century, there were food shortages all over the developing and the colonial world. You are, of course, correct to point out that "Victorian times were not 'prosperous' for the majority of people," but this should not divert our attention from the fact that, while British society was reaping great benefits from the toil of its working class, the Irish gained nothing from their serfdom.

I would argue that the more important thing to consider is what the English possessed and/or gained which the Irish did not: 1) an immensely powerful landed aristocracy; 2) a highly functional and quite stable polity; 3) a developing middle class; 4) global (and relatively cheap) access to a wide variety of natural resources; 5) responsiblity for the destruction of the local Irish polity; 6) military control over Irish society; 7) responsiblity for the development of Irish property relations; etc, etc.

While it is generally a good idea to believe that "it is a big mistake to judge those times by modern standards of prosperity, affluence, communications, governance, and so on," the simple and honest truth is that, only a couple of decades after the Irish Potato Famine, the British intelligensia of the 19th century were vociferously attacking a similar but foriegn form of colonialization: King Leopold II's exploitation of the Congo. While it is true that far, far more Congolese died, compare the projected per capita death toll with the projected per capita death toll of the Irish Potato Famine and Cromwell's period of colonialization. And then then tell me that it is not right to hold the British to their own standards. --(Mingus ah um 21:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

Mingus - you move between "England/English" and "Britain/British" as if they were the same. Please clarify as there are a fair few Scots and Welsh who will not thank you for referring to them as English. For good of for bad your description of "what the English possessed" also includes Scots and Welsh landowners and indeed some Irish as well. Also it should be noted that one of the senior figures of the "British intelligensia" criticing Leopold and his actions in the Congo was a British consul by the name of Roger Casement. A socialist view of the history of the period and the famine might argue that divisions were based more on social class than nationality - and technically all Irish people were "British" at the time. --mgaved 11:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy with Irish potato famine (legacy)

I've just noted that this article and Irish potato famine (legacy) are redundant (and indeed identical) to great extents. This duplication of text must be avoided, as the texts will be edited independently and diverge, causing duplication of effort, confusions etc. See WP:POVFORK. If no regular contributor volunteers to re-merge the articles, I reserve my right to do it myself (but probably very roughly). Sandstein 17:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have always assumed that it was considered good form on wiki to create new pages for sections which grow too large; if this is the case, then the Irish potato famine (legacy) page should certainly exist. I would be interested to hear what you (or anyone else interested in the subject) would like to see added and/or cut from both pages. --(Mingus ah um 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

laissez-faire?

I note that any mention of the term "laissez-faire" ie. the economic policy that was the root cause of England's 'devil may care' social policy, has been ommitted? Clever Tories, oh so clever. -Ste|vertigo 04:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of several major problems on this page. If you are (or if anyone else who is reading this is) interested in working on this, I will certainly join the project relatively soon (that is, as soon as work slows down and gives me a few hours off). --(Mingus ah um 20:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

You wouldn't know laissez-faire if Adam Smith rose from his grave and shoved it into your face.

Uhm, the roots of the problem lay not in laissez-faire but exactly in the state interventions which had attempt to enrich Anglicans and Englishmen at the expense of others. Nor is this a matter of Tory v Labour, but of old-fashioned Liberals v the lot of you. What this article desperately needs is the hand of a real economist. Unfortunately, it is far more likely to instead remain the mobocratic product of sociologists manques. —12.72.72.33 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(A bit late, but) I think your point be fair, and my flippant comment about "Tories" above, while intending to be humourous was... unnecessary. The aspect which you touch on is dealt with somewhat at Protestant Ascendancy, which strangely isnt linked to in this article. Is the "proper" focus on economics, religion, or just plain imperialism? Protestant, Anglican, Tory, Lazzeis-faire, English - Im forced to admit a certain unfamiliarity with the terms by which English influence in Ireland is/was generaly referred. Im sure theres some common pejorative though. -Ste|vertigo 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't know laissez-faire if Adam Smith rose from his grave and shoved it into your face.

Amusing, but probably beyond the bounds of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, what with dead rotting economists being shoved in people's faces and such. Dismal science indeed!

Atlant 17:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumably his soft tissues would be gone after two-and-a-quarter centuries in the churchyard. We'd be talking about indignant bones. —12.72.72.33 17:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You're all wrong, because Adam Smith wouldn't have risen from the grave in the first place, bcause he was a peaceful and loving man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.199.193.207 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

You're wrong. A proposition

If X then Y.

Is not falsified by

Not-X.

For example, that Billy would eat a unicorn if he could wouldn't be shown to be false by the non-existence of unicorns. (I will set aside whether Smith could, in fact, ever be sufficiently moved to shove laissez-faire in anyone's face if such could be done.) —SlamDiego 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Emigration Section

This section is both misleading and incomplete - yes it is quite true that the population of Ireland may have already slowed down its growth rate, and it is also true that not ALL of emigration was due to the famine in the strictest sence. However, it must be clear that a 5% growth rate is NOT a decline in total population despite being a decline in total growth. In addition, a major factor in the decreased growth rate was emigration, in part because of earlier famines, economic depression, and in many cases forced immigration such as evictions here mentioned, as well as punitive exile through various penal colony experiments. All of these things are intrinsicly related to the famine, for it is very important to note that there would not have been a famine if it weren't for the economic depression of the Irish. That is to say that there was food in Ireland but not for the consumption of the Irish, there was livestock and other agricultural produce. The reliance of the average Irish citizen on potatoes was due entirely to the economic and political climate at the time which turned a bad harvest year into a famine, and was also the cause of much of the previous emmigration over the 18th and 19th century.

It is therefore important to note these things that yes the population growth was slowing before the famine, but the cause of that decline is exactly the geo-political circumstances which allowed the famine to occur in the first place. To mention prior emigration as though it diminishes the effect of the famine on population rates is oversimplifying the case and ignoring the big picture, including the fact that the the famine itself sparked the mass emigration previously mentioned in the article in addition to the death toll.

- Side note on the death toll - The death toll during the famines can probably never be acurrately estimated. In addition to the comments about the inaccurracies blatant in the census, it is important to remember that a vast majority of the Irish population at the time, especially in more remote areas, did not speak English and did not have/attend any institutions - educational, religious, community or otherwise- and therefore would never even have participated in the census. Especially in the bog areas and in Western Ireland where English influence consisted of a handful of gentry over a hundred miles, the people in abject poverty with little or no contact with the "civilized" world in their entire lives. Many of these communities and towns simply disappeared after the famine, the mud structures melting back into what is now stunning landscapes and rolling hills. Therefore an accurate account of either population or the deathtoll is absolutely impossible to estimate, though it would be safe to say that it is significantly higher than estimates based on the official English census.

Exports to England

The authors fail to mention that a major contributing factor to the Potato famine was that a great portion of Ireland's other food crops, corn, wheat, etc. were being exported to England to feed the population there, leaving essentially ONLY Potatoes to feed Ireland.

Well, these are commercial crops. Obviously, for these food to be allocated to famine relief, the government must purchase it then give it away for free. Of course, the failiure for Russell government to do so is attributed as the main reason crop failiure was transformed to famine.. Idea that there are direct link to total quantity of food and famine has been debunked. Yes, the fact that food being shiped out from famine stricken area seems perverse in subsistent economy. It is not so in more commercialised society. Feel free to present this POV anyway. I hear it's a popular POV in ireland. Vapour

"The fact that food is being shiped (sic)out from a famine stricken area seems perverse in subsitent economy. It is not so in more (sic) commercialized society." ??! Are you kidding with that statment? In a "commercialized society" with no moral compass at all maybe, a society of sociopaths with no ability to see beyond their wallet maybe. I come from as commercialized a society as can be found and it not only seems perverse to me but clear evidence of genocide. While my feelings regarding genocide are certainly my POV there is no question, based on the records kept by the British themselves, that Ireland, throughout the famine was a net exporter of food to England. There was no problem with the Irish production of wheat, rye, beef, poultry, pork or fish. The Irish catholic population was a subsistance population and worked almost exclusively on barter, the Irish rarely had or used currency, so "selling" them food would work only to the extent that they had some small amount of coins or currency. Once whatever supply of money was gone they were intentionally left to die. In reading the article I was looking to see if it contained just the point requested by the initial question.. is there a mention that Ireland during the potato famine was a food rich country? The reason I was looking for this reference was that for many many years while I was aware that there had been a potato famine and that the English government had done little to nothing to alleviate the plight of the Irish, I had always thought that Ireland had little to no food at all. Just saying potato famine, while technically accurate, does not truly bring out the horror of the situation. My only current edit of the article was to add Mr. Gallagher's book, Paddy's Lament to the additional reading list. This is an excellent work on the subject, and extremely well documented from British records. As soon as I can find my copy again, I will be able to add additional detail to the article.

I have reviewed the entire discussion portion of this article and have noticed that the fact that food was consistantly exported from Ireland has come up on numerous occasions, as this fact is IMO extremely important in a basic understanding of the life of the Irish during this time, and is an undisputed historic fact, I feel that the main body of the article should contain this, possibly with some figures. I intend therefore to add a reference to this fact barring someone talking me out of it here in the discussion. This may take a little while as I have to hunt up the numbers and the relevant references.--Casement 05:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Such exports are often cited as evidence of deliberate genocide or a moral injustice. The fact is that in a free market economy, the farmers and traders had their own markets which they continued to supply within and outside Ireland. The starving Irish were a world away to them and as such the exporters were no more immoral than the multi-national companies and countries of today continuing to do business as normal when parts of the world are starving. In an ideal world, both situations should not happen, but neither are consious evils of the purpetrators. Ultimately the cultural nature and indifference of the British Government institutions and even, let's not forget, many wealthier Irish was the reason such a tradegy could occur. Dainamo 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

England raped & stole from Ireland (murdered too) as it did to other counties it took over. They didn't CARE about the Irish only about their Greed. If the Irish did 10% to the British what they did to us you would never hear the end of it. Culnacréann 09:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary section emigration

" ... much the same number of people emigrated to Great Britain, the United States, Canada, and Australia (see the Irish Diaspora)." All of Ireland was part of Great Britain in 1845; and so "Great Britain" needs changed. Maybe to England, Scotland, and Wales. Jon 15:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ireland was never part of the island that is Great Britain, at least not since the Ice Age.-- PD 20:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Potato consumption

"Some paleo-nutritionists estimate that potato consumption before the famine averaged an astonishing 6.3 kg (14 pounds) per day per adult."

This number may be somewhat exagerrated. Even assuming that it's physically possible to eat 6.3 kg of potatoes every day, 14 pounds of potatoes contain in excess of 5000 calories. That's is a reasonable caloric intake for a medieval peasant involved in hard physical labor all day, but not for an Irish peasant. As the article says, potatoes grow essentially by themselves, no labor needed.

This article mentions 9 pounds a day, which is still large but more realistic. --Itinerant1 22:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

historian Peter Gray claims 11 pounds of potatoes for men and less for women and children. Sure seems like a lot, but as the comment below mentions, they are a lot of work, and lots of work needs lots of calories. Also, I wouldn't think that the average irishman in the 1840s knew anything about calories or proper nutrition in the first place. The Irish Famine. New York: Abrams, 1995. p. 32.------

I wouldn't say potatoes grow by themselves. I am from an irish family and we grew potatoes every year, about 1/2 acre and they require a fair bit of work, cutting the seed potatoes and planting, hilling, weeding (which takes forever) and harvesting. My mother told us her great-grandmother had to work all day on the Landowers farm and only at evening worked on thier plot. --JWPhil

May be worth noting that growing potatoes was not the only occupation of the peasant. They also had to work hard to grow a whole range of other foods which were sold to pay rents and ultimately exported to Britain. mrp07

Brigid O Donnell?

How do we know the woman in that very well known picture was called that? Up until this article I had thought her to be an anonymous peasant. El Gringo 23:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an illustration to a story about her plight from the Illustrated London News, 22 December 1849. Paul B 12:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Chronological order needed

The "Response of United Kingdom Government" section needs to be placed in a more chronological order; currently it seems to jump around a bit... AnonMoos 20:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Bias

This article is pretty bias

The statement "Dr. Kinealy's research proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there was sufficient food in Ireland to prevent mass starvation" is absolutely outrageous. It doesn't prove that there was sufficient food in Ireland to prevent starvation. I have included a piece by Austin Bourke who wrote on the matter. He debunks this myth and I'm sure other historians have aswell.

--Liam123 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is bias. Throughout the terms English and British are used interchangeably. It is common, when the atrocities of the British Empire are being discussed, for the Scots, Welsh and Irish to hide behind the skirts of the English. That is what is happening in this article. Either the references to the "England", "the English" (unless the English are the sole people being discussed) etc are changed or this is just propaganda.

Agree. Parts of the article should be completely re-written, the term 'English' as a people in reference to these disasters is used in the wrong context, it wasn't the 'English' in it's form - do you think my English ancestors were land-owners? aye, because the entire English populous was ofcourse the rich upper-class, right? What a laugh. gazh 12:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Inadequate History

This article seems to assume a previous knowledge of the Famine. Nowhere in the article is there a straightfoward account of what happened 1845-49. Colin4C 20:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

For instance there is no mention anywhere here of the 1848 rebellion in Ireland sparked off by the Famine. Colin4C 19:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Poor Article

I came to this article to read more about the potato famine in Ireland, and left having read little more than good old fashioned Brit-bash and having to look elsewhere on the web for better information. I found myself sorely tempted to whack a {{neutrality}} tag at the top. Aside from neutrality, the article lacks structure, cited sources, and detail. The agrigultural disease which actually caused the famine is mentioned in the lead-paragraph but nowhere else. The "genocide" section is a rediculous first section, especially as it basically says that all historians (except one) don't for a second think it was a genocide! It's disapointing that such an important historical event has such a poor Wiki article. Elysium 73 16:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Those are the same problems I found with the article.--24.57.157.81 20:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Very poorly layed out. It covered some of the more detailed points too quickly. Although the introduction mentioned the next exportation of potatoes to Britain, the next section immediately alleges that the whole thing is a genocide, without linking to this. The whole structure needs to be rethought. Stormx2 00:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Famine is a political and economic term, not principally an issue of "agricultural disease". While this article needs work, the topics within are appropriate for discussion. attempting to explain the politial and economic causes for this famine. Shoreranger 20:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

When the article says almost nothing about the actual mold that actually caused the famine, it's a load of worthless propaganda. Here's an idea for an encyclopedia article - tell the reader about the subject! The article fails at its only purpose. 129.171.233.29 16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a basic chronology of the Famine, telling us year by year what actually happened and how people and the authorities and writers etc reacted to events as they occured. As it stands its like a history of WW2 which fails to mention any of the battles.... Colin4C 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The page contain internal contradictions concerning how many people actually lived in Ireland during the time period discussed. The comment that Ireland was a net exporter of food during the famine is debunked elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. The term "Protestant" is used ambiguously; one paragraph indicates that Presbyterians were discriminated against elsewhere it implies that only Catholics were discriminated against. (This could be solved by replacing "Protestant" with "Anglican" where appropriate.

This may be petty but why no mention of Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal? There's little mention of dispute within England concerning the response to the Famine.David Cheater 07:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving the "Suggestions of Genocide" section further down the article as this section is more of a discussion about the event that recording details of the event itself. It seemed to me more appropriate to decribe the event first before entering into discussion about it. From reading previous talk: sections it looks like the genocide section was moved to lower down and somebody has moved it up again. It's a terrible historical fact and I know it's highly emotional but I think we help readers by giving them the facts before entering into discussion. --mgaved 11:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • I find it unfortunate that is seems nationalist feelings are clouding the obvious facts of the British response to the potato famine. People complain of the article being a "brit bash" which I will grant, but at the same time it seems that many are unwilling to accept the fact that the british response, or lack thereof, to the famine actually made conditions worse. There is absolutely no way that Britain is not somehow responsible, not entirely responsible, for the extent of the suffering in Ireland. It is impossible to say that the British caused the famine, or that their introduction of the potato should have been foreseen as being potentially disastrous, and it is also impossible to blame the Irish for being so heavily dependent on the potato. Some radical Irish nationalist historians relate the disaster to being a genocide, but that is silliness. The thesis for this argument is that British ethnic hatred of the Irish colored their absolute responsibility for the Irish, who were supposedly part of the United Kingdom (while unrepresented in parliament since Catholics could not serve in the House of Commons), and their academic excuse for the racism, that giving things to the needy created a dependent relationship, had disastrous effect that prohibited governmental relief programs and contributed to skyrocketing deaths. - Brendan Mac Suibhne

Confusion between "England" and "Britain"

In the section "Suggestions of genocide" , the current article drifts between "Britain/British" and "England/English" as if the two terms were interchangeable. This is wrong, and the section needs to be cleaned up. This section is referring mainly to political rule- in which case reference should be made to the "British Government" perhaps? rather "English rule" which suggests a point of view and is incorrect, given that the British Government included policy makers from Scotland, Wales, and Ireland as well as England. --mgaved 11:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I sympathise with the sentiment of this comment, not least because today "English" refers to a people rather than a polity, and its tempting to agree. However, I cannot imagine anyone who edits here not knowing the difference between England/Britain/UK etc. so I doubt greatly that the two words could be confused through ignorance. Rather, in the context of Irish history, the terms are more-often-than-not quite interchangable.

A discussion the history of "British" rule in Ireland would be a rather short and limited one. To begin with we simply cannot talk about "British" rule for the first half-millenium of the era we would would mean since "British" didn't exist. But, even after 1707, can we seriously talk about a shift to "British" rather than "English" rule? Until 1801, the Cross of St. George continued to flutter over Dublin Castle (Ireland didn't have a flag until the 1801 Union). A century and half later, in 1953, it was still the Cross of St. George that was chosen to represented "British"-ruled Ireland, with the Red Hand of Ulster at its centre, as the flag of Northern Ireland. The ruling classes in Ireland during the period of the famine were the Anglo-Irish. In 1919, we have the Anglo-Irish War, followed in 1921 by the Anglo-Irish Treaty (despite "British" negeotations being led by a Welsh nationalist). Still, in 1985 we have the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Its not until the Blair era that we have a British-Irish Agreement.

In any case, I've taken a look through the article (the current one and the one as of the date you posted here) and cannot find any imporper use of the term "English". I've listed all of the references below:

• "... the plantation of Ulster fundamentally established an English Protestant presence in Ireland." Prior to 1707, no such thing as 'British'. The 'presence' referred to is specifically 'English' and 'protestant.'
• "... mostly Protestant, English, and often non-resident, or 'absentee', landlords." English is the simple sense, i.e. English, not Scottish, Irish or Welsh
• "English control lasted until Irish independence — the Irish Free State, the Irish War of Independence and the Anglo-Irish Treaty." English control begins in 1171, nominally British after 1707, but continued to be effectively English, as reflected in contemporty name of treaty of secession.
• "The Irish Poor Laws were even harsher on the poor than their English counterparts ..." English in the simple sense, referring the the juristiction of England.
• "From their perspective the economic, class, and social systems that Britain instituted exceedingly favored the English over the Irish ..." Referring to the opinions of others who specifically indicate "English" rather than "British".
• Section about "Food exports to England" uses England in the simple sense, referring specifically to the place.

All references to the government of the day refer specifically to a "British" government. --sony-youth 08:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Added book list

Added books by Young Ireland which are relevant to this period in history. These books would be considered “Primary Sources,” and are referenced by a number of writers on the period. --Domer48 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed unreferenced material

Removing unreferenced Material, and replacing it with unreference material is very unproductive. It would help improve the Article all-round, if contributions were sourced and reference.--Domer48 08:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Placing Tags

Placing POV tags on one section of an article, and adding unreferenced material is in no way improving the article. All sources must be referenced! All the more so when the article is disputed. Regards--Domer48 17:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Biological "Causes"

What caused the Irish Famine? While all agree, that the potato blight was a significant factor, the fact the country still produced and exported large quantities of food stuff’s would naturally mean that there were a additional of causes. So it most definitely dose not mean only the biological causes. While I advocate that all material added must be referenced, I do not consider replacing it with unreferenced sources as acceptable. --Domer48 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A more inclusive section is warrented IMO. I've put together the "Cause" paragraph along with several other factors that were recently deleted under, apparently, because they were not "causes" per se. Let's see if the new title "Causes and Contributors" helps assuage the sensibilities of the more literally minded.... Geeman 17:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A useful and practical solution. The only problem I would have is that one would think that the main cause was the potato blight. The were quite a number of deaths from hunger before 1840, and this should not be lost sight of. If I might suggest, that the blight and its description be placed under a separate heading, such as its common name with its scientific name along side it in brackets. Regards --Domer48 19:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that'd be the best way to go. At present there's only one paragraph on the blight itself, though, so giving it a whole section might look a little awkward. More detail would be appropriate and help deal with this issue. As time permits, I guess.... Geeman 20:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Some recent changes have not been to the points. Needs a relook. Causes? Well, Penal Laws , Act of Union, Racial hatred, as documented in Victorian England , Punch etc, plus a few more. Ireland was still exporting food, so political attitudes too. Not really flax. Gold♣heart 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Using a Book as a Header

The inclusion of a book review as a header to the article on the Irish Famine is extremely inappropriate. This becomes especially erroneous, when the book in question itself is heavily biased. To illustrate this point I would refer editors to a letter written by Colm Toibin, in the London Review Of Books, Vol. 23, No.23, 21.11.01. Responding to Oxford academic Mary Beard (LRB, 4.10.01) who had asked in response to the events of 11th September for a more “nuanced” response, Toibin wrote, “Over the past twenty five years in Ireland I have made a point of asking anyone who went to school with members of the IRA, the INLA, the UDA and the UVF what these people were like at the age of ten. All have agreed that each child displayed a nasty early sign of terrorism long before he had a “cause”. One of them spoke for many others when he described his schoolmate, the embryonic terrorist, as “a resentful little cunt”. Had a cause not come their way, these people would have beaten their dogs or their wives and children, attacked one another at hurling matches or taken out their resentment on a long back garden.” And this the work of an unbiased writer of Irish history, I hardly think so! This book should be placed in the additional reading list, and not be given any more prominence then the rest of the book written on the subject. --Domer48 17:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be my opinion, that books relating to an article should be included in the Reading List, or Additional Reading List. This I might add, is regardless of the POV of the author. To place a book, with a clearly illustrated bias as a header, is a form of POV which, should it go unchecked could well leave Articles being relegated behind the reviews. For example, I could do reviews on books which I found interesting, and regardless of the bias or otherwise of the author, I could then place it at the top of any article relevant to the subject. I could push and peddle any bias I wished under the guise of a review. Is this the road we wish to go down? I do not believe it is. The Article has primacy on the page, and the discussion page is the forum to discuss and debate the contents. --Domer48 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't with labelling Toibín and Ferriter's book as the definitive, or best book on the Famine. Far from it, actually. It is a simple formatting issue. You see, The Irish Famine redirects here, to Irish Potato Famine. As the book is called The Irish Famine, there should be a header at the top of the article (as is seen in thousands of other articles) specifying that this is the article about the famine, and if you want to view the article about the book, see . The wording could be tweaked to better illustrate this, i.e. The Irish Famine redirects here. For the book of the same name, please see The Irish Famine (book). gaillimh 18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees