Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 12

{{talkarchive}

Article quality

OK. I have no idea if tempers have cooled enough to try to make some suggestions on this article, but I'm hoping the talk page is still on lots of people's watchlists. The article REALLY needs improvement. The name is bad, the intro paragraph is bad, the content is disorganized.
Anyone coming to this article without having suffered through all the recent "consensus" discussions would be mystified about the event itself.
Why do I think the name is bad? Well, the term "The Great Hunger" is a translation of the local Irish name for the event. That would be a fine name if the article was operating in an purely Irish (or even British and Irish) context, but the article is in a global encyclopedia. Using the name "The Great Hunger" in this way is somewhat equivalent to having an article called "The People" and having the article be about the Inuit, or the Sioux, or any of a number of peoples whose name for themselves was in their own language and was - essentially - "The People". It's not a suitable or helpful name for a event in a global encyclopedia. Calling the article on the famine "The Famine" or even "The Great Famine" - both of which are common descriptions in Ireland - would be equally inappropriate because it is equally unspecific. For heaven's sake, doesn't the name of the article need to include the word "Irish" somewhere!?!
Next, why do I think the intro paragraph is bad? The paragraph gives several different (and almost all bad) names for the event, says that it is still controversial, but hardly actually describes the event at all. How about a when, what, where, why, who, summary paragraph rather than some political balancing act on names?
Why do I think the content is disorganized? Well, read the "Background" paragraph. It's an uneducational mess, and a sample of most of the rest of the article.
Now, I don't know enough about the event to try to help in any major way on this article, but it's apparent that after all the recent fighting there must be a bunch of people who do. Further, I suspect that most of the article's problems are the result of to-and-fro hacking during recent edit wars rather than any lack of ability or knowledge on the part of the editors. PLEASE try to re-examine this article and re-write it in a useful and educational way rather than having edits be proxies of political arguments. For such a major event in Irish history (and an event that affected the USA and the UK in such major ways) to be so badly represented in WP is a real shame, a real shame. Hughsheehy (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. This was called The Great Irish Famine (modesty prevents me for stating who decided that) to replace the execrable "Irish Potato Famine". But we couldn't leave good enough alone I guess. Why not do a re-write yourself; then we can all turn on you and savage your work? (Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Execrable? Hughsheehy (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That means "utterly obnoxious", from the Latin exsecrabilis, "detestable". - (Sarah777 (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

I know what execrable means. I don't know why "Irish potato famine" is execrable. Hughsheehy (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, after lengthy discussion "The Great Hunger" was determined to be a scholarly, fairly unambiguous name which divided editors the least. These names which you call "bad" are some of the names by which the event is known in both the academic and popular press, and suggest the degree to which opinion diverges. Mackensen (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Great Hunger" is a translation of the local Irish name for the event." Well it's national really, and can be referenced in most works on the subject. It is also an actual name, for example "Irish War of Independance," "Flight of the Earls" "The Troubles" or the various names for particular battles. In short it is a name / title. 9/11 is not a suitable or helpful name for a event in a global encyclopedia for example. So anyone in America reading the article for example would know, that is what it is known as in that particular country. Now the use of the word "famine" in the title is misleading. It would suggest that there was no food in the country, which we know is not the case. Now the lead gives some of the alternative names used, so no real problem there. That's my take on it anyway. --Domer48 (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Domer48, "Famine" simply means that people starved or went hungry. They did starve and go hungry. (the word is from the French for hunger) What caused the famine when there was potentially plenty of other food around is another matter entirely and British policy deserves plenty of blame, and probably more recognition than it gets (I would guess that most British people are almost entirely unaware of the famine, let alone any potential UK government responsibility for it, or the fact that potentially much of the English population's food at the time was effectively stolen from the mouths of starving Irish people).
However, to quote WP (unreliable though that may be) "Although many famines coincide with national or regional shortages of food, famine has also occurred amid plenty or on account of acts of economic or military policy that have deprived certain populations of sufficient food to ensure survival." What happened in Ireland was a famine and use of the term is not misleading at all. Famine ≠ Natural Disaster, at least not always
"The Great Hunger" is a name for the event, no argument there and it has become a proper name - as you suggest - somewhat like "The Long March" or "The Holocaust". However, several points arise. (i) I doubt that it is the most commonly used name (ii) it is far from the most helpfully identifying name. Like saying "The Civil War", it is insufficiently specific. Do we mean the American Civil War, the English Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, the Irish Civil War? "The Great Hunger" is too vague. Even the majority of books that use the term "The Great Hunger" say "The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-49" or something similar. The books "The Great Hunger" that don't refer to Ireland include a novel and a book about a famine in Greenland in the 1880's.
Irish official sources generally just refer to "The Great Famine", but this can't be the title of the article because there were also "Great Famine"s (and they were man-made famines) in the Ukraine in the '30s and in China later on, and that's ignoring Ethiopia, etc.,etc.,etc. In any case, translating "An Gorta Mor" into "The Great Hunger" rather than into "The Great Famine" is arbitrary, since Famine just means hunger anyway.
As I said before, the title of this article should include the word "Irish" or "Ireland" somewhere in order to avoid being a too vague designation. It should use the most common unambiguous name for the event, which is probably either "The Great Irish Famine" or Sarah77's execrable "Irish Potato Famine". If we just have "The Great Hunger" then we may need a disambiguation page to separate the article on the Irish famine from either those other books (and the Greenland famine) or the documentary about Shane McGowan.
As for the rest of the article, particularly the introduction and the higher-level pieces, I still regret to say that it stinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughsheehy (talk • contribs) 11:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hugh, the problems you outline can all be overcome with the utility of the re-directs. Any and every name you could think, will all bring you to the right article. The first thing readers will notice is that in Ireland it is known "The Great Hunger," which comes from the Irish "An Gorta Mor." Nearly every book I have read on the subject makes reference to the term "An Gorta Mor." As to it being a too vague designation, just type "the Irish Famine" into the search bar on Wiki, and it brings you stright to the article. I've tried it with all the titles. --Domer48 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It could be called "The Flying Kazinski Brothers" and redirects would bring you to the "right" page. Hughsheehy (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I just tried, and no it did not. --Domer48 (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha Ha. My point is still valid. Hughsheehy (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Hugh, The Great Hunger quite unambiguously refers to the famine in Ireland between 1845 and 1850. This can be clearly evidenced by a Google book search (search) or the many references that use that name. The common sense argument is that the name hadn't already been "taken" by another "Great Hunger" and there is no disambiguation page for the phrase.

A google search also shows that there is little between each term for the event:

• "Great Famine": 58,400 (search)
• "The Great Hunger": 41,500 (search)
• "Great Irish Famine": 39,500 (search)
• "Potato Famine": 32,100 (search)

(Policy is to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." If you swallow the above results, then in this case that would be The Great Hunger since there are many "Great Famines" already. A precedent is Holodomor.)

I agree that the article is a mess and that we need to all get on-board together and stop bickering and mis-trusting each other. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Sony, "The Great Hunger" is NOT unambiguous. It's at least one disconnected book, a documentary about Shane McGowan and a famine in Greenland in the 1880's, albeit a not very well-known famine in Greenland in the 1880's. Looking at commonness and Google hits, I find that "Irish Potato Famine" is WAAAY more common than any of the others, with >100k hits. As you say "Great Famine" can be several events, including several that are AFAIK far larger than the Irish famine. Having a title, like the books generally do, of "The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849" would be unambiguous but I am still completely unclear as to what is wrong with the term that is apparently the most common name, i.e. "The Irish Potato Famine". Whatever one feels about the the political aspects (and "God sent the blight, the English created the famine" is still as good a summary as I've seen) that term does seem to be the most common. It might not be the term most used in book titles, but it's the most common term. It also matches the similar Highlands and European famines. Hughsheehy (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the name is OK. I wobbled a bit but have now fallen back in line with Sony/Domer. But even leaving aside the controversial bits we need someone who can really writeto get this into shape. Sarah777 (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we all agree that "we need someone who can really writeto get this into shape." Could I suggest that we park the name issue just for the moment, and focus on the other aspects? --Domer48 (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the very proposal of the name change states that the proposed new name (i.e. "The Great Hunger", which the article now carries) is NOT the most common name for the event!!!!! Instead, the name change is proposed on the basis of some package deal in regard to content and people agreeing or not agreeing on their views on the events around the famine. Have I been transported to another planet or are we still supposed to be on planet Wikipedia? Would the proposer of the change, i.e. Sony-youth, care to comment on what IS the most common name for the event? Hughsheehy (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In Ireland, "the Famine" or "the Great Famine" - in that order. Not speaking for Sony IGWS. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

Hugh, no doubt you've read what I wrote above, but I'll repeat it here. As I maintained before (see discussion), it's my belief that Irish Potato Famine is the most common name. I argued vigorously in defense of it, but consensus was overwhelmingly against me. That's the way things work on Planet Wikipedia. The "rightness" or "wrongness" of that term, and others, is the problem (i.e. Sarah's argument that "potatoes didn't starve"), and is, I admit, backed up by published works. In any event, you surely must admit that "The Great Hunger" quite uniformly refers to this event, and it's advantage is that, to paraphrase what Christine Kinealy writes, an NPOV name.

Dictionary.com has an entry on the phrase (link). I cannot see the Shane McGowan or Greenland (is it the novel?) book you are referring to, do you have a link? Could the Shane McGowan book title be based on the name for the event? --sony-youth^pléigh 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary.com also has "The Irish famine" as a title for the same event, but that isn't a suitable article name either. As for consensus...WP isn't a democracy and I don't believe that we should pick the wrong name just to be convenient or because people are persistent in pursuing mistakes. This article correctly used "Irish potato famine" for a long time. Further apart from not being the most common name I repeat the simple fact that "The Great Hunger" isn't an unambiguous name. There are at least two books (one about another famine) and one movie called "The Great Hunger" that have NOTHING to do with the event this article is about. The movie is a bio of a famous singer/writer and the two books are a novel by famous Norwegian writer and a book about a famine by a moderately famous French Explorer. For heavens sake, even the books titled "The Great Hunger" say that they are about "the Irish potato famine". They're using "The Great Hunger" as a dramatic title, not as the normal description of the event, e.g. the back notes of Cecil Woodham-Smith's book, which is titled "The Great Hunger", talks about "the Irish potato famine".
The initial objection to "Irish potato famine" seems to have been an observation that "it wasn't the potatoes that starved" and some feeling that the term was a political escape to let the British off the hook. Apart from the fact that an editor's personal preferences are entirely irrelevant, it's too easly to point out that neither the Highlands nor potatoes starved in the "Highlands potato famine", but that's what the famine is called.
I feel a disambig page coming on and refer you to the disambiguation page for "The Great War" as an example of where this sad episode ends up. Now, surely no-one would say that "The Great War" isn't a common name for World War 1, but it's NOT unambiguous and it's NOT the most common term. Hughsheehy (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And around in circles we go, Hugh, and the article gets no better. Look back through the archives. It's rubbish like this that's been dogging the article, I proposed a solution that I thought everyone could live with - if you want to drag it back up again, then by all means that's your right, but please don't wrap it up in a box labeled "concern for the article quality" because the end result is nothing of the sort.

Yes, Hugh - undoubtedly there are two books and a bloody video in existence entitled "The Great Hunger" (I still can't see them, I asked you for a link, is that not forthcoming?) that have nothing to do with the Irish event, but there are thousands of others that exclusively are. Christ, I'm sure a quick look will find you a book called "Irish potato famine" that has absolutely nothing to do the event either, so what? It's called creative license, Hugh. There's no copyright or trademark on the phrase. If someone want's to use it in another circumstance, there's nothing to stop them. Two books and a bloody video?? That's all you can find??? I get 850 results on Google books alone and all you can say is that, "There this book on this, and another book on that ..." --sony-youth^pléigh 12:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Rubbish like this"? I'm expressing serious concern about the article quality, expressing serious concern about the article's name and expressing serious surprise about the way that the name has been changed in complete contradiction to what the proposer himself thinks is the most common name. How does all that come to be "Rubbish like this"? As for the 880 hits on "the great hunger", about 440 of those hits (on google books) are from one of the other books alone. [1]
As for working on article quality, it seems that the recent focus has been on quieting political fights and not on focusing on referenced content. Hughsheehy (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sincerest apologies - I had actually just popped back to remove the entire post because I didn't like my own tone. You don't deserve to be treated like that, Hugh, and I genuinely extend by most sincerest apologies.

"... it seems that the recent focus has been on quieting political fights and not on focusing on referenced content." Yes. However, The Great Hunger itself is referenced. As popular as the Bojer novel appears to be, it was written in Norwegian in 1916. If we have to go back almost a century and switch languages to find a opposing, and fictional, The Great Hunger (if it indeed the title refers to an event - what is the book about? is there an event in it called The Great Hunger? is it fictional or real? or is that just the title of the book? is love or rage or some other human emotion the "hunger" that Bojer refers to?) then we can be pretty safe in assuming that, in the English language at least, The Great Hunger unambiguously refers to the Irish event - and we have references from reputable secondary sources and a dictionary definition should anyone disagree with us.

Maybe, we could start a new page, The Great Hunger (novel), if we have any information on the 1916 book worth mentioning. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

<reduce indent> A lot of names are referenced, including "The Irish Holocaust" and "The Famine". That doesn't make either of them the most common name or the best to use for the article title. Meantime "The Great Hunger" is the name of the Bojer novel in English and the Google books references to that novel actually outnumber the English language Google books references to anything famine-related so lets not try to pretend we're talking about some bizzare and minor book written by some flaky Norwegian. In addition there is also a "The Great Hunger" that refers to a Greenland famine in the 1880s. "The Great Hunger" is the name of that book "in English" too, since it was published first in French. Then we have the movie about a vastly talented and immensely drunk Shane MacGowan. So, we are back where we started....we have an ambiguous name for the article and also a name that is not the most common name for the event - a double whammy of reasons to revert to the long-standing, unambiguous and commonly used "Irish Potato Famine".
We need to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a forum to argue out or to agree historical compromises about the topic. We are making an encyclopedia and not writing legislation, so there is no need to engage in the kind of horse-trading that so demeans the normal political process. If you think that the event should be called something other than the Irish potato famine then there needs to be a good and verifiable reason to say so, not just personal preference or a hope that other editors will "play nice" on the rest of the content. Hughsheehy (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW - while we're talking about ambiguity, even a quick search about the Ukraine famine in the 1930s shows that it is reasonably often called "the Great Hunger" when written about in English. The WP article on that famine uses the Ukrainian term but there are plenty of references to the Great Hunger if you care to look. Then there are references to a "Great Hunger" before/during the Black Plagues in the 14th century, descriptions of the Mao famines in China as "The Great Hunger", another famine in China in the 11th century that was called "The Great Hunger", etc...etc.
Again, this article needs to have the word "Irish" or "Ireland" in the title. Hughsheehy (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The great hunger is not a good name...It really should use the common name of the Irish potatoe famine (which is shortened to just the famine in Ireland due to it being local).

What I find worst though is the horrible practically never used Irish holocaust being up there in the introduction as if it was a accepted name on a par with the others.--Him and a dog 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The most common name for the starvation in Ireland of the 1840s, "the Famine" is most certainly not a shortened version of anything. It is THE name for the event; sometimes disambiguated as the Great Famine. Type simply "the famine" into Google; the first six hits specifically refer to the Irish famine of the 1840s; out of the thousands of famines in recorded history. If we want to change the name from "The Great Hunger" then simply "the Famine"; with disambig for other famines. Or if that is too Irish-centric for some them the Great Irish Famine has the quadruple-whammy of being (a) the second most common name in Ireland after "famine"; (b) It is not both unused in Ireland and meaningless like "Irish potatoe famine"; (c) is is unambiguous; (d) It is the most common name used by people searching for an article on the famine. And don't bore me with talk about using the "most common name" - I fought long and hard that Ireland should be the name of Ireland on that basis but was overruled because the most common name wasn't the only determinant. Other factors had to be taken into account. (Sarah777 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

Although I wasn't involved in the "Ireland" debate, I believe the key issue there was ambiguity/confusion and unfortunately that is an issue with "Ireland". As Metallica said, "Sad but True". Now, this isn't the "Ireland" article, but the issue of unambiguity is key. The name for this article should be an unambiguous name. "The Famine" fails that test, as does "The Great Hunger". As for a disambig page for "other" famines, there is already a page called "List of famines". There are depressingly many, and some of them are depressingly recent.
However, I must again ask why "Irish potato famine" is supposedly a meaningless term? Sarah777 has described it as meaningless and as execrable, but I'm entirely unclear why the most common name for the event should be so described. Hughsheehy (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Famine" certainly is a shortened version of something. Its the way naming local historic events generally works. For instance the American Civil War is just called the civil war in the US. I'm Irish myself but calling it the famine is really too Irish-centric, there have been many other famines in many other nations of the course of history. --Him and a dog 10:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason that I proposed to have the article at this title was to resolve a dispute concerning the inclusion of the term "Irish holocaust" in the lead. That was the "package deal" described above. Since that term has been removed, the "package" no longer exists, and I no longer support the article being at this title. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In Ireland the name used is An Gorta Mór, translated "The Great Hunger." This can be referenced to most books on the subject. This would defiantly satisfy the criteria on Irish names in wiki policy, that is, it should be the English version. If you look at the translation, it is less POV than any of them. As to the Great Irish Famine (1740-1741), that in Ireland is called the "Forgotten Famine." Like I said, the utility of the re-directs, should be employed. --Domer48 (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that "The Great Hunger" isn't the most common name and even if it was, it isn't an unambiguous name. Hughsheehy (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see how the potato famine or the great famine or any of that sort of thing is POV. Which POV is it suppose to be representing exactly?--Him and a dog 16:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that question. I don't see how calling something a "famine" belittles it in any way. If anything, calling it a "a great hunger" makes it sound less dramatic than a famine....imho...but only mho. _{(reedited, since mho isn't particularly important)} Hughsheehy (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue of POV is no one of my own, but raised by Christine Kinealy in her “This Great Calamity.” It concerns the use of the word “famine,” in situations were large amounts of food were still being produced and exported while people starved. She points out that although potatoes were the main subsistence crop in Ireland, they only accounted for 20% of agricultural output. --Domer48 (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Issues around what to call the event, and how choices over what to call it reflect the struggle over interpretation of the event, are well documented in the literature. Christine Kinealy's description of this on the first page of "A Death-Dealing Famine" was the source my reasoning that "The Great Hunger" was the most NPOV of titles, under which the phrased ranging from the "Great (Potato) Famine" to the "Irish Holocaust" could be included neutrally. This can be read on Google books, the relevant passage is below:

"The relative absence of academic research arose partly from ideological struggles concerning the nature and purpose of Irish historical research during the period from 1845 to the present. Even the designation of the Famine has been an area of debate. In popular understanding 'The Great Famine' has become the most common sobriquet for the years of devastation and destruction in Ireland. Yet, 'The Great Hunger', 'The Great Calamity', 'The Irish Holocaust' and the Irish phrases 'An Gorta Mór', 'An Droch-Shaghal' and 'Bliain an CGhorta' are all ways of describing the same event, and indicate differences of interpretation and emphasis. Canon RoRourke, in his early account of the Famine published in 1874, noted that during the course of the Famine, relief comittees and government officials avoided using the term 'famine', substituting instead 'distress', 'destitution', 'dearth of provisions', 'severe destitution', 'calamity', 'extreme misery', and so on. The Irish phrase 'An Gorta Mór', meaning 'The Great Hunger', is regarded by some as being an accurate description of years of hunger, which were not merely caused by food shortages. For the same reason, the use of the term 'famine' is disliked by a number of nationalist commentators on the grounds that between 1845 and 1852, large volumes of food were exported from Ireland as thousands died of starvation. For others, the word 'holocaust' is too emotive and ascribes too much culpability to the British government. The word is also closely associated with the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis in the twentieth century, although it was used by a number of nineteenth-century commentators when describing the Famine - Michael Davitt, for example, refers to it as 'the holocaust of humanity'."

--sony-youth^pléigh 18:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehm...I don't get the point of the above post by Sony. It seems Christine Kinealy uses the word "famine" a lot, and merely comments that other terms have sometimes been used. That's hardly news. Hughsheehy (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Josquius' question was: "I really don't see how the potato famine or the great famine [meaning the name given to the event] or any of that sort of thing is POV. Which POV is it suppose to be representing exactly?" You seconded that question.

The passage from Kinealy shows that the view within the published literature on the subject is that the name given to the event reflects particular points of view (POV) on the subject. It also explains which POV some names are supposed to represent.

You asked a question. I answered it. That';s all that's to it. Can you not follow your own questions? --sony-youth^pléigh 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

<reduce indent>So, let me see if I have this right.
Govt officials at the time avoided "famine" so that they didn't give the appearance that there was actually a famine and that people were starving to death.
Meantime nationalist commentators disliked/dislike the word "famine" because they felt that calling it a famine didn't recognise the fact that the famine occurred in a country that was still exporting tonnes of food. (actually, since Ireland wasn't really legally a country at the time Sarah777's often expressed point that the famine occurred in the UK and only persisted because food was forcibly removed from an unfavoured bunch of people in an unfavoured part of the UK to feed a favoured bunch of people in a favoured part of the UK is rather relevant).
Then although the word "holocaust" was at least occasionally used at the time it has (particularly since WWII) many emotional connotations that make it a highly charged and contentious word to use, probably since "Holocaust" is now practically synonymous with a large-scale, planned-in-advance-over-drinks, well-organized and entirely deliberate genocide.
At the end we're still left with a simple fact. The famine is almost always called a famine. Even in the Kinealy ref, while discussing the POV around the various terms, the one neutral term she returns to is "famine" and she then mentions a bunch of other terms as descriptions that are also used with "The Great Hunger" simply listed as one of these.
Fine. This is all nice content for the article....but is the article to be called "The Great Irish Famine (1845-1849)" or "The Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849)"?
AFAIK, "Irish Potato Famine" is the most common term.
_{in a counterpoint to Sarah777's assertion that calling it a potato famine seems to indicate that the potatoes starved, I'd ask whether the famine was really something that we want to call "Great"? are we really reduced to such apparently silly debating points as these?} Hughsheehy (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What does this diatribe have to do with the question that you asked? Clearly your enthusiasm for arguing over this matter has caused you to miss this post and my lenghty defense of "Irish Potato Famine" here, which I directed you to before. What's more worrying through is the manner in which you disregard and demean published work on the subject in favour of your personal opinion and your opinion of divergent view on the topic. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Diatribe? What diatribe? Also, where am I demeaning published work, pushing a personal opinion or demeaning divergent views? Please show me because I don't see it. I'm arguing and questioning about FACTS and published references, nothing more or less, and asking to understand why/where there are problems with what everyone seems to say is the most common term because I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S PROBLEMATICAL and I'd like to understand any problem before proposing changes to the article...particularly because this article has been put under ArbCom supervision.
The reason I'm asking so many questions is because I'm trying to understand the other views, not to demean or ignore them. Right now I don't understand them and my read of the talk page archives didn't educate me.
My post above is my attempt to summarize my understanding of the POVs that are supposedly illustrated in the reference given and which are supposedly the reason the article's name was changed. As for your previous posts, I read them and I understand that you also think the name of the article should be "Irish Potato Famine", as do most people I can find in the talk page archives. Hughsheehy (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus wept, Hugh. You say that you read the discussion above but I can hardly believe that you have - see above the discussion above entitled Discussion about term "Irish Holocaust", and specifically here and here.

The article was moved NOT because people thought that "The Great Hunger" was the most common name, but because it was a name that we all could live with and would ALLOW US TO REWRITE THE LEAD so as to include the phrase "Irish Holocaust" in a manner in which we all could agree. REWRITING THE LEAD WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE MOVE. The agreed rewrite of the lead has since been changed (i.e. references to the "Irish Holocaust", which was the contentious point, have been removed from it). As things stand now, there is no good reason for the article to be located at this title anymore from my point of view. However, should the term "Irish Holocaust" be reinserted, the trouble will probably start all over again. If you can think of a better way of resolving the impasse that that term presents (specifically the matter is WP:WEIGHT) then I'm all ears.

Does this clear things up for you? My comments about diatribe above were because you comments made no sense in terms of the question you asked or in terms of why the article is now located at this title. If that was down to crossed wires then I take it back. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your points about reading your previous posts and the references I did read them. I think the rationale of negotiating a wrong name for the article on the basis that some fudge can then be agreed on some other words in the article is entirely unhelpful and bound to lead to longer term problems - any my aim is to address one thing at a time. Furthermore, although one of the posts you asked me to read says that Kinealy describes "The Great Hunger" as the most common name, the reference you've posted above doesn't say any such thing....so EXCUSE ME for being confused. I think we have now established beyond any reasonable doubt that "The Great Hunger" is the WRONG name for the article. How to address terms like "The Irish Holocaust" is a separate argument and I'm sure that we can find a suitable solution. God help me, but I edited the "Suggestions of Genocide" section yesterday and the change doesn't seem to have attracted too much opprobrium. Hughsheehy (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Who said that "The Great Hunger" was the most common name? Certainly not me. Could you quote me saying so or direct me to a diff? There is no such thing as a "right name" or a "wrong name", as the Kinealy quote demonstrates, only perspectives on what to call the event. Unless you can find a source to say that calling the event "The Great Hunger" is wrong, I'll take that to be your personal opinion, which you are entitle to but which is irrelevant here.

Like policy says, naming conventions are just that: "conventions, not rules carved in stone." In any case, the proposal to move was put under IAR in order to resolve a thorny issue that we found ourselves wrapped up in. Consensus at the time was to go ahead cautiously. You don't agree with it? Wonderful. Consensus does change. Put up a notice that you want to move the page back and just get on with it. Whinging on about it like it's the worst thing since Cromwell isn't to anyone's benefit. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity... is there some way we can tell how many people come directly to this page by typing "The Great Hunger" into the WP search engine, and how many are redirected to this page after typing "Irish Potato Famine"? If so, I would suggest that that would be a good way of determining what the most appropriate title of this article should be. Personally, I'd never heard of "The Great Hunger" title until I noted the redirect, but I'd be perfectly happy to bow to the majority in this case.... Geeman (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that neither of the two options you give would win such a test. "The Famine"; "The Irish Famine"; "The Great Famine" or "The Great Irish Famine" are all more likely candidates. For example, in Firefox if you type "the famin " the "suggestions" drop-down lists "the famine" first and then "the Irish Famine" second. Sarah777 (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, but my point is that we should use as the title of this page the most often searched for term in WP. Is there some way to find get stats from the WP search engine? Geeman (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The answer to that question lies beyond the horizon of my knowledge! Sarah777 (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of the term The Great Hunger, but I've heard of Irish Famine. Anyways, call the article whatever yas want. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a few suggestions about how the article can be improved. I've noticed several sections where the content doesn't match the heading. For instance, under 'Food exports to England' the last three paragraphs are not about exports at all. They cover private charities. Further down, under 'Charity', only the last paragraph discusses charity. Most of the 'charity' section is taken up with reactions and proposals from Irish contemporaries. Their tone implies opposition to some earlier British proposal which isn't mentioned, but they are not directly related to the heading 'charity'.

What I would suggest is moving the last three paragraphs of section 3.3 to section 5.3 on grounds of relevance and consistency. And moving all of the current 5.3 (except the last paragraph) to the 'reactions' section. Either that or put these excerpts in a new section, perhaps with the heading 'Irish proposals'.

How does that sound? Asmaybe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Article quality-arbitrary navigation break

I still don't see variants of the name famine as POV. That source only really proves that one POV sees such names as a POV. The Great Famine/Potato Famine being POV is in turn a POV. Most Irish and British certainly don't regard it as such, its just a fairly matter of fact name for the events.

I would also agree that the great hunger sounds less impressive then calling it a famine but yeah that is just POV.--Him and a dog 12:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"I still don't see variants of the name famine as POV." Your opinion, my opinion, and the dog's opinion don't matter, only published sources do.

"That source only really proves that one POV sees such names as POV." Which POV? The source mentions "academic debate", "relief comittees and government officials", "some", "nationalist commentators" and "others" all wrestling over different names for the event depending on POV. That's a lot of POVs.

"The Great Famine/Potato Famine being POV is in turn a POV." Everything is POV. There is nothing wrong with POV. In fact, please stop using the term POV; or at least read WP:NPOV first. We want POV in articles on Wikipedia. Articles on Wikipedia depend on having POV. They flurish on it. POV is the lifeblood of this project. In fact, it is actual policy that articles on Wikipedia contain POV. A neutral POV, attributing due weight to differing POVs, but POV none the less.

"Most Irish and British certainly don't regard it as such, its just a fairly matter of fact name for the events." The source itself regards "The Great Famine" as the most common name for the event. This page was located at Great Irish Famine before the move to facilitate the rewrite to the lead. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you for a source that says the sky is not green.--Him and a dog 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is handled in Wikipedia:Verifiability ("Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."). This is one of key policies of Wikipedia. I'm not about to search for references, but, making assumptions about what sources exist, here's how it works:

• "The sky is not green." - There is no source for this, so this statement CANNOT be included.
• "The sky is green." - There is no source to support this statement, so this statement CANNOT be included.
• "The sky is blue." - There is a source to support this statement, so this statement CAN be included.

Now for another core policy, Wikipedia:No original research. Suppose you find a source to back up the statement that "Blue is not green." You could very easily deduce:

• "The sky is blue. Blue is not green. Therefore the sky is not green."

This deduction on your part, as true as it is, is not sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia because it is original research based on a synthesis of published works. ("'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.")

Finally, the last of Wikipedia's core policies is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. While you will be able to find sources supporting the statement that the sky is blue, you will also find sources supporting statements that:

• "The sky is colourless."

This statement, which is verifiable, needs to be combined with another statement is verifiable ("The sky is blue") in a neutral manner that accords each due weight (along with other such as "The sky is blue during the day." etc.) even though they are in conflict with each other (i.e the sky cannot be both blue and colourless at the same time). This is the hardest part of writing an article on Wikipedia, and why you will find people shouting "POV! POV! POV!" so often. I think that the current version of the Sky article does a good job of this:

• "During daylight the sky of Earth has the appearance of a deep blue surface, as the result of the air's scattering of sunlight.")

You may think that it does not present a neutral point of view. Together we will have to iterate through edits of the article, or discuss it on the talk page, until we find a version that we can agree on. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say leave the article as The Great Hunger. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As an actual citizen of the Republic of Ireland and having studied a lot more Irish history than most people who seem to have posted here, I might be qualified to inform you that in Ireland this tragedy is referred to as The Famine. Not "Potato Famine" nor "Great Hunger" or any of the ridiculous names put forward by experts who have never set foot on Irish soil let alone learnt about the event in the classroom as a Irish child. The "Irish Potato Famine" is also likely to cause offence, for reasons that have been discussed above. The famines in Somalia etc. were not referred to by their crop failings so why is the Irish Famine labelled in such a way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.32.154 (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because we are saddled with a language, English, which is heavily embedded with pro-English POV. And a lot of non-Irish editors are unable to accept this simple fact. Sarah777 (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Datapoints for the name

FWIW:

• Irish primary school curriculum uses "the Great Famine"
• Junior Cert history guidelines uses "the Famine"
• Leaving Cert history syllabus uses "the Great Famine" and "the Famine"

jnestorius^(talk) 14:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm responsible for the name change to it's current state. The idea didn't work out (see from here down) and I would support a change back or to another. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My preference would be for Great Famine (Ireland). jnestorius^(talk) 15:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Irish Famine,or Great Famine (Ireland), whatever gets the traffic going. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Either one. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) should apply here. --John (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion: 'The Great Famine' or 'The Famine', known in Britain as 'The Irish Potato Famine', refers to (&c., &c.)... ? --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it know in Britain as the "potato famine" as a form of denial? Doesn't seem so bad if only the potatoes starved! Sarah777 (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Photograph

The photograph captioned "A starving family in Carraroe" is certainly not from the 1845-50 famine this article discusses. The Illustrated London News printed many engravings related to that famine, based on sketches by their correspondents, but given the state of photography technology at the time, I can't believe this photo is from that time period. More likely it's from around 1890. The citation is to the National Library of Ireland, but I haven't found it in their online collection. Sttaylor (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This should help you out here. --Domer48 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You linked to an Illustrated London News article from 1849. It has six illustrations but no photograph. Asmaybe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Starvation in England

Cannot see any mention that it was common for people in England to die of starvation at the time, although it was I believe called dropsy at the time, due to the swelling that occurs during the last stages of starvation. 80.0.121.148 (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should there be? Article is about the Great Irish Famine. Maybe there needs to be an article about the Great English famine. If it was even a fraction as devestating it is rather astonishing if there isn't already one. Sarah777 (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A very POV article

the author has exploited every opertunity to make the British Governmnet look bad, and has left out some of the efforts of the conservative British govermnet, prior to the Liberal government (which thought the best option was to let market forces deal with the problem) such as the importing of grain from America. It also fails to metion that food was being exported to England By Irish farmers (aswell as Anglo-Irish landowners). This is a poor article and another example of the anti-british sentiment that seems to exist in all articles relating to the Irish question. . 217.42.148.217 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. And like is the Holocaust article poor 'cos it doesn't reflect well on Hitler (to get my Godwinism in first)? Sarah777 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you just jettisoned any credibility you had by Godwining this. Grow up. 69.253.222.184 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If the Godwin fits....wear it. In this case it fits like a glove. Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a spectacularly bad example of moral equivalence. Can you really think that a famine caused by (get this!) nature is the equivalent of genocide? It's fair to call that deranged. It cheapens genocide and the Holocaust and betrays and ignorance of proportion and history. But then, that's what Godwin is all about. Got that? 69.253.222.184 (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a spectacularly good example of willful ignorance. The Ukranian genocide perpetrated by the Soviet Union also involved the manipulation of a famine. 68.183.223.200 (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A famine in a country (get this) with an abundance of food, shipped out under armed guard? It's fair to call that deranged, and betrays and ignorance of proportion and history.--Domer48 (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Been wondering. Can we get a reference for this "shipped out under armed guard"? I've seen reference that food coming in to Ireland was 4 times more than food going out and that the food stores were certainly under guard in the ports, but no reference to food being "seized under armed guard" from anywhere. Saying "shipped out under armed guard" implies a forced negative net flow of food, which I have not seen in any reference. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Bastun for coming up with this reference ("Curriculum" section, below):

• According to John Mitchel, quoted by Woodham-Smith, "Ireland was actually producing sufficient food, wool and flax, to feed and clothe not nine but eighteen millions of people," yet a ship sailing into an Irish port during the famine years with a cargo of grain was "sure to meet six ships sailing out with a similar cargo."
• Dr. Kinealy's most recent work is documented in the spring, 1998 issue of "History Ireland". She states that almost 4,000 vessels carried food from Ireland to the ports of Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool and London during 1847, when 400,000 Irish men, women and children died of starvation and related diseases. The food was shipped under guard from the most famine-stricken parts of Ireland: Ballina, Ballyshannon, Bantry, Dingle, Killala, Kilrush, Limerick, Sligo, Tralee and Westport.

Scolaire (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, even if the page is a tad partisan in its approach. I've got refs that, while noting the huge exports, also says that imports were even higher. Must dig them up. Meantime I'll try to find the original Kinealy that New Jersey is quoting. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Irish Potato Famine

I suggest we change the title of this article to "Irish Potato Famine" as that is how it is almost universally known. "The Great Hunger" is just an emotive translation from the Irish Gaelic term for it - and a biased one at that. TharkunColl (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Do I detect some anger there Tharkun? I suggest one can't be biased against genocide. Do you think so? Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the emotive translation. "The Great Famine" would have been just as acceptable as a translation from Gaelic, rather than Hunger. But in any case it wasn't genocide, because that implies intent. TharkunColl (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call it "The Great Hunger" - I thought "The Great Famine" was a much more common name (that is what it is near universally called in Ireland - though I know that doesn't count in your view). It was, of course, genocide as it meets the modern UN definition. Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It does seem peculiar that the article refers to the event as "the potato famine" in several of the blurbs beneath the graphics, mentions the potato crop as both a cause and a misnomer throughout, and simply has the word "potato" in it over three dozen times, but actually using the word in the title of the article itself seems to bring up the immediate response about genocide.... I suspect the suggestion that it should be named something OTHER than The Irish Potato Famine is as NPOV as any other name, but at least that title seems to reflect the facts as presented in the article in its current form--which some folks would argue is already NPOV despite using the supposedly biased term throughout. If the issue is with how the period is to be characterized, I don't think using the word "potato" is really much of an issue.

It similarly seems telling that the link to the article about the results of the famine Irish potato famine (legacy) can be named according to the common usage without any argument. Surely we should change the names so they have parity with one another. That article also deals with the same issues described here, and in additional detail when it comes to a few particulars, so if "Irish Potato Famine" is such a problem for the naming of this article it seems like it would have been brought up on that article's talk page sooner.

Incidentally, when I go to the links above that do Google searches on the respective names I get 421,000 hits for "potato famine" not 32,100. Google also yields 148,000 hits for "great famine" not 58,000. So unless those searches are somehow flawed that would seem to put the "potato famine" well ahead of the others in terms of common usage. The current name of the article "great hunger" scores the lowest of all four names with 34,200. I don't know how the numbers posted above were derived but things seem to have changed quite a lot since last January.... If common usage is to be the standard then "Irish Potato Famine" is the clear winner. Geeman (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No. "The Great Famine" is the best name, I've corrected the errors you've highlighted. Sarah777 (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected some of your "corrections". Much as you may object to the word "potato", if an external site referenced here uses it in its article or page title, then we do. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that they are not "corrections" to begin with. The Google searches on this page pretty clearly indicate that most people do, in fact, refer to this event as a "potato famine" rather than a "great famine or hunger" or other term. The difference is dramatic. 3x as many results (420,000+) from Google for "Potato Famine" than "Great Famine" (134,000). That's definitive. If the WP policy is to use "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" then Potato Famine is clearly that name as it is used more than twice as often as all three other naming suggestions combined. Geeman (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure Google is a reliable approach. And "most common name" isn't a binding Wiki policy - the country of Ireland is called the "Republic of Ireland" on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Any other evidence for commonality would be helpful, so if there's anything else we can use for this purpose then I'd be happy to entertain it. Incidentally, the "Republic of Ireland" article is to describe the modern state. There is also an "Ireland" article to describe the land itself. So I don't think that works particularly well as an example for how things should be handled here.... Geeman (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Could I just ask editors to review previous discussions here and here, and the many archives. It will stop all the repetition. --Domer48 (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good shout Domer. FWIW I think "The Great Hunger" is a ridiculous name. Call it what the world calls it. This is an international project. --John (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, anything but the great hunger, besides its utterly undescriptive, mentioning potatoes is much more descriptive as that is what makes people think of 19th Century Ireland. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Great Irish Famine (1844 - 1849), anyone? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish potato famine- this article itself admits that's what it's most commonly called, and that's what we name articles after on Wikipedia. special, random,Merkinsmum 00:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Great Irish Famine (1844 - 1849)" is better than the current title, but "Potato Famine" does appear to be the more common term. I don't think we should make the majority of people looking for this article redirect to something they probably wouldn't recognize. Geeman (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Irish (Gaeilge) name is AN GORTA MOR, and that translates into English as The Great Famine. In Ireland, it has always been called "The Great Famine". 78.19.9.60 (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If this were the Gaeilge version of wikipedia then that'd be a pretty good reason to name the article An Gorta Mor or something based upon that term... but since this is the world-wide English text we should use the most common and descriptive term in that language.

Just to illustrate the issue regarding the specificity of the title and why it should be called something other than, say, The Great Hunger: that title can refer to a general translation from the Irish, but it also refers to things like novels on technology by Johan Bojer or Eskimo life and culture by Leonard Peterson, and intimates things ranging from cultural events across the planet to bad weight-loss programs. The Great Famine (without a year or location attributed to it) subsumes things like The Great Famine (1315-1322), Holodomor (also called the Great Famine of 1932-1933) and I would guess several other similar events around the world. Conversely, "Potato Famine" refers to one and only one event. Geeman (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish potato famine --John (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish potato famine is a neologism. -78.19.171.224 (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that a problem? Geeman (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider this to be appropriate and the article its self illustrates the point quite well here, here and here. The people did not die because of a lack of potatos, but a lack of food. That the country was exporting food during this period (be it under armed guard), put a question mark over the term "famine." Could editors please read the above mentioned discussions, so we do not have to keep repeating the says arguements. Like I keep saying, the re-directs will bring you to this article regardless of what term you use, because regardless of what term is used, you get to the article you want. --Domer48 (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the kind of issue that belongs in a discussion as part of the article, but shouldn't determine the name of the article itself. The Holy Roman Empire was not holy, Roman or really an empire, but that is the term we use to refer to that conglomeration. We could use a term that people and leaders of the HRE used themselves like "Regnum Francorum Orientalium" or "Regnum Francorum" which translate to "Kingdom of the East Franks" or "Kingdom of the Franks" but they are not the common usage terms in English, and would lead to confusion with Charles the Great, his kingdom and any number of other historical periods and cultures. The more sensible use of redirects is from less frequently used titles to the more common one. In the long run, I suspect the WP redirects for terms like "The Great Hunger" and "The Great Famine" will lead to a list of book titles, historical periods and various cultural issues rather than to just this article on one period of Irish history. Those are relatively general terms and could/should have several articles dedicated to them. In the short term we should prepare for that eventuality AND use the most common English term. Geeman (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please hurry up and change the name of the article. The great hunger is a stupid name that I have never heard. The article states - "The Great Famine in Ireland itself and The Irish Potato Famine internationally" so who the hell apart from wikipedia is using the great hunger. The name of the article should be the Irish Potato Famine (relevant dates), I do not understand why this has not been implemented apart from a few POV contributors moaning that this downplays wider issues. Such discussion is a matter for the article NOT THE TITLE. Also it doesn't matter what it's called in Gaelic, this is the English wiki. CHANGE PLEASE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.63.92 (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction / repetition

"... the Choctaw Indians themselves victims of the genocidal Trail of Tears famously sent $170 (although many articles say the original amount was $710 after a misprint in Angi Debo's "The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Nation") "" -- and a couple of paragraphs later "a group of American Indian Choctaws collected $710 (although many articles say the original amount was $170 after a misprint in Angi Debo's "The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Nation")" Jooler (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hidden unreferenced text

There was a lot of hidden and unreferenced text, which did not appear in the article. I have removed it.--Domer48 (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dormer - just seeing this comment now, after I'd reverted. Some of that text is unreferenced, and some has fact tags since October as you said - but a lot is also referenced. And nobody could see the text to see it required citations as someone had hidden it... I'd prefer if we could unhide the text and see what's valid and should remain after referencing, and what isn't and should go? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ye what ever you think yourself, I hid the text months ago, as it was unreferenced, and it was considered a good call at the time. Rather than just removing it I left it there to be referenced by those involved in the discussions. If you check the history on the talk page, it should have been noted at the time? --Domer48 (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding text

I have a referenced quote by John Waters: Irish Hunger, Edited by Tom Hayden pg.29 / 103

“ The Famine was simply the most violent episode in a history characterised by violence of every conceivable kind, the inevitable consequence of the destruction of Ireland’s cultural, political and economic diversity. Revisionist semantics about the source of the blight or the feasibility of aid efforts once the Famine had taken hold are utterly irrelevant to the meaning of the experience. The Irish economy, reduced to a virtual mono-cultural dependence, was a holocaust waiting to happen. For this reason, it is meaning less to discuss the Famine outside of the context of the colonial process in which it was rooted...When I speak about it in public, I make a point of saying, unequivocally, that the Famine was an act of genocide, driven by racism and justified by ideology. ”

I would like to add a summary of this quote to the article, would editors like to offer suggestions on the summary. --Domer48 (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not proposing this as a formal suggestion, but I certainly think that something like "Although the arrival of potato blight and the failure of the potato crop were not pre-planned by the British government, the reduction of a huge proportion of the Irish population to poverty and dependence on a single crop, the reluctance and inadequacy of the official response to famine in the country, and the way in which the Russell government in particular welcomed the reduction in the Irish population have all contributed to a widespread feeling that the famine represented something approaching genocide. At the time, and since, the famine was called a holocaust." Since many serious historians (and I think Waters is a columnist not a historian) have said that they don't think it represented genocide as-such, that would have to be presented too. I'm not sure that a quote from John Waters should be in the article, but could certainly be in a reference. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer48, why not quote directly instead of paraphrasing? Asmaybe (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

@Asmaybe. Problem with lots of direct quotes is "which ones to pick and how much to include?". It can be a slippy and messy slope. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wotapalaver thanks for the suggestion, and since no one has a problem with quoting Kevin Myers who would have a problem with Waters. Why were the Irish reduced to having to rely on a single crop? Why were the ports not closed to exports of grain like other countries? Asmaybe when I quote directly I get knocked and called a quote farm, when I try paraphrasing I get accused of pushing a POV, thats just my experiance. --Domer48 (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer, Kevin Myers doesn't seem to be quoted in the article. As for the problems you might have with quoting references, perhaps your creativity in going from references that clearly call the famine the potato famine to arguing that they're advocating that the term potato famine shouldn't be used is an indication of why you might occasionally have disagreements with other editors about your use of references. It's not a sufficient reason to turn the article into a series of block quotes. The substance of the message can still be adequately presented, with quotes cited. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh but you do on the "British Isles" article. The fact that I can quote references from books, and not only that, but that I acutally read them might occasionally mean I have disagreements with other editors. It is usually limited though to those who can't see beyond a PC screen, who happen to be the same ones who seem to rely on comment and opnion. It also helps in the fact that I edit articles I'm intrested in and have read about, a lot. I read hundereds of articles, but only edit the ones I understand. --Domer48 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I do, do I? First, Myers is cited in a reference, not quoted directly in the article. Second, I didn't put that reference there. Read again. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Time line and chronological sequence

As the potato blight was only one of the proximate cause’s, it would be inappropriate to begin the time line with the arrival of the blight. The conditions and circumstances leading to its arrival would also have to be included. One example to illustrate this point would be the claims of potato dependency. What were the contributing factors which gave rise to the dependency in the first insistence? I have therefore placed the time line at the foot of the article pending further discussion. It would also be an opportune time to discuss the chronological sequence of the article, taking the same factors into consideration. --Domer48 (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it's necessary to move the timeline pending discussion. It does seem reasonable to present significant dates leading up to the event itself, e.g. the phases leading towards dependency on potatoes. It'll be tricky to identify particular dates, since the process was gradual, but go ahead and suggest some. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Timeline is there at the beginning of the article to give a brief overview of the main events of the Famine to those readers of the wikipedia who know little about it. The rest of the analysis makes little sense without some prior knowledge of the basic facts. Colin4C (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. If events pre-famine are to be included, which might be a good idea, the formatting should reflect it, perhaps with "Pre Famine" (or something) then "The Famine Years" and "Post-Famine Years" as categories (or similar). That would allow a straightforward presentation of economic, political, demographic factors and events prior to the famine to be neutrally presented too.Wotapalaver (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD in addition you have the background section at the beginning of the article to give a brief overview of the main events. The rest of the analysis makes little sense without some prior knowledge of the basics unless you put the article in chronological sequence. --Domer48 (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with time lines is that they can go on for ever. I think it should be removed. I've added some information, disolving the Irish Parliament should explaine why the ports were not closed. Malthus gives some idea behind the thinking of the day. Act of Union is very important. --Domer48 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be put into continuous prose if that looks nicer. The idea is to give the basics of what actually happened during the famine getting into the heavy analysis. Alternatively we could divide the whole article into an historical first part and an analytical second part. If we do that, though, it will mean fairly extensive modifications to the whole article - for which we will need some sort of concensus. And I think your Malthus quotes should go into an analytical section rather than into the historical narrative... Colin4C (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C we have a lead section and a Background section, what is the point behind the timeline? If we discuss the chronological sequence of the article, it will help a lot? --Domer48 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just on Malthus. Malthus is a bit too indirect to have in a section of bullet points. These should be more like " 1800 - Population of Ireland reaches 4.5 million" and " 1801 - Act of Union passes; Ireland and Great Britain form the new United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" etc. Malthus MAY speak to thought processes in the British government, but so would John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith. Malthus doesn't belong in the bullet points of a timeline. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission is set up under Edward Lucas." Yet it dose not mention the fact that it was to be sold to the people at cost price. It made not difference how much it cost to people with no money, and in addition, by selling it at cost price they were contradicting the very policy they would later use as a defence for not supplying Relief, because it would undermining market forces and the normal cource of trade. So why is that placed in the timeline as a stand alone statement, when it is obviously misleading? The Malthus statement is very direct, and has more reason to be in that section than the one about peel. --Domer48 (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer, I'm not talking about the Peel statement, I'm talking about Malthus. Malthus is indirectly related, if at all - and there's no evidence cited in the article (that I know of) to say that he's relevant at all. Peel, whether the statement about him is adequate or not, was a directly involved player. There are plenty of things that can be said about Peel, but at least he was probably better than Russell or Trevelyan. Let's focus on either justifying or removing Malthus. Right now he's a distraction rather than a help. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• 1798 The Reverand Thomas Malthus publishes an Essay on the Principle of Population explaining how famine can be a “positive check” on population.
• 1826. Thomas Malthus 6th Edition: “. . .we should facilitate...the operations of nature in producing this mortality. .and if we dread the frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should...encourage. - forms of destruction (for example) make the streets narrower, crowd more people into houses, and count on the return of the plague.”

Keeping references that I removed from the article. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

BYW, Malthus's words in this passage are irony See Gregory Bungo, Irony in Thomas Malthus' "Essay on Population". Paul B (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have again moved the "Timeline" to the foot of the Article, per WP:MOS for Articles. The rational suggested for the timeline is "to give a brief overview...before getting into the heavy analysis." As per MOS, we have the Lead section and the Background Section which give a brief overview. The heavy analysis, comes near the end of the article under the section Judgement of the governments handling of the Famine. Now as I have illustrated above, placing single stand-alone statements can be misleading, and are best dealth with within the article. Now the "Timeline" makes no sence, can editors point to another article were a timeline appears at the start of the article. Like I have already said, what is the Lead Section for? --Domer48 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer, you're so desperate to remove Peel that the logic is now broken. How can Russel stop aid programs if you never let Peel start them? We can adequately state that the corn was to be sold rather than given and that this was a problem. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, apart from removing Peel from the timeline, you entirely removed 1845 - the year the famine started. [2]. Please edit carefully. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the Timeline to the top as giving a succinct overview of the whole Famine. The material in the body of the article is prolix, confused and incomplete and also appears to assume previous knowledge of the events of the Famine. Colin4C (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C can you point me to another article with such a "Timeline"? Can you explaine how this fits with our WP:MOS? What is the lead section and background for? --Domer48 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we call it or the format. The idea is to give the basic facts in a brief summary. The fact is that anyone interested in the history of the famine is ill served by an incredibly prolix, repetitive, confused and incomplete mixture of narration and analysis here. If you want comparisons it's as though the article on World War Two was some senile ramble about Rommel in the Desert which missed out the battle of Stalingrad. We should have in mind the interests of readers of the wikipedia who are not already experts on the Famine. This article needs a lot of work basically to make it more coherent. The most basic information is missing. E.g. the information I have provided on the beginning of the famine:

"1845 - On 9 September potato blight is noted in Wexford and Waterford. By November half the crop is ruined. The Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission is set up under Edward Lucas."

This information is not mentioned anywhere else in the whole article. Do you assume that the reader already knows all this or that it is not important to know the circumstances of the beginning of the famine? That is just one example. Colin4C (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead section according to WP:MOS should give the basic facts in a brief summary. Your suggesting that it dose not. The answer therefore is to address the LEAD. If you consider that the reader is ill served by the article then outline suggest solutions, again this has nothing to do with the Lead section but the article in general. You have still not explained why the issues you have raised i.e. "the basic facts in a brief summary" can not be dealth with according to our WP:MOS, and contained in either the Lead Section, or the Background Section. Now you have already said "It can be put into continuous prose if that looks nicer." Colin4C, it already has, and its called the LEAD. So can I suggest that you remove the Timeline, and re-write the Lead and give the basic facts in a brief summary, because you can not have two, giving the exact same information as you suggest. --Domer48 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay I've put the Timeline material after the Background within a new initial History section. I hope that is agreeable to everybody. If the bullet point style of the Famine sub-section is felt inappropriate it can be altered. Colin4C (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin, quite frankly it’s ridiculous, no offence intended. Add the information as part of the narrative, and not bullet points. --Domer48 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have restored my edit. Feel free to improve it but don't resort to blind reverts. Be constructive. Colin4C (talk)

Colin, please address the points I have raised, and don't accuse me of blind reverts. I have being using this talk page to raise relevant points, which you have not answered. You have said yourself you "can be put into continuous prose" as outlined in the Lead Section according to our Manul of Style. I will continue to assume good faith, but your last revert could appear to be just you making a point. --Domer48 (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer, the points you have raised are just throwing mud and unspecific references to MOS. Colin's points are perfectly correct and his replacement of the timeline is right. If you want to replace the timeline then add the content first, then remove the timeline, don't just delete useful information. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your contrabution is as useful as they were on the previous discussion? Now since the point I raise is not being addressed, I'll spell it out for you "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Now is that clear enough for you? How dose a "Timeline" improve on this, and explaine why you consider we need a Lead Section, Background and a Timeline section. Please don't waste editors time with stupid accusations and just answer the question. --Domer48 (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My contributions are about references, verifiability. You might not like that. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. This addition is not concise, and for example in relation to Peel it dose not mention the fact that it was to be sold to the people at cost price. It made not difference how much it cost to people with no money, and in addition, by selling it at cost price they were contradicting the very policy they would later use as a defence for not supplying Relief, because it would undermining market forces and the normal cource of trade. Therefore it is not able to stand alone as a concise overview. The Lead should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. These editions do none of this, and leave numerous questions unanswered, such as why did John Russell halt government relief works, when did Peel recognizing that this could be a serious problem, as it is contradicted within the article, why were the rules that were applied to the aid extremely restrictive etc etc. Since this article is under ArbCom ruling, all additions to the article, likely to be challenged should be discussed on the talk page first. --Domer48 (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This was not an addition, it was a rewriting of existing material into a different form. Remember that this article went to Arbcom because of you, not me, and it was YOUR suggestion that the timeline be replaced by a proper lead. That's what I did. Leave it there. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As has been the case with your contrabutions, you refuse to address the points raised, ignore them infact, like now. Now address the issues I have raised, and stop editwarring. --Domer48 (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring, I'm addressing the issues as reasonably as possible, and you're on 3reverts already today. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Addresss the issues I've raised, as it now appears you simply wish to make a WP:POINT. If this is the case, you have come to the wrong article. --Domer48 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No WP:POINT here, just trying to help re-write the article, which really needs it. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)