Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Additional Info

I have seen an article (SciAm?) that expands the current statement "was exacerbated by a host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate.[8][9]" Including the study findings of economists on the impacts of panic / hording would add much to the historical value of the piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.167.7 (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the Lead, the broader details are in the article. I will beging to expand the sections over the coming days. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You have completely reworked and reworded the lead, against concensus, describing the Great Famine as a 'highly contentious period' rather as er...a famine...Please discuss rationale of controversial massive changes and deletions in the article here.

Previous version of intro:

The Great Famine (Irish: An Gorta Mór or Irish: An Drochshaol), also known as the Irish Potato Famine and the Great Hunger was a famine in Ireland which started in 1845, lasted – depending on the region – until 1849 or even 1852 and which led to the death of approximately one million people through starvation and disease; a further million are thought to have emigrated as a result of the famine. Some scholars estimate that the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent. All of this occurred while taxes, rents, and food exports were being collected and sent to British landlords, in an amount surpassing £6 million.

The proximate cause of the famine was a potato disease commonly known as late blight. Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland – where a third of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food – was exacerbated by a host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate.

Colin4C (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link / diff to consensus. The word "famine" is highly contentious, as a reading of the article indicates. Please explain why you removed an image I placed in the lead section? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Domer's version:

The Great Famine (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life) is a highly contentious period [2] of history between 1845 and 1852 during which the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent. The proximate cause of the famine was a potato disease commonly known as late blight. Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland – where a third of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food – was exacerbated by a host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate.

Please explain why you completely reworded and changed the meaning of the first paragraph and deleted the referenced second paragraph, against concensus? And why did you call these massive changes a 'clean-up'? Colin4C (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Colin4C (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And why did you delete the referenced info about the number of deaths and the number of those who emigrated?:

"and which led to the death of approximately one million people through starvation and disease; a further million are thought to have emigrated as a result of the famine.[5]"

Colin4C (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the image, but not your massive changes and deletions of referenced material. Colin4C (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No one died in 1845, so was it the start of the “famine” or the start of the blight? The blight had ended by 1852, but people still were dieing, dose it mark the end of the blight or the “famine.” All the figures on deaths and emigration are disputed and should be dealt with in the article. Please reference 1849 as the end of the blight/famine or remove it. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Circa one million dead and one million emigrated is the number given in the reference. Many reliable sources give this figure, which is consonant with the census figures. Please provide references which give a different number or cast doubt on this figure. Note that fringe theories are not acceptible on the wikipedia. The references given (Kinealy, Woodham-Smith and Ross say that the Famine started and finished on the dates shown. Please provide alternative references that say differently. Colin4C (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The census figures are the most disputed figure in the article, please read it again. Now please answer the question, what started in 1845? Was it a) the blight or b) the famine? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My opinions do not matter. On the wikipedia we are not allowed to indulge in original research. According to the refs given (Kinealy, Woodham-Smith and Ross) the Famine started in 1845. Please provide refs giving alternative dates. Colin4C (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, according to the wikipedia: "A famine is a widespread shortage of food that may apply to any faunal species, which phenomenon is usually accompanied by regional malnutrition, starvation, epidemic, and increased mortality." Colin4C (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Kinealy and Woodham-Smith and numerous others all say the blight started in 1845. So please change it to reflect sources, or shall I. Wiki can not be used as a source by the way. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Note the titles and dates of their books:

• Cecil Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845–1849
• Christine Kinealy, This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52 Colin4C (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No. They are book titles, again, both Kinealy and Woodham-Smith in their books say the blight started in 1845. No do you want to change the text to reflect the sources or shall I. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If the Famine started in 1846, why do Kinealy and Woodham Smith say that it started in 1845? Please provide ref which states that the Famine started in another year. Colin4C (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have, Kinealy and Woodham-Smith to name just two. Now another example, Gearóid Ó Tuathaigh his book titled Ireland Before The Famine 1798 - 1848. Now we would not use that book title as a reference would we? Like you have above, because on page 181 he says the blight arrived in 1845 he also says on page 182 that there was still substantial crop failures in 1850 so 1849 was not the end of the blight? So again, the lead will have to be changed to reflect the sources. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ross says (on page 311):

"1845

• Potato blight crosses the Atlantic and appears in England. It crosses to Wexford and Waterford (first newspaper report, 9 September). Half the annual potato harvest is ruined (November). The Great Famine begins".

Please provide a source and a quote which states that the Great Famine (which is the title of this article) started in any other year. On what page do Kinealy and Woodham-Smith state that the Great Famine started in 1846? I have Woodham-Smith so can check her statement.Colin4C (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Woodham-Smith page 40, Kinealy page xxiii and 6 arrival of the blight. No deaths in 1845 so no "famine." Now we will not be using Ross as a source, and I intend to remove all references to him. There are plenty of book on the subject, we don’t need one which is simply a series of bullet points. I don't need to provide a reference to the title of this article. The period in question is from 1845 to 1852 which is the last recorded instance of blight and deaths as a result of same.

So getting back to the point in hand, this is (1845 to 1852) a 'highly contentious period' in Irish history during which the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent. This is supported by references, and also by the text in the article. Any and all figures on death and emigration are disputed, I should know I added most of them to the article, and dealt with in detail in the article. Unless you have some other sourced based reasons? I will address the issues or if you wish to please do. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ross is a perfectly valid ref, according to wikipedia guidelines, therefore we will be using him. Also please provide requested refs and quote which state that the Great Famine started in 1846. Woodham-Smith doesn't say so on page 40. Colin4C (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Great Famine is the name of the article, now provide a reference that says that the blight did not start in 1845, or one that says that the first deaths were in 1845. No Ross is not an acceptable source when compared to the body of books on the subject who are devoted to the one subject dealing in hundreds of pages compared to one which deals with the whole period in 4. Like you said yourself "fringe theories are not acceptible on the wikipedia" especially ones which offer absolutely no real theory or analysis of the subject. How could he do in 4 pages what Kinealy and Woodham-Smith for example did in 462 and 510 respectively? Now if you have no other objections, I going to move on with improving the article. I will introduce the changes outlined, however if you wish to seek WP:3 please do so. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)With respect, allow me to attempt to add a little perspective. When people talk about "The Great Famine", it is a term that refers to a period of time. The period of time has a name. A bit like "The Great Depression" or "The Celtic Tiger". It doesn't necessarily mean that the words are to be taken literally. From this perspective, the "period of time" referred to as "The Great Famine" doesn't need to refer explicitly to the from-to dates relating to starvation, but may also refer to dates and occurrences leading up to starvation, and the aftermath, etc. HighKing (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you HighKing my point exactly, only better put. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the arguments above that propose "a highly contentious period of time" do not move me at all. This is not for reasons of politics, but simply because it seems to be very, very bad writing. For one thing, you can't have a reference that links to another part of the article as your citation. More importantly, the second sentence starts "the proximate cause of the famine". It is simply confusing to the reader, bad writing, and gives the impression of carry water for some other point entirely, though I don't know what that is. Hiro Antagonist (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Compleatly unsourced changes. The references do not support the text. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the WP:LEAD of an article is supposed to summarize the contents of the article as a whole. If items are sourced in the body of the article, it is unnecessary, and even ill-advised, to provide separate citation there. In short, you are incorrect. Hiro Antagonist (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The information is not supported by the references, nor the body of the article. Please provide direct quotes from the sources you cite to support the inclusion of the proposed text. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to state precisely what "information" you feel is unsupported, and I will supply references. Hiro Antagonist (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a direct quote from Ross which supports "is the most commonly used of several terms describing the period from 1845."--Domer48_'fenian' 20:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's Ross? And why do you need a citation from him, rather than someone else? I can certainly amend to say "one of several terms", but you seem to be being belligerent, rather than collegial. Is the issue that you think something other than "Great Famine" should be used. I don't care about that, it is the "highly contentious period" BS that I find objectionable. It's poor writing and gobbledygook. Hiro Antagonist (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally when you reference an author, you would know who they are? The lead is correctly sourced according to our policies of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Any objections should be policy based. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So, you are feeling rather warmer towards Ross than your previous statements may have indicated? Glad you have come round to my point of view. Colin4C (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Highly Contentious

Oh brother. I seem to have walked into a minefield here. After perusing this talkpage and archive, I now see that this "highly contentious" versus "famine" argument has been going on for months, if not years. Can someone provide a synopsis of the underlying argument? If seems totally absurd to a newcomer. To me, the Great Famine / Great Hunger / Irish Potato Famine or whatever was just that -- a famine, that occurred during a certain period of time, not a period of time that just happened to contain a famine. I can't see any reasonable justification for the latter point of view. I have more than a passing familiarity with issues of Irish nationalism, and this one is new to me, so an explanation would be lovely. Hiro Antagonist (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Citations are a good idea. I am glad we have 152 of them. Colin4C (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead Section duex

Colin4C could you please provide quotes from the books by Christine Kinealy, Cecil Woodham-Smith and David Ross which supports the text in the first paragraph of the Lead.

As you are aware, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article.

When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.--Domer48_'fenian' 22:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So if I ask you to quote the bit where you allege that Woodham-Smith says that the Great Famine started in 1846, you are willing to oblige? Colin4C (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Now you have restored material, and I've ask you to provide direct quotes from the source and requested that you provide them as a courtesy to substantiate the reference. Could you please do that now thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There should be little call for references in the lead. It is not a mini-article, or a section, it is a summary of what the rest of the article says as explained in WP:LEAD. The content of the lead pretty much writes itself if the rest of the article is done properly. Now, as far as the references go, these should include page numbers. The person writing the article presumably has the book in front of them, so it is no effort at all to add the page number. And even to quote relevant extracts, although not excessively, if necessary. The same is not true of the reader. So please add page numbers to references. Then there will be no need to be asking for them after the event. And when you have questions about the text, do ask politely and don't badger. However, if asked to give page numbers, or to explain the reading of a source, Domer48 is quite right in identifying where the burden of proof lies.

We've been through this before. Everyone should know what's expected. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Angus for your timely intervention, it should help prompt things to move on. You are quite right about the, Lead there should be little call for references. However, as the Lead is not supported by either the Article or the references, I’ve asked for the clarification.

Salient points.

• The blight arrived in 1845, not the famine. No deaths recorded in 1845 due to starvation or related diseases. (cite: Cormac Ó Gráda, and Christine Kinealy)
• The last recorded instances of blight in this period, was 1852. (cite: Christine Kinealy)
• Blight was only one of the proximate causes of the famine. (cite: Cormac Ó Gráda, and Christine Kinealy)
• 1845 – 1852 is one of the most contentious periods in Irish history. (cite: Cormac Ó Gráda, and Christine Kinealy).

Note: sources can be supplemented with additional ones.

Therefore, I’ve explained to Colin4C when there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference. With you intervention Angus, Colin4C will respond in a positive way, allowing us to move on with improving the article.--Domer48_'fenian' 09:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the reference given (Ross) the Great Famine began in 1845: I quote this from page 311 of Ross:

"1845

• Potato blight crosses the Atlantic and appears in England. It crosses to Wexford and Waterford (first newspaper report, 9 September). Half the annual potato harvest is ruined (November). The Great Famine begins".

Please provide quotes stating that the Great Famine started in 1846. Colin4C (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that Colin4C. On Salient points above, point one. The blight arrived in 1845, not the Great Famine. Now as has been pointed out in the past, Ross’s is a general history devoting 4 pages to the subject. Academics, like those above, have devoted entire volumes. You might be interested to read WP:WEIGHT, and as you have said yourself, "fringe theories are not acceptable on the wikipedia" and to compare Ross to the above academics, would be like comparing “A Pocket History” to Encyclopædia Britannica. Please point to a source in the article which supports Ross? --Domer48_'fenian' 09:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any quotes supporting your view that the Great Famine started in 1846. Please do so. Colin4C (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C as you are aware, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I have said that the blight started in 1845, not the famine, and I have supported it already as you know. Could you please address the points I've raised, and the questions I posed, and lets move this discussion forward. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 10:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So, by this logic, any editor who deletes large chunks of this article, as you did by your edit of 17:45, 2 November 2008, can require the editor who restores the material to provide quotes for all the referenced material so deleted, be it one page, two pages or a hundred pages? Each separate restoration of deleted material can be presented with a request to provide quotes for all the references given? Such gaming the system is not in the interests of the wikipedia. Colin4C (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C as you are aware, I gave a rational for my edits, however you have not. Now please address the points I have raised above. To answer your question though, yes. If you restore information, you must provide a rational, and yes the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Now in the case of unexplained revisions including removing large chunks of text, can be reverted as per blanking or vandalism. I hopr that helps. So if you would please, address the points I've raised, and the questions I posed. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 10:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So if an editor restored a deleted a paragraph containing 10 references from 10 different books, with each citation referring to 3 pages of text, then the editor who deleted it can require the editor who restored it to quote all the texts from all the references? This operation can be continued indefinately until the restoring editor is beaten into the ground by having to devote four hours a day in quoting references from hard to find books which he has to buy or get from inter-library loans? Meanwhile the deleting editor does nothing. I may be wrong but this procedure seems to me very like gaming the system. Maybe an admin would like to comment on whether it is acceptible to do this? Colin4C (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have explained this already, however I will try again. If an editor removes vast amounts of referenced text, they would have to provide a rational for this edit. If no rational is offered, any editor can come along and restore it without having to explain the revert. The burden of evidence would not be on the editor who restores an unexplained removal.

In this case however, I’ve provided a rational. Now you can do one of two things in a situation as far as I know, first of you can discuss the change on the talk page, and ask me to expand / explain (back it up) further my rational, or you can restore the information offering your own rational. However if the information is challenged the burden of evidence moves to the editor who has restored it. That is my understanding of it in anyway?

So could we please move on with building the article. Please assume good faith, and address the points I raised above. Please provide the quotes, which support the text you restored, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 19:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Let me change the subject, slightly. I have no idea why half of the sources which are listed are being used. I can understand, even if I don't agree with it because I have read The Reason Why, why Woodham-Smith is there. But Ross? The Urises? Rifkin? And so on. So far as Ross is concerned, I have never heard of his work. I would have thought that Foster's Oxford History of Ireland or Moody & Martin's Course of Irish History would be the obvious choices for a single-volume history of Ireland to use for broad context. The Oxford book should be very widely available, the Moody & Martin one maybe not so easy for editors furth of Ireland to get hold of.

So far as books on the famine proper go, Woodham-Smith and Kinealy should be easy enough to find in libraries or second-hand book shops. The O'Grada book on the famine looks like serious business, and Donnelly's history for Sutton looks promising. He wrote the relevant bits of Ireland under the Union, which seems like a major recommendation to me. If I were buying one book on the famine, unseen, and that would be one more than I have, I think I'd be tempted to go with Donnelly over Kinealy by a nose.

Anyway, my book-buying habits are not directly relevant. What is relevant is that you both, or if we take a longer view, you all, need to stop faffing around. You'll only make real progress by coming up with a plan, a plan that any interested editor would find acceptable, for improving the article. Like I already said, the lead should write itself almost. You should be concentrating on the body of the article, fixing up the references, removing the cruft, adding more reliably-sourced opinions on the matter. There is a shit load of stuff has been written about this. There is no reason to be using Victorian antiquarian tat, random websites, or the like. Nor is there any reason to be complaining when asked to substantiate the claims in the article, although, for argument's sake, were you to ask for quotes from Woodham-Smith, that would tend towards being bloody-minded in my view. It is only reasonable to expect that all editors will some effort to verify sources themselves. And we're all reasonable people, right?

So, does it matter when the famine started? I can't see it myself. Arguments over obscure points which seem irrelevant make me doubt the possibility of progress. Should I come to believe that editor X is an obstacle to progress on this article, editor X will not be editing it. So make me feel warm and fuzzy and convinced of the great progress to come by telling me how you plan to make this a featured article. To my mind, an article which meets WP:NPOV and WP:V only needs brilliant prose added to meet the requirements of a featured article. So, to put it another way, how is this article going to be brought into line with the neutral point of view and verifiability policies? And how does quibbling over the lead help to achieve that? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Angus you posed a question, dose it matter when the famine started? I’d say it dose, for a number of reasons, for one, this is an encyclopaedia and we strive for accuracy. Put another way, dose it matter that we know at 8:46 a.m., American Airlines Flight 11 was flown into the World Trade Centre’s North Tower, or that United Airlines Flight 175 which hit the South Tower at 9:03 a.m? What about the 28 June 1914, when Gavrilo Princip, shot and killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Dose it matter that we know on the 7 August, French and British troops invaded Togoland or that on the 10 August German forces in South-West Africa attacked South Africa. So dose it matter when the famine started, of course it dose, and don’t you agree?

When did the “famine” start? According to Cormac Ó Gráda (Ireland’s Great Famine: Interdisciplinary Prespectives, pg. 9) “The first attack of potato blight inflicted considerable hardship on rural Ireland, though no significant excess mortality. The catastrophe of the Great Irish Famine really dates from the autumn of 1846, when the first deaths from starvation were recorded.” This is a view shared by Christine Kinealy (This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52 pg.xxiii), who asks the question “can it be labelled a famine if there are no deaths? James S. Donnelly (The Great Irish Potato Famine, page 57) writes “Under blackened stalks and leaves the tubers lay completely rotten or were as small as marbles; fields affected by the blight gave off an intolerable stench. With these sights and smells in the summer of 1846, the great famine began.” Líam Kennedy, Paul S. Ell, E. M. Crawford & L. A. Clarkson (Mapping The Great Irish Famine pg.36) discuss Joel Mokyr’s estimates of deaths the best know at a county level, over the course of the famine. The dates used by Mokyr are from 1846-51. In addition to this we have Cecil Woodham-Smith, (The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849, pg. 71) who quoting Routh one of the five commissioners appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant as saying, throughout these months, [Spring 1846] as famine was “steadily and gradually approaching” evictions were reported weekly.

Based on the above noted authors in their field, I would suggest that the famine began in 1846. I would also suggest, based again on the above authors, that the blight arrived in Ireland in September 1845. Would you not agree?

In the above ongoing discussion, have I explained our policy correctly? If not could you possibly lend your opinions? If you would like my views on the books you have mentioned above, please let me know, I’d be more than willing to help.

Having addressed the Lead, it is my intension to go through each of the sections one at a time, starting with “Migration of blight to Ireland” building and expanding them as I go along. I will also address the sources you have raised, as no notable and replace them with more accredited authors. Any and all information unreferenced, I will attempt to reference. Any information I’m unable to reference I will place on the talk page and ask for assistance and advice. Having completed this, I will ask for a review and respond to the advice offered. I would then, with the assistance of interested editors attempt to have the good article status restored. That is roughly the short, medium and long term goals I would like to achieve. Obviously any and all advice and support you can offer would be welcome. On a final note, Colin4C has indicated that they have a copy of Woodham-Smith, and I agree with you that to ask for quotes from Woodham-Smith, that would tend towards being bloody-minded if they did not have a copy. I hope I have responded in a detailed way to your comments and questions. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I can only bore you by repeating what I said. When do you say the famine starts in the lead? You say it starts whenever the chronology section, the bit that gets referenced, says it does. When you've finished writing the main article, you can round up a brilliant prose expert from somewhere and get them to write the lead for you. Why keep a dog and bark yourself?

I hope you'll be adding any of these references that aren't there already to the article because they're not very much use here. And if you're sitting on copies of O'Grada, Kinealy and Donnelly, it would make a great deal of sense to go through the article looking for poor quality references and replace them with whatever it is that O'Grada, Kinealy and Donnelly say. With three references you'll be on pretty solid ground, and sure that you're not just getting one side of the story. The fact that you're more than capable of doing that, because you have both the research materials and the skills needed, and instead are ending up by wasting your time on the trivia, is rather disappointing. There is nothing would make me happier than being able to vote for this article at WP:FAC in good conscience. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have referenced material which states unequivocally that Peel was responding to famine conditions in 1845 and that he took administrative measures to deal with it and also purchased Indian Corn from America to deal with the situation. All this occured in 1845, not 1846 as Domer alleges. And Domer has still not provided the quotes I asked him to back up his assertion that the Great Famine started in 1846. The one and only person who has provided quotes in this article is me. Despite this it seems that they are not good enough. Is that because the quotes totally contradict the assertion made by certain editors(not backed up by quotes) that the Great Famine started in 1846? Also why does Kenealy in the title of her book about the Great Famine use the figure 1845, if the Great Famine started in 1846? Colin4C (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Colin4C but I don’t allege anything at all. I imagine you must have overlooked my last post above which provides five references. But if it help you, I’ll provide another, “The Famine of 1846-50 marks a major turning point in the economic and social development of modern Ireland.” Donald Jordan, Fearful Realities: New Perspectives on the Famine, Chris Morash & Richard Hayes (Editors), Irish Academic Press (Dublin 2000), ISBN 0 7165 2566 6, pg.35.

DONALD JORDAN is Brigham Distinguished Professor of Humanities at Menlo College in California. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of California, Davis, and is the author of Land and Popular Politics in Ireland: County Mayo from the Plantation to the Land War (Cambridge University Press, 1994)

Now you have six references which say 1846 is when the famine began. Now provide your quotes, if you will but you will find Peel was only preparing for impending disaster caused by the blight. As you are aware, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. I've ask you to provide direct quotes from the source and requested that you provide them as a courtesy to substantiate the reference. Could you please do that now thanks,--Domer48_'fenian' 16:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Woodham-Smith, who wrote a volume called 'The Great Hunger', published in 1962 by Hamish Hamilton, which many think is the standard volume on the Famine, writes this on page thirty one: "in 1845 when famine came the population might well have been above nine millions". Colin4C (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C, if you check again, you will see that she is actually citing someone. The reference number is 28.

• According to Cormac Ó Gráda “The first attack of potato blight inflicted considerable hardship on rural Ireland, though no significant excess mortality. The catastrophe of the Great Irish Famine really dates from the autumn of 1846, when the first deaths from starvation were recorded.” (Ireland’s Great Famine: Interdisciplinary Prespectives, pg. 9)
• James S. Donnelly writes “Under blackened stalks and leaves the tubers lay completely rotten or were as small as marbles; fields affected by the blight gave off an intolerable stench. With these sights and smells in the summer of 1846, the great famine began.” (The Great Irish Potato Famine, page 57)
• Joel Mokyr’s estimates of deaths the best know at a county level, over the course of the famine. The dates used by Mokyr are from 1846-51.(Líam Kennedy, Paul S. Ell, E. M. Crawford & L. A. Clarkson Mapping The Great Irish Famine pg.36)
• Cecil Woodham-Smith, who quoting Routh one of the five commissioners appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant as saying, throughout these months, [Spring 1846] as famine was “steadily and gradually approaching” evictions were reported weekly.(The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849, pg. 71)
• “The Famine of 1846-50 marks a major turning point in the economic and social development of modern Ireland.” Donald Jordan, Fearful Realities: New Perspectives on the Famine, Chris Morash & Richard Hayes (Editors), Irish Academic Press (Dublin 2000), ISBN 0 7165 2566 6, pg.35.

As I have explained a number of time, the blight arrived in 1845, and the famine in 1846. Now the sources support this, so the Lead must reflect this. I’m going to place some of this information in the article, and change the Lead to reflect it. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Woodham-Smith is not quoting somebody else, but stating her own views. But seeing as you are still not satisfied I shall give you some more quotes from a recent historical book which suggests, based on archival research, that the Great Famine started in (Nov-Dec) 1845. In The Great Shame (1999) by Thomas Keneally he mentions "the Irish Famine, which began in 1845" (xi). He clarifies this on page 110 where he remarks that "By 8 November 1845 the Mercury's headline read: THE THREATENED FAMINE. No further hopeful editorials appeared. The time had begun to which the Irish applied the name an Gorta Mor - the Great Hunger". He further reports, on the same page, that "by mid-February 1846, the survey of the destitute population of the five townlands in the barony of Longford near Lismany found that 211 persons in the district were "absolutely starving". Ross, Woodham-Smith and Keneally all concur that the Famine started in late 1845, not 1846. By the way, your heartless Cormac O Grada seems to have overlooked those starving 211 of February. The facts, however, are against such overfed revisionist bourgeois academics who mock the suffererings of the poor, using the weasel-word "hardship" to describe a starving individual, reduced to skin and bone, who is, however, not yet a dead corpse to be added to the number-crunch. A victim of starvation in a Famine does not necessarily have to be dead. Colin4C (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I’m afraid you are incorrect, Woodham-Smith is actually quoting B. Disraeli in the house of commons Feb 15 1847, who in turn was quoting Captain Wynne in a letter he sent to Sectary of the Public works December 5 1846. Now Thomas Keneally, the novelist dose say on page ix, however page 110, none of the remarks you quote appear. Regardless, I have provided enough quotes from Academics to satisfy our policies on both WP:V, WP:RS and important in this case WP:WEIGHT.

As your willing to accept Woodham –Smith as a book “which many think is the standard volume on the Famine” I will provide an exact quote from her as opposed to quoting anyone else.

“The consequences of a potato failure are not immediate: ‘The first effect of the disease is not scarcity, but plenty, owing to the people’s anxiety to dispose of their potatoes before they become useless.’ It was not until five or six months after a failure that famine began, after every scrap of food, every partially-diseased potato, every fragment that was conceivably edible by human beings, had disappeared. On October 27, 1845, Sir James Graham, the Home Secretary, wrote to Peel: ‘The extreme pressure from want will not take place until the month of April or May [1846]. It was then in 1822 that distress became extreme.’ Until April or May, then, the Commissioners had an interval to prepare. They were to ‘ascertain the extent of the deficiency and watch approaching famine, even in the most remote localities’ and to ‘assist in devising the necessary measures for the employment of the people and their relief’.” (Woodham-Smith pg.61)

Now you seem incapable of supporting your reversion, however I’m not in any hurry, there is no rush. So could we please move on with building the article. Please assume good faith, and address the points I raised above. Please provide the quotes, which support the text you restored, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 20:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not having knowledge of any of the sources, but assuming good faith that those provided are accurate, the one thing that seems pretty clear is as follows: its a matter of opinion when exactly when the human effects of a blight becomes a "famine". Thats hardly surprising, if you think about it, since when does any humanitarian concern become a problem, become a disaster, become a catastrophe? Where does the term "famine" fall in that spectrum? The same debate could be had over the famine in Ethiopia.

Unless there is a significant consensus among experts for one year over the other, my suggestion would simply to describe the different interpretations. In the main body, it can be described in some detail. In the lead it could simply be summarized along the lines of "...started in late 1845 or 1846 and lasted – depending on the region – until between 1849 and 1852".

I understand there are political implications for when the "famine" itself began, especially considering the intervention (or lack therefore) by the British. But this is all the more reason we should cover all significant historical interpretations of when something like a "famine" officially starts. Historians are not immune to having political agendas either, and we should be careful of adopting the interpretation of one political viewpoint over the other. Rockpocket 07:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As for what Domer says about Woodham-Smith, he is wrong. In the paragraph in question, she quotes an "intelligent relief officer", (not Disraeli...), and then adds her own comments:

"An intelligent relief officer wrote that the Census of 1841 was 'pronounced universally to be no fair criterion of the present population'. He had tested it in Co. Clare and found the population to be one third greater than had been recorded; therefore in 1845 when famine came the population might well have been above nine millions."

This last sentence is what Woodham-Smith says, not Disraeli, not "Captain Wynne", not even Colin Forcey: note where the quotation marks are. I am merely transcribing the text, printed in ink on page 31 of Woodham-Smith's book. I did not write it, Woodham-Smith did. You are free to ignore it. Everyone in this world is free to do as they like. Revisionist historians and supporters of British Imperialism and overfed number-crunchers can begin the Famine in 1846 if they want or even deny it entirely. It's a free world. No doubt that Kenealy's report that "by mid-February 1846, the survey of the destitute population of the five townlands in the barony of Longford near Lismany found that 211 persons in the district were "absolutely starving" is just a fantasy and that they were rather indulging themselves in the ultimate food-binge. Just ignore the quotations from the archives and the historians and believe what you like. Its only people starving, not serious at all, they are not dead yet, why are those Irish always complaining...hmmmmm pass that roast beef Carruthers, won't you...delicious! Colin4C (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As your willing to accept Woodham –Smith as a book “which many think is the standard volume on the Famine” I will provide an exact quote from her as opposed to quoting anyone else. Woodham-Smith is in Bold Type.

“The consequences of a potato failure are not immediate: ‘The first effect of the disease is not scarcity, but plenty, owing to the people’s anxiety to dispose of their potatoes before they become useless.’ It was not until five or six months after a failure that famine began, after every scrap of food, every partially-diseased potato, every fragment that was conceivably edible by human beings, had disappeared. On October 27, 1845, Sir James Graham, the Home Secretary, wrote to Peel: ‘The extreme pressure from want will not take place until the month of April or May [1846]. It was then in 1822 that distress became extreme.’ Until April or May, then, the Commissioners had an interval to prepare. They were to ‘ascertain the extent of the deficiency and watch approaching famine, even in the most remote localities’ and to ‘assist in devising the necessary measures for the employment of the people and their relief’.” (Woodham-Smith pg.61)--Domer48_'fenian' 21:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what either of you expect to achieve by repeating the same thing over and over, while ignoring each other. Rockpocket 20:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither am I. But I do know that WP:NPOV has the answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well could either admin suggest a way forward? BigDunc^Talk 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

When there are two (or more) stories, tell them both (or all), so long as there are sources for them. Sometimes one of them will clearly be a minority, in which case give it less space, or banish it to the footnotes. Cranky minority views or really old stuff can be ignored. Where it's not absolutely clear when X started, and this is a very common problem with historical stuff, stick to what the sources say, or reduce it to something uncontroversial. The blight started in 1845. The mortality started in 1846. And the famine? No need to say because the reader can make their own mind up based on whether they think a famine starts with a blight or with people starving to death. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As Editors can see on the Article I've not allowed this discussion to distract me from working on the Article. I changed the Lead and gave a rational, I was reverted and I asked for a rational. One was not forth comming so I asked for the Editor to support their revert per policy. They have still not done so. Now I know Admins don't get into issues of content, but you can advise on policy. If for examply I was to now revert (don't worrie I won't) now, any editor could come along and ask me to support the changes I've made. They could ask me to provide quoted text from each of the sources used, and I'd be obliged to provide them. Is that not correct? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, but things have moved on from there and there is now a discussion that can be used to inform us. So perhaps you might state explicitly how you would like to improve the lead (taking into about what has been revealed in the discussion above by you AND others). Likewise, whoever reverted could perhaps state explicitly how they think the lead can be modified to take the above into account. You might find that you come to the same conclusion. There is an obvious middle ground here, it just takes both of you to step back from making your own argument for a moment, and listen to what the other is saying. Rockpocket 21:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

edit break

Thanks to Editors/Admins for expressing an interest in this discussion. As has now been established by the leading authorities on the subject and cited above, the blight arrived in Ireland in 1845. The devastating effects of this blight in conjunction with a number of other factors resulted in the death hundreds of thousands of people from starvation and starvation related diseases. The first deaths started to occur in early 1846. Again, this is supported by the leading authorities on the subject.

This means that we have two specific events happening almost in parallel, and this period in Irish History is called by a host of different names. This time period has a starting time which is 1845 and the arrival of blight. The period when it is finished is less straight forward, and this is because we have to agree on which of the events determine the period. Is it the blight or the starvation and deaths? My view is, and this is shared by Christine Kinealy that it is the blight, the last recorded insistences of this particular period was in 1852.

What defines this period however, is the deaths. Were people still dying after 1852 from the effects from disease and starvation, I’d have to say yes. Can I point to a source which supports this, at the moment I’d have to say no? But I will continue to look. It is for this reason, that the date 1852 is the most applicable. Otherwise you start with a blight and finish with a famine. Within the time from 1845 to 1852, a period of blight you had one of the worst incidents in Irish history. That it is one of the most controversial periods in Irish history goes without saying. That is why the text I used is concise and supported by both the article and the sources cited. The current text is not supported by the sources currently being used, and is in fact contradicted by them.

"The Great Famine (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life) is a highly contentious period [2] of Irish history between 1845 and 1852[1] during which time the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent.[2] The proximate cause of the famine was a potato disease commonly known as late blight.[3] Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland – where a third of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food – was exacerbated by a host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate.[4][5]"--Domer48_'fenian' 22:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any of that except the very beginning, which is entirely outside the stylistic norms of Wikipedia. I think describing the subject of the article as "a highly contentious period" imparts absolutely zero knowledge. Its a bland, empty phrase, because almost every major geo-political event could be described as such. The opening sentence must, at the very least, state the obvious: it was a famine. And preferably give some basic info about where, when and scope. Once that is stated, the causes, exacerbating factors, ongoing controversy and lingering effects can then follow. I think your proposal has everything, it just needs to be ordered in our typical style. Rockpocket 01:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Rock I'll respond when I've considered it some more, I'd like to get it right. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say that Famine victims do not have to be dead? One can be a barely-living victim of famine. Equally measures to combat famine - famine relief measures - can be taken to obviate a famine before it takes place. The blight of 1845 instantly created famine conditions and everyone knew this and took action before they started dropping down dead. I thought that would be obvious to everybody. Colin4C (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The best way I can describe the article is like this: Someone pours petrol all over a house and puts a match to it. We don’t just write about a house fire? The blight was one of the main causes of famine, but there were a number of others. There were a host of social and political forces which acted like the petrol. The blight was like the match but also an accelerant. The famine was the house fire. While the event is called by various names, the most common term used in the title of books is famine. But all of the books deal with more that just this aspect. They cover the period before during and after. So could you help us and offer some opinions how we reflect this in the Lead, because I agree that “is a highly contentious period” probably dose not express it quite as well as it should? However to just say it was a famine, is not correct either. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand you analogy (and its quite a good one). But I would note that, if we were writing an article about the titular house fire. We would probably start out by stating just that: it was a house fire. We would then go on to describe all the factor that led to the fire and all the consequences (the death, the damage etc). The famine (and all its consequences) is called the "Famine" because that is the defining feature of the period (just like the fire itself would be the defining feature of all its causes and consequences). Its impossible to give all the information in the opening line, so we use a form of structural logic instead. If the first sentence was read in isolation, you would have a point, but taking those the immediately follow it, I don't see the problem in a simplified opening line. We have to start somewhere, afterall. Rockpocket 20:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rock for that, I would just make one point. Accepting my analogy would we not start the titular house fire article by describing it as arson? We would then go on to describe all the factors that led to the fire and subsequent consequences. To begin with stating it was a famine, gives undue weight to one aspect i.e. the effects of one crop failing out of fifteen crops not including other agricultural produce, and treating the causes as an ancillary matter. The question is, why did the failure of one crop have such a devastating impact in Ireland? How did the people come to be so dependant on one crop for sustenance? While Europe and Britain were affected by the same crop failure as Ireland, why was it only in Ireland that it resulted in famine? I would give three statements which can cast some light on the answers.

In 1997 Tony Blair speaking on the 150th anniversary of the famine said ‘Those who governed in London at the time failed their people through standing by while a crop failure turned into a massive human tragedy.’

In July 1998 Bertie Ahern in a speech on the 150th anniversary of the 1848 Rebellion said ‘The 1840s was a decade when all promises made at the time of the Act of Union about Ireland being treated equally within the United Kingdom were shown to be hollow and empty.’

John Mitchel writing from this period notes: ‘That an island which is said to be an integral part of the richest empire on the globe—and the most fertile portion of that empire…should in five years lose two and a half millions of its people (more than one-fourth) by hunger, and fever the consequence of hunger, and flight beyond sea to escape from hunger,—while that empire of which it is said to be a part, was all the while advancing in wealth, prosperity, and comfort, at a faster pace than ever before,—is a matter that seems to ask elucidation.’

So we have three distinct opinions, diverse times and backgrounds, all sharing the one opinion. Government failure created the conditions which gave rise to the disaster, and this article is about more than just the disaster. Why should the famine be given prominence over say the failure of the government? I must also point out in fairness to Tony Blaire, that John Major another British Prime Minister chose not to support the famine commemorations in Britain describing them as being a concern only to Ireland. I hope that explains my difficulty with your suggestion that we should just start out by saying it was a famine?--Domer48_'fenian' 13:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the the term "famine" doesn't give undue focus to the failure of the crop. My understanding of the term is that it refers to "a widespread shortage of food that is usually accompanied by regional malnutrition, starvation and increased mortality." That that nicely encapsulates the subject of the article. What "famine" doesn't focus on is the reasons there was a shortage of food, which is where the contentious aspect of this arises. "Famine" describes the effect (there was a shortage of food, starvation, death) without describing the causes (why there was a shortage of food, starvation, death). Rockpocket 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above discussions, I’ve attempted to address the issues associated with the lead. I’ve taken on board Colin4C view about the starting of the famine and mine by combining both the start of the famine and blight together and covering the whole period. Rock, while satisfied with most of the Lead had a problem with “contentious period” so I’ve removed it altogether and replacing it with the population fall, one of the most notable aspect of the time period. Editors have three options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. If an editor should choose to revert, could they please outline the reasons why and propose an alternative text here, as the previous text was not supported by the sources as detailed in this discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think the opening line is as informative as it was previously (for the reason described above), but it is certainly better the previous suggestion. That said, there is also redundancy to consider: the title is "The Great Famine" therefore it doesn't take a genius to work out we are talking about a famine. If it was entitled "The Great Hunger" then I would be more concerned. I'll choose the first of your three options. Rockpocket 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Causes and contributing factors

I was just wondering what Editors think of the John Reader text in this section. While I think it is detailed, the question I would ask is who is John Reader. The reason I ask is Donnelly in The Great Irish Potato Famine has an alternative account. So opinions and views are welcome. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the sort of article where we should be quoting the New York Times. Well, not unless it's from the 1840s, for vivid (and usually misleading) detail. Doesn't make any sense to me either to be using that source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed New York Times and replaced the text with more noted Authors of this subject.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fogarty

Good luck in ever getting me to agree that Fogarty's article is not the most authoritative as to the numbers eradicated as a result of the genocide perpetrated upon the Irish people and nation. The numbers are legitimate in their magnitude, compilation, and calculation. Fogarty's assertions are the most credible. No one ethnic group has a monopoly on a history of suffering genocide.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahbie (talk • contribs)

I am afraid that is not how it works. Articles a built on consensus, I suggest you read it. BigDunc^Talk 21:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not got an opinion on Fogarty just yet. I placed it in the correct section and cited WP:LEAD. I still think that is the case, but other opinions would be welcome. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no intrest in the current dispute between Hahbie and Colin4C but I do have a problem with removing the referenced information I placed in this section here today. There was no reason for removing it, and all of the sources are respected authors on the subject. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So I just happened to be reading this article today, and it looks like this source, http://www.irishholocaust.org/tollofholocaust, disagrees with what appear to be mainstream authors who cite much lower death statistics. This web site appears to be a potentially biased source, but I an open to receiving documentation that this view is commonly held among respected historians. Otherwise, it should be presented as a minority view which disputes the mainstream consensus. -- Beland (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It would also lend a lot more credibility if anyone could cite more information about the author of this website than just the name "Fogarty"? Are they a professor or published historian? What is their full name and academic experience? Are the claims about this information being taught in schools true, or is that just self-serving propaganda? -- Beland (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The website clearly does not qualify as a reliable source as it doesn't even fully identify the author of the material. Basically, it's just somebody's blog, and is plainly a partisan advocacy site to boot. It has no place on wikipedia. Gatoclass (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the previous two contributors. The figures from "Fogarty" are way out. There's no place in the article for this kind of stuff.Hohenloh ⁺ 00:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Land consolidation

On the section titled Land consolidation it goes into the history of conquest, clearances and the Ulster Plantation, but dose not address the issue of Land consolidation in the context of the famine. Land consolidation entailed the breaking up of small holdings and consolidating these holdings into larger farms. This is completely different to what is there at the moment. I would suggest removing it and replacing it with links in a new body of text which deals with the issue in the proper context. Opinions would be welcome. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll remove this section per the above rational. Should it be replaced could it be referenced and possibly be given a new heading as the current heading was misleading. I will expand the section titled "Tenants, subdivisions, and bankruptcy" to include information on land consolidation. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain...

...why you insist Fogarty's research should be deleted from the heading 'Death Toll'. His numbers are the most legitimate, well-researched, and authoritative numbers of the deaths directly resulting from this genocide. Most Irish have not forgotten; and there are monuments in Ireland and North America memorializing the Holocaust.

However, there has been substantial healing. The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland directly work together between the two nations and within the greater European Union.

By way of contrast, on the subject of genocide, this is in some ways a case dissimilar to that of Israel--although the Republic of Ireland and the State of Israel are ones born out of a history of a genocide against their ethnicity, events which in themselves ought not to be trivialised. Chaim Herzog, the first Rabbi of Ireland (who begat his son, the first Rabbi of Israel) was himself born in Belfast, and this truth is also testament that these Holocausts ought to be remembered because of the constant threat that political movements--such as Hezbollah in the Middle East and the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland, which has been such a pain in the ass to the legitimate government in London--could again arise to become a feared group threatening genocide once again.

Israel is ensconced within the greater Middle East region and must reach out and depend upon the United States, Canada and other western nations for financial and political support. But even the United States and Canada are not immune from internal terrorist threats. Trudeau--unfortunately through the posse comitatus--had to militarily stop the Front de Liberation du Quebec. Puerto Rican separatist movements have been a pain in the ass to Washington for decades. As between the U.S. and Canada, Canadian troops drafted by British soldiers themselves mounted serious military conflict between the United States and Canada during the War of 1812.

My goal here is not to write an editorial on the Holocaust but instead to surmount an impasse on the issue of the truth of the magnitude of the Holocaust because that paragraph of research truly belongs in the lead portion of the Irish Holocaust article, because regardless of the entitlement of the entry the sum and substance is, after all, about the Holocaust against the Irish people.

I am not trying to assert that the penumbral issues do not belong in the article in its entirety--only that the essential, central theme is that of the genocide that occurred. The truth ought to be known to everyone who is a product of the Irish diaspora. For example, speaking for myself, I was born in Canada and grew up under Her Majesty in Canada, not knowing the truth until I immigrated stateside and graduated law school.

This content ought to placed under the rubric of the Holocaust. It should not be trivialised by being enumerated under a separate article dryly describing the population decline during the period 1840-1850.

Examine, in its entirety, the website http://www.irishholocaust.org//. Of course there is a lack of consensus; but it is not an issue with such larger emotional issue such as this for some Irish. I happen to hold the degree of Doctor of Jurisprudence but I recognize that having a bunch of letters after one's name is not a prerequisite to being a legitimate academician and researcher. You are treading on some very thin ice here. Hahbie 16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with your suggestion is the fact that the Irish Famine was not genocide. It was a natural disaster exacerbated by incompetent government. Indeed, slow and inadequate though they were, measures were, in fact, put in place by the British government for relief. Many damning things could be said about the level of response, but to call it genocide is wrong and unhelpful. ðarkuncoll 17:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The are countries, including Canada, and certainly in Ireland, in which you would be prosecuted for making statements such as that. Hahbie 17:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case I'm glad I live in a free country. Not that I believe you, incidentally. ðarkuncoll 17:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you all read about verifiability and giving undue weight to minority views. If you can't agree what these policies mean, take this to the reliable sources noticeboard or open a request for comment. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that most Irish historians do not feel that the Famine was a holocaust, the British Government believed at the time that if large scale feeding of the population were to commence market prices of food would collapse, The government gave out food largely to help stop unscrupulous Irish Corn Merchants and farmers from allowing the price of corn to go too high. This article i feel is unfairly biased and uses far too much referencing of John Mitchell a revolutionary whos work on the famine had been largely discredited today, more modern sources would i think be helpful. Im studying the Famine at the moment in the Queen's University Belfast and the Holocaust theory is discredited by the lecturers as being a reactionary anglophobic feeling at the famine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.17.146 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, could you now support them with references? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Basic information should not be deleted

We should not assume that the readers of the wikipedia already know the basic details about the Famine. This is an encyclopedia not a venue for POV ramblings. E.g. people do not automatically know from birth that there were potato blights in Ireland in 1845 and 1846, a remission of blight in 1847 and two more seasons of potato blight in 1848 and 1849. This vital info should not be witheld from them. Colin4C (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read this section here, and consider your post above. Now I've provided you with two sections above, please use them and let us all know what information you are talking about. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So you you think it is okay if an article on the Irish Famine does not include information on the blights of 45-46 and 48-9 and assumes that the reader knows this already? Such info can be deleted as of no value? Is is then okay to have an interpretation later in the article which assumes that the reader already knows this information? Colin4C (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You are reducing the article to an incoherent, disjointed POV ramble. The wikipedia reader wants the basic facts more than opinions and interpretations. Colin4C (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That isn't helping, Colin. Please be specific what you have a problem with and what you would like to add. There was a discussion on this page about the specifics of the lead, please get involved in that. Rockpocket 22:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with taking a long article and spinning parts out into new articles, while leaving a summary of them in the main article. There are hundreds of articles written in this way, from History of Ireland to Punk rock. We even have guidelines, like Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Articles covering subtopics and Wikipedia:Summary style, to explain best practice. Yes, there's always room to work on the degree of detail included in the summary sections, but like everything else that's something best dealt with by calm and reasoned debate, not by restoring the forked content wholesale. So, here's a thought. El Greco, which is really rather wonderful all round and has many features worth stealing, uses a template to provide a timeline in the article. Is this something that would be beneficial here? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the advice. I've checked out the El Greco, and its not half bad, thanks again. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The content removed was basic info on the Famine. We should not assume that people already know it. To take one instance the info on the cruicial year 1846 is now scattered throughout the article. To make it easier to comprehend this info should be almalgamated into a coherent narrative. Here are the sentences removed on the crucial year 1846. Some of it is not mentioned at all in the article, some of it is scattered about and some of it is 'assumed knowledge':

"The first deaths from hunger took place in early 1846." NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE ELSE IN ARTICLE

"In March Peel set up a programme of public works in Ireland but was forced to resign as Prime Minister on 29 June." FIRST PART "In March Peel set up a programme of public works" in Ireland NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE ELSE IN ARTICLE. SECOND PART: "was forced to resign as Prime Minister on 29 June" MENTIONED IN 'GOV RESPONSE' section.

"The new Whig administration under Lord Russell, influenced by their laissez-faire belief that the market would provide the food needed then halted government food and relief works, leaving many hundreds of thousands of people without any work, money or food." NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE ELSE IN ARTICLE

Grain continued to be exported from the country. MENTIONED IN SECTION 'FOOD EXPORTS FROM IRELAND'.

Private initiatives such as The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends (Quakers) attempted to fill the gap caused by the end of government relief and eventually the government reinstated the relief works, although bureaucracy slowed the release of food supplies. FIRST PART "Private initiatives such as The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends (Quakers) attempted to fill the gap caused by the end of government relief" NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN ARTICLE. SECOND PART "eventually the government reinstated the relief works, although bureaucracy slowed the release of food supplies" GIVEN PARTIAL MENTION IN 'GOV RESPONSE' SECTION.

The blight almost totally destroyed the 1846 crop and the Famine worsened considerably. CONTRADICTED BY BRIEF UNREFERENCED STATEMENT IN 'MIGRATION OF BLIGHT' SECTION

By December a third of a million destitute people were employed in public works. Colin4C (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC) CONTRADICTED IN 'GOV RESPONSE' section.

Thank you Colin4C for clarifying that for us. Now would you like to add the information to the appropriate section of would you like me to do it for you? Any information that you feel should be included, please add it, or raise it here if you’re not sure? I’d be more than happy to reference any information you might find difficult to reference, just let me know. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer Domer but I will add the information myself in a coherent integrated way, so that the reader does not get confused about the basic facts about the Famine. Colin4C (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C I'll assume good faith with your recent edit, but suggest you revert and place the points of information you raised in the appropriate sections. There is now an article titled Chronology of the Great Famine and the information is just being duplicated here, and of course you know that. Now you've had the advice of two Admin's, one of whom is an article mentor, please take the advice offered. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't removed. It was moved. Why? Because the article was extremely long. The detailed chronology, including the happenings of 1846 and the other years, can now be expanded into greater detail in the sub-article. This is perfectly normal. Rockpocket 19:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C please assume good faith, I will be including and expanding on all this information. Place the each of the points you raised into the appropriate section, and lets move on to building the article. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C I've addressed the points you raised above, and placed the information into the article. The information duplicated from Chronology of the Great Famine has now been removed. Now if you have any additional concerns, please raise them here and we can work together on addressing them. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The term proximate cause

Could someone weigh in on my edits from yesterday (November 23). I feel like I have a good point but my changes keep getting reverted without any substantive discussion. Would someone else care to weigh in on the issue? Here is what I think, regarding the term "proximate cause" in the opening paragraph:

Wikipedia is supposed to be a general encyclopedia and accessible to all readers. By using the term proximate cause in the very beggining of the article a reader who doesn't know what it means is required to go to another article and read all about it. This is unneccessary when completely clear and plain language could be used in place of this complex legal term who's meaning is still debated by legal scholars and courts. While I respect the two points made by Domer48 on the subject I don't understand why either of these points should compel retaining the term proximate cause: 1) That some authors used the term in their works is not relevant unless we quote them directly. No meaning is lost by changing the phrase, and indeed for most users it is made more clear and the authors' intent is realized by using clearer language. 2) As noted by Domer48 on my talk page, the term has been in the article for about a year. I don't understand the relevancy of this point in an encyclopedia subject to continuous review through the editorial process.

Is there actually a consensus that this term is better than simply saying "One significant cause" or even "The most significant cause"? I don't actually care about the underlying substantive issue of whether it is THE PROXIMATE CAUSE, my only point is readability.

Gr8fuljeff (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask one question, if I may. What was the most significant cause for the deaths? Was it a lack of potatos, or a lack of food? --Domer48_'fenian' 15:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think proximate cause does tell us something quite specific and slightly different from your other suggestions. That said, I take your point about using legalese in the lead. The nice things about Wikipedia is that, by linking, its very easy for readers to learn what a proximate cause is, if they were not previously aware. Taking that into consideration, with the stability of that phrase in the article and the contentious nature of the causes of the famine, I would say proximate cause is probably the best phrase to use. Rockpocket 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Rock for that, and you are quite right, it was exactly because of the contentious nature of the causes of the famine that the term was used. “The proximate cause of the Great Irish Famine (1846-52) was the fungus phytophthora infestans (or potato blight), which reached Ireland in the autumn of 1845.” Cormac Ó Gráda, Ireland's Great Famine: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 2006, ISBN 1-904558-57 6 p. 7.

It is also a term used to describe the proximate cause of death page.19 during this period. It is a term that is and has been in use on this subject [3], [4], [5], for the exact reasons outlined by Rock. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

'Proximate cause' seems to refer to the 'period of history' in the opening sentence rather than population decline. As such it doesn't make sense. It would be better to say 'the proximate cause of famine was a potato disease commonly known as late blight'. Asmaybe (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Great Famine (Irish: An Gorta Mór[1] or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad Life) documents a period of Irish history between 1845 and 1852[2] during which time the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent.[3] The "proximate cause" was famine resulting from a potato disease commonly known as late blight.[4]" What happened during that period of history? The population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent. Why was there such a drop in population? The "proximate cause" was famine resulting from a potato disease commonly known as late blight. That is the way I read it? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The article subject is 'The Great Famine'. The opening sentence introduces this as something that 'documents a period of years' during which the population was reduced. It's the 'period of years' that has prominence, not the population reduction. So talking about causation in this context seems to refer back to this period of years, and that doesn't make sense. Perhaps your question 'why did this happen' should be the second sentence. Something like, 'Why this happened is a subject of debate'. Then, 'the proximate cause...' as the third sentence. Asmaybe (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you read the above discussions, you will notice we are covering two subjects on this article. The first is the blight and the second is the famine. If it was just about the famine, the start date would be 1846, for the blight 1845. The most notable aspect of this period is the population decline. As the blight occured all over Europe, its effect in Ireland was notable for a varity or reasons. I think we have the balance right, and based on your first observation i.e. period over population, I think we have it covered. That is, the most notable event of the period is on the population decline, and this is reflected in the Lead. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate the thinking behind it, but the effect is disjointed. Asmaybe (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hahbie for your contribution, your edit summary however is actually a contradiction "proximate causation has two legal components - blight leading to famine was the actual cause component” what you are saying in effect is, leaving everything else aside, blight was the main cause. So let’s leave out that the host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate, because the blight was the main cause component. So the people actually died not from a lack of food, but a lack of potatoes caused by blight? There is a small piece on the article, here, however, You may have noticed that the term was placed in inverted commas, and your addition is not supported by the reference used. The reference dose not say “Part of the proximate cause was famine” and you’d need to find a reference which dose use the wording you have provided. I hope my comments above illustrate correctly what I’m trying to say, if they don’t please tell me what you need clarified. Thanks--Domer48_'fenian' 23:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Typos, grammar, usage, spelling, etc.

Since the article appears to be locked, here's a section for noting small details, most of which should be fairly non-controversial. Somone who can log in and edit, please do so.

• It's conventional for genus-species names to be in italics, with the genus name capitalised and the specific epithet not. What is listed in some instances as "phytophthora infestans" should be "Phytophthora infestans" in all instances, with the genus name capitalized. After the first citation, it would be acceptable to use the abbreviation "P. infestans", although the usage should be consistent, and there is nothing wrong with spelling it out in full as long as it's consistent.

• "of the genus botrytis" does not belong here. In the same sentence, the genus is specified as "Phytophthora" and there is no support for this claim in either the Phytophthora infestans or botrytis articles on Wikipedia. So it should be deleted.

• "It was then carried to Europe on ships carrying guano, were there was a demand for it as fertiliser on European and British farms." spelling error, "were" should be "where"

Ok, I've addressed the points you have raised. On the genus botrytis there is support for this claim in the reference cited in the article. However, I have removed it, per your advice. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

New section

I’ve added the new section “Landlords and Tenants” and put the article sections in chronological order. There is some duplication, which I will address. I have additional references to add, and will expand on some more of the existing sections. At this point I’d like some suggestions on reference format, and would like to have a single format used across the board. Any advice welcome, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 13:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Successful farmers during the famine

User:Josquius has added "many succesful farmers of other crops not being directly affected by it and continuing their buisness as usual" to the background paragraph. Can you please justify this addition with references please. --HighKing (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a statement blankly added in, it is added onto the end of "Ireland remained a net exporter of food even during the blight", its purpose is to explain how this is so.
As to whether the farmers were succesful or not is not the issue I was thinking about at all and I frankly don't really care about it. It stands to reason that there would be some of them that were succesful but also probally some less succesful farmers who still exported so this word is removed. Your objection is met?--Him and a dog 17:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The information is not supported by the reference. Unless you provide a reference that is both WP:V and WP:RS it should not be included. I hope that helps, --Domer48_'fenian' 17:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference that the grass is green or that vinegar smells? Its just a uncontroversial fact. Ireland operated under a capitalist system, big farmers grew/raised their produce then sold it, its just the way things work. And that wheat wouldn't be affected by a potato disease is also quite obvious.
Unfortunatly I don't have records from Irish harbours or whatever from the time period so you really are putting me in a impossible and pointless position. I could put in a lot of work trying to find them but what would be the point in that? It would be a unproductive waste of time that could be better spent doing work that actually needs to be done such as finding sources for actual contentious issues.
Which reference is it not supported by? How is it not supported by it?--Him and a dog 18:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Could I just draw your attention to our WP:3RR which you are close to breeching. I actually like looking for sources, and am currently trying to find sources for the next section I wish to add to the article. Without references we could put just about anything into articles. Hope that helps, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It goes against the spirit of wikipedia however. Just imagine how big wikipedia would be if every little thing was challenged with the demand for sources. It would have gotten nowhere.

I fail to understand why you are doing this to me here, I know that this kind of thing is standard tactics in edit warring but...what have I done to warrant it? I've not made a major article changing edit here, nothing controversial. Just a clarification of what I believed to be already accepted fact by most.
So I ask again: why specifically do you disagree with my edit? What reference does not support it?--Him and a dog 18:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounds all a bit harsh there. I'm just genuinly quite taken aback by things here and I really want to know what the big objection to my edit was.--Him and a dog 18:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you need the notice at the top of the page which says "This article is the subject of an ArbCom ruling. Please abide by the letter and spirit of that ruling." If you read point 6 on the "Principles" section. I hope again this helps. If like you suggest that it is an "accepted fact by most" it should not be too hard to find a reference, don't you agree? Just one question though, are you talking about succesful farmers or were you talking about succesful landlords or "middlemen" could you clarify. Like I said below, I have offered to help you find sources, I can't see what more I can do? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you not consider expanding the food export section, and then add some information on it in the Lead section. I'll put together some information and get some sources, hope that helps, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about any really, I just put the word succesful in there as if someone was still able to export then he would be succesful, as I've said earlier though since people think this is controversial that word doesn't need to be included. Succesful is such a relative word that even if some of them were rolling in money it could still likely be contested.
But anyway; these farmers would be fairly large farmers, not just sharecroppers, even under perfect conditions they would never export- the most they could hope for was selling a bit at the market. Likely landlords also too though.
A source to prove my point here wouldn't be too hard to find if you know where to look (which I don't), just something about the shipping of grain from Ireland.--Him and a dog 14:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Famine

Just to say that the Great Famine was an event in history. It violates grammar and common sense and wikipedia guidelines to assert that it 'documents' anything...Colin4C (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion above, please join it. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what you say there is no discussion about your edit, which violates grammar and commmon-sense above. Please justify your edit here. Vide this:

"The Great Famine (Irish: An Gorta Mór[1] or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad Life) documents a period of Irish history between 1845 and 1852[2] during which time the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent.[3]"

Please explain how The Great Famine, an event, can document anything. Colin4C (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

'Documents' is pretentious and vague. "The Great Famine covers a period of Irish history..." would be much better. Asmaybe (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is were the discussion is here which you were part of. Now put your suggestions there, and allow us the oppertunity to discuss them. You will have to provide references for any changes you make, and they will have to be considered reliable which has been outlined by Angus. Now to date there is agreement between both Rock and my self, and it corresponds to the introduction to the article Chronology of the Great Famine. Your proposed changes have no such agreement, and are being challanged by sources which are both reliable and verifiable. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is confusing and illogical. It begins with 'The Great Famine...' and then follows with 'The proximate cause was famine...'. This is circular logic. It is the result of editing, whereby all intervening sentences which 'the proximate cause' refers to were removed, so the context changed, leaving the present disjointed version. This is not an issue of sources but of grammar and readibility. What I propose is changing the wording of the second sentence to 'The proximate cause of famine was potato disease commonly known as late blight'. Asmaybe (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That was a good edit, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 13:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes no sense

This article seems to assume prior knowledge of the Famine. To clarify things I propose to introduce a brief summary of what actually happened. Does everybody think that that is a good idea? Colin4C (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The introduction could be improved, yes. Calling the Great Famine a 'period of years' isn't very informative. What I would suggest for an opening line is "The Great Famine (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, lit: The Bad Life) was a period of Irish history between 1845 and 1852 during which time the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent" to be changed to "The Great Famine (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, lit: The Bad Life) was a calamitous period of starvation, disease and mass emigration between 1845 and 1852 during which the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent". Asmaybe (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have no real problem with that Asmaybe , but I know we will have some editor at a later date will cite WP:WEASEL or WP:PEACOCK. If you don't think so, I'd say go ahead? Leave it there for a day or two, and see if anything comes up? --Domer48_'fenian' 12:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C could you tell us what you mean when you say the article seems to assume prior knowledge of the Famine. Could you tell us what you think is missing from the Lead? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We could start by restoring "Irish Potato Famine" to the lead, since that is what most people know it by. I don't know why it was removed. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I support Asmaybe's formulation. The present formulation is totally vacuous. Me shouldn't be afraid to state the facts, or assume that everybody in the whole world, including the Eskimos and the Hottentots, already knows the basic facts about the Great Hunger. Having been to Ireland and having an Irish girlfriend and having studied history at university I know something about it but we shouldn't assume that everybody does. For instance I think it would be helpful to mention the ball-park figures of one million dead and one million emigrated in the Famine. I know that these figures are not proved to be absolutely 100% accurate but they give the reader some sense of the magnitude of the disaster. Colin4C (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland – where a third of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food – was exacerbated by a host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate.[5][6]

Colin4C are you suggesting we replace the impact and human cost in Ireland "with ball-park figures" even though you "know that these figures are not proved to be absolutely 100% accurate?" The figures are dealt with in the article in detail because we “shouldn't be afraid to state the facts.” The Lead is a summary of the article, and introduction. If you want, I can get some quotes and include some figures if you want? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A comparison is the ball-park figure of 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust. This is useful information on the scale of that genocide. Even though the figure is not proved 100% accurate it is approximately the correct figure. Similarly with the Great Hunger, one million dead is an approximate figure which gives you a sense of the magnitude of the crisis. Otherwise the reader is left guessing whether it was 10, 10,000, 100,000, or whatever Irishmen and women who died. They are not born with the information in their brains, so it is useful to inform them, if the wikipedia is to be of any use as an encyclopedia at all. Otherwise people will just turn to other sources of information and the wikipedia will be discredited, which would be sad for those like me who believe in the wikipedia project. Colin4C (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Lead is just a summary of the article, as in briefly outlining what it is about. The detail is in the article. Is it your opinion that it is not sufficiently detailed? Would you not agree that the numbers of deaths is still a controversial subject? Do you think the summary in the Lead can cover the complexity of the issue in one line? Are you suggesting that the population being “reduced by 20 to 25 percent” is not a stark enough figure? “Even though the figure is not proved 100% accurate it is approximately the correct figure.” Do you not see how ludicrous that is having read the article? On the 1851 census both Cormac Ó Gráda & Joel Mokry describe it as a famous but flawed source. As a result Ó Gráda says to take the Tables of Death at face value would be a grave mistake, as they seriously undercount the number of deaths both before and during the famine. When whole villages were wiped out, who was there left to count? Please read the “Death toll” section and tell me what is missing. You could also read the “Judgement of the government's handling of the Famine” sections, most of which I added, and tell me what you think it lacks? If wikipedia is to be of any use as an encyclopedia at all, lets not use ball-park figures. Lets stick with the facts per the sources available shall we? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So do you think the Holocaust article is wrong to use the ball-park figure of six million in the intro?:

"The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as (Ha)-Shoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן) is the term generally used to describe the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi) regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler."

Are all the other articles about world famines wrong to give approx figures of death in their intros? Why should the Irish Famine be different? Colin4C (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Per above. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please explain. Colin4C (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Spelling error.

{{editsemiprotected}}Of these reports from Lord Haytesbury, Peel in a latter to Sir James Graham was to say that he found the accounts "very alarming", though he reminded him that there was, according to Woodham-Smith "always a tendency to exaggeration in Irish news".

Should read:

Of these reports from Lord Haytesbury, Peel in a letter to Sir James Graham was to say that he found the accounts "very alarming", though he reminded him that there was, according to Woodham-Smith "always a tendency to exaggeration in Irish news".

Thanks for that, its now fixed. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Seafood?

This may sound like a dumb question, but does anyone know how many people turned to fishing during the Famine? It's not addressed in the article. Ireland is surrounded by water, so I've always wondered about this. Huphelmeyer (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

-Apparently<Needs Citation> a good chunk of the fishing fleet on the western seaboard of Ireland was taken out during a massive storm(Refered to as the big wind) some time in the 1830s. There wouldnt have been the resoucres to replace them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.94.191 (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Queen Victoria donated £2,000.

This is simply false. The good Queen donated the sum of £5 to famine relief when she visited Queenstown.

And a good quote from a Reliable source would help, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 17:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines

Which wikipedia guidelines prohibit referenced estimates as to numbers dying in world famines? Is mention of the numbers dying only permissible if there are only exact numbers known? If a majority of editors think that mentioning the numbers who died in a Famine is a bad idea and should be censored is it breach of the wikipedia guidelines to mention referenced figures? Is that vandalism as defined by the wikipedia? Colin4C (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As you were part of the discussions here, here and here you should be familiar with the issues involved and how the information should be presented. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please answer the question. Is it bad-faith vandalism to include referenced info about numbers of dead in world famines? Is this referenced sentence bad-faith vandalism?:

"Approximately one million of the population died and a million more emigrated from Ireland's shores.[4]"

Is this info okay in the intro about the Bengal famine of 1943?

"It is estimated that around 3 million people [1] died from starvation and malnutrition during the period."

Should approx numbers be used in some intros of famine articles and not others or banned in all famine articles as non-notable info? Please give reasons why it is okay to include approx referenced figures for the Bengal famine but not the Irish one. Colin4C (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Colin4C (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the numbers are disputed and discussed in the article. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So it's not allowed to summarise the range of disputed figures, giving a lowest and highest score in the intro?

As the numbers who died in the Holocaust are disputed should all mention of "six million" Jews killed be eliminated from the intro to that article? Should:

"The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as haShoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן) is the term generally used to describe the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler"?

be replaced with:

"The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as haShoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן) is the term generally used to describe the genocide of an unknown number of European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler."?

What are differences between the Irish holocaust and the Jewish holocaust as regards reporting from refs approx numbers of deaths in the intro? Is it right that the Holocaust death info is referenced or should the info have been summarised by an editor from the body of the article by an editor and the ref eliminated? Colin4C (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Numerous Instances of Poor Grammar

1 - There are so many words that will pass a spell-check, but in "context" are meaningless, i.e., "know" instead of known, "here" instead of there, and on and on.

2 - Also there's a phrase where "[guy's name] suggested asserted that..." One word would do it properly and undo the strangeness of it as it currently exists.

3 - These relatively-speaking minor errors gather momentum as we go through the article.

4 - But I do not want to edit this. It's a fine article, and I think that the people who have taken part, obviously in a serious fashion, are to be congratulated. Certainly by yours truly

My suggestion is that someone with some "pull" amongst the editors get into the mechanics of the parts of speech. The simple issues in #1, above, are prima facie cases for not depending upon the spell-checker.

A Grammar check might isolate some of these properly-spelled words that are, unfortunately, not what the authors intended. I would offer to do it myself, perhaps through email, but nobody knows me here, and, as well, I am in the final weeks of a nasty Interferon/Ribavirin program that has become quite challenging of late.

And, besides all that, I'd rather not presume to "edit" an article that I had nothing to do with writing. I hope that makes sense.

Best regards to all, Brian Stegner (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brian Stegner if you look here and here I've fixed things which were pointed out to us in the past. Please feel free to edit the article yourself if you have time, or email me with a list of the corrections you think need fixing. My email is enabled, so work away. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 13:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Another grammar point

The article is locked so I can't edit it myself, but surely in the phrase 'The middlemen leased large tracts of land from the landlord's on long leases with fixed rents', 'landlords' should not have an apostrophe (even if it also makes sense with one).

An Gorta Mor

The translation for An Gorta Mor is The Big Hunger, rather than The Bad Life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.113.215 (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Is it wikipedia policy that references should be eliminated from the intros of wikipedia articles and an unreferenced editorial summary of the body of the article substituted instead? I mention this because this article might be violating wikipedia policy by having nine such refs in the intro. Also is any editor on the wikipedia allowed to do the summary or only those who have been here several years and have never been blocked or under disciplinary restraints? Colin4C (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this article getting too long and too complex?

this article is way too long and it isnt even readable if you made it shorter and simpler it would make the article way better THANK YOU for some great books on the famine I reccomend Under the Hawthorn Tree by Marita Conlon Makenna and Cora Harrison's The Famine Secret —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.154.90 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Has any thought been given to readability here? To what an encyclopaedia article is supposed to be?

It is not supposed to be the length of a book. It also should not be over-burdened with quotes, and if quotes are used, they should be short and sweet. IMHO, this article at the start of 2007 less than a third of the size it is now, was in better shape. Since then, just like Topsie, it growed and growed, and is still growing. It's now 109 KB.

The recommended max size for an article at Wikipedia:Article size is 30 KB, at 60 KB it probably should be divided, at 100 KB almost certainly should be divided.

Now size isn't everything, but it needs to be addressed - the article has to be readable. And the longer it gets the more it meanders all over the place and the more out of control it can get.

For a start, why is so much space given over to Death Toll and Reaction? Hohenloh ⁺ 23:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

At 109Kb it most certainly should be subdivided. Do you have any suggestions on how to do so? I would suggest the would be a good place to start. Rockpocket 23:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)0

I agree. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to finish off some other articles I'm committed to, including improvements to Ireland, so can't get involved here right now. This article is heavy going, IMO, and needs pruning, not just a subdivision. It goes into too much detail, and the details are backed up by further details until they become irrelevant and the reader gets lost. It repeatedly wanders off the main topic. There's a POV bias that is defended by fact after fact without any need for them, as the basic facts speak for themselves. The quotes are a waste of space. There's a problem with balance, which is needed so a reader can identify what the salient points are, and not be confused with side-issues. I could go on, but if it were up to me, I'd identify the most important sections to keep, properly copy-edit them, then cut out at least 50% of the article and then get in an experienced writer/editor to copy-edit the whole article again. Hohenloh ⁺ 03:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll create the Article Chronology of the Great Famine but would ask editors to have a look at the article section titled "Land consolidation" as I've mentioned above. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have mass deleted ALL the basic, vital info on the chronology of the Famine and retained the irrelevent ramblings... Colin4C (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please Colin4C tell us which vital info mass deleted? None of the information was deleted. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the memorial section to its own List of memorials to the Great Famine. Rockpocket 20:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Good move, I can now expand it with additional information and pictures. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The information about the chronology of the Famine is basic info which is valuable to readers who know nothing about the subject. Please do not delete it. Delete the dubious interpretation ramblings instead. Colin4C (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C could you tell us what vital information from the Chronology section should be in the main article? What irrelevant ramblings should be removed? I’ll try help by putting in sections for you. Just copy and paste from the article.

Brief Chronological Summary

Would it not be a good idea to include a brief chronological summary in about a couple of paragraphs, of the main events of the Famine after the Intro to give the broad outlines of the events to those not familiar with them? Any objections? Colin4C (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We have an article as you know on the chronological summary and is linked to this article, which resulted from a discussion here, with advice offered here. It was acted upon here by Rockpocket, who answered your question on it here during a discussion on it here. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this apply generally to all articles on Irish history? For instance there is a long chronological section in The Troubles which is duplicated in Chronology of the Northern Ireland Troubles. Do you agree that as per what you and Rockpuppet have stated is wikipedia policy that the chronological account in The Troubles is redundant and should be deleted now? Colin4C (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, is it a matter of style? If an integrated chronological narrative duplicates some of the substantive material in a separate chronological article should all duplications on matters of substance be deleted from the main article? Also, is a summary regarded as redundant duplication? Would summarising some of the substantive material of a 20 paragraph chronology to one paragraph be regarded as a duplication of material which should immediately be reverted? I say this because this article is very long, disjointed and confusing. For instance the bit about the 1848 rebellion is not integrated with the rest and there are various internal redundancies. Colin4C (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Take it up with Rockpocket, who I agree with on this. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So you think that say, a one page summary of the history of Ireland of one hundred pages, is a redundant duplication? Summaries in any shape or form are duplications and are never allowed on the wikipedia? Or is that just your own personal idea? Please give wikipedia authorisation which forbids summaries in wikipedia articles and equates them with duplications.Colin4C (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Get consensus, at present you don't. We have a Chronology already, place your text there.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do this as it's called forum shopping. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So a piece of writing which uses different words, is different in scope and serves a different purpose is an exact duplicate of something else if it mentions some of the same things? If a book on the Famine mentioned the main events in a brief introductory paragraph this would be an exact reproduction of a lengthy, differently formatted chronology in the appendix and thus redundant? Colin4C (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We have an article as you know on the chronological summary and is linked to this article, which resulted from a discussion here, with advice offered here. It was acted upon here by Rockpocket, who answered your question on it here during a discussion on it here.--Domer48_'fenian' 10:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A brief introductory summary of the material of whole article is not a chronology, therefore your logic is invalid. A piece of writing using different words, of a different scope, of a different length, for a different purpose than another piece of writing is not an exact duplication of the another. See the "spot the difference" section below where I invite editors here to judge whether two extracts from the wikipedia are exactly similar in words, length, scope, purpose etc. Colin4C (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As you are well aware, we have a an article chronological summary article. This was arrived at through discussion and consensus. Your "introductory summary" is nothing more than another attempt to place another chronology into the article. Please seek consensus if you wish to re-add the chronology to the article. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Spot the difference

Astute editors here might be able to spot the differences between these two extracts from the wikipedia. No prizes.:

1,:

"The Famine started in September 1845 when blight was first noted in Wexford and Waterford. By November half the potato crop was ruined. The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up. Food aid had to be bought at market prices, a requirement which meant that the aid itself was less than fully effective since many poor Irish had no money at all and employment on Relief Works was not always immediately available."

2,:

August

At the beginning of August Sir Robert Peel the British Prime Minister recived news of a potato disease in the South of England. This was the first recorded evidence that the 'blight' which had ravaged the potato crop in North America had crossed the Atlantic. Cecil Woodham-Smith would write that a failure in England would be serious, but for Ireland, it would be a disaster.

September

Following earlier reports of incidences of the blight in England, on 13 September 1845 potato blight was first reported in Ireland. The crops at Dublin were suddenly perishing, it was reported in the Gardeners' Chronicle, asking "where will Ireland be in the event of a universal potato rot?" The British Government were nevertheless optimistic through the next few weeks.

October

thumb|Skibbereen 1847 by Cork artist James Mahony (1810-1879), commissioned by Illustrated London News 1847. As soon as digging of potato began devastating reports start coming in. Sir Robert Peel found the accounts 'very alarming' and writing to Sir James Graham, the Home Secretary on the 13 October reminded him that there was always a tendency in Irish news to exaggerate. Constabulary Reports from the 15 reported great failures, Sir James Graham, the Home Secretary wrote that the truth about the potato crop, until digging was completed, could not be fully ascertained. The Prime Minister Robert Peel was prompted to act, and on 15 October he decided to summon an emergency meeting of his Cabinet for October 31. The remedy he decided was to repeal the Corn Laws. Peel then decided to set up a Scientific Commission to go to Ireland and investigate the potato blight and report on conditions. The emergency Cabinet meeting met on 31 October till the 1 November. The first day consisted of reading reports and memoranda from Ireland on the potato failure. Peel proposed that a relief commission be established in Ireland, and a sum of money be advanced to the Lord -Lieutenant. Differences arose when Peel pointed out that these measures required an advance of public money. The purchase of food for destitute districts would open the question of Corn Laws. Was it possible, it was asked to vote public money for the sustenance of a people on account of "actual or apprehended scarcity" and still maintain restrictions on the free import of grain, Peel declared it was not. On this issue then the Cabinet split, the overwhelming majority voting against Peel.Unable to reach a decision, the Cabinet adjourned till 6 November.

The principle of the Corn Laws had been to keep the price of home-grown grain up. Duties on imported grain assured English farmers a minimum and profitable price. The burden of a higher price for bread was carried by the labouring classes, in particular factory workers and operatives. It was claimed that if the Corn Laws were repealed all those connected with the land would be ruined and the established social organization of the country destroyed.

According to Cecil Woodham-Smith, the rising wrath of Tories and landlords “all interest in Ireland was submerged.” The Tory Mayor of Liverpool she says refused to call a meeting for the relief of Irish distress, the Mansion House Committee in Dublin she continued, was accused of ‘deluding the public with a false alarm’, and the blight itself ‘was represented as the invention of agitators on the other side of the water’. The entanglement of the Irish famine with the repeal of the Corn Laws she says was a key misfortune for Ireland. The potato failure was eclipsed by the domestic issue of Corn Law repeal. The Irish famine she writes, would "slipped into the background."

November

On 9-10 November Peel ordered the secret purchase of £100,000 worth of Indian corn and meal from America for distribution in Ireland. On 15 November the Scientific Commissioners reported that half the potato crop had been destroyed. The Mansion House Committee in Dublin claimed on the 19 November to have "ascertained beyond the shadow of doubt that considerably more than one-third of the entire potato crop...has been already destroyed." On 20 November the Relief Commission first met. Unable to persuade his Cabinet to repeal the Corn Laws, on 5 December Peel tendered his resignation to Queen Victoria but was reinstated days later when Lord John Russell was unable to form a government. Colin4C (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Troubles

Domer has asserted on my Talk page that the Famine is related to the Troubles as per a wikipedia ruling: "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

Do editors here think that they are related and that this article is therefore covered by the above ruling? Has this already been decided somewhere already or established by a vote or concensus? I don't mind either way, I would just like to get the facts straight, for once and all. If it is so established then a template should be put here asserting the same, otherwise how are editors supposed to know? Colin4C (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Colin4C it has been pointed out to you by Deacon of Pndapetzim herethat it is related. You were also made aware of it here, and made aware that you breeched the sanctions. There is a template on the top of this page also. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious "Starving Irish family during the famine" photograph

This image with that caption really sticks out as a possible fake. Is it actually either a later recreation or a staged recreation taken in a photographic studio? It is an interior shot, in a dark room, containing people - something almost impossible to create with the photographic equipment of that time. Even exterior photographs under good lighting needed an exposure of a minute or so. Meowy 15:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The source is National Library of Ireland. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the source is a web page by Dr. William Rogers of Drew University, who claims it was from the National Library of Ireland. However I cannot find this photo using the National Library of Ireland's own digital photograph search using keywords such as "Carraroe". I have emailed Dr. Rogers to draw his attention to this debate. Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I got a fairly prompt reply from Dr. Rogers, who also believes it is a staged recreation. I will therefore remove the photo. Andrew Oakley (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: William Rogers <wrogers@drew.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:56:34 -0400
Subject: Re: "Starving Irish family from Carraroe" photo

Andrew:
 
Luckily, the graduate student who set up the page for me is still here,
so I can ask her. But it is obviously not a photo of the Famine era, as
photography had not reached Ireland by that time. I think it is indeed
a staged recreation from a later period, and always thought so. We
probably should have labeled it that way, but assumed if it was at the
Natl Lib of Ireland, then it was a "legitimate" recreation, if you see
my meaning. Once I have further information, I'll forward it on.

Bill Rogers
 
William B. Rogers, Ph.D.
Associate Dean, CSGS
Drew University
Madison, NJ 07940
973-408-3285

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: William Rogers <wrogers@drew.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 10:38:27 -0400
Subject: Re: "Starving Irish family from Carraroe" photo

Andrew:
My graduate assistant remembers scanning it from a book (hence the
crooked picture and shaky cropping) and the book used the source Nat'l
Library of Ireland. Unfortunately, she can't remember the book. It is
only for my course page on the Famine and it is an evocative photo, so
I didn't think it was a big deal--assuming again that it was a staged
photo that was in the Nat'l Library somewhere. I'd take it down from
the Wiki article, since it is obvious not everyone knows there was no
photography in Ireland during the Famine. If I find the book with the
picture I'll email you. Thanks.

Bill

William B. Rogers, Ph.D.
Associate Dean, CSGS
Drew University
Madison, NJ 07940
973-408-3285

Wow - that got resolved quickly, and professionally. If only the same were possible for some of the Armenian Genocide photographs, a number of which I also think were staged recreations. Meowy 19:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(moved this section to above ongoing RfC. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

Population growth

Could we establish what the relevance of population growth has to do with the potato blight or the subsequent famine before we include it in the article? Thomas Walter Freeman says in Ireland: Its Physical, Historical, Social and Economic Geography, published by Taylor & Francis (1950), Pg.124 that the census of 1821 cannot be taken as “completely satisfactory” because of the “determined hostility” of the people to the enumerators and that the 1831 census was even “less satisfactory” because the enumerators were paid according to the number of returns they made. If the figures were true, he says, they represent an increase of 14% in ten years, at a time when emigration was increasing. Therefore to start using questionable figures from web based cites when there are ample subject specific books which deal with the figures and how they are presented needs to be addressed.

If however the point of the population growths relevance is British claims of there being a surplus population in Ireland at the time, even though the population had been declining since before 1831 we could possibly include it. As was pointed out by John Mitchel on the claims of there being a surplus population in Ireland at the time, that Ireland was then the only country with two surpluses, a surplus population and surplus of food produced on Irish soil to feed them. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think primarily the latter, and in any case we should state both sides. If there are claims of there being a surplus population, then this is notable - even if it is incorrect - and the counter-argument needs to be stated and the statistics challenged. However I'm a bit concerned that you seem to be suggesting that statistics taken from Cecil Woodham-Smith (descendant of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, hero of the 1798 Irish Rebellion) and quotes taken from Máirtín Pilib de Longbhuel of IrelandsOwn.net are "British claims". I'm not sure either of those people would be too happy about being described as in any way anti-Irish! I don't think these are specifically British claims, and labelling them as such does not help. They're claims based on some statistics, and they are common (mis-?)conceptions. They're notable claims, and deserve inclusion, and if they're wrong, deserve rebuttal. In fact I'd argue that a section rebutting the population growth argument is even more important if there is a common fallacy about it! I think the best thing to do would be to reprint my paragraph that you reverted here on the talk page, and allow it to be edited here on the talk page until we reach a consensus on a balanced version that can be included in the main article.

Furthermore, a point I wanted to address in my paragraph, but couldn't find a good source for, was that it is normal for poor families everywhere in the world to be big families, based on child mortality rates rather than any cultural/religious bias. I would particularly welcome a well-informed source for this. Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

At no point was I suggesting that Cecil Woodham-Smith or Máirtín Pilib de Longbhuel are being anti-Irish! Máirtín Pilib de Longbhuel for example actually says that the 1841 census “is certainly inaccurate.” The statistics are questionable and they are British claims based on censuses carried out by the British Government. I never said that Thomas Walter Freeman supported the 1841 census, or that he was Irish yet you included this information. Freeman says that the 1841 census is more reliable than its predecessors not that he supports it. Now if you read the section on Death Toll in the article, you will see the problems with the 1841 census and the one carried out in 1851.

Now you include the text “with some 1841 estimates as high as 10 million.Toll of Holocaust - irishholocaust.org. Now that’s obviously not true because the source says “The 1841 census of Ireland revealed a population of 10,897,449” but the 1841 census gives a figure of 1841 8,175,124 [6] based on sources you give. Please read the discussions here here on this source.

You also use this source [7] which says that between 1754 and 1841 the rate of growth between the two countries was almost identical. So I ask again what the relevance of the proposed section is. You indicate that population growths relevance is primarily about claims of there being a surplus population but the text makes no mention of this at all. The proposed text only deals with census figures with questionable reliability and questionable sources. So let’s agree what the section is about first. Is it about questionable census figures or claims of there being a surplus population?

On your final point, one source for the information you are looking for is Cecil Woodham-Smith pages 30-31. Hope that helps. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we address both? The controversial claims of over-expanding population are notable and deserve an answer. Also the dubious reliability of census figures (from which the over-expansion claims arise) is notable and worth rebuttal. The section needs to explicitly state both of these claims in order to examine them, which is easy for the census as this is well sourced, but I need some help tracking down good sources the over-expansion claims. I believe the stereotype of Irish families being extraordinarily large is very strong in English society (it certainly has been my experience when talking to Englishmen about my mixed heritage), but being a prejudice this is difficult to find pinned down in writing - however the Arthur Young quote does provide considerable substantiation. Thanks for the CWS source tip by the way. My problem is that I have more questions than answers, and finding the article lacking answers to my questions, I will continue to need assistance tracking them down. Thanks again. Andrew Oakley (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you possibly start then by providing some examples of the controversial claims of over-expanding population also sources for the dubious reliability of census figures? This will provide a framework for the section. Might I suggest Christine Kinealy, This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845 - 1852, John Mitchel, The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps) (1861) (University College Dublin Press reprint, 2005 paperback), Cecil Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, 1845-49 (Penguin, 1991 edition) and James S. Donnelly, JR, The Great Irish Potato Famine, Sutton Publishing (UK 2005 RP), as obvious starting points for sources which are both WP:V and WP:RS. As I've indicated on my user page I'm busy at the minute but will offer as much help as I can. As to the prejudice and the stereotype of Irish families it is not that difficult to find, the sources above providing information in this area also. I hope that helps.--Domer48_'fenian' 08:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been no further modifications to this paragraph and no further objections for several weeks, so this appears to have reached consensus. If anyone has any remaining objections, please edit the paragraph to reflect your views and I'll put it live next week. Thanks - Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been no further modifications to this paragraph because you have not yet addressed the issues raised above. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is. You're welcome to edit it if you think it's wrong. People don't own articles nor sections of articles. See WP:OWN. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OWN? Don't spout nonsense! You think it's fine! Deal with the reasonable issues I've raised. See WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SYN. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You claim that the paragraph is wrong. Okay, this is a wiki. Edit it until it is correct. That's how wikis work. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I also note that nobody other than you, Domer48, objects to the paragraph as it currently stands. Should some arrive, they are also free to edit the section to correct it. Anyone? Last call? Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Assistance requested at WP:3O. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:PROVEIT, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article." Now I have challanged the information, and have been in discussions on this talk page a number of times about census figures which you have not read obviously! Now are you going to address the reasonable issues I've raised? At the very least, read the previous discussions! --Domer48_'fenian' 14:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am responding to the request for a third opinion. Let me summarize the situation, as I understand it. Andrew has proposed to add a subsection relating to overpopulation to the section of the article listing contributing factors as to why the blight so strongly impacted Ireland. Andrew's addition attempts to establish the population of Ireland at the time of the Great Famine, and it presents a range of figures and some commentary about the reliability of those same numbers. Domer has asked what the point of the article is, and although it is a weak way of stating it, the presented point as I see it is "What is certain in regard to the Irish population at the time of the famine is that it was a great handicap, in that family sizes were large, leaving life extremely difficult and death quite likely." I do not think specifics about the population need to be established to propose the argument that individual families had so many members that the blight affected them more severely than it would have had they had smaller families. I presume this is because large families were less mobile than small families, even though either type of family could have been the cause of a population change. If I were to add anything, it would be an explicit reason as to why a larger family was more of a liability than a smaller one. Unfortunately I cannot source any such statement, even though I think that is the point of this.

Andrew makes the point that there is no cross reference to what the population growth in other similar countries should be. I also agree that the addition, as written, does not demonstrate that whatever population growth that occurred over-populated Ireland. Domer asks about population figures, but to me, those do not seem relevant to this argument. Whether the population was at a healthy level or at a surplus (no one thinks it was abnormally low, right?), this text presents the problem as being unusually large family size, not as overpopulation. I think that the text would be much more focused and relevant by deleting the first paragraph (or possibly moving it to some section that does discuss population), leaving the second paragraph intact, and renaming it "Large Family Size" rather than "Population Growth."

Your thoughts? Bluerasberry (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Coming at this another way, I'm troubled that there is way too much interpretation going on here. What are the facts? What sources are available? If sources disagree, and multiple sources exist (as in this case), then this is what should be presented - a balanced article that puts forward the facts and the references. And where different POVs exist within published sources, this should also be clearly outlined - and let the reader determine the interpretation. --HighKing (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bluerasberry and HighKing for your comments. Bluerasberry you say Andrew has proposed to add a subsection relating to overpopulation to the section of the article listing contributing factors as to why the blight so strongly impacted Ireland. However, Andrew also accepts that between 1754 and 1841 the rate of growth between the two countries was almost identical, and agrees that the section needs to explicitly state both of these claims in order to examine them.

While the proposed text does not at all say why only Ireland suffered "famine", and it should, it does say that population growth in England and Wales occurred because of industrialisation and developments in communications. How does this explain the fact that the blight did not affect England, Wales or Europe to the same degree? Why only in Ireland was there a "famine"? How can population growth in Ireland be based on Irishwomen being exceptionally fertile, while in England and Wales because of industrialisation and developments in communications. If the growth between the two countries was almost identical, that would mean that large families in England and Wales was also the norm, would it not.

HighKing is correct, way too much interpretation going on here. What are the facts? What sources are available? --Domer48_'fenian' 08:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The paragraphs have now completed their third opinion review and the re-edited paragraphs are presented below. Domer48, and anyone else who has any further input or disagreement, please can you add your additional sources to the paragraphs below. Thanks. Andrew Oakley (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Oakley you can start by addressing the issues raised. As it stands it is not acceptable to anyone. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues raised. Nobody except you, Domer48, has any further objections to the paragraphs as they currently stand. Unless you can edit the paragraphs to address your own concerns, consensus has been reached. Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see what the purpose of the new paragraph is or what value it adds. It may be accurate in respect of the source quoted but the statements seem stereotyped and an attempt to gloss over issues. I don't see that the case has been made for inclusion. There are also few editors involved and certainly not enough to claim that any consensus has been achieved. --Snowded ^TALK 20:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you User:Snowded for that, most welcome. Like HighKing, Bluerasberry and myself, our thoughts and opinions have been ignored. At no time has Andrew Oakley attempted to addressed the issues raised, and to claim consensus has been reached is borderline disruption. See RfC below. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC) (outdent)In two sentences, what point is this paragraph trying to make. We'll fill in the references afterwards. The paragraph as written by Andrew doesn't appear to make any point, and I believe this is the problem with the paragraph as it stands. My attempt at a bullet list of points for this paragraph are:

• Ireland's population decreased significantly due to the failure of the potato crop and the subsequent famine
• Some have suggested that part of the reason for the large impact was due to the preceding years of very high birth rate
• British government census show the population to be ...
• Other sources point out ....
• Official position is (if one exists)

--HighKing (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel ignored by Andrew and I am not ready to say that anyone is disrupting anything, and I see nothing but good progress here. I agree with Andrew that it is best to post anything first because that gets more attention than anything on the discussion board, so I am not worried that he wanted to conclude discussion. I do also. So long as the the new ideas get some play on the main page without being immediately deleted then everything's cool with me.

I see two unrelated ideas in Andrew's original passage, and both are theories as to why the famine had such a huge impact. The first theory is that Ireland at the time of the famine was overpopulated. The second theory, with no relationship to the first, was that family sizes in Ireland were of a large size, and somehow that made them more susceptible to the effects of the famine, regardless of whatever the population was. When I originally revised the passage, I took out reference to population because in the original edit, there was only one stated thesis (family sizes were large making life difficult). I have looked around and found other sources that also say that Irish families were large at the time of the famine, and I presume this is stated so widely because people connect it somehow, but I have not found anything that I like so much as to cite it.

Despite my having stricken out the parts about population increase, Domer and Highking have spoken only about that. So I took out the stricken language, added some bold uncited assertions, and made that argument look better despite being scantly verified. I think both of these points should now be added to the "causes and contributing factors" section. I am not suggesting that the arguments are thorough, only that they now present and supported by some references. Does anyone have criticisms and does anyone concur? Bluerasberry (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there has to be some agreement on principles first. As currently drafted it sounds like an apologia and perpetuation of a stereotype. Population growth in that period was not confined to Ireland. The reliance on the potato crop was linked to the actual land are available to the poor. The famine is listed elsewhere as an example of indirect genocide which may be too extreme (although a sin of omission is as bad as commission if I remember my doctrine aright). The Oh the Irish were sex mad papists who produced lots of children and only have themselves to blame for what happened was/is a way of excusing both the economic set up and the indifference of the response as the tragedy emerged. Now I know you are not advocating such an extreme position but at the moment the text is very unbalanced. --Snowded ^TALK 05:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, lets summarize the situation, as you understand it. You say “Andrew has proposed to add a subsection relating to overpopulation” and that “Andrew's addition attempts to establish the population of Ireland at the time of the Great Famine.” First off, where is the supporting evidence to say that overpopulation caused the famine to have a more devastating effect than it would have had the population been at some optimal, lower level? Where are the referenced sources? Secondly, there is whole section in the article under the title “Death toll” which details the population of Ireland at the time and the various opinions of academics.

Now the question I asked was; what the relevance of the proposed section is? I asked a number of questions, none of which were addressed! So I’ll ask again:

• “Could we establish what the relevance of population growth has to do with the potato blight or the subsequent famine before we include it in the article?” This has not been done. Now Bluerasberry you said you “do not think specifics about the population need to be established to propose the argument” which lets face it is a ridiculous proposition if were talking about overpopulation. But you go on to make a number of presumptions only to then add that “Unfortunately I cannot source any such statement, even though I think that is the point of this.” This prompts one question; have you ever read WP:V, WP:RS or god forbid WP:NPOV? A fair question I think when we read "Whatever the population was, at the time of the other problems of the early 1850s it was much too high to permit the populace to support themselves by traditional means and was magnified by other problems so greatly that the overpopulation itself became a primary problem."? In addition to "The large family sizes around 1850 crippled families such that it made them more susceptible to the negative consequences of the famine." Even when you do have a source, you seem to have a problem, such as "Thomas Walter Freeman supported the 1841 figure" when Freeman says that the 1841 census is more reliable than its predecessors not that he supports it.

• 1. I pointed out that “Using questionable figures from web based cites when there are ample subject specific books which deal with the figures and how they are presented needs to be addressed.” The source is still being used even after I pointed out that the source was rejected on this article here and here.

• 2. I pointed out again on sources that they contradicted each other, and this contradiction is not mentioned at all. This was also ignored. So I’ll repeat it again! You include the text “with some 1841 estimates as high as 10 million.Toll of Holocaust - irishholocaust.org. Now that’s obviously not true because the source says “The 1841 census of Ireland revealed a population of 10,897,449” but the 1841 census gives a figure of 8,175,124 [8] based on sources you give.”

• 3. Andrew also uses this source [9] which says that between 1754 and 1841 the rate of growth between the two countries was almost identical. But in addition to that we know that even the population had been declining since before 1831. What does that say about suggestions of overpopulation. As was pointed out by John Mitchel on the claims of there being a surplus population in Ireland at the time, that Ireland was then the only country in the world with two surpluses, a surplus population and surplus of food produced on Irish soil to feed them. No sign of that in the proposed text?

• 4. You indicate that population growths relevance is primarily about claims of there being a surplus population but the text makes no claims of there being a surplus at all. Who made the claims, when were they made? The proposed text only deals with census figures with questionable reliability and questionable sources. So let’s agree what the section is about first. Is it about questionable census figures or claims of there being a surplus population?

• 5. Could you possibly start then by providing some examples of the controversial claims of over-expanding population also sources for the dubious reliability of census figures?

Now you say despite none of this being addressed that you are not worried that Andrew wanted to conclude discussion and that you do to. Well that worries me, because you are now suggesting that they now be added to the "causes and contributing factors" section. You even go as far as saying that you know that the arguments are not thorough, but are supported by some references. Complete and utter nonsense! Bluerasberry you have shown yourself to be totally incompetent lacking even the basic understanding of our policies or the subject of the article as illustrated by me above. Having moved from a position of a neutral third opinion you have now become an active participant by editing the text. There is no consensus for this addition and to date no attempt to address the reasonable concerns. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for worrying, offending, or otherwise upsetting you, Domer, but I acted in good faith and I wish that you would appreciate that. WP:GF You are a bit aggressive and seem emotionally driven to guide this article and I am not interested in speaking with a passionate person who qualifies me personally rather than my suggestions WP:NPA. The only thing I want to say is that I think you overemphasize primary sources (such as census data) when the focus of Wikipedia should be on citing secondary sources, avoiding primary sources whenever possible. WP:WITS I am removing myself from the review of this article because you have called me incompetent, and in good faith, I will respect that by leaving. If I may, I would ask that you also completely remove yourself from this discussion because I think that you are oppressing the establishment of a consensus with your harsh language. There is no need for anyone to reply to me about this. Cheers, Bluerasberry (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bluerasberry you have not offended or upset me at all, that I found you incompetent and lacking even the basic understanding of our policies however did worry me. I always try to assume good faith, and would never criticise without first providing supporting evidence, something you seem unable to do yourself. You have pulled out of thin air the issue of “primary sources” on census data, which again illustrates my point since no “primary sources” at all are used either here or in the article, they are all secondary sources. If you read the discussion, you will find that it is you who are "oppressing the establishment of a consensus" and again illustrates how far removed from reality you actually are. Now before you leave why not act in good faith and address the points I raised above? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed draft

Comments are invited on a proposed new paragraph which would, if consensus accepts, document whether (or not) population growth or family size was relevent to the Great Famine of Ireland. —evilandi (via posting script) 13:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Having sought and received a third opinion, not the one you were hoping for I might add, this latest request looks very much like forum shopping. That you have made no attempt to address the reasonable issues raised is also a cause of concern. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Draft proposed "Population Growth" and "Large Family Size" paragraphs - please edit until a consensus emerges Please add new text and new sources to rebut claims and expose bias, rather than removing existing sourced claims

Population Growth Overpopulation in Ireland around 1850 caused the famine to have a more devastating effect than it would have had the population been at some optimal, lower level. The British government census indicates that the population of Ireland grew from 6.8 million in 1821 to at least 8 million by 1841, with some 1841 estimates as high as 10 million. Irish historian Thomas Walter Freeman supported the 1841 figure but suggested that the 1821 census was an underestimate, "as although the enumerators were instructed to make their enquiries in the 'mildest and most inoffensive manner possible', they found 'determined hostility'", and that therefore the actual population growth rate was far lower. Whatever the population was, at the time of the other problems of the early 1850s it was much too high to permit the populace to support themselves by traditional means and was magnified by other problems so greatly that the overpopulation itself became a primary problem. Large Family Size The large family sizes around 1850 crippled families such that it made them more susceptible to the negative consequences of the famine. Cecil Woodham-Smith claimed that "the miserably low standards of Irish life encouraged young couples to marry early…girls married at sixteen, boys at seventeen or eighteen, and Irishwomen were exceptionally fertile" and quoted Arthur Young's comment regarding Irish females that "for twelve years 19 in 20 of them breed every second year". Population growth from 1750 to 1841 was estimated as high as 172%. Republican writer Máirtín Pilib de Longbhuel claims that "Population growth occurred throughout Europe including Britain. However, these areas, although experiencing similar population changes to Ireland, were very different in many aspects. Population growth in England and Wales occurred because of industrialisation and developments in communications. This doesn’t apply to Ireland because the areas that saw the greatest growth in population, the south and west, were the least industrialised areas in the country... What is certain in regard to the Irish population at the time of the famine is that it was a great handicap, in that family sizes were large, leaving life extremely difficult and death quite likely."

Comments

I am not an expert, but the census data (good or bad) is all we have. Unfortunately, the enumerator's books rarely survive, and there is no partly-processed data to enable a robust re-examination, even of a sample, to be made. Early marriage and high fertility go together. However early marriage is usually taken as a sign of a prosperous society, in which there was plenty of food, or at least where there had been a generation before. E. A. Wrigley, Continuity, Change, and Chance (concerning Britain) has explained the lack of a Malthusian crisis on the increasing use of mineral fuel in the industrial revolution. The issue can only be addressed by a counter-factual arguement, as to what would have happened to the Irish population and economy if there had been no famine. AS stated this is not my subject, but I would be wary as to whether an author using an emotive word like "holocaust" really had an objective neutral point of view. The use of such a source (unless balanced by a contrary view) is liable to place a POV on the article. How academically rigorous is this website? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The draft above strikes me as conceptually unclear. Is it trying to argue that having a lot of children around at the time the blight struck was a problem (a new one for me)? Or that a large population, relative to the local carrying capacity and social entitlement, meant there were more people to starve (fairly self-evident)? Or that population expansion made possible by the productivity of the potato kept rents high and otherwise helped to maintain disastrous social conditions and lack of economic development (an argument I've seen)? We need clarity and reliable secondary sources in any case, and I'm not sure that we even need a major section on Demographics of Ireland in here; arguments on the subject should go in that article, and this one should have a link and a very short summary. I suggest that we should work out what we're trying to say here, support it with credible references, and write the article properly. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Your posts are like two headlights in a very dark tunnel. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 23:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It strikes me that it's rather a tautology that if there is not enough food for X people, then fewer than X people would have been better off. That is to say, that there was a famine means that there were too many people compared to the amount of food available; had the population of Ireland been smaller, there may not have been a famine. QED. To spend two paragraphs discussing why this is and how the Irish were overpopulated reads as a bit undue weight and possibly (possibly, not saying anyone intended this, and I doubt anyone did) coatrack-y for "hurf durf Irish breed like rabbits." keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no shortage of food. The famine was caused by the continued export of food despite the potato failure. Had there been two million people less there would still have been enforced starvation. Sarah777 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw, the proposed sentences in the box above are complete gobbledygook. Sarah777 (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: At very least, these citations should be dated (in the prose). I see this "G. Talbot Griffith" reviewed in a British publication in 1927. In short, opinions about "rate of breeding" causing the Great famine would be laughably unacceptable in any academic context today. I doubt you can find any modern academic quoted writing that this is a load of toss, for the same reason there are not modern refutations of every writer who dabbled in phrenology: why would they bother? Everyone knows this is an embarrassing relic of the past. If someone is pushing to have this bunk inserted in this article (which is typical for Wikipedia), at very least it should be stated that modern mainstream works don't discuss such theories and these are works pushing a century in age. T L Miles (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)