Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)

Past entries in this famous discussion are archived in: .1 , .2 , .3 , .4 , .5 , .6 , .7 , .8 , .9 , .10 , .11 , .12 , .13 (requested moves) , .14 , .15 , .16 (empty)...

suggestions?

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))

My suggestionm deals with the first sentance: "An Gorta Mór" translates to "The Great Hunger" not the "Great Famine" as the author implies. This is more than mere semantics as it come down to the difference in the way this tragedy is perceived. Famines are acts of nature, "Hunger" is usually the result of a failure of government policy. British Government Policy was depisct this as a "Famine" that was outside there control, where as those that dispute this claim will call it "the Greta Hunger". In a spirt of impartiality both terms should be describe and the correct translation of An Gorta Mór provided. 67.85.84.191 (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It´s not clear how or why the famine ended.Acolombo1 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The there a number of reasons, from a scientific perspective, consider to use of bluestone to combat the blight fungus - if you want a reference: [1] ClemMcGann (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest: Modern historians regard it as a dividing line in the Irish historical narrative be replaced with something less obtuse: Modern historians regard it as a significant event in Irish history Gc9580 (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brief Chronological Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introductory Summary

The introduction is flawed because it neglects to show that there were enough patatos for the Irish but the English took them from the Irish people and tried to starve them. Throughout history the English have been a brutal people and this should be known —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.205.238 (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ah yes, those dastardly English. Stealing Irish potatoes in between games of Cricket. 84.65.21.188 (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Do editors think that brief introductory summaries covering in brief the more detailed material of a wikipedia article on a historical topic are unwelcome on the wikipedia? Please state your reasons why this is a bad idea. Is it deliberate vandalism or a good faith attempt to clarify a lengthy and disordered main part? Does it distract from a wikipedia readers enjoyment, having to read the paragraph in question?:

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

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.Grain continued to be exported from the country.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.

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.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 and outbreaks of cholera were reported.Evictions became common and Famine victims on outdoor relief peaked in July at almost 840,000 people.A doomed uprising against the government was led by William Smith O'Brien. The potato crop failed again in 1849 and famine was accompanied by cholera outbreaks.

In 1850 the potato crop was okay and the Famine mostly ended. 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.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.The fall-out of the famine continued for decades afterwards and Ireland's population still has not recovered to pre-famine levels."

Please note that this material is not duplicated from anywhere else on the wikipedia but was written by myself. As for my credentials I often write articles for hard-copy encyclopedias, the latest ones of which were published by the Cambridge University Press, last year, so I am not a total klutz in the matters of writing encyclopedia articles. Colin4C (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll remind you again of what Angusmclellan said "So far as Ross is concerned, I have never heard of his work." Angus also suggested "it would make a great deal of sense to go through the article looking for poor quality references and replace them with whatever it is that O'Grada, Kinealy and Donnelly say." Now I've done most of that. Ross’s is a general history devoting 4 pages to the subject. Academics, like Christine Kinealy, Cormac Ó Gráda, Cecil Woodham-Smith, Cathal Póirtéir, Helen Litton, James S. Donnelly, and Peter Gray have devoted entire volumes. You might be interested to read WP:WEIGHT, and as you have said yourself, "fringe theories are not acceptable on the wikipedia" and to compare Ross to the above academics, would be like comparing “A Pocket History” to Encyclopædia Britannica. Your post above raises a number of issues, issues which have all been gone through before and I shall not be going through it all again. Likewise the Chronology of the Great Famine, we've been there already. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please give academic references regarding the merits or demerits of Ross. The opinions of wikipedia editors are not valid. Hell, I'm an academic who has edited several books and nobody listens to me here....But just to add that in the world of academia nobody I know is snorting down their nose in fury at Ross. He has done a decent, workmanlike job in his volume with no errors of fact as far as I can see. Please point these out these errors if you can see them, just out of interest for me. The point of refs (for academics) is that they are an indication that the whole thing is not a personal fantasy on the part of the author. Questioning the credentials of refs usually leads into an infinite regress. Therefore, we academics are usually quite tolerant of most things intended to increase knowledge, it is POV pushing journalists, lawyers and politicians who get most hot-under-the-collar at anything they dissaprove of (for political reasons), throwing sand in the eyes of the "opposition" and, inter alia, censoring opposing viewpoints (also authors who self publish their "works of genius", rather than getting it peer-approved by academics, but that is another matter...of interest mainly to academics...I guess...). On all accounts, avoid infinite regress, that way lies madness. Colin4C (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Spot the difference

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

1,:

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

2,:

August

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

September

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

October

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

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

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

November

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

The Troubles

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

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

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

Oops...

Under the influence of too much alchohol I just breached the WP IRR regulation. Mea culpa. I have therefore have restored Domer's edit. Colin4C (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Colin4C your revert was and is very much appreciated. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this about the Irish potatoe femine ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.72.177 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

see this is the problem with Irish wiki pages... 86.41.166.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC).

Editing Nassau Senior Quote

Still other critics saw reflected in the government's response the government's attitude to the so-called "Irish Question." Nassau Senior, an economics professor at Oxford University, complained in a letter to the government that, whilst at a social event, he overhead the government's chief economist state that the Famine "would not kill more than one million people, and that would scarcely be enough to do any good."[133]

Timmygb66 (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What reference do you propose using? --Domer48_'fenian' 07:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This reference is out of context and highly misleading and disingenuous. The professor was clear speaking from a Malthusian perspective, which was the prevailing population/economic theory of its day. According to the theory, of which Ireland was a prime example, populations will continue to grow until all are at subsistence level, irrespective of technology, government policy, etc. Ireland had clearly reached breaking point (this was not their first potato famine) since about 50% of the population was living on a > 60% potato diet (Mokyr, O'Grada). According to whatever calculations the professor had made, he must have surmised that if one million rural poor had perished, yet returned to their previous lifestyle, population levels would return to pre-famine and the whole process begun again, just as Malthusian theory predicted. I recommend the editing of this entry, on that basis.

daithi81 (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2010 (CET) 'Spontaneous order is the result of human action but not of human design' (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dubious "Starving Irish family during the famine" photograph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

Population growth

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

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

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

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

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

Now you include the text “with some 1841 estimates as high as 10 million.Toll of Holocaust - irishholocaust.org. Now that’s obviously not true because the source says “The 1841 census of Ireland revealed a population of 10,897,449” but the 1841 census gives a figure of 1841 8,175,124 [2] based on sources you give. Please read the discussions here here on this source.

You also use this source [3] which says that between 1754 and 1841 the rate of growth between the two countries was almost identical. So I ask again what the relevance of the proposed section is. You indicate that population growths relevance is primarily about claims of there being a surplus population but the text makes no mention of this at all. The proposed text only deals with census figures with questionable reliability and questionable sources. So let’s agree what the section is about first. Is it about questionable census figures or claims of there being a surplus population?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 2. I pointed out again on sources that they contradicted each other, and this contradiction is not mentioned at all. This was also ignored. So I’ll repeat it again! You include the text “with some 1841 estimates as high as 10 million.Toll of Holocaust - irishholocaust.org. Now that’s obviously not true because the source says “The 1841 census of Ireland revealed a population of 10,897,449” but the 1841 census gives a figure of 8,175,124 [4] based on sources you give.”

• 3. Andrew also uses this source [5] which says that between 1754 and 1841 the rate of growth between the two countries was almost identical. But in addition to that we know that even the population had been declining since before 1831. What does that say about suggestions of overpopulation. As was pointed out by John Mitchel on the claims of there being a surplus population in Ireland at the time, that Ireland was then the only country in the world with two surpluses, a surplus population and surplus of food produced on Irish soil to feed them. No sign of that in the proposed text?

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed draft

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently strange claim

In the Causes and contributing factors section one finds the following passage, of which I have emboldened the part which I am querying:

• This was a contrast to Britain, which was beginning to enjoy the modern prosperity of the Victorian and Industrial ages. Laws against education of Irish Catholics and possession of land had made such a progress impossible until the Penal Laws were repealed only fifty years before the Famine, but the economical recovery was slow because the landlord families still kept their land.

This appears to amount to a claim that two measures under the penal laws made industrialisation impossible. Without questioning the veracity of such a claim, it appears to be unsourced. Views? Mooretwin (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Mooretwin (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you asked a week ago and nobody has replied. But there's no deadline and it seems like it tries to answer a question our readers might well ask themselves - why no Industrial Revolution in (most of) Ireland? Perhaps you could try to replace the text with something referenced? Or find someone who might be able to source it or to supply a referenced alternative. The Course of Irish History, which is all I have to hand, remarks upon the different experience of the north-east and the rest (pp. 276-7), but it doesn't offer any explanations. I'm sure a more detailed history would do so. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Need a link to an article on the Royal Commission's composition and findings

Need a link to an article on the Royal Commission's composition and findings. It's hard to square the Daniel O'Connell quote with the subsequent quotes of the commissioners. Having some of the substance of the Commission's findings would give a context to O'Connell's criticism, and any efforts to reform the governance, tenancy system, etc in the years just before the famine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.240.40 (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not what i needed!!!

Bold text I needed information on the relief works of the Famine!!! Ugh!!! People these days —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.239.9 (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Article name

My apologies if this has already been discussed, but with 15 pages of archive I really don't fancy wading through it all to find out. I'd like to prefix this by saying I'm aware the article title is pretty much the common-use name for that period in history. Is it right that the article should be called "Great Famine (Ireland)"? There was no famine as such. There was a widespread potato blight. All other crops (to the best of my knowledge) and livestock were fine, but forcibly exported. Again, I know "famine" is common use - but it just doesn't seem right. I'd suggest the English translation of "an Gorta Mór" (the Great Hunger) would be a more accurate and more appropriate title. It describes what actually happened far more closely than does "Great Famine". Thoughts? Jack of Many (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh please no! It's been discussed, at huge length. I think there may even be Arbcom rulings involved... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

*choke*! That's some discussion. Think I'll stay WELL out of that one. I'll stand by my comments about "famine" being an odd word to describe the loss of a single crop through blight and the loss of the others through export until I'm blue in the face - but as for the name of the article - nah. Not worth getting into it. Thanks a million for the link to the right archive page. Slán. Jack of Many (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I just read through the discussion in Talk:Great_Famine_(Ireland)/Archive_13 and I cannot understand how there was a ruling of no clear consensus. There is a clear consensus to move it to Irish Potato Famine per WP:COMMONNAME and a vocal minority opposing it. Hot button topic I know but just doesn't seem right. -Johnm4 (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Be warned

There might be a bit of vandalism on this site soon. Just word around the campfire. Fergananim (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman Aid

The source seems dodgy to me - it seems to be a website quoting one person quoting another person quoting another. Not really solid evidence - This turkish magazine quoting someone called Thomas O'Neill quoting someone else. I personally would delete it unless anyone can find something other than internet hearsay. Alternatively make it clear that there is not much evidence to support it. That is not to say that I rule out the generosity of the then sultan. He was probably wealthy enough to make a gesture like that. The personal attribution to Queen Victoria of the refusal sounds unlikely though. If the story is true and the money was refused, it was probably an over-zealous diplomat rather than a personal response from QV. Muchado (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Update... after some research, I find the following source from a book scanned by Google:

"During the year of famine in Ireland, the Sultan heard of the distress existing in that unhappy country; he immediately conveyed to the British ambassador his desire to aid in its relief, and tendered for that purpose a large sum of money. It was intimated to him that it was thought right to limit the sum subscribed by the Queen, and a larger amount could not therefore be received from his highness. He at once acquiesced in the propriety of this resolution, and with many expressions of benevolent sympathy, sent the greatest admissible subscription." pages 20-21, "The Sultan of Turkey, Abdul Medjid Khan: A Brief Memoir of his Life and Reign, with Notices of the country, its Army, Navy & present Prospects", Rev. Henry Christmas, published by John Farquhar Shaw, London, 1854

I propose that this quote be added rather than the current content, unless full support for it can be found. Also, it seems that there may be some historical reference to aid from Turkey to Drogheda - this should probably also be put in if it can be sourced. Muchado (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

On the latter - no. The President made reference to it recently in a speech (namely the inclusion of the crescent moon in Drogheda's coat of arms, which she said was in response to Turkish aid in the famine) and it then had to be retracted, as the symbol had been present for centuries. See here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hyperlink to pp20-21 of ref supplied by Muchado: The Sultan of Turkey, Abdul Medjid Khan: A Brief Memoir of his Life and Reign, with Notices of the country, its Army, Navy & present Prospects There is however no reference that the Ottoman Empire "secretly sent three ships full of food", either at this source or the questionable source in the article at present. See WP:REDFLAG for referencing 'extraordinary claims'. RashersTierney (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Racist bias

This article has a distinct racist bias. Namely the reference to Irish as 'Native Irish'. As opposed to what, exactly? Foreign Irish? Are you implying that Protestants are not 'native'? There is no such thing as a 'native Irish' person - even the most ardent fenian would agree with me, in both John Mitchell's 'Jail Journal' and O'Donavon Rossa's 'Recollections', they never once refer to a 'native irishman'. Please correct this obvious insertion of racist bias. 86.40.196.177 (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)