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.
 


Error/Clarification?[edit]

"Over the course of one day, men could eat 60 potatoes, women 40, and children 25."

This cannot possibly mean per person can it? If not how many men and women and children were involved? I seriously doubt 3/4 people were consuming 125 potatoes per day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.232.41 (talkcontribs) 05:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

[Dany] A section concerning food collection enforced by army regiments should be included. During the entire time food exports from Ireland continued and that is surely relevant to the topic of the article as it concerns the economical arrangements of the era. https://www.ravenecho.com/static/225/c1efe2f7f5e9d1abad0f26910b4c80bf.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.192.141 (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There's already a section on the exports. DrKiernan (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

During the famine approximately 1 million people died and a million more emigrated from Ireland[edit]

"During the famine approximately 1 million people died and a million more emigrated from Ireland"

Is this statement misleading? The big lie that's been told when they say the British committed genocide and killed a million Irish is they take a seven year period and count the total deaths for a country of approx 7.3 million people and then blame them all on the British, you would have a large amount of deaths from such a population in the 21st century and much more before the discovery of germs.

It would be better to analyse if there was any excess mortality in Ireland for the period than say England.

46.7.54.68 (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As it says in the article, the difference between the expected population (assuming no famine had taken place) and the actual minus the net emigration provides an estimate of the deaths caused by the famine. As the article also noted, there were records kept of some of the deaths but these also had known flaws which would under-represent deaths. The relevant section goes in to more detail about estimates given. Second Quantization (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this whole article is a fog for students researching the famine. The Hayden book is a collection of stories. Please read Cecil Woodham-Smith and you will realise there was no famine due to blight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:5069:8F30:5D89:6301:27B1:1EBE (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

The section "Controversy" only relates to one highly specific and relatively trivial example. The section lends undue importance to one news item when the article should focus on the topic of the famine and its broad impact on popular culture and public perceptions instead of one unmade programme by a red-linked (and hence non-notable) writer.

It is particularly undue to call such a section "Controversy", as if to imply that this was the only or the most important controversy surrounding the famine, which it clearly isn't. DrKiernan (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

To Dr Kiernan: Your use of the word "trivial" to describe an effort to make a joke out of the Irish Famine shows you don't know what "trivial" means. In the last month worldwide news has been filled with info about a business disaster for Sony, and the international conflict now raised between North Korea and the United States because of a movie---satire---about killing the North Korean leader. And today, the papers are filled with the news of 12 people murdered in France because of -----satire-----that offended others. They became violent when someone made fun of something they hold sacred. Given the international attention in the last couple of weeks to the impact of satire on the world situation, you need to adjust your idea of trivia. This is a substantive matter that has received coverage in multiple newspapers, has resulted in comment by elected officials, and has motivated citizenry into action. And saying you opened a "talk page" doesn't mean you're free to keep taking down this controversy section. Allow people to talk about it here, disagree with you or me, or suggest their own solution. VanEman

It trivializes the deaths of a million people by giving the same importance to a single unmade television program by a non-notable, unknown writer as other aspects of the famine. Ephemeral news items do not deserve this level of coverage, if at all. DrKiernan (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree the material is disproportionate and not appropriate. If the controversy lingers, gets picked up or generally becomes notable then something might be appropriate but not now, not with that sourcing. ----Snowded TALK 10:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I also agree. It was news on a slow news day, and nothing about it since. Covered by WP:NOTNEWS. -- HighKing++ 15:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

High King, you'd better log on and check the news. The controversy has now made international press at Huffington Post (US), BBC and Belfast, noting not only the original petition but also the upcoming protest planned for outside the Channel 4 building. This isn't going away. News for "channel 4" great famine Irish famine programme protest planned at Channel 4 HQ Belfast Telegraph - 4 hours ago Protesters against Channel 4's proposed new comedy programme ... The Great Famine took place between 1845 and 1852, resulting in the ... What's funny about the Irish famine? BBC News - 1 day ago Paddy Duffy :Channel 4's Proposed New Famine Comedy: Let's Judge It By the Script, Not Our Preconceptions Huffington Post UK - 2 days ago

VanEman — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanEman (talkcontribs) 20:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It is only a proposed program concept. This controversy appears to be hype from it's promoters. Definitely not worth inclusion in the article.Cathar66 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Rates (property Tax) - someone please write out explicitly that "rates" means property tax rates.[edit]

The term "rates" is used twice in the article to mean property tax. This may be a common usage in some countries, or known to people that study this subject, but not to me. I am a casual reader and not a historian. I enjoyed reading this article, but I had to read through the "talk" section to determine that "rates" meant property tax rates. I am not expert in this field and am asking someone learned in the field to clarify it with just a few words and thereby improve the article for a casual reader such as myself. I won't edit it myself in case I am wrong.

This usage happens twice; First Use: In section "Government response", fifth paragraph, second sentence "This in practice meant that if a farmer, having sold all his produce to pay rent, duties, rates and taxes, should be reduced, as many thousands of them were, to applying for public outdoor relief, he would not get it until he had first delivered up all his land to the landlord". This usage was problematic to me since it indicated that "rates" were something other than taxes. Second Use: In section "Eviction", first paragraph first sentence "Landlords were responsible for paying the rates of every tenant whose yearly rent was £4 or less. ". If this sentence merely stated "Landlords were responsible for paying the property tax of every tenant whose yearly rent was £4 or less.", would that not be almost the same length but clear?

Since this appeared to be the cause of a major eviction and injustice, I spent quite a while attempting to find out the meaning of "rates".

Thank all of you for a great article. Truthercollector (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the first instance because "rent and taxes" covers the same ground, and linked the second to Rates (tax). DrKiernan (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Realted science articles[edit]

Can links be put to Theories of famines and the relevant Food security and Malthusian catastrophe articles. I think it is noteworthy that Malthus influenced from a Tory view point policies from capitalists to Ireland and thus presumably the view toward the famine. I do not want to do original research here - but wikipedia links elsewhere can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.244.74.200 (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

True Value of Government Aid[edit]

The amount of Government aid is quoted as being a mere £7 million.

It may be more helpful to also express this in current values. One historic currency website suggests the following range based on different measures of comparison:

"In 2014, the relative value of £1 from 1850 ranges from £95.50 to £3,230.00".

Thus the actual value ranges from £700 million to £23,800 million. In other words £700-£23,800 of aid per fatality, figures certainly not suggestive of 'genocide' by the Government.

Even taking the lower figure these were clearly not insignificant sums. Cassandra.

Unless the unnamed "historic currency website", or another reliable source, extrapolates to the concept of an "aid per fatality" figure, makes a case for the significance of such a concept and concludes that this has any bearing on the genocide question, this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, typical of this IP-sock's WP:NOTFORUM posting. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)