Talk:Famine in India/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Famine codes

I am proposing the re-introduction of the following content to the "Famine codes" section:

“ Despite the codes, mortality from famine was the highest in last 25 years of the 19th century under British rule. Never in entire history of India had so many people died in any other 25 year span. ”

Source:

• Thakur, Baleshwar; Sinha, V.N.P; Prasad, M; Pratap, Rana (2005), Thakur, Baleshwar (ed.), Urban and regional development in India: essays in honour of Prof. L.N. Ram, Concept Publishing Company, ISBN 9788180691997, retrieved October 5, 2010

Direct link to the page [1]

Comments/feedback is welcome. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the main reason that there have been fewer deaths due to famine since the end of British rule, the development of international aid, to which the British governemet and people make quite a contribution. And the invention of aircraft which have enabled food to be moved quickly to where it is needed. Improvements in the infrastructure have made areas accessible which weren't accessible under British rule. By the way, I don't understand this obsession with comparing everything to before, during and after British rule. How is it relevant to the article? If you think it is relevant fine but at least present a balanced point of view, for example the article mentions British response to famines under British rule but not British response to those after.--Ykraps (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I see some of these points have already been made so apologies for that.--Ykraps (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the main reason that there have been fewer deaths due to famine since the end of British rule, the development of international aid? No. The famine relief provided by the colonial government and the post-independence government is largely domestically produced food and the funds to buy them, raised from domestic taxes and customs duties (see clarification below about the 1950s and 60s). Railways are plenty fast for moving around food when there's scarcity and starving Indians can't afford air freight. All of this is described in the article by RS, who also comment on "the main reasons" for improved outcomes.

I know you come with the best of intentions, and given how elemental famine is, it probably seems to most people that they understand why and how it happens, and what prevents it. That said, idle speculation on alternative causes of changes in famine outcomes is not a basis for seeing a POV in what the cited reliable sources say. Please, don't come to this page and state what "the main reason" for long-term changes is without bringing reliable sources along with you.

Comparisons over time are pretty much the basics for telling a history. As it turns out, the focus of the sources is as much on before and after the 1880 Famine Codes as it is before and after independence. Almost no attention comes to before and after 1770. And quite frankly, the ability to competently address famines in India is a major historical success, just as the famines of the late 19th century and early 20th century are epochal historical tragedies deserving of complete and complex explanations. Insofar as RSs involve British colonial rule in those explanations, we must describe them here.

Please feel free to research the role of international donors during the 1967 and 1973 food crises (and the late 1990s crisis in Orissa). My quick search didn't turn anything up.--Carwil (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S., India did received emergency food aid from the United States in 1951 (when it made an emergency request but faced a five-month delay in approval), and subsidized grain in 1957, 1967. See Indo-US Relations, 1947-71: Fractured friendship, Shri Ram Sharma, at p. 74. The overall situation, according to a World Bank study is this: substantial subsidized grain imports from the United States were used in the 1950s and 1960s. The country embarked on a political commitment to become self-sufficient in 1965, sparking huge investment and displacing the need for imports by 1976. Throughout, a Public Distribution System was charged with addressing food security, which was successful in avoiding famine and unfocused on ending undernutrition, which continues. From Food Aid and Food Security in the Short- and Long Run [2]--Carwil (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't particularly referring to famine in India when I made those comments, although India has received a large amount of money from the international community for other things which frees up money which can be spent on reducing famine (does it not?). Also, remember that this is a talk page and therefore references are not a requirement. If I put anything into this article, rest assured it will be properly referenced. This topic is clearly a hot potato and it wasn't my intention to stir things up.--Ykraps (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We need to have wider sourcing and commentary in the article for such an important point. The source is a fairly obscure set of essays. A more comprehensive technical source is available in the Cambridge Economic History of India, Volume 2, page 501. [3] This gives a table of death rates according to a range of academic sources for India between 1871 and 1950. These tables show pretty conclusively that India's death rates peaked between 1901 and 1920, which is also what I have read elsewhere. I think we need more evidence for this. I am going to look up some other texts on the subject and see what they say - I doubt that the snippet from the book of essays on Indian Regional Development is correct, as the Bengal Famine had a much higher death rate than any of the 19th Century famines - at least, if we use total mortality as the indicator. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Inadequately sourced and another example of selective use of material to make a political point. Agree with James point as well --Snowded ^TALK 23:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Jamesinderbyshire, I have that chapter. It says this about mortality:

The causes of high mortality were primarily related to waves of epidemics. During years or decades which were relatively free from any major widespread epidemics, death rates were low and there was some population increase. The same was true for regions and segments of population which escaped the impact of epidemics like malaria, bubonic plague and influenza. The indirect impact of these epidemics on population growth was as important as their direct effect causing slow or negative rates of population increase. Except during 1876-7 and 1896—1900, mortality caused directly by famine was extremely small during this period, partly because the canal-building activities had provided irrigation facilities to certain drought-prone areas. However, the developmental works, including railway- and road-building, also had certain adverse effects on mortality because they spread certain diseases in areas which were once relatively isolated.

It's not advisable to use death rates as a proxy for absence of famine.--Carwil (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Jamesinderbyshire & Snowded - The tables on page 501 of the source pointed by James are overall death rates and not deaths from famine alone. We are focused on famine alone in this article. Page 504 of the same book can be used to further substantiate the proposed inclusion. It says this regarding the time period in question:

Both in western and central India, the severe famine conditions coupled with plague epidemics caused such havoc in terms of mortality that the estimates of death rate were higher than the higest implied by the model life tables.

I hope you are OK with this content from page 504 as a second source. If not, I can substantiate the content with more sources. I think 1-2 sources should be good enough for what is a well recognized statistic in this area. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not happy with your proposed insert for the reasons stated. You need to move away from this use of statistics to make a political point. --Snowded ^TALK 05:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Identifying the period when famine in India caused the most loss of life lies at the heart of the narrative of this article. There isn't any political point being made here. Nonetheless, here's a rephrased version to eliminate any perception that this is a political statement:

“ Despite the codes, mortality from famine was the highest in last 25 years of the 19th century. Never in entire history of India had so many people died in any other 25 year span. ”

Zuggernaut (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware (and said) that the table on page 501 of the Cambridge Economic History is about total mortality - I just raised it as indicative, since it seems likely that if famine death rates had been so devastating in the last quarter of the 19th Century that would show a marked effect in the death rate tables. I think Carwil you make good arguments above, I am just a bit anxious about this going on as-is without better sourcing. As you say, we lack accurate information about many periods in Indian history and it's quite a statement that Zuggernaut proposes to add on a rather slender source. The other source from the Cambridge book that Zuggernaut quotes is about Western and Central India and does not relate to the 25 worst years claim, so it doesn't advance us. As I said, we need more sourcing. I like the other material Carvil has raised about transportation issues and so on and would be happier with a more broadly written perspective and accurate statements - it's the "worst 25 years of famine death rates" bit I am challenging at the moment. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

For what's its worth, Zuggernaut, I would be happy with just a second source to justify the position. We already state in the introduction that the late 18th century and 19th century (squeezing in 1896-1901 in the latter, I suppose) are the worst era of famines in Indian history; the Citation is the "Famine" section of the Cambrdige History of Food. Snowded, since this longer period is all during the British colonial period (although not all during the more direct rule after 1857) and the early 20th century of diminished famine frequency is as well, it's not clear to me why the specific fact of the worst 25 years is necessarily political.

Another approach to this whole issue would be to speak more holistically about famine, disease and population. The impact during the period in question, according to "Population" in the Cambridge History of India was this:

While population increased by 52 per cent during the seventy years between 1871 and 1941, it increased by only 20 per cent during the first five decades. In fact, during 1871-1921, there was some significant population growth only during 1881-91 and, to a certain extent during 1901-11, the two decades which were free from any major calamity of famine or epidemic. (489)

Backtracking through the rest of the period of British presence (I'm not obsessing about British rule, but our Cambridge source focuses on the British period), we see that famine played a key role in limiting population growth then as well:

While it is difficult to assess such claims, a population of 200 million in 1750 appears a distinct possibility. During the next fifty years, however, as Durand has argued, there was presumably little or no growth of population not only because of the deadly famines and epidemics discussed below but also because of the dislocation of life and economy resulting from political turmoil and internal conflicts. During periods of hostilities or internal warfare, cultivation was sometimes suspended and crops were burnt, thus leading to famine conditions. The next fifty years (1800-50) were slightly more favourable to population growth, partly because of some political stability under the British rule and also because, despite periodical setbacks, famine relief operations were undertaken to ameliorate acute distress. (465)

Summary: 1) "worst 25 years" claim is legit with one more source. 2) a famine and population section would be lovely, and would say that epidemic (#1) and famine (#2) and early on warfare (#3) limited population growth severely during the periods mentioned above.--Carwil (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I found some useful relevant material in John Keay's "India, A History" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0002557177) - page 504. He quotes Moon, P, "The British Conquest" [4], which says that the Bengal Famine "killed more Indians than did two world wars, the entire Independence struggle, Partition and the worst famines of the 19th Century". So it sounds as if, as I suspected, the Bengal Famine was much worse than the late-19th Century famines in total numbers of deaths. Keay also says that the Bengal Famine could have been averted "with foresight, rationing, better distribution and vigorous action against black market hoarding" and that "it was as much a failure of personnel as anything". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Jamesinderybshire - Per the assume good faith policy, I am going to politely point out that this is the second instance on your part to provide a ficticious reference which amounts to gaming the system. The first instance was when you claimed that the tables on page 501 of Cambridge Economic History of India, Volume 2 "show pretty conclusively" that India's death rates peaked between 1901 and 1920. That was not true because page 501 of that book is only a comparison of 5 estimates from 5 different sources, two of which (Visaria, Das Gupta) actually show the opposite. That's definitely not conclusive. You then went on in to original research.

This is the second instance of similar behavior when you are citing page 504 of John Keays' "India, A History" incorrectly. The actual quote on page 504 of that book reads like this:

“ ...killed more Indians than did two world wars, the entire Independence struggle, plus the communal holocaust which accompanied Partition. ”

You have typed out the following to misquote and attribute to the author something that completely inverts the meaning in our context:

“ ...killed more Indians than did two world wars, the entire Independence struggle, Partition and the worst famines of the 19th Century. ”

These are inappropriate techniques to refute the central point of the argument. I invite you to stick around and play by the rules which will provide the healthy environment that's required for producing a good article. Also FYI, the high estimate of famine related deaths for the period in question is approximately 26 million. As Keays states, the estimates of deaths from the Bengal famine of the 1940s are in the 2 million - 4 million range. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Z, keep calm, calling out the misquote is compelling enough. J, which Bengal famine are we talking about? 1770 or 1943? I've recently added the RS figure we have for 1770: very approximately 10 million deaths. Also, if anyone makes this essay-ish comparison (whether or no Keays is a RS) on page, I'm reverting it per WP:NOT#ESSAY.--Carwil (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Keay is talking about 1943. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did make a mistake on the Keay quote, I meant to comment that bit about the 19th century and in a rush last night made it look like it was part of the quote. The other part about the misreading of the table in the Cambridge Economic History book is nonsense, as I said, it quotes a range of academic sources and the consensus is clear. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Are we in agreement to move this to article space? Zuggernaut (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I see you've already done that without waiting for consensus or discussion, yet further down this page, you call for discussion from people before making edits. Which method do you prefer? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't - please check the article history properly and you will find I haven't moved this content to article space. As a rule, I don't intentionally violate rules and policies that I am aware of. I will wait for consensus. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking about the Keay reference? What's this then? [5] Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's separate and new content about the Bengal famine as mentioned in the edit summary. We are discussing Famine codes sub-section here. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. It also includes the quote I located for you and which you added to the article without waiting for comments. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You are only trying to game the system further by confusing readers when the diff you pointed out is clearly new and distinct content, separate from this dispute, having nothing to do with deaths from famines despite the new Famine code. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have objections moving this one line to article space? Zuggernaut (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Which line where? And while we are at it STOP making accusations against other editors its going to kick back at you sooner or later --Snowded ^TALK 07:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about this revised version of the line:

“ Despite the codes, mortality from famine was the highest in last 25 years of the 19th century. Never in entire history of India had so many people died in any other 25 year span. ”

The plan is to include it in the Famine codes subsection. If there aren't any objections, I'll go ahead and include it in the next 1-2 days. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Second sentence if overkill --Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Any proposals to get the point across that the death toll in that period was the highest ever in Indian history in a 25 year period without making it sound like an overkill? Zuggernaut (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How about this for the 2nd sentence separated by a comma:

...which was also the highest death toll in Indian history in a 25 year span. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Green revolution

Disputed content:

The Green Revolution of India has had a major impact on food production in India and it was initially considered a success. It has recently been called a qualified success due to it's inability to keep pace with growing population

I undid a deletion [6] made by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick because the Green Revolution was the main cause of elimination of famines in India and it needs to be mentioned in the lead. I would like to note here that the same user has removed the same content on two occasions without engaging/stating a discussion. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

are you talking about this edit? [7] Red Hat did make an appropriate edit comment. I would suggest you stop edit-warring and attempt to obtain a consensus first. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick only explained his removal in the edit summary. As I have explained above, he was wrong. This content is very relevant and central to the topic of famines in India. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"he was wrong" - says you. You appear (as other editors have repeatedly pointed out to you) to not understand the nature of "consensus". Consensus is seeking agreement with other editors about the best edit to make. It is not constantly assertung that you are right with examples and ignoring other editors. It also isn't edit-warring which you also seem to engage in repeatedly. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the provided citation, read the source, do your research and you will find that the Green Revolution was the major step related to this topic and clearly deserves mention in the lead. If you don't agree with that the sources say on this, feel free to post specific, objective, arguments against it here. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I am for keeping the Green Revolution in the lead. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Added the disputed content in the section for reference. No need in the lead. IMO, linking Green Revolution to the end of famines seems WP:OR. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the non-linkage of the Green Revolution with famines your only reason to keep it out of the lead or do you have other reasons? Let me check in the meantime if I can find sources linking the two. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Green Revolution is a widely discussed explanation of reduction in famine, and is a central cause of India's food self-sufficiency (at least in terms of grain). For confirmation of the latter point, see Carlo del Ninno, Paul A. Dorosh, and Kalanidhi Subbarao (2005) Food Aid and Food Security in the Short and Long Run: Country Experience from Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. It does not comment on the Green Revolution-famine connection. However, well-respected expert Jean Drèze disagrees in the chapter cited on the page: the "very striking that production gains after independence have resulted mainly in reduced imports as well as in the accumulation of large stocks, leaving net 'availability' remarkably stagnant. There are compelling reasons therefore to attribute India's success in preventing after independence to other reasons than improvement of food availability." Drèze further argues that the large (up to 2/3 of farmland) unirrigated tracts experienced virtual stagnation in production during the first three decades of the Green Revolution, leaving them equally theoretically vulnerable to famine, and therefore saved from famine by other factors.--Carwil (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against having it mentioned in the lede myself, since the GR clearly has been a big factor in ending famine. It might also be worth mentioning that it simply took a long time for the GR crop hybrids to be fully implemented - according to this paper for example, [8], "... before the end of World War II, the Rockefeller Foundation set up an institute in northwest Mexico with the aim of developing high-yield varieties (HYVs) of staple crops. Under the leadership of Dr Norman Borlaug, a variety of high-yielding, disease-resistant, semi-dwarf wheat was bred, and by the early 1960s, Mexico had gone from a net importer to a significant net exporter of grain.(2) It was during the same period that the East-Indian state of Mizoram suffered from a famine which affected around 700,000 people.(3) Prompted by this, Borlaug persuaded investors to introduce HYVs in India. As a result, the Asian country’s annual wheat production sky-rocketed from 10 million tonnes produced in the 1960s to 75 million tonnes in 2008, raising food production rates in excess of population growth.(4) " Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's clear now after this discussion that the GR didn't have as much of a role (if at all) in elimination of famines in India as I had initially thought. The source/summary provided by Carwil seems to make the other pieces of the puzzle fit with this, i.e., the food availability decline v. entitlement failure theories. Since deaths from starvation caused by famines are about consumption of food and the GR the major milestone in boosting food production, it is natural for the casual reader to co-relate the two and it comes somewhat as a surprise that there isn't that close a co-relation. For this reason, it makes even more sense to have the GR as the last line (and mention that it wasn't a solution to famines) in the lead to keep the reader interested and perhaps even excite him or her to read further. Good to know that James isn't objecting to have it in the lead. I think the level of detail he provides regarding the GR probably belongs to that article. I'll wait for Redtigerxyz and Carwil to confirm they are OK to have it in the lead and then include it. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Carwil, you are right that GR is credited in enhancing India's food production, but an explicit reference crediting GR with eliminating famines is needed, before we include this in the lead.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Red Tiger's point is mine as well.

I agree that the connection wasn't a strong one but the GR was the milestone in food production and famines are after all about the consumption of food. Regarding the explicit connection, I have two quotes from two different sources to offer:

• "Swaminathan and his colleagues offered a vision of an India free from famine and hunger, transformed by high-yielding varieties of crops." Scoones, I (2006), Science, agriculture and the politics of policy: the case of biotechnology in India, Orient Longman, p. 53, ISBN 9788125029441 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |http://books.google.com/books?id= ignored (help)

• "One implication of this way of thinking (challenged by Scoones, Chapter 14, this volume) is the solutions to food insecurity and famine lie in pursuing food production self-sufficient by raising crop yields through biotechnology (Green Revolution GM crops)." Devereux, Stephen (2007), "Introduction", The new famines: why famines persist in an era of globalization, Routledge studies in development economics, Routledge, ISBN 9780415363471 Zuggernaut (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitions

I would like to add back content relating to definitions of famines that was removed sometime back (but never discussed by the remover on the talk page). Here's the removed content:

In India, traditionally, agricultural laborers and rural artisans are the primary victims in famines. In worse conditions cultivators are also susceptible.

Definitions of famines are based on three different categories – these include food supply based, food consumption based and mortality based definitions. Some definitions of famines are:

• Blix – Widespread food shortage leading to significant rise in regional death rates.
• Brown and Eckholm – Sudden, sharp reduction in food supply resulting in widespread hunger.
• Scrimshaw – Sudden collapse in level of food consumption of large numbers of people.
• Ravallion – Unusually high mortality with unusually severe threat to food intake of some segments of a population.
• Cuny – A set of conditions that occurs when large numbers of people in a region cannot obtain sufficient food, resulting in widespread, acute malnutrition.

Some elements make a particular region more vulnerable to famine. These include:

• Poverty
• Inappropriate physical infrastructure
• Inappropriate social infrastructure
• A suppressive political regime
• A weak or under-prepared government

If you have any objections to the addition of this content, please discuss here. Sources:

• Blix, Gunnar; Svensk näringsforskning,, Stiftelsen (1971), Famine: A symposium dealing with nutrition and relief operations in times of disaster, 9, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell
• Brown, Lester Russell; Eckholm, Erik P (1974), By bread alone, 864, Praeger, ISBN 9780275636401
• Scrimshaw, Nevin S. (1987), Food protection in the Americas, National Academies
• Ravallion, Martin (1996), Famines and economics, World Bank, Policy Research Dept., Poverty and Human Resources Division
• Cuny, Frederick C; Hill, Richard B (1999), Famine, conflict, and response: a basic guide, Kumarian Press, ISBN 9781565490901Zuggernaut (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong in the article on Famine? --Snowded ^TALK 04:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The 'Famine' article will have this is much greater detail. We are just limiting ourselves to 1 line definitions. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You can pipeline to Famine - this article is about Famine in India, so a basic narrative line as most is needed--Snowded ^TALK 01:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just add the material to Famine and reference it in the very rare occasions when the existence of a famine is disputed (1960s and 1970s only, right?)? I feel the same way about the theories of famine as well (see my original comments about why Sen belonged here for a sense of what should be included).--Carwil (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to have it in Famine and have just the one line here. Should we pick one particular definition or just say that famines can be defined in three ways and leave it at that? Zuggernaut (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming we are in agreement, I will summarize the various definitions of famine and add the one line to the 'Theories' section in the article. The rest of the content will be moved to Famine. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

General POV RfC

• User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick added a POV tag to this article on September 19, 2010.[9]
• I took the matter to the NPOV noticeboard on September 27, 2010 which said this wasn't a matter of POV. [10]
• In response to the NPOV noticeboard responses, I took off the POV tag on September 28, 2010.[[11]
• The same user added back the POV tag on October 8, 2010. [12]
• Diff between the very 1st wrongly alleged POV and the currently allged POV is here.[13] No specific reasons have been provied by the user on the talk page about why the POV tag was added back.Zuggernaut (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: Specific concerns listed by User:BritishWatcher

1. "Mike Davis – has claimed that these famines were actually 'Late Victorian Holocausts' in 1870s and 1890s.  Snowded moved the statement to the end of the section. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
   
2. Why is the democracy theory the first section of this article?  No longer in the first section Zuggernaut (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
3. The solution to the table has also led to a replication of tables, which is pretty pointless. No replication, please clarify
   
4. And why is the table not complete, why do some of them have no estimate at all? If reliable sources do not exist stating the number of estimated dead, how on earth can we state as fact that there were so few famines in those years. Already discussed at Famine tables Zuggernaut (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
   
5. All tables should be collapsible, none hidden.  Carwil has made all of them collapsible and none are hidden. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

We will work on these in the next few days. If you have any other specific POV concerns, please feel free to add to the list. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Side discussion about placement of this section

This RFC is in the wrong place (moved to bottom of page now). RFCs are also meant to be neutral, something yours clearly is not. You failed to mention here what has taken place in recent weeks with all your "improvements" which are clearly biased and give undue weight. This is a pattern sadly, and not just limited to this article. It would be helpful if someone could write a more neutral summary about what has taken place here. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved back to the top because the entire article is being called "POV". Zuggernaut (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

So if i have a concern about the whole article i should raise it at the top of the talk page, if i have concern about a section of the article i should raise it at the bottom? lol BritishWatcher (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

RFCs are also meant to be neutral, something yours clearly is not. You failed to mention here what has taken place in recent weeks with all your "improvements" which are clearly biased and give undue weight. This is a pattern sadly, and not just limited to this article. It would be helpful if someone could write a more neutral summary about what has taken place here. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC I'm a little confused as to what you are requesting. Opinions on POV in both versions? Sol (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The RfC request is aimed at evaluating the POV allegations against the current version of the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick re-added the POV tag with the edit summary "Add back template Still lots of problem" and that was the main reason for the RfC. After the RfC was made, users Britishwatcher and Jamesfromderbyshire have suggested that the entire article "is a mess" and that it should be reverted back "to it's last best copy". If that can be addressed in the RfC, that'll be great too. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Easy solution: The current tag can be removed as you can't put one up without starting a talk page discussion on the tag. It leads to silly situations in which people have to guess what you didn't like. A bit like this :P

POV opinion for a long term solution: The graphs could be merged into one; separating them by non-/colonial gives the very immediate impression that Britain is solely responsible for the huge increase in famines. Which might be true but that's what the article is for. Other than some tiny bits of language nothing is jumping out at me. I'm not very well versed in the subject and need the objecting user to specify the offensive parts. Sol (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also make the general comment that raising this at the NPOV notice board without notifying other editors on this page smacks of gaming and it is cannot be argued that having two other editors agree with you without such notification constitutes a decision that it is NPOV. Doing that in parallel with an RfC is Forum Shopping, with goes in with a previous attempt to Canvass editors that Z thought would support his opinion. Personally I think we have knocked out the main problem areas inserted and the POV tag is inappropriate, but an IMPROVE one would be. That said the behaviour problems need addressing Zuggernaut --Snowded ^TALK 06:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I did notify everyone on the very same day about posting to the NPOV noticeboard. Perhaps you had not yet arrived to this article back then. This article is a work in progress so it will continue to improve. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Found it - for future reference it might be an idea to make such a posting a subhead. You should also try and resolve issues on the talk page before going to notice boards. --Snowded ^TALK 08:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

We tried resolving this issue on the talk page for more than a week between September 19 and September 27 and then took it to noticeboard once we reached an impasse. I appreciate the feedback and I take it in a positive spirit. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Who are the "we" you refer to in this last comment Zuggernaut? Are you co-ordinating this effort with other editors? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We still have a whole section "Theories of Indian famines" This gives undue weight to one view point which seeks to place large amount of the blame on "lack of democracy". It goes into detail about one mans view, it then provides a counter to the mans view but also includes the sentence "Rubin does not address colonial period famines, so the position is not actually countered at all, and then goes on to mention another person affirming Amartya Sen thesis. It is questionable how notable this one theory is, but it is totally unacceptable when it is the only "theory" or issue covered in detail. For example there is just one brief mention in the introduction saying "some transportation improvements", and it is not mentioned elsewhere in the article from what i can see. Are people honestly telling me that developments of railways, cars, trucks and aircraft have very little impact on famine relief? I dont think there is any mention of communications. Do people honestly think a period when it would take days, weeks or potentially longer to get messages from one part of the country to another has no impact on famine relief, compared to recent times when there is instant communication not just within the country but internationally? What about ability to forecast weather, surely as famines are caused by the weather this must have an impact? Does it cover the general increase in food supplies around the world? For example, do people in India today have more food than they did in 1800 and is this a general trend that is shared around the world, including in the west like Britain and America? Undue weight is given to the "democracy theory" at the expense of major factors which have an impact in reducing famine. Whilst that is the case, i believe the neutrality tag is perfectly justifiable. And whilst Zuggernaut is seeking to add even more POV material to the article, the tag is certainly needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats not the only problem either. This article thanks to Zuggernauts help goes out of its way to put things in a "before British rule/during British rule/After independence" viewpoint. Yet it does not treat these issues fairly. So for example the tables on major famines in India. There are two. 1 before British rule which simply lists century/location/number of famines. Then the British rule one which does Years / number of famines / death estimates. Why are only death estimates shown for the British rule table? Where are the details of death estimates for the others? Are we confident that there were just 2 famines in the 11th century? That is very precise, if its possible to know its just two surely a death toll figure is available too? Another issue is the population growth and Indias borders. For example If 100,000 people live in one area that is effected by a famine in the 11th century, but then the same area is effected by a famine in the 19th century when the population is 1 million? would that have an impact on the number of people impacted by the famine and the number who die? Would it not actually have an impact on the famine itself, by creating more people in need of food in the same area? Im sure sources exist to cover these sorts of issues, i dont have the time to search for lots of material, but the burden is on those who add stuff to articles to ensure the article contents remains neutral, you can not add wonderful one sided information. Whilst these issues are not dealt with, the article lacks neutrality and should continue to display the warning tag. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, BW. Due to a recent conflict with you in another article I'll be recusing myself from this RFC after this post. In regards to your first statement, Amartya Sen's theories, befitting a Nobel laureate economist, are probably notable. I don't see where you are going with communications, transportation and weather prediction or the POV ramifications. If you have information to add, go for it, but I don't think you can reasonably object to well sourced information because it's not balanced with information you hypothesize is available. I'm not even sure who's POV is being overly represented here. Sol (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ive no objection to his point of view being mentioned or the "democracy" issue being mentioned. My concern is that at present, by giving a whole section to that one issue and not covering other factors at all or in less detail that have had a significant impact on famine, we are giving the issue Undue weight. At present there is a theory section in this article, saying lack of democracy was a core factor in the history of famines. There is no section talking about advances in technology or other factors that impact on famine/reducing famine. Surely it is obvious that when you compare transportation in the 18th century with transportation in the 20th century, after the development of rail and air travel it would have an impact? Yet the article gives greater weight to an opinion/theory on democracy. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Im sure sources exist to cover these sorts of issues, i dont have the time to search for lots of material, but the burden is on those who add stuff to articles no BW, the burden is on the objector to prove such sources exist and then introduce them. Here you are, not even certain if such sources exist complaining about Sen and his theories. As Carwil points out above Sen and his views are as relevant to this article as Einstein's views are to the Speed of Light article. --Sodabottle (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If material is added to an article it should comply with WP:NPOV. I have stated reasons why i believe it does not comply with NPOV and it was someone else that readded the tag anyway. I dont have a huge amount of time to dedicate to this article, but that does not justify an article violating WP:NPOV without the tags remaining to atleast warn people there is a problem and encourage others to contribute to the ongoing debate here. I am certain sources exist, because it is so blatantly obvious it is the case. Transportation makes distribution of food easier, yet the only mention it gets is one line in the introduction " The post-1880 Indian Famine Codes, some transportation improvements, and democratic rule after independence have been identified as furthering famine relief." Ive no problem with Amartya Sen's opinion or theory being stated, provided it is not given undue weight. And whilst other factors i have stated are ignored then it is giving his opinion and theory undue weight. As for comparing him to Albert Einstein and the Speed of light, somehow i think there is a slight difference. Albert had an impact on the development of the theory. This is an article about Famine in India not peoples opinion on famine or the causes of Famine. Even if this was purely about causes of Famine, it would still be undue weight just to mention his theory and ignore obvious other ones. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I did provide one source awhile go on the transport issue.. "By far the most important service rendered to famine stricken areas has been through the introduction of effective means of transportation. We are not concerned whether the building of roads and railways was due to commercial or philantrhopic considerations; the fact remains that those localities which for natural or artificial causes have escaped the famine, have been able to ship their surplus into the areas where shortage existed, and so have reduced the distress and mortality. Before the introduction of the railways into India, it was impossible to distribute the surplus production over the areas of scarcity, so that it frequently happened that the prices of grain in localities where crops had been abundant were very low, while in an adjoining territory the prices were prohibitive." [14] BritishWatcher (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And "Early analyses of Inian famine matched quite closely many of the trends in current literature on Africa. Famines in the nineteenth-century were seen to result from the economic drain from India to Britain, and the heavy burden of taxation imposed on Indian peasants. Agriculturalists sold food grains in order to raise cash to pay their land revenue. Meanwhile, there was an increasing economic differentiation amongst the peasantry themselves, resulting in the breakdown of communal responsibility.

Criticisms of this analysis have taken two directions. The first is to subject to scrutiny the 'dependency theory' embodied here; and the second is to question the assumed pivotal relationship between subsistence production and famine. Michelle McAlpin (1983) argues that India became more able to withstand harvest shortfalls in the late nineteenth century, through improved transportation networks and greater penetration of the market into rural areas. " [15] BritishWatcher (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A shiny, new rail transport section has been added to the article. It comes complete with the only assessment I've seen so far of the question that you started asking: to what degree does the 20th century avoidance of famines result from transport improvements (the opinion belongs to Jean Drèze, Sen's collaborator). Your note on taxation also deserves mention, as does the opium (and other cash crop) economy (although McAlpin suggests its impact on grain production is minor). The effect of pre-1870 railways is missing, but I don't think NPOV is violated by the new section. Check it out.--Carwil (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly better now that is covered in more detail thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why the POV tag should be removed

At the time of this post, the article has about 58 citations from approximately as many references. The readable prose amounts to 23.6 kilobytes approximately and according to a standard word processor with default settings (Microsoft Word), the article has 227 lines. That's about 1 citation for every 4th line. The "one man's view" (Sen) allegation that comes up frequently (BritishWatcher) is not accurate as the 'Citations' section shows. Since the article is adequately sourced, presents views from a very broad spectrum of authors (different ideologies, if at all, different nationalities, different collaborations, etc), we should take off the {{POV}} tag. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope the tag should remain, i still have concerns. Ive heard nothing about the table section which shows deaths under British rule but not prior to British rule. I do not believe that is neutral. If sources on the estimated deaths do not exist, then how can we be sure there was just 2 famines in India in the 11th century? Also the estimates under British rule, are these the only estimates that exist? Are there large and small estimates? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh and if you think starting the section by saying..

"Famines under British rule

"Mike Davis – has claimed that these famines were actually 'Late Victorian Holocausts' in 1870s and 1890s. This negative image of British rule in India enjoys wide currency."

That is not a neutral way to start that section. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There probably is more that could be said in the section on Famine under British Rule. One important point is that not all of India was under direct British rule during the periods when famines took place; there could be discussion on what happened under Maharajahs, etc. Another issue is that the section does not mention all of the relevant factors and tends to make it sound as if it was deliberate British policy, which is probably not true. I don't think the whole article needs a POV tag but this specific section still needs some improvement. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Snowded has addressed BritishWatcher's concern. Should we go ahead and remove the tag or are there any other specific concerns? If so please state them here so we can work on them. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Article still has huge neutrality problems, the tag should not be removed. Why is the democracy theory the first section of this article? The solution to the table has also led to a replication of tables, which is pretty pointless. And why is the table not complete, why do some of them have no estimate at all? If reliable sources do not exist stating the number of estimated dead, how on earth can we state as fact that there were so few famines in those years. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Causes of famine

I removed this morning addition for the following reasons: (i) it reintroduced material previous inserted and deleted but not discussed or agreed (ii) there was a lot of synthesis and unsourced material (iii) it was written as an argument for a POV not as an encyclopedia entry. --Snowded ^TALK 06:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

OK see inserts --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've copy-pasted the content you've objected to in a numbered fashion below. Please point out the specific item where you see a synthesis, sourcing or POV problem so we can fix the problem.

1. The two primary theoretical explanations of famine are the 200 year old Malthusian theory based on availability of food and the newer 1981 theory based on entitlement of food proposed by Amartya Sen.

Unsupported statement, its your opinion that there are two primary ones, you need a source to say that --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Malthus, while vaguely in the Food Availability Decline camp, is neither the source nor the clearest proponent of it. Malthus' theory is that population expansion inevitably provokes food crisis because agriculture does not grow as fast as population. The two main theories idea is sourceable to "Famine" in the Cambridge History of Food.--Carwil (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Devereux, Stephen (2007), "Introduction", The new famines: why famines persist in an era of globalization, Routledge studies in development economics, Routledge, ISBN 9780415363471 says this: "The two best known theories of famine are both single-factor explanations: Malthusianism and the 'entitlement approach". Zuggernaut (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

2. The conventional food availability decline theory was that famines were primarily caused due to a single factor, i.e., the decline in food availability.

OK as a statement --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

3. However this does not explain why only a certain section of the population such as the agricultural laborer was affected by famines while others were insulated from famines.

This is one of your favorite authors and you are over dependent on that material. Its also a statement that needs to be balanced. --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that balance is necessary, unless someone can come up with a theory that claims this isn't true.--Carwil (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Full author, editor details:

Chaudhuri, B. B (1984), Desai, Meghnad; Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber; Rudra, Ashok, eds., Agrarian power and agricultural productivity in South Asia, 1, University of California Press, ISBN 9780520053694

Chaudhuri holds a Ph.D from Oxford and has authored several scholarly works and taught at numerous universities including the University of Calcutta, University of Heidelberg, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor), UC Berkeley, Maison des Sciences de I'Homme, Paris, University of Rotherdam, Hitotsubashi University, Koyoto University, The Asiatic Society, bangladesh.Other affiliations include Rockefeller Foundation Scholarship, Commonwealth Research Scholarship, German Academic Exchange Fellowship, Senior Fulbright Lectureship, University Grants Commission emeritus Fellowship, New Delhi, etc.

I do not know any of the authors personally nor do I share any affiliation with them. The three editors and the author are academicians of repute in their area of work and the goal of the content is an attempt is simply to explain how failure of exchange entitlements works. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

4. Other limitations of this theory include attributing the cause of famine to "an act of God", disregarding the failures of access to food and taking in to account only one component of famine, that of food production shocks.

Again its not clear how necessary this is, and how objective. I'd like to see some more material overall on theories, I don't think its as binary as you are trying to make it --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is FAD theory in a nutshell, and can be sourced.--Carwil (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

5. The Green Revolution can be viewed as a solution to famines based on this theory as it addresses the problem of food insecurity.

Its a claim --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Steven Devereux is a well known scholar on famines and works at the Institute of Development Studies in the UK. His biography can be found at the IDS website. The exact quote being used is:

"One implication of this way of thinking (challenged by Scoones, Chapter 14, this volume) is the solutions to food insecurity and famine lie in pursuing food production self-sufficient by raising crop yields through biotechnology (Green Revolution GM crops)." Zuggernaut (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

6. The newer theory proposes that the causal mechanism for precipitating starvation from famines includes many variables other than just decline of food availability such as the inability of an agricultural laborer to exchange his primary entitlement, i.e., labor for rice when his employment became erratic or was completely eliminated.

That source again, some use is fine but you are creating an exposition of his theory --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a pretty reliable source (team of 4 scholars of repute) as stated in point 3 above and it is not being overused in the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

7. The entitlement theory has been seen as an intellectual progression leading to a major paradigm shift in the way famines have been seen.

Claim needs to be balanced --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Or supported by third party sources (like Banik).--Carwil (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

For additional support, see pages 13, 71 and 212 of Banik, Dan (2007), Starvation and India's democracy, Routledge, ISBN 9780415407298 Zuggernaut (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

8. While the entitlement theory explained that famines could occur without food shortages, the theory failed to explain the cases of famines where triggers were gross violations of entitlements stemming from conflict and catastrophic government policies or failures of humanitarian relief.

See above and continued use of a limited number of sources --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing Devereux and Chaudhuri. They are different sources and this one (Devereux) is used only three or four times in the entire article. See Point 5 for his work and qualifications. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

9. Stephen Devereux proposes a yet newer theory based on a failure of response building on Sen's theory of failure of access of food. According to this theory, the cause of famine in the 21st century requires a conceptual shift from what caused the famine to who caused the famine, the answer to the latter being either the government, a militia or aid agencies. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So Devereaux is a proponent of one of your two theories, that means we have to use his material with care in respect of rival theories --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the theories are mine, nor are they my favorites or anything like that. FAD is the conventional theory, loosely affiliated with Malthus, the English priest. FEE was propounded by Amartya Sen in 1981. Devereux studies these first two mainstream theories, shows how they developed, points out the flaws in both of them and then proposes a third theory which is more applicable to the 21st century. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If these explanations are alright with Snowded and there aren't any more specific objections, I'll move this to article in the next 1-2 days. We can make any necessary improvements in article space. Moving it to the beginning will also help readers understand the various and changing responses to famines over the centuries. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

response

I am really not happy that we are placing such dependency on two sources, Devereux & Chaudhuri both of who seem to share very similar views. Carwil's comment on Malthus is interesting here. The area I know better (the 13th C famines in the UK) have a range of more sophisticated theories (weather and disease cause food shortage, economic system exasperates but is not direct cause etc. etc.). Devereux is an advocate of a theory (which includes a theory of the other theories) and we should really look for other sources before we take his word for itl

That aside it is not clear how far this article needs to pick up on material which should be in the more general article on Famine. The general theory aspects of the propose edits really should be discussed on that article. This one needs material on those theories which is specific to India and also (I think) which does not take a position in what is obviously an academic debate. I suggest a much reduced (in size) draft of the material and ideally some other sources. --Snowded ^TALK 07:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, I've addressed your concerns by adding additional sources, reducing the size by dropping the green revolution text. Here's the revised version.

“ The two primary theoretical explanations of famine are the 200 year old Malthusian theory based on availability of food and the newer 1981 theory based on entitlement of food proposed by Amartya Sen. The conventional food availability decline theory was that famines were primarily caused due to a single factor, i.e., the decline in food availability. However this does not explain why only a certain section of the population such as the agricultural laborer was affected by famines while others were insulated from famines. Other limitations of this theory include attributing the cause of famine to "an act of God", disregarding the failures of access to food and taking in to account only one component of famine, that of food production shocks. The entitlement theory proposes that the causal mechanism for precipitating starvation from famines includes many variables other than just decline of food availability such as the inability of an agricultural laborer to exchange his primary entitlement, i.e., labor for rice when his employment became erratic or was completely eliminated. The entitlement theory has been seen as an intellectual progression leading to a major paradigm shift in the way famines have been seen. While the entitlement theory explained that famines could occur without food shortages, the theory failed to explain the cases of famines where triggers were gross violations of entitlements stemming from conflict and catastrophic government policies or failures of humanitarian relief. Stephen Devereux proposes a yet newer theory based on a failure of response building on Sen's theory of failure of access of food. According to this theory, the cause of famine in the 21st century requires a conceptual shift from what caused the famine to who caused the famine, the answer to the latter being either the government, a militia or aid agencies. ”

Additional sources:
Murton, Brian (2000), "VI.4: Famine", The Cambridge World History of Food
Caplan P. (1994), Feasts, fasts, famine: food for thought, ISBN 9780854963843
Banik, Dan (2007), Starvation and India's democracy, Routledge, ISBN 9780415407298 Zuggernaut (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't I'm afraid. In effect you are proposing that we adopt the position of Devereaux who is saying that there are two theories (which he defines in an extreme form) and here is my new theory. You need someone outside of the advocacy circle saying this. --Snowded ^TALK 04:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Another try to address Snowded's concerns

Several other outside scholars agree with the third theory. I've added another source which provides the outside support you are looking for. The source: Rubin, Olivier (2008), The Malawi 2002 Famine – Destitution, Democracy and Donors, vol. 17, Nordic Journal of African Studies, pp. 47–65

Here's the rephrased text:

“ The two primary theoretical explanations of famine are the food availability decline theory (with which the 200 year old Malthusian theory is loosely affiliated) and the newer 1981 theory based on entitlement of food proposed by Amartya Sen. The conventional food availability decline theory attributes the cause of famine to a single factor, i.e., the decline in food availability. However this does not explain why only a certain section of the population such as the agricultural laborer was affected by famines while others were insulated from famines. Other limitations of this theory include attributing the cause of famine to "an act of God", disregarding the failures of access to food and taking in to account only one component of famine, that of food production shocks. The entitlement theory proposes that the causal mechanism for precipitating starvation from famines includes many variables other than just decline of food availability such as the inability of an agricultural laborer to exchange his primary entitlement, i.e., labor for rice when his employment became erratic or was completely eliminated. The entitlement theory has been seen as an intellectual progression leading to a major paradigm shift in the way famines have been seen. While the entitlement theory explained that famines could occur without food shortages, the theory failed to explain the cases of famines where triggers were gross violations of entitlements stemming from conflict and catastrophic government policies or failures of humanitarian relief. Stephen Devereux proposes a yet newer theory based on a failure of response building on Sen's theory of failure of access of food. According to this theory, the cause of famine in the 21st century requires a conceptual shift from what caused the famine to who caused the famine, the answer to the latter being either the government, a militia or aid agencies. De Waal and Devereux agree on what De Waal calls the anti-famine contract. The argument being that Democracy alone is not sufficient for the eradication of famines and that a political anti-famine contract pressurizing the government through a mechanism of processes and pressures is necessary. ”

Zuggernaut (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Do any of those references specifically say that there are "two primary theoretical explanations of famine"? --Snowded ^TALK 01:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Several sources call them 'influential' theories. So I'm OK to change it from primary to influential. We can also drop the Devereux source which should take Carwil's comment in account (move that content it to Famines) hoping this can address your concerns as well. Basically, we would say that there are two influential theories - FAD and entitlements and keep the lines that describe them. I think those two are important here. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to believe that the sources describe those theories as influential, the issue for me at the moment is that you do not have a source for "TWO" . I also think this is over elaborate in respect of the detail of entitlement theory. All that we need here is something that says that theories have developed which say its not just about food shortage per se--Snowded ^TALK 12:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am open to dropping the definitive article and starting the paragraph with "Two influential theories". We can truncate the entitlement theory by dropping the last statement describing its flaws. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Better, but it still reads like an advert for a particular theory or class of theories. You need a third party sources which says this, not one from the protagonists. --Snowded ^TALK 01:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's try this shorter version:

The conventional food availability decline theory attributes the cause of famine to a single factor, i.e., the decline in food availability. However this does not explain why only a certain section of the population such as the agricultural laborer was affected by famines while others were insulated from famines. Other limitations of this theory include attributing the cause of famine to "an act of God", disregarding the failures of access to food and taking in to account only one component of famine, that of food production shocks. Sen's entitlement theory proposes that the causal mechanism for precipitating starvation from famines includes many variables other than just decline of food availability such as the inability of an agricultural laborer to exchange his primary entitlement, i.e., labor for rice when his employment became erratic or was completely eliminated. The entitlement theory has been seen as an intellectual progression leading to a major paradigm shift in the way famines have been seen. While the entitlement theory explained that famines could occur without food shortages, the theory failed to explain the cases of famines where triggers were gross violations of entitlements stemming from conflict and catastrophic government policies or failures of humanitarian relief.

It gets rid of the "two theories" statement you have problems with. The sources are all external - Encyclopaedia Britannica, Devereux, Caplan, Banik and Chaudhari.

BTW, the re-insertion you claim in your edit summary isn't accurate. The content (starting with "According to Michael Massing writing in the New York Times in 2003...") has been there for a while and I thought we were in agreement about adding 1 line about the definitions of famine. Also you are right about this content being in a different section. I will move it there. Sources for the above content are the same:

Zuggernaut (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

....copying to the end of the talk page to keep the discussion active. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)