Template:Irelandproj

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

Past entries in this famous discussion are archived in:

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

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

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

I took out these two paragraphs because they are, well just terrible. "In 1851, about a quarter of Liverpool's population was Irish-born. The Famine is often seen as an initiator in the steep depopulation of Ireland in the 19th century; however, it is likely that real population began to fall in 1841 with the Famine accelerating any population changes already occurring. Some may argue the Famine was necessary to restore population equilibrium to Ireland given that population increased by 13–14% in the first three decades of the 19th century (using Thomas Malthus's idea of population expanding geometrically, resources increasing arithmetically), nonetheless there is a tendency among Irish historians to dispute this. Statistics show that between 1831 and 1841 population grew by only 5% so this gives more value to those who argue that population was already falling by 1844.

The mass exodus in the years following the famine must be seen in the context of overpopulation , industrial stagnation, land shortages, religious discrimination , declining agricultural employment and inadequate diet. These factors were already combining to choke off population growth by the 1830s. It would be wrong, therefore, to attribute all the population loss during the famine to the potato blight alone." Words and phrases like, likely, some may argue, often seen, a tendency, the use of Malthus and figures without any citations simply muddle the article. The second paragraph speaks for itself. The contextualization of the famine is so long as to make it pointless. If it is not explained properly in the main article than it is the main article that is doing something wrong. Most of the contexts are wrong. Ireland was not suffering from overpopulation, nor industrial stagnation (there was no industry to speak of), nor inadequate diet (contemporary European and English commentators often mention the health of the Irish population thanks to it milk and potato diet).

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

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

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

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

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

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

"many wealthier Irish was the reason such a tradegy could occur" This has been comprehensively dispelled by Cormac Ó Gradá, Peter M. Solar and Peter Grey. I suggest you do some historical research before pawning your economic beliefs as the touchstone of nineteenth-century history.

I wish I had the time to clean up this article. Hopefully some scholar will take pity on this site and reorganise it.

It says here that "Plant pathologist Jean Beagle Ristanio speculates that the pathogen (not a fungus but an oomycete) arrived in Europe on a shipment of potatoes from South America in the 1830s."

But in school I remember being told that the blight caame over with a guano shipment. 87.33.53.61 13:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article called the "Irish potato famine" rather than just The Great Famine? Never heard the famine referred to as the "Potato Famine". The potatoes didn't starve; the people did. (Sarah777 08:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)) Wow! A lot of unreferenced pov masquerading as "discussion" here; I've removed some of it. (Sarah777 08:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah777 Your right in all of that you say. I have a real problem with the use of the term Famine in itself, as there was not a lack of food in the country. Another concern I have is the amount of edits and minor edits which do not include any references or sources. I see a lot of edits to grammar, punctuation and the like with no attempt to cite sources. That is why I placed the tag on the page, all to no effect. This article will never get of the ground unless some editor makes a bold move to remove all unreferenced material, even if this means reducing it to a stub. I would much prefare quality to quantity any day. Regards --Domer48 09:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor, without any knowledge of Irish history, about 5 years ago created this page. It's the first time that I have heard it called The potato famine, WP is guilty of an Neologism on this one. The name can be changed on request here Wikipedia:Requested moves. 20:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the number of links a move/redirect would be the most practical solution; Wikipedia:Requested moves is probably unnecessary in this case. The problem is the new name - in Ireland the episode is known universally and simply as The Famine or The Great Famine. Other famines, in Ireland or abroad are qualified to distinguish them from the famine. Doubtless we'll get objections that to a wider audience in the English-speaking world it isn't so clear which famine "the" refers to! The Great Famine (Ireland) seems the only non-neologistic name. Any thoughts before I make the move? (Sarah777 20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Probably the better ones would be
The Great Famine (Ireland) or
Great Irish Famine
Yup, agreed there have been great famines in Africa of course, China. But the Great Irish Famine was more about the degradation of a people too, the current name is just too narrow. About 750 links, I'd help change some of them. Is there a BOT available that can do these changes? 21:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect means the link changes are not urgent; they can de done over a long period - or not at all! (Sarah777 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah777, I would go along with the Great Irish Famine, though I lack the experiance on redirects more than willing to help though? --Domer48 12:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer Great Irish Famine, with a dab to the 1740s famine. Therefore, if that was the case, then Wikipedia:Requested moves would have to be called in to help with the change. Maybe proposed change should be put on the Irish Notice Board, and left for a few days. 14:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Support a move. There's already a Great Irish Famine (1740-1741) - so how about Great Irish Famine (1845-1849). Alternatively, as people are highly unlikely to search under that name, [Great Famine (Ireland)]. Suggest also including a dab link to Great Famine. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great Irish Famine Usually referred to as The Great Famine, but probably in the long term this name won't last on WP. That's why Great Irish Famine rings best, IMHO. Adding the years makes it longish. Difficult call! 15:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Support a move to the Great Irish Famine Brendandh 15:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Great Irish Famine is a wee bit neolog, but we must put in "Irish" somewhere or no doubt we'll get flak from folk writing about greater famines (if that's the right phrase). And as there were at least two great famines in Ireland maybe we redirect to Great Irish Famine and have a disamb at the top pointing out the reader may mean 1740 if 1845 isn't what he's looking for. Great Irish Famine already does this with a separate disambig page; but (1845-1849) redirects to the starving spuds! (Sarah777 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well it is the EN/WP. So The Great Famine, is the official name, so The Great Famine it should be? 20:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty-much a transliteration of "An Gorta Mór", too, and that's a good thing - Alison ☺ 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Bastun's rationale - Alison ☺ 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'll go with Bastun's idea.(Sarah777 20:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Support, either that or The Irish Holocaust.--Vintagekits 21:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - "Irish potato famine" is a (the most?) common name (see [scholar.google.com] or [books.google.com]) and most accurately disambiguates between this any other "great famine" in Ireland and/or elsewhere. It also puts it in the context of the wider European Potato Famine, of which it was a part (in terms of the blight). Calling it the potato famine avoids confusing it with a "great famine" in the classical sense (of a country without food), when in fact far "greater" famines had occurred before without the same lasting consequence. The potato, and its significance in the cause of the famine, is central understanding it and should not be removed from the name. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but this sounds more like an argument for Bastun's proposal. Great + Ireland + disambiguation ... - Alison ☺ 22:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In keeping with the almost universal consensus with reference to WP:SNOW there is no serious opposition to the move, Done. (Sarah777 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: "WP:SNOW" and "universal"? Where did I hear those words before? And why are you replying to my post to announce it? Oh ... !

There's obviously enough dissent at this moment to hold off the moving, IMO. Apart from the fact that a copy/paste move without preserving the edit history is a very Bad Thing (hint, hint) - Alison ☺ 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I see Sarah's gone ahead and changed it now. Fair 'nuff. I'm fixing double-redirects now. However ....

What are we going to do with Irish potato famine (legacy)? - Alison ☺ 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(meeps) - I think we're going to need a 'bot for this - Alison ☺ 22:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! - never mind. VintageKits reverted ... - Alison ☺ 22:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* And Sarah re-reverted, which I re-re-reverted, but now I'm somehow at Great Irish Famine instead of Irish Potato Famine... Sarah - the discussion is not over - its barely started - and WP:SNOW does not apply. A couple of things - 1. there are several possible homes for the article, still being discussed. Let that debate continue, please. 2. When consensus is reached, it can be moved (not redirected), thus preserving the edit history (though too late now...) 3. I spotted the proposed move only sometime this morning when it was flagged on the Irish noticeboard. Many other editors will not yet have seen the notice there. Give them a chance to have some input. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"23:02, 11 June 2007 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (46,306 bytes) (restore; many weren't aware of the deletion of "British Isles and Ireland" - discussion lasted MUCH shorter time)" Ah - things become clear. 'BI & Ireland' was a POV fork, plain and simple.

Annnyway... before we were so rudely interrupted... the options available are-

1. [Irish Potato Famine] - where it was.

2. [Great Irish Famine] - where it is.

3. [Great Irish Famine (1845-1849)] - to differentiate from Great Irish Famine (1740-1741).

4. [Great Famine (Ireland)].

Any others? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah OK guys; I'm heading into 3RR country here; so I'll pack it up for now. To think I could have written perhaps three Irish geo-stubs if it weren't for my addiction to the TRUTH and the ELIMINATION of POV! Anyway, for what it's worth, I think [Great Irish Famine] is the obvious one; it's the nearest to what the actual victims called it. An Gorta Mór; the Great Genocide. (Sarah777 23:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Umm - "Gorta Mór" means "Great Hunger", right? I don't see any suggestion of genocide in the version as Gaeilge ... - Alison ☺ 23:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear about the nomenclature. It was always called The Great Famine. That doesn't mean that there weren't other great famines elsewhere in the world, Africa, Ethiopia, Sudan, China and more. But in the English speaking world, and in En/Wikipedia especially, we must adhere to the academic name for this particular episode in Ireland's history. Therefore I reiterate that the name should be The Great Famine. Also we must avoid original research here, and also avoid a brand new neologism. And I take Allie's point, excellent! -00:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Only went for Great Irish Famine as a compromise, reaching out to the others. But of course you are right; The Great Famine was always the common name for the Great Genocide. (Sarah777 01:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No, the common name for the Great Genocide is The Holocaust. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and reiterate the reasons cited by sony-youth. Let's please give this a little more time before renaming or making major changes. Geeman 05:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- it is known as the Irish Potato Famine in the United Kingdom and the British Empire. Astrotrain 07:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I make a comment like that I would be accused of trolling.(Sarah777 08:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah777, I would not even rise to a comment like that, and since they have never edited on this article I would consider stalking is what drives them. --Domer48 08:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should expand- it was reported as the "Irish Potato Famine" in the press in the UK and BE (given the event occured during the time of the BE). That name is still used in the UK. Not having edited the article does not deprive one of the right to comment. Astrotrain 09:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astro, I certainly don't say you've no right to comment and the remark wasn't directed at you - as I guess you are aware. But the person I was addressing has taking on the thankless task of policing and editing my talkpage remarks. So you miss the odd bit!(Sarah777 10:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah, your opinions about me are well known, as is your love of crusading against editors you disagree with. Wikipedia is not a war. Consensus was to remove the article you created as a POV fork. Live with it, and stop harrassing me. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support [Great Irish Famine] is the obvious one;--Domer48 08:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC) P.S Good move[reply]

Note: Just a quick bit of google-fu.
"Irish Potato Famine": about 160,000 results
"Great Famine" +Ireland: about 128,000 results
"Great Irish Famine": about 48,900 results
"Great Genocide" about 133 results (many of which, judging by the first page, are not actually about Ireland).
What does this prove? Well, nothing really, except that any of the first three would be valid names for the article. It does show that 'Great Irish Famine' isn't actually a neologism. Given that there are/were other famines, also called 'Great', then personally I think "Great Irish Famine" is probably the best place for the article on WP, given the need for disambiguation and that in Ireland (where, after all, it happened) its most commonly known as the Great Famine. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what's your opinion about "Irish Potato Famine"? I see it came out tops of the 'google-fu', but you just didn't like the look of it?--sony-youth^pléigh 15:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not especially, because all my life I've heard I've heard it referred to as either "the Great Famine" or just "the Famine", and therefore its what I'm used to. The same, I'd guess, as an English person assuming a reference to "The Civil War" means one thing while an American might assume something else. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aahhh ... WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a splash of WP:IDONTKNOWIT into the mix - sweet! So, despite "Great Irish Famine" being the lowest of the common name returns from Google, you're happy with it? My issue here is not what name the article goes under - Great Irish Famine, isn't such a bad name as to keep me awake at night (although, it is quiet a weak neologism, Great Famine (Ireland, 1845—51) would be more accurate, and less made-up). It really makes no odds; "Irish Potato Famine" will redirect here anyway. The problem I have is with the uninformed bandwagon-like discussion. The original proposal was to change "another pov-ridden name" - pure rubbish! This is a standard and useful name - see Britannica for example - as your 'Google-fu' (love the word!) showed maybe even the most common one. That simple fact can be seen by looking through books.google.com and scholar.google.com too. What ensued was rampant "oh-my-god"-ism and "I don't like it"-itus. The only other contributer to give a reasons cited that the article was made by "an editor, without any knowledge of Irish history ... It's the first time that I have heard it called The potato famine, WP is guilty of an Neologism on this one." Ummmm, no, not even a slight neologism - in fact, one of the oldest names for the famine as Astrotrain pointed out - but then assumptions such as the original creator being "without any knowledge of Irish history" are easily made by someone who admits "it's the first time that I have heard it." Ignorance convinces the fool of his own genius. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony, may I draw your attention to WP:CIVIL. There is no need for WP:SARCASM when making your point. (Sarah777 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You may, of course, Sarah - but as there was no sarcasm in my post above, and since I believe it was civil, it seems strange. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ on the assessment of your comments. I would also like to draw your attention to WP:STALK. (Sarah777 23:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Stop harassing me, now (see diff). I will not warn you again. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict)What can I say, some editors are fond of the magical fruit ;-)

As you can see from my initial response, Sony, I'd be happy with several options and made several suggestions. Discussion, compromise, consensus... rather than jumping the gun and slapping a redirect on. But to hopefully make clearer what I said earlier, the common name for the famine in Ireland is "The Great Famine". Some more google-fu - this time restricting the search to Irish pages:

"Great Famine" +Ireland about 16,800

"Irish potato famine" about 711.

So the former term is nearly 24 times more commonly used than the latter - in Ireland. As the article is about something that happened in Ireland, the former name seems more appropriate.

But as there are several such "Great Famines" around the world (even a previous one in Ireland), it needs something to disambig it - hence why I'd be okay with [Great Irish Famine]. You'll notice I did also suggest [Great Irish Famine (1845-1849)] and [Great Famine (Ireland)] and asked for other alternatives. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really care much either way but you should compare like with like. "Potato famine" +Ireland [1]: 218,000. "Great famine" +ireland [2] 132,000. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, though I thought including +'Ireland' and 'Irish' would have been ok. Note, though, that the latter googling (done just before midnight) was done on google.ie, not .com, and restricted the search results to Irish pages - hence the smaller numbers. The larger numbers from earlier today were obtained by not restricting the search to Irish pages. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see - was wondering about that. Thought it was the old Google IP problem mentioned on Talk:British Isles.

Some editors aren't going to like this. I'm going to say it anyway. Paraphrasing what to the best of my knowledge is Wikipedia policy, common English speaking usage takes precedence - and Google can be used as a way of establishing what this might be. I'd suggest that to make a strong case from Google you might want to restrict your search to pages written in English but it's not really advisable to limit them to geographical regions - although self-identifying terminology might be used as further criteria.

I'm willing to bet that 99.9% of pages mentioning "Ireland" and "potato famine" are talking about the very same "Great Famine" whereas "Great Famine" and "Ireland" might bring up a few false positives. The fact that "potato famine" yields fewer than 3,000 Google results in Ireland[3] is rather persuasive though. The score's 1-1 by these criteria, I think:

1. Most commonly used name in English

2. Current undisputed official name of entity

3. Current self-identifying name of entity

--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 01:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Great Famine occured in Egypt in ancient times, so that doesn't seem a good name for this oage to me

The article contains the following quote: The Famine occurred within the British imperial homeland at a time well into the modern prosperity of the Victorian and Industrial age during a time when Ireland was, even during the famine, a net exporter of food. This is patently wrong - the Victorian era didn't start until 1837, the Industrial Age didn't start until 1760 at the earliest (see Industrial Revolution) and at the time of the famine, Ireland was a self-governing country, not part of Great Britain. GrahamPadruig 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GrahamPadruig, your points are quite valid, bar the point that Ireland was a self governing country. Ireland lost its parliament through the act of union in 1800. After this time Ireland was meant to become an integral part of the empire, the famine dispelled this myth with catastrophic consequences. You have also highlighted a continuing problem on this Article, that of unreferenced material. As an editor, you can challenge and remove any unreferenced material. Regards --Domer48 08:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your dates are mixed up, I think. The famine was 1845-49, i.e. "well into the ... the Victorian [1837] and Industrial age [1760]." Ireland and Great Britain were unified in 1801 (i.e. Ireland lost self-goverance) and partition was in 1922 (i.e. the majority of Ireland re-gained self-goverance). Start-end dates for the Empire are hazy, but the 19th century is considered its hey-day. The famine occurred during this era i.e. "within the British imperial homeland." --sony-youth^pléigh 09:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I was confused by the sub-heading "Great Irish Famine may also refer to Great Irish Famine (1740-1741)". I thought this article was referring to the Great Irish Famine. The fact that this confusion can occur is probably why in Britain we refer to the 1845 event as the "Irish POTATO Famine" (or just the Potato Famine for short) to differentiate it from the earlier famine, which was also called "Great". GrahamPadruig 22:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt many people in Britain are even aware that there was a "Great" famine in Ireland in 1740-1741. (Sarah777 00:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with you, Graham. See the discussion about the recent name change above. Sarah: evidently there are, and more informed than their Irish counterparts. So, 'Irish potato famine' was "another pov-ridden name" (diff) coined by and editor "without any knowledge of Irish history." (diff)? Let's see how many more confusions this creates. --sony-youth^pléigh 06:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Graham and I would also draw attention to the slightly misleading phrase "British Imperial Homeland" - this is obviously written in with the POV intention to highlight the evil Brits with all their wealth ignoring the suffering Irish, but the sad truth of those times was that the British "government" (not then officially an imperial one) was an equal-opportunity dismisser of humanitarian concerns both at home and abroad and treated the local working class with as much disdain as it could short of causing mass riots. One only has to consider the fact that more than 1/3 of children died in infancy at that time of diseases easily curable by a good basic diet to realise that there was precious little respect at "home" for the common person. The treatment of the Irish poor during the famine was despicable, but this really isn't primarily a nationalism issue, no matter how much some Irish people for understandable reasons would like to spin it that way and no matter how misleading the educational process in Ireland and the US has been on this issue. MarkThomas 07:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony, you appear to be implying that some British editors are more informed than their Irish counterparts. In this context, what exactly do you mean by Irish "counterpart"? I said I doubt that "many people in Britain" are even aware of the 1740 famine; I don't think I claimed that many people in Ireland are. The point I was making was that this point about "confusion" is a straw man. Also your comments appear to imply that I made a reference to "an editor without any knowledge of Irish history" having written the original article. (Please note that I am not disagreeing with the remark, but in a spirit of politeness and civility, pointing out that I'd hate to see it popping up as "evidence" in an RfC or something). Regards (Sarah777 08:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah, how could I imply that you had said the second remark when I didn't attribute the first one to you? Also, did I not included diffs for each statement that explicity shows who said what?? Or are you trying bewilder discussion along your usual lines? My argument was as stated before. There are many famines known as the Great famine. "Let's see how many more confusions this creates." --sony-youth^pléigh 09:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very unlikely Sarah777 that you have never heard of the "potato famine" phrase if you are a serious student of this subject. Are you really saying that, or are you just saying it isn't the right phrase to use? If the latter, why claim you've never heard of it? MarkThomas 08:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, we crossed over in an edit conflict. You appear to be suggesting that the Irish and Anerican educational systems teach biased versions of British Imperial History, unlike the British educational system. There is ample evidence in the historical record of deliberate and calculated physical and cultural genocide in Ireland by the London Imperial power from circa 1550 to 1850. Is that not on the school curriculum in the UK? I don't think the fact that the Crown was brutal at home as well as abroad is either here nor there. Regarding the "potato famine" what I was really saying was that I had never heard it used - in normal conversation; in history classes or in the local pub. At the bus stop. Atop the 46a. I may have been aware of the term from reading Anglocentric publications, such as Wiki. (Sarah777 08:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

(Reply to Mark) Mark, you're missing the point. The blight was a natural phenonom, no one can be blamed for that. The economic sensibilities of the day were widely held and were enacted, at least, for the far greater part in good faith (the wider sensibilities towards the Irish are another concern.) But that a phenonomon that had cost comparable lost of life elsewhere in Europe should cause a 150-year population fall - essentially free-fall for the first 50 years, coming under control following independence, only rising in the country as a whole in the 1960's, and lasting in the worst affected areas of the country until 2006 - is daming (I cannot think of a stronger word) for any administration. That it happened in the homeland (and yes, it was an imperial homeland) of by far the most powerful and wealthy country of its age, is, to quoute CJH in an althogether different context, "grotesque, unprecedented, bizarre and unbelievable" (see GUBU).

What was at fault was that Ireland had for 300 years previously had been run as a colony (politically, economically, socially and culturally): deliberately stagnated and designed in everyway to bolster and never compete with England and the English populous. Under English (yes, specifically England and English) rule, the polity put in place and maintained by English were were driven by a sectarianism, with the blessing and support of the English crown and parliament, to ensure the subjectation of the majority of the Irish population. This subjectation was complete: not only political and cultural, but engulfing that entireity of economy and society. That is at fault for the tragedy of the famine, that is why the blame is laid at England's doorstep. That is why the affects of the blight in Ireland reduce the blight elsewhere to oblivion and inconsequence. That the economic answers of the day caused suffering also in England, as the did everywhere, is irrevelent. The population drop alone evidiences its comparable inconsequence. The famine does not damn the economic answers of the day, far more mundane example can do that more effecively. What the famine damns in the 300 years of English colonial rule in Ireland that preceeded it, and all of the sectarianism that came with it. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony, I am not trying to bewilder anything and I object to your claim that such attempts are "along my usual lines". I simply reacted to your post as it read to me; you appeared to combine my text with that of another editor and attribute it all to me. I didn't even read you links. (Sarah777 09:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"I simply reacted to your post ... I didn't even read your links." That, in fairness, and without wanting any more trouble, would be along your usual lines also. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. OK, I'll have to give you that one:) (Sarah777 09:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"how misleading the educational process in Ireland and the US has been on this issue". Well Mark, God loves a tryer! And Who has not been "misleading the educational process," let me guess??? Please Mark, if you want to be taken seriously, leave it out! Regards --Domer48 09:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the unreferenced edits and replaced them with referenced ones. Some of the edits which were removed were not bad, and therefor should be sourced and replaced. Regards --Domer48 19:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm. In fact you found a bunch of sources that claim it was all the evil imperialist swinish British and added them. Not that I totally disagree with all those, but there is a case for a more balanced view. The "genocide" claim is so freely bandied about now that it is being devalued. I think the Irish Famine was a result of imperialist "laissez-faire" policies used as a cloak for aristocratic indifference and could and did happen in any part of the Empire and would have happened in mainland Britain "if there had been a need". The "genocide" argument is probably wrong because it wasn't a planned attempt to exterminate a race, or even indifferently exterminating a race as your first quote has it, it was merely indifference to the condition of a particular class of people within Ireland, just as the British "government" of the time were indifferent to the condition of many working people in England. True that they didn't actually bring about a mass-famine of the latter, but that was probably just "luck" on the part of the english poor, and many did starve at various times anyway. The sole concern of the British "government" of the day was the wealth of the aristocratic class. Whereas today it is the wealth of the private equity financiers. Plus ca change. MarkThomas 19:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, if you wish to engage in a discussion of the subject, I’m only too happy too. But I must insist that you desist from any insinuation that I’m pushing any type of any anti-English sentiment. The contemporary sources I have used have all ruled out genocide bar one! The quotes from the period lend some balance to the argument, though the contemporary sources are all critical of the Governments response, as you are! If you wish to address any deficiencies in the article, by all means do so, just reference them. If I detect any hint of insinuation in future discussions, I will acknowledge it with the charity of my silence. You may detect with my tone, the exasperation I am feeling with the crap that is going on, I will as from now assume good faith, reciprocation would be welcome? Regards --Domer48 20:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we do seem to be discussing it. But I've just re-read it and I agree you have put some effort into a balanced set of quotes, so if I've jumped to conclusions prematurely, my apologies. It's actually a pretty good survey of the subject. MarkThomas 21:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section deals with the suggestions of genocide. As the tilte suggests. All edits must have referenced citations. Regards --Domer48 18:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the references you provided Domer48, one deals with genocide in an unrelated context (eg, generalised UN definitions of genocide that don't apply here) and the rest don't mention genocide. I provided a reference that clearly contradicts the concept of it being genocide. I don't call that "suggestions of genocide". My edit was clearly nearer the mark. Reverted. MarkThomas 18:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If editors wish to edit article they should provide referenced and cited material, otherwise this information may be challanged and removed. --Domer48 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct, so where is your evidence that anyone has suggested that it's genocide Domer48? Unless you can provide some, the whole "suggestions of genocide" section should be retitled, since it's basically just your POV. Thanks for pointing this out. MarkThomas 18:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are disruptive and should stop. Unless you provide referenced information you will be challenged. John Mitchel has suggested genocide, and this whole section deals with it. If you persist in this disruptive manner you will be reported to administration!

Don't make false accusations of disruption. This is a disagreement about POV and content. It's hard to see how Mitchel could have used the word genocide since it's essentially a modern term. Perhaps if you can provide that reference? In the meantime, feel free to report me to anyone you like, but better make sure your facts are straight. MarkThomas 18:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you just did a 3RR at Great Irish Famine - I don't want to report you, but given your general conduct towards me, feel that I should - do you wish to apologise and revert it back? I am talking about the "Suggestions of genocide" title. MarkThomas 18:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work away, --Domer48 19:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Log of all Domer edits in the past 24 hours: - Can't see the 3RR alleged; but I'd cease reverting as both parties are on 3 reverts by my count, Regards(Sarah777 19:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

1. (cur) (last) 19:51, June 24, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (56,851 bytes) (→Nature and extent of the famine deaths - Replaced bad faith edits)
2. (cur) (last) 19:44, June 24, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (56,865 bytes) (Added fererenced Note)
3. (cur) (last) 19:40, June 24, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (56,345 bytes) (→Suggestions of Genocide - Added referneced information)
4. (cur) (last) 19:33, June 24, 2007 MarkThomas (Talk | contribs) (55,251 bytes) (I quote from the references provided - "it is also my contention that while genocide was not in fact committed")
5. (cur) (last) 19:25, June 24, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (55,236 bytes) (Rv Unreferenced statement, no citation, considered POV)
6. (cur) (last) 19:22, June 24, 2007 MarkThomas (Talk | contribs) (55,278 bytes) (This edit fits the references, only one of those supplied uses the term "genocide" and that is a generalised UN definition of the term itself proving this is not a genocide!)
7. (cur) (last) 19:07, June 24, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (55,236 bytes) (POV i.e minority view, no ref's. Number of period sources suggest otherwise)
8. (cur) (last) 16:21, June 24, 2007 Ekilfeather (Talk | contribs) (55,278 bytes) (→In Ireland - added Gillespie info to Customs House Quays)
9. (cur) (last) 14:54, June 24, 2007 Sony-youth (Talk | contribs) (55,237 bytes) (→Land Consolidation - rm unnecessary commentary)
10. (cur) (last) 14:44, June 24, 2007 MarkThomas (Talk | contribs) (55,608 bytes) (Most deaths were after Cromwell left Ireland caused by famine and general violence)
11. (cur) (last) 14:24, June 24, 2007 MarkThomas (Talk | contribs) (55,505 bytes) (More accurate characterisation of current historical opinion on the "genocide" characterisation - and on the orthodox view of Irish nationalism that it was a British deliberate policy)
12. (cur) (last) 13:16, June 24, 2007 MarkThomas (Talk | contribs) m (54,622 bytes) (As only one of the references cited actually calls it "genocide", it clearly isn't "suggestions" plural)

(Sarah777 19:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Sarah, thanks for that, would not have a clue about 3RR. ;) --Domer48 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you are going to learn the hard way unless you cool it a little bit! Innocent jokes look rather different on an RfC citation, I have discovered. (Sarah777 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Presumably you also have no clue about civility? Please note also that I did not place these postings in this talk page, they were copied from the talk page of Domer48 where I had privately asked him to apologise as per WP policies. Thanks. MarkThomas 19:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mark; I'm not sure if you are addressing me or Domer. Can you clarify? Regards (Sarah777)

Just noticed that you also in a comment line accused me of "bad faith edits" which is extremely rude, incivil and false. I intend to complain unless you apologise immediately. MarkThomas 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work away --Domer48 19:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While there has been some disagreement with the conclusions reached by Woodham-Smith, the quality of her research has never been questioned. For example Conor Cruise O’Brien, a revisionist of a particularly orange hue commenting on The Great Hunger said of Woodham-Smith, “Her just and penetrating mind, her lucid and easy style and her assured command of the sources have produced one of the great works not only of Irish nineteenth-century history, but of nineteenth-century history in general,” a view evidently endorsed by the The Times, “Mrs Woodham-Smith has made an individual contribution to Irish history. Her thoroughness in research, compassionate fair-mindedness and gift of narrative are all again in evidence.” Regards --Domer48 20:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the issue on Woodham-Smith Domer? I tend to agree it's a good source - is that being disputed? Just that there are more "revised" or "modern" sources around? MarkThomas 21:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm making is that although "there are more "revised" or "modern" sources around,"the disagreement has been with the conclusions she reached and not the quality of her research. The information I used was based only on her research. Regards--Domer48 21:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, certainly Woodham-Smith is one of the more careful sources. I think this field is rather full of fevered viewpoints on both "sides", understandably. MarkThomas 21:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 150th anniversary there has been a renewed interest in the subject. This has put the revisionists on the back foot somewhat, they will regroup and attempt a resurgence no doubt. What interested parties want now is verifiable and referenced sources, which is the revisionist weak point. It was and is a watershed in the histories of both countries, and let the facts speak for themselves. Regards --Domer48 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall this recent addition quote from my (long time ago) reading of Woodham-Smith, "According to Woodham-Smith, there had been no fewer than 114 Commissions and 61 Special Committees, and of them she says, “without exception their findings prophesied disaster.” and what exactly it relates to - is she talking about the enquiries into the condition of labourers - if so, they were across Britain and Ireland so the apparent large number is slightly confusing in this context. Does anyone have a copy to hand - it appears not to be searchable on Google Books. MarkThomas 08:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was talking about the conditions within Ireland,it is clearly stated in the quote "to report on the state of Ireland," I have three editions of it, including a 1962 edition, the quote appears at the end of chapter 1. So what do you think she is talking about Mark? Are you again questioning my good faith again? Or if its the case that there were so many Commissions it would be hard to suggest the Government was caught by surprise! --Domer48 08:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being provocative and trying to start a fight, or else misleading people about my intentions. Nobody is questioning anyone's good faith. I am just questioning the context and nature of these commissions. I don't think they were directly warning of famine and unless we can see the actual passages it does appear from your comment above that they were on "the state of ireland" - in which case the way you've phrased that in the article intro is not accurate. I am just pointing out that as I don't have a copy of the book, and it's not checkable on Google Books, we are relying on one interpretation. Whilst I am happy to accept your interpretation may be right as you see it, it's always useful for a number of people to both check a source and also the way it is interpreted. MarkThomas 08:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, you are being provocative, with "Does anyone have a copy to hand," questioning my good faith! Why do you not go out and buy a copy of the book? And with comments like "it appears not to be searchable on Google Books," strickes me as someone who's limits to references are a sad reflection on you! Do not waste any more of my time on this page! The limit of your interest is no use to me --Domer48 09:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be very incivil of you - I am trying to get into a sensible discussion of the value and context of the Woodham-Smith quote, which I note that you don't want to engage in. I guess I will have to go back to correcting the material directly, note that I did try to enter into a sensible discussion about it. All I said was that I don't have a copy to hand and asked if others did, hardly justification for such a tirade from yourself. The Google Books mention was simply to advise other editors not to waste time looking for it there. I am not wasting your time, my comments were to see if other editors were interested. Your reasoned input would be welcome as you wrote that particular sentence in the article. If you don't wish to discuss it, that's fine, but it would be reasonable to discuss it if it's going to be altered. MarkThomas 09:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The refs are fine, but having those details in the intro is little crazy. As it is now, a reader doesn't even get a change to be introduced to the topic before being bombarded with times, dates and numbers of crops failures and the inevitable unreliability of dependancy on the potato. This should be kept for discussion further down in the article. Anyone unfamiliar with the subject would be bamboozled by all of these statistics unless we introduce them to what context to interpret them in. (And anyone familiar with the subject would simply wonder at te writing style.) --sony-youth^pléigh 09:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big improvement, thanks Sony. I am reviewing other sources on the causes of the famine at present, it appears that Woodham-Smith took rather a hard anti-British view of the causes when she wrote The Great Hunger in the early 60s that is countered by much scholarship since then and we need to cite some of those other views. Particularly the myth that food exports rose during the famine and that they exceeded domestic food consumption, both of which have been shown now to be false. MarkThomas 10:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, a word of advice. Please, less of the calling sources you don't agree with "anti-British" or "Republican." It doesn't do anyone any favours. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, but it's hard not to define Woodham-Smith's viewpoint on the Famine as having been caused by the British Government - it's difficult to characterise that as partial without invoking a sense of "anti-Britishness", and I certainly do not intend that to mean that some sort of racism is involved now, particularly amongst editors here. There are many places on Wikipedia where an "anti-British" view is discussed and I don't see it as offensive to label views as being that if they are. It's not meant as a personal comment against anyone editing this article. 10:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And the arch anti-Brit of them all: "The famine was a defining event in the history of Ireland and of Britain. It has left deep scars. That one million people should have died in what was then part of the richest and most powerful nation in the world is something that still causes pain as we reflect on it today. Those who governed in London at the time failed their people through standing by while a crop failure turned into a massive human tragedy. We must not forget such a dreadful event. Britain in particular has benefited immeasurably from the skills and talents of Irish people, not only in areas such as music, the arts and the caring professions, but across the whole spectrum of our political, economic and social life."

Don't confuse unconformable truths with slander. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I'm not Sony, I do believe that the Irish Famine was caused by the general indifference to the welfare of the poorest prevalant at that time, coupled to anti-Irish racism in Britain and extremist laissez-fairism operating in the British government. And I commend Tony Blair for giving what appears to be an apology for the British role in that. But that doesn't detract from attempting to objectively analyse sources and contexts in Wikipedia articles. We need to give an NPOV analysis of what happened, not one based purely on a partisan view of history. MarkThomas 11:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. It seems we are going right back to square here. Writing facts which of themselves shed a poor light on, in this case, the British Administration, cannot be regarded as "anti-British"; anymore that writing the truth about Auswitch can be called anti-German. (Sarah777 12:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

@Mark: Then it would help if you could summaries your concerns succinctly rather than attacking published material as "anti-British" - not least because it sounds especially odd when the author of that work is an acclaimed historian who was awarded the title of Commander of the British Empire for his work. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. I actually don't think I need to defend describing a source as "anti-British", any more than I would expect you to have to defend describing a source as "anti-Irish". Wikipedia editors are not a thought-police. Also (Sony) Cecil Woodham-Smith was a woman, despite the apparently male name. And Sarah777, I don't disagree with your point actually, but you are not describing what I am saying. I am saying that a partisan view of Irish history can color and alter the perception of that history, in both directions. Or are you denying that it is possible to have a partisan view of Irish history? MarkThomas 12:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not Mark; anyone can have a partisan view of any history. Today, with almost limitless information available we don't agree on current events - dismissing some sources as propaganda; selecting others. I have issues with Wiki on a grand scale on that front. And I certainly won't be making a federal case of any claims of "anti-Britishness" you make - but I draw the line at being called "racist", especially as I try to use "British" rather than "English" regarding events since 1700; deliberately and for many of the reasons you have given yourself as to why you object to anti-Englishness. (I have no great problem, to be honest with being called anti-British, except as a matter of accuracy; but I don't like being called anti-English when, I assure you, I am not).

(Sarah777 14:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"... is possible to have a partisan view of Irish history?" Yes, Mark it is, and it is now clear in my mind that you hold a partisan view of Irish history, seeing it clearly in terms of "anti-British" and "anti-Irish". I presume that you belong to the latter category and perceive anyone not subscribing to that view as belonging to the former? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you get to that from my comments Sony. I don't see it in terms of "anti-British" and "anti-Irish". Unfortunately however, many do subscribe to one camp or another. I ask you, are you denying that highly partisan views of Irish history do exist and can prejudice how that history gets written up in articles on it in Wikipedia? This seems so self-evident and it is vital that WP not be prey to propagandists. Like you, I want Wikipedia to attempt to be NPOV on these issues, but sadly a determined group of editors do not apparently share this aim. Challenging POV is incidentally a key goal of any committed Wikipedian. MarkThomas 12:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, of late, I've only heard you make blanket accusations against "Republician-minded" and "anti-British" historians. On the Oliver Cromwell page, I'm still waiting for an explanation for the unstated "bits of Republican folklore" that "need drastic revision" in the introduction. If an article is biased or contains unmerited information or unsupported interpretation, fix it - but please, less of the random anti-British assertions. Whether Cecil Woodham-Smith be man, woman or rabid Fenian beast, dismissing the published work of a Commander of the British Empire as "anti-British" smacks of mania, and makes it difficult to take any genuine concerns that you have as serious. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are all busy, but yes, I am still working on a revision of the Cromwell introduction and hope to get round to it soon! The "folklore" on Cromwell (last time I looked at the article) in my opinion lies in characterising him as a genocidalist in Ireland - I don't think that's a view that very many historians would hold, although a few do. Also, why do you think that a British person can't hold "anti-British" views? As for your accusation of "mania", well, I would say I have grounds for a complaint of gross incivility there, but as it's you Sony, I won't! MarkThomas 13:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify one other small point Sony, Cecil Woodham-Smith was from an Irish family, not that it matters really. MarkThomas 13:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Fitzgeralds, otherwise known as Geraldine. Among the many contributions of her dynasty to Irish history was this symbol, chosen to represent the British order of chivalry associated with Ireland, and Ireland in the Union Flag. Was your point that historians of Irish stock cannot be trusted? --sony-youth^pléigh 13:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that had been my point, why would I have said "not that it matters" above? Please stop maligning my motives Sony. I only want an NPOV Wikipedia. Part of that is challenging the over-use or over-representation in articles of sources that are themselves POV. Standard WP stuff really. MarkThomas 13:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, but the problem with your approach is your belief that you "actually don't think [you] need to defend describing a source as 'anti-British'." I think you do. You said that your problem with Woodham-Smith's was that her "viewpoint on the Famine [was that it had] been caused by the British Government" and that that, by definition, was "'anti-Britishness'." That is not pursuing NPOV, Mark, that is removing sourced authoritative material that you don't like. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I removed Woodham-Smith? I even went through correcting all the spelling mistakes in the refs to her source! But again, sadly, I am being subtly misconstrued. It isn't my position that sources I happen to think of as POV should be removed. Just that they should be used in WP articles in context and where a picture emerges from the use of other sources that contradict that source, that context should be shown. I also do happen to think that the Woodham-Smith source takes a very anti-British and Irish Nationalist line but that hardly means I would suddenly want to remove it from the article! MarkThomas 14:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I misunderstood you. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the inclusion of the material by Rubenstein and Sen in this section (which needs to be retitled more neutrally) is prohibited under NOR as synthesis. WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position They are not writing about the Great Irish Famine. This is an article, not an essay. Tyrenius 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius, as always...no problem! Thanks --Domer48 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Title, How about holocaust? LOL, Only yanking your chain. Regards --Domer48 19:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Thought I heard someone having a hart attack?? Ha ha ha ....[reply]

You're not yanking anyone's chain other than your own, although it is vexatious to have to spend so much time correcting bad edits and then being publicly abused by Domer48 and when trying to deal with it privately in a sensible way having thrown back as mud. Have you ever considered blogging Domer, may be more your scene. MarkThomas 20:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack. Next remark like that and you will be blocked.Tyrenius 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark! Should you really be editing history pages? See here [[4]]. Gold♥ 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack. Next remark like that and you will be blocked.Tyrenius 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what this has to do with the Irish Famine? Anything at all? MarkThomas 20:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Suggestions" of Genocide isn't very POV; many people (including myself) regard it as a manifest case of genocide. It is very appropriate to have a section discussing the issue; where all the arguments for and against can be laid out and references. I have just suffered a fortnight long RfC to defend the right to air precisely this view (amongst others). (Sarah777 20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Without wishing to be impolite, I'd like to point out that it doesn't matter what you regard it as: that is quite irrelevant. All that matters is what the appropriate sources have to say, and representing them from a WP:NPOV in an appropriate balance (i.e. majority viewpoint gets more weight, small minority viewpoints don't get mentioned). It is best to leave all personal opinions out of talk pages: it is a contravention of WP:TPG for a start. The word "genocide" shouldn't even be mentioned, unless a secondary source has specifically used it in the context of this famine. The facts should be laid out, and if they are done so properly, then the reality of events should be blindingly obvious. Certainly Tony Blair's remarks should be included in this article. Tyrenius 20:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the text re: T’s excellent advice, as always. Apologies for my recent contribution, i.e that it is net based, obviously preferring to read books. With real pages. But lazy editing on my behalf all the same! Regards --Domer48 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Genocide" (Sarah777) is the intentional effort to murder an entire race. Where is your evidence that this was ever intended by the British in Ireland? There is none. Nobody is saying that you can't air that view, but it's not true. Equally, the RfC as you very well know was not about your right to air such views, it was about your total incivility in doing so, something which many editors contributing to the RfC agreed with. MarkThomas 20:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Please stick to what secondary sources have to say, rather than make up your own editorial debate about it. Tyrenius 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah777, as you have rightly said there are those who have made "Suggestions of Genocide," and this section is addressing them. But we must make sure we use "referenced sources," and be able to back up what we say with "citations." Because just sounding off on the subject, and not being able to back it up is what I would call time wasting. It should be a great Article! Take care, and thanks for the advice, Kind Regards --Domer48 20:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, so earlier on when you stated that John Mitchel had called it a genocide, can you please provide the reference for that Domer48? Thanks. MarkThomas 20:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark: Incorrect, if genocide is "the deliberate killing of a whole nation or people"; then, bar some aboriginal tribes wiped out by the British Empire I am unaware of any genocide. Certainly the Holocaust wouldn't qualify on that definition!

@Tyrenius; most emphatically disagree. Genocide has every place in this article; it would be POV not to include it. The fact that commentators didn't use a specific word before it was coined in neither here nor there. In modern English, the genocidalism or otherwise of the famine is openly and increasingly debated. And I will certainly express my views on a talk page where they are directly relevant; in this case to illustrate the the idea that "nobody" has suggest genocide is not true. I am meticulous about keeping my pov out of the articles, something I hope you accept. Regards (Sarah777 20:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please see WP:TPG: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. (emphasis as in the original) If you contravene this, you will be blocked. If there is any matter to be included, then it must be because it is the view of a verifiable secondary source, not because it is your view. Tyrenius 20:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah777, genocide is not as you characterise it "the deliberate killing of a whole nation or people", it is the intention to do so. As for the date of the word, the reason I raise that is that Domer48 helpfully suggested that John Mitchel had used it and I wondered how he could have done since it is a modern usage. If we go into anachronistic "interpretations" of what someone once said mapped against the modern term and then call it "genocide", Wikipedia will have a lot more "genocides" on it's books! But seriously, the question is still out there, what serious referenced sources are out there that call the Irish Famine a genocide? Most historians do not describe it so. MarkThomas 20:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevelyan summed up the establishment attitude, he wrote "being altogether beyond the power of man, the cure has been applied by the direct stroke of an all-wise Providence in a manner as unexpected and as unthought of as it is likely to be effectual." Yes the question of genecide is very much alive in this topic. Gold♥ 20:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote doesn't mention genocide. Please stick to sources accurately and don't make POV interpretations. Tyrenius 21:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the laissez faire attitude is significant, and notable. I didn't expect it to be expanded. Gold♥ 21:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the issue is "laissez faire" and the section should be titled accordingly. I assume you have refs. Tyrenius 21:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refs for which aspect? Gold♥ 21:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Sarah777 , since the term has been introduced through the references I supplied, and that is what the section deals with, I think it would be better to deal with improving the article, than having long drawn out conversations based on opinions with no effort to back up with references. We would not like to be accused of being all talk and no action? Kind Regards --Domer48 20:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is to elucidate the facts and discuss points without edit-warring, which I am trying to do. With respect, I have now asked you Domer48 to give the reference for John Mitchel describing it as genocide, which you earlier stated was the case, and nothing is forthcoming. Sarah777 has contributed an interesting quote from Trevelyan which seems off the point. I think the point here is that older sources are not references for genocide and modern accusations have been repeatedly shown by serious historians to be counterfactual. I therefore propose that we change the subhead "suggestions of genocide" to something less loaded, as clearly this is an attempt to imply genocide when there is no substantial body of opinion outside a very narrow one to justify the use of the term. MarkThomas 21:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mark...I supplied no quote from Trevelyan :) (Sarah777 22:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

If modern historians have shown the accusations to be counterfactual, then they have addressed the issue, so there should be sources available to show the discussion. It then becomes valid in the article. Tyrenius 21:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius, the debate is over whether the word "genocide" has any place in an article about the Famine. (At least that is one of the interlocking debates going on here). You said "The word 'genocide' shouldn't even be mentioned, unless a secondary source has specifically used it in the context of this famine." I disagree; and I strongly object to you apparent assertion that it can't be even mentioned in the talkpage without threat of blocking. Secondary sources have been provided. I politely ask to withdraw you block threat and apologise for having issued it. Regards(Sarah777 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The only veto I have stated is on using wikipedia as a soapbox for personal opinions, following your statement above:

"Suggestions" of Genocide isn't very POV; many people (including myself) regard it as a manifest case of genocide. It is very appropriate to have a section discussing the issue; where all the arguments for and against can be laid out and references. I have just suffered a fortnight long RfC to defend the right to air precisely this view (amongst others).

Airing precisely this view of what you regard as a manifest case of something can only hinder progress on this page. There is no objection whatsoever to examining secondary sources' views of this, or any other, matter. I suggest using them closely and accurately per WP:NPOV and WP:POV, rather than informing us of what you regard things as. If that is done, then there won't be any problem.

Tyrenius 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has any verifiable sources discussing genocide, please list the relevant quote below with the reference. An equivalent, such as "the British government deliberately set out to kill all the Irish people" is also relevant. This section isn't for discussion. It's for factual matter. Thank you. Tyrenius 21:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyrenius, the opening section deals with the issue, and is referenced. To suggest that it is not a subject that is discussed would be wrong. I mean to suggest it, and not you. Regards --Domer48 21:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the opening section deals with the issue, then there's no need for a separate section to deal with it. Which section do you mean? I can't see "genocide" there. Tyrenius 21:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quote

"If my ‘Apology’ then, shall help to convince my countrymen, and the world—that the English are not more sanguinary and atrocious than any other people would be in like case, and under like exigencies—that the disarmament, degradation, extermination and periodical destruction of the Irish people, are measures of policy dictated not by pure malignity but by the imperious requirements of the system of Empire administered in London—that they must go on, precisely as at present, while the British Empire goes on—and that there is no remedy for them under heaven save the dismemberment of that Empire—then the object of my writing shall have been attained."

JOHN MITCHEL.

Paris Jan 10th 1860

Regards --Domer48 21:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section Suggestions of Genocide

"The most important historiographical debate^{[citation needed]} revolves around the issue of British responsibility for the Famine. Irish nationalist have long accused the British with "the crime of genocide."

Regards --Domer48 21:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find that text "disarmament, degradation, extermination and periodical destruction of the Irish people" in the article. Where is it? Tyrenius 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius, I can not type that fast, I thought you just wanted a quote. REgards --Domer48 21:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be in the article. Tyrenius 21:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole debate would be greatly simplified if editors stuck to what the sources say and put that in the article, rather than argue about how to interpret what the sources say. Tyrenius 21:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that sources can't be/don't need to be interpreted is not valid. Most sources must be interpreted all the time. Any sources distant from us linguistically or temporally have to be interpreted by someone. Can you read classical Greek? Or do you quote interpretations which are secondary, tertiary and beyond? If Mitchell said "a deliberate attempt to exterminate the Irish" (no idea if he used those exact words) but didn't use "genocide" (not least because the word didn't exist) it is utter nonsense to suggest translating that into modern English as "genocide" is pov pushing. (Sarah777 22:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Just so we're not quibbling over semantics: paraphrasing is often necessary (if only to avoid copvyios). Paraphrasing is saying exactly the same thing, but just using different words. Your Mitchell example is a paraphrase, but it would be necessary to find he had been that specific. Interpretation, the way I'm using it, can involve a subjective element and should be avoided. If something is "open to interpretation", it means that different meanings can be read into it. It's not our job to read meanings into things, and different people can equally validly read different meanings. This then becomes POV. This use of "interpretation" is different to the use as in "to interpret a foreign language", which again should ideally be saying exactly the same thing, but using different words (in a different language of course). Tyrenius 23:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know; this brings to mind the phrase used vis a vis Britain and America; that they are "separated by a common language". I often think the same could be applied to Ireland and England. Btw, did I hear an apology for threatening to block me in there anywhere? Regards (Sarah777 23:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

If it doesn't apply, then ignore it. Tyrenius 00:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really good enough Tyrenius. You leave me playing Russian Roulette; I'm just trying to build Wiki. You leave me the the only safe option of avoiding all reference to genocide. Not acceptable. Please retract. (Sarah777 01:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

See above, my post 03:20, 25 June 2007. It would be helpful if you look at my remarks on /Genocide. Tyrenius 03:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed read that. Unfortunately I find it fails to address the fact that many referenced sources consider the Great Famine to be Genocide, which is rather important if we are to produce an article that conforms to WP:NPOV. (Sarah777 08:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have reviewed and commented on that section. Click on the link in the heading. This is not intended to be definitive, but is hopefully a way forward again. It might be an idea to work through the section on the sub page, rather than the main article? Tyrenius 00:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article II (c) of the 1948 Hague Genocide Convention. I have being reading it this evening. If you can get it, have a read. Very interesting. It was brought into effect almost 100 years after the The Great Famine, but its relevance is most clear. Shame it wasn't around 100 years earlier. Gold♥ 01:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's build that into the article; if the definition of "genocide" correlates with what happened during the Great Famine, then it is was genocide. Period. In fact if what happened in the Great Famine can be shown to meet the UN definition of genocide, them we may have to inlude the term "genocide" in the article title. (Sarah777 01:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That methodology of creating article content is specifically forbidden at Wp:nor#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. Tyrenius 03:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone written a scholarly paper or in a book that draws on the Hague Convention and describes the Great Irish Famine as an example? If so, that could be referenced in the article. MarkThomas 07:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis" - Wp:nor#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. Fine. But that isn't what is being suggested here. "A" was published by a reliable source before the word was coined to describe what A was saying. (Sarah777 08:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The "C" here would be the concept that the Irish Famine was a "genocide" and therefore you need "A" or "B" to say so and not just pick random quotes from history that seem near the mark and then build a case out of those. Which is why both myself and Gold and Tyrenius are asking for references. All you need is a reference from scholarship stating the case that the GIF was a genocide. I think we have one fairly loose one on the article to that effect but my argument is that we should not use the subhead "Suggestion(s) of genocide" in the context of such a limited reference. MarkThomas 08:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no C here. The A is a description of events that are called "genocide" in modern English. Astronomers can tell us today that there was a supernova spotted all over the Northern Hemisphere in 1433; even though not a single witness would have used the term. (Sarah777 10:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I would go with Sony's recent edits, which cover the ground pretty well. Your last point Sarah777 does not address the issue in the article. MarkThomas 10:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarah: I don't think its necessary to say the word. The facts speak for themselves. In fact, the language used by contempories is, in my opinion, more profound and castigating than calling it a genocide. Use of that word would immediately be deflated by edits telling how most historians do not call it such. But, when the Lord Lieutenant writes that "[no other] legislature in Europe that would [...] coldly persist in a policy of extermination," the parallels to the next one that would do so springs off the page. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark - my last point addresses the flawed thinking that seeks to prohibit the use of the word "genocide"; which is what we are discussing.

@Sony - is what you are suggesting is that a very important aspect of modern debate about the famine not be discussed in the article? Much of this debate is precisely around the word genocide. That something regarded as such (with references) by 'millions of Irish' over 'generations' should be treated as a view held by an 'insignificant minority' is pure WP:BIAS. Nobody is trying to get "the famine was genocide" into the article. What needs to be in there is the referenced fact that very many people regard it as such. I have seen nothing in the arguments advanced on this page to suggest that the article doesn't need a section on the Genocide issue. (Sarah777 10:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

If a debate exists, a debate exists, but it will get ripped to pieces and collapse into emphatic arguments based on immature, unreliable and biased sources. That in turn will smear, in the mind of our readers, the genuine judgement of the Famine as being the supreme example of Britain's cold neglect, indifference, bigotry and colonial self-interest and selfishness in Ireland as simple-minded Irish nationalist nonsense. Of course, in the interest of preserving NPOV, if that must happen then that must happen. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it like that. Firstly; it won't get ripped apart; except in the eyes of those already partisan. "emphatic arguments based on immature, unreliable and biased sources." - well, to go back to the your own view on the structured bias in Wiki; I think there is more than enough to ensure that a neutral reader (most Americans for example) won't be convinced against the facts by obscure semantics. "That in turn will smear, in the mind of our readers" - let us accept that we have very different groups of readers. (Sarah777 12:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Of the three references there now, all say that no genocide occurred. One refers to a report by the "Irish Famine/Genocide Committee", which (not very surprising given their name) concluded that the British government violated the Hague convention ... ummm ... even though that convention did not exist at the time. The source itself dismisses their argument as "impossible to sustain". It will get ripped to pieces. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could supply more references which suggest Genocide, if we need more balance. Regards --Domer48 12:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. At the moment the section should be renamed "Rejection of suggestions of genocide." --sony-youth^pléigh 12:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some points in this article that refer only and specifically to famine in India. I am removing them as they are not relevant to this article. I am leaving the quote from the same author which references the Irish Famine as that is relevant - but including other points that just relate to India is obvious synthesis. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the items that discuss famines in India at different times seem to be there only to support a position against the government of the United Kingdom at the time and aren't encyclopaedic in this place. A general reference to others is fine but this is an article on the Great Irish Famine which cannot in anyway be connected to a famine in India in the 1940s. Ben W Bell talk 12:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree. There were many famines in India under British rule; the same British Imperial Government that presided over the Irish Famine. (Note Bastun; I'm not suggesting the same individuals were in Government). British policy was genocidal across the globe; so that provides important context for the events in Ireland in the 1840s. Context, not synthesis. (Sarah777 12:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

If editors think it would be helpful, I could add referneces which would illustrate that the suggestions contained in this reference, were used by both members of the Young Irelands and Daniel'OConnell's Repeal Association. But only if editors think it is important that it lends to the context for the events in Ireland in the 1840s. Regards --Domer48 12:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Irelanders would be welcome, but it must be pointed out that they were out for the repeal of the union. However, combining the two still sounds like synthesis, but let's see. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony; re The Young Irelanders opposition to the Union; should we scrutinise every source for their views on the Union? That could eliminate a lot of scholarly revisionists! (Sarah777 12:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Leave it with me...One question, what would wanting repeal have to do with the information, would it be the same be said of those who opposed repeal? REGARDS

Basic questions of who is your source, why did they say what, etc. Yes, it would be the same of those who opposed repeal. That's why the Lord Lieutenant view packs so much more wieght - one would imagine that his bias would be pro-governemnt, that he castigates them as he does speaks volumes. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there were many famines under British rule, but when Britain ruled a large percentage of the known world there is obviously going to be lots of famines. There are also famines out there that occurred without British rule, famines occur every day all over the world, and unless there is specific evidence to link them then they cannot be connected by anything more than the most tenuous of links. Especially when the fungus that caused the potato famine wiped out crops worldwide, but affected Ireland mainly due to the lack of variation in the crop and the subsistence on a single main crop for food supplies. Ben W Bell talk 12:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. [This paper contrasts the blight and management of it by government ascross Europe. The state of affairs in Ireland was little different, with the exception that:

"... the British authorities could and did make choices, and those were all dictated by the ideologically funded conviction that centralisation of the Irish relief institutions and an open border policy was the best option to perceive the intertwined goals of ending the famine, restructuring the Irish society and making the Irish people pay for what is concerned as ‘their’ crisis.

"The British did not act in an international vacuum. On the contrary, as Gray makes clear, they where very much interested in how continental authorities coped with the crisis. In each country active policy measures were accompanied by sometimes vivid debates about the merits of free trade versus protection. But all in all, in contrast to Britain, actions taken by the continental governments were mostly dictated by very practical motivations."

--sony-youth^pléigh 13:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And? What has this got to do with India which is the crux of this conversation. A famine in India in later year has nothing to do with this one. If someone wants to start an article comparing and contrasting famines that occurred in the world in countries where the British Empire was in control then go on ahead, however this is an article on the Irish famine and the Indian stuff seems unconnected to it from what I can read and seems to be only added to draw out the reader against the British Empire rather than as a NPOV context. Ben W Bell talk 13:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "... the fungus that caused the potato famine wiped out crops worldwide, but affected Ireland mainly due to the lack of variation in the crop and the subsistence on a single main crop for food supplies." I was replying to that. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. I apologise. Ben W Bell talk 13:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) - Sarah, you're really suggesting that the Whig government of the 1840s instituted a global policy still adhered to by a Tory government a century later? British policy was genocidal across the globe? Fine, create an article on British genocidal policies, 1847-1944 - but a large paragraph on a famine in India 100 years after the Irish famine is not relevant. It is obvious synthesis, attempting to lead the reader into assuming A + B implies C. As Sony says, far better to let the compelling words of their own Lord Lieutenant condemn the government of the day. If you want to strengthen that aspect I'd also suggest expanding the text relating to the fact that this wasn't a famine in the true sense of the word, that other crops were in plentiful supply but were exported for profit, etc. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun is right about the synthesis as above. As a passing comment, it is also becoming much too fashionable to yell "genocide" at every past event of mass-death in history. Genocide is a special meaning, the deliberate intention to eliminate a race. I don't think the British government has ever done that, at least not officially. When you get down deep and analyse causes, as with the Great Irish Famine, there was indifference, there was casuality and contempt for the poor, there was racism and nationalism and imperialism, but there was no deliberate plan. Even apparent cast-iron cases like the destruction of native people in Tasmania and North America turn out on close inspection to have been largely caused by disease. Using genocide as a political point-scoring term devalues the word and reduces the impact of truly horrible and proven cases like the Holocaust and the Turkish slaughter of the Armenians, Stalin's destruction of various Soviet peoples, etc. MarkThomas 20:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course on closer inspection you will find too that most Jews also died of disease during the Holocaust and that Turkish historians would dismiss as spurious and unsubstantiated any allegations of genocide against the Armenians. The Ukrainian famine, however, is a very poingnant case to bring up. Like the Irish famine, it was part of a wider food crisis. Like the Irish famine, government handling of the crisis was ideologically and racially motivated. Like the Irish famine, the tragedy as exploited as an opportunity for social, economic and political reform. Like the Irish famine, the enacted policies were made upon another country by a long-beligerant neighbour who had recently unified as a dominant partner with the other. The parllels continue; but unlike the Irish famine, the Ukrainian famine is widely referred to as a genocide. Cold war politics? Maybe. Politics works both ways of course. Otherwise, why would the UK not be judged in the same way? --sony-youth^pléigh 21:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A well argued case Sony, I don't know as much in depth about the Soviet famines as I would like. I do recall from my reading of it though that the Ukrainian deaths were motivated at least in part by the desire to punish the alleged "Kulak" class and this was carried out with murderous efficiency, with food being deliberately withdrawn, etc. I am still not convinced that is what happened in the Great Irish Famine - the article overleaf itself discusses efforts by the British Government to alleviate it by sending in wheat, etc. I really don't think they are the same. Also, on the cold war politics point, I think it's the case that most of the information about Stalin's racial/political mass-murders derive from Russian sources who fled the Soviet system, not that this detracts from the basic point but there is more credibility to those cases than just western propaganda. MarkThomas 06:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark; "Using genocide as a political point-scoring term devalues the word and reduces the impact of truly horrible and proven cases like the Holocaust and the Turkish slaughter of the Armenians, Stalin's destruction of various Soviet peoples, etc.". In Turkey it is illegal to call the Armenian massacres "genocide"; Stalin's were collateral damage from a political/nationalist policy; exactly what apologists for British holocausts claim British ones were - a side effect rather than a calculated primary effect. What devalues the term "genocide" is politically motive exceptionalist use of the term. (Sarah777 22:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Removed unreferenced information, material added to articles should have citations, otherwise they may be challenged and removed. --Domer48 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot possibly apply to every sentence and word in an article. The sentence in question conveys context. Sony-youth, you wrote this sentence in originally, what's your take on it? MarkThomas 20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that few ascribe the term genocide is being challenged by both authors and historians, and more importantly why there was so little written on the subject. That new books have begun to appear, in particular since the 150 anniversary. There have been a number of books on the subject. Of those which deal with this assertion, Irish Hunger by Tom Hayden, Famine Diary, by Brendan O Cathaoir, and Revision of Irish Nationalism by Desmond Fennell. The request to provide references has been ignored and the unreferenced material wilfully replaced. If editors wish to added material, they should provide references, and be able to cite sources, otherwise their edit may be challenged and removed. --Domer48 21:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the offending sentence. It was part of the block that I bulleted. If a source is necessary, however, maybe we can use the citation already in the article i.e. "only one modern Irish historian ... can be said to have endorsed [the interpretation of genocide]." One strikes me as a sufficiently low number to support the statement "few modern historians." --sony-youth^pléigh 21:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony there is more than one, such as A. J. P. Taylor, a noted Historian and a reputable scholar. Now there is more! I'm putting information together on it like I said. Is that ok. Regards --Domer48 21:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its okay - but removing stuff on the grounds that its unreferenced, when a supporting reference is just one bullet point below it, appears a little hasty. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony in addressing this, there are two ways to go, a short note to say it is contested, or a whole new section on the current debate on the subject of revisionism. You done the lay out, and this was the only section wich had a lead, why can the referenced sources speek for themselves, why the lead? Regards --Domer48 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence was already in the text. I deliberately didn't remove any text for fear it would create trouble. I only reordered text already there so as to make the quotations provided coherent and someway comprehensible. That sentence was the only one that wasn't a direct quote so it wasn't appropriate for a bullet point. That's the only reason it was there. No hidden agenda. No conspiracy theory. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem Sony, can we agree to let the referenced material do the talking? Regards --Domer48 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. (At least in the short term. The section needs (re)writing though. Quotes alone aren't enough in the medium term, but I'm sure you know that and it sounds like you're working on building something strong, so you've got my blessing.) --sony-youth^pléigh 22:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sound. Regards--Domer48 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may have to insist on the same standard of reference for all statements in this article. And perhaps, as some editors appear to feel it important, the attitude to the Union should be added. Using the 15:1 thinking, after factoring out Nationalist/Unionist bias if is even 5% of the references support suggestions of genocide we can conclude that opinion is evenly split. Domer; can you find two references (and of course we can dismiss the semantics claiming that actions meeting the Hague definition cannot be called "genocide" because they were perpetrated either before the term was coined or before the Hague Convention.(Sarah777 22:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Good Wikipedia articles are more than just lists of sentences each supported by a reference. The article should create context and can include general text. The real issue here is how to characterise the range of historians who call the Irish Famine a "genocide". In modern academic opinion that is a minority view, and the Wikipedia article should reflect that, otherwise it is POV. MarkThomas 08:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Mark, that good Wikipedia articles are more than just lists of sentences each supported by a reference. My concern was that the view denying or failing to support the famine as genocide be accorded the same scrutiny as the view that it is. We all know that very many people in Ireland and America regard the famine as genocide based on the known facts, just as we also know that British historians mainly deny it. But it seems that getting a clear statement of the former is challenged at ever step; whereas the latter pov is being given relatively unchallenged access to the article. Obviously this leads to grave danger of bias. (Sarah777 08:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Its not just British historians who deny it, or the dreaded revisionists of Irish lore. The histoical route to substantiating the genocide claim is a dead-end. More substantive and important is the significance of the famine to British-Irish relations - and that significance is every bit justifiable, deep, devastating and poisoning as to make it paramount to genocide. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly is not a dead end! As has been pointed out here repeatedly, under the definition of the Hague Convention the evidence of genocide is strong. (Sarah777 09:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Will do, working on more than that. Whole new section! Regards --Domer48 23:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References added. --Domer48 19:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced information addresses two points, 1) “this account has long been the orthodoxy of Irish nationalism,” there is a clear move back to a more “orthodox” view. 2) “Most historians find it impossible to sustain the charge of deliberate genocide,” the concluusions reached at the time, have themselves been revised. This revision has moved to a more “orthodoxy,” view based on all the new publications. --Domer48 19:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony, as requested, Additional references deal pacifically with the term genocide. --Domer48 20:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the only editor at the minute actually providing referenced material to this article, I take no delight in pointing out that editors, through bias or POV pushing, have and are being disruptive. The vast quantities of unreferenced material in this article, they have blatantly ignored, and focused on only sourced material. No matter what BS excuse they use and there will be plenty, their actions speak louder than words. These editors have in addition abused the talk page and have turned it into a forum for point scoring and abuse. Regards --Domer48 20:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you specifically accusing of "bad faith" and "disruptive editing" Domer48? Statements like these about other editors are breaches of WP:CIVIL. Please enlighten us. MarkThomas 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that Domer had nobody in particular in mind, just a general feeling that editing here and discussion on the talkpage has become more about point-scoring than improving the article. "The vast quantities of unreferenced material in this article, they have blatantly ignored" - Domer. Well, that takes me back to an earlier suggestion that we may have to pay equal attention to ALL the sentences; not in favour of "references strung together" approach (I agree with Mark there) but if may be necessary to avoid bias and ensure we maintain the Wiki policy of WP:NPOV (Sarah777 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah, you can read me like a book. Thanks for your encouraging remarks. I will have another section ready soon. It is a pity no one has the were with all to address the rest of the article. Regards --Domer48 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence to James Donnelly quote apparently refers to the quote that precedes it. The preceding bullet says that says that only one modern historian endorses the position that a genocide took place. The lead to the Donnelly quote says that "[t]his view though its self has changed since 1996." However the Donnelly quote does not mention endorsements that a genocide. It refers to "key nationalist perspectives." This may be an elusion to genocide, but in all likelihood not - key nationalist perspectives on the famine are manyfold, and the "genocide perspective" is quite the extreme of it. I'm commenting the section quote again, and removing the commentary, as genocide is mentioned no where in the quote. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]