Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)
![]() | This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Great Famine (Ireland) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Ireland B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Great Famine (Ireland) was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Where are the suggestions? We need help to upgrade this article, please. (Sarah777 02:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) Can't find the event. (Sarah777 12:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC))
Past entries in this famous discussion are archived in:
.1 , .2 , .3 , .4 , .5 , .6 , .7 , .8 , .9 , .10 , .11 , .12 (empty)...
Arbitration Committee mentorship
To all who are involved with this article:
As many of you were aware, the Arbitration Committee ruled that this article was to be placed under the mentorship of "three to five administrators to be named later". The Arbitration Committee today announced that Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and myself, Daniel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), will be taking on this role effective immediately.
According to this remedy, please remember that:-
- All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page.
- Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing Great Irish Famine or a related page (all bans will be logged at the arbitration page and also on the users' talk page and this article talk page).
- We have been instructed by the Arbitration Committee that we should favor article bans over page protection.
- The mentorship arrangement will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee in early December if anyone involved with this article requests it. The Arbitration Committee will consider ending the mentorship if the review reveals that this article no longer needs it to develop without further major issues. Unless the Committee determines as such, this mentorship will run for a year.
Please remember the first two points, especially the first. Article bans can be issued by any of the three of us, and no veto exists for any one of us. The section below is for the article bans as noted in point two - with any luck, hopefully we won't need it.
This message was simply to let you know that the mentorship has started. If you have any questions, feel free to ask any of the three of us on our talk pages, or via email (please note that any email you send about this issue may be forwarded between the three mentors and/or the Arbitration Committee):-
Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Log of article bans
- Bastun (talk · contribs) banned from editing article page only for ten days, starting 00:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC), for revert-warring after warning. Article reverted to version when enforcement began to prevent martyrdom. Daniel 00:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
- Discussion about the mentorship.
Article quality
OK. I have no idea if tempers have cooled enough to try to make some suggestions on this article, but I'm hoping the talk page is still on lots of people's watchlists. The article REALLY needs improvement. The name is bad, the intro paragraph is bad, the content is disorganized.
Anyone coming to this article without having suffered through all the recent "consensus" discussions would be mystified about the event itself.
Why do I think the name is bad? Well, the term "The Great Hunger" is a translation of the local Irish name for the event. That would be a fine name if the article was operating in an purely Irish (or even British and Irish) context, but the article is in a global encyclopedia. Using the name "The Great Hunger" in this way is somewhat equivalent to having an article called "The People" and having the article be about the Inuit, or the Sioux, or any of a number of peoples whose name for themselves was in their own language and was - essentially - "The People". It's not a suitable or helpful name for a event in a global encyclopedia. Calling the article on the famine "The Famine" or even "The Great Famine" - both of which are common descriptions in Ireland - would be equally inappropriate because it is equally unspecific. For heaven's sake, doesn't the name of the article need to include the word "Irish" somewhere!?!
Next, why do I think the intro paragraph is bad? The paragraph gives several different (and almost all bad) names for the event, says that it is still controversial, but hardly actually describes the event at all. How about a when, what, where, why, who, summary paragraph rather than some political balancing act on names?
Why do I think the content is disorganized? Well, read the "Background" paragraph. It's an uneducational mess, and a sample of most of the rest of the article.
Now, I don't know enough about the event to try to help in any major way on this article, but it's apparent that after all the recent fighting there must be a bunch of people who do. Further, I suspect that most of the article's problems are the result of to-and-fro hacking during recent edit wars rather than any lack of ability or knowledge on the part of the editors. PLEASE try to re-examine this article and re-write it in a useful and educational way rather than having edits be proxies of political arguments. For such a major event in Irish history (and an event that affected the USA and the UK in such major ways) to be so badly represented in WP is a real shame, a real shame. Hughsheehy (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree 100%. This was called The Great Irish Famine (modesty prevents me for stating who decided that) to replace the execrable "Irish Potato Famine". But we couldn't leave good enough alone I guess. Why not do a re-write yourself; then we can all turn on you and savage your work? (Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
- Execrable? Hughsheehy (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- That means "utterly obnoxious", from the Latin exsecrabilis, "detestable". - (Sarah777 (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC))
- I know what execrable means. I don't know why "Irish potato famine" is execrable. Hughsheehy (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, after lengthy discussion "The Great Hunger" was determined to be a scholarly, fairly unambiguous name which divided editors the least. These names which you call "bad" are some of the names by which the event is known in both the academic and popular press, and suggest the degree to which opinion diverges. Mackensen (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- "The Great Hunger" is a translation of the local Irish name for the event." Well it's national really, and can be referenced in most works on the subject. It is also an actual name, for example "Irish War of Independance," "Flight of the Earls" "The Troubles" or the various names for particular battles. In short it is a name / title. 9/11 is not a suitable or helpful name for a event in a global encyclopedia for example. So anyone in America reading the article for example would know, that is what it is known as in that particular country. Now the use of the word "famine" in the title is misleading. It would suggest that there was no food in the country, which we know is not the case. Now the lead gives some of the alternative names used, so no real problem there. That's my take on it anyway. --Domer48 (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Domer48, "Famine" simply means that people starved or went hungry. They did starve and go hungry. (the word is from the French for hunger) What caused the famine when there was potentially plenty of other food around is another matter entirely and British policy deserves plenty of blame, and probably more recognition than it gets (I would guess that most British people are almost entirely unaware of the famine, let alone any potential UK government responsibility for it, or the fact that potentially much of the English population's food at the time was effectively stolen from the mouths of starving Irish people).
However, to quote WP (unreliable though that may be) "Although many famines coincide with national or regional shortages of food, famine has also occurred amid plenty or on account of acts of economic or military policy that have deprived certain populations of sufficient food to ensure survival." What happened in Ireland was a famine and use of the term is not misleading at all. Famine ≠ Natural Disaster, at least not always
"The Great Hunger" is a name for the event, no argument there and it has become a proper name - as you suggest - somewhat like "The Long March" or "The Holocaust". However, several points arise. (i) I doubt that it is the most commonly used name (ii) it is far from the most helpfully identifying name. Like saying "The Civil War", it is insufficiently specific. Do we mean the American Civil War, the English Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, the Irish Civil War? "The Great Hunger" is too vague. Even the majority of books that use the term "The Great Hunger" say "The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-49" or something similar. The books "The Great Hunger" that don't refer to Ireland include a novel and a book about a famine in Greenland in the 1880's.
Irish official sources generally just refer to "The Great Famine", but this can't be the title of the article because there were also "Great Famine"s (and they were man-made famines) in the Ukraine in the '30s and in China later on, and that's ignoring Ethiopia, etc.,etc.,etc. In any case, translating "An Gorta Mor" into "The Great Hunger" rather than into "The Great Famine" is arbitrary, since Famine just means hunger anyway.
As I said before, the title of this article should include the word "Irish" or "Ireland" somewhere in order to avoid being a too vague designation. It should use the most common unambiguous name for the event, which is probably either "The Great Irish Famine" or Sarah77's execrable "Irish Potato Famine". If we just have "The Great Hunger" then we may need a disambiguation page to separate the article on the Irish famine from either those other books (and the Greenland famine) or the documentary about Shane McGowan.
As for the rest of the article, particularly the introduction and the higher-level pieces, I still regret to say that it stinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughsheehy (talk • contribs) 11:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Domer48, "Famine" simply means that people starved or went hungry. They did starve and go hungry. (the word is from the French for hunger) What caused the famine when there was potentially plenty of other food around is another matter entirely and British policy deserves plenty of blame, and probably more recognition than it gets (I would guess that most British people are almost entirely unaware of the famine, let alone any potential UK government responsibility for it, or the fact that potentially much of the English population's food at the time was effectively stolen from the mouths of starving Irish people).
Hugh, the problems you outline can all be overcome with the utility of the re-directs. Any and every name you could think, will all bring you to the right article. The first thing readers will notice is that in Ireland it is known "The Great Hunger," which comes from the Irish "An Gorta Mor." Nearly every book I have read on the subject makes reference to the term "An Gorta Mor." As to it being a too vague designation, just type "the Irish Famine" into the search bar on Wiki, and it brings you stright to the article. I've tried it with all the titles. --Domer48 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- It could be called "The Flying Kazinski Brothers" and redirects would bring you to the "right" page. Hughsheehy (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I just tried, and no it did not. --Domer48 (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ha Ha. My point is still valid. Hughsheehy (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
With respect, Hugh, The Great Hunger quite unambiguously refers to the famine in Ireland between 1845 and 1850. This can be clearly evidenced by a Google book search (search) or the many references that use that name. The common sense argument is that the name hadn't already been "taken" by another "Great Hunger" and there is no disambiguation page for the phrase.
A google search also shows that there is little between each term for the event:
- "Great Famine": 58,400 (search)
- "The Great Hunger": 41,500 (search)
- "Great Irish Famine": 39,500 (search)
- "Potato Famine": 32,100 (search)
(Policy is to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." If you swallow the above results, then in this case that would be The Great Hunger since there are many "Great Famines" already. A precedent is Holodomor.)
I agree that the article is a mess and that we need to all get on-board together and stop bickering and mis-trusting each other. --sony-youthpléigh 00:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, Sony, "The Great Hunger" is NOT unambiguous. It's at least one disconnected book, a documentary about Shane McGowan and a famine in Greenland in the 1880's, albeit a not very well-known famine in Greenland in the 1880's. Looking at commonness and Google hits, I find that "Irish Potato Famine" is WAAAY more common than any of the others, with >100k hits. As you say "Great Famine" can be several events, including several that are AFAIK far larger than the Irish famine. Having a title, like the books generally do, of "The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849" would be unambiguous but I am still completely unclear as to what is wrong with the term that is apparently the most common name, i.e. "The Irish Potato Famine". Whatever one feels about the the political aspects (and "God sent the blight, the English created the famine" is still as good a summary as I've seen) that term does seem to be the most common. It might not be the term most used in book titles, but it's the most common term. It also matches the similar Highlands and European famines. Hughsheehy (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the name is OK. I wobbled a bit but have now fallen back in line with Sony/Domer. But even leaving aside the controversial bits we need someone who can really writeto get this into shape. Sarah777 (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we all agree that "we need someone who can really writeto get this into shape." Could I suggest that we park the name issue just for the moment, and focus on the other aspects? --Domer48 (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that the very proposal of the name change states that the proposed new name (i.e. "The Great Hunger", which the article now carries) is NOT the most common name for the event!!!!! Instead, the name change is proposed on the basis of some package deal in regard to content and people agreeing or not agreeing on their views on the events around the famine. Have I been transported to another planet or are we still supposed to be on planet Wikipedia? Would the proposer of the change, i.e. Sony-youth, care to comment on what IS the most common name for the event? Hughsheehy (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- In Ireland, "the Famine" or "the Great Famine" - in that order. Not speaking for Sony IGWS. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC))
- Hugh, no doubt you've read what I wrote above, but I'll repeat it here. As I maintained before (see discussion), it's my belief that Irish Potato Famine is the most common name. I argued vigorously in defense of it, but consensus was overwhelmingly against me. That's the way things work on Planet Wikipedia. The "rightness" or "wrongness" of that term, and others, is the problem (i.e. Sarah's argument that "potatoes didn't starve"), and is, I admit, backed up by published works. In any event, you surely must admit that "The Great Hunger" quite uniformly refers to this event, and it's advantage is that, to paraphrase what Christine Kinealy writes, an NPOV name.
- Dictionary.com has an entry on the phrase (link). I cannot see the Shane McGowan or Greenland (is it the novel?) book you are referring to, do you have a link? Could the Shane McGowan book title be based on the name for the event? --sony-youthpléigh 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dictionary.com also has "The Irish famine" as a title for the same event, but that isn't a suitable article name either. As for consensus...WP isn't a democracy and I don't believe that we should pick the wrong name just to be convenient or because people are persistent in pursuing mistakes. This article correctly used "Irish potato famine" for a long time. Further apart from not being the most common name I repeat the simple fact that "The Great Hunger" isn't an unambiguous name. There are at least two books (one about another famine) and one movie called "The Great Hunger" that have NOTHING to do with the event this article is about. The movie is a bio of a famous singer/writer and the two books are a novel by famous Norwegian writer and a book about a famine by a moderately famous French Explorer. For heavens sake, even the books titled "The Great Hunger" say that they are about "the Irish potato famine". They're using "The Great Hunger" as a dramatic title, not as the normal description of the event, e.g. the back notes of Cecil Woodham-Smith's book, which is titled "The Great Hunger", talks about "the Irish potato famine".
The initial objection to "Irish potato famine" seems to have been an observation that "it wasn't the potatoes that starved" and some feeling that the term was a political escape to let the British off the hook. Apart from the fact that an editor's personal preferences are entirely irrelevant, it's too easly to point out that neither the Highlands nor potatoes starved in the "Highlands potato famine", but that's what the famine is called.
I feel a disambig page coming on and refer you to the disambiguation page for "The Great War" as an example of where this sad episode ends up. Now, surely no-one would say that "The Great War" isn't a common name for World War 1, but it's NOT unambiguous and it's NOT the most common term. Hughsheehy (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dictionary.com also has "The Irish famine" as a title for the same event, but that isn't a suitable article name either. As for consensus...WP isn't a democracy and I don't believe that we should pick the wrong name just to be convenient or because people are persistent in pursuing mistakes. This article correctly used "Irish potato famine" for a long time. Further apart from not being the most common name I repeat the simple fact that "The Great Hunger" isn't an unambiguous name. There are at least two books (one about another famine) and one movie called "The Great Hunger" that have NOTHING to do with the event this article is about. The movie is a bio of a famous singer/writer and the two books are a novel by famous Norwegian writer and a book about a famine by a moderately famous French Explorer. For heavens sake, even the books titled "The Great Hunger" say that they are about "the Irish potato famine". They're using "The Great Hunger" as a dramatic title, not as the normal description of the event, e.g. the back notes of Cecil Woodham-Smith's book, which is titled "The Great Hunger", talks about "the Irish potato famine".
- And around in circles we go, Hugh, and the article gets no better. Look back through the archives. It's rubbish like this that's been dogging the article, I proposed a solution that I thought everyone could live with - if you want to drag it back up again, then by all means that's your right, but please don't wrap it up in a box labeled "concern for the article quality" because the end result is nothing of the sort.
- Yes, Hugh - undoubtedly there are two books and a bloody video in existence entitled "The Great Hunger" (I still can't see them, I asked you for a link, is that not forthcoming?) that have nothing to do with the Irish event, but there are thousands of others that exclusively are. Christ, I'm sure a quick look will find you a book called "Irish potato famine" that has absolutely nothing to do the event either, so what? It's called creative license, Hugh. There's no copyright or trademark on the phrase. If someone want's to use it in another circumstance, there's nothing to stop them. Two books and a bloody video?? That's all you can find??? I get 850 results on Google books alone and all you can say is that, "There this book on this, and another book on that ..." --sony-youthpléigh 12:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Rubbish like this"? I'm expressing serious concern about the article quality, expressing serious concern about the article's name and expressing serious surprise about the way that the name has been changed in complete contradiction to what the proposer himself thinks is the most common name. How does all that come to be "Rubbish like this"? As for the 880 hits on "the great hunger", about 440 of those hits (on google books) are from one of the other books alone. [1]
As for working on article quality, it seems that the recent focus has been on quieting political fights and not on focusing on referenced content. Hughsheehy (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Rubbish like this"? I'm expressing serious concern about the article quality, expressing serious concern about the article's name and expressing serious surprise about the way that the name has been changed in complete contradiction to what the proposer himself thinks is the most common name. How does all that come to be "Rubbish like this"? As for the 880 hits on "the great hunger", about 440 of those hits (on google books) are from one of the other books alone. [1]
- Sincerest apologies - I had actually just popped back to remove the entire post because I didn't like my own tone. You don't deserve to be treated like that, Hugh, and I genuinely extend by most sincerest apologies.
- "... it seems that the recent focus has been on quieting political fights and not on focusing on referenced content." Yes. However, The Great Hunger itself is referenced. As popular as the Bojer novel appears to be, it was written in Norwegian in 1916. If we have to go back almost a century and switch languages to find a opposing, and fictional, The Great Hunger (if it indeed the title refers to an event - what is the book about? is there an event in it called The Great Hunger? is it fictional or real? or is that just the title of the book? is love or rage or some other human emotion the "hunger" that Bojer refers to?) then we can be pretty safe in assuming that, in the English language at least, The Great Hunger unambiguously refers to the Irish event - and we have references from reputable secondary sources and a dictionary definition should anyone disagree with us.
- Maybe, we could start a new page, The Great Hunger (novel), if we have any information on the 1916 book worth mentioning. --sony-youthpléigh 13:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
<reduce indent> A lot of names are referenced, including "The Irish Holocaust" and "The Famine". That doesn't make either of them the most common name or the best to use for the article title. Meantime "The Great Hunger" is the name of the Bojer novel in English and the Google books references to that novel actually outnumber the English language Google books references to anything famine-related so lets not try to pretend we're talking about some bizzare and minor book written by some flaky Norwegian. In addition there is also a "The Great Hunger" that refers to a Greenland famine in the 1880s. "The Great Hunger" is the name of that book "in English" too, since it was published first in French. Then we have the movie about a vastly talented and immensely drunk Shane MacGowan. So, we are back where we started....we have an ambiguous name for the article and also a name that is not the most common name for the event - a double whammy of reasons to revert to the long-standing, unambiguous and commonly used "Irish Potato Famine".
We need to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a forum to argue out or to agree historical compromises about the topic. We are making an encyclopedia and not writing legislation, so there is no need to engage in the kind of horse-trading that so demeans the normal political process. If you think that the event should be called something other than the Irish potato famine then there needs to be a good and verifiable reason to say so, not just personal preference or a hope that other editors will "play nice" on the rest of the content. Hughsheehy (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- BTW - while we're talking about ambiguity, even a quick search about the Ukraine famine in the 1930s shows that it is reasonably often called "the Great Hunger" when written about in English. The WP article on that famine uses the Ukrainian term but there are plenty of references to the Great Hunger if you care to look. Then there are references to a "Great Hunger" before/during the Black Plagues in the 14th century, descriptions of the Mao famines in China as "The Great Hunger", another famine in China in the 11th century that was called "The Great Hunger", etc...etc.
Again, this article needs to have the word "Irish" or "Ireland" in the title. Hughsheehy (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- BTW - while we're talking about ambiguity, even a quick search about the Ukraine famine in the 1930s shows that it is reasonably often called "the Great Hunger" when written about in English. The WP article on that famine uses the Ukrainian term but there are plenty of references to the Great Hunger if you care to look. Then there are references to a "Great Hunger" before/during the Black Plagues in the 14th century, descriptions of the Mao famines in China as "The Great Hunger", another famine in China in the 11th century that was called "The Great Hunger", etc...etc.
The great hunger is not a good name...It really should use the common name of the Irish potatoe famine (which is shortened to just the famine in Ireland due to it being local).
What I find worst though is the horrible practically never used Irish holocaust being up there in the introduction as if it was a accepted name on a par with the others.--Him and a dog 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The most common name for the starvation in Ireland of the 1840s, "the Famine" is most certainly not a shortened version of anything. It is THE name for the event; sometimes disambiguated as the Great Famine. Type simply "the famine" into Google; the first six hits specifically refer to the Irish famine of the 1840s; out of the thousands of famines in recorded history. If we want to change the name from "The Great Hunger" then simply "the Famine"; with disambig for other famines. Or if that is too Irish-centric for some them the Great Irish Famine has the quadruple-whammy of being (a) the second most common name in Ireland after "famine"; (b) It is not both unused in Ireland and meaningless like "Irish potatoe famine"; (c) is is unambiguous; (d) It is the most common name used by people searching for an article on the famine. And don't bore me with talk about using the "most common name" - I fought long and hard that Ireland should be the name of Ireland on that basis but was overruled because the most common name wasn't the only determinant. Other factors had to be taken into account. (Sarah777 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC))
- Although I wasn't involved in the "Ireland" debate, I believe the key issue there was ambiguity/confusion and unfortunately that is an issue with "Ireland". As Metallica said, "Sad but True". Now, this isn't the "Ireland" article, but the issue of unambiguity is key. The name for this article should be an unambiguous name. "The Famine" fails that test, as does "The Great Hunger". As for a disambig page for "other" famines, there is already a page called "List of famines". There are depressingly many, and some of them are depressingly recent.
However, I must again ask why "Irish potato famine" is supposedly a meaningless term? Sarah777 has described it as meaningless and as execrable, but I'm entirely unclear why the most common name for the event should be so described. Hughsheehy (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Although I wasn't involved in the "Ireland" debate, I believe the key issue there was ambiguity/confusion and unfortunately that is an issue with "Ireland". As Metallica said, "Sad but True". Now, this isn't the "Ireland" article, but the issue of unambiguity is key. The name for this article should be an unambiguous name. "The Famine" fails that test, as does "The Great Hunger". As for a disambig page for "other" famines, there is already a page called "List of famines". There are depressingly many, and some of them are depressingly recent.
- The most common name for the starvation in Ireland of the 1840s, "the Famine" is most certainly not a shortened version of anything. It is THE name for the event; sometimes disambiguated as the Great Famine. Type simply "the famine" into Google; the first six hits specifically refer to the Irish famine of the 1840s; out of the thousands of famines in recorded history. If we want to change the name from "The Great Hunger" then simply "the Famine"; with disambig for other famines. Or if that is too Irish-centric for some them the Great Irish Famine has the quadruple-whammy of being (a) the second most common name in Ireland after "famine"; (b) It is not both unused in Ireland and meaningless like "Irish potatoe famine"; (c) is is unambiguous; (d) It is the most common name used by people searching for an article on the famine. And don't bore me with talk about using the "most common name" - I fought long and hard that Ireland should be the name of Ireland on that basis but was overruled because the most common name wasn't the only determinant. Other factors had to be taken into account. (Sarah777 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC))
"The Famine" certainly is a shortened version of something. Its the way naming local historic events generally works. For instance the American Civil War is just called the civil war in the US. I'm Irish myself but calling it the famine is really too Irish-centric, there have been many other famines in many other nations of the course of history. --Him and a dog 10:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason that I proposed to have the article at this title was to resolve a dispute concerning the inclusion of the term "Irish holocaust" in the lead. That was the "package deal" described above. Since that term has been removed, the "package" no longer exists, and I no longer support the article being at this title. --sony-youthpléigh 11:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- In Ireland the name used is An Gorta Mór, translated "The Great Hunger." This can be referenced to most books on the subject. This would defiantly satisfy the criteria on Irish names in wiki policy, that is, it should be the English version. If you look at the translation, it is less POV than any of them. As to the Great Irish Famine (1740-1741), that in Ireland is called the "Forgotten Famine." Like I said, the utility of the re-directs, should be employed. --Domer48 (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Except that "The Great Hunger" isn't the most common name and even if it was, it isn't an unambiguous name. Hughsheehy (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I really don't see how the potato famine or the great famine or any of that sort of thing is POV. Which POV is it suppose to be representing exactly?--Him and a dog 16:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll second that question.
I don't see how calling something a "famine" belittles it in any way. If anything, calling it a "a great hunger" makes it sound less dramatic than a famine....imho...but only mho.(reedited, since mho isn't particularly important) Hughsheehy (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll second that question.
The issue of POV is no one of my own, but raised by Christine Kinealy in her “This Great Calamity.” It concerns the use of the word “famine,” in situations were large amounts of food were still being produced and exported while people starved. She points out that although potatoes were the main subsistence crop in Ireland, they only accounted for 20% of agricultural output. --Domer48 (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Issues around what to call the event, and how choices over what to call it reflect the struggle over interpretation of the event, are well documented in the literature. Christine Kinealy's description of this on the first page of "A Death-Dealing Famine" was the source my reasoning that "The Great Hunger" was the most NPOV of titles, under which the phrased ranging from the "Great (Potato) Famine" to the "Irish Holocaust" could be included neutrally. This can be read on Google books, the relevant passage is below:
- "The relative absence of academic research arose partly from ideological struggles concerning the nature and purpose of Irish historical research during the period from 1845 to the present. Even the designation of the Famine has been an area of debate. In popular understanding 'The Great Famine' has become the most common sobriquet for the years of devastation and destruction in Ireland. Yet, 'The Great Hunger', 'The Great Calamity', 'The Irish Holocaust' and the Irish phrases 'An Gorta Mór', 'An Droch-Shaghal' and 'Bliain an CGhorta' are all ways of describing the same event, and indicate differences of interpretation and emphasis. Canon RoRourke, in his early account of the Famine published in 1874, noted that during the course of the Famine, relief comittees and government officials avoided using the term 'famine', substituting instead 'distress', 'destitution', 'dearth of provisions', 'severe destitution', 'calamity', 'extreme misery', and so on. The Irish phrase 'An Gorta Mór', meaning 'The Great Hunger', is regarded by some as being an accurate description of years of hunger, which were not merely caused by food shortages. For the same reason, the use of the term 'famine' is disliked by a number of nationalist commentators on the grounds that between 1845 and 1852, large volumes of food were exported from Ireland as thousands died of starvation. For others, the word 'holocaust' is too emotive and ascribes too much culpability to the British government. The word is also closely associated with the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis in the twentieth century, although it was used by a number of nineteenth-century commentators when describing the Famine - Michael Davitt, for example, refers to it as 'the holocaust of humanity'."
- --sony-youthpléigh 18:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Issues around what to call the event, and how choices over what to call it reflect the struggle over interpretation of the event, are well documented in the literature. Christine Kinealy's description of this on the first page of "A Death-Dealing Famine" was the source my reasoning that "The Great Hunger" was the most NPOV of titles, under which the phrased ranging from the "Great (Potato) Famine" to the "Irish Holocaust" could be included neutrally. This can be read on Google books, the relevant passage is below:
- Ehm...I don't get the point of the above post by Sony. It seems Christine Kinealy uses the word "famine" a lot, and merely comments that other terms have sometimes been used. That's hardly news. Hughsheehy (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Josquius' question was: "I really don't see how the potato famine or the great famine [meaning the name given to the event] or any of that sort of thing is POV. Which POV is it suppose to be representing exactly?" You seconded that question.
- The passage from Kinealy shows that the view within the published literature on the subject is that the name given to the event reflects particular points of view (POV) on the subject. It also explains which POV some names are supposed to represent.
- You asked a question. I answered it. That';s all that's to it. Can you not follow your own questions? --sony-youthpléigh 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
<reduce indent>So, let me see if I have this right.
Govt officials at the time avoided "famine" so that they didn't give the appearance that there was actually a famine and that people were starving to death.
Meantime nationalist commentators disliked/dislike the word "famine" because they felt that calling it a famine didn't recognise the fact that the famine occurred in a country that was still exporting tonnes of food. (actually, since Ireland wasn't really legally a country at the time Sarah777's often expressed point that the famine occurred in the UK and only persisted because food was forcibly removed from an unfavoured bunch of people in an unfavoured part of the UK to feed a favoured bunch of people in a favoured part of the UK is rather relevant).
Then although the word "holocaust" was at least occasionally used at the time it has (particularly since WWII) many emotional connotations that make it a highly charged and contentious word to use, probably since "Holocaust" is now practically synonymous with a large-scale, planned-in-advance-over-drinks, well-organized and entirely deliberate genocide.
At the end we're still left with a simple fact. The famine is almost always called a famine. Even in the Kinealy ref, while discussing the POV around the various terms, the one neutral term she returns to is "famine" and she then mentions a bunch of other terms as descriptions that are also used with "The Great Hunger" simply listed as one of these.
Fine. This is all nice content for the article....but is the article to be called "The Great Irish Famine (1845-1849)" or "The Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849)"?
AFAIK, "Irish Potato Famine" is the most common term.
in a counterpoint to Sarah777's assertion that calling it a potato famine seems to indicate that the potatoes starved, I'd ask whether the famine was really something that we want to call "Great"? are we really reduced to such apparently silly debating points as these? Hughsheehy (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- What does this diatribe have to do with the question that you asked? Clearly your enthusiasm for arguing over this matter has caused you to miss this post and my lenghty defense of "Irish Potato Famine" here, which I directed you to before. What's more worrying through is the manner in which you disregard and demean published work on the subject in favour of your personal opinion and your opinion of divergent view on the topic. --sony-youthpléigh 11:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Diatribe? What diatribe? Also, where am I demeaning published work, pushing a personal opinion or demeaning divergent views? Please show me because I don't see it. I'm arguing and questioning about FACTS and published references, nothing more or less, and asking to understand why/where there are problems with what everyone seems to say is the most common term because I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S PROBLEMATICAL and I'd like to understand any problem before proposing changes to the article...particularly because this article has been put under ArbCom supervision.
The reason I'm asking so many questions is because I'm trying to understand the other views, not to demean or ignore them. Right now I don't understand them and my read of the talk page archives didn't educate me.
My post above is my attempt to summarize my understanding of the POVs that are supposedly illustrated in the reference given and which are supposedly the reason the article's name was changed. As for your previous posts, I read them and I understand that you also think the name of the article should be "Irish Potato Famine", as do most people I can find in the talk page archives. Hughsheehy (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Diatribe? What diatribe? Also, where am I demeaning published work, pushing a personal opinion or demeaning divergent views? Please show me because I don't see it. I'm arguing and questioning about FACTS and published references, nothing more or less, and asking to understand why/where there are problems with what everyone seems to say is the most common term because I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S PROBLEMATICAL and I'd like to understand any problem before proposing changes to the article...particularly because this article has been put under ArbCom supervision.
- Jesus wept, Hugh. You say that you read the discussion above but I can hardly believe that you have - see above the discussion above entitled Discussion about term "Irish Holocaust", and specifically here and here.
- The article was moved NOT because people thought that "The Great Hunger" was the most common name, but because it was a name that we all could live with and would ALLOW US TO REWRITE THE LEAD so as to include the phrase "Irish Holocaust" in a manner in which we all could agree. REWRITING THE LEAD WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE MOVE. The agreed rewrite of the lead has since been changed (i.e. references to the "Irish Holocaust", which was the contentious point, have been removed from it). As things stand now, there is no good reason for the article to be located at this title anymore from my point of view. However, should the term "Irish Holocaust" be reinserted, the trouble will probably start all over again. If you can think of a better way of resolving the impasse that that term presents (specifically the matter is WP:WEIGHT) then I'm all ears.
- Does this clear things up for you? My comments about diatribe above were because you comments made no sense in terms of the question you asked or in terms of why the article is now located at this title. If that was down to crossed wires then I take it back. --sony-youthpléigh 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Re your points about reading your previous posts and the references I did read them. I think the rationale of negotiating a wrong name for the article on the basis that some fudge can then be agreed on some other words in the article is entirely unhelpful and bound to lead to longer term problems - any my aim is to address one thing at a time. Furthermore, although one of the posts you asked me to read says that Kinealy describes "The Great Hunger" as the most common name, the reference you've posted above doesn't say any such thing....so EXCUSE ME for being confused. I think we have now established beyond any reasonable doubt that "The Great Hunger" is the WRONG name for the article. How to address terms like "The Irish Holocaust" is a separate argument and I'm sure that we can find a suitable solution. God help me, but I edited the "Suggestions of Genocide" section yesterday and the change doesn't seem to have attracted too much opprobrium. Hughsheehy (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Who said that "The Great Hunger" was the most common name? Certainly not me. Could you quote me saying so or direct me to a diff? There is no such thing as a "right name" or a "wrong name", as the Kinealy quote demonstrates, only perspectives on what to call the event. Unless you can find a source to say that calling the event "The Great Hunger" is wrong, I'll take that to be your personal opinion, which you are entitle to but which is irrelevant here.
- Like policy says, naming conventions are just that: "conventions, not rules carved in stone." In any case, the proposal to move was put under IAR in order to resolve a thorny issue that we found ourselves wrapped up in. Consensus at the time was to go ahead cautiously. You don't agree with it? Wonderful. Consensus does change. Put up a notice that you want to move the page back and just get on with it. Whinging on about it like it's the worst thing since Cromwell isn't to anyone's benefit. --sony-youthpléigh 20:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity... is there some way we can tell how many people come directly to this page by typing "The Great Hunger" into the WP search engine, and how many are redirected to this page after typing "Irish Potato Famine"? If so, I would suggest that that would be a good way of determining what the most appropriate title of this article should be. Personally, I'd never heard of "The Great Hunger" title until I noted the redirect, but I'd be perfectly happy to bow to the majority in this case.... Geeman (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would hazard a guess that neither of the two options you give would win such a test. "The Famine"; "The Irish Famine"; "The Great Famine" or "The Great Irish Famine" are all more likely candidates. For example, in Firefox if you type "the famin " the "suggestions" drop-down lists "the famine" first and then "the Irish Famine" second. Sarah777 (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, but my point is that we should use as the title of this page the most often searched for term in WP. Is there some way to find get stats from the WP search engine? Geeman (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The answer to that question lies beyond the horizon of my knowledge! Sarah777 (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've never heard of the term The Great Hunger, but I've heard of Irish Famine. Anyways, call the article whatever yas want. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- The answer to that question lies beyond the horizon of my knowledge! Sarah777 (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to make a few suggestions about how the article can be improved. I've noticed several sections where the content doesn't match the heading. For instance, under 'Food exports to England' the last three paragraphs are not about exports at all. They cover private charities. Further down, under 'Charity', only the last paragraph discusses charity. Most of the 'charity' section is taken up with reactions and proposals from Irish contemporaries. Their tone implies opposition to some earlier British proposal which isn't mentioned, but they are not directly related to the heading 'charity'.
What I would suggest is moving the last three paragraphs of section 3.3 to section 5.3 on grounds of relevance and consistency. And moving all of the current 5.3 (except the last paragraph) to the 'reactions' section. Either that or put these excerpts in a new section, perhaps with the heading 'Irish proposals'.
How does that sound? Asmaybe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Article quality-arbitrary navigation break
I still don't see variants of the name famine as POV. That source only really proves that one POV sees such names as a POV. The Great Famine/Potato Famine being POV is in turn a POV. Most Irish and British certainly don't regard it as such, its just a fairly matter of fact name for the events.
I would also agree that the great hunger sounds less impressive then calling it a famine but yeah that is just POV.--Him and a dog 12:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- "I still don't see variants of the name famine as POV." Your opinion, my opinion, and the dog's opinion don't matter, only published sources do.
- "That source only really proves that one POV sees such names as POV." Which POV? The source mentions "academic debate", "relief comittees and government officials", "some", "nationalist commentators" and "others" all wrestling over different names for the event depending on POV. That's a lot of POVs.
- "The Great Famine/Potato Famine being POV is in turn a POV." Everything is POV. There is nothing wrong with POV. In fact, please stop using the term POV; or at least read WP:NPOV first. We want POV in articles on Wikipedia. Articles on Wikipedia depend on having POV. They flurish on it. POV is the lifeblood of this project. In fact, it is actual policy that articles on Wikipedia contain POV. A neutral POV, attributing due weight to differing POVs, but POV none the less.
- "Most Irish and British certainly don't regard it as such, its just a fairly matter of fact name for the events." The source itself regards "The Great Famine" as the most common name for the event. This page was located at Great Irish Famine before the move to facilitate the rewrite to the lead. --sony-youthpléigh 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I would ask you for a source that says the sky is not green.--Him and a dog 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is handled in Wikipedia:Verifiability ("Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."). This is one of key policies of Wikipedia. I'm not about to search for references, but, making assumptions about what sources exist, here's how it works:
- "The sky is not green." - There is no source for this, so this statement CANNOT be included.
- "The sky is green." - There is no source to support this statement, so this statement CANNOT be included.
- "The sky is blue." - There is a source to support this statement, so this statement CAN be included.
- Now for another core policy, Wikipedia:No original research. Suppose you find a source to back up the statement that "Blue is not green." You could very easily deduce:
- "The sky is blue. Blue is not green. Therefore the sky is not green."
- This deduction on your part, as true as it is, is not sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia because it is original research based on a synthesis of published works. ("'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.")
- Finally, the last of Wikipedia's core policies is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. While you will be able to find sources supporting the statement that the sky is blue, you will also find sources supporting statements that:
- "The sky is colourless."
- This statement, which is verifiable, needs to be combined with another statement is verifiable ("The sky is blue") in a neutral manner that accords each due weight (along with other such as "The sky is blue during the day." etc.) even though they are in conflict with each other (i.e the sky cannot be both blue and colourless at the same time). This is the hardest part of writing an article on Wikipedia, and why you will find people shouting "POV! POV! POV!" so often. I think that the current version of the Sky article does a good job of this:
- "During daylight the sky of Earth has the appearance of a deep blue surface, as the result of the air's scattering of sunlight.")
- You may think that it does not present a neutral point of view. Together we will have to iterate through edits of the article, or discuss it on the talk page, until we find a version that we can agree on. --sony-youthpléigh 14:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say leave the article as The Great Hunger. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
As an actual citizen of the Republic of Ireland and having studied a lot more Irish history than most people who seem to have posted here, I might be qualified to inform you that in Ireland this tragedy is referred to as The Famine. Not "Potato Famine" nor "Great Hunger" or any of the ridiculous names put forward by experts who have never set foot on Irish soil let alone learnt about the event in the classroom as a Irish child. The "Irish Potato Famine" is also likely to cause offence, for reasons that have been discussed above. The famines in Somalia etc. were not referred to by their crop failings so why is the Irish Famine labelled in such a way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.32.154 (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why? Because we are saddled with a language, English, which is heavily embedded with pro-English POV. And a lot of non-Irish editors are unable to accept this simple fact. Sarah777 (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Datapoints for the name
FWIW:
- Irish primary school curriculum uses "the Great Famine"
- Junior Cert history guidelines uses "the Famine"
- Leaving Cert history syllabus uses "the Great Famine" and "the Famine"
- jnestorius(talk) 14:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm responsible for the name change to it's current state. The idea didn't work out (see from here down) and I would support a change back or to another. --sony-youthpléigh 15:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- My preference would be for Great Famine (Ireland). jnestorius(talk) 15:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Irish Famine,or Great Famine (Ireland), whatever gets the traffic going. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Either one. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) should apply here. --John (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Irish Famine,or Great Famine (Ireland), whatever gets the traffic going. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Suggestion: 'The Great Famine' or 'The Famine', known in Britain as 'The Irish Potato Famine', refers to (&c., &c.)... ? --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is it know in Britain as the "potato famine" as a form of denial? Doesn't seem so bad if only the potatoes starved! Sarah777 (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Photograph
The photograph captioned "A starving family in Carraroe" is certainly not from the 1845-50 famine this article discusses. The Illustrated London News printed many engravings related to that famine, based on sketches by their correspondents, but given the state of photography technology at the time, I can't believe this photo is from that time period. More likely it's from around 1890. The citation is to the National Library of Ireland, but I haven't found it in their online collection. Sttaylor (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This should help you out here. --Domer48 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- You linked to an Illustrated London News article from 1849. It has six illustrations but no photograph. Asmaybe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Starvation in England
Cannot see any mention that it was common for people in England to die of starvation at the time, although it was I believe called dropsy at the time, due to the swelling that occurs during the last stages of starvation. 80.0.121.148 (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why should there be? Article is about the Great Irish Famine. Maybe there needs to be an article about the Great English famine. If it was even a fraction as devestating it is rather astonishing if there isn't already one. Sarah777 (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
A very POV article
the author has exploited every opertunity to make the British Governmnet look bad, and has left out some of the efforts of the conservative British govermnet, prior to the Liberal government (which thought the best option was to let market forces deal with the problem) such as the importing of grain from America. It also fails to metion that food was being exported to England By Irish farmers (aswell as Anglo-Irish landowners). This is a poor article and another example of the anti-british sentiment that seems to exist in all articles relating to the Irish question. . 217.42.148.217 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Right. And like is the Holocaust article poor 'cos it doesn't reflect well on Hitler (to get my Godwinism in first)? Sarah777 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, you just jettisoned any credibility you had by Godwining this. Grow up. 69.253.222.184 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- If the Godwin fits....wear it. In this case it fits like a glove. Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is a spectacularly bad example of moral equivalence. Can you really think that a famine caused by (get this!) nature is the equivalent of genocide? It's fair to call that deranged. It cheapens genocide and the Holocaust and betrays and ignorance of proportion and history. But then, that's what Godwin is all about. Got that? 69.253.222.184 (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
A famine in a country (get this) with an abundance of food, shipped out under armed guard? It's fair to call that deranged, and betrays and ignorance of proportion and history.--Domer48 (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Irish Potato Famine
I suggest we change the title of this article to "Irish Potato Famine" as that is how it is almost universally known. "The Great Hunger" is just an emotive translation from the Irish Gaelic term for it - and a biased one at that. TharkunColl (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do I detect some anger there Tharkun? I suggest one can't be biased against genocide. Do you think so? Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to the emotive translation. "The Great Famine" would have been just as acceptable as a translation from Gaelic, rather than Hunger. But in any case it wasn't genocide, because that implies intent. TharkunColl (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't call it "The Great Hunger" - I thought "The Great Famine" was a much more common name (that is what it is near universally called in Ireland - though I know that doesn't count in your view). It was, of course, genocide as it meets the modern UN definition. Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- It does seem peculiar that the article refers to the event as "the potato famine" in several of the blurbs beneath the graphics, mentions the potato crop as both a cause and a misnomer throughout, and simply has the word "potato" in it over three dozen times, but actually using the word in the title of the article itself seems to bring up the immediate response about genocide.... I suspect the suggestion that it should be named something OTHER than The Irish Potato Famine is as NPOV as any other name, but at least that title seems to reflect the facts as presented in the article in its current form--which some folks would argue is already NPOV despite using the supposedly biased term throughout. If the issue is with how the period is to be characterized, I don't think using the word "potato" is really much of an issue.
- It similarly seems telling that the link to the article about the results of the famine Irish potato famine (legacy) can be named according to the common usage without any argument. Surely we should change the names so they have parity with one another. That article also deals with the same issues described here, and in additional detail when it comes to a few particulars, so if "Irish Potato Famine" is such a problem for the naming of this article it seems like it would have been brought up on that article's talk page sooner.
- Incidentally, when I go to the links above that do Google searches on the respective names I get 421,000 hits for "potato famine" not 32,100. Google also yields 148,000 hits for "great famine" not 58,000. So unless those searches are somehow flawed that would seem to put the "potato famine" well ahead of the others in terms of common usage. The current name of the article "great hunger" scores the lowest of all four names with 34,200. I don't know how the numbers posted above were derived but things seem to have changed quite a lot since last January.... If common usage is to be the standard then "Irish Potato Famine" is the clear winner. Geeman (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. "The Great Famine" is the best name, I've corrected the errors you've highlighted. Sarah777 (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've corrected some of your "corrections". Much as you may object to the word "potato", if an external site referenced here uses it in its article or page title, then we do. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- The point is that they are not "corrections" to begin with. The Google searches on this page pretty clearly indicate that most people do, in fact, refer to this event as a "potato famine" rather than a "great famine or hunger" or other term. The difference is dramatic. 3x as many results (420,000+) from Google for "Potato Famine" than "Great Famine" (134,000). That's definitive. If the WP policy is to use "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" then Potato Famine is clearly that name as it is used more than twice as often as all three other naming suggestions combined. Geeman (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure Google is a reliable approach. And "most common name" isn't a binding Wiki policy - the country of Ireland is called the "Republic of Ireland" on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Any other evidence for commonality would be helpful, so if there's anything else we can use for this purpose then I'd be happy to entertain it. Incidentally, the "Republic of Ireland" article is to describe the modern state. There is also an "Ireland" article to describe the land itself. So I don't think that works particularly well as an example for how things should be handled here.... Geeman (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Could I just ask editors to review previous discussions here and here, and the many archives. It will stop all the repetition. --Domer48 (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good shout Domer. FWIW I think "The Great Hunger" is a ridiculous name. Call it what the world calls it. This is an international project. --John (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, anything but the great hunger, besides its utterly undescriptive, mentioning potatoes is much more descriptive as that is what makes people think of 19th Century Ireland. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Great Irish Famine (1844 - 1849), anyone? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Irish potato famine- this article itself admits that's what it's most commonly called, and that's what we name articles after on Wikipedia. special, random, Merkinsmum 00:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Great Irish Famine (1844 - 1849)" is better than the current title, but "Potato Famine" does appear to be the more common term. I don't think we should make the majority of people looking for this article redirect to something they probably wouldn't recognize. Geeman (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Irish potato famine- this article itself admits that's what it's most commonly called, and that's what we name articles after on Wikipedia. special, random, Merkinsmum 00:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Great Irish Famine (1844 - 1849), anyone? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The Irish (Gaeilge) name is AN GORTA MOR, and that translates into English as The Great Famine. In Ireland, it has always been called "The Great Famine". 78.19.9.60 (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- If this were the Gaeilge version of wikipedia then that'd be a pretty good reason to name the article An Gorta Mor or something based upon that term... but since this is the world-wide English text we should use the most common and descriptive term in that language.
- Just to illustrate the issue regarding the specificity of the title and why it should be called something other than, say, The Great Hunger: that title can refer to a general translation from the Irish, but it also refers to things like novels on technology by Johan Bojer or Eskimo life and culture by Leonard Peterson, and intimates things ranging from cultural events across the planet to bad weight-loss programs. The Great Famine (without a year or location attributed to it) subsumes things like The Great Famine (1315-1322), Holodomor (also called the Great Famine of 1932-1933) and I would guess several other similar events around the world. Conversely, "Potato Famine" refers to one and only one event. Geeman (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Irish potato famine --John (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Irish potato famine is a neologism. -78.19.171.224 (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is that a problem? Geeman (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not consider this to be appropriate and the article its self illustrates the point quite well here, here and here. The people did not die because of a lack of potatos, but a lack of food. That the country was exporting food during this period (be it under armed guard), put a question mark over the term "famine." Could editors please read the above mentioned discussions, so we do not have to keep repeating the says arguements. Like I keep saying, the re-directs will bring you to this article regardless of what term you use, because regardless of what term is used, you get to the article you want. --Domer48 (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- That is the kind of issue that belongs in a discussion as part of the article, but shouldn't determine the name of the article itself. The Holy Roman Empire was not holy, Roman or really an empire, but that is the term we use to refer to that conglomeration. We could use a term that people and leaders of the HRE used themselves like "Regnum Francorum Orientalium" or "Regnum Francorum" which translate to "Kingdom of the East Franks" or "Kingdom of the Franks" but they are not the common usage terms in English, and would lead to confusion with Charles the Great, his kingdom and any number of other historical periods and cultures. The more sensible use of redirects is from less frequently used titles to the more common one. In the long run, I suspect the WP redirects for terms like "The Great Hunger" and "The Great Famine" will lead to a list of book titles, historical periods and various cultural issues rather than to just this article on one period of Irish history. Those are relatively general terms and could/should have several articles dedicated to them. In the short term we should prepare for that eventuality AND use the most common English term. Geeman (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Please hurry up and change the name of the article. The great hunger is a stupid name that I have never heard. The article states - "The Great Famine in Ireland itself and The Irish Potato Famine internationally" so who the hell apart from wikipedia is using the great hunger. The name of the article should be the Irish Potato Famine (relevant dates), I do not understand why this has not been implemented apart from a few POV contributors moaning that this downplays wider issues. Such discussion is a matter for the article NOT THE TITLE. Also it doesn't matter what it's called in Gaelic, this is the English wiki. CHANGE PLEASE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.63.92 (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Contradiction / repetition
"... the Choctaw Indians themselves victims of the genocidal Trail of Tears famously sent $170 (although many articles say the original amount was $710 after a misprint in Angi Debo's "The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Nation") "" -- and a couple of paragraphs later "a group of American Indian Choctaws collected $710 (although many articles say the original amount was $170 after a misprint in Angi Debo's "The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Nation")" Jooler (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hidden unreferenced text
There was a lot of hidden and unreferenced text, which did not appear in the article. I have removed it.--Domer48 (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Dormer - just seeing this comment now, after I'd reverted. Some of that text is unreferenced, and some has fact tags since October as you said - but a lot is also referenced. And nobody could see the text to see it required citations as someone had hidden it... I'd prefer if we could unhide the text and see what's valid and should remain after referencing, and what isn't and should go? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ye what ever you think yourself, I hid the text months ago, as it was unreferenced, and it was considered a good call at the time. Rather than just removing it I left it there to be referenced by those involved in the discussions. If you check the history on the talk page, it should have been noted at the time? --Domer48 (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus on destination of article. JPG-GR (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The Great Hunger → ? — Most opinions I've read agree that current name is unsuitable (I had literally never heard current title till now). At the very least a proper survey is needed. For the sake of easy counting (and making actual progres) an official move request has been made. The options I propose are (add as necessary):
- The Great Famine
- The Irish Potato Famine
- The Great Hunger (current title) —EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 02:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Great Famine
- Irish Potato Famine
- Great Hunger
- Great Irish Famine
- Great Famine (Ireland) jnestorius(talk) 22:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Great Irish Famine (1845 - 1852) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 06:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''
or*'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
- Option 2. Name with which I'm most familiar. Have commonly heard option 1, but I feel it is too vague a title. As said above, had never heard current title until this point. The translation of the Irish name is ambiguous, but irrelevant - the title does not need to be either of the possible translations unless it is the most common English name (per WP:NC). - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 02:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just to say that there were several famines in Irish history caused by potato blight, not just one and that logically it was the people who starved not the potatoes. The potatoes were afficted with blight which caused starvation. I think we should keep the present title as indicating that this was the Great Hunger as opposed to the lesser known famines of Irish history. Colin4C (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe so but to me that immediately fails the policy of "use most common name" (WP:NC) since I had never heard that before. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 12:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cecil Woodham-Smith wrote an acclaimed book on the famine entitled The Great Hunger, 1845-49 (Penguin). The one I have never heard of is the 'Irish potato famine', which is not surprising as it is illogical. Colin4C (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cecil Woodham-Smith's is the most popular book ever written on the subject, and still out sells all of the others combined. It is also the most cited of all the books written. --Domer48 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then save the title for an article on the book, which we should have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cecil Woodham-Smith's is the most popular book ever written on the subject, and still out sells all of the others combined. It is also the most cited of all the books written. --Domer48 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cecil Woodham-Smith wrote an acclaimed book on the famine entitled The Great Hunger, 1845-49 (Penguin). The one I have never heard of is the 'Irish potato famine', which is not surprising as it is illogical. Colin4C (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe so but to me that immediately fails the policy of "use most common name" (WP:NC) since I had never heard that before. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 12:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just to say that there were several famines in Irish history caused by potato blight, not just one and that logically it was the people who starved not the potatoes. The potatoes were afficted with blight which caused starvation. I think we should keep the present title as indicating that this was the Great Hunger as opposed to the lesser known famines of Irish history. Colin4C (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Order of preference, favorite first: #8, #7, #5. The rest are unacceptable. (Note: I've added options #4-#8 as part of this edit.)
- Options #1, #2, #3 are all excluded under WP:THE. I've aded #4, #5, and #6 as "the"-less alternatives, though personally I don't like any of them.
- Option #4 is currently a DAB, and #1 should redirect to the same DAB rather than to this page.
- Re options #2 and #5, "Potato Famine" may be a common collocation abroad I've never heard it used in Ireland. Commenters stating it is "illogical" are, I suspect, masking a visceral WP:UGH with a veneer of half-baked logic; but in their defence, if the bulk of the population of the country where the event took place go "ugh!" at the proposed title, maybe it's time to look for another title.
- Re options #3 and #6: "The Great Hunger" is just a poetic nickname, suitable for use by historians (or poets like Patrick Kavanagh) for their magisterial surveys but not suitable as a generic neutral term. There must be plenty of books about World War I called The War to End All Wars, or about Elizabeth I of England called The Virgin Queen, but each is a bad name for the Wikipedia article. jnestorius(talk) 22:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- "The Great Hunger" is just a poetic nickname? While Irish can be considered poetic, it is not in this case. It is a WP:NPOV title, which is both WP:V and WP:RS. The use of the term "famine" in the title is POV, please review passed discussions. --Domer48 (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Option #5. Appears to be the most common name used globally (from OR in 4 continents). Rockpocket 07:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Option #5, per similar OR - on 5 continents. Ha. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just to repeat that 'potato famine' is illogical. It was the people who starved not the potatoes! Maybe this illogic has a bearing on the term not being used very much? Also I don't see what is 'poetic' about 'The Great Hunger' in the context of the famine. In that context it is a bald statement of fact. Therefore I think we should retain the present title. Colin4C (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not that I approve of the title "potato famine", but the charge of illogic is spurious. I challenge you to cite any actual example of a phrase "<noun> famine" where <noun> is the thing that starved rather than the thing that was scarce. OTOH, one can easily google for "grain famine", "wheat famine", etc. jnestorius(talk) 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Bangladesh famine of 1974, Dutch famine of 1944, Great Chinese Famine, Bengal famine of 1943, Bengal famine of 1770, Great Irish Famine (1740-1741), 1998 Sudan famine, North Korean famine, Russian famine of 1921, Irish Famine (1879), Vietnamese Famine of 1945, Soviet famine of 1932-1933, Finnish famine of 1866-1868, Deccan Famine of 1630-32, Tenpo famine ... et cetera. Only Highland Potato Famine and European Potato Famine follow the "common" form so far as I can see. By this point I am suffering from jamais vu where the word "famine" is concerned. Time to stop. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was commenting on "<noun> famine", not "<adjective> famine". I've already stated I prefer "Irish famine" to "[Irish] potato famine". My point was that the argument "potato famine is illogical because the potatoes didn't starve" is only valid if people actually say things like "peasant famine" or "prisoner famine" or whatever, referring to the group that starved. jnestorius(talk) 09:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps Irish famine of 1845-1852 is the way to go then. Rockpocket 02:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Picking an end-date of 1852 is also controversial. jnestorius(talk) 09:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Is there anything that isn't controversial about this? Rockpocket 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Bangladesh famine of 1974, Dutch famine of 1944, Great Chinese Famine, Bengal famine of 1943, Bengal famine of 1770, Great Irish Famine (1740-1741), 1998 Sudan famine, North Korean famine, Russian famine of 1921, Irish Famine (1879), Vietnamese Famine of 1945, Soviet famine of 1932-1933, Finnish famine of 1866-1868, Deccan Famine of 1630-32, Tenpo famine ... et cetera. Only Highland Potato Famine and European Potato Famine follow the "common" form so far as I can see. By this point I am suffering from jamais vu where the word "famine" is concerned. Time to stop. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sadly when it comes to naming things, logic often isn't top of the list. IPF is most informative in that it imparts who (Irish), how (potato) and what (famine), which is presumably why it is used to extensively. Rockpocket 23:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- The other Irish famines were also potato famines. jnestorius(talk) 09:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thats not really the point, is it? Its more informative than the other option. Rockpocket 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not that I approve of the title "potato famine", but the charge of illogic is spurious. I challenge you to cite any actual example of a phrase "<noun> famine" where <noun> is the thing that starved rather than the thing that was scarce. OTOH, one can easily google for "grain famine", "wheat famine", etc. jnestorius(talk) 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just to repeat that 'potato famine' is illogical. It was the people who starved not the potatoes! Maybe this illogic has a bearing on the term not being used very much? Also I don't see what is 'poetic' about 'The Great Hunger' in the context of the famine. In that context it is a bald statement of fact. Therefore I think we should retain the present title. Colin4C (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Option #5 is probably the least worst option. Names such as "Great Hunger" or "Great Famine" are simply too vague even within the context of Ireland and are hopelessly ambiguous to the majority of users who reside outside of Ireland. As far as the comment that "'potato famine' is illogical" goes: 1). Language is often not logical. 2). There is no requirement that Wikipedia be logical especially if at the expense of clarity or precision. — AjaxSmack 02:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Great Hunger is what the Irish call it. It is only ambiguous to those who know nothing about history. Would you change 'The Holocaust' to 'The Killing of Jews in Europe by the Nazis (1941-45)' in order to be more precise and to aid those who have never heard of it? Colin4C (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- "The Great Hunger" is not what most Irish people call it. They usually call it "The Famine" or "The Great Famine". This is reflected in official school syllabi (primary, Junior Cert, Leaving Cert), in Oireachtas debates, and in the government's 150th anniversary Famine Commemoration Committee. jnestorius(talk) 12:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- None of these is suffciently unambiguous to be a title. Even within the context of Ireland, "The Great Famine" is ambiguous as the Great Irish Famine (1740-1741) makes clear. "The Great Hunger" is inappropriate whether one knows "nothing about history" or not. Among others, the famine that killed ca. 30 million people in China during the Great Leap Forward in the early 1960s is also known as "The Great Hunger." "The Holocaust" is not an appropriate analogy because that term is only commonly applied to one event. A better analogy would be "The War" which has a meaning that varies both temporally and spatially. (And there are not articles for The War (1861-1865) or The War (1939-1945) either.) — AjaxSmack 19:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is only one event called the "Great Famine" in Ireland. The other article should be moved to something like Irish famine of 1740–41 because WP:COMMONNAME relates the the currently-common name, not the originally-common name. jnestorius(talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed my mind on this...I am thinking now that 'Great Irish Famine' would be best as it is more specific and is the name of some publications on the subject. I agree with Jnestorius that the other article should be renamed. Colin4C (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is only one event called the "Great Famine" in Ireland. The other article should be moved to something like Irish famine of 1740–41 because WP:COMMONNAME relates the the currently-common name, not the originally-common name. jnestorius(talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- None of these is suffciently unambiguous to be a title. Even within the context of Ireland, "The Great Famine" is ambiguous as the Great Irish Famine (1740-1741) makes clear. "The Great Hunger" is inappropriate whether one knows "nothing about history" or not. Among others, the famine that killed ca. 30 million people in China during the Great Leap Forward in the early 1960s is also known as "The Great Hunger." "The Holocaust" is not an appropriate analogy because that term is only commonly applied to one event. A better analogy would be "The War" which has a meaning that varies both temporally and spatially. (And there are not articles for The War (1861-1865) or The War (1939-1945) either.) — AjaxSmack 19:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- "The Great Hunger" is not what most Irish people call it. They usually call it "The Famine" or "The Great Famine". This is reflected in official school syllabi (primary, Junior Cert, Leaving Cert), in Oireachtas debates, and in the government's 150th anniversary Famine Commemoration Committee. jnestorius(talk) 12:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Great Hunger is what the Irish call it. It is only ambiguous to those who know nothing about history. Would you change 'The Holocaust' to 'The Killing of Jews in Europe by the Nazis (1941-45)' in order to be more precise and to aid those who have never heard of it? Colin4C (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd call it either Irish Potato Famine or The Irish Potato Famine. I had no idea what The Great Hunger referred to. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. Then this article is tailor-made for you. Sarah777 (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- How do you figure that? The current name of the article is confusing. It is known internationally as the Irish Potato Famine. Wikipedia is international and has a policy of using the most common name for a subject in article titles. Hence, options #2 and #5 would seem to be the obvious best name for the article. I had ancestors who came over after said potato famine and that's what it's always been referred to as in my family. I know the subject matter quite well, but the Great Hunger is a completely unfamiliar title. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. Then this article is tailor-made for you. Sarah777 (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Any option except #2 and #5 which are totally unacceptable and will lead to massive edit-warring, drama and controversy. They are British POV usage to downplay the Genocide and also imply that the potatoes starved; which isn't true. Sarah777 (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Option 8 if a change was to be made; though the status quo is the best option. Sarah777 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, I note the relentless crusade to impose British POV on all Ireland-related articles continues unabated. We have got to call a halt somewhere. Sarah777 (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Option #2 or Option #5. They're basically the same and either will do. Reviewing talk, there are many reasons that "The Great Hunger" is not suitable. It's not unambiguous; it's not the common name; apparently it's not even the most common subject of the term "The Great Hunger" if you look on google books. Even if they're the common names in Ireland, "The Great Famine" has many of the same problems, as has "The Famine"; primarily lack of exclusivity. There have been lots of Great Famines. "The Great Irish Famine" with dates might be acceptable, but I can't say it's good. The "Irish Potato Famine" meets the need best. It's common, unambiguous, internationally recognizable. I find the apparent threat of edit-warring above to be rather scary. I hope/assume Sarah777 doesn't mean that she'll edit war! Also, I'm mystified about this idea "the potatoes didn't starve". WTF is that supposed to mean?? Besides, surely any presentation of British responsibility for the starvation/death of a couple of million people in one part of the UK while another part of the UK ate food removed by force from the starving part can surely be made more productively in an article that lots of people might find and recognize. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Option #5 per our naming conventions. --John (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Option #5 per WP:COMMONNAME. Alternatively Option #9, in keeping with Great Irish Famine (1740-1741). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 06:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: The view within the published literature on the subject is that the name given to the event reflects particular points of view (POV) on the subject. It also explains which POV some names represent. A number of editors have said based on their WP:OR which I assume is Google searches, they suggest #5. Based only on published sources, would they reach the same conclusion? Use of the term "Famine" is POV, not based on my opinion but on a published source. Could editors provide a source which says "Famine" in the title is not POV, and base their opinions on published sources. --Domer48 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Domer48, and which source is this? If you mean the Kinealy book then your argument is a REAL stretch. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- And following on, if "Famine" is so horribly POV then why does the Irish government use the term in all the educational syllabuses, history books, etc? Seems that they see no problem with the term. Also, "Famine" has been used as the term to describe many other man made famines. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cecil Woodham-Smith contended that "famine" was a POV term and favoured "hunger" as a better label. However, the bulk of subsequent "published literature" has not supported this view, to the extent of continuing to refer to the event as a "famine". The term "famine" does not have the widespread dislike in Ireland that, say, "British Isles" does; the majority of Irish people refer to the event as a "famine" without any implying political stance. There are exceptions, such as Sinead O'Connor, whose rap "Famine" begins:
- OK, I want to talk about Ireland
- Specifically I want to talk about the "famine"
- About the fact that there never really was one
- There was no "famine"...
- These lyrics are not aimed at educating foreigners about the Irish viewpoint; they're aimed at educating the uninformed Irish majority about the informed viewpoint. The fact that O'Connor feels the need to do this shows how the Woodham-Smith interpretation remains a minority one. For Wikipedia to adopt Woodham-Smith's name in contrast to both the bulk of scholars and popular usage would therefore be POV. The issues can and should be discussed in the article, but not flagged in the title. jnestorius(talk) 10:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- In light of O'Connor's comments, I'd say that "The Great Hunger" is akin to calling the Civil War in the United States "The War Between The States" or "War for Southern Independence," both terms that Southerners are more apt to use than anyone else. O'Connor and, I would guess User:Sarah777, are representing a minority viewpoint. If you want people to actually be able to find this article or know what it is, you call it the Irish Potato Famine, which is what most people call it, academics and lay persons. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- One difference being, of course, that the South isn't a nation, so there's no possibility of such usage being preferred on "national varieties of English" grounds. (That said, its use here would probably be over-application.) Alai (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- In light of O'Connor's comments, I'd say that "The Great Hunger" is akin to calling the Civil War in the United States "The War Between The States" or "War for Southern Independence," both terms that Southerners are more apt to use than anyone else. O'Connor and, I would guess User:Sarah777, are representing a minority viewpoint. If you want people to actually be able to find this article or know what it is, you call it the Irish Potato Famine, which is what most people call it, academics and lay persons. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cecil Woodham-Smith contended that "famine" was a POV term and favoured "hunger" as a better label. However, the bulk of subsequent "published literature" has not supported this view, to the extent of continuing to refer to the event as a "famine". The term "famine" does not have the widespread dislike in Ireland that, say, "British Isles" does; the majority of Irish people refer to the event as a "famine" without any implying political stance. There are exceptions, such as Sinead O'Connor, whose rap "Famine" begins:
As is usual, all I see is comment and opinion. If this was an article, there would be more citation tags than diff's. For example "the bulk of subsequent "published literature" has not supported this view" or "Woodham-Smith interpretation remains a minority one," as just two most recent examples. Were are the sources? --Domer48 (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Here's one:
- McLean, Stuart John (2004). The Event and Its Terrors: Ireland, Famine, Modernity. Stanford University Press. p. p.167, fn 21. ISBN 0804744408.
Cecil Woodham-Smith's Great Hunger, originally published in 1962, a work that, although criticized by many professional historians for the quality of its scholarship, its populist style, and its unashamedly partisan stance, remains probably the best-selling book on Irish history
{{cite book}}
:|page=
has extra text (help)
- McLean, Stuart John (2004). The Event and Its Terrors: Ireland, Famine, Modernity. Stanford University Press. p. p.167, fn 21. ISBN 0804744408.
- jnestorius(talk) 13:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't just my opinion that the Irish Government uses the term "famine". It's an easily verifiable fact. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- There seems to be pretty heavy support for Option #5 and not a lot of recent action. Is the survey over? Wotapalaver (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- No. Of the ten books specifically on the Famine in the 'Further Reading' section NONE has 'Potato Famine' as the title or part of the title. In fact the word 'potato' is not mentioned in ANY of them. And as me and Sarah have stated over and over again, above, 'potato famine' is illogical. It wasn't the potatoes who starved it was the people. Colin4C (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Colin4C, that is your view. Is the name "potato famine" described as illogical in any serious texts? Probably not. I certainly haven't seen it. Meantime if we use your argument I'm sure that calling the famine "Great" could be described as illogical too, since starving to death or dying of typhus doesn't seem so "Great" to me. Similarly we should surely rename all the civil wars on Wikipedia and call them uncivil wars. After all, people weren't being very civil during these wars. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- More seriously, many famines have been called "The xxx Rice Famine", or the "The yyy Corn Famine". It's not by any means unique to the Irish Potato Famine and I certainly haven't heard people saying 'but it wasn't the rice that starved'. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- No. Of the ten books specifically on the Famine in the 'Further Reading' section NONE has 'Potato Famine' as the title or part of the title. In fact the word 'potato' is not mentioned in ANY of them. And as me and Sarah have stated over and over again, above, 'potato famine' is illogical. It wasn't the potatoes who starved it was the people. Colin4C (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- There seems to be pretty heavy support for Option #5 and not a lot of recent action. Is the survey over? Wotapalaver (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The term “The Potato Famine”…"annoys some: the argument being that the Irish died, not because they lacked potatoes, but because they lacked food." Ref: The Irish World Wide: History, Heritage, Identity, The Meaning of the Famine Vol 6, Edited by Patrick O’Sullivan, pg.3. --Domer48 (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's one. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Irish Potato Famine is the commonly used term, however, and that's what people are going to look for it under. I still throw my strong support behind Irish Potato Famine. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Cormac Ó Gráda, in his introduction to Ireland’s Great Famine, says “for an event with such deep and enduring ramifications, it seems fair to say that until the 1980’s the Great Famine remained under-researched.” Patrick O’Sullivan in his introduction to The Meaning of the Famine agrees, “We can, like Ó Gráda, think of reasons for this neglect of the Irish Famine by Irish historians.” Christine Kinealy in her introduction to This Great Calamity, says, “between 1921 and 1994 only two substantial accounts of the Famine were produced, the first reluctantly…The Irish Famine: studies in Irish history, edited by R.D. Edwards and T.D. Williams,” and six years later Cecil Woodham-Smith’s The Great Hunger was published. Kinealy say “the placatory nature of the volume [The Irish Famine], in relation to the role of the British government was clearly evident in the Introduction,” on Woodham-Smith, Kinealy says, “she was the first modern historian to carry out comprehensive research amongst government papers and workhouse records” which lead Woodham-Smith “to conclude that the British government and some of its administrators were culpable of abandoning the Irish poor.” O’Sullivan goes on to suggest reasons why the subject was neglected “Generally in these islands we are looking for reasons to love one another rather than reasons for hate. The Famine is a controversial subject: and formal academic careers, at lease in their initial stages, are not helped by controversy.” So as far as this subject is concerned, according to Kinealy and O’Sullivan the best selling published source “of all time” on this subject is, The Great Hunger. So would it be possible to reference "Irish Potato Famine" is the commonly used term, when the best selling book of all time on the subject is not the "Irish Potato Famine." Can we please used published sources, as opposed to comment and opinion? --Domer48 (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- YES WE HAVE NO POTATOES! I invite all the editors here to point out the occurence of the word 'potato' in the title of any of the books on the famine:
- Mary E. Daly, The Famine in Ireland
- R. Dudley Edwards and T. Desmond Williams (eds.), The Great Famine: Studies in Irish history 1845-52
- Peter Gray, The Irish Famine
- Cormac Ó Gráda, Black '47 and Beyond
- Christine Kinealy, This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845 - 1852[3]
- John Mitchel, The Last Conquest of Ireland (1861) (University College Dublin Press reprint, 2005 paperback)
- Cecil Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, 1845-49 (Penguin, 1991 edition)
- Marita Conlon-McKenna, Under the Hawthorn Tree
- Thomas Gallagher, Paddy's Lament, Ireland 1846-1847: Prelude to Hatred
- Canon John O'Rourke, The Great Irish Famine Veritas Publications 1989. First published in 1874.
- Liam O'Flaherty, Famine
- Colm Tóibín and Diarmaid Ferriter, The Irish Famine Colin4C (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Colin4C for pointing this out. I myself have 26 books on the subject (I will provide a list if editors wish), of which only one has potato in the title, that being James S. Donnelly, Jr, The Great Irish Potato Famine. The books I have would cover the broad spectrum of alternate views on the subject. In addition, I have a number of books from this period in history by contemporary authors who treat this subject extensively. All I would like to see is a discussion based on published works and not based on opinions or personal commentary. Regardless of personal preferences as to the title of the article, through the facility of Redirects the reader will arrive at this article.--Domer48 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I notice none of Domer48's quotes refer to the "Great Hunger" except as the book title. The title of a book is not as good a guide as the way the event is referred to in the text of the book. Titles are often more florid: nobody would argue for "This Great Calamity" as the article title.
- Article titles and aliases in various encyclopedias (augment as desired):
- Britannica
- Irish Potato Famine also called Great Potato Famine, Great Irish Famine , or Famine of 1845–49
- Encarta
- Irish Famine, the Great Hunger (Irish an gorta mor)
- The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy
- potato famine, Irish
- encyclopedia.com From: A Dictionary of World History
- Irish Famine
- Encyclopaedia of Ireland
- Great Famine
- Oxford Companion to Irish History
- Great Famine
- jnestorius(talk) 16:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- It seems likely from all the discussion and evidence to date that the popular name outside Ireland is "Irish [potato] famine" and the popular and scholarly name inside Ireland is "the [Great] famine". I don't know about the scholarly name outside Ireland. The question amounts to whether the local name deserves extra weight. There are far more English-speakers outside Ireland than inside, but Irish people talk about the famine far more than most of them. I don't know how to reconcile the various applicable Wikipedia policies. Are there any other articles we might look at as a model for this case?
- jnestorius(talk) 21:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
References to the term “Great Hunger” (and not the book)(augment as desired)
- Irish Hunger, Tom Hayden, pg.11
- A Death Dealing Famine: The Great Hunger in Ireland, Christine Kinealy, pg.1
- Heathcliff and the Great Hunger: Studies in Irish History, Terry Eagleton, Chapter 1
- History of Ireland, Malachy McCourt pg.192
Now we could add a number of authors, who both use and are familiar with the term, but I think this is sufficient. Now I will not respond to the comment and opinion, as I have outlined above, it will lead no were. Try to restrict yourself to referenced opinion and not your own, thanks.--Domer48 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
And books that do call it the Irish potato famine are also numerous:
- The Irish Potato Famine - Carole Gallagher, March 2002
- The Great Irish Potato Famine - James Donnolly, Sept 2008 (yes, not yet released)
- The Irish Potato Famine - Nardo & McGovern. 1990 (a history for children)
- The Irish Potato Famine: Irish Immigrants Come to America (1845-1850), Jeremy Thornton, Aug 2004
- and more..
- The Woodham-Smith book, "The Great Hunger", has the following on its own back cover to explain what the book is about; "The Irish Potato Famine of the 1840's, perhaps the most appalling event of the Victorian era...", so don't tell me she doesn't use the term. The Woodham-Smith book has 160 pages with reference to "famine", and 41 with the word "hunger".
There are also lots of references to 'Irish potato famine' in other books. A search on google books for "potato famine" brings up more than 1000 returns, all of which (as far as I can see) talk about the Irish potato famine [2]. If I search for "The Great Hunger", I get hits about the Irish famine, plus a Chinese famine, plus a Ukrainian famine, plus a novel from Norway, plus a famine in Greenland, plus histories of WW2 battles for the Philippines, a Canadian play, plus "The Great Hunger: Poems for Meher Baba, Avatar of the Age", which means that "The Great Hunger" isn't a unique phrase to describe the Irish famine, so I limit the search to books with the words Ireland or Irish. Then there are ~750 hits, lots of which are cross references to the Woodham-Smith book or the "Heathcliff and the Great Hunger" book. If I eliminate those I'm left with <700. [3]. So, it's possible to line up more references to the Irish potato famine than to the (Irish) Great Hunger. Each one of the google books hits is a published source, so please don't talk about my opinion. Many of the references have text like "The Irish Potato Famine, known in Ireland as The Great Hunger..." Wotapalaver (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Although since the Irish school syllabus and books call it "the Famine", it's debatable what the famine is most commonly called in Ireland. "The Famine" seems most common. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's another one. From Cormac O'Grada's "Black 47 and beyond", listed above by Domer48 or Cormac4C among the reasons the article shouldn't be called the Irish Potato Famine. Here's a sentence from Chapter One, page 1, line 1 of the book. 'Whoever says "irish famine" says potato.' Elsewhere on the same page he says 'Understanding the potato famine means understanding the role of the potato before the famine.' I suppose I could go on. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
How about 'The Irish Famine, 1845-1852', and change the 1740 page to 'The Irish Famine, 1740-1741'?
The second sentence in the current article answers the discussion here: 'It is known by various names, such as The Great Famine in Ireland itself and The Irish Potato Famine internationally'. Asmaybe (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Option 2 or 5: Both have wide usage and are more suitable than the current name. --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
In the 1840’s the Catholic bishop of Derry, Dr. Edward Maginn, who criticised the inactivity of the Whig government of Lord John Russell, had the priests of the diocese compile a list, from November 1846 to April 1847, of deaths through starvation. On Mayday 1847, these lists, wrapped in a black covering, were formally placed among the diocesan records, labelled with an inscription “the Murders of the Irish Peasantry, perpetuated… under the name of economy”. Funny how he did not mention the Irish Potato as being responcible for the Murders? Probably because it would have sounded ridiculous. This discussion has continued below, please join it. --Domer48 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- And what the Bishop of Derry called it may or may not be relevant to today. People, and coroner's juries, in various places blamed Lord Russell for the deaths. It's a separate point. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Option #2 or Option #5, followed by Option 7 and Option 9. I grew up with option 2/5, so I suppose for me, it's the common name. --Bardcom (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Snapshot. Looking at what people said, and counting (option 2 or option 5) as a preference against each, the survey shows:
- Option 2 - 4 preferences
- Option 5 - 8 preferences
- Everything else is one or two preferences. --Bardcom (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You should read the policies outlined here, and read up on the discussion. --Domer48 (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments:
Something that in my experience is often helpful in contentious Wikipedia pagename debates is to add a section to the relevant article discussing (encyclopedically and with references) the various names for the topic that have been used, by whom, and criticised, by whom. The discipline of having to conform to the MOS and WP guides may distil the rather lengthy roll of assertions on the Talk: page into a manageable concentration of pertinent facts. Currently there are just two uncited sentences in the introduction about this. jnestorius(talk) 18:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Relevant policies and guidelines: Wikipedia:Naming conventions; Wikipedia:Naming conflict; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names); Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) jnestorius(talk) 13:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I can add a couple of pages of relevance here: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically that Wikipedia is not a democracy, a soapbox or a battleground. Oh, and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. You'll have plenty of time to discuss the issue and to find a compromise. Rather than simply saying what you'd like best, it would be helpful to say what you don't want and what you'd accept grudgingly. The list of redirects should cover most possible names. That's here.
There are some other things to consider. Have you notified the relevant Wikiprojects? Will a note at the village pump bring in new ideas? Would adding this to the article RfC list help? Is Domer48 right to say that references would help here? Questions, questions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that Domer48 is right that references will help here. I've started going through many of the references. So far "Irish Potato Famine" comes out ahead as the most common unambiguous name. "The Great Famine" and "The Famine" are common in Ireland, but there the assumption that they mean the Irish famine is valid; that isn't the case on WP. "The Great Hunger" is a fairly common term, but it's neither the most common nor an unambiguous name. See some references above. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK - I'd accept "The Irish Famine" or the "Great Irish Famine"; but not the "Potato famine". Sarah777 (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Can you say why not potato famine? Wotapalaver (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I dispute the unproven assertion that "Irish Potato Famine" is the most common name. I agree with Sarah that "Great Irish Famine" is best plus dates. Colin4C (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- On what grounds do you dispute that it's the most common name? Wotapalaver (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- As has been demonstrated above the majority of titles of books and articles on the Famine do not include the word 'potato' and NONE of the books in the further reading section do so. Colin4C (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- It has been demonstrated above that there are many books called "The Irish Potato Famine", and that many of the books in the reading list call the event the Irish potato famine. If none of the books in the Further Reading section have Irish Potato Famine in the title then we can fix that. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Never heard the term used amongst the folk whose ancestors actually starved, aka The Irish. Secondly the potatoes didn't starve, did they? Sarah777 (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have, extensively. So what? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The "potatoes didn't starve thing" is an irrational argument. It's a commonly used term and it looks to be THE most commonly used term for this event, so much so that most people will be looking for it under the term Irish Potato Famine, not Irish Famine or Great Irish Famine and certainly not The Great Hunger. Wikipedia is international and it makes use of the most common title in the English language. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- As has been demonstrated above the majority of titles of books and articles on the Famine do not include the word 'potato' and NONE of the books in the further reading section do so. Colin4C (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- On what grounds do you dispute that it's the most common name? Wotapalaver (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK - I'd accept "The Irish Famine" or the "Great Irish Famine"; but not the "Potato famine". Sarah777 (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Potatoes didn't starve... Now, that's funny & witty. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
"In the Irish language, the Famine is an Gorta Mór, the Great Hunger. The Great Famine is also widely used. But the term “potato famine” is the most common label for many Americans, tending to reduce the Famine to a freakish accident caused by an unknown fungus that happened to a backward people. In this common narrative, nature is the villain rather than British colonialism." Ref Irish Hunger: Personal Reflections on the Legacy of the Famine, Edited by Tom Hayden, Roberts Rinehart Publishers, USA and Canada, ISBN 1 57098 233 3, pg.11. (High lighted by myself). --Domer48 (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is the English language Wikipedia. The Irish language Wikipedia may call the famine "An Gorta Mór" all it likes. Further, the reference provided by Domer48 says that potato famine is the most common name in America, right? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. I doubt it's the most common name only in the United States either. When writing for an international audience, it's proper to title an article by the most common, widely used name. The fact that they would have to specify which famine they're talking about by putting dates in parenthesis is a good indicator that there has been more than one famine. Great Irish Famine is not a specific name. Irish Potato Famine is highly specific to this particular famine and is widely known. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
"In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." “Potato famine,” I think we can all agree is misleading, the people did not starve because of a lack of potatos, but because of a lack of food. The blight was only one of the proximate cause's, therefore to suggest it was the cause as “potato famine” suggests, is unacceptable. Now I have provided a source which says the term “potato famine” is the most common label for many Americans but not however as being the most common name. --Domer48 (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The body of the article explains the causes and the history. The title itself needs to be the most widely used, most easily recognizable, topic specific title. That's Irish Potato Famine, not Great Irish Famine or Great Hunger. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
So having read the article, it is your opinion that the blight was the sole cause of the famine? Dispite the many other proximate cause's you consider the "Irish Potato Famine" is a topic specific title? "The title itself needs to be the most widely used," based on how you answer the first two questions, I like to see a reference which supports your opinion. --Domer48 (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just to say that those of us here in the British Isles have as much or more right to use our own accepted terminology on this matter as that used in the States. The Famine occured in the British Isles not America. Colin4C (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- We're talking about an international encyclopedia, however, not one that's geared only towards an Irish audience. Irish Potato Famine is far better known and is more specific to this topic. That title doesn't need to be clarified with dates explaining which of several famines is being discussed. The references others have quoted all use Irish Potato Famine or refer to it to better explain their preferred title. It does appear to be the most commonly used terminology. It's also the title that has the most votes in the survey above. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Bookworm Wikipedia is not ademocracy, so your point on votes I'll dismiss, rather than ignore, unlike you, who simply ignores the points I rasied above. "It does appear to be the most commonly used terminology." Which simply put means, it may not be the most commonly used terminology, and to date, the only source we have provided is based on original research. This original research comes in the form of Google searches, the standard now used by an international encyclopedia? I have attempted to use published sources which conform to our policy on verifiability, to illustrate the points I'm trying to make. What have I got in return? A Google book search based on the title of books? Please provide sources, and we can have a reasonable discussion. By the way, the best selling title of all time on the subject is "The Great Hunger" and thats sourced. --Domer48 (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
From Amazon.com:
- The Irish Potato Famine (World Disasters)
by Don Nardo ISBN 1560060123
- The Irish Potato Famine: The Story of Irish-American Immigration (Great Journeys) by Edward F. Dolan ISBN 0761413235
- The Irish Potato Famine: Irish Immigrants Come to America (1845-1850 (Primary Sources of Immigration and Migration in America) by Jeremy Thornton ISBN 0823989577
- Shamrock Cargo. A Story Of The Irish Potato Famine.
by Anne Gretzer ASIN B000WU98U6
- Indifference, not genocide.(The Great Irish Potato Famine)(Book Review): An article from: Irish Literary Supplement [HTML] (Digital) by Margaret Preston
- The great Irish potato famine (Focus Jackdaw)
by Christine Brendel Scriabine ISBN 156696248X
- The cry of the famishing: Ireland, Connecticut and the potato famine (Unknown Binding) by Neil Hogan ASIN B0006R77EY
From the Web:
--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
And the point your making is? --Domer48 (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- How many of those books make reference to the Irish name used for this period in their history? Now it is a direct question, could you answer it? How many of them address the role of the British government response to the impending disaster? The issue is addressed in all the books I have read, so would it be your opinion having read them books that the title of the article should in fact be “The Great Hunger” based on the conclusions that the authors draw? Which of them would you consider the most detailed? --Domer48 (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The point I have been making is that it is that Irish Potato Famine is the more widely used term. I got over 3 million hits with that term using a raw Google search, compared with 500,000 using The Great Hunger. Not conclusive evidence, but it's still highly suggestive that the one is more common AND more specific. It's also what Encyclopedia Britannica has entitled its article. No, I don't have all the scholarly books you're referencing, but I don't think that matters for an article title. I think we should go by what is the most familiar name INTERNATIONALLY for this topic and the title that is most specific to the subject. You can address the British government's response and all of the other names for the potato famine in the body of the article. It looks to me like the article covers the subject nicely for a layman. But they have to be able to find the thing first to learn about all of the poltical ramifications, etc. And I DO think that the votes of the majority matter here. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- edit conflict..Domer48, the book you keep referring to as the most sold book on the topic (The Great Hunger) refers to the famine as the Irish Potato Famine, as shown earlier. That's sourced. What support (if any) have you got that any other term is more common? Meantime, what you refer to as OR was actually a collation of a list of sources that refer to the famine as the Irish Potato famine. It's not OR. As for Bookworm's point, it's at least that there are MANY books called Irish Potato Famine, and whether or not they deal appropriately with British culpability for the events in Ireland is a different argument. "The Great Hunger" is verifiably the name for several different events, so it's not a good name for a WP article on any specific event without a disambiguation page. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Wotapalaver are you talking about a review on the back of the Woodham-Smith book? Ok so you conclusion is based on Bookworm's own original research, and not on any source that meets our standard on verifiability. Bookworm you also say, based again on your own original research, that the result is only suggestive, and again you suggest, based again on flawed research ("Not conclusive evidence") that it is in fact "the most familiar name INTERNATIONALLY for this topic." Not only that but the "Irish Potato Famine" as a title is "more specific," dispite the fact that the people did not starve because of a lack of potatos, but because of a lack of food. The blight was only one of the proximate cause's, therefore to suggest it was the cause as “potato famine” suggests, is misleading. Now what was the proximate cause and please explaine how "Irish Potato Famine" is "more specific."--Domer48 (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- You asked for places where the term "The Irish Potato Famine" was used. That is what I supplied, based on the list that popped up when I typed the term "The Irish Potato Famine" into the search engine at Google and at Amazon.com Those are the books and their ISBN numbers. How does that qualify as Original Research? I don't own those particular books or any others on the topic, so I can't supply page numbers and in-depth commentary on their quality and the perspective of their authors, etc. But they are indisputably books that have Irish Potato Famine in the title. There's even an abstract of a book review by an Irish newspaper of a book that calls it the potato famine. People know this event by the name "potato famine." They are not confused by that term; they do not think the potatoes must have starved. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Domer, it isn't a review on the back cover, it's the description of the book on its own back cover. And again, the material Bookwork is supplying isn't OR, it's references. And again, the article can easily explain any culpability beyond the blight (e.g. God sent the blight, the English created the famine) in loving detail as long as sources can be provided. None of this changes the fact that the most common name, as found using the various objective tools available to us, is Irish Potato Famine.
- Further, "The Great Hunger" is NOT a suitable name, for verifiable reasons already given. You can continue to raise distractions, but it won't change either of these two facts. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Wotapalaver, it is a review on the back of the book and not by Woodham-Smith. The material Bookwork is supplying is OR, if it was an article on books dealing with the subject then it would be used as a source. Again, the suggested title is misleading, and saying that it is "specific" to the subject is just a distraction. None of this changes the fact that the most common name, using the various objective policies available to us such as [[verifiability, is not Irish Potato Famine. In fact our policies on WP:NPOV should be reviewed in relation to this suggested title. In addition, what verifiable reasons have already been given which says that "The Great Hunger" is NOT a suitable name?--Domer48 (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Domer, it's not a review, it's the back of the book. It's the book's own description of itself, if not the author's description then it's the publisher's (they probably specify that it's about the Irish Potato Famine to make sure people understood what a book called "The Great Hunger" was actually about). As for the verifiable reasons why "The Great Hunger" isn't a good name, there are numerous examples, including the fact that it's the name of several other events, books, poems, famines, etc. List of references is not OR so Bookworm is not engaging in OR. You're just trying to throw any possible distraction into the air to avoid simple facts. I can't understand why, but I'm sure you'll tell us. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Please! There are three possibly 4 reviews on the back of the book, your suggesting that Woodham-Smith wrote of herself that "In this vivid and disturbing book Cecil Woodham-Smith provides the difinitive account." The rest of your post is comment, opinion, and just a plain old trying to throw any possible distraction into the air to avoid simple facts.so I'll not bother with it. --Domer48 (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just to say that American usage of the names of anything dominates the internet and google searches for the simple reason that there are free local calls in the USA - a circumstance not replicated anywhere else in the world (the rest of us in the world have to pay for our computer usage). Wikipedia nomenclature should not be the outlet of American cultural imperialism based on phone rates. Colin4C (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, please. American cultural imperialism? This is an international encyclopedia. The title used for this article needs to be what is most easily recognized and most specific to the topic. There were other Irish famines. There were other Great Hungers. People throughout the English speaking world know exactly what is meant by Irish potato famine. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment and opinion, please provide sources. In addition, read my comment under the title "Edit break" below. Refusing to address the points I raise, is not considered a responce. --Domer48 (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I did and I have. You refuse to accept them. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Domer, it is NOT a review. If it's not an own description by the author (and yes, author's can easily refer to themselves by name) it's by the publisher. Anyone can view the back of the book on Amazon.com and see that it's not a review.
- The rest of my post referred to facts. "The Great Hunger" is several possible things, including books, plays, other famines, poetry, etc. As for 4C's suggestion that the name "Irish Potato Famine" would potentially be giving in to "American cultural imperialism based on phone rates", that's good! I must remember that! Wotapalaver (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's a famine that happend in Ireland. Why not call it The Irish Famine? a very straightforward title. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- (A) Because there were several famines (B) Because that's not what this famine is most often called. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Howabout The Irish Famines? GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is just about one of them. --Domer48 (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit break
How can we have a reasonable discussion when an editor states as a fact that an author writes their own review on the back of their own book. Not only that, but deliberatly ignores the other reviews, and then offers us (having first stated as a fact) if it was not the author, it was the publisher. They then carry merrily on their way to suggest that the Author/Publisger did it to "specify that it's about the Irish Potato Famine to make sure people understood what a book called "The Great Hunger" was actually about." Look, the way it is, this is just plain disruption. This article is the subject of an ArbCom ruling. Please abide by the letter and spirit of that ruling. Now, once again, can we confine ourselves to published sources, and not speculate or use comment and opinion as fact. Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Any editor can read the back of the book on Amazon.com. [4] The text "The Irish Potato Famine of the 1840's, perhaps the most appalling event of the Victorian era...." appears on the back cover of the book "The Great Hunger". There are also reviews on the back cover, but they're separate. Domer, this isn't disruption, this is an awkward fact if you're saying that the name of one book should be the main driver of the name of this article and then that one book explains itself by describing the event as the Irish potato famine. I'm abiding by published sources.
As for the Arbcom ruling, it seems that part of the judgement of that ruling was that you were no editing saint, so don't lecture please. Wotapalaver (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Any editor can read the back of the book on Amazon.com. [4] The text "The Irish Potato Famine of the 1840's, perhaps the most appalling event of the Victorian era...." appears on the back cover of the book "The Great Hunger". There are also reviews on the back cover, but they're separate. Domer, this isn't disruption, this is an awkward fact if you're saying that the name of one book should be the main driver of the name of this article and then that one book explains itself by describing the event as the Irish potato famine. I'm abiding by published sources.
When you have something to add to the discussion, let me know? --Domer48 (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- So, reviewing:
- first, the overwhelming view from the survey is that Option #2 or Option #5 are preferred because they best meet WP:COMMONNAME
- second, the reasoning behind naming the article "The Great Hunger" is weak because it isn't the most common name of the event (even the best sold book on the event calls it the Irish Potato Famine on the back cover, and other books listed as reasons that "Irish Potato famine" was not acceptable also use the term potato famine.)
- third, the reasoning behind naming the event "The Great Hunger" is weak because "The Great Hunger" is the name of a number of other famines, a play, poems, and apparently a biography of Shane McGowan.
- This indicates that, unless there are better arguments than provided so far, the article should be renamed "The Irish Potato Famine" or "Irish Potato Famine". Wotapalaver (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- How long is the discussion supposed to drag on here? The survey did show a majority vote in favor of Options #2 and #5 due to WP:COMMONNAME. There are three vocal editors in opposition to those options, but their opinions appear to be in the minority and their arguments thus far have not been convincing. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Option #2 and #5 do not meet WP:COMMONNAME Naming conventions, which say that "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." It has been illustrated, through referenced sources, and the article itself that the suggested title is misleading.
- Illustrates clearly that they have failed to read previous discussions on this topic, and are completely ignorant as to how the title was agreed upon. In addition, one editor is attempting to use misleading information, and present their opinion as fact.
- Editors attempting to introduce spurious arguments. There is no other article on the project with the same title. Even if there was disambiguation will address any potential issues.
- Final point is just more comment and opinion.
Now all I can suggest is you read all of the previous discussions on this subject, and read up on a couple of our policies such as Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Now Wikipedia is not a democracy or a soapbox so stop trying to disrupt this discussion. Every title suggested is already a re-direct so the reader will find the article they are looking for, and the lead in the article makes clear why the suggested title will not do. --Domer48 (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- as far as I can make out, the section Domer48 is alluding to is this:
All that said, I'm happy always to ignore all rules where there is merit to it. I posted above a compromise. That was to have the article moved to The Great Hunger and to have to lead rewritten to something as follows:
- 'The Great Hunger (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life) reduced the population of Ireland by 20 to 25 percent between 1845 and 1852. It is a highly contentious topic of history and known by various names ranging from The Great Famine to The Irish Holocaust depending on perspective.
The point of this was to arrive at at place where all of the competing perspectives were represented fairly. It is based on Christine Kinealy description of The Great Hunger occupying the most neutral line in perspectives on the event whereas The Great Famine to The Irish Holocaust occupy opposing points (not necessarily equally extreme). Doing one (moving/rewriting) without the other doesn't cut it, they both go hand-in-hand i.e. I proposing that the event only be called The Great Hunger, but that the lede acknowledges two competing perspectives: The Great Famine and The Irish Holocaust. This cannot be separated into small parts without introducing a bias one-way-or-the-other for the reasons I outlined above (e.g. WP:COMMONNAME or WP:WEIGHT). --sony-youthpléigh 10:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK. Agree with Sony's "package" proposal. Meantime, no need to fight about the current intro if we are replacing it with this version! (Hint, hint). (Sarah777 (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC))
- As before, I'm content with Sony's proposals as they properly locate the article within current academic and political discourse. Mackensen (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Would agree, providing commas are inserted and we use lower-case "the": "... by various names, ranging from the Great Famine to the Irish Holocaust, depending on perspective".--Damac (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd also agree with the package proposal as outlined by Sony. Caveat: I would like to see some wider discussion first. Last time we had a page move on this issue (IIRC it was a copy and paste move rather than a 'proper' move) it was done at very short notice and resulted in some acrimony. A proposed move (package or no) should at least be flagged with the proposal template and notified on the appropriate Irish-related noticeboards. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just saw this. I really don't think ranging from the great famine to the Irish holocaust is a good way of saying it. For one that implies 'the great famine' is somehow a name that defends the British, surely if we are going to extremes a article by some scholar or other with a very pro government name for the events can be found? Not saying we should do that, just if we were using extremes. The great famine is the common name in Ireland, not at all pro-government at the time. Overall I think this Irish holocaust stuff is nonsense written by people with a obvious bias to try and draw more attention to themselves. Mention that some decide to call it that in the article by all means but it doesn't deserve to be given as a true alternative name. Sources are supposed to show broad facts, not minor exceptions.--Him and a dog 20:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedians agreed on this combination of title and intro in good faith. That does not mean it was the best decision. It certainly does not mean it is a permanent decision: cf WP:CCC. The current intro is rather different from the agreed one; the viability of fixing an intro at all seems questionable to me. It seems the decision was taken in an effort end a big edit war about the description of "holocaust". That debate may have died down, but I'm not sure it's a result of editor satisfaction rather than editor fatigue.
Let me again suggest that, in cases where the nomenclature is controversial, the controversy deserves a section of its own, rather than trying to squeeze the controversy into the straitjacket of the standard intro ("The foo, also known as the lesser Elbonian foo or the Elbino foobar, is a ...) jnestorius(talk) 18:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I belive that the editor (Sony-youth) who organized the above compromise, recently came out against it - describing it as failed, a mistake, etc. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I also still entirely fail to see how the term "Irish Potato Famine" is misleading. This keeps being asserted without explanation, as if it was obvious - which it's not. If nothing else, since there are many books, including apparently the most sold book on the topic, that are happy to refer to the event as the Irish Potato Famine, it's not clear what's misleading about the term. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Option #5 per standard WP naming conventions regarding common usage. The objections to the use of the word "potato" in the title seem to me to be often POV bias, and in this case a clear minority is dictating a naming convention inappropriately. It seems quite appropriate that a section of the article itself should address the naming convention and why some folks object to the use of that name, and such section would actually even be more relevant if the article were named properly. Geeman (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Afraid not, please read the the discussion as the reasons are perfectly well outlined. It might also help to read this contrabution here. --Domer48 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Removing options #2 and #5 from the list
I would like to suggest removing options #2 and #5 from the list of suggest titles. My reasons would be:
- The titles do not meet WP:COMMONNAME Naming conventions, which say that "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." It has been illustrated, through referenced sources, and the article itself that the suggested title is misleading.
- Other than editors original research, no sources have been cited which state that it is the most common name. However I have provided a source which says it is the most common name for many Americans.
- Based on both the article, and clearly indicated in the Lead, I would suggest that our policy on WP:NPOV form part of this discussion, in that: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.
- Based on the nature of the subject, I would also draw editors attention to our policy on Article naming, which says "A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view..."
- There are many discussions on this topic in the archive, jnestorius has provided a section from just one, please read the previous discussions, and at least have an informed discussion. Contrabutions should be based on sources, and not comment, opinion or speculation. --Domer48 (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- That option is unacceptable given the discussion that has been carried on at length and the majority preference for Options 2 and 5. You have failed to prove your point that the title Irish Potato Famine is misleading. In fact, ample evidence has been presented that it is a more specific and less confusing title than the other options presented. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Contrabutions should be based on sources, and not comment, opinion or speculation. Pointless discussion will not be entered into. --Domer48 (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, you have NOT presented any proof demonstrating that the title Irish Potato Famine is misleading, that it does not meet the common naming conventions, or that original research has been conducted. Other editors have listed multiple citations proving the contrary. It is not acceptable to remove Options 2 and 5 from the choices given when the majority prefers them for the reasons I listed. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Bookworm. Quite a bit of evidence has been presented. "The Great Hunger" is shown not to be a suitable title. Irish Potato Famine is shown to be the most common name globally. Domer48 is engaging in repetition ad infinitum to try to bluster through. Most editors prefer Option 2 or 5 as per COMMONNAME. That name is NOT misleading, and is certainly clearer than "The Great Hunger". I mean, it wasn't particularly "great" and people actually DIED instead of just getting hungry. Enough already. Wotapalaver (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- It clearly isn't the common name where the issue is likely to be discussed most often. Options 2 and 5 are totally unacceptable and are pov-ridden. (As I have said the potatoes didn't starve - the people did). This attempted move is part of a wider campaign by British Nationalists and their unwitting allies to impose British pov across a wide range of Irish articles; current examples are the "British" Isles; Great Britain and Ireland and now this attempt to downplay the Irish Holocaust. See? Check the links - absolutely no deviation from British Nationalist pov permitted. Sarah777 (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ratchet down the political rhetoric. The question is, pure and simple, what the most common name for this topic is. Irish Potato Famine is far more widely used internationally and is more specific to the subject, as has been demonstrated by the list of titles including Irish Potato Famine provided above by editors. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Who is a British Nationalist? Me? You cannot even demonstrate that, let alone prove it. In any case, some of the editors on British Isles would disagree with you. Stick to facts. Options 2 and 5 are not POV ridden. Irish Potato famine is internationally the common name. Irish authors call it that too. There are more books that call it that than anything else. The most sold book on the subject calls it that on its back cover. In Ireland it's most often called "the Famine" as it doesn't need disambiguation from other famines, of which there have been many. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- As I have explained above the 'most google hits' method is not the most scientific way of discovering what a phenomenon is called. It is best to rely on the names of books and articles on the subject. These show that books and articles with "potato" in the title are very few indeed. "Potato famine" is a very slipshod, illogical, inaccurate, POV shorthand. Just because internet junkies often use illogical and pov terminology is no good reason for the wikipedia to follow their lead. Colin4C (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's best to look at what the event is called, not what books about the event are called. (and in any case there are many books called the Irish Potato Famine, as previously shown).
- The article is about the event, not about the books. The event is most commonly called the Irish potato famine, in books, on the internet, etc, and there are few "internet junkies" that spend their time writing about the Irish potato famine. There's nothing "slipshod, illogical, inaccurate, POV or shorthand" about the name Irish potato famine. Repeating it won't make it so. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
SIMPLE Question: Was the Potato the single cause of the disaster. YES OR No?--Domer48 (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's not the right question. It's as silly as asking whether the Great Hunger was really "Great" and using that as the basis for a name. Is the event most commonly called the Irish potato famine? Yes. Can this be demonstrated? Yes. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles are verified by reliable references. Internet chatter is not a reliable reference. Books and articles by scholars are. According to the latter the term 'potato' is very rarely used as part of the description of the subject. Colin4C (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- The titles do not meet WP:COMMONNAME Naming conventions, which say that "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." It has been illustrated, through referenced sources, and the article itself that the Irish potato famine a suggested title is misleading. The fact that you are not willing to answer a simple question, indicates that to answer it would rubbish your whole arguement. --Domer48 (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- The subject is NOT misleading. Irish Potato Famine is the most commonly used name for this event. There were multiple Irish famines and a number of other things are called The Great Hunger. Irish Potato Famine has been the title of a number of books and articles about this subject or the phrase has been used to clarify the meaning of another title. Citations and ISBN numbers for those books have been provided above. Clearly, the title is NOT misleading. You have not proved your point; reiterating it again and again does not make it so or eliminate the known facts. Removing Options #2 and #5 from the given options -- the options preferred by the majority -- simply is not acceptable. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- SIMPLE Question: Was the Potato the single cause of the disaster. YES OR No? --Domer48 (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- WRONG question. "The Irish Potato Famine" is the most commonly used term for the event internationally and the sources that I found with that title, even skimming through article descriptions and synopses, also incorporate descriptions of the behavior of British landowners, British politics, British attitudes towards the Irish, the Irish economy, mass deaths and emigration. The title simply is not misleading; it's simply the most common name for an event. "The Great Hunger" and "The Great Irish Famine" are not as familiar and are probably actually misleading because they could refer to other events. Again, eliminating Irish Potato Famine as a title option is simply not acceptable. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll take that as support for my point that:
- The titles do not meet WP:COMMONNAME Naming conventions, which say that "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." It has been illustrated, through referenced sources, and the article itself that the suggested title is misleading.--Domer48 (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, you may not take that as support. The name Irish Potato Famine is not misleading. You can continue to talk in circles, but the facts haven't changed. There's ample evidence above to the contrary. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
@Domer, repeating something doesn't make it true. It does start to make you look obtuse. The name Irish Potato Famine is not misleading. @Colin4C, describing the articles, websites, book references that come up on a google search as "internet chatter" is disingenuous in the extreme. Also, since Irish Potato Famine brings up more Google books references too, it's certainly not just the normal internet where the event is known as the Irish Potato Famine. Time to review again.
- Irish Potato Famine is the most common name. (shown by google books hits, google hits, google scholar hits, etc)
- The Great Hunger is not.
- The Great Hunger is the name of several other events, including other famines.
Let's look at google scholar, to eliminate what Colin4C calls "chatter".
[5] is a search for "potato famine" with the words "Irish" or "Ireland". It gets 5110 scholarly hits.
[6] A similar search for "the great hunger" with the words "Irish" or "Ireland", to eliminate the other "great hungers", famines, plays, books, etc., gets 440 hits, i.e. <9% of the number of hits.
I excluded the words "Woodham", "Heathcliff" and "Kavanagh" on both searches to eliminate cross references to three specific books. You could, if you like, add three hits to "The Great Hunger", which would make it +5000 scholarly references Vs 443. Clearly, Irish potato famine is by far the most common term. Unless there's an actual factual argument now I think we're left with ranting from Domer48, Colin4C and (maybe) Sarah77. The case is pretty closed. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have used the word "ranting", but I agree with you that this discussion is over now and we need to get someone uninvolved to move the article. This title never was a good one, and per our policies we use the common name for things when we write articles about them. It's clear there is a vocal minority who oppose this, but I am not convinced by their arguments although I understand why they want to use a particular name for this. Let's close this and move onwards. --John (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the page title should be 'Irish Famine, 1845-1852', on the grounds that 'Irish Famine' is the most commonly used name. However, WP:COMMONNAME doesn't clearly say how to decide what the most common name is. Except to say, 'ask yourself: what word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?' Irish Famine would be the most likely, I think, not the Great Hunger. 'Irish potato famine' includes the words 'Irish Famine', but the average user may not know the significance of the potato. In this regard, the WP:COMMONNAME page says that 'using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more'. The dates in my suggested title, 'Irish Famine, 1845-1852' aren't required to bring up this page and typing 'Irish Famine' doesn't lead to WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Neither does 'Great Hunger' by the way, but 'Potato Famine' does. Asmaybe (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Searching for scholarly references shows that potato famine is more commonly used than Irish famine when referring to the famine in question. Also, I do like the quote from the first page of the O'Grada book, Black '47. 'Whoever says "Irish famine" says potato.' Elsewhere on the same page he says 'Understanding the potato famine means understanding the role of the potato before the famine.' Wotapalaver (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- The average user is not a scholar and may not know the significance of the potato. That's why 'Irish Famine' is a better title than 'Irish potato famine'. 194.46.252.221 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- "The average user may not know the significance of the potato"? I wonder if that IP address maps to any average WP editor. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was me. If you check you'll see that I used the same words in the earlier comment you responded to: 'the average user may not know the significance of the potato'.
- For what it's worth (an opinion), I don't think these two options should be deleted. As I said earlier, the WP:COMMONNAME page doesn't give satisfactory guidance for deciding which title is more commonly used. I think 'Irish Famine, 1845-1852' meets the criteria mentioned better than 'Irish Potato Famine' though. Asmaybe (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest Wotapalaver you assume good faith in relation to the IP. "Searching for scholarly references shows that potato famine is more commonly used than Irish famine" [citation needed], otherwise its just WP:OR, comment, opinion, speculation. I suggest you read this section in the article all of which is referenced. In relation to adding the years "1845-1852" Christine Kinealy say recent research suggests that no one died of starvation in 1845, (a point also made by Ó Gráda) likewise people were still dieing after 1852, she makes reference also to her own book and her use of the dates in the title. I have no real problem with the dates either way. Ó Gráda is at least a reference, so what has he to say in Ireland's Great Famine pg.253, "The Irish famine is often described as the ‘potato famine’." Highlighting my own. So for the last time:
- The titles do not meet WP:COMMONNAME Naming conventions, which say that "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." It has been illustrated, through referenced sources, and the article itself that the suggested title is misleading. --Domer48 (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Who wasn't assuming good faith? I thought it looked like an existing editor. It was. Meantime, we again have Domer48 with irrelevancies and misdirection about what we might have to do IF The Irish Potato Famine was a misleading term, which it isn't. I certainly hope it's "for the last time". O'Grada's text re "potato famine" in Black '47 and beyond is still extant, and calling it the Irish Potato Famine nicely avoids any fuss with start and end dates in the title. Can we move on now? Wotapalaver (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I so glad you decided on Ó Gráda as an example, and that you state quite clearly that "re "potato famine" in Black '47 and beyond is still extant," because if I now give you the additional part of the Ó Gráda quote from Ireland's Great Famine, first published in 2006 I might add, Ó Gráda himself will tell you why it can't be used, and I quote "The Irish Famine is often described as the "potato famine." Giving it a more contextual focus implies paying more attention to the potato and agriculture." Now this article is not about "the potato and agriculture," as the name suggests. This article is much broader than that therefore the name is misleading. Now same book same author "The proximate cause of the Great Irish Famine (was the fungus Phytophthora infestans (or potato blight), which reached Ireland in the autumn of 1845." Notice the use of the word proximate cause, and how we use it in the lead. A very clever word to use, I hope you agree, (it was not me who first used it) and also illustrates why "potato famine" can not be used. They should be taken of the list. --Domer48 (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh good, you're glad. It still doesn't mean the name Irish potato famine is misleading, and if it did then "Great Irish Famine" would be misleading too, since it wasn't "Great" and there was no shortage of Irish people, there was a shortage of food. "The Great Hunger" would be similarly misleading, right? This has gone on long enough. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Since we accept Ó Gráda as a source, we accept is opinion as to the use of the term "potato famine." Which is that "The Irish Famine is often described as the "potato famine." Giving it a more contextual focus implies paying more attention to the potato and agriculture." Since this article covers a much broader aspect, "potato famine" in the title would be misleading and should not be used. --Domer48 (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- 'The Irish Famine is often described as the "potato famine."' Yes, it is. As far as we can see, most often. If misinterpreting O Grada is the best you've got to demonstrate misleading-ness then we're done here. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- "The Irish Famine is often described as the "potato famine." Q.E.D. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
"Giving it a more contextual focus implies paying more attention to the potato and agriculture." Q.E.D. --Domer48 (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have four old history books in front of me. Three say "The Famine", and one says "The Great Famine". I have enquired from my Irish side, and they say "The Famine", not the potato famine. Neologism it appears to be. Cherry rose (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strange then that there are >5000 scholarly references and a bunch of history books called the Irish Potato Famine, as shown above, and that the most popular book on the subject also calls the events the Irish Potato Famine. Neologism it isn't. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to do an article on books called "Irish Potato Famine" then go right ahead, but on this article it is misleading. The most popular book on the subject is called "The Great Hunger," and a review on the back of a book, who you can not even tell anyone who wrote it, will not wash with anyone. "The Irish Famine is often described as the "potato famine." Giving it a more contextual focus implies paying more attention to the potato and agriculture." Now is this article about the potato and agriculture, NO. Is it the focus of this article, NO. So either you reference your comments / opinions or move on. --Domer48 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Once more, it's not a review. Second, do you really want me to give 5000+ references? Really? Wotapalaver (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Adding text
I have a referenced quote by John Waters: Irish Hunger, Edited by Tom Hayden pg.29 / 103
“ | The Famine was simply the most violent episode in a history characterised by violence of every conceivable kind, the inevitable consequence of the destruction of Ireland’s cultural, political and economic diversity. Revisionist semantics about the source of the blight or the feasibility of aid efforts once the Famine had taken hold are utterly irrelevant to the meaning of the experience. The Irish economy, reduced to a virtual mono-cultural dependence, was a holocaust waiting to happen. For this reason, it is meaning less to discuss the Famine outside of the context of the colonial process in which it was rooted...When I speak about it in public, I make a point of saying, unequivocally, that the Famine was an act of genocide, driven by racism and justified by ideology. | ” |
I would like to add a summary of this quote to the article, would editors like to offer suggestions on the summary. --Domer48 (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not proposing this as a formal suggestion, but I certainly think that something like "Although the arrival of potato blight and the failure of the potato crop were not pre-planned by the British government, the reduction of a huge proportion of the Irish population to poverty and dependence on a single crop, the reluctance and inadequacy of the official response to famine in the country, and the way in which the Russell government in particular welcomed the reduction in the Irish population have all contributed to a widespread feeling that the famine represented something approaching genocide. At the time, and since, the famine was called a holocaust." Since many serious historians (and I think Waters is a columnist not a historian) have said that they don't think it represented genocide as-such, that would have to be presented too. I'm not sure that a quote from John Waters should be in the article, but could certainly be in a reference. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Domer48, why not quote directly instead of paraphrasing? Asmaybe (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- @Asmaybe. Problem with lots of direct quotes is "which ones to pick and how much to include?". It can be a slippy and messy slope. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Wotapalaver thanks for the suggestion, and since no one has a problem with quoting Kevin Myers who would have a problem with Waters. Why were the Irish reduced to having to rely on a single crop? Why were the ports not closed to exports of grain like other countries? Asmaybe when I quote directly I get knocked and called a quote farm, when I try paraphrasing I get accused of pushing a POV, thats just my experiance. --Domer48 (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Domer, Kevin Myers doesn't seem to be quoted in the article. As for the problems you might have with quoting references, perhaps your creativity in going from references that clearly call the famine the potato famine to arguing that they're advocating that the term potato famine shouldn't be used is an indication of why you might occasionally have disagreements with other editors about your use of references. It's not a sufficient reason to turn the article into a series of block quotes. The substance of the message can still be adequately presented, with quotes cited. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh but you do on the "British Isles" article. The fact that I can quote references from books, and not only that, but that I acutally read them might occasionally mean I have disagreements with other editors. It is usually limited though to those who can't see beyond a PC screen, who happen to be the same ones who seem to rely on comment and opnion. It also helps in the fact that I edit articles I'm intrested in and have read about, a lot. I read hundereds of articles, but only edit the ones I understand. --Domer48 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I do, do I? First, Myers is cited in a reference, not quoted directly in the article. Second, I didn't put that reference there. Read again. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Time line and chronological sequence
As the potato blight was only one of the proximate cause’s, it would be inappropriate to begin the time line with the arrival of the blight. The conditions and circumstances leading to its arrival would also have to be included. One example to illustrate this point would be the claims of potato dependency. What were the contributing factors which gave rise to the dependency in the first insistence? I have therefore placed the time line at the foot of the article pending further discussion. It would also be an opportune time to discuss the chronological sequence of the article, taking the same factors into consideration. --Domer48 (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure it's necessary to move the timeline pending discussion. It does seem reasonable to present significant dates leading up to the event itself, e.g. the phases leading towards dependency on potatoes. It'll be tricky to identify particular dates, since the process was gradual, but go ahead and suggest some. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Timeline is there at the beginning of the article to give a brief overview of the main events of the Famine to those readers of the wikipedia who know little about it. The rest of the analysis makes little sense without some prior knowledge of the basic facts. Colin4C (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. If events pre-famine are to be included, which might be a good idea, the formatting should reflect it, perhaps with "Pre Famine" (or something) then "The Famine Years" and "Post-Famine Years" as categories (or similar). That would allow a straightforward presentation of economic, political, demographic factors and events prior to the famine to be neutrally presented too.Wotapalaver (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Timeline is there at the beginning of the article to give a brief overview of the main events of the Famine to those readers of the wikipedia who know little about it. The rest of the analysis makes little sense without some prior knowledge of the basic facts. Colin4C (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:LEAD in addition you have the background section at the beginning of the article to give a brief overview of the main events. The rest of the analysis makes little sense without some prior knowledge of the basics unless you put the article in chronological sequence. --Domer48 (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The trouble with time lines is that they can go on for ever. I think it should be removed. I've added some information, disolving the Irish Parliament should explaine why the ports were not closed. Malthus gives some idea behind the thinking of the day. Act of Union is very important. --Domer48 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- It can be put into continuous prose if that looks nicer. The idea is to give the basics of what actually happened during the famine getting into the heavy analysis. Alternatively we could divide the whole article into an historical first part and an analytical second part. If we do that, though, it will mean fairly extensive modifications to the whole article - for which we will need some sort of concensus. And I think your Malthus quotes should go into an analytical section rather than into the historical narrative... Colin4C (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Colin4C we have a lead section and a Background section, what is the point behind the timeline? If we discuss the chronological sequence of the article, it will help a lot? --Domer48 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just on Malthus. Malthus is a bit too indirect to have in a section of bullet points. These should be more like " 1800 - Population of Ireland reaches 4.5 million" and " 1801 - Act of Union passes; Ireland and Great Britain form the new United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" etc. Malthus MAY speak to thought processes in the British government, but so would John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith. Malthus doesn't belong in the bullet points of a timeline. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
"The Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission is set up under Edward Lucas." Yet it dose not mention the fact that it was to be sold to the people at cost price. It made not difference how much it cost to people with no money, and in addition, by selling it at cost price they were contradicting the very policy they would later use as a defence for not supplying Relief, because it would undermining market forces and the normal cource of trade. So why is that placed in the timeline as a stand alone statement, when it is obviously misleading? The Malthus statement is very direct, and has more reason to be in that section than the one about peel. --Domer48 (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Domer, I'm not talking about the Peel statement, I'm talking about Malthus. Malthus is indirectly related, if at all - and there's no evidence cited in the article (that I know of) to say that he's relevant at all. Peel, whether the statement about him is adequate or not, was a directly involved player. There are plenty of things that can be said about Peel, but at least he was probably better than Russell or Trevelyan. Let's focus on either justifying or removing Malthus. Right now he's a distraction rather than a help. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- 1798 The Reverand Thomas Malthus publishes an Essay on the Principle of Population explaining how famine can be a “positive check” on population. [1]
- 1826. Thomas Malthus 6th Edition: “. . .we should facilitate...the operations of nature in producing this mortality. .and if we dread the frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should...encourage. - forms of destruction (for example) make the streets narrower, crowd more people into houses, and count on the return of the plague.” [2]
Keeping references that I removed from the article. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- BYW, Malthus's words in this passage are irony See Gregory Bungo, Irony in Thomas Malthus' "Essay on Population". Paul B (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I have again moved the "Timeline" to the foot of the Article, per WP:MOS for Articles. The rational suggested for the timeline is "to give a brief overview...before getting into the heavy analysis." As per MOS, we have the Lead section and the Background Section which give a brief overview. The heavy analysis, comes near the end of the article under the section Judgement of the governments handling of the Famine. Now as I have illustrated above, placing single stand-alone statements can be misleading, and are best dealth with within the article. Now the "Timeline" makes no sence, can editors point to another article were a timeline appears at the start of the article. Like I have already said, what is the Lead Section for? --Domer48 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Domer, you're so desperate to remove Peel that the logic is now broken. How can Russel stop aid programs if you never let Peel start them? We can adequately state that the corn was to be sold rather than given and that this was a problem. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, apart from removing Peel from the timeline, you entirely removed 1845 - the year the famine started. [7]. Please edit carefully. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Domer, you're so desperate to remove Peel that the logic is now broken. How can Russel stop aid programs if you never let Peel start them? We can adequately state that the corn was to be sold rather than given and that this was a problem. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've moved the Timeline to the top as giving a succinct overview of the whole Famine. The material in the body of the article is prolix, confused and incomplete and also appears to assume previous knowledge of the events of the Famine. Colin4C (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Colin4C can you point me to another article with such a "Timeline"? Can you explaine how this fits with our WP:MOS? What is the lead section and background for? --Domer48 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what we call it or the format. The idea is to give the basic facts in a brief summary. The fact is that anyone interested in the history of the famine is ill served by an incredibly prolix, repetitive, confused and incomplete mixture of narration and analysis here. If you want comparisons it's as though the article on World War Two was some senile ramble about Rommel in the Desert which missed out the battle of Stalingrad. We should have in mind the interests of readers of the wikipedia who are not already experts on the Famine. This article needs a lot of work basically to make it more coherent. The most basic information is missing. E.g. the information I have provided on the beginning of the famine:
- "1845 - On 9 September potato blight is noted in Wexford and Waterford. By November half the crop is ruined. The Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission is set up under Edward Lucas."
This information is not mentioned anywhere else in the whole article. Do you assume that the reader already knows all this or that it is not important to know the circumstances of the beginning of the famine? That is just one example. Colin4C (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- The lead section according to WP:MOS should give the basic facts in a brief summary. Your suggesting that it dose not. The answer therefore is to address the LEAD. If you consider that the reader is ill served by the article then outline suggest solutions, again this has nothing to do with the Lead section but the article in general. You have still not explained why the issues you have raised i.e. "the basic facts in a brief summary" can not be dealth with according to our WP:MOS, and contained in either the Lead Section, or the Background Section. Now you have already said "It can be put into continuous prose if that looks nicer." Colin4C, it already has, and its called the LEAD. So can I suggest that you remove the Timeline, and re-write the Lead and give the basic facts in a brief summary, because you can not have two, giving the exact same information as you suggest. --Domer48 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay I've put the Timeline material after the Background within a new initial History section. I hope that is agreeable to everybody. If the bullet point style of the Famine sub-section is felt inappropriate it can be altered. Colin4C (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Colin, quite frankly it’s ridiculous, no offence intended. Add the information as part of the narrative, and not bullet points. --Domer48 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have restored my edit. Feel free to improve it but don't resort to blind reverts. Be constructive. Colin4C (talk)
Colin, please address the points I have raised, and don't accuse me of blind reverts. I have being using this talk page to raise relevant points, which you have not answered. You have said yourself you "can be put into continuous prose" as outlined in the Lead Section according to our Manul of Style. I will continue to assume good faith, but your last revert could appear to be just you making a point. --Domer48 (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Domer, the points you have raised are just throwing mud and unspecific references to MOS. Colin's points are perfectly correct and his replacement of the timeline is right. If you want to replace the timeline then add the content first, then remove the timeline, don't just delete useful information. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Your contrabution is as useful as they were on the previous discussion? Now since the point I raise is not being addressed, I'll spell it out for you "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Now is that clear enough for you? How dose a "Timeline" improve on this, and explaine why you consider we need a Lead Section, Background and a Timeline section. Please don't waste editors time with stupid accusations and just answer the question. --Domer48 (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- My contributions are about references, verifiability. You might not like that. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. This addition is not concise, and for example in relation to Peel it dose not mention the fact that it was to be sold to the people at cost price. It made not difference how much it cost to people with no money, and in addition, by selling it at cost price they were contradicting the very policy they would later use as a defence for not supplying Relief, because it would undermining market forces and the normal cource of trade. Therefore it is not able to stand alone as a concise overview. The Lead should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. These editions do none of this, and leave numerous questions unanswered, such as why did John Russell halt government relief works, when did Peel recognizing that this could be a serious problem, as it is contradicted within the article, why were the rules that were applied to the aid extremely restrictive etc etc. Since this article is under ArbCom ruling, all additions to the article, likely to be challenged should be discussed on the talk page first. --Domer48 (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- This was not an addition, it was a rewriting of existing material into a different form. Remember that this article went to Arbcom because of you, not me, and it was YOUR suggestion that the timeline be replaced by a proper lead. That's what I did. Leave it there. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
As has been the case with your contrabutions, you refuse to address the points raised, ignore them infact, like now. Now address the issues I have raised, and stop editwarring. --Domer48 (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not edit warring, I'm addressing the issues as reasonably as possible, and you're on 3reverts already today. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Addresss the issues I've raised, as it now appears you simply wish to make a WP:POINT. If this is the case, you have come to the wrong article. --Domer48 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- No WP:POINT here, just trying to help re-write the article, which really needs it. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Requested move II
A majority of respondants in the first title discussion appeared to prefer Options No. 2 and No. 5. Therefore, I am requesting that this page be moved to Irish Potato Famine, the title that is most commonly used for the event. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest that to have repeated discussions over a trivial matter like the article name is at best unhelpful. Please do not submit another move request until a reasonable interval has passed. All this energy would be better focussed on the content. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but the administrator's move was clearly wrong. The majority wanted it moved to Irish Potato Famine because it is the most commonly used name. A vocal minority should not be permitted to dictate the title of this article. There WAS a consensus here. It's not a trivial issue. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you look above you will see that the result of the debate on the proposed move was "no consensus on destination of article." I think the article title should stay as it is. 'Potato Famine' is a loaded POV term, which a lot of people do not accept. The present title is NPOV. Colin4C (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- On a point of order; I was warned that reintroducing a motion to move "The Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (state)" two months after an earlier attempt to move it constituted disruption. So I assume that principle would apply to all articles? Sarah777 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- On a point of order (2); I've lost count of the number of bad Admin calls I've seen - but challenging them is still regarded as "disruption". (Though in this case I cannot agree the Admin made any mistake). Also, please remember that consensus isn't decided by a vote. Sarah777 (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you look above you will see that the result of the debate on the proposed move was "no consensus on destination of article." I think the article title should stay as it is. 'Potato Famine' is a loaded POV term, which a lot of people do not accept. The present title is NPOV. Colin4C (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Although I dislike the current name, and don't consider it a trivial matter, I don't see the point of reopening the discussion at present. There was a majority in favour of "Irish Potato Famine", but a majority is not the same as a consensus. (Cf WP:PNSD and WP:CON.)
- The name issue deserves, as I've said before, more discussion in the article itself, as opposed to the Talk page. Perhaps the article might also bear being refactored into subarticles in a new category (presumably called Category:The Great Hunger — for now) which could have a detailed timeline article, a controversy article, a statistics article, etc.
- jnestorius(talk) 22:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- If consensus has to mean unanimity then there can almost never be consensus and I can think of a lot of articles where consensus has been declared with several dissenters. In this case the vast majority of editors supported a change, the facts and references supported a change. The only opposition was incoherent and unsupported by references. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- The opposition raised several important points around issues of POV. POV titles are just not acceptible on the wikipedia no matter how many people vote for them. The present title is NPOV. Colin4C (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- The current title is not the most common name and is ambiguous. The most common name is also NPOV. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- The opposition raised several important points around issues of POV. POV titles are just not acceptible on the wikipedia no matter how many people vote for them. The present title is NPOV. Colin4C (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- If consensus has to mean unanimity then there can almost never be consensus and I can think of a lot of articles where consensus has been declared with several dissenters. In this case the vast majority of editors supported a change, the facts and references supported a change. The only opposition was incoherent and unsupported by references. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway, this whole discussion is pointless as the administrator has already made his judgement on the matter. Maybe we can now concentrate on more important matters of article content? Colin4C (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Lead Section
As outlined in WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article."
The recent additions fail to address the above guidline, and have undermined the context of the Lead section. Editors should read up on the Lead Section first, as these additions as they stand will be removed. --Domer48 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh dear. The new LEAD meets that requirement pretty well and can be improved without being blankly deleted. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The recent additions fail to address the above guidline, and have undermined the context of the Lead section. Editors should read up on the Lead Section first, as these additions as they stand will be removed.--Domer48 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I read the requirements. The new lead isn't perfect, but it's a reasonable start and can be improved without being blankly deleted. It's concise for a 5 year famine, summarizes the most important points, certainly explains why the subject is notable, briefly describes the controversies (albeit this could be improved), and the emphasis is appropriate to the importance of the topics. There is no teasing, it's 4 paragraphs long, is sourced (albeit this could be improved) and is written in as clear a style as I can manage. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The recent additions fail to address the above guidline, and have undermined the context of the Lead section. Editors should read up on the Lead Section first, as these additions as they stand will be removed. --Domer48 (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- You've said that already. It's still not true. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Since this editor is either incapable or unwilling to address this issue and refuses to, I suggest that the edits be reverted. In addition, that they provide quoted citations from the one reference used, as it appears to be quite flexible when one looks at how many times the wording and context have adapted. Since all of the contributions can be viewed in a particular context, without balanced statements that appear biased. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject can and should attest to that. This lead section has been stable for a long time now, and was the result of consensus and discussion, this editor only wishes to make a point, on a subject they know little about. --Domer48 (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- The new lead is adapted from referenced material from elsewhere in the article, which has been turned into sentences from bullet points. Instead of making generic accusations of bias, please tell me which of the bullet points were biased, and which of the text is now biased. I am working on the assumption that the content previously stable in the article was correctly referenced as it had survived here for some time. I'm not refusing to address any issues, simply not able to address undefined complaints that simply call for blanking reversions. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you are incapable of even seening the bias illustrates your lack of knowledge. Now I have highlighted some of the issues already here, and you did not address them. The onus is on the editor who add's material to the article, so explaine how the reference has been able to adapt to the changes in context. Explaine how the lead is able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article, with sentences which need to be broadened to include the context. It should establish context and summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. For example why is it important to establish when Peel understood how bad the situation was and why is it the subject of controversie. How do you explaine the statement that the famine started in 1845, yet no one died till 1846. Why is the date of the famine 1845 used? Now answer the questions, or remove the text, provide referenced quotes for the reference being used? --Domer48 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, nonspecific accusations of bias. I wonder does Domer feel that I am defending Peel/Russell or damning them? The famine started in 1845 because that's when the crops failed and people started to go hungry. The first deaths were - according to the references I have - in 1846. The text is not added material, simply reformatted material. It was already referenced and I didn't add or subtract references. I've already explained how the lead meets the requirements of WP:LEAD. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, its possible one reference got deleted along with the text that went with it....it can be seen in the diffs. IIRC it wasn't an important one. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, nonspecific accusations of bias. I wonder does Domer feel that I am defending Peel/Russell or damning them? The famine started in 1845 because that's when the crops failed and people started to go hungry. The first deaths were - according to the references I have - in 1846. The text is not added material, simply reformatted material. It was already referenced and I didn't add or subtract references. I've already explained how the lead meets the requirements of WP:LEAD. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yet again, you have failed to address the points I have raised here. The Lead is not able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article, because of the number of questions left unanswered. You have failed to explaine how the reference you are using is able to adapt to the changes in context, and still be the same reference. You have failed to produce the quoted references I requested. You have failed to explaine how you say that the Famine started in 1845, when in fact it was the blight and not the famine. You did not simply reformatted material, you added text to the Lead which was not there before, therefore the onus is on you as the editor who added material to explaine how and why it should be there. Now read again our guidlines on the Lead section and address the problems you created or remove the information, and leave it in the article were it belongs. --Domer48 (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I have already addressed those points. The lead stands as a concise overview. It cannot possibly answer ALL questions and remain concise. The references I used were those already in the article, each of which addressed the point it still addresses. The references are there. It's generally regarded that the famine started in 1845 because the blight came then, relief started then, and people started to starve then. The lead section can surely be improved but it does not need to be blankly deleted. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wotapalaver's edit provides much needed information for the reader on the history of the Famine. Colin4C (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. It still needs work. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
One last time and then the information gets removed from the LEAD. As outlined in WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article."
Now is that clear enough. This is the LEAD Section. Wotapalaver contradicts themselves in the one breath with "The lead stands as a concise overview. It cannot possibly answer ALL questions and remain concise." So the LEAD which they have edited is not a concise overview. Having changed the text in the reference being used, they are responcible for that text, so saying the reference was already there is not excuse. Colin4C if you have a problem with the information in the article, address it. The way to go about it is not by messing about with the Lead. --Domer48 (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Domer48, the lead as it stands meets requirements and is a concise overview. Do not delete it. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Anybody who edit wars regarding the lead on this article will be banned from editing it. Consider this a warning. Daniel (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Domer48, the lead as it stands meets requirements and is a concise overview. Do not delete it. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that Daniel, now could you possibly add some opinion to the issue at hand? All content reversions I have made on this page have been discussed on the article talk page. While I have raised issues based on our guidlines and MOS, the responces have been nothing short of disruptive, the last being a good example. Now if I have not explained myself well enough on the talk page and illustrated the problems based on our guidlines as well as I should, please let me know. Now the Lead Section has to be addressed, please offer some suggestions? --Domer48 (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- My suggestion is that we should be constructive in terms of providing a coherent account of the famine in the article: as Wotapalaver has in fact done. Colin4C (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It is pointless discussing this with you, as you point blank refuse to follow the Guidlines as laid down in Lead. Your problem is with the Article, and I suggest you deal with that. Your support for a botched effort is only undermining the work that was done to present the Lead in a balanced way and be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. All you have done is present information which is devoid of context, and due to the history and nature of the subject presented it in a biased way. Now I have illustrated this point and have included examples, but you simply refuse to address this. I will now have to address the issue of NPOV in regard to the Lead, and with Daniel watching, fobbing me off will not be an option. --Domer48 (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- No-one has been fobbing you off. With Daniel watching I hope that we'll have some constructive discussion. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Good, now answer the points I have raised. --Domer48 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have said already that I consider them addressed. If you don´t then list them one-by-one rather than saying vague things. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You have not addressed anything! Now its up to the Arbitration Committee mentors to decide if the current version of the Lead Section is presented in a balanced way and is able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. Dose it establish context, or summarize the most important points and briefly describe its notable controversies. The answer is no, and in fact quite the opposite. This version set the context quite clearly and was the result of detailed discussions by editors who actually knew the issues and difficulties involved. So its up to the mentors now. --Domer48 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) The current lead is far too long => it is not consise. It suffers from trying to summarize the entire article into the lead. Can I suggest that the current lede is shortened to just before the paragraph "The famine started in" as this paragraph could be moved to a "Chronological Summary" section. --Bardcom (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- According to Domer48 and WP:LEAD, it's supposed to summarize the article. See World War 1 for a similar lead. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Two wrongs don't make a right....and that article certainly breaches the 4 paragraphs guideline. I could take an editorial axe to that lead and summarize it down to at about half it's size. --Bardcom (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- According to Domer48 and WP:LEAD, it's supposed to summarize the article. See World War 1 for a similar lead. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cutting valuable and relevent material on the Famine is unhelpful. Wotapalaver has provided a coherent and referenced account of the course of the famine. If anything needs an editorial axe is the rambling and incoherent mess of the rest of the article not Wotapalver's contribution. We should support constructive edits here. Colin4C (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Now its up to the Arbitration Committee mentors to decide if the current version of the Lead Section is presented in a balanced way and is able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. Dose it establish context, or summarize the most important points and briefly describe its notable controversies. The answer is no, and in fact quite the opposite. This version set the context quite clearly and was the result of detailed discussions by editors who actually knew the issues and difficulties involved. So its up to the mentors now.--Domer48 (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- All the editors on the wikipedia are equal and have an equal right to contribute material to articles. 'Mentors' do not have any more rights to edit an article than anybody else. Do they have a special knowledge of the Famine that none of the rest of us have? Colin4C (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No they have a special knowledge of policies and guidlines, such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. All of which have been breached, and must be addressed.--Domer48 (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think there was an ArbCom ruling some time back that appointed 4 mentors to this article to prevent edit-warring, etc. --Bardcom (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Mentor's role
A number of people above have said that it is the mentor's role to decide if the current version is acceptable, etc.; it is not. Our job is not to issue content opinions, decisions, or anything like that. Our job is to stop edit warring, incivility and disruption. We cannot provide an opinion on content because we must remain neutral. Our job is to keep the atmosphere at this article conducive to resolving any disputes, and from removing people who breach standards of behaviour from the article. Daniel (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thats grand Daniel, so don't issues any warnings again in relation to how this page is edited. Your opinion, is flatly contradicted here were one of the mentor's provide an opinion to help move the discussion forward. They also provide an opinion here to prevent disruption. Now as outlined here "All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page," which I have been doing. Now the other point is "Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing Great Irish Famine or a related page, clearly says you as a mentor must clearly show a good reason to ban an Editor. To date all you have done is wave a stick. Now based on your above contrabution, please provide us with a diff were it outlines exactly what your role and function is, in particular "Our job is not to issue content opinions, decisions, or anything like that. Our job is to stop edit warring, incivility and disruption. We cannot provide an opinion on content because we must remain neutral. Our job is to keep the atmosphere at this article conducive to resolving any disputes." Thanks --Domer48 (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- "How the page is edited" is different from "the content of the page". I will certainly be warning and/or banning anyone who edit wars, acts disruptively, is uncivil, makes personal attacks, games the system, etc. We will also provide some guidance on how you, the parties, can best resolve the dispute if we feel it is warranted, such as this. What we will not provide is opinions on who is correct. That is not our job. Daniel (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- That was my own humble opinion on the subject of repeated move requests and their likely impact on the atmosphere. If I say something as a mentor, like Daniel I'll be explicit in saying that that is the case. For the record, the terms of the mentorship are described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Mentorship and above in the #Arbitration Committee mentorship section. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I welcome the marked change in tone as to the role and function of mentor's and look forward to the a marked change in the atmosphere. Now as to the current impass, I have presented the issues as best I can, and both editors have refused to address them. Now I intend to revert to the last stable version, based on WP:LEAD. These changes were not discussed prior to their addition, as were the most recent changes. If I have not covered the issue surrounding the section enough, please let me know, and I'd welcome your opinion on how I should proceed. This is not asking for an opinion on content I might add.Thanks again for the measured tone, in your reply.--Domer48 (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- The text should not be unilaterally reverted by one editor without discussion or concensus. This is in accordance with what the mentor said above: "Anybody who edit wars regarding the lead on this article will be banned from editing it." Constructive modifications which add information rather than reverts might be a better way forward. Colin4C (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thing is, the text was not unilaterally reverted by one editor without discussion. The discussion did take place, and you refused to address the issues raised, and you don't need concensus to remove unreferenced text. The onus is on the Editor who adds text to be able to support it with sources. Now the fact that you have had the book which is cited all along, and not once attempted to remove the blatant WP:OR or even mention it is telling. That also explaines why, dispite my repeated attempts and requests to have the quoted references provided to editors I was ignored. Now your problem is with the Article, not the Lead, so why don't you place the origional Lead back in, and I will provide all the help you want on the Article. What ever you want to see in the article, I'll find, reference and source. --Domer48 (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have lots of books on Ireland. Should I mention all of them here? Assuming we are now talking about David Ross's Ireland: History of a Nation (2002), I can safely say that the notes in the intro (3-8) which refer to this book are correctly referenced. If everybody in the dispute can provide themselves with a copy of this book they can check this up for themselves. As I have said before the information provided in the intro is mostly descriptive and non-controversial: giving the basic data of the succesive yearly potato blights during the Famine and the government responses. The old version omits basic information on the Famine - a deficiency which is not made up in the body of the article which similarly omits basic information of eg the yearly potato blights and their effects. Colin4C (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- 1845
- Potato blight crosses the Atlantic and appears in England. It crosses to Wexford and Waterford (first newspaper report, 9 September). Half of the annual potato harvest is ruined (November). The Great Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States. A Relief Commission is set up under Edward Lucas.
- 1846
- Potato blight almost totally destroys the year’s crop. The Famine worsens.
Whig government falls. Lord Russell’s Tory government halts food and relief works (re-instates them by end of year). The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends is set up to alleviate suffering. Despite the Famine, large quantities of grain are exported to pay the rents of absentee landlords. Almost a third of a million destitute people are employed in public works (December)
- 1847
- The Famine worsens after an exceptionally bad winter. Typhus epidemic kills tens of thousands. The Soup Kitchens Act provides financial assistance to local authorities to help them feed Famine victims. However, the Act is withdrawn in September when funding relief becomes dependent on local rates and charitable donations.
The Poor Relief Act allows magistrates to extend help to the needy (excluding tenants holding more than a quarter acre). The potato crop is healthy but so few have been planted that the Famine continues unabated (August).
- 1848
- The Famine continues. There are outbreaks of cholera and the potato harvest fails. The number of evictions rises. Famine victims on outdoor relief peak at almost 840,000 people (July).
- 1849
- The potato crop fails again. Irish countryside devastated by famine and further outbreaks of cholera.
- 1850
- The Great Famine ends. Its aftermath of emigration and rural deprivation lasts for over a century.
From your reading of this source,("I can safely say that the notes in the intro (3-8) which refer to this book are correctly referenced.") I can understand why you can not grasp our guidlines and policies. I will place each point in my post below, to further illustrate my point. By the way, this is actually the way they appear in the book. --Domer48 (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Er...just to say that the relevent parts of the text in the intro ARE supported by the extracts from the book you have quoted above. Editors here can confirm this for themselves by comparing them. Just to add that the above information is extracted from pages 311-313 of Ross's Ireland: History of a Nation (2002). Ross provides more extensive information on the Famine in Chapter 13, pages 223-228. Colin4C (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Move Proposal - Straw Poll
The consensus recently formed is to move the article.
The admin correctly closed the discussion as there seemed to be no consensus as to which destination to move the article to. In my opinion, this was caused by too many options, and options that were too similar (for example, with and without the word "The").
This straw poll limits the options to the ones with the most expressed preferences (including an option to leave as is) with the objective of testing to see if a consensus has formed.
Please show a preference for only one option, and give a short reason. Discussion section below.
- Irish Potato Famine
- Great Irish Famine (1845 - 1852)
- The Great Hunger (current title)
Option 1 - As per WP:COMMONNAME. --Bardcom (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Option 1 - as per WP:COMMONNAME. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Option 1 - As per WP:COMMONNAME. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussions
This discussion was concluded with the administrator's judgement of 'no concensus'. It is illegitimate to open it again less than a week later. Colin4C (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- According to whom? You and two others wanted the article title to remain as it was; a majority of the others wanted it moved to a different title. It's proper to carry on further discussions to determine what that title should be. My request to move the page to Irish Potato Famine was a different request than the one that was originally made. That one presented multiple options. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- No its not there is no consensus for change. BigDuncTalk 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest that to have repeated discussions over a trivial matter like the article name is at best unhelpful. Please do not submit another move request until a reasonable interval has passed. All this energy would be better focussed on the content. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC). Was this not clear enough? I consider this plain disruptive. --Domer48 (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Please re-review the poll above. Everybody that expressed a preference said to change the title, therefore a consensus for change has been shown to exist. The straw poll above is to test a consensus for a destination with a reduced set of options based on the majority of preferences. The closing admin did not state that a consensus did not exist, only that a consensus over a destination was not clear. This straw poll is not to test whether a move is required or not - that consensus has already been established. Please express your preference via the straw poll above. --Bardcom (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest that to have repeated discussions over a trivial matter like the article name is at best unhelpful. Please do not submit another move request until a reasonable interval has passed. All this energy would be better focussed on the content. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC). Was this not clear enough? I consider this plain disruptive. --Domer48 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits
"The Great Hunger was a famine in Ireland between 1845 and 1849 which led to a reduction of 20% to 25% in the Irish population and the death of approximately 1 million people.[1] The Great Hunger is often called simply The Famine or The Great Famine or Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, literally The Bad life in Ireland itself and internationally more often called The Irish Potato Famine."
This recent edit is wrong and un-supported by references. The reference only supports the 20% to 25% figure, nothing else. The years are also wrong, 1845 and 1849, not supported by references and take no account of the recent work of both Kinealy or Ó Gráda, highlighted by me on the talk page. WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS
The famine started in September 1845 when blight was first noted in the country and by November half the potato crop was ruined. Not supported by references, and incorrect anyhow.Based on WP:OR and not supported by WP:V and WP:RS
The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.[3]
Not supported by the reference, and contradicted in the article itself. See here, and here. Not an accurate summary, and devoid of context. "immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine," is not mentioned in the reference at all, Based on WP:OR and not supported by WP:V and WP:RS
- 1845
- Potato blight crosses the Atlantic and appears in England. It crosses to Wexford and Waterford (first newspaper report, 9 September). Half of the annual potato harvest is ruined (November). The Great Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States. A Relief Commission is set up under Edward Lucas. Actual Source used.
Food aid had to be bought at market prices, a requirement which meant that the aid itself was less than fully effective since many poor Irish had no money at all and employment on Relief Works was not always immediately available. The first deaths from hunger took place in the spring of 1846. The new Whig administration under Lord Russell, influenced by their laissez-faire belief that the market would provide the food needed, then halted government food and relief works leaving many hundreds of thousands of people without any work, money or food. Not supported by the reference, and devoid of context, leaves to many questions to be decribed as a concise summary. Based on WP:OR and not supported by WP:V and WP:RS
- 1846
- Potato blight almost totally destroys the year’s crop. The Famine worsens.
- Whig government falls. Lord Russell’s Tory government halts food and relief works (re-instates them by end of year). The Central *Relief Committee of the Society of Friends is set up to alleviate suffering.
- Despite the Famine, large quantities of grain are exported to pay the rents of absentee landlords.
- Almost a third of a million destitute people are employed in public works (December)Actual Source used.
Grain continued to be exported from the country. Private initiatives such as The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends (Quakers) attempted to fill the gap caused by the end of government relief and eventually the government reinstated the relief works, although bureaucracy made food supplies slow to be released. The blight almost totally destroyed the 1846 crop and the Famine worsened considerably. By December a third of a million destitute people were employed in public works.[4] Not supported by the reference, and devoid of context, leaves to many questions to be decribed as a concise summary. For example why did Grain continued to be exported from the country? Why did the government end relief? "The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends (Quakers) attempted to fill the gap caused by the end of government relief and eventually the government reinstated the relief works although bureaucracy made food supplies slow to be released" is not in the reference at all, Based on WP:OR and not supported by WP:V and WP:RS Actual Source used.
- 1847
- The Famine worsens after an exceptionally bad winter. Typhus epidemic kills tens of thousands. The Soup Kitchens Act provides financial assistance to local authorities to help them feed Famine victims. However, the Act is withdrawn in September when funding relief becomes dependent on local rates and charitable donations.
The Poor Relief Act allows magistrates to extend help to the needy (excluding tenants holding more than a quarter acre). The potato crop is healthy but so few have been planted that the Famine continues unabated (August).Actual Source used.
1847's exceptionally hard winter made conditions even worse. A typhus epidemic killed tens of thousands, including wealthier people as the towns were now also affected. 1847's harvest was largely unaffected by blight but too few potatoes had been planted so the Famine continued unabated.[5]Not supported by the reference, and devoid of context, leaves to many questions to be decribed as a concise summary. For example why was too few potatoes? "including wealthier people as the towns were now also affected," is not in the reference at all, Based on WP:OR and not supported by WP:V and WP:RS
The Soup Kitchens Act provided financial assistance to local authorities to help them feed Famine victims but this Act was withdrawn in September and relief was made the responsibility of local poor rates and of charitable organizations. This put impossible loads on local poor rates, particularly in the rural west and south. Emigration reached new heights and the infamous coffin-ships crossed the Atlantic in large numbers carrying people fleeing from the famine. The blight returned in 1848 when outbreaks of cholera were reported. Evictions became common and Famine victims on outdoor relief peaked in July at almost 840,000 people. Not supported by the reference, and devoid of context, leaves to many questions to be decribed as a concise summary. For example when did evictions start and why? The Soup Kitchens Act, did that not go against laissez-faire, is that a contradiction?"This put impossible loads on local poor rates, particularly in the rural west and south. Emigration reached new heights and the infamous coffin-ships crossed the Atlantic in large numbers carrying people fleeing from the famine" is not in the reference at all, Based on WP:OR and not supported by WP:V and WP:RS
- 1848
- The Famine continues. There are outbreaks of cholera and the potato harvest fails. The number of evictions rises. Famine victims on outdoor relief peak at almost 840,000 people (July).Actual Source used.
The potato crop failed again in 1849 and famine was accompanied by cholera outbreaks.[6]. What about all the other diseases, typhus was already mentioned? It is devoid of context, and leaves to many questions to be decribed as a concise summary. "accompanied by cholera outbreaks" the source says "further outbrakes" not being the first of such outbrakes.
The famine is generally regarded as ending in 1849, although people continued dying in smaller numbers. The famine left in its wake perhaps up to a million dead and another million emigrated. The famine caused a sense of lasting bitterness by the Irish towards the British government, whom many blamed — then and now — for the starvation of so many people.[7] The famine is generally regarded as ending in 1849. By whom? Not supported by the reference at all. "although people continued dying in smaller numbers." So either it did or did not end in 1849 which is it? Devoid of context, leaves to many questions to be decribed as a concise summary, and is not in the reference at all, Based on WP:OR and not supported by WP:V and WP:RS
- 1849
- The potato crop fails again. Irish countryside devastated by famine and further outbreaks of cholera.Actual Source used.
- 1850
- The Great Famine ends. Its aftermath of emigration and rural deprivation lasts for over a century.Actual Source used.
By 1851 Census figures showed that the population of Ireland had fallen to 6,575,000 - a drop of 1,600,000 in ten years.[8] The fall-out of the famine continued for decades afterwards and Ireland's population still has not recovered to pre-famine levels. This is contradicted above on two occasions, the figures just don't add up. The census figures have been rightly challanged but thats not mentioned here. Its devoid of context, and leaves to many questions to be decribed as a concise summary. Based on WP:OR and not supported by WP:V and WP:RS
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article."
This Lead fails on all points, every issue can be challanged by either side, and its notable controversies are not addressed at all. However, the version below: Is able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It establishs context, summarizes the most important points, explains why the subject is interesting or notable, and controversies. It has been carefully worded as appropriate, and written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article. This Lead dose not assume that the reader knows all about the subject, and acknowledges that it is contentious.
The Great Hunger (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life) is a highly contentious period of history between 1845 and 1852 during which the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent.[1] It is known by various names, such as The Great Famine in Ireland itself and The Irish Potato Famine internationally. The proximate cause[2] of the famine was a pathogenic water mould, Phytophthora infestans, the disease it causes is commonly known as late blight of potato. Though P. infestans ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, its human cost in Ireland was exacerbated by a host of political, social, economic, and climatological factors which remain the subjects of heated historical debate.
The famine was a watershed in the history of Ireland. Its effects extended well beyond its immediate demographic impact and permanently changed the island's political and cultural landscape. For both the native Irish and those in the resulting diaspora, the famine entered folk memory and became a rallying point for various nationalist movements. Virtually all modern historians of Ireland regard it as a dividing line in the Irish historical narrative, referring to the preceding period of Irish history as "pre-Famine."''
The reason the Article was the subject of an ArbCom ruling is because of the contentious nature of the subject. The version being pushed is contentious because of the weight giving to some aspects of the subject and the misleading presentation. Now I have asked a number of time for quoted references to support the flexible reference being used, just provide it. If you place information on the Article page the onus is on the editor to back it up. The contradictions on dates and numbers have to be addressed. All unreferenced information must be removed. Which version best meets our guidlines on WP:LEAD and why? --Domer48 (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have the book to which notes 3 to 8 refer in my hand at the moment: Ireland: History of a Nation (2002) by David Ross. Checking it I see that the appropriate text of the article is supported by reference to this book. As the introduction is by its very nature a brief summary there is no room to go into all controversies in depth. And anyway, virtually all the text is descriptive of events which are generally agreed by historians to have happened. Questions as to why things happen are often not in the realm of history at all but speculation. Such speculation can be addressed in the body of the article. Colin4C (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll wait till you have checked the book before responding. --Domer48 (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Editors responce above "Assuming we are now talking about David Ross's Ireland: History of a Nation (2002), I can safely say that the notes in the intro (3-8) which refer to this book are correctly referenced." I think someone else should explaine to them what WP:OR is? --Domer48 (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In light of the above responce I would call on Mentor's to address Points 6 and 7 which also fall under the remit of Mentorship on the section entitled "Principles." With opinions like this discussion is pointless. --Domer48 (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- The text in question is referenced to David Ross's book, therefore it is not original research. QED. Any editor here can confirm the statements in the text by referring to this book. Colin4C (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- MANY more references can be added. Just taking a couple of examples from only two books. Peel's actions are described in one as "prompt action", his relief measures as being "prompt, skillful and on the whole successful". Another states how Peel, although believing that the Irish tended to exaggerate, was "alarmed" already in September. The same book, although noting that Peel's measures were not going to help the poorest and hardest hit says "by the standards of the day Peel had acted quite imaginatively".
- On the starting dates and first deaths, I have two different sources to hand and they give two different dates. One says August 20th for first reports, the other says September. On spread of the blight, one says that "about half the country was affected" by late September, another that three quarters of the Irish potato harvest was destroyed by Feb 1846. One source I don't have to hand right now said that half the crop was ruined by November, but that's consistent with the ones I do have in front of me. On deaths, a reference says that by February 1846 "no-one had yet died of starvation", yet people died widely in 18466 - albeit mass deaths started in the Autumn after the failure of the second harvest.
- I never claimed the LEAD was perfect, but Domer48's blank reverting wasn't and isn't exactly helpful. If there are things that could be better expressed or referenced then please propose such improvements without simply accusing (incorrectly in at least MANY cases) everything of being OR. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- One thing which isn't mentioned is the fact that starvation was staved off in the first year of the Famine (1845) by the mass consumption of virtually all the pigs in Ireland. This, plus 'Peel's Brimstone'... Though the text is not perfect, as you say, I think it does emphasise the fact that it was not just a single crop failure which caused the Famine, but a whole succesive series of them year after year which dealt the hammer blow of death. Colin4C (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I said above, if you can not see the problem here with WP:NPOV, WP:POV and WP:OR there is not point discussing this with you. I'll put just one example to illustrate the point.
- Article:The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.[3]
- Source: "The Great Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States."
If you insist that "I can safely say that the notes in the intro (3-8) which refer to this book are correctly referenced," then it is just plain disruptive, and should be addressed by the Mentor's. --Domer48 (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, let's replace it with REF: The Course of Irish History, 1994. Edited by T.W.Moody and F.X.Martin. Page 268. Mercier Press. ISBN 1 85635 108 4. We could replace "immediately" with "promptly", which might well be a better word anyway. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No. That view is contradicted! Please read the previous discussions on this subject, because I'm not going through old ones. --Domer48 (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have. It'll be a relief if you don't. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you read the previous discussions, you were aware of the ArbCom ruling. Dispite being aware that "All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page." You ignored it and inserted contentious material, ignored our policies on verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view and our guidlines on Reliable sources and Lead Section. Now your breaching our policies on WP:CIVIL. I have illustrated the issues and addressed the edits, now you have to. --Domer48 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since you were reverter-in-chief I hope you'll now abide by Arbcom. Meantime, I didn't insert contentious material, ignore our policies on verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view and our guidelines on Reliable sources and Lead Section. Nor am I breaching our policies on WP:CIVIL. I have illustrated the issues and addressed the edits, now you have to. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Two Versions of the Intro
If people here are wondering what the differences are between the old and new versions of the intro, here they are. Compare and contrast and make your own minds up which is best, or feel free to write a third version or any other modifications:
Old Version
- The Great Hunger (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life) is a highly contentious period of history between 1845 and 1852 during which the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent.[3] It is known by various names, such as The Great Famine in Ireland itself and The Irish Potato Famine internationally. The proximate cause[4] of the famine was a pathogenic water mould, Phytophthora infestans, the disease it causes is commonly known as late blight of potato. Though P. infestans ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, its human cost in Ireland was exacerbated by a host of political, social, economic, and climatological factors which remain the subjects of heated historical debate.
- The famine was a watershed in the history of Ireland. Its effects extended well beyond its immediate demographic impact and permanently changed the island's political and cultural landscape. For both the native Irish and those in the resulting diaspora, the famine entered folk memory and became a rallying point for various nationalist movements. Virtually all modern historians of Ireland regard it as a dividing line in the Irish historical narrative, referring to the preceding period of Irish history as "pre-Famine."
New Version
- The Great Hunger was a famine in Ireland between 1845 and 1849 which led to a reduction of 20% to 25% in the Irish population and the death of approximately 1 million people.[5] The Great Hunger is often called simply The Famine or The Great Famine or Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, literally The Bad life in Ireland itself and internationally more often called The Irish Potato Famine.
- The proximate cause[6] of the famine was a pathogenic water mould, Phytophthora infestans, which causes a potato disease commonly known as late blight, where the potato crop is destroyed at about the time of the harvest. Though blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland — where a huge part of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food — was exacerbated by a host of political, social, economic, and climatological factors which remain the subject of historical debate. The famine was a watershed in the history of Ireland. Its effects permanently changed the island's demographic, political and cultural landscape. For both the native Irish and those in the resulting diaspora, the famine entered folk memory and became a rallying point for various nationalist movements. Virtually all modern historians of Ireland regard it as a dividing line in the Irish historical narrative, referring to the preceding period of Irish history as "pre-Famine." [citation needed]
- The famine started in September 1845 when blight was first noted in the country and by November half the potato crop was ruined. The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.[7] Food aid had to be bought at market prices, a requirement which meant that the aid itself was less than fully effective since many poor Irish had no money at all and employment on Relief Works was not always immediately available. The first deaths from hunger took place in the spring of 1846. The new Whig administration under Lord Russell, influenced by their laissez-faire belief that the market would provide the food needed, then halted government food and relief works leaving many hundreds of thousands of people without any work, money or food. Grain continued to be exported from the country. Private initiatives such as The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends (Quakers) attempted to fill the gap caused by the end of government relief and eventually the government reinstated the relief works, although bureaucracy made food supplies slow to be released. The blight almost totally destroyed the 1846 crop and the Famine worsened considerably. By December a third of a million destitute people were employed in public works.[8] 1847's exceptionally hard winter made conditions even worse. A typhus epidemic killed tens of thousands, including wealthier people as the towns were now also affected. 1847's harvest was largely unaffected by blight but too few potatoes had been planted so the Famine continued unabated.[9]The Soup Kitchens Act provided financial assistance to local authorities to help them feed Famine victims but this Act was withdrawn in September and relief was made the responsibility of local poor rates and of charitable organizations. This put impossible loads on local poor rates, particularly in the rural west and south. Emigration reached new heights and the infamous coffin-ships crossed the Atlantic in large numbers carrying people fleeing from the famine. The blight returned in 1848 when outbreaks of cholera were reported. Evictions became common and Famine victims on outdoor relief peaked in July at almost 840,000 people.
- The potato crop failed again in 1849 and famine was accompanied by cholera outbreaks.[10]. The famine is generally regarded as ending in 1849, although people continued dying in smaller numbers. The famine left in its wake perhaps up to a million dead and another million emigrated. The famine caused a sense of lasting bitterness by the Irish towards the British government, whom many blamed — then and now — for the starvation of so many people.[11] By 1851 Census figures showed that the population of Ireland had fallen to 6,575,000 - a drop of 1,600,000 in ten years.[12] The fall-out of the famine continued for decades afterwards and Ireland's population still has not recovered to pre-famine levels.
- ^ Tom Hayden, Irish Hunger, Roberts Rinehart, USA/Canada, 1997-98, ISBN 1 57098 233 3, pg.17
- ^ Tom Hayden, Irish Hunger, Roberts Rinehart, USA/Canada, 1997-98, ISBN 1 57098 233 3, pg.17
- ^ Kinealy (1995), 357.
- ^ Cormac Ó Gráda, Ireland's Great Famine, University College Dublin, 2006, ISBN 1 904558 57 6, pg. 7
- ^ Kinealy (1995), 357.
- ^ Cormac Ó Gráda, Ireland's Great Famine, University College Dublin, 2006, ISBN 1 904558 57 6, pg. 7
- ^ David Ross (2002) Ireland: History of a Nation: 311
- ^ David Ross (2002) Ireland: History of a Nation: 311
- ^ David Ross (2002) Ireland: History of a Nation: 312
- ^ David Ross (2002) Ireland: History of a Nation: 312
- ^ David Ross (2002) Ireland: History of a Nation: 313
- ^ David Ross (2002) Ireland: History of a Nation: 313
Colin4C (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed compromise Version
- The Great Hunger was a famine in Ireland between 1845 and 1849 which led to a reduction of between 20% to 25% in the Irish population and the death of approximately 1 million people.[1]
- The proximate cause[2] of the famine was a potato disease commonly known as late blight, where the potato crop is destroyed at about the time of the harvest. Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland — where a huge part of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food — was exacerbated by a host of political, social, economic, and climatological factors which remain the subject of historical debate. The famine was a watershed in the history of Ireland and its effects permanently changed the island's demographic, political and cultural landscape.
- The famine started in September 1845 when blight was first noted in the country and by November half the potato crop was ruined. The first deaths from hunger took place in the spring of 1846. The blight almost totally destroyed the 1846 crop and the Famine worsened considerably. 1847's exceptionally hard winter made conditions even worse. A typhus epidemic killed tens of thousands, including wealthier people as the towns were now also affected. 1847's harvest was largely unaffected by blight but too few potatoes had been planted so the Famine continued unabated.[3] Emigration reached new heights and the infamous coffin-ships crossed the Atlantic in large numbers carrying people fleeing from the famine. The blight returned in 1848 when outbreaks of cholera were reported. Evictions became common and Famine victims on outdoor relief peaked in July at almost 840,000 people.
- The potato crop failed again in 1849 and famine was accompanied by cholera outbreaks.[4]. The famine is generally regarded as ending in 1849, although people continued dying in smaller numbers. The famine left in its wake perhaps up to a million dead and another million emigrated. The famine caused a sense of lasting bitterness by the Irish towards the British government, whom many blamed — then and now — for the starvation of so many people.[5] By 1851 Census figures showed that the population of Ireland had fallen to 6,575,000 - a drop of 1,600,000 in ten years.[6] The fall-out of the famine continued for decades afterwards and Ireland's population still has not recovered to pre-famine levels.
--Bardcom (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I believe (A) that the old version was entirely inadequate. It didn't even say that people died. Also, if nothing else, since the Famine was preceded by the largest nationalist movement in Irish history, the impression given that the Famine somehow jump-started Irish nationalism is misleading. The longer version may be too long. I'd be inclined to shorten the second paragraph. All the "watershed" discussion is IMHO too verbose. The third para could also be tightened up. I also believe that the inter-relation and sequence of events, particularly in late 1846 and early 1847, could be better expressed and clarified, e.g. how/when Russell stopped and restarted aid, when the Quakers (and other private organizations) got involved, when massive deaths and panicked emigration started. IF I have time I'll try to propose a better text. Not today, unfortunately. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- As the original author of the current intro, I'm moved to defend against its characterization as "entirely inadequate." It was a dramatic improvement over what preceded it, and it did a reasonably good job of summarizing the Famine for readers who are unlikely to read beyond the table of contents. The current version of the intro is at least twice as long as it ought to be.
- At that time, the article properly included "famine" in its title. It goes without saying that people died; it was a famine. While I agree that I probably could have put it better, it's also correct that the Famine changed the character of Irish nationalism. It caused many ambivalent parties and erstwhile supporters of Union to reconsider the effectiveness of British administration in Ireland. The people who emigrated, and their descendants, gave the cause a foreign lobby and fundraising wing.
- That said, I applaud the ongoing efforts to improve this article. I know how frustrating it can be when an article is being camped by experienced wikilawyers. Just try not to let the struggle for editorial balance obscure the goal of an organized, accessible narrative. Dppowell (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- The current version is probably a bit long, although it's still within guidelines. The existence of a famine doesn't, in itself, imply that people died. As for changing the character of Irish nationalism, it's probably true that it did, although the failure of the Repeal movement - which happened before the famine - was probably another main factor. And yes, right now there is lots of quoting of policies but the aim is a simple, clean narrative. The facts can speak for themselves. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The number of deaths is disputed. Daniel O Connell did not lead an Irish Nationalist movement, the French and American revolutions jump-started Irish Republicanism (United Irishmen). The Young Ireland movement (1840's) jump-started Irish Nationalism. This period is a "watershed" in Irish History, and is supported by notable sources on the subject. Now since everyone now agrees that their is problems with the lead, it should be replaced with the most stable version. The version that was produced through heated discussion by editors who understood the subject well enough to agree to disageee and produced a Lead that was balanced. --Domer48 (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- The number of deaths may be uncertain, but people certainly died. The old lead didn't even say that so "heated discussion" didn't come up with anything very useful. The repeal movement that O'Connell led was a nationalist movement and has been described as such. I suppose Grattan was a nationalist of a sort too. O'Connell's failure to achieve repeal of the Union through constitutional means was instrumental in the fact that subsequent movements did not follow always the constitutional path. Just because O'Connell was non-violent doesn't mean he wasn't a nationalist. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Look I'm not going to give you a history lesson, if you think O'Connell was a Nationalist fine. The Lead that you have removed was based on informed discussion, by editors who actually understand the subject. The fact that it was informed discussion is what made it heated. Now I have placed a detailed outline of the current Lead on the talk page, start to address that. --Domer48 (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't give me a history lesson, I don't expect I'd learn much. Since I never met O'Connell I think he was a nationalist because reputable sources tell me he was. The National Library of Ireland (a pretty eminent institution) thinks he was too, listing their collection of political papers as including "Political papers. The collection represents most of the nationalist movements from the 18th century onwards, and includes papers of Wolfe Tone, Daniel O'Connell, William Smith O'Brien and James Fintan Lalor." Oops. Other eminent sources say similar things, although one says that O'Connell has "sometimes been regarded as an afterthought to modern Irish nationalism", which seems a pity. Are your other points on the lead going to be as easy to debunk? Wotapalaver (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Hi, I've added a compromise version above which tries to keep the chronology and main events intact, but leaving out detail that may be better further in the article. Just trying to reach a balance between summary and detail. --Bardcom (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Initial reaction? Not bad Bardcom! As before, will not be able to get into detail today. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Bardcom's version looks good to me also. Colin4C (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've been away from these discussions for some time, but I also agree that Bardcom has come up with quite a good introduction that seems to tip its hat towards compromise gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Bardcom's version looks good to me also. Colin4C (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Initial reaction? Not bad Bardcom! As before, will not be able to get into detail today. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The solution I would favour is for the Article Lead to be returned to last Stable Version, and issues raised can then be discussed as to content being added. The proposal currently being made on the talk page is aimed a addressing a problem created by the recent contentious additions, and not building upon a non-contentious and stable version. For that reason, I consider the proposal premature. --Domer48 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- ^ Kinealy (1995), 357.
- ^ Cormac Ó Gráda, Ireland's Great Famine, University College Dublin, 2006, ISBN 1 904558 57 6, pg. 7
- ^ David Ross (2002) Ireland: History of a Nation: 312
- ^ David Ross (2002) Ireland: History of a Nation: 312
- ^ David Ross (2002) Ireland: History of a Nation: 313
- ^ David Ross (2002) Ireland: History of a Nation: 313