Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Great Famine (Ireland) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 26, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
September 26, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ireland (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Death (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food exports[edit]

The quote attributed to O'Grada in this section is incorrect. Simply following the link to the source shows you that this quote comes not from a historian but from the 'Pocket Book of Ireland'. O'Grada's own claim is precisely the opposite, that Ireland imported far more than it exported during the famine and can be found here: Could someone change this so it is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The export of wagon-loads of food under military guard, portrayed much later in political propaganda, was a very rare occurrence at the time. The real problem of logisitics was the suddenness of the famine, no railways to the affected areas, bad roads and slow communications. If you were a Catholic, you were told that it was divine punishment, end of story. Most people starved because their neighbours wouldn't share food, so distribution was also a problem at the local level. (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Population change[edit]

@DrKay: Re [1]. I could revert you using the same edit summary too. You don't seem to have understood my edit summary. The map clearly shows population fall in Ireland, with areas that did not experience a fall indicated as not having experienced a fall, but without a percentage figure. This is also supported by the title included in the image itself. Please explain why you think "population change" is more accurate. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

A fall is a change. The figure also shows rises in the urban areas, which is also a change. DrKay (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
But the figure doesn't show "rises in urban areas"; it shows areas that did not experience a fall in population. This is no doubt why the title engraved in the image itself said "population fall" rather than "population change" until you edited it yesterday. This means that my interpretation is supported by a reliable source (the creator of the image), while yours is just your opinion. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The no change areas are shown in yellow. The rise areas (the city of Belfast, the county of Dublin and the district of Cork) are shown in green. DrKay (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@DrKay: The no change areas are shown in yellow. Where are you getting that? The key in the image itself says that yellow is "0 to 10% [fall]". Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
0 is no change. DrKay (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
No, 0 is "no fall", and yellow does not signify 0; it signifies "0[%] to 10%". How are you still not getting this? And I just now noticed that your alteration of the image has made the key look silly -- without clarifying somewhere that we are talking about population fall the percentages (which do not have "-" signs) look like they indicate population growth (or something else -- population is no longer mentioned) and the only way to correctly interpret it is to read "Population Rise", the last of categories, first and realize that by implication the others signify a population fall. How on earth can you not be understanding this? Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
0 is yellow. Both yellow and green signify "no fall": yellow for no change and green for rise. DrKay (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't believe what I'm reading here. How can you not see that yellows is between 0% and 10% fall? Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Obviously, I can. It shows both no change and falls less than 10%. It is plainly obvious by this point that your statements are designed to goad, bait and belittle. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Incivility#Identifying incivility. DrKay (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Your edits look like trolling to me, too, but I have not put such thoughts to words because I am trying my darnedest to be civil. The reason the original title is "population fall" is because that is what it is. All areas that did not experience a population fall ("0 to 10% fall" is still a fall, if a small one) are marked in the same colour, where areas that experienced different degrees of population fall are shown on a gradiant scale. Do you have any reliable sources that refer to a similar style to chart to this one as illustrating "population change" or don't you? The original source of the image clearly supports me on this. Additionally, you should not alter images in a manner that makes them difficult to read. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Incivility#Identifying incivility point 1d, please do not belittle fellow editors by calling their edits "silly" or "trolling", or questioning their intelligence with comments such as "How are you still not getting this?", "How on earth can you not be understanding this?", and "How can you not see?".
Table 3.2 on page 62 of The Great Irish Famine (1995) by Cormac Ó Gráda, for example, is entitled "Population change".
It says "Population fall" in big black letters at the top of the image. It is unnecessary to repeat the identical same phrase in the caption. Continuing further discussion on this issue would merely show that the argument is being continued for the sake of the argument and not from any genuine desire to include this wording (it is already included). DrKay (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
But your edits make no sense -- I have been trying my very best to interpret them as a good-faith misunderstanding, and only admitted that they really looked like trolling after you accused me of trying to "goad, bait and belittle" (essentially, you outright accused me of being a troll, and in response I explained why I have not accused you of trolling despite your edits really looking that way).
Your citing other sources with other graphs does nothing to change the fact that the graph in our article at the moment is of population fall, not population change. And your claiming that it doesn't help our readers to have the words "population fall" both in the image itself and in the label is also moot, because you also indicate that you want to remove the title from the image itself.
How about this: we restore your crop of the image on Commons, but change the label back to "population fall"?
Alternative solution: we keep the title in the image itself, and don't give a label below the image at all.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Incivility#Identifying incivility point 1d, please do not belittle fellow editors by saying their edits "make no sense" or suggesting that they look like "trolling". I accused you of being uncivil after you called me silly and questioned my intelligence. If you do not wish to be accused of incivility, then be civil.
I have limited desire to continue an argument about editor behavior on an article talk page. So, as there appears to be no substantive issue about the article to discuss, I won't be responding to any more of your abuse. DrKay (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
That rule assumes that there is some way to interpret others' edits as making sense. Your edit to my eyes did not, and when I asked you for an explanation you have repeatedly failed to provide one. Hence, makes no sense. I also did not suggest you were trolling until after you did the same thing to me.
If you are not going to respond to my proposed compromise, then I will assume tacit approval on your part of my edit.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Wait, you accepted my compromise, and then accused me of not proposing a compromise and not trying to discuss article content? Oh well. We're done here. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
As anyone can see by looking at the timestamps on the edits, you're either a liar and a hypocrite or a moron. DrKay (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
No lying at all. I read your above highly inflammatory comment, and at 21:21 I posted the a reply. I then went to the article to make the edit I said I would, and noticed it was already done. I looked at the page history and saw you were he one who had done it. I then posted again on the talk page. Why is it not possible to do this in the space of two or three minutes? I don't monitor all of your edits, or all edits to the article; I was monitoring this talk page as I did not intend to edit the article again until consensus was reached. Also, calling someone "a liar and a hypocrite or a moron" right after accusing them of being uncivil? Classy. It is also highly inappropriate to refrain from responding to any of the content-based material in someone's comments, while accusing them of trying to discuss user conduct on an article talk page. Anyway, are we done here? Can we both go back to what we were doing before, please? Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I realized much too late that "the time stamps" likely referred to these two edits by DrKay and not to my posting on the talk page before noticing an edit to the article and then quickly firing off another talk page comment. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I should have said "Oh. I didn't realize you and I spontaneously came to the same solution to the problem and you implemented it without me noticing and without mentioning it on the talk page several hours before I independently proposed it." Now, pointing all this out beforehand, rather than throwing words like "goad", "bate", "abuse", "lying", "moron" etc. would have been a much better strategy. Anyway, we are done here. Good day. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a Famine, Technically[edit]

Technically, the Potato 'Famine' was NOT a famine? Y/N

My dad, who is extremely Irish (He lived there, his parents and two of his siblings were born there), says that the Potato 'Famine' was simply a blight, not a famine. Ireland had lots of other food when the potatoes died, most of it was just taken by the British Empire. Piggybacking off of the article, wouldn't the Potato 'Famine' actually be a genocidal act because Britain was purposefully holding back aid that could have prevented the deaths of over one million people, over 20% of the Irish population at that point in time. In the larger sense, wouldn't the Irish Potato Genocide Famine be just as bad, if not worse than the Armenian Genocide and others, possibly as bad as the Holocaust? This event in history seems to be overlooked, despite the fact that over one million people were starved to death. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TALKNO, please do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page should only be used for discussing changes and improvements to the article. The blight, food exports, number dead, aid efforts, and genocide question are already covered in the article, and so no change seems necessary. DrKay (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I cannot agree with this article as long as "famine" remains in the title. I will try to avoid the politics of An Gorta Mór, but a famine means that all or nearly all food crops failed and animals grown as meat starved as well. This was NOT the situation in Ireland and that fact is not news to anyone who know the history of those years. When this issue was originally debated, my computer hardware was dying. I can accept the article being titled An Gorta Mór or The Great Hunger, but there was no famine by the universally accepted understanding of the term "famine." You can play politics with this all you want, but you cannot change the facts. You make Wikipedia look foolish and willing to fold to political pressure by calling The Great Hunger a famine. Has Wikipedia folded to political pressure, or has it decided to appear foolish? Saoirse1922 (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Just looking through the references section the word 'famine' appears in 24 of them. That's why we use it - because that's what the references say and it is the commonly used term - see wp:commonname. Richerman (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Not to mention that the name of the article has been discussed at great length, and consensus also has it at this title. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


As far as I can see, the terms 'Famine' and 'Hunger' are used interchangeably in this article. However some people object to the use of the term 'Famine' as it is usually associated with a shortage of food, which, in some senses was not the case here.

Whatever view you take on that question, shouldn't the difference of view at least be acknowledged - if only to explain why some of the quotes use different terms?

Kieran Kps2015 (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


If the Holodomor was allegedly a genocide why no one classify this Famine as a genocide? The Government of UK ait and abet this Famine just like Stalin did it.--SBC Guy (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Because the Holodomor was engineered deliberately by Stalin. The potato famine wasn't, and while the British government of the time may have been guilty of negligence in handling the crisis, they didn't start it. Jon C. 13:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the section Great Famine (Ireland)#Genocide question deals with the genocide question at some length. Scolaire (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@JonC, Actually there is no consensus that Stalin engineered the famine in USSR and even if he did that this famine killed People of different Ethnicities, not even all Victims of the so-called "Holodomor" were ethnic Ukrainians. There was no Intention and Motivation to annihilate Ukrainians at all. Mengistu Haile Mariam maybe also engineered the famine in Ethiopia but the Tigray don't claim that they became victims of a Genocide.-- (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Fine, the Holodomor was man-made, then. The potato famine wasn't. Jon C. 13:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed reference[edit]

I believe the reference informs about the future conference. The other reference informes about a book which contains texts written probably for the conference, so only the book is important.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx236 (talkcontribs) 08:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

For anybody as puzzled as I was, the above refers to this edit. --Scolaire (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
What about being puzzled by dead links before I find them and comment in my poor English?Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)