Talk:Souperism

American spelling

I made a number of edits in accordance with WP:ENGVAR (proselytizing -> proselytising, ostracized -> ostracised, etc.), but these have been reverted. Why?

I also changed "not all non-Catholics made proselytization a condition of food aid" to "not all non-Catholics made religious conversion a condition of food aid". This was again effectively reverted. Proselytisation, as generally understood, is the act of converting (someone) - not of converting oneself, so the term "religious conversion" (which has both transitive and intransitive meanings) is more correct. Thoughts?
--Yumegusa (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Can someone (the editor in question or other) please show reason why we should (i) have American as opposed to Irish spelling in an article specifically about Ireland, and (ii) why we should use counter-intuitive and misleading vocabulary? Failing any response I will reinstate the relevant edits tomorrow.
  --Yumegusa (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You need to learn what is and is not American spelling. Fortunately we have an article, American and British spelling differences#Greek spellings, that clearly explains the error that you are making. "-ize" is not an Americanism. I also, for the third time, draw your attention to Wikipedia:Manual of style#National varieties of English, which says not to change from the style of the first major contributor without very good reason (which, as you'll realize after reading our article on the subject, you don't have).

    On the matter of whether this is religious conversion or proselytization, you have a better argument. However, most of the sources talk about proselytism, one talking about Protestant "proselytising mills". There's also the problem that the sources do not support the popular notion that conversion was required. There's a lot of myth surrounding souperism, as quite a few of the sources point out. I draw your particular attention to page 146 of Hatton, which states that "Souperism […] was contingent upon attending a church, or even of conversion." (my emphasis). It goes on to describe how children were required to attend religious school. The conversion wasn't always compulsory. The being subject to proselytism was. Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

    • I thank you, uncle, for that useful piece of education. I had been under the mistaken impression that there was a clear American/unamerican -ize/-ise divide. However, given that you have now made clear that you knew where I was coming from on this, it would have been infinitely more helpful had you initially pointed to American and British spelling differences#Greek spellings wherein lies the crux, rather than repeatedly mentioning Wikipedia:Manual of style#National varieties of English where we read, "the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic" (my emphasis). There would have been less time and energy (and WP resources) wasted had you seen fit to respond to the messages left on your Talk page and posted here above. And please, have the good manners not to tell other editors "You need to learn..."--Yumegusa (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I didn't think that I had to. Wikipedia:Manual of style#National varieties of English links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) right at the top, which not only discusses this itself but also links to that article. And I was a little exasperated about being held to an arbitrary 24-hour deadline on this. I have just spent a lot of time working on regional differences and dialects in Indian English, and I only have the one pair of hands. ☺

        As I said, though, I think that you have a fair and better point with religious conversion. Do you agree about what the sources say? Is the article unclear on this point? If so, how can we improve it so that it clearly expresses to the reader what the sources say? Uncle G (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

      • if i may weigh in here. I too am not happy with using proselytization in the sentence. I think ye have both made good points but have still missed the kernel of what was being done. the problem i think is that proselytism is done to someone by someone. the sentence as currently stands makes it sound like the process being complete was a condition of getting soup. which it clearly wasnt (alot of the time anyway). i will add the words "being subject to " . i think these should make the correct distinction. eleutherius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.169.135 (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations

There are requests for a lot of citations here. Cathal Pórtéir's Famine Echoes [1] came with a cd and was played on RTÉ Radio 1 every week back in spring 1996. The stories, if I recall correctly, were taken from the Department of Irish Folklore in UCD which is the successor of the Irish Folklore Commission and thus in possession of stories from survivors of the Famine. Anyway, there was a very poignant story in it about a man who had taken the soupl but died shortly afterwards and was buried in the local Catholic cemetery to the dismay of many in the village. Shortly thereafter a group of them went into the churchyard dug his body up and threw it outside the walls of the churchyard. 'Took the soup' is still a very common term today, applying to a wide variety of treachery. Captain Fearnought (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The extra eager fact tagging does suggest its own POV or agenda but adding sourcing, or possibly using the present sources if they indeed support items cited, will improve the article. I cleaned a up a few and the article needs work so feel free to be bold. -- Banjeboi 15:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting Captain Fearnought, but we never get to know the guy's name, nor the cemetery, and if he existed he was just one guy. Compared to millions helped (or not) by the Dublin administration.78.16.41.64 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sections

Any way of improving the sectioning of the article?Autarch (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Origin of term souperism?

Does anyone know when the term was first used? Soup kitchens were set up all over the place, and there was a Soup Kitchen Act in 1847. What was hated during the famine was not the religions of the suppliers, but having to wait for hours in a queue with a pot. By 1847 the government was providing soup in 1,826 out of the 2,049 electoral divisions, to about 3 million people. In comparison, a handful of preachers hoping to convert anyone were a tiny minority, that has been bigged up over the years to make it seem that all famine charity had some ulterior motive, compounding the horror of the famine with an imagined new level of evil on top.78.16.41.64 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this article should be titled "Souper" or "Soupers"....I've never heard of "souperism"! Sarah777 (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)