Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)

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 , .13 (requested moves) , .14 , .15 (empty)...

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• Format references per WP:CITE/ES to include publisher and access dates
• Merge the same references together, such as "Líam Kennedy, Paul S. Ell, E. M. Crawford & L. A. Clarkson, Mapping The Great Irish Famine, Four Courts Press, 1999, ISBN 1 85182 353 0 pg. 104"
• "Additional reading" → "Further reading"
• Resolve citation needed tags
• All references should have a space after them before any other punctuation marks
• References needed:
  • "A more radical Young Ireland group seceded"
  • "The fall-out of the famine continued for decades afterwards."
  • The quotes in "Food exports to England"
  • "Claims of potato dependency" section
  • "There were a number of reasons for this..."
  • "Mitchel because of his writings was charged with sedition, but this charge was dropped, and he was convicted under a new law purposefully enacted of Treason Felony Act and sentenced to 14 years transportation. "
  • " Memorials" section

Gary King (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been no response in a week, so this GAN has failed. Please renominate the article once these issues have been addressed. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional Info

I have seen an article (SciAm?) that expands the current statement "was exacerbated by a host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate.[8][9]" Including the study findings of economists on the impacts of panic / hording would add much to the historical value of the piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.167.7 (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the Lead, the broader details are in the article. I will beging to expand the sections over the coming days. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You have completely reworked and reworded the lead, against concensus, describing the Great Famine as a 'highly contentious period' rather as er...a famine...Please discuss rationale of controversial massive changes and deletions in the article here.

Previous version of intro:

The Great Famine (Irish: An Gorta Mór or Irish: An Drochshaol), also known as the Irish Potato Famine and the Great Hunger was a famine in Ireland which started in 1845, lasted– depending on the region– until 1849 or even 1852 and which led to the death of approximately one million people through starvation and disease; a further million are thought to have emigrated as a result of the famine. Some scholars estimate that the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent. All of this occurred while taxes, rents, and food exports were being collected and sent to British landlords, in an amount surpassing £6 million.

The proximate cause of the famine was a potato disease commonly known as late blight. Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland– where a third of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food– was exacerbated by a host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate.

Colin4C (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link / diff to consensus. The word "famine" is highly contentious, as a reading of the article indicates. Please explain why you removed an image I placed in the lead section? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Domer's version:

The Great Famine (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life) is a highly contentious period [1] of history between 1845 and 1852 during which the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent. The proximate cause of the famine was a potato disease commonly known as late blight. Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland– where a third of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food– was exacerbated by a host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate.

Please explain why you completely reworded and changed the meaning of the first paragraph and deleted the referenced second paragraph, against concensus? And why did you call these massive changes a 'clean-up'? Colin4C (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Colin4C (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And why did you delete the referenced info about the number of deaths and the number of those who emigrated?:

"and which led to the death of approximately one million people through starvation and disease; a further million are thought to have emigrated as a result of the famine.[5]"

Colin4C (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the image, but not your massive changes and deletions of referenced material. Colin4C (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No one died in 1845, so was it the start of the “famine” or the start of the blight? The blight had ended by 1852, but people still were dieing, dose it mark the end of the blight or the “famine.” All the figures on deaths and emigration are disputed and should be dealt with in the article. Please reference 1849 as the end of the blight/famine or remove it. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Circa one million dead and one million emigrated is the number given in the reference. Many reliable sources give this figure, which is consonant with the census figures. Please provide references which give a different number or cast doubt on this figure. Note that fringe theories are not acceptible on the wikipedia. The references given (Kinealy, Woodham-Smith and Ross say that the Famine started and finished on the dates shown. Please provide alternative references that say differently. Colin4C (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The census figures are the most disputed figure in the article, please read it again. Now please answer the question, what started in 1845? Was it a) the blight or b) the famine? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My opinions do not matter. On the wikipedia we are not allowed to indulge in original research. According to the refs given (Kinealy, Woodham-Smith and Ross) the Famine started in 1845. Please provide refs giving alternative dates. Colin4C (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, according to the wikipedia: "A famine is a widespread shortage of food that may apply to any faunal species, which phenomenon is usually accompanied by regional malnutrition, starvation, epidemic, and increased mortality." Colin4C (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Kinealy and Woodham-Smith and numerous others all say the blight started in 1845. So please change it to reflect sources, or shall I. Wiki can not be used as a source by the way. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Note the titles and dates of their books:

• Cecil Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845–1849
• Christine Kinealy, This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52 Colin4C (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No. They are book titles, again, both Kinealy and Woodham-Smith in their books say the blight started in 1845. No do you want to change the text to reflect the sources or shall I. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If the Famine started in 1846, why do Kinealy and Woodham Smith say that it started in 1845? Please provide ref which states that the Famine started in another year. Colin4C (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have, Kinealy and Woodham-Smith to name just two. Now another example, Gearóid Ó Tuathaigh his book titled Ireland Before The Famine 1798 - 1848. Now we would not use that book title as a reference would we? Like you have above, because on page 181 he says the blight arrived in 1845 he also says on page 182 that there was still substantial crop failures in 1850 so 1849 was not the end of the blight? So again, the lead will have to be changed to reflect the sources. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ross says (on page 311):

"1845

• Potato blight crosses the Atlantic and appears in England. It crosses to Wexford and Waterford (first newspaper report, 9 September). Half the annual potato harvest is ruined (November). The Great Famine begins".

Please provide a source and a quote which states that the Great Famine (which is the title of this article) started in any other year. On what page do Kinealy and Woodham-Smith state that the Great Famine started in 1846? I have Woodham-Smith so can check her statement.Colin4C (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Woodham-Smith page 40, Kinealy page xxiii and 6 arrival of the blight. No deaths in 1845 so no "famine." Now we will not be using Ross as a source, and I intend to remove all references to him. There are plenty of book on the subject, we don’t need one which is simply a series of bullet points. I don't need to provide a reference to the title of this article. The period in question is from 1845 to 1852 which is the last recorded instance of blight and deaths as a result of same.

So getting back to the point in hand, this is (1845 to 1852) a 'highly contentious period' in Irish history during which the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent. This is supported by references, and also by the text in the article. Any and all figures on death and emigration are disputed, I should know I added most of them to the article, and dealt with in detail in the article. Unless you have some other sourced based reasons? I will address the issues or if you wish to please do. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ross is a perfectly valid ref, according to wikipedia guidelines, therefore we will be using him. Also please provide requested refs and quote which state that the Great Famine started in 1846. Woodham-Smith doesn't say so on page 40. Colin4C (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Great Famine is the name of the article, now provide a reference that says that the blight did not start in 1845, or one that says that the first deaths were in 1845. No Ross is not an acceptable source when compared to the body of books on the subject who are devoted to the one subject dealing in hundreds of pages compared to one which deals with the whole period in 4. Like you said yourself "fringe theories are not acceptible on the wikipedia" especially ones which offer absolutely no real theory or analysis of the subject. How could he do in 4 pages what Kinealy and Woodham-Smith for example did in 462 and 510 respectively? Now if you have no other objections, I going to move on with improving the article. I will introduce the changes outlined, however if you wish to seek WP:3 please do so. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)With respect, allow me to attempt to add a little perspective. When people talk about "The Great Famine", it is a term that refers to a period of time. The period of time has a name. A bit like "The Great Depression" or "The Celtic Tiger". It doesn't necessarily mean that the words are to be taken literally. From this perspective, the "period of time" referred to as "The Great Famine" doesn't need to refer explicitly to the from-to dates relating to starvation, but may also refer to dates and occurrences leading up to starvation, and the aftermath, etc. HighKing (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you HighKing my point exactly, only better put. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the arguments above that propose "a highly contentious period of time" do not move me at all. This is not for reasons of politics, but simply because it seems to be very, very bad writing. For one thing, you can't have a reference that links to another part of the article as your citation. More importantly, the second sentence starts "the proximate cause of the famine". It is simply confusing to the reader, bad writing, and gives the impression of carry water for some other point entirely, though I don't know what that is. Hiro Antagonist (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Compleatly unsourced changes. The references do not support the text. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the WP:LEAD of an article is supposed to summarize the contents of the article as a whole. If items are sourced in the body of the article, it is unnecessary, and even ill-advised, to provide separate citation there. In short, you are incorrect. Hiro Antagonist (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The information is not supported by the references, nor the body of the article. Please provide direct quotes from the sources you cite to support the inclusion of the proposed text. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to state precisely what "information" you feel is unsupported, and I will supply references. Hiro Antagonist (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a direct quote from Ross which supports "is the most commonly used of several terms describing the period from 1845."--Domer48_'fenian' 20:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's Ross? And why do you need a citation from him, rather than someone else? I can certainly amend to say "one of several terms", but you seem to be being belligerent, rather than collegial. Is the issue that you think something other than "Great Famine" should be used. I don't care about that, it is the "highly contentious period" BS that I find objectionable. It's poor writing and gobbledygook. Hiro Antagonist (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally when you reference an author, you would know who they are? The lead is correctly sourced according to our policies of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Any objections should be policy based. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So, you are feeling rather warmer towards Ross than your previous statements may have indicated? Glad you have come round to my point of view. Colin4C (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Highly Contentious

Oh brother. I seem to have walked into a minefield here. After perusing this talkpage and archive, I now see that this "highly contentious" versus "famine" argument has been going on for months, if not years. Can someone provide a synopsis of the underlying argument? If seems totally absurd to a newcomer. To me, the Great Famine / Great Hunger / Irish Potato Famine or whatever was just that -- a famine, that occurred during a certain period of time, not a period of time that just happened to contain a famine. I can't see any reasonable justification for the latter point of view. I have more than a passing familiarity with issues of Irish nationalism, and this one is new to me, so an explanation would be lovely. Hiro Antagonist (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Citations are a good idea. I am glad we have 152 of them. Colin4C (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead Section duex

Colin4C could you please provide quotes from the books by Christine Kinealy, Cecil Woodham-Smith and David Ross which supports the text in the first paragraph of the Lead.

As you are aware, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged should 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.

When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.--Domer48_'fenian' 22:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So if I ask you to quote the bit where you allege that Woodham-Smith says that the Great Famine started in 1846, you are willing to oblige? Colin4C (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Now you have restored material, and I've ask you to provide direct quotes from the source and requested that you provide them as a courtesy to substantiate the reference. Could you please do that now thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There should be little call for references in the lead. It is not a mini-article, or a section, it is a summary of what the rest of the article says as explained in WP:LEAD. The content of the lead pretty much writes itself if the rest of the article is done properly. Now, as far as the references go, these should include page numbers. The person writing the article presumably has the book in front of them, so it is no effort at all to add the page number. And even to quote relevant extracts, although not excessively, if necessary. The same is not true of the reader. So please add page numbers to references. Then there will be no need to be asking for them after the event. And when you have questions about the text, do ask politely and don't badger. However, if asked to give page numbers, or to explain the reading of a source, Domer48 is quite right in identifying where the burden of proof lies.

We've been through this before. Everyone should know what's expected. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Angus for your timely intervention, it should help prompt things to move on. You are quite right about the, Lead there should be little call for references. However, as the Lead is not supported by either the Article or the references, I’ve asked for the clarification.

Salient points.

• The blight arrived in 1845, not the famine. No deaths recorded in 1845 due to starvation or related diseases. (cite: Cormac Ó Gráda, and Christine Kinealy)
• The last recorded instances of blight in this period, was 1852. (cite: Christine Kinealy)
• Blight was only one of the proximate causes of the famine. (cite: Cormac Ó Gráda, and Christine Kinealy)
• 1845 – 1852 is one of the most contentious periods in Irish history. (cite: Cormac Ó Gráda, and Christine Kinealy).

Note: sources can be supplemented with additional ones.

Therefore, I’ve explained to Colin4C when there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference. With you intervention Angus, Colin4C will respond in a positive way, allowing us to move on with improving the article.--Domer48_'fenian' 09:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the reference given (Ross) the Great Famine began in 1845: I quote this from page 311 of Ross:

"1845

• Potato blight crosses the Atlantic and appears in England. It crosses to Wexford and Waterford (first newspaper report, 9 September). Half the annual potato harvest is ruined (November). The Great Famine begins".

Please provide quotes stating that the Great Famine started in 1846. Colin4C (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that Colin4C. On Salient points above, point one. The blight arrived in 1845, not the Great Famine. Now as has been pointed out in the past, Ross’s is a general history devoting 4 pages to the subject. Academics, like those above, 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. Please point to a source in the article which supports Ross? --Domer48_'fenian' 09:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any quotes supporting your view that the Great Famine started in 1846. Please do so. Colin4C (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C as you are aware, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I have said that the blight started in 1845, not the famine, and I have supported it already as you know. Could you please address the points I've raised, and the questions I posed, and lets move this discussion forward. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 10:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So, by this logic, any editor who deletes large chunks of this article, as you did by your edit of 17:45, 2 November 2008, can require the editor who restores the material to provide quotes for all the referenced material so deleted, be it one page, two pages or a hundred pages? Each separate restoration of deleted material can be presented with a request to provide quotes for all the references given? Such gaming the system is not in the interests of the wikipedia. Colin4C (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C as you are aware, I gave a rational for my edits, however you have not. Now please address the points I have raised above. To answer your question though, yes. If you restore information, you must provide a rational, and yes the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Now in the case of unexplained revisions including removing large chunks of text, can be reverted as per blanking or vandalism. I hopr that helps. So if you would please, address the points I've raised, and the questions I posed. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 10:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So if an editor restored a deleted a paragraph containing 10 references from 10 different books, with each citation referring to 3 pages of text, then the editor who deleted it can require the editor who restored it to quote all the texts from all the references? This operation can be continued indefinately until the restoring editor is beaten into the ground by having to devote four hours a day in quoting references from hard to find books which he has to buy or get from inter-library loans? Meanwhile the deleting editor does nothing. I may be wrong but this procedure seems to me very like gaming the system. Maybe an admin would like to comment on whether it is acceptible to do this? Colin4C (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have explained this already, however I will try again. If an editor removes vast amounts of referenced text, they would have to provide a rational for this edit. If no rational is offered, any editor can come along and restore it without having to explain the revert. The burden of evidence would not be on the editor who restores an unexplained removal.

In this case however, I’ve provided a rational. Now you can do one of two things in a situation as far as I know, first of you can discuss the change on the talk page, and ask me to expand / explain (back it up) further my rational, or you can restore the information offering your own rational. However if the information is challenged the burden of evidence moves to the editor who has restored it. That is my understanding of it in anyway?

So could we please move on with building the article. Please assume good faith, and address the points I raised above. Please provide the quotes, which support the text you restored, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 19:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Let me change the subject, slightly. I have no idea why half of the sources which are listed are being used. I can understand, even if I don't agree with it because I have read The Reason Why, why Woodham-Smith is there. But Ross? The Urises? Rifkin? And so on. So far as Ross is concerned, I have never heard of his work. I would have thought that Foster's Oxford History of Ireland or Moody & Martin's Course of Irish History would be the obvious choices for a single-volume history of Ireland to use for broad context. The Oxford book should be very widely available, the Moody & Martin one maybe not so easy for editors furth of Ireland to get hold of.

So far as books on the famine proper go, Woodham-Smith and Kinealy should be easy enough to find in libraries or second-hand book shops. The O'Grada book on the famine looks like serious business, and Donnelly's history for Sutton looks promising. He wrote the relevant bits of Ireland under the Union, which seems like a major recommendation to me. If I were buying one book on the famine, unseen, and that would be one more than I have, I think I'd be tempted to go with Donnelly over Kinealy by a nose.

Anyway, my book-buying habits are not directly relevant. What is relevant is that you both, or if we take a longer view, you all, need to stop faffing around. You'll only make real progress by coming up with a plan, a plan that any interested editor would find acceptable, for improving the article. Like I already said, the lead should write itself almost. You should be concentrating on the body of the article, fixing up the references, removing the cruft, adding more reliably-sourced opinions on the matter. There is a shit load of stuff has been written about this. There is no reason to be using Victorian antiquarian tat, random websites, or the like. Nor is there any reason to be complaining when asked to substantiate the claims in the article, although, for argument's sake, were you to ask for quotes from Woodham-Smith, that would tend towards being bloody-minded in my view. It is only reasonable to expect that all editors will some effort to verify sources themselves. And we're all reasonable people, right?

So, does it matter when the famine started? I can't see it myself. Arguments over obscure points which seem irrelevant make me doubt the possibility of progress. Should I come to believe that editor X is an obstacle to progress on this article, editor X will not be editing it. So make me feel warm and fuzzy and convinced of the great progress to come by telling me how you plan to make this a featured article. To my mind, an article which meets WP:NPOV and WP:V only needs brilliant prose added to meet the requirements of a featured article. So, to put it another way, how is this article going to be brought into line with the neutral point of view and verifiability policies? And how does quibbling over the lead help to achieve that? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Angus you posed a question, dose it matter when the famine started? I’d say it dose, for a number of reasons, for one, this is an encyclopaedia and we strive for accuracy. Put another way, dose it matter that we know at 8:46 a.m., American Airlines Flight 11 was flown into the World Trade Centre’s North Tower, or that United Airlines Flight 175 which hit the South Tower at 9:03 a.m? What about the 28 June 1914, when Gavrilo Princip, shot and killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Dose it matter that we know on the 7 August, French and British troops invaded Togoland or that on the 10 August German forces in South-West Africa attacked South Africa. So dose it matter when the famine started, of course it dose, and don’t you agree?

When did the “famine” start? According to Cormac Ó Gráda (Ireland’s Great Famine: Interdisciplinary Prespectives, pg. 9) “The first attack of potato blight inflicted considerable hardship on rural Ireland, though no significant excess mortality. The catastrophe of the Great Irish Famine really dates from the autumn of 1846, when the first deaths from starvation were recorded.” This is a view shared by Christine Kinealy (This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52 pg.xxiii), who asks the question “can it be labelled a famine if there are no deaths? James S. Donnelly (The Great Irish Potato Famine, page 57) writes “Under blackened stalks and leaves the tubers lay completely rotten or were as small as marbles; fields affected by the blight gave off an intolerable stench. With these sights and smells in the summer of 1846, the great famine began.” Líam Kennedy, Paul S. Ell, E. M. Crawford & L. A. Clarkson (Mapping The Great Irish Famine pg.36) discuss Joel Mokyr’s estimates of deaths the best know at a county level, over the course of the famine. The dates used by Mokyr are from 1846-51. In addition to this we have Cecil Woodham-Smith, (The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849, pg. 71) who quoting Routh one of the five commissioners appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant as saying, throughout these months, [Spring 1846] as famine was “steadily and gradually approaching” evictions were reported weekly.

Based on the above noted authors in their field, I would suggest that the famine began in 1846. I would also suggest, based again on the above authors, that the blight arrived in Ireland in September 1845. Would you not agree?

In the above ongoing discussion, have I explained our policy correctly? If not could you possibly lend your opinions? If you would like my views on the books you have mentioned above, please let me know, I’d be more than willing to help.

Having addressed the Lead, it is my intension to go through each of the sections one at a time, starting with “Migration of blight to Ireland” building and expanding them as I go along. I will also address the sources you have raised, as no notable and replace them with more accredited authors. Any and all information unreferenced, I will attempt to reference. Any information I’m unable to reference I will place on the talk page and ask for assistance and advice. Having completed this, I will ask for a review and respond to the advice offered. I would then, with the assistance of interested editors attempt to have the good article status restored. That is roughly the short, medium and long term goals I would like to achieve. Obviously any and all advice and support you can offer would be welcome. On a final note, Colin4C has indicated that they have a copy of Woodham-Smith, and I agree with you that to ask for quotes from Woodham-Smith, that would tend towards being bloody-minded if they did not have a copy. I hope I have responded in a detailed way to your comments and questions. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I can only bore you by repeating what I said. When do you say the famine starts in the lead? You say it starts whenever the chronology section, the bit that gets referenced, says it does. When you've finished writing the main article, you can round up a brilliant prose expert from somewhere and get them to write the lead for you. Why keep a dog and bark yourself?

I hope you'll be adding any of these references that aren't there already to the article because they're not very much use here. And if you're sitting on copies of O'Grada, Kinealy and Donnelly, 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. With three references you'll be on pretty solid ground, and sure that you're not just getting one side of the story. The fact that you're more than capable of doing that, because you have both the research materials and the skills needed, and instead are ending up by wasting your time on the trivia, is rather disappointing. There is nothing would make me happier than being able to vote for this article at WP:FAC in good conscience. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have referenced material which states unequivocally that Peel was responding to famine conditions in 1845 and that he took administrative measures to deal with it and also purchased Indian Corn from America to deal with the situation. All this occured in 1845, not 1846 as Domer alleges. And Domer has still not provided the quotes I asked him to back up his assertion that the Great Famine started in 1846. The one and only person who has provided quotes in this article is me. Despite this it seems that they are not good enough. Is that because the quotes totally contradict the assertion made by certain editors(not backed up by quotes) that the Great Famine started in 1846? Also why does Kenealy in the title of her book about the Great Famine use the figure 1845, if the Great Famine started in 1846? Colin4C (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Colin4C but I don’t allege anything at all. I imagine you must have overlooked my last post above which provides five references. But if it help you, I’ll provide another, “The Famine of 1846-50 marks a major turning point in the economic and social development of modern Ireland.” Donald Jordan, Fearful Realities: New Perspectives on the Famine, Chris Morash & Richard Hayes (Editors), Irish Academic Press (Dublin 2000), ISBN 0 7165 2566 6, pg.35.

DONALD JORDAN is Brigham Distinguished Professor of Humanities at Menlo College in California. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of California, Davis, and is the author of Land and Popular Politics in Ireland: County Mayo from the Plantation to the Land War (Cambridge University Press, 1994)

Now you have six references which say 1846 is when the famine began. Now provide your quotes, if you will but you will find Peel was only preparing for impending disaster caused by the blight. As you are aware, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged should 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. I've ask you to provide direct quotes from the source and requested that you provide them as a courtesy to substantiate the reference. Could you please do that now thanks,--Domer48_'fenian' 16:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Woodham-Smith, who wrote a volume called 'The Great Hunger', published in 1962 by Hamish Hamilton, which many think is the standard volume on the Famine, writes this on page thirty one: "in 1845 when famine came the population might well have been above nine millions". Colin4C (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C, if you check again, you will see that she is actually citing someone. The reference number is 28.

• According to Cormac Ó Gráda “The first attack of potato blight inflicted considerable hardship on rural Ireland, though no significant excess mortality. The catastrophe of the Great Irish Famine really dates from the autumn of 1846, when the first deaths from starvation were recorded.” (Ireland’s Great Famine: Interdisciplinary Prespectives, pg. 9)
• James S. Donnelly writes “Under blackened stalks and leaves the tubers lay completely rotten or were as small as marbles; fields affected by the blight gave off an intolerable stench. With these sights and smells in the summer of 1846, the great famine began.” (The Great Irish Potato Famine, page 57)
• Joel Mokyr’s estimates of deaths the best know at a county level, over the course of the famine. The dates used by Mokyr are from 1846-51.(Líam Kennedy, Paul S. Ell, E. M. Crawford & L. A. Clarkson Mapping The Great Irish Famine pg.36)
• Cecil Woodham-Smith, who quoting Routh one of the five commissioners appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant as saying, throughout these months, [Spring 1846] as famine was “steadily and gradually approaching” evictions were reported weekly.(The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849, pg. 71)
• “The Famine of 1846-50 marks a major turning point in the economic and social development of modern Ireland.” Donald Jordan, Fearful Realities: New Perspectives on the Famine, Chris Morash & Richard Hayes (Editors), Irish Academic Press (Dublin 2000), ISBN 0 7165 2566 6, pg.35.

As I have explained a number of time, the blight arrived in 1845, and the famine in 1846. Now the sources support this, so the Lead must reflect this. I’m going to place some of this information in the article, and change the Lead to reflect it. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Woodham-Smith is not quoting somebody else, but stating her own views. But seeing as you are still not satisfied I shall give you some more quotes from a recent historical book which suggests, based on archival research, that the Great Famine started in (Nov-Dec) 1845. In The Great Shame (1999) by Thomas Keneally he mentions "the Irish Famine, which began in 1845" (xi). He clarifies this on page 110 where he remarks that "By 8 November 1845 the Mercury's headline read: THE THREATENED FAMINE. No further hopeful editorials appeared. The time had begun to which the Irish applied the name an Gorta Mor - the Great Hunger". He further reports, on the same page, that "by mid-February 1846, the survey of the destitute population of the five townlands in the barony of Longford near Lismany found that 211 persons in the district were "absolutely starving". Ross, Woodham-Smith and Keneally all concur that the Famine started in late 1845, not 1846. By the way, your heartless Cormac O Grada seems to have overlooked those starving 211 of February. The facts, however, are against such overfed revisionist bourgeois academics who mock the suffererings of the poor, using the weasel-word "hardship" to describe a starving individual, reduced to skin and bone, who is, however, not yet a dead corpse to be added to the number-crunch. A victim of starvation in a Famine does not necessarily have to be dead. Colin4C (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I’m afraid you are incorrect, Woodham-Smith is actually quoting B. Disraeli in the house of commons Feb 15 1847, who in turn was quoting Captain Wynne in a letter he sent to Sectary of the Public works December 5 1846. Now Thomas Keneally, the novelist dose say on page ix, however page 110, none of the remarks you quote appear. Regardless, I have provided enough quotes from Academics to satisfy our policies on both WP:V, WP:RS and important in this case WP:WEIGHT.

As your willing to accept Woodham –Smith as a book “which many think is the standard volume on the Famine” I will provide an exact quote from her as opposed to quoting anyone else.

“The consequences of a potato failure are not immediate: ‘The first effect of the disease is not scarcity, but plenty, owing to the people’s anxiety to dispose of their potatoes before they become useless.’ It was not until five or six months after a failure that famine began, after every scrap of food, every partially-diseased potato, every fragment that was conceivably edible by human beings, had disappeared. On October 27, 1845, Sir James Graham, the Home Secretary, wrote to Peel: ‘The extreme pressure from want will not take place until the month of April or May [1846]. It was then in 1822 that distress became extreme.’ Until April or May, then, the Commissioners had an interval to prepare. They were to ‘ascertain the extent of the deficiency and watch approaching famine, even in the most remote localities’ and to ‘assist in devising the necessary measures for the employment of the people and their relief’.” (Woodham-Smith pg.61)

Now you seem incapable of supporting your reversion, however I’m not in any hurry, there is no rush. So could we please move on with building the article. Please assume good faith, and address the points I raised above. Please provide the quotes, which support the text you restored, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 20:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not having knowledge of any of the sources, but assuming good faith that those provided are accurate, the one thing that seems pretty clear is as follows: its a matter of opinion when exactly when the human effects of a blight becomes a "famine". Thats hardly surprising, if you think about it, since when does any humanitarian concern become a problem, become a disaster, become a catastrophe? Where does the term "famine" fall in that spectrum? The same debate could be had over the famine in Ethiopia.

Unless there is a significant consensus among experts for one year over the other, my suggestion would simply to describe the different interpretations. In the main body, it can be described in some detail. In the lead it could simply be summarized along the lines of "...started in late 1845 or 1846 and lasted – depending on the region – until between 1849 and 1852".

I understand there are political implications for when the "famine" itself began, especially considering the intervention (or lack therefore) by the British. But this is all the more reason we should cover all significant historical interpretations of when something like a "famine" officially starts. Historians are not immune to having political agendas either, and we should be careful of adopting the interpretation of one political viewpoint over the other. Rockpocket 07:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As for what Domer says about Woodham-Smith, he is wrong. In the paragraph in question, she quotes an "intelligent relief officer", (not Disraeli...), and then adds her own comments:

"An intelligent relief officer wrote that the Census of 1841 was 'pronounced universally to be no fair criterion of the present population'. He had tested it in Co. Clare and found the population to be one third greater than had been recorded; therefore in 1845 when famine came the population might well have been above nine millions."

This last sentence is what Woodham-Smith says, not Disraeli, not "Captain Wynne", not even Colin Forcey: note where the quotation marks are. I am merely transcribing the text, printed in ink on page 31 of Woodham-Smith's book. I did not write it, Woodham-Smith did. You are free to ignore it. Everyone in this world is free to do as they like. Revisionist historians and supporters of British Imperialism and overfed number-crunchers can begin the Famine in 1846 if they want or even deny it entirely. It's a free world. No doubt that Kenealy's report that "by mid-February 1846, the survey of the destitute population of the five townlands in the barony of Longford near Lismany found that 211 persons in the district were "absolutely starving" is just a fantasy and that they were rather indulging themselves in the ultimate food-binge. Just ignore the quotations from the archives and the historians and believe what you like. Its only people starving, not serious at all, they are not dead yet, why are those Irish always complaining...hmmmmm pass that roast beef Carruthers, won't you...delicious! Colin4C (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As your willing to accept Woodham –Smith as a book “which many think is the standard volume on the Famine” I will provide an exact quote from her as opposed to quoting anyone else. Woodham-Smith is in Bold Type.

“The consequences of a potato failure are not immediate: ‘The first effect of the disease is not scarcity, but plenty, owing to the people’s anxiety to dispose of their potatoes before they become useless.’ It was not until five or six months after a failure that famine began, after every scrap of food, every partially-diseased potato, every fragment that was conceivably edible by human beings, had disappeared. On October 27, 1845, Sir James Graham, the Home Secretary, wrote to Peel: ‘The extreme pressure from want will not take place until the month of April or May [1846]. It was then in 1822 that distress became extreme.’ Until April or May, then, the Commissioners had an interval to prepare. They were to ‘ascertain the extent of the deficiency and watch approaching famine, even in the most remote localities’ and to ‘assist in devising the necessary measures for the employment of the people and their relief’.” (Woodham-Smith pg.61)--Domer48_'fenian' 21:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what either of you expect to achieve by repeating the same thing over and over, while ignoring each other. Rockpocket 20:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither am I. But I do know that WP:NPOV has the answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well could either admin suggest a way forward? BigDunc^Talk 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

When there are two (or more) stories, tell them both (or all), so long as there are sources for them. Sometimes one of them will clearly be a minority, in which case give it less space, or banish it to the footnotes. Cranky minority views or really old stuff can be ignored. Where it's not absolutely clear when X started, and this is a very common problem with historical stuff, stick to what the sources say, or reduce it to something uncontroversial. The blight started in 1845. The mortality started in 1846. And the famine? No need to say because the reader can make their own mind up based on whether they think a famine starts with a blight or with people starving to death. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As Editors can see on the Article I've not allowed this discussion to distract me from working on the Article. I changed the Lead and gave a rational, I was reverted and I asked for a rational. One was not forth comming so I asked for the Editor to support their revert per policy. They have still not done so. Now I know Admins don't get into issues of content, but you can advise on policy. If for examply I was to now revert (don't worrie I won't) now, any editor could come along and ask me to support the changes I've made. They could ask me to provide quoted text from each of the sources used, and I'd be obliged to provide them. Is that not correct? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, but things have moved on from there and there is now a discussion that can be used to inform us. So perhaps you might state explicitly how you would like to improve the lead (taking into about what has been revealed in the discussion above by you AND others). Likewise, whoever reverted could perhaps state explicitly how they think the lead can be modified to take the above into account. You might find that you come to the same conclusion. There is an obvious middle ground here, it just takes both of you to step back from making your own argument for a moment, and listen to what the other is saying. Rockpocket 21:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

edit break

Thanks to Editors/Admins for expressing an interest in this discussion. As has now been established by the leading authorities on the subject and cited above, the blight arrived in Ireland in 1845. The devastating effects of this blight in conjunction with a number of other factors resulted in the death hundreds of thousands of people from starvation and starvation related diseases. The first deaths started to occur in early 1846. Again, this is supported by the leading authorities on the subject.

This means that we have two specific events happening almost in parallel, and this period in Irish History is called by a host of different names. This time period has a starting time which is 1845 and the arrival of blight. The period when it is finished is less straight forward, and this is because we have to agree on which of the events determine the period. Is it the blight or the starvation and deaths? My view is, and this is shared by Christine Kinealy that it is the blight, the last recorded insistences of this particular period was in 1852.

What defines this period however, is the deaths. Were people still dying after 1852 from the effects from disease and starvation, I’d have to say yes. Can I point to a source which supports this, at the moment I’d have to say no? But I will continue to look. It is for this reason, that the date 1852 is the most applicable. Otherwise you start with a blight and finish with a famine. Within the time from 1845 to 1852, a period of blight you had one of the worst incidents in Irish history. That it is one of the most controversial periods in Irish history goes without saying. That is why the text I used is concise and supported by both the article and the sources cited. The current text is not supported by the sources currently being used, and is in fact contradicted by them.

"The Great Famine (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life) is a highly contentious period [2] of Irish history between 1845 and 1852[1] during which time the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent.[2] The proximate cause of the famine was a potato disease commonly known as late blight.[3] Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland – where a third of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food – was exacerbated by a host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate.[4][5]"--Domer48_'fenian' 22:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any of that except the very beginning, which is entirely outside the stylistic norms of Wikipedia. I think describing the subject of the article as "a highly contentious period" imparts absolutely zero knowledge. Its a bland, empty phrase, because almost every major geo-political event could be described as such. The opening sentence must, at the very least, state the obvious: it was a famine. And preferably give some basic info about where, when and scope. Once that is stated, the causes, exacerbating factors, ongoing controversy and lingering effects can then follow. I think your proposal has everything, it just needs to be ordered in our typical style. Rockpocket 01:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Rock I'll respond when I've considered it some more, I'd like to get it right. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say that Famine victims do not have to be dead? One can be a barely-living victim of famine. Equally measures to combat famine - famine relief measures - can be taken to obviate a famine before it takes place. The blight of 1845 instantly created famine conditions and everyone knew this and took action before they started dropping down dead. I thought that would be obvious to everybody. Colin4C (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The best way I can describe the article is like this: Someone pours petrol all over a house and puts a match to it. We don’t just write about a house fire? The blight was one of the main causes of famine, but there were a number of others. There were a host of social and political forces which acted like the petrol. The blight was like the match but also an accelerant. The famine was the house fire. While the event is called by various names, the most common term used in the title of books is famine. But all of the books deal with more that just this aspect. They cover the period before during and after. So could you help us and offer some opinions how we reflect this in the Lead, because I agree that “is a highly contentious period” probably dose not express it quite as well as it should? However to just say it was a famine, is not correct either. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand you analogy (and its quite a good one). But I would note that, if we were writing an article about the titular house fire. We would probably start out by stating just that: it was a house fire. We would then go on to describe all the factor that led to the fire and all the consequences (the death, the damage etc). The famine (and all its consequences) is called the "Famine" because that is the defining feature of the period (just like the fire itself would be the defining feature of all its causes and consequences). Its impossible to give all the information in the opening line, so we use a form of structural logic instead. If the first sentence was read in isolation, you would have a point, but taking those the immediately follow it, I don't see the problem in a simplified opening line. We have to start somewhere, afterall. Rockpocket 20:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rock for that, I would just make one point. Accepting my analogy would we not start the titular house fire article by describing it as arson? We would then go on to describe all the factors that led to the fire and subsequent consequences. To begin with stating it was a famine, gives undue weight to one aspect i.e. the effects of one crop failing out of fifteen crops not including other agricultural produce, and treating the causes as an ancillary matter. The question is, why did the failure of one crop have such a devastating impact in Ireland? How did the people come to be so dependant on one crop for sustenance? While Europe and Britain were affected by the same crop failure as Ireland, why was it only in Ireland that it resulted in famine? I would give three statements which can cast some light on the answers.

In 1997 Tony Blair speaking on the 150th anniversary of the famine said ‘Those who governed in London at the time failed their people through standing by while a crop failure turned into a massive human tragedy.’

In July 1998 Bertie Ahern in a speech on the 150th anniversary of the 1848 Rebellion said ‘The 1840s was a decade when all promises made at the time of the Act of Union about Ireland being treated equally within the United Kingdom were shown to be hollow and empty.’

John Mitchel writing from this period notes: ‘That an island which is said to be an integral part of the richest empire on the globe—and the most fertile portion of that empire…should in five years lose two and a half millions of its people (more than one-fourth) by hunger, and fever the consequence of hunger, and flight beyond sea to escape from hunger,—while that empire of which it is said to be a part, was all the while advancing in wealth, prosperity, and comfort, at a faster pace than ever before,—is a matter that seems to ask elucidation.’

So we have three distinct opinions, diverse times and backgrounds, all sharing the one opinion. Government failure created the conditions which gave rise to the disaster, and this article is about more than just the disaster. Why should the famine be given prominence over say the failure of the government? I must also point out in fairness to Tony Blaire, that John Major another British Prime Minister chose not to support the famine commemorations in Britain describing them as being a concern only to Ireland. I hope that explains my difficulty with your suggestion that we should just start out by saying it was a famine?--Domer48_'fenian' 13:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the the term "famine" doesn't give undue focus to the failure of the crop. My understanding of the term is that it refers to "a widespread shortage of food that is usually accompanied by regional malnutrition, starvation and increased mortality." That that nicely encapsulates the subject of the article. What "famine" doesn't focus on is the reasons there was a shortage of food, which is where the contentious aspect of this arises. "Famine" describes the effect (there was a shortage of food, starvation, death) without describing the causes (why there was a shortage of food, starvation, death). Rockpocket 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above discussions, I’ve attempted to address the issues associated with the lead. I’ve taken on board Colin4C view about the starting of the famine and mine by combining both the start of the famine and blight together and covering the whole period. Rock, while satisfied with most of the Lead had a problem with “contentious period” so I’ve removed it altogether and replacing it with the population fall, one of the most notable aspect of the time period. Editors have three options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. If an editor should choose to revert, could they please outline the reasons why and propose an alternative text here, as the previous text was not supported by the sources as detailed in this discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think the opening line is as informative as it was previously (for the reason described above), but it is certainly better the previous suggestion. That said, there is also redundancy to consider: the title is "The Great Famine" therefore it doesn't take a genius to work out we are talking about a famine. If it was entitled "The Great Hunger" then I would be more concerned. I'll choose the first of your three options. Rockpocket 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Causes and contributing factors

I was just wondering what Editors think of the John Reader text in this section. While I think it is detailed, the question I would ask is who is John Reader. The reason I ask is Donnelly in The Great Irish Potato Famine has an alternative account. So opinions and views are welcome. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the sort of article where we should be quoting the New York Times. Well, not unless it's from the 1840s, for vivid (and usually misleading) detail. Doesn't make any sense to me either to be using that source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed New York Times and replaced the text with more noted Authors of this subject.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fogarty

Good luck in ever getting me to agree that Fogarty's article is not the most authoritative as to the numbers eradicated as a result of the genocide perpetrated upon the Irish people and nation. The numbers are legitimate in their magnitude, compilation, and calculation. Fogarty's assertions are the most credible. No one ethnic group has a monopoly on a history of suffering genocide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahbie (talk • contribs)

I am afraid that is not how it works. Articles a built on consensus, I suggest you read it. BigDunc^Talk 21:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not got an opinion on Fogarty just yet. I placed it in the correct section and cited WP:LEAD. I still think that is the case, but other opinions would be welcome. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no intrest in the current dispute between Hahbie and Colin4C but I do have a problem with removing the referenced information I placed in this section here today. There was no reason for removing it, and all of the sources are respected authors on the subject. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So I just happened to be reading this article today, and it looks like this source, http://www.irishholocaust.org/tollofholocaust, disagrees with what appear to be mainstream authors who cite much lower death statistics. This web site appears to be a potentially biased source, but I an open to receiving documentation that this view is commonly held among respected historians. Otherwise, it should be presented as a minority view which disputes the mainstream consensus. -- Beland (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It would also lend a lot more credibility if anyone could cite more information about the author of this website than just the name "Fogarty"? Are they a professor or published historian? What is their full name and academic experience? Are the claims about this information being taught in schools true, or is that just self-serving propaganda? -- Beland (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The website clearly does not qualify as a reliable source as it doesn't even fully identify the author of the material. Basically, it's just somebody's blog, and is plainly a partisan advocacy site to boot. It has no place on wikipedia. Gatoclass (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the previous two contributors. The figures from "Fogarty" are way out. There's no place in the article for this kind of stuff.Hohenloh ⁺ 00:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Land consolidation

On the section titled Land consolidation it goes into the history of conquest, clearances and the Ulster Plantation, but dose not address the issue of Land consolidation in the context of the famine. Land consolidation entailed the breaking up of small holdings and consolidating these holdings into larger farms. This is completely different to what is there at the moment. I would suggest removing it and replacing it with links in a new body of text which deals with the issue in the proper context. Opinions would be welcome. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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)