Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Editor32 (talk | contribs) at 16:46, 2 November 2007 (→‎YI Books tangentially related to the main topic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Irelandproj


Where are the suggestions? We need help to upgrade this article, please. (Sarah777 02:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Can't find the event. (Sarah777 12:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Past entries in this famous discussion are archived in:

.1 , .2 , .3 , .4 , .5 , .6 , .7 , .8 , .9 , .10 , .11 (empty)...


Name change again

The last name change was somewhat rushed. Should the name be
Great Irish Famine
or
Great Famine (1845-1849)
It is normally known as the Great Famine, and Great Irish Famine is somewhat of a neologism. Please comment. GH 21:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With hindsight, I'd say the latter. It would be consistent with the other article, Great Irish Famine (1740-1741). If a move is proposed, complete with a proper debate and notice via the proposed move template, I'd support it. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Ireland the name given is An Gorta Mór, translated "The Great Hunger." This would defiantly satisfy the criteria on Irish names in wiki policy, that is, it should be the English version. Since re-directs will bring you to the same page, I was hoping that would be the preferred option. If you look at the translation, it is less POV than any of them. As to the Great Irish Famine (1740-1741), that in Ireland is called the "Forgotten Famine." Like I said, the utility of the re-directs, should be employed. --Domer48 23:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Irish, the name given is An Gorta Mór. In English, in Ireland, its 'The Famine' or 'The Great Famine'. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and noone calls it the Great Hunger in English. No problem with redirects from 'An Gorta Mór' or 'The Great Hunger' to this article, though, wherever it ends up. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gorta means famine, not just hunger, I've always found its translation as "hunger" grating in the context - it sounds so twee and leprechaunish. For "Great Irish Famine" being a neologism, see contemporary uses of the description, such as Trevelyan (of Fields of Athenry fame) or Whyte, both from 1848. I would leave it as it is, without any need for dates. Adding them would really be quite pointless as it really is the Great Irish Famine, earlier contenders for the description really pale in significance. 99 times out of 100, a reader entering the phrase in the search bar would be looking this article not anything else. --sony-youthpléigh 23:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BastunBaStun not BaTsun, I have pointed out that in Ireland, in English, it is known by the name The Great Hunger, or simply, The Great Famine. Are you intimating that no one calls it the Great Hunger in England, as opposed to English. --Domer48 12:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Sony-youth, Great Irish Famine has been used before, but not in the general. The name almost supposes that there was a Great English Famine, a Great Welsh Famine etc etc for all countries. Maybe after a couple of days, draw up a list of options that can be voted on. GH 18:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such as the Great Ukrainian Famine, Great Indian Famine, Great Chinese Famine, Great Highland Famine, Great Bengal Famine, Great North Korean Famine, Great Finnish Famine, Great Ethiopian Famine, etc. etc. ... ? Regarding the name not being used in general, please see the many scholarly articles and books. As I wrote before, however, the original article title (Irish Potato Famine) would appear to be the most widely used (see books and scholarly articles). But be warned that that name was exposed before as some kind of 'British imperialist plot by people who knew nothing about Irish history etc. etc.', hence the move, and as a neologism as well (on that count see it being used as far back as 1870, here). --sony-youthpléigh 19:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine Sony, but not part of a singular contemporaneous wide-scale famine. I don't see conspiracy theories, or plots here. Don't generally believe in them. GH 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "singular contemporaneous wide-scale famine" is known as the European Potato Famine (see books, scholarly articles, web), which includes the less-well-known Belgian Potato Famine, Dutch Potoato Famine, English Potato Famine, French Potato Famine, German Potato Famine, Polish Potato Famine and Scottish Potato Famine. --sony-youthpléigh 20:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Potato Famine, Belgian Potato Famine, Dutch Potoato Famine, English Potato Famine, French Potato Famine, German Potato Famine, Polish Potato Famine and Scottish Potato Famine. Sony-youth, maybe some articles have to be created, none of your titles linked. GH 21:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! All them starvin' potatoes. Did they run out of fertilizer or somethin'?(Sarah777 11:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The European Potato Famine maybe, the other's can be treated under that. Of all, only the Irish famine resulted in a decrease in population. See here for a comparative analysis of the crisis: "Relative to Ireland, the death toll of the famine years 1845-1847 in the rest of Europe was small, some 100,000’s at the most." --sony-youthpléigh 21:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps (and it probably doesn't, since this is anecdotal) I've only ever really heard of it referred to as the Irish Potato Famine or the Great Irish Potato Famine. I'm not sure how the 'British imperialist plot by people who knew nothing about Irish history etc. etc.' that Sony-youth referred to is derived from the inclusion of the word "potato". Waggers 12:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I learned in school it was always called the Great Potato Famine or else the Irish potato famine and as Waggers says it is only anecdotal and have no ref. for it being called either so that is my two cents so to say.--BigDunc 12:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. You'll have to see the first proposal for a move from that title and try to figure that one out for yourself. :) --sony-youthpléigh 12:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Great Irish Famine" a case of academic terminology being used in Wikipedia? There's often competition in Wikipedia between the common name for something and the "scientific" term for it. I've not heard the phrase outside academic texts. MarkThomas 12:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the usual unscientific Google survey....
Exact phrase: Irish Potato Famine ... 159,000 hits [1]
Exact phrase: Great Irish Famine ... 56,000 hits [2]
Exact phrase: Potato Famine ... 364,000 hits [3] MarkThomas 13:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And "Great famine" = 285,000 [4]. Forget Google. You can prove anything with Google, that's if you really want to. GH 10:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to forget Irish + potatoe + genocide [5] 243,000 (Sarah777 11:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I didn't look past the first hit: "Indifference, not genocide." --sony-youthpléigh 16:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Sony, that kind of denial pees me off too. But I notice that if you offer the 'Dan Quayle' spelling and put in Irish + potato + potatoe + genocide you get 480,000 hits. Haven't tried spelling 'genocide' with a 's' yet; that should bring in some more. (Sarah777 16:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
See 46,100,000 hits. --sony-youthpléigh 17:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which kinda proves the point I was making to Mark, below. (Sarah777 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Compare with 2,220 hits. --sony-youthpléigh 19:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sony, would you not be better off defending me at Arb.com and being a bit outraged at the notion of a ONE YEAR BAN than twiddling around with Google? (Sarah777 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think if we are going to be in some way "guided" by Google results, they need to be exact phrase searches and not strings of words, otherwise the way Google works it just becomes a numbers game and not useful for guidance. MarkThomas 12:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well Mark, I think being guided by Google is rather dodgy; which is the point I was making really. I'm aware that getting the article renamed "The Great Genocide" would meet with some carping opposition and allegations of "POV pushing" in these here parts -:) (Sarah777 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
That's a viewpoint, but that search you just ran Gold heart tends to support the case that there is confusion around these names; note that the second result on Google for "Great Famine" is Great Famine of 1315–1317, and there are of course many other famines such as the Ukrainian forced starvation under Stalin that are sometimes called that or similar phrases. MarkThomas 10:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fine. What is your objective? GH 11:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Ireland the name given is An Gorta Mór, translated "The Great Hunger," now I know I'm not the only one who knows this [6]. An Gorta Mór, is also the official name given in Ireland. Irish is a descriptive language, to illustrate this I would use the following, “Níl aon tinteán mar do titeán féin. The English equivalent being “There is no place like home.” Yet if we translate the Irish version, directly it becomes “There is no fire like your home fire.” The title also I consider to be more neutral “The Great Hunger.” After all, how can you have a famine in a country with an abundance of food? Like I have said before, the Article can be called The Great Hunger, and the re-directs, regardless of your search, will bring you to the article you want. --Domer48 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Official" name? Who/what made it official, and where? Sure, its sometimes known as "The Great Hunger" in Ireland (in English) - but far more commonly known as The Famine, The Great Famine, or the Potato Famine. Interestingly, the Famine Museum (patron: Mary McAleese calls it "The Great Irish famine" in its intro.[7]. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That does sound fairly "official" Bastun, would you agree? I don't personally like the term purely because from a US/British educational background have always heard it called the Irish Potato Famine but am willing to accept the current version if it's in some way "official". MarkThomas 11:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - I don't think a naturally occurring event can acquire an official name - with an obvious few exceptions such as the naming of hurricanes and tropical storms. They usually go by their common name. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck is the "official name"?? Hits from Ireland: "The Great Hunger"- 2,060 vs. "The Great Famine" 16,500. --sony-youthpléigh 16:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I could just point out that the intro to a web site dose not make it official, but since you are willing to accept that, then the transcript of the Irish Presidents speech should suffice [8]. If an intro was enough for some, this should be accepted don’t you think. Now as to editors not from an Irish educational background, I thought this might be sufficient [9]. As to the Irish languge I think this would be enough [10], but what ties this all together is and is beyond dispute, what Irish people refer to as '”Bunreacht na hÉireann',” or in English “The “Constitution of Ireland.” And in the Irish Constitution, [11] as Irish people can attest to is section 8 which states that “Irish is declared as "the national language" and "the first official language", and English as "a second official language.” It then continues “The Irish text of the constitution takes precedence over the English text (Articles 25 and 63).” This is what gives An Gorta Mór, translated “The Great Hunger,” it’s “official” status. --Domer48 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I love a bit of sarcasam in the evening, we all know that Domer48 is not saying because the president said it, it is official but just drawing attention to you using an intro to a web site as if this tome some how has the scoope on the "official" name. Surely this fine web site is can be question the same way the President can and she is the patron of said muesuem. BigDunc 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peel

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

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

"In 1845 Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel took steps to alleviate the growing famine in Ireland: he purchased American maize, which was then re-sold for a penny a pound, and in 1846 moved to repeal the Corn Laws, tariffs on grain which kept the price of bread artificially high. The Irish called the maize imported by the government 'Peel's brimstone' — partly because of maize's yellow colour, partly that it had to be ground twice, partly that maize does not have--as potatoes do have--Vitamin C. Repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 did little to help the starving Irish; the measure split the Conservative Party, leading to the fall of Peel's ministry."<ref>Blake, 221-241.</ref>

The reference in question is Robert Blake's biography of Benjamin Disraeli. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the concept of Vitamin wasn't even invented until 1912, I seriously doubt that the Irish of 1846 had any worries about the lack of Vitamin C in their diet. TharkunColl 21:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the repeal of the Corn Laws, resulting in Irish farmers getting less for their crops, which payed their rents (not actually reciving money), with the result that the Landlords did not get their rent. This then increased the number of evictions. --Domer48 08:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Finally, the Irish are gone

Good to see that the real authority took control of this article and banned those Irish from telling the Irish side of the story. Now, this article can be wonderfully impartial. No better people than the British for being impartial about what that lovely Englishman termed 'those barbarous wretches'. 86.42.76.166 22:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone away you know! (Sarah777 23:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
And even if it was the case, which I'm glad to see it's not, there's a bunch of neutral folks who don't want EITHER side to dominate this, and will block people making personal attacks.. like the one you're getting. SirFozzie 00:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly (and thankfully) the attacks have virtually ceased in the past two weeks! Maybe the "bad guys" are on holidays"??!(Sarah777 00:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Could we add something on survivor guilt?

Given the long-term effects of this disaster, as with so many others, the concept of survivor guilt must be considered. The feeling of guilt by the 88% who survived - who ate their last mouthful because otherwise they would join their dying neighbours - including my ancestors - hasn't ever been explored. Also I don't see anything on Dan O'Connell's campaign to end the union with Britain in the 1830s; by the time of the famine one attitude in England was that the Irish clearly didn't want to be a part of Britain and should look after themselves.86.42.198.83 10:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Slea Head Famine Cottages

Not included in the memorials section are the Slea Head Famine Cottages, near Dingle County Kerry. [12] . This is an original cottage from the 1840s now set out a a museum with antique furnishings, explanatory panels on the famine , and a collection of local breeds of farm animal. Lumos3 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background to Famine

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

Good idea. But we'll probably fight about whether we should start with the introduction of the potato or the introduction of the English! (Sarah777 13:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

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

This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Further information concerning the selection of the appointed mentors will follow. Newyorkbrad 21:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So who decides on the mentors? Catchpole 11:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee. Mackensen (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A disinterested party's opinion

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

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

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

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

68.25.240.90 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Lee Merrick, Sept 5, 5:23 pm Central[reply]

Aftermath - style

These two sentences don't link up properly:

These killed few people, partly because they were less severe, but mainly for a complex range of reasons. However, on the other hand, the population in Ireland soon shrank...

On rereading it becomes clear that the shrinking population is one of the "complex reasons". The second sentence should read: "First, the population of Ireland soon shrank..."

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

It may be helpful to point out that the term genocide is recent and was unknown in the 1840s; contemporaries woul dhave spoken about extermination, murder, etc. The modern term was coined by Raphael Lemkin in the 1930s to express a wider concept than extermination, as in the UN Convention. Lemkin defined genocide as

A coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.

It would therefore include the Nazi plans to enslave the Poles and assimilate the Czechs.

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

--JamesWim 11:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC) 8 September 2007 stay in school amigo's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.189.242 (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peel's brimstone

"The Irish called the maize imported by the government 'Peel's brimstone' — partly because of maize's yellow colour, partly that it had to be ground twice, partly that maize does not have--as potatoes do have--Vitamin C."

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

Hiberno-English

I take it that this article should be in Hiberno-English/British English rather than American English. There are a few instances of the latter. Jooler 20:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Tags

I have added some tags which need to be addressed. Some of the older tags I will remove the unreferenced information and I will reference some of the information which has not been tagged. The references need to be cleaned up, and I will do that while I reference.--Domer48 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background suggested title

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


It may need to be edited down a bit, but this just gives an outline. --Domer48 21:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have adjusted the reference, based on the point you raise, I would think he was refering the "crown," but since that is not in the reference I used what was. --Domer48 23:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the section in place. Like I said, it may have to be edited down a bit, but at least if gives some context. --Domer48 10:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Irish Holocaust"

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

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


I think this is a bit more concise? --Domer48 09:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ihave introduced the proposed changes. Most of the information was repeated in the text of the article. This I consider to be a concise account on the article. --Domer48 08:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why the quotes around "relatively speaking"? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the term used by the author, if you think it can do without them please remove them. --Domer48 11:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Tags

Would editors be willing to address some of the citation tags on this article. How long should they be on, before the information is challanged and removed? --Domer48 19:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are being edited or deleted

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

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

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

Asmaybe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmaybe (talk • contribs) 21:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point, you can add the reference, but you should discuss it here first, the reason I say this, is, the figure of deaths by most if not all authors is 1 million +. Therefore it is a minority view, and would have to be presented as such. On your second point, 'blight' was not being used as a metaphor for "famine." That is your opinion. I have told you about your changes, and what is required. I have resorted to reminding you on your talk page, please read the links that have been provided, they will help you with your editing. So they best way to proceed from here is, discuss first, and then apply the changes. Thanks --Domer48 21:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did they count dead people in the 1851 census? (Sarah777 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

Who did they ask when whole villages had disappeared? (Don't know of any history claiming only 20k died in the famine - so it can't be relied on that much). (Sarah777 01:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

Bit of an "Angels on a pinhead point" though; very few folk EVER die from starvation in any famine; infectious diseases usually finish them off. And how could the "survivors" distinguish; they were hardly medically qualified! (Sarah777 02:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

True enough that in a weakened condition caused by famine, disease is a bigger killer than starvation itself, and "starvation" might actually cover such things as heart and kidney failure. Thus if worded in a particular way, quoting a figure of 21,770 deaths through starvation can definitely be misleading. However it is an official figure and the census gives figures for deaths through other causes which certainly indicate that a catastrophe was occurring, I think it can do no harm to work these figures into the article to support the guestimate or uncited figures. Jooler 02:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

All relevant verifiable facts should be included, I'd agree. (I'm not actually the one editing/reverting them!) I was merely taken by the notion of a census counting dead people! - and this led to a concern that it was being implied that the famine only killed 20k people. The disease issue should be fully covered in the article. (I recently read a similar debate re Iraq between the various body-counts; one set of figures included deaths from typhus etc caused by the loss of sewerage, electricity, clean water and the other argued that they couldn't be classed as "civilians killed as a result of the invasion". Put the FACTS out and let people draw their own conclusions. (Sarah777 03:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Lord John Russell, the British Prime Minister after 1846, refused to keep a register of famine mortality, a request made by Benjamin Disraeli and other MP’s in the House of Commons. Christine Kinealy. In Ireland the population in 1841, stood at 8, 175, 124. In 1851, the population was 6, 515, 794, a drop of 1, 659, 33 that is according to the Census, of 1851 (Thom’s Official Directory). The Typhus did not coincide with the famine, it was as a result of it. There is enough information by a number of authors to totally refute the figures produced. But that is not the point, this information replaced the original reference. So with all the interest now created, rather than bog ourselves down with this, lets reference or remove the unreferenced material, and then fine tune the information we have. --Domer48 08:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jooler I don't think it can do no harm to work these figures into the article to support the guesstimate or uncited figures. There are plenty of authors whose figures can be cited. That they are all in and around the same figure on the number of deaths is important, not because they tally, but because they come from diverse sources. Lets remember also, that people did not die from a lack of potatoes, they died from a lack of food. This is hardly addressed in the article also. --Domer48 08:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer: I don't want to sound like a a Nazi apologist stating that the vast majority of deaths in concentration camps were through disease (Belsen springs to mind of course), but I think it is very important to be clear on what Typhus is. Typhus is associated with squalid conditions not lack of food. It is caused by being a host to infected lice, or in the case of endemic typhus is spread by infected rats. In the days before antibiotics and proper hygiene typhus killed a vast number of people whether they were well-fed or not. That said, as in Belsen, those already in a weakened condition are certain to suffer greatly and die if they are afflicted by the disease. Sarah: "one set of figures included deaths from typhus" - Please. I would like to know where this set of figures is. People today, even in Iraq, are not hosts to body lice in the way they once were, and Typhus is now easily treatable with antibiotics. I hesitate to say that I find what you say (specifically in respect of Typhus) unlikely. But by all means prove me wrong. Jooler 10:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jools - my apologies, I was quoting from a casual read some days back, can't remember where. It was obviously TYPHOID and not TYPHUS they were talking about as [here]. But none of this really has any bearing on my comment - which is that disease kills most famine victims worldwide and the survivors questioned in 1851 were hardly any more medically qualified than I am! (Sarah777 13:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

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

Asmaybe 11:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Isn't there something dubious about using fictitious statistics?" Was it not you who cited the cencus figures as "a primary source, something later histories rely on." Even Jooler has said "quoting a figure of 21,770 deaths through starvation can definitely be misleading." Lord John Russell, the British Prime Minister after 1846, refused to keep a register of famine mortality, a request made by Benjamin Disraeli and other MP’s in the House of Commons. How would this effect the "Official" figures? The cencus commissioners calculated that at the normal rate of increase the population should have been around 9,018,799, giving a drop of 2.5 million. So you are being selective in your use of the figures, accept one conclusion, and reject the other. There are enough authors who would refute the figures. Splitting hairs between starvation and disease serves no useful purpose, unless you wish to illustrate how the figures have been used by some to mitigate the actual number of deaths! Typhus was the result of the conditions under which the people were forced to live, as was the effects of the blight. Like I have said, the people did not die from a lack of potatoes, they died from a lack of food. Lee's figures in the graph illustrate my point well, and are supported by many authors. You replaced this with information which can be described as "definitely be misleading" --Domer48 12:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 9m figure is as much guesswork as 21,770. Hardly. It being easier to count live people than dead ones. (Sarah777 14:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Asmaybe It was you who used the 1851 census as a point of reference , I simply used it to illustrate my point. I also used Lord John Russell to point out it's failings. As a "primary source" and as for "histories rely on it," I would beg to differ, is that not why I put "Official" in quotation marks. Most authors now use a variety or sources, such as the records kept by the poor law unions, the Quakers, and some first hand accounts. On your use of the census, in the article, you did not quote the census, you quoted an authors use of that information. While the census can be considered "a primary source," it can "definitely be misleading," the author can like wise. I have placed a citation tag beside the reference to emigration, but since the decline in population is mentioned in a number of places, and referenced I don't have a problem with it. The point that the population continued to decline is a valid point, and that is why the referenced points should stay. As to amending unreferenced information, that simply compounds the problem. Changing referenced information, and altering it's meaning should also be avoided. As to adding a reference to the census figures, and "noting it's limitations," which are many, I think you have already answered your own question.--Domer48 14:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Even Jooler has said 'quoting a figure of 21,770 deaths through starvation can definitely be misleading'." "which suggests that I have some kind of extremist agenda. Please withdraw it." What are you going on about? Answer on my talk page, I'd really like to hear how you worked that out. Strick through you own comment, if you now think it suggests that you have some kind of extremist agenda. --Domer48 15:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Official figures were unreliable, a point conceded by William Wilde. So if you wish to use the figure of 21,770 you are going to have to preface it with an outline of the use of the term marasmus and dropsy as opposed to famine-induced diseases. Having done that, you will have to point out that this figure is still a poor indicator of starvation, which will become obvious from the above. That should satisfy some of the medical background to that figure. As to the political background, the request of Lord John Russell should be explained since it would have some bearing on the unreliability of the figures. One question which could be asked is why was their a reluctance on the part of the authorities to return a verdict of “death by starvation” at inquests? I will to lend a hand with this, but still think addressing the unreferenced text first is the best approach. --Domer48 22:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing the Article

This article is in a very sorry state a the moment with a large amount of unreferenced information. Could we not deal with the unreferenced information first, before we start to add more of it. I would be willing to address some of it, but it would require some amount of time. Could editors discuss changes here first, as to avoid problems later. Thanks. --Domer48 21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Census 1851

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

  • “To give a precise figure for deaths during the famine would be impossible; the data in the 1851 census are clearly defective.” Ireland Before the Famine 1798-1848, Gearóid Ó Tuathaigh, Gill & Macmillian, p.182
  • “In 1851, the Census Commissioners attempted to produce a table of mortality for each year since 1841… The statistics provided were flawed and probably under-estimated the level of mortality…” This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-1852, Christine Kinealy, Gill & Macmillian, p. 167
  • “…in the 1851 census of Ireland. While these death tables have been rightly criticised as under estimating the true extent of mortality…” Mapping the Great Irish Famine, Líam Kennedy, Paul S. Ell, E. M. Crawford & L. A. Clarkson, Four Courts Press, p. 37
  • “It is based largely on the reworking of a famous but flawed source, the Tables of Death… for the 1851 census.” Ireland’s Great Famine, Cormac Ó Gráda, University College Dublin Press, p. 3
  • “The mortality statistics of the 1851 census, which suggest almost one million deaths in total, including ‘normal’ and famine deaths for the years 1846 are undoubtedly an underestimate as they rely on the recollections of survivors to record family deaths…” The Famine in Ireland, Mary E. Daly, Dublin Historical Association, p.98

I hope this can move the discussion along, and while I consider it a vital section, sorting out what we have already will then allow us to expand the sections together. I would like to point out also, that in some cases the authors disagree on different aspects of this subject, so their views could not be considered uniform.--Domer48 20:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - the census should be included, but as the references point out, its figures are deeply flawed - who records the deaths from a wiped out village, or deaths in a family where the survivors all took coffin ships west? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It's flawed, but I think it should be worked in somewhere and shall return to that topic. On a related matter, in the deaths section there's a reference to Joe Lee's 'Modernization of Irish Society' as an authority for this statement: "Modern historians and statisticians estimate that between 500,000 and 2,000,000 died from disease and starvation. [17]" In fact what Lee says is 'at least 800,000 people died' (page 1), so this isn't a correct citation. I would like to change that sentence to 'between 775,000 and 1,500,000', citing R.F.Foster's 'Modern Ireland 1600-1972' as authority instead of Lee. Would that be acceptable? Foster writes: "At least 775,000 died, mostly through disease, including cholera in the latter stages of the holocaust. Here again the authorities disagree. A recent sophisticated computation estimates excess deaths from 1846 to 1851 as between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000, varying widely from county to county, as usual: after a careful critique of this, other statisticians arrive at a figure of 1,000,000." While he goes on to express reservations about how an 'excess' population can be measured, as a reference he's a better authority than Lee. Asmaybe 22:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Domer, we cannot avoid some reference to the 21k census figure, however ridiculous it is. As someone who was bitterly opposed to attempts to excise any reference to "genocide" in the article I believe that censorship is not the way to deal with these issues. I really don't believe anyone here believes that is an accurate figure as all educated opinion seems to argue between 800,000 and several million; reference the massive body of contra-indicators and the facts speak for themselves. (Sarah777 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Sarah, I have no problem with the 21k figure, provided that it is prefaced because its deeply flawed. Asmaybe, the use of R.F.Foster is problematic, as his work has been heavily criticized, for bias and his revisionist theories. Joe Lee is only being used as a reference and I would not consider him to be an "authority." Christine Kinealy on the other hand, would be a much better reference to use, her work has both depth and detail, and references all her work, something which is lacking in others. --Domer48 23:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asmaybe is right in wanting to add the referenced source to the 1851 census figure; it should not just have been deleted; and the thing to do if you want to raise doubts about the quality or relevance of the source (in this case a primary one so they have to be good sources raising good doubts) is to add referenced material challenging it and explaining why. Have you added it back in Asmaybe? I would support it's inclusion in the article. MarkThomas 09:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for the inclusion of this information I have outlined here, . You can not get a better source than William Wilde’s to challenge the figures. In addition, the references used above to challenged the 1851 census are all accepted. --Domer48 12:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The source is the 1851 census, the figure you wish to use was provided by William Wilde, I thought you knew that? --Domer48 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No, what I’m saying is that you are trying to use information that you know is flawed. A fact, which is supported by most historians. It has also become obvious; that you did not even know who William Wilde was, and yet you could quote his figures as being factual. This despite Wilde himself pointing to the numerous short comings. It is you, who wishes to use the census figures and the death tables, and “see value in showing the proportionate causes of death,” despite Wilde, and a whole host of historians saying they are flawed. And finally, most historians agree that more died from disease than starvation? Cite that! The figure most historians agree on is a figure of 1.5 million who died from starvation and starvation related diseases. Might I suggest you read the reports of Mokyr, Cousens, and the conclusions of Ó Gráda based on Cousens. Even then, it is suggest the figures are too low. And yes, in answering your question, I am using the reports of the 1851 census, to challenge your attempt to use it as factual. A very logical way to deal with it. Asmaybe the death table figures are not “incomplete,” they are wrong. --Domer48 16:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"And finally, most historians agree that more died from disease than starvation? Cite that!"
Try these.
"Disease in fact, accounted for many more fatalities during the Famine than deaths from starvation" Christine Kinealy, This Great Calamity, p171
"The total of those who died during the fever epidemic and of famine diseases will never by known, but probably about ten times more died of disease than of starvation". Cecil Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, p204
"The overwhelming majority of deaths during the Famine was due to disease." Cathal Póirtéir, Famine Echoes, p100
"At least 1,000,000 Irish lives were sacrificed to death and disease in the mid- and late 1840s. The vast majority succumbed to epidemic infection, some to deficiency diseases, the remainder to starvation." Laurence Geary, 'what people died of during the Famine', Famine 150, edited by Cormac Ó Gráda, p95
"Relatively few died of literal starvation during the Great Famine; dysentery, typhus, typhoid fever, and other hunger-induced infectious diseases did most of the damage." Cormac Ó Gráda, 'The Great Famine and other famines', Famine 150, p137
Domer48, you say the death table figures are not incomplete, they are wrong. Well these historians are agreed that more people died from disease than starvation, which is exactly what the 1851 census shows.
You have once again deleted my contribution on this subject, even though I indicated that the census data on the cause of death was gathered 'informally'. This means its not cast in stone. Nevertheless, the proportions of deaths are accurate judging by the above quotes. Statistics make that case very quickly and they belong in the article. You should let people make up their own minds on this and stop deleting my contributions. Asmaybe 17:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The census figures are flawed. “OK. It's flawed” Asmaybe 22:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC). And still you insist in putting them in. The criteria for the inclusion of this information I have outlined here. You have not done that, and the use of the word “informal,” dose not do it. "Well these historians are agreed that more people died from disease than starvation," what figures do the give? Do they give the census figures no! Because they all agree they were falwed.--Domer48 18:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the census findings were incomplete. But would more complete information have shown that starvation actually killed more than infectious diseases? I'm not sure. I'm also not convinced that you have William Wilde on your side because you haven't given convincing evidence of this. Blithely referring me to the 1851 census doesn't suffice. So I would like to see something more substantial from you, such as an exact quotation.
I have already responded to your criteria for including the 21,772 figure. John Russell's failure to keep a journal didn't invalidate the 1851 census. Your remark about coroners' reports not bringing in verdicts of 'death by starvation' is historically wrong. There are many such verdicts mentioned in Woodham-Smith's book. Dropsy is not fatal as far as I can tell from reading the Wikipedia article, and marasmus can be considered a synonym for malnutrition, which is included under 'deaths by starvation'. Asmaybe 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I have no problem with the 21k figure, provided that it is prefaced because its deeply flawed." Asmaybe 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you have not. "Informal" dose not cover the criteria outlined. --Domer48 09:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your objections aren't reasonable. Neither dropsy nor marasmus are mentioned in the 1851 table. Dropsy isn't fatal and marasmus simply means malnutrition. So requiring me to mention them doesn't make sense. Typhus and smallpox are not famine-induced. Bacillary dysentery can occur independently of famine and is really a question of sanitation. If I was to go into detail on these that's what I'd say. I'm not going to pretend that deaths from disease were really caused by malnutrition.
John Russell was caught out by a parliamentary opponent who wished to score a political point. To refer to that in the context of death statistics would be inappropriate.
What I'm doing is adding 1851 census data to the article. If saying they were collected informally isn't enough, I could perhaps say 'disputed', and quote one of your historians. Would that be acceptable? Asmaybe 12:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll

User:Asmaybe I have referenced that bit in Death Toll section re 4.4 million. Now that it is referenced, why do you not move it down to the "Aftermath" section. If that is any use to ye, if you have a problem with it there. Just a suggestion. Not to happy with the reference though, but I had remembered reading it and found the book at the back of my shelf! --Domer48 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Young Ireland Book list

The Young Irelanders were members on the Repeal Association, prior to establishing the Irish Confederation. The influence through writing and public speaking had on politics at this time was profound. In their publications during this period they gave detailed accounts of both the progress of the blight and its effects. Their publications are still used today as both primary and secondary sources. Any study of this period would have to be cognisant of there views and opinions. --Domer48 13:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree! I'm in no way suggesting that the YI movement and its writings are somehow irrelevant to the Great Famine. I'm not even suggesting that the list doesn't have value, which it clearly does...and its use in the Young Ireland article is obviously appropriate. It makes much less sense within the Famine article, however. The fact that the YI was a contemporary movement that was heavily influenced by the Famine means that they should probably receive a prominent mention in a description of the famine's social and political effects, but that doesn't mean that a catalog of YI's publications should receive its own section in the article. I'm merely trying to rein in what appears to be a bit of listmania. Dppowell 13:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing I meant to add--where possible, we should use/quote the YI sources to reinforce & illustrate ideas presented in recent historical scholarship. Again, I've no quarrel with the sources themselves...merely the list-style presentation. Dppowell 13:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merit of the YI book section is obvious, a point you accept yourself. That you also accept their prominent influence in the social and political effects relevant to the subject matter would alone warrant its inclusion. That they wrote almost exclusively on this subject, giving first hand accounts make them ideal primary sources. Anyone interested in studying this subject in more detail would find this information invaluable. The books are interesting, informative, relevant and encyclopaedic, which enhance the depth and coverage of the article. I suggest that the list be added, as its rational for inclusion is obvious. It should not be seen in the context of simply a book list, as I have illustrated, it is much more than that. --Domer48 20:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list does very little to "enhance the depth and coverage of the article." It's only a list. Try to look at the article from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about the subject. If the article employed and cited actual content from the books, that would be one thing. As a standalone list, it's a non sequitur. Dppowell 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Irelanders are mentioned 3 times in the article. Therefore, it dose in fact add depth and coverage to the article. It is not therefore a stand alone “list.” As to using them as references, simply read the discussion page. I have repeatedly asked for the article to be referenced before additional information is added. I have every intension of using these books as sources. So, considering you have yet to provide a rational reason why you removed the list, could I suggest you add it back. --Domer48 21:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on the Great Famine, not Young Ireland. YI has its own article--which includes this same exact list. YI's peripheral connection to the topic doesn't warrant the inclusion of YI's corpus in an encyclopedia article on that topic. I've provided several rational reasons for removing the list; I might add that referring to other editors' motivations as irrational isn't going to do much to help you build consensus around here. If you insist on re-adding the list, I'm not going to remove it again, but I will probably put out a call for other interested editors to join the discussion. Thanks, Dppowell 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"referring to other editors' motivations as irrational," were did I call you "irrational?" Thats right no where! "YI's peripheral connection to the topic?" Sorry wrong again, they play a central part on so many levels to the subject of the article. "Put out a call for other interested editors to join the discussion." Canvass away, the more editors intrested in the subject the better for the article. That is what you had in mind is it not? "isn't going to do much to help you build consensus around here," an intresting phrase? You have provided no policy based reason for removing this information. When you do provide a policy based reason, please use the discussion page first, before you remove the information. Removing information without discussion "isn't going to do much to help you build consensus around here." --Domer48 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you nor I nor any other editor needs "a policy-based reason" to make good-faith edits. You may want to review WP:OWN. Dppowell 22:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest you read article development, in particular how to develop an article. You will notice how important finding relevant books are in an article. I have read WP:OWN a number of times, so might I suggest you play the ball and not the player. You have used the term “list” a number of times and never cited any of the criteria on WP:LIST to justify removal of information. I on the other hand have addressed every point you have raised. I will give you the opportunity to replace the section, because it is the right thing to do. If you then wish to continue this discussion I’m more than willing. Just use some policy based reasons. --Domer48 23:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we're really talking past each other, here, and I'm no longer hopeful of reaching a consensus unless some more voices join the discussion. My objection to the book list is one of basic outlining and organization of information. The main heading of this article is "Great Irish Famine." Each subheading of the article should have a primary relationship to the main heading (e.g., history, causes, response, domestic/international reaction, aftermath, etc.). A list of books authored by the members of Young Ireland does not meet this criterion, and would not even if the books were explicitly about the famine, which they are not. You apparently disagree. Unless I've badly misunderstood, I think we're stuck here until some others chime in. Dppowell 00:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the list should not be included as it adds nothing obvious to this article and it appears slightly intrusive as a separate "list". If individual books are used as references they can be included in the normal way. I will include a wl to the Young Ireland article in the further reading section which may be a sort of compromise. Abtract 01:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains, the books take nothing away from the article, they in fact, add to it. As to having to have a “primary relationship,” to the article, without Young Ireland the article would be like talking about the famine without mentioning the blight. The Young Irelanders are as much apart of this article as the blight. As a navigation tool between historical and contemporary sources they are invaluable in organizing information in an article. So we have a section which is relevant, that provides information, can be used as a navigation tool, and can be used in the development of the article. The content of the section is obvious from the title, as opposed to say “related topics” or “reference list.” Finally the content of this section is encyclopaedic, the only failing being that it will have to be put in chronological order. So the only question is, should it be listed in a) by author or b) publication date? --Domer48 09:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Domer, I doubt anyone familiar with the period would dispute that Young Ireland should be mentioned in the Famine narrative. I might even agree that a well-written summary of the movement, with a pointer to the main Young Ireland article, would be an appropriate subsection for this article...something to complement or replace the '1848 rebellion' paragraph that exists now. It would be a good place to elaborate on the Famine's role in the genesis of Irish republicanism. But a book list, in and of itself (a very important distinction I'm trying to communicate), does not rise to the same level of relevance to the main topic. I think your dedication to the topic of the Young Irelanders may be blinding you to the big encyclopedic picture. As I said above, I'm not going to revert again if you re-insert it, but I deeply doubt that it will survive if/when this article goes through a sustained improvement drive to reach GA or FA status. Dppowell 14:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dppwowell's comment above - clearly it should be described and summarised but the list belongs in Young Ireland. MarkThomas 14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the list already is in Young Ireland, so it's not as though its removal here blots it off the face of Wikipedia. Dppowell 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have pointed you in the direction of WP:LIST it being your main contension, and you have not raised any issue based on WP:LIST I will re-add the books. When the citations have been addressed, I intend to add a great deal of information, using primary sources most of the time. Rather than a summary of the movement, I was going to add there comments on the economic, social, cultural and political aspects of the period as each topic is raised. I don't doubt that it will survive a sustained improvement drive to reach GA or FA status, based on the rational I have used. Now if you would like to help in the drive to reach GA it would be more than welcome. --Domer48 15:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to, but the fact that a basic, necessary repair of the outline resulted in a disagreement of this magnitude doesn't exactly have me chomping at the bit. I can only imagine what might happen if I were to make an edit which differed from your favored historical interpretation! The subject is important enough that I'm sure a more community-based effort to improve it will get underway eventually. When that happens, I hope you'll be more willing to work with the contributions of other editors. And I'll be pleased to lend my assistance. Dppowell 15:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reversed it; can we try to achieve consensus Domer48 in particular? I feel that you are determined to add the list come what may and the arguments you put in favor don't seem to several of us to justify re-insertion. Why do you not feel that it should really be in Young Ireland alone since that is the key article? If we can clarify that first we can make progress. MarkThomas 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we do, let's please not get into an edit/revert war over this list. Domer's willingness to re-add it in the face of opposition from three editors is very troubling, but in spite of his attitude, I also believe that he's knowledgeable about the subject and is editing in good faith. If there's no room for compromise on something this basic, I don't have high hopes for the immediate future of the article. Dppowell 16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I didn't think it was anything personal on your part, Mark--sorry if I gave that impression. Dppowell 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we are on to the subject of consensus now? Where was the consensus to remove the information? It’s a valid question, and I’d like a clear reason for its removal. Now the whole thing has revolved around what editors have described as a “list.” Not one editor has mentioned WP:LIST, or the guidelines contained on it. I pointed editors to WP:LIST and still no one cited it as a reason for the removal of the information. So all you have is your opinion as to its removal, and nothing else. So here once again is the link WP:LIST, how dose it fail to meet the criteria WP:LIST?Oh and your juvenile attempts to make me out to be unreasonable, don’t work, Admin’s can read they are not stupid. --Domer48 17:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, I gave an extremely clear reason for its removal. Two other editors seem to agree with me. I'm not prepared to call three vs. one "consensus," but it's definitely headed in that direction. It doesn't need to be unanimous. Your insistence that the entire discussion must be framed within WP:LIST is a strawman. Nobody is trying to make you seem unreasonable, but you're doing a fairly good job of presenting that impression yourself. Also, please mind your tone. You previously described my reasoning as irrational ("you have yet to provide a rational reason") and now you're alleging that other editors are "juvenile" vis-a-vis their contributions to the discussion. Please be civil. Dppowell 18:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there consensus to remove the information? No. To replace the information, you now need consensus! It was you who described it as a list, and have continually referred to it as such. I point you to WP:LIST and you call it a strawman! I think you should read it first, before you cite it. So first things first, no consensus to remove / consensus need to replace. Have I got that right? It’s acceptable according to WP:LIST but because we are not talking about WP:LIST , were talking about Your “LIST” based on your definition and criteria, and it fails. Have I got that right? Now since you continue to address me and not the edits you will have to read this. While you are there you should also read this and it pretty much covers what you have been doing. Now answer the questions I asked re:Consensus and “LINK.”--Domer48 19:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said everything I think there is to say about the book list and its appropriateness for this article. You seem to be suggesting that the original edit needed to be approved before it was made. I don't think that's what you mean. Dppowell 19:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you are devoid of any answer to my valid and reasonable questions. That being the case, I see no reason why the information should have being removed, the only objection being your opinion. I will again allow you the opportunity to replace it, failing that I will. Should it again be removed, and consensus is cited, I will insist on it being replaced by an admin, and consensus be established first, before it can be removed. I would also put editors on notice, should they continue to attempt to personalise this discussion, I will consider it disruptive. --Domer48 19:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, I'm not the last person who removed the list. And frankly, the questions you're asking don't make any sense. You're throwing half-digested chunks of policy around, demanding explanations for edits, baldly asserting the correctness of your version of the article, and now you're threatening administrative action against editors who remove the list from the article. Not to put too fine a point on it, but your permission is not required to make that edit. As I said above, I agree that there's not quite a consensus, but by the same token, consensus does not mean "Domer48 agrees."Dppowell 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As no concensus was reached in the first place I feel edits by MarkThomas and Dppowell pre empt this discussion. BigDunc 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BigDunc. Thanks for chiming in--would you elaborate? Dppowell 20:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of this is that any changes should be disscused before changes are made. BigDunc 20:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dppowell you are again trying to personalise this discussion. I strongly suggest you remain civil and stop with the strawman attacks. Please read the discussion page on articles, and you might learn that you do have to discuss first on this article talk page. Having now been made aware of this, I hope you will stop and think before you engage in your attacks on me. --Domer48 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, you're free to allege to anyone who will listen that I am attacking you or being uncivil. I'm comfortable with the way I've conducted myself in this discussion and would welcome a review by anyone dauntless enough to wade through this entire thread. This discussion isn't productive right now, so I'm stepping back for the moment. Dppowell 20:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

order of the sections

I was wondering if editors could review the article. In particular the chronological order of the sections. There is also a doubling up of some information. And as usual, with me, the unreferenced material. Can it be cited or removed? --Domer48 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Do you need to be remineded of this MarkThomas and also I am sure you are aware of WP:AGF but have a read before you accuse editors of tactical editing. BigDunc 21:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it's incivil to suggest that cite tags have been placed tactically; MarkThomas doesn't suggest any particular individual did it. The above remark seems quite offensive in itself; is Wikipedia always this vituperative? LiberalViews 18:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect MarkThomas is well aware of the arbitration ruling. In no way is the ruling intended to enjoin editors from reasonable editorial commentary. Mackensen (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never accused MarkThomas of directing his comments at any one editor just his use of tactical is not Assuming good faith on editors of this article. BigDunc 11:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Tags redux

I have asked for citations to be addressed a number of times now and not much has happened. Is it safe to assume that this unreferenced information can now be removed? I will then start to go through the article section by section and offer suggestions. --Domer48 21:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Gotta be WP:BOLD betimes. (Sarah777 01:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I strongly disagree and I also have to say it's pretty obvious what is happening here. Looking back over this article it had quite a long period with no editing allowed any my opinion is this should happen again. I will request it as evidently things are heading back into ignoring consensus-building, as above. LiberalViews 18:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other note, I have checked the policies carefully and it looks to me as though Domer48 is edit-warring with his/her repeated insistence against other editors on re-inserting the Young Ireland booklist; would you agree Mackensen? Thanks for any help in this. LiberalViews 19:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LiberalViews on the one hand your saying "we need to achieve consensus on the talk page before any change where it is disputed," and on the other that I'm "edit-warring with his/her repeated insistence against other editors on re-inserting the Young Ireland." So I edit warring by replacing it, and no one else is by removing it not trying to "achieve consensus on the talk page before any change." Can you explaine? --Domer48 19:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question was to Mackensen. Domer48 is edit-warring because a number of editors now have stated that they oppose re-inserting the list and have removed it, and each time Domer48 has replaced it and raised spurious grounds for doing so. LiberalViews 19:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the diff's for my "spurious grounds"? Comment and opinion count for nothing. So if I go around removing all the reading lists on wiki which are attached to articles you would agree with it? Are we not talking about WP:LIST, tell me how it fails the criteria? --Domer48 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have already raised this issue earlier, you may have missed it, [13], to date John Mitchel and Michael Doheny are referenced. A cursory glance of the reference list will show a complete lack of contemporary sources from this period. So although there are a wealth of primary sources available, none are used. I intend to change that. I will also include a list of newspapers from the period, and quote from them also, and the diversity of opinion within them. This is also true of Young Ireland, with Charles Gavan Duffy and Darcy McGee disagreeing with Mitchel and Doheny. I will use Duffy and McGee in the section we are currently working on now, I will just select the appropriate topic, possibly Duffy on Corn Laws, and McGee on the affect on them in Westminster? What do you think? --Domer48 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice Mackensen comment above, and me agree with them. Now if you wish to now change the nature of your objection to WP:NPOV start a new section, and we can discuss it.--Domer48 23:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My original objection still stands. The titles are only tangentially related to the main topic and do not warrant placement as a list with its own section. The NPOV angle is merely another potential objection; I don't see it as the main problem. Dppowell 00:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration followup

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

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

LiberalViews we need to achieve consensus on the talk page before any change where it is disputed.--Domer48 19:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this last comment. Can you explain please Domer48? Thanks. LiberalViews 19:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion prior to it being removed. --Domer48 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dppowell, to request mentors views of the recent activity here. In particular the following principles which I signed up to. While I agree with them, that is immaterial, because the are binding on everyone regardless of weather they were involved in the arbitration. --Domer48 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government response

The initial British government policy towards the famine was, in the view of historians such as F.S.L. Lyons, "very delayed and slow".

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

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

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

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

I agree Mackensen I have the 1973, and your quote appears on page 42. If you replace that section with a reworded version of the quote above it should be fine. --Domer48 19:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen could we insert the following into this section:


I will of course expand on it, outlining how Peel had decided at least four years before 1845 about repealing the corn laws, as one might assume it was only as a result of the blight. --Domer48 20:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mackensen would it be possible to remove "Some historians, such as" as we would probably have to specify who those historians are, for example Christine Kinealy’s acclaimed study of the Famine, This Great Calamity, a highly professional and scholarly work says:
It is just a small point, but one mentioning now. Might I also add, that it is great to be doing something productive for a change. Thanks --Domer48 21:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, let's incorporate that. Again, though, which government? It's no minor point; the fall of Peel's administration represented in many ways the triumph of party politics over the ministerialist ("Queen's ministers") approach. As we've seen, Peel pursued numerous short-term expedients while addressing what he saw as the long-term structural problems. I'll need to consult Kinealy's book. Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here, I've got Kinealy in front of me now (1995 edition). What page is that quotation from? Mackensen (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Peel and the Corn Laws, I'm not sure he'd really decided as early as '41 to repeal. Both Norman Gash and Robert Blake are doubtful on this point, but they do agree that his decision to go for repeal in late '45 had as much to do with structural factors as the immediate crisis. Feel free to work in that passage on "Peel's brimstone." There were other attempts at purchasing that might be worth mentioning, depending on how much detail the article needs. Mackensen (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mackensen I was referring to removing "Some historians, such as" being the minor point. I just used Kinealy to illustrate the point. Which Government is important though. I will try find the quote from Peel were he said no one died of starvation when he was in office. Thanks for that. I'll start on that in the morning, and put it on the talk page before I place it onto the article. --Domer48 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen I just read the Corn Law article. Only one mention of Ireland. It’s stark to think of it, when one considers the effect repeal had on the Irish. One would think the article would have had more on it? --Domer48 22:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Corn Laws isn't especially good. It's been on my list to fix for years but I've never gotten to it. Mackensen (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YI Books tangentially related to the main topic

Dppowell could you explaine how the YI Books are only tangentially related to the main topic. Could you cite sources to back this up. And we should really deal with the question of WP:NPOV also, as you comment here could be seen as suggesting being disruptive. --Domer48 00:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, I've already explained that position here, here, here, and here. As to the other, I've said three or four times now that if you'd like to report my allegedly disruptive edits, along with the myriad of other violations you've accused me of, please be my guest. Here's a link. I'd be pleased to have an experienced admin or two review both this discussion and the recent edit/reversion activity in the article history. I've resisted the temptation to do it myself, because I know that admins are busy and that as disruptions to the encyclopedia go, this situation is probably around a 2 or 3 on a 1-to-10 scale. But don't let that stop you. Dppowell 00:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite sources to back up assertions, all you have provided is opinion, your opinion. If you look at the above discussion, that is how its done. Editors bring sourced content to the talk page, and we discuss it. So cite sources which support your opinion. --Domer48 01:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else other than Domer48 seriously believe the above referenced comment by Dppowell is evidence of "disruption"? Really, this is nonsense! Can an admin take a look at what's going on here and ask Domer48 to stop casting allegations around please? LiberalViews 09:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. And on the matter of the YI books list, IMHO they're just clutter. Condensing them to "Several books by Young Irelanders make reference to the Great Irish Famine" is more than enough. --sony-youthpléigh 15:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it a bit of a turn-off to see editors personally picking at eachother, and it makes me reluctant to enter my opinion. Nevertheless, I would suggest that these primary sources should be noted, and should recieve a broad mention in the article at the very least. Editor32 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typhus

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

  1. ^ a b Cathal Póirtéir, The Great Irish Famine, RTE/Mercier Press, 1995, ISBN 1 856351114.
  2. ^ Helen Litton, The Irish Famine: An Illustrated History, Wolfhound Press, 1994, ISBN 0 86327-912-0
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Edward Laxton was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Last Conquest Of Ireland (Perhaps)], John Mitchel, Lynch, Cole & Meehan 1873
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Peter Berresford Ellis was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52, Christine Kinealy, Gill & Macmillan, Dublin, 1994, 2006, ISBN 13 978 0 7171 4011 4
  7. ^ Christine Kinealy in “This Great Calamity” points out that “proportionately, fewer people have died in modern famines than during the Great Famine,” a point echoed by Cormac Ó Gráda in “The Great Famine and Today’s Famines” also in Cathal Póirtéir, The Great Irish Famine (Mercier Press 1995).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference This Great Calamity was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Famine_(Ireland)&oldid=168758794"