Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 17

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv 🍁 02:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland

Why is this page under discretionary sanctions for The Troubles? This article doesn't even mention them, and there was over a century between the two events. If there's a valid reason, perhaps something could be added to the edit notice (or a talk page FAQ) explaining it in order to avoid people like me asking this question again. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It says at {{ArbCom Troubles restriction }} "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Irish nationalism". DrKay (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but how could one reasonably construe that? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 11:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis and DrKay: This article was placed under mentorship by the Arbitration Committee in 2007 (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine - discretionary sanctions weren't invented until 2008 at the earliest), and part of issues at the time was disruption by some editors with an Irish nationalist point of view. The mentorship was for "at least a year" and although it never formally closed it was essentially forgotten about long before the October 2018 clarification request (linked below) made that formal. The discretionary sanctions comes from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, which opened the day before the Great Irish Famine case was formally closed. The restrictions in that case became Discretionary sanctions, but the exact scope of those restrictions seems to have been different at different times depending where you look. When "British baronets" were removed from the scope in 2012, Template:Troubles restriction apparently noted it as "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland" (see AGK's comment at (The Troubles)) but today it notes only "[page the template is on] along with other articles relating to The Troubles", while WP:DSTOPICS lists it as "Pages relating to The Troubles and the Ulster banner". "Pages" rather than "Articles" is definitely correct, per a 2014 motion. So in short it's a bit of a mess and so I will initiate a request for clarification to tidy it up and explicitly set/confirm the scope of the sanctions. However before then I need to know whether it is desired for this article be subject to discretionary sanctions or not - I'm not involved in the article in any way, so I don't know. I'll also ping the Ireland Wikiproject about this question. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Related to the above, I've traced what I think is the history of the authorisation: see User:Thryduulf/Troubles scope. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The Great Irish Famine case arose when some "Irish nationalist" editors edited the article to reflect the view that the Famine was genocide. A 2005 book on the Famine was quoted, both in the added content and in the ArbCom case, saying "the flowering of famine scholarship during the 1990s has given academic respectability to certain key nationalist perspectives on the famine". Thus the events of 1847 are a key part of the narrative of 20th/21st-century Irish nationalism (and also of Ulster/Scottish loyalism – see Famine song). There has been very little controversy on "Troubles" pages in the last five years or more, but it were ever to start up again, this page is as likely to be affected as any other. Scolaire (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the risk Scolaire notes exists, but I also think such provisions as were set for The Troubles should be interpreted as tightly as possible. With a complex mutual history going back to the 1100s, we should not spread the blanket of special measures too widely, and indeed for years, aside from a few specific issues, there has been a broadly civilised approach by most to Irish-British topics. On the specific question, I do not believe the Great Famine should be included. Scholars and others genuinely differ on their assessment of what happened - and the degree to which the (undisputed) reprehensible behaviour of some was driven by any ideology beyond greed / blind laissez-faire trade policy - and this has to be reflected in the usual neutral way. This should not require measures such as those for the much more raw matters of The Troubles. SeoR (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Scholars and others equally – and equally genuinely – differ on their assessment of e.g., whether the IRA was sectarian in the War of Independence, to what extent Catholics really were discriminated against in the 1960s etc. All history is subject to dispute, and this should be reflected in the articles and in the talk page discussions. In a collegiate environment, which by and large we have these days, there should not be edit-wars, and if editors got in a spat about minor matters, I certainly wouldn't agree with somebody being sanctioned because they reverted the spelling of "colour" twice in 24 hrs on a "Troubles-related" article. But if a major edit-war was brewing in the future, it would be good to have the restrictions in place to prevent it blowing up completely. We know not the day nor the hour. Around the middle of 2016, I was considering proposing that Troubles restrictions should be lifted altogether, as they were no longer needed, and then this happened – after years of collaborative editing, suddenly a perfect shitstorm at Flag of Northern Ireland. The heated and occasionally vitriolic discussion is here. God knows what it would have been like if those six to ten people had all been doing three reverts a day! Next time, I would be wary of removing a template from a currently templated article and saying "ah, sure it'll be grand!" Scolaire (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I have now initiated the clarification request: Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: The Troubles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The request has now been closed and the scope of the discretionary sanctions clarified to: "Pages related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed." and the 1RR clarified as having this same scope. The request is now archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Clarification request: The Troubles (February 2019). Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the great work you all do on the Irish Famine (Great Famine) page. The mention of about one million people dying due to famine in the opening paragraph of the article, citing C Kenneally, is at odds with the contents of the paragraph headed 'Death Toll'. Better to state that there is honest disagreement if that is the case or varying estimates than lead the reader to see two conflicting and contradictory estimates. Thanks.

For what its worth Gustave de Beaumont (Ireland, Social, Political and Religious) cites a figure of about 2.4 million, adding an estimate as to what the population might have been had the famine not occurred. I can copy out the paragraph detailing how he arrived at his estimate if it might be of any help though it need not be cited at all except where a reliable source is needed to buttress the view that more than one million people died. Many thanks. M. H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.135.55.16 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

We should go with the figure accepted by virtually all modern historians, not one from 1863. DrKay (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If 1863 is unacceptable, DrKay, then you'll want to review the 1841 and 1851 figures in the paragraph entitled 'Death Toll'. You've missed or ignored the substance of what was a respectful query, but thank you anyway for your time. M.H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.135.55.16 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Those figures aren't in the lead either, nor should they be. They are also cited to academic works written in the 1990s and 2000s, where they are discussed extensively. DrKay (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The current section on exports during the famine is highly misleading and represents a minority scholarly opinion as if it is the consensus view. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Irish History describes the state of the question on the issue of whether Ireland could have fed itself if it were not for the exports: "Few historians support the case advanced by John Mitchel that Ireland produced sufficient alternative foodstuffs to have filled the 'potato gap' in 1846-47, but for a partial exception based on the view that Irish exports were significantly under-recorded, see Christine Kinealy ..." Kinealy's position, and that stated throughout most of this section, is clearly not that of the scholarly consensus but, rather, a minority view held by 'few historians'. While it is useful to include this minority view, it needs to be clearly identified as such. At the moment we have a very selective set of quotations and references drawing on the authority of a a 19th century poet and a TV broadcaster to make it look as if the view is mainstream and almost completely ignoring the actual consensus position. Unless anyone has any objections over the next few days, I will reframe the section to keep the content intact by flag it clearly from the beginning as a minority view that most historians reject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.242.61 (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

While it appears that the anon IP lost interest in contributing, the facts of the level and in some cases, exact quantities, of exports are listed right there and are reliably sourced. Perhaps the Oxford Handbook might not be the most neutral of sources. The fact that Ireland was a net food exporter during the famine is widely known and taught in Irish history classes... at least in Ireland. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been a bit busy the last couple of months! I'm afraid that questioning the neutrality of top tier academic literature like an Oxford Handbook written by the senior academics working in the field in favour of 'what is widely known and taught in Irish history classes' in Irish schools is ridiculous. As to the fact that some figures are included and sourced, yes they are but it is a partial list of foodstuffs, not complete, and it doesn't take account of imports. 79.70.242.61 (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Though clearly emotive, then and now, the question of whether Irish agriculture alone could have made up for the potato failure is essentially beside the point. This is the "let them eat cake" school of famine relief. For the most part, what could and should have happened, and eventually did, was Ireland continuing to export high-value produce, mostly high-protein, while importing cheaper high-carb food for famine relief. Which is what we still do today. The article would benefit from a referenced addition making this point. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Without belittling the political and humanitarian consequences in any way, I think it is important to remember that the famine was also a consequence of a biological phenomenon, hence the photo of late blight. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The IP makes good points which have not been answered. It’s a question of RS: if the Oxford Handbook does indeed make that statement about where the balance of modern scholarship lies (I haven’t checked, so can’t confirm) that needs to be addressed properly as the section clearly does not reflect that. Currently, the sourcing in the section is inadequate to counter what the Oxford Handbook apparently says. Why anyone would think that John Ranelagh or Ebenezer Jones are appropriate sources I have no idea, let alone thinking they bare superior sources to the Oxford Handbook. DeCausa (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added the perspective of Cecil Woodham-Smith, that the workhouses were funded by money from the rates, that came from rents, that came from food sales. Some of those food sales were going to be abroad. In hindsight we know the workhouse system was overwhelmed by numbers. It was a new system and hadn't been tested. Food should not have been exported, but we are saying that with the benefit of hindsight.78.16.41.64 (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This article on the great famine, is at its core completely a white wash of events. While mostly the facts are correct, there is one serious point that is not focused on. Most people think the famine was due to the only food the Irish could grow was potatoes and that when these failed the Irish died The facts are far more complicated whilst simple at the same time The Irish were able to grow a vast array of food, which due to their English landlords who literally kept them as slaves The Irish were predominately farmers The rents were so high they had to give the english every crop they grew in exchange for rent The only vegetable that the english didnt want or gave an exchange rate so low that the Irish kept it for themselves was the potato England's long-running political hegemony over Ireland was the true cause of this so called famine.

The English conquered Ireland, several times, and took ownership of vast agricultural territory. Large chunks of land were given to Englishmen

There was no famine as we know it The english took all the food and just left potatoes for the Irish to live on and when the potatoes failed the Irish died Many southern Irish people believe the death toll was in its millions, yet your article state only a million died and that the population fell between 20% and 25%.[6] due to death and emigration

These important facts are all skewed in this article

What I as an Irish person would like to see at the forefront of this article was The Famine should be renamed the great Irish Genocide caused by the English who are still abusing the Irish — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.prendergast (talk • contribs) 16:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lead section says this:

Longer-term causes included the system of absentee landlordism^{[1] [2]} and single-crop dependence,^{[3] [4]} and the impact of the blight was exacerbated by government laissez-faire capitalism economic policy, common in the world at that time^{[5] [6]} though in the case of Ireland in the mid-19th century, this was tempered by some interventionist policies also.^[7]

Are we looking at the same article? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"Together with the Napoleonic Wars, the Great Famine in Ireland produced the greatest loss of life in 19th-century Europe."

"Together with"? What the hey is that supposed to mean? The Napoleonic Wars and the Great Famine cooperated to produce a great loss of lives? That sentence really must be re-written! GeneCallahan (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Re-write it then, GeneCallahan. --Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

If I knew what the author meant to say, I would. GeneCallahan (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed! But how about "the Great Famine competed [yeuch! must be a better word] with the Napoleonic Wars as the cause of the greatest loss of life" etc. More importantly, so what? Does it add anything? --Red King (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This is known about even in other countries; how is it possible it's not well known in Ireland, where many of the editors are no doubt from? --Espoo (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, searching for Ottaman produces results, but why is it presented as a legend? The link above has a photo of the document and https://www.irishtimes.com/news/role-of-turkey-during-famine-clarified-1.672383 also confirms it's not a legend. --Espoo (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This already appears, with a source, in the article? There is no mention of any "legend"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The most common years when I was learning were 1845 to 1849. Some scholars made a case that effects extended to 1851, notably mass emigration. But few, if any, ever mentioned 1852. Now, with just one supporting reference used, one of the basic facts of the Famine, its end year, is expressed as 1852..? Could this at least be debated? Everything about this topic is sensitive, and the effects resounded for decades, but still, we must have a clear, academic-consensus-based position on core facts. SeoR (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Reading it cold, as I've not done for a couple of years, another oddity strikes me - we have a major historical event, which unfolded over a few distinct years. But the article lacks a History or Chronology section, having only thematic elements. Should there not be a short, clear history of the event, with all the other topics discussed as they related to its cause, operation or legacy? I would say right after the Causes / Origins section...

Structure now:

Origins: 1) Causes and contributing factors,

Responses: 2) Reaction in Ireland, 3) Government response, 4) Food exports during Famine, 5) Charity,

Results: 6) Eviction, 7) Emigration, 8) Death toll

Legacy: 9) After the famine

SeoR (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The drawing here entitled "Scene at the gate of the workhouse, c. 1846" has the name "Kinross" or "Kenross" Union Guardians on the back right. Where in Ireland was this? 2A02:8084:6A20:4600:536:3065:9A35:ED03 (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I want to upload these two or three pictures & to this article's section "Emigration". They are essential to the entry. But I don't know whether they belong to the public domain. I am also not familiar with Wikicommon's criteria for uploading. Please help me to work it out.--波斯波莉斯 (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@波斯波莉斯 Those are some good images, and I don't think they've been uploaded already. You can upload them to Wikimedia Commons and stick the {{PD-US-expired}} tag onto it and put it onto the page then, because the copyright has expired on works published in the United States before January 1, 1926. If there are any problems you can reply here I can upload them for you. Regards, Uses x (leave me a message) 13:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carlygould96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

In the 'analysis of the government's role' section, there is the baseless & unfounded claim that 'most historians reject the claim that the famine constituted a genocide'. There is zero evidence to support this viewpoint, and I have twice attempted to remove this blatantly false claim; however, I have been unsuccessful and have even been accused of 'edit warring' which I unequivocally reject.

A few partisan historians arguing that the famine was not a genocide does not equate to consensus.

Please remove this totally made-up claim. Duke Of Dirty Dancing (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

How are Cormac Ó Gráda, Kevin Kenny and Liam Kennedy (all of whom say the majority of Irish historians reject this view and all of whom have written academic works that support the article content) partisan? DrKay (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Three historians does not equate to a consensus. It's an inaccurate claim that should be removed for the purposes of parity. Duke Of Dirty Dancing (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Duke Of Dirty Dancing, nobody is claiming that the three historians are the consensus; they are the eminent authors of three sources agreeing that there are a majority of historians rejecting the allegation of genocide. To oppose that, you'd need to provide equally reliable sources asserting the contrary; that there are a majority of historians supporting the allegation. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Duke Of Dirty Dancing, Genocide was first defined in law in 1948. Nothing prior to that can be lawfully called a genocide. Take your complains elsewhere. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting to note that affirmations of it being a genocide were left in by the OP. If people want to find more sources to support the section in question, and turn the anti-genocide consensus into a Japanese battleship pagoda-style mast superstructure, go ahead.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

"Genocide was first defined in law in 1948. Nothing prior to that can be lawfully called a genocide." Then it will be strange to have Ukrainians claiming the famine in 1920s as genocide, as well as Holocaust, and of course, recent claim by US government that the massacre of Armenians in World War I by Ottoman Turkish army as "genocide" 粵人非漢人 (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

One of many English genocides around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.73.59.242 (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"From 1846, the impact of the blight was exacerbated by the British Whig government's economic policy of laissez-faire capitalism." What part of foreign-ruled feudalism is "laissez-faire"? This article also makes the point that during a second famine the number of deaths was significantly less, in due part to people not losing their homes. The reason they were losing their homes is because the British taxed them beyond their capacity to pay, and then forcibly evicted them, much of this disparity originating with the British taking the land, selling it to foreigners and refusing the local populace from owning their own land. What part of that is laissez-faire capitalism? A laissez-faire capitalist system would have no limitations on who could buy property and ostensibly wouldn't levy taxes on people for land they didn't own and for products they couldn't produce. If it's referring to economics specifically in England, that should be explained further in how it exacerbated the blight (maybe it was something to do with potato markets?) because there's no explanation for this statement as is. J1DW (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The "laissez-faire capitalism" was not supplying government famine relief (or not much of it) for ideological reasons. The great majority of the peasants evicted paid no taxes at all (but excise duties on a few things, like tobacco and alcohol), just rent to their landlords, many of whom were Irish. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggest changing "From 1846, the impact of the blight was exacerbated by the British Whig government's economic policy of laissez-faire capitalism." to "Economists disagree about whether laissez-faire or protectionist economic policies under the British Whig government were to blame for the declining situation after 1848." Reason: renowned economists from Milton Friedman to Thomas Sowell disagree that laissez-faire policies were to blame. Wikipedia should impartially reflect the disagreement rather than choosing a side. NationalInterest2016 (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Historians agree that the British Whig government's laissez-faire policies exacerbated the famine's lethality, whereas as the previous Tory government's intervention had some benefits. The libertarian economists who contradict this are non-experts who are covered by WP:FRINGE. It would be like introducing Maoist interpretation of the Great Leap Forward into that article. There should be no change in this regard. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

This claim is poorly sourced (not a history book on Ireland, deleted webpage, no named author, no quoted sources) and seems to relate to events in France and Germany, not Ireland.

"The potato was not popular at first, but it rose in popularity after an unusual promotion campaign: involving landowners and members of royalty, who desired for their tenants to plant and eat the crop."

For France and Germany see: Antoine-Augustin Parmentier#Potato publicity stunts

Original edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29&diff=prev&oldid=875531713

I will delete it.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Later today when the WP:1RR expires I will delete this edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Famine_(Ireland)&diff=1121561130&oldid=1120462309

Michael Pollan#The Botany of Desire is not an historian and should not be used as a source for historical facts.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but is this a fact or not? Should we just have a different citation included instead of removing the info completely? Xx78900 (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Not really - the Plantations of Ireland began in the 1550s and the largest, the Plantation of Ulster in c 1606, all decades before Cromwell, and the settlers were at least as often Scottish as English (then two different countries). Phrased as is, it should stay out. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, Michael Pollan has been a prof for several years, and was always more an author, often on gardening, than a typical journalist. And his interest in food is more on eating and its history than on "cooking" - not many recipes. But he is not a historian; his degrees are in Eng lit. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Removed - the issue is better covered elsewhere in the article. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29&diff=prev&oldid=132033484

Inserted a quote from Beyond Beef by Jeremy Rifkin

Multiple issues.

1. He's not a historian. His work in other areas has been criticised Jeremy Rifkin#Criticism as shoddy and "anti-intellectual propaganda masquerading as scholarship".
2. This book appears to be a polemic about the eating of beef.
3. It claims that "Eventually, cows took over much of Ireland,..." Really? Perhaps after the famine with the repeal of the Corn Laws and the higher wages to labourers.
4. This article for the British Agricultural History Society https://www.bahs.org.uk/AGHR/ARTICLES/38n2a5.pdf disputes the claim. CORMAC O GRADA "Between the Union and the famine, the Corn Laws benefited Irish landlords and farmers, and encouraged tillage. The proportion of output due to grain and potatoes was probably as high in 1840-5 as it ever had been." O Grada then discusses differing views and the lack of evidence and then finishes with "The famine quickly convinced proprietors and farmers that the days of tillage were over. Both Corn Law repeal and the rise in real wages in the wake of the famine forced a switch away from grain." Which sounds like the opposite of Rifkin's claims.

I'm going to delete it.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Both quotes were added in a single commit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29&diff=prev&oldid=169227551

I will be removing them for the following reasons.

1. Neither provides answers to what happened or why it happened.
2. The O'Brien quote is from well before the blight struck (therefore irrelevant) and the Michel quote appears to be a polemic. I doubt that either reflects the views of the Irish labourers who starved.
3. The article is already too long and needs added information - deleting these will make space.
4. The article as is forces the reader to read the views of two politicians before they get to the 'meat' of the article.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It's highly irresponsible to cite laissez-faire capitalism as a cause of the irish famine. There was nothing laissez-faire capitalist about ireland in 1849 at all. You could just as inaccurately try blaming it on socialism by saying it was caused by a government regulated control of what people grow 174.71.228.58 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• No, it's entirely valid. Feeding the Irish Poor was seen as Government Intervention by the members and employees of the British Government, so meaningful food relief programs were shut down. Also the government did not mandate that potatoes be grown.--24.77.16.87 (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Suggest changing "From 1846, the impact of the blight was exacerbated by the British Whig government's economic policy of laissez-faire capitalism." to "Economists disagree about whether laissez-faire or protectionist economic policies under the British Whig government were to blame for the declining situation after 1848." Reason: renowned economists from Milton Friedman to Thomas Sowell disagree that laissez-faire policies were to blame. Wikipedia should impartially reflect the disagreement rather than choosing a side. NationalInterest2016 (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Historians agree that the British Whig government's laissez-faire policies exacerbated the famine's lethality, whereas as the previous Tory government's intervention had some benefits. The libertarian economists who contradict this are non-experts who are covered by WP:FRINGE. It would be like introducing Maoist interpretation of the Great Leap Forward into that article. There should be no change in this regard. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Laissez-faire often translates to the bystander effect. Taking no action to correct visible problems, because you do not feel responsible for the situation or because you expect someone else to act instead. It is a recipe for disaster. Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The Poor Law tax was introduced in Ireland in 1838, the late 1840s this tax went up and op - especially after the Russell government passed legislation forcing areas of Ireland that were not dependent on the potato to pay for areas (for bankrupt Poor Law Unions) that were were dependent on the potato. A policy of higher and higher taxation, and the "roads to nowhere" and other schemes of Sir Charles Trevelyan, can not honestly be described as "laissez faire".2A02:C7C:E085:8D00:B98A:4B1E:1A58:24A1 (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Ireland's Holocaust has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 30 §Ireland's Holocaust until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

In the short descriptions of the Holodomor and the Soviet famine of 1930–1933, the famines are described as "man-made", yet in this article, the short description does not use that adjective. But this article does seem to suggest that, at least in some part, the famine was man-made. What are the thoughts of the editors here on the short description here having the "man-made" descriptor added, or the introduction having a line similar to Bengal famine of 1943 that says "Some scholars characterise the famine as anthropogenic (man-made), asserting that wartime colonial policies exacerbated the crisis. Others argue that the famine was the result of natural causes." It seems like that would be a good summary of how scholars debate to what extent the Great Famine in Ireland was exacerbated (or mitigated) by the British government. Please share your thoughts. JasonMacker (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't decide the question of whether the famine was any particular thing, we are encyclopedists and can only work from sources. To include such a descriptor, we would need a substantial supporting body of knowledge. The Holodomor and other Soviet famines were caused very directly by deliberate and / or insane actions (some based on spurious "biological" theories, some about political ideas / class and industry reorganisation concepts). Now, there is no doubt that the famine in Ireland was caused by natural events (the spread of a disease), and while there is equally no doubt that its effects were grounded on a dangerous level of accumulated crop dependence, and grossly exacerbated and prolonged by policies we would now call "heartless" or worse - on the face of it, "man-made" looks a stretch. "Man-exacerbated", perhaps, but is there a scholarly source for that? SeoR (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, except that calling it "man-made" would be wrong and misleading. I think the Bengal line you quote is rather dubious too. Think of the recent earthquake in Turkey & Syria. Clearly a natural disaster, but many deaths will result from inadequate rescue & relief work afterwards. That doesn't mean it should be called "man-made". In fact the loss of life from the great majority of really big natural disaters is increased by "inadequate" government intervention afterwards. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Have you read the article? It makes it clear that the British government played a large role in the famine. You also mention that the Holodomor was "caused very directly by deliberate and / or insane actions (some based on spurious "biological" theories, some about political ideas / class and industry reorganisation concepts)" This fits the Irish famine perfectly. Many British government officials and intellectuals at the time believed in Malthus's ideas and thought that Ireland was overpopulated, so the famine killing people was bringing balance in their view. This was combined with their belief in the racial inferiority of the Irish people that causes them to produce too many children. That sounds like a spurious "biological" theory to me! This is detailed in the Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Contemporary_analysis section of the article, which could use some expansion. And another part of the article specifically quotes historian Mark Tauger that states that the circumstances of this Great Famine and the Holodomor are similar. JasonMacker (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Short descriptions should be short and simple. They're not the right place for the discussion of spurious theories. DrKay (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Who asked for a "discussion of spurious theories"? I'm asking for a short description that is in line with the actual content of the article which discusses how it was man-made. JasonMacker (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't really. The article is rightly clear that the "proximate" (as it puts it) cause was a plant disease. Yet you want to completely ignore that in the short description? No. Johnbod (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The proximate cause is a plant disease... ok but plant diseases happen. Crop failures happen. But those don't necessarily mean famine. The reason why it became a famine is because of the British system created where many Irish people were depending on one, single crop, namely the potato. If I eat from a variety of vegetables, a plant disease affecting one of them will negatively impact me, but proportionately. If there's a government policy forcing me to ONLY grow the one crop that is impacted by plant disease, that's when famines happen. Again, I encourage you to read the article, where this is all detailed. Without human (government) intervention, the famine would not have happened, thus, it is man-made, and this is detailed in this article as it currently exists. If you have a problem with the way the current article describes this, feel free to provide sources and suggest changes to be made. My proposal is simply for the short description to be representative of the article. JasonMacker (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No. Short descriptions should be short and simple. They're not the place for complex issues or statements that require detailed explanations or countering arguments. DrKay (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

At the start of this section, I pointed out that other articles clearly find it useful to include "man-made" in their short descriptions, so what you just said is clearly false, unless you're of the opinion that "man-made" should be removed from the short descriptions of those other articles too. JasonMacker (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

You also mentioned the Bengal famine of 1943, which (rightly imo) doesn't use "man-made" in the short description; like the Irish one it had "natural" causes, but was made worse by government policy. Short descriptions should avoid all possible controversy and doubt, so yes I would far rather remove "man-made" from the Soviet ones than add it to either of those under British rule. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I've done this for you. Also happy to add it to the Irish one. DenverCoder9 (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Since your position is against consensus on those pages, it should be added to this one rather than removed from that. If you disagree, you can take it up on those pages and achieve consensus there. DenverCoder9 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I was reading an article that reexamined the intentionality of the famine by the british authorities and it made me think about this wikipedia article, which makes it seem like no scholars consider the Irish Famine a genocide. I won't pretend I am not biased after reading this article, so looking for feedback on these thoughts. I am thinking at the very least we can add some qualifying words to make the debate seem less conclusive in one direction with no active scholarly discussion. https://brill.com/display/book/9781904710820/BP000013.xml#:~:text=By%201849%2C%20the%20forcible%20displacement,genocide%20against%20the%20Irish%20people. 2600:1700:5650:3EB0:45E4:C2CA:7216:ACDB (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

We can certainly debate how the article might best reflect the scholarly discussions. It is quite clear that *few* but not *no* historians see genocide as a key factor, but how this is presented can be explored - but here, before editing the body, as this is a very controversial matter. We can disregard the point that genocide was not a defined crime at the time, as the meaning of the term is clear, and genocides certainly occurred over thousands of years. So the question is whether British government actions rose to the needed level - in particular, was there intent to kill massive numbers of people. Sources may be offered, but I've read many books touching on or including this topic, and to me, the evidence just does not seem to be there - many officials did not like the Irish, despised poor people in any part of the UK, disapproved of large families, etc., and there was an imbalance of population to resources more severe on the island of Ireland vs. the island of Britain. And their behaviour was, especially by modern standards, despicable and heartless, the failure to even make a gesture towards redirecting exports wrongheaded, stupid and partly lethal, and the results awful with few equals as to percentage of population impacted by a single disaster - and there were years to do better, so many missed opportunities. But did someone somewhere sit down and plot to spread blight, or to take advantage if a blight came...? this is not evidenced anywhere I have seen. But let the debate continue... SeoR (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify a point - the exports are described as "partly lethal" because it is a reported fact that some of what was exported was not in much demand in Ireland, in the same way that a country surrounded by fish-rich seas did not gain significant cover from, say, a massive fishing drive. But it is equally factual that some of the exports could usefully have been held, and past governments had done so in times of want - and some could have been exchanged for more useful supplies, rather than the near-useless maize that was imported, as per the text. Part of the problem is that European governments in that period were small organisations, and lacked technical expertise in matters seen as relevant to private enterprise - agriculture-rich Ireland had no relevant government department until the early 20th century, for example. SeoR (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The article in question appears to have been written by this person. If so no further discussion is needed. Not an historian.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/neysa-king Cheezypeaz (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

They have a degree in history and it is a published peer reviewed source though. 204.14.36.137 (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

A reading of the great famine wikipedia talks about government officials treating the famine lightly or as providence due to its furthering of governmental goals. Is not the neglect and furtherance of stealing of irish wealth a continued stated english policy, and enough to call this genocide. They may have made excuses in their minds and not called for death explicitly, but it is clear implicitly the policy of the government facilitates the famine, and is thus, I would argue, genocide. 204.14.36.137 (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Then you are a fool. Ignorance and indifference does not equal malevolence. There has to be an intent to destroy, of which there is no evidence. 84.65.168.106 (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Speak in terms where we can actually improve the article with a scholarly leg to stand on, or go away. Remsense 留 20:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I empathize, but Wikipedia is expressly limited in that it follows sources. Also, personally, the question of whether xyz terrible artificial event particularly constitutes genocide seems to me to be a distinction without a difference, or a thought-terminating exercise: the word means something, but it does not mean everything, and I do not understand how the 'seriousness' a given topic is treated can be boiled down to whether a very specific word is usually used to describe it, especially a word created in a modern context being projected backwards onto historical events (which of course, is what history is) Remsense 聊 18:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Currently the article states that "The Popery Act (Penal Law) of 1704 required that a tenant's land be divided equally between his sons upon his death."

It didn’t. It required Catholic land owners to split their inheritance between their Catholic sons if they didn’t have a Protestant son.

If I correct the statement it’s then making an erroneous argument about the land splitting that went on.

I’ll delete it. Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

These edits added the claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=887787383

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1170685821

This claim seems to be completely unsupported by the given sources or the literature. Cheezypeaz (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

In the genocide section, there is a statement claiming that a non-scholarly "assessment" by two law professors who argued that the Irish Famine was a genocide in order to reshape a history curriculum in New Jersey has been "supported by various later genocide scholars," and it then links to one chapter, in one book, by one scholar, Neysa King. Considering this same source has been used to include a section on the Irish Famine in the main article for genocide, there seems to be a deliberate effort to elevate a theory that's got little scholarly backing (and, as we will soon learn, even this is a generous description of how this theory's been received by professional historians).

When this issue was previously raised on this page, user 'SeoR' made the following statement which I think is a good basis to start a discussion:

"It is quite clear that *few* but not *no* historians see genocide as a key factor', but how this is presented can be explored.."'

So, expanding on this point, let's revisit two of the rules we're expected to honor when we edit this encyclopedia:

• An acknowledgement that Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, and not a laboratory for testing novel ideas.

• That it is not enough to demonstrate that some minority of scholars hold a view, but rather that the minority view is significant.

Now let's look at how the source in question opens the chapter:

"Today, Irish and British historians categorically reject the notion that British actions during the Great Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) amounted to genocide."

So, the first sentence in this chapter acknowledges that the theory is not just rejected by academics, but "categorically" so.

Another source I'd add is Mark McGowan's piece in the journal Genocide Studies International:

"The fact that virtually all historians of Ireland have reached a verdict that eschews [the genocide] position, be they Irish-born scholars from Britain, North America or Australasia, has weakened the traditional populist account."

So, language like "categorically reject" and "virtually all historians" tells us exactly how the information should be presented: as a fringe perspective that's only mentioned insofar as we are telling readers it's a theory that's been widely rejected by the mainstream of Irish academic history.

Discuss. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• The King source is a conference proceedings book; the article is short and doesn't cite much, and the presentation was by someone who may have gotten a Master's degree but does not work (and publish) in academia. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Which raises even more questions.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Sure, but that's not necessarily for here. One question I have is who added that. Another is what all this says about Brill, and that's even sadder. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

      Probably the same person who went into the article on historical genocides and added the same content into a Great Famine section which shouldn't even be there. This is very simple: the view that the GF was a genocide is fringe and should never be mentioned on here except to say that it's a fringe pov pushed mainly by people who don't have the relevant background in economic, social or political history for the period in question. The endless iterations of John Mitchel's polemic about "food exports" is case in point. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is far too long but the recently reverted quote from a future PM actually supported the prior, unreferenced sentence - "Additionally, the famine indirectly resulted in tens of thousands of households being evicted, exacerbated by a provision forbidding access to workhouse aid while in possession of more than one-quarter acre of land." The subject of the reverted quote is found in several statistics in the Eviction section. Because this very strong quote was made near the beginning of the disaster and was made by the future Prime Minister I thought its placement in the lead section was appropriate. I believe the quote belongs somewhere in this very long article, either in the Lead or the Eviction section.Palisades1 (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Then put it in the Evictions section, since the objection was to the length of the lead and to the inclusion of material in the lead that is not in the article body. DrKay (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Go to talk prior to revert. Palisades1 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you've written this comment because we've both followed the Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle and neither of us has broken the 1 revert per 24 hours editing restriction on this article. It is also obvious that I'm not going to revert an edit that I have already agreed to. It is also obvious that I'm not going to revert an edit that occurred 6 hours before you made this comment at a time when I was clearly active on wikipedia. Consequently, it looks like an unnecessarily offensive and aggressive demand that is designed to insult and provoke. I will therefore not obey it and I will revert whenever and wherever it is reasonable and justifiable to do so. DrKay (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the editor Cdjp1 has added controversial content to the genocide section today. This issue is currently in dispute resolution and these additions should probably be reverted until it's resolved. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a mischaracterisation of how you have framed your arguments in the Genocides in History (before World War 1) talk page and the DR discussion. You have maintained your issue is the great famine's inclusion in that article, and you even suggested that any information from the scholars present in that article should instead appear in the relevant section in this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What I had tried to say was, any discussion of genocide theories belongs in this article in the relevant section, but that the Great Famine should not be listed in an article about pre-WW1 genocides considering scholars don't believe it was a genocide. I also said that this article covers the genocide controversy rather well (and never said I thought the section needed to be expanded). I also don't think scholars who have backgrounds in famines in other countries and continents are authoritative on this subject. All scholars that study famines agree that every famine is political -that hunger can happen naturally but when it rises to the level of famine there's politics involved. But that also highlights why the most reliable sources on the Irish Famine are historians with some expertise in British/Irish political history. As far as Robbie McVeigh goes -he only ever writes about Ireland from one colonial perspective, and we have to wonder why his opinion is so at odds with the mainstream. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The sentence The rent revenue—collected from impoverished tenants who were paid minimal wages to raise crops and livestock for export—was mostly sent to England. does not seem to make sense. The article suggests that the majority of those affected by the famine were cottiers, who had possession (as tenants) of a house and a small amount of agricultural land. They paid the rent for this property by working on their landlord's land. The better off tenants received some cash – so doing more work than the value of their rent. So the vast majority of these tenants were not paid anything at all. Hence were paid minimal wages is nonsense. I do not have the cited source to hand. Is it trying to say something that I cannot discern from the article, or should this bit be rewritten? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I've simplified that sentence by removing the middle clause, which partly repeats earlier text anyway. DrKay (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Rot: An Imperial History of the Irish Famine by Padraic X. Scanlan

Review: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/03/17/rot-padraic-x-scanlan-book-review

Looks informative. 2601:644:8581:75B0:24B5:26F7:8046:6A8A (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I noticed this edit, which removes material apparently on the basis that it is allegedly from a partisan source, and is "over 150 years old". I wasn't aware that we were not able to use sources older than a certain age. DrKay, can you shed any light on this? John (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for guidance, in particular "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history", "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest", "in academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed" and "cite current scholarly consensus when available". DrKay (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. I was thinking about WP:BIASED which I thought applicable to exactly this sort of situation. I'd imagine you to be familiar with it. If not, it's definitely worth a read. I also found the reference to the source's age a bit weird. What was that about? Older sources and biased sources can be very useful if they are properly used. We can use Mein Kampf on an article about Hitler. So, why did you remove that material? Note that at this stage that I'm not contesting the removal, just saying the edit summary makes no sense. John (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I have already answered. DrKay (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I had the same question, as Template:Obsolete source indicates that older sources only need to be removed if more recent developments supersede the older information, and I see nothing on Template:Better source needed about age of source. Thank you for raising this discussion, John. Littlemisssunshine22 (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I have already answered. DrKay (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Not in any way that makes sense though. Are you able to explain in plain language why the article is better without this material? John (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to restore the material, please find a better source, as was requested four and a half years ago. There are three talk page sections above this one contesting the genocide theory. We shouldn't be using a source promoting the genocide theory that was written over 160 years ago without context. It doesn't reflect modern scholarship. DrKay (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There's only one use of the word "genocide" in that passage and it's fully attributed to Mitchel. Is the problem that Mitchel's claims are being given in Wiki-voice? Surely Mitchel's views and statements on the crisis are wholly relevant to the narrative. Or is the problem that Mitchel's writings are being used as a primary source here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason to confuse the issue. The passage relating to Mitchel on that score is retained. Indeed, the same quote is in the article twice. DrKay (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You've removed the three Mitchel references wholesale? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It's fine to use Mary E. Daly and Peter Duffy as sources for Mitchel's views. Though I believe Thomas Gallagher was an amateur historian, his book received favorable reviews, so I have no problem with its use. DrKay (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

My question is not with your removal but why the reason for "better source needed" given as that the source is old. (I believe someone else marked this years ago.) I don't see anywhere in the Wikipedia policies that a source should be removed solely due to its age, so if I'm missing something please let me know where I can read more about this policy. I believe this is the same question that John had. Was the source removed due to age or bias? Just trying to understand the rationale behind the edit(s). Littlemisssunshine22 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

See my previous comments regarding the use of out-dated partisan sources with a conflict of interest, e.g.: "See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for guidance, in particular "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history", "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest", "in academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed" and "cite current scholarly consensus when available"." "We shouldn't be using a source promoting the genocide theory" "tagged for over 4 years | partisan source"

See also Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Examples of disruptive editing: it is disruptive to "repeatedly disregard other editors' explanations for their edits". It is disruptive to ask me the same question over and over and over again when it has already been answered three times (four times now). DrKay (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If you think Mitchel's published work of 1861, 1869 and 1876 work has been discredited or invalidated by later academic analysis, aren't you obliged to say where and how? Otherwise isn't this just canceling him? I'm really not sure where "reporting what Mitchel actually said" stops and "using a source promoting the genocide theory" begins. But of course, if you think I'm commenting here just to be disruptive, then yes you'll need to report me at WP:AN/I. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I already did. I pointed you at Daly. She is quoted in the article text, "[Kinealy] seems to imply that Mitchel's case is more credible than recent scholars suggest; few would agree." I also mentioned two other sources and the three talk page sections above this one that cast doubt on the genocide theory. There are other talk page sections in the archives as well as a sub-section in the article that begins "The vast majority of historians reject the claim that the British government's response to the famine constituted a genocide" and then goes on to quote a few. DrKay (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Jolly good. So there's still some replacement, e.g. of Mitchel by Daly, that needs to happen? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Not seeing DrKay's reply to this, I'll assume the answer to be "yes". DrKay, from the same guideline you quoted from above, we also have "Fails to engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. Fails to recognize, rejects, or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors." Your removal has been queried, by three separate editors; the onus on you is to build a consensus for it, or for a compromise version. Go for it! John (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I have answered the queries about the removal already. I am under no obligation to comment on Martin's future removals, additions or replacements since those are not edits of mine. DrKay (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

What "future removals" are these? I have no knowledge of any such planned edits. Your argument here seems to have been that Mitchel has been discredited by later historians/ commentators. So one might have expected you to retain mention of Mitchel, along the lines of "Mitchel said xyz, but now A. N. Other has said he was exaggerating because of abc.." etc. But instead you seem to intend the later criticism of Mitchel to mean that the reader does not even deserve to see what he said, quite regardless of whether it was right or wrong. Which to me looks very much like "cancelling" him, or "airbrushing him out". Perhaps you could clarify? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) p.s. you could do a complete sign, thanks.

I already said at 11:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC), "The passage relating to Mitchel on that score is retained. Indeed, the same quote is in the article twice." I said at 22:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "I pointed you at Daly. She is quoted in the article text, "[Kinealy] seems to imply that Mitchel's case is more credible than recent scholars suggest; few would agree." Daly's, Duffy's and Gallagher's commentary on Mitchel is retained. I have not removed this material. I have not cancelled him. I have not airbrushed him out. What you're suggesting one might have expected you to retain mention of Mitchel, along the lines of "Mitchel said xyz, is exactly what I did. In addition to the passage I quoted at 22:58 3 January, the article also reads: John Mitchel, one of the leading Irish nationalists, later wrote one of the first widely circulated tracts on the famine, The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps), published in 1861. It proposed that British actions during the famine and their treatment of the Irish were a deliberate effort at genocide. It contained a sentence that has since become famous: "The Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight, but the English created the Famine. and further down the article again, John Mitchel, one of the leaders of the Young Ireland Movement, wrote in 1860: [extensive quote]. DrKay (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks. But your edit here took out three sources for Mitchel? Perhaps you now see them as superfluous. I can see the footnote for Daly, but I can't find Duffy's and Gallagher's direct commentary on Mitchel, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

That diff also shows me retaining Duffy's commentary in the 'Reaction in Ireland' section, with me adding the phrase "John Mitchel, one of the leading Irish nationalists," to place it in context. Gallagher's quote from Mitchel is further down in the 'Contemporary analysis' section. DrKay (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps it was because Duffy is not named there, and the fact it's just a quote, not "commentary"? Do you think The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps) deserves a direct source? Yes, Gallagher's quote of Mitchel seems to be a good secondary source, although it doesn't say if Gallagher agreed with him. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm finding this discussion distressing, so I think this will be my final word in this section. I think it is a sad state of affairs when editors question the removal of material sourced to a revolting white supremacist who believed slaves should be kept "to their work by flogging". Above Martin asks me about Mitchel's 1876 work and questions whether it "has been discredited or invalidated". This is a book that promotes public hanging for forgery, burglary and robbery. I should not have to prove that such views are no longer held by modern scholars. It should be patently obvious that such views are discredited. I shouldn't have to defend the removal of such distasteful sources as these. To say the least, Mitchel's views are obsolete and questionable. The article should be based on modern scholarship not out-dated books from over 160 years ago written by a disgusting racist whose views are long-discredited. DrKay (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear replies to my queries. I trust you will no longer be considering reporting me for "disruption". I'm sorry to say that I find that point of view quite distressing. Yes, we might all agree that "Mitchel's views are obsolete and questionable", but not to reference them and offer explicit criticism against them still looks to me like cancelling. I'm not arguing that Michel's work should be celebrated. I'm saying that his work should be referenced and discussed appropriately. Would you advocate public burning, perhaps? I'd like to remind you that your original edit summary said "partisan source over 150 years old", suggesting that sources beyond a certain age should not be mentioned or used. Other editors may still wish to bring different points here for discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Aw, that's a shame, I was just beginning to get the gist of what you were trying to do. I'm not familiar with Mitchel; was he worse than Hitler, whose 1925 book Mein Kampf we use as a source on the Adolf Hitler article? We do not necessarily remove sources because they are old or even because they are biased. Neither can we automatically remove sources because their author supported hanging and flogging, which was a mainstream belief at the time. It is not patently obvious to me that Mitchel is "obsolete" in relation to this article, which is not about hanging or flogging, but about the Great Famine in Ireland. I would need to see evidence for that. John (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Is everyone satisfied that the article is improved by this removal? I'm still not sure about it. John (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the specific removal but as a general matter, I would say we should use or at least describe such sources if they were at one time important, regardless of how obsolete or irrelevant they are from a present-day perspective. They are part of the historiography of the topic, which is an area that an article like this should give some attention to. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:55E8 (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

"we should use or at least describe such sources if they were at one time important ... They are part of the historiography of the topic, which is an area that an article like this should give some attention to." = EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE. DrKay (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

It would help the article to add a section saying how the famine ended. Particularly, what happened with the potato blight? Did the potato plants evolve resistance, or what? Maybe I can find this info in other articles. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:55E8 (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

That topic is not specific to either Ireland or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It is covered in the European potato failure. New strains of potatoes were introduced in Europe to replace the extinct ones: "After the blight, strains originating in the Chiloé Archipelago replaced earlier potatoes of Peruvian origin in Europe."^[1] Dimadick (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I do think how the famine ended is relevant to the topic of the famine! European potato failure has helpful info and I'll see if I can add a cross-link if there isn't one. But right now I feel like I'm reading an article about WW2 talking about the political background of the conflict, some of the bigger battles, the important military leaders, etc. but with no clue about the ending (i.e. the Axis surrendered). It makes me ask whether the countries were totally depopulated, whether the war is still going on in little skirmishes here and there, etc. The thing about Chiloé potatoes says they were introduced *after* the famine. So again, nothing about how the famine itself ended.

Here in the US there was a blight of Dutch Elm Disease in the 1960s and I think even today, the affected tree species have maybe 1/10th the population that they once did. There are other unanswered questions too, like the cost of land rent in the affected areas, compared with farmland of comparable quality in England at the time. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:9400 (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

It's stated in the article "roughly 1 million people died and more than 1 million more fled the country", but the actual figures were certainly much higher than that. Even the original source of the figures state that. I am referring to the "Census of Ireland 1851. Part V. Tables of Deaths". I realize this is a source more than 150 years old and is largely discredited, even the original authors considered it "discredited" at the time they wrote it. It was the best they could do though, as so many died without having been captured by any official recordings.

Discredited or not, the official tally from the actual 1851 Census gives 1.25 million dead and almost 1.2 million emigrated, which lacks data for all of 1852 and 3/4s of 1851. Clearly over 1 1/4 million people died and over 1 1/4 million emigrated not "roughly 1 million" unless both figures are update to "roughly 1 million" .

Of course we are ignoring the fact that the plain facts, as reported in the 1851 Census, clearly show the genocide of Ireland began in 1841 where the death rate and emigration rate nearly doubled the normal rates, not 1845. I can't with good conscience call this a "Famine" as Ireland as a nation was profiting from exportation of food for the entire period, even as particular classes within were dying of hunger.

Although it was more than just a single crop failure. They were experiencing partial failures in many food stuffs, including cattle and swine over the whole period. Anyone who's actually read the results of remnants of the 1851 Census returns that survive would know this. Even the Irish themselves don't call it a Famine, but the Great Hunger. A title that is at least more accurate, but still a bit too politically correct. It was clearly not a famine by any definition of the word. There was plentiful food raised in Ireland during the entire period to feed everyone. Celtic hackr (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

That document says there were 1.361 million deaths in total across the decade 1841–51 from all causes, compared to the 1.187 million that died between 1831 and 1841 (p.473). The number of people dying of starvation (again across the decade 1841–51) is given as 21,770 (p.253), compared to 117 in the prior decade 1831–41: "In the Irish returns made in 1841, only 117 deaths were registered from starvation for the ten years prior to that period; but from thence, according to the registration made in 1851, deaths from this cause began notably to increase, from 187 in the year 1842, to 516 in 1845. After that period deaths attributed to starvation increased rapidly so as to amount to 2,041 for the year 1846; in 1847 they reached the great height of 6,058 ; and in the two following years, 1848 and 1849, taken together, they amounted to 9,395. In 1850 they were even more than in 1846; and during the first quarter of 1851 as many as 652 deaths attributed to starvation were recorded. The total deaths returned to us under the head of Starvation amounted to 21,770." DrKay (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Those numbers you're quoting depend on how you arrive at them. Whether you take them from the summaries, or go to the yearly tables and take the numbers from there, drop them in a spreadsheet and sum them up (you also do it manually on paper). I don't know why the summary figures sometimes deviate from the annual totals in the report, but they do. Sometimes the figures in the summaries, include or exclude some portion, and it isn't always noted why. Yes, if you follow their classifications you'll come away with picture of what really happened. I know what it's like to starve to near death, having once been in a starvation induced coma. I got very lucky the day I would have died. The cause of death would likely have been malnutrition, rather than starvation. A rose by any other name. If photographs of all those who died existed, we wouldn't be having this debate. There were plenty of contemporary reports on the situation on the ground from people with no axe to grind one way or the other.

1841 deaths 68,739 Jan – 6 Jun

16,906 Jun- YE (non-workhouse)

1,078 Workhouses

86,723 Total

1842 deaths 68,732 Under-reported?

1843 deaths 70,449

1844 " 75,055

1845 " 86,900

1846 " 122,889

1847 " 249,335

1848 " 208,252

1849 " 240,797

1850 " 164,093

1851 " 46,261 Jan – Mar only

1852 " (not included)

------------------

Total 1,419,486

less 68,739 (Jan-Jun 1841)

------------------

1,350,747

Total over the decade is over 1.4 million. Remember this is from the Census

which cover Jun 1841 to Mar 1851.

So they report 1.36 million, but their figures exclude part of both 1841 and 1851

and inexplicably don't add up to their own numbers as reported in the tables. I don't know where they are getting the extra 110,000 deaths. However the totals they report are under reporting if you go by full year statistics. I intentionally left out the rest of 1851 and all of 1852. Numbers for 1852 are not readily available. Nor are they easily found for the remainder of 1851. I can quote you the exact emigrations for all of 1851 and 1854, but not 1852 or 1853.

1852 = less than 1851 but more than 1853

1853 = " " 1852 " " " 1854. Celtic hackr (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

That's still all causes for the decade 1841-51, including homicide, accident, old age, natural causes, etc. The difference presumably arises because the census decade is April 1841 to March 1851 whereas the years are January-December. DrKay (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "It was clearly not a famine by any definition of the word" - that, as you say, there was plenty of food produced in Ireland during these years, and I believe Irish exports of food products showed little if any reduction, does not mean it was not a famine in particular areas and for certain classes. In fact it seems to have met all the definitions given by the obvious sources, as a google search of "famine definition" shows: "Famine is a situation in which a substantial proportion of the population of a country or region are unable to access adequate food, resulting ..." UNHCR, "an extreme lack of food in a region, causing suffering and death" Cambridge dictionary, and so on. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, any reasonable definition. There was no lack of food, nor lack of availability. The UNHCR definition is weird and easily twisted to make just about any situation a famine. Celtic hackr (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Without getting involved in the detail of these figures, the way Scottish historians look at the Highland potato famine is to consider the excess deaths. In a famine, those who die because of it are not necessarily judged to have died of starvation. They may have an illness that they could not overcome due to malnutrition. My understanding is that typhus killed many in Ireland, and that is a disease which is more lethal when accompanied by food shortages. But any of the elderly and infirm who might have lived another year or so may succumb. I would be very surprised if reputable historians who are available as RSs for the Irish famine do not take the same approach. If there is something anomalous about the figures, they must have made comment on it. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

They did. Both at the time and since. This is why the source used by the opening party is discredited. It argues that the number of excess deaths was around 50,000, which no other authority agrees with. In my opinion, this is adequately covered already in the article. DrKay (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The BBC archaeology programme Digging for Britain examined the so-called "Famine roads" in some depth, including an examination of Hansard. There's a review in The Irish Times here, although this centres on the controversy of the famine description rather than on the roads themselves. Perhaps worthy of a mention. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I now see that there is a lot of detail at R574 road (Ireland) which is pipe linked to road improvement here. Perhaps that's the best place for it. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)