Talk:Great Famine (Ireland): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:18, 17 May 2007 editDomer48 (talk \| contribs)16,098 edits Using a Book as a Header← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:52, 3 January 2025 edit undoLittlemisssunshine22 (talk \| contribs)322 edits →Removal: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	{{Irelandproj\|class=B\|importance=}}
			{{Talk header\|search=no\|noarchives=yes}}
	{{failedGA}}
			{{Troubles restriction}}
			{{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
	''An event mentioned in this article is a ]''
			\|action2date=20:04, 26 September 2008
	----
			\|action2link=Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/GA1
			\|action2result=not listed
			\|action2oldid=240766470

			\|currentstatus=FGAN
	Past entries in this famous discussion are archived in:
			\|otd1date=2004-06-27\|otd1oldid=5183762
			\|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 ==
	]
	, ]
	, ]
	, ]
	, ]
	, ]
	, ]
	, ]
	, ]
	, ]...

			These edits added the claim.
	== 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 ] 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? ]

			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=887787383
	: 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 ] and reduced the native population to a status little higher than ]. 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. --(] 21:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

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

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

			== "genocide" ==
	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. ]

			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:
	==Fail GA==

			''"It is quite clear '''that few but not no historians see genocide as a key factor''', but how this is presented can be explored.."''''
	I have removed this article from ] because:

			So, expanding on this point, let's revisit two of the rules we're expected to honor when we edit this encyclopedia:
	#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.
	#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. ] 18:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

			* An acknowledgement that Misplaced Pages is a '''mainstream encyclopedia''', and not a laboratory for testing novel ideas.
	: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. ] ] 15:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

			* That it is not enough to demonstrate that '''some minority ''' of scholars hold a view, but rather that the minority view is significant.
	==Re: The ''Famine'' Section==

			Now let's look at how the source in question opens the chapter:
	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. --(] 02:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

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

			So, the first sentence in this chapter acknowledges that the theory is not just rejected by academics, but "categorically" so.
	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. ] 09:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

			Another source I'd add is Mark McGowan's piece in the journal Genocide Studies International:
	== People also starving in england at the time ==

			''"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."''
	"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."

			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.
	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.

			Discuss. ] (]) 21:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
	I think it is a big mistake to judge those times by modern standards of prosperity, affluence, communications, governance, and so on.
			*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 ==
	Paddy.
			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 ==
	: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.

			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)
	: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 ] ]; 2) a highly functional and quite stable ]; 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.

			: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)
	: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 ]'s exploitation of the ]. 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. --(] 21:38, 9 June 2006 (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)
	:: 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. --] 11:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

			== Removal ==
	== Redundancy with ] ==

			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've just noted that this article and ] 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 ]. If no regular contributor volunteers to re-merge the articles, I reserve my right to do it myself (but probably very roughly). ] 17:50, 29 May 2006 (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 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 ] 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. --(] 20:58, 9 June 2006 (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)
	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. -]\|] 04:22, 9 June 2006 (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)
	: 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). --(] 20:54, 9 June 2006 (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 wouldn't know ''laissez-faire'' if Adam Smith rose from his grave and shoved it into your face.===
			:::::::You've removed the three Mitchel references wholesale? ] (]) 12:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	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''. —] 17:41, 27 June 2006 (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)
	:::(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 ], 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. -]\|] 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 ] and ], what with dead rotting economists being shoved in people's faces and such. Dismal science indeed!

	:] 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. —] 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:15:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)\| 15:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)\|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

	:::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.) —] 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. ]

	"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.--] 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. ] 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. ] {{flagicon\|Ireland}} 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. ] 15:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Ireland was never part of the island that is ], at least not since the Ice Age.-- ] 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.

	mentions 9 pounds a day, which is still large but more realistic. --] 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. --]

	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. ] 23:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

	:It's an illustration to a story about her plight from the ], 22 December 1849. ] 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... ] 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.


	--] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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 {{tl\|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. ] 16:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

	:Agreed. Those are the same problems I found with the article.--] 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. ] 00:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

	:] 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. ] 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. ] 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.... ] 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.] 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. --] 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. --] 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 <u>Anglo</u>-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. --]<sup>]</sup> 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. --] 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.--] 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--] 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. --] 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.... ] 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 --] 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.... ] 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. ] 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. --] 17:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:52, 3 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)

Categories: