Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Under the influence of too much alchohol I just breached the WP IRR regulation. Mea culpa. I have therefore have restored Domer's edit. Colin4C (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Colin4C your revert was and is very much appreciated. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this about the Irish potatoe femine ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.72.177 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

see this is the problem with Irish wiki pages... 86.41.166.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC).

Still other critics saw reflected in the government's response the government's attitude to the so-called "Irish Question." Nassau Senior, an economics professor at Oxford University, complained in a letter to the government that, whilst at a social event, he overhead the government's chief economist state that the Famine "would not kill more than one million people, and that would scarcely be enough to do any good."[133]

Timmygb66 (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What reference do you propose using? --Domer48_'fenian' 07:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This reference is out of context and highly misleading and disingenuous. The professor was clear speaking from a Malthusian perspective, which was the prevailing population/economic theory of its day. According to the theory, of which Ireland was a prime example, populations will continue to grow until all are at subsistence level, irrespective of technology, government policy, etc. Ireland had clearly reached breaking point (this was not their first potato famine) since about 50% of the population was living on a > 60% potato diet (Mokyr, O'Grada). According to whatever calculations the professor had made, he must have surmised that if one million rural poor had perished, yet returned to their previous lifestyle, population levels would return to pre-famine and the whole process begun again, just as Malthusian theory predicted. I recommend the editing of this entry, on that basis.

daithi81 (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2010 (CET) 'Spontaneous order is the result of human action but not of human design' (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In the Causes and contributing factors section one finds the following passage, of which I have emboldened the part which I am querying:

• This was a contrast to Britain, which was beginning to enjoy the modern prosperity of the Victorian and Industrial ages. Laws against education of Irish Catholics and possession of land had made such a progress impossible until the Penal Laws were repealed only fifty years before the Famine, but the economical recovery was slow because the landlord families still kept their land.^{[citation needed]}

This appears to amount to a claim that two measures under the penal laws made industrialisation impossible. Without questioning the veracity of such a claim, it appears to be unsourced. Views? Mooretwin (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Mooretwin (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you asked a week ago and nobody has replied. But there's no deadline and it seems like it tries to answer a question our readers might well ask themselves - why no Industrial Revolution in (most of) Ireland? Perhaps you could try to replace the text with something referenced? Or find someone who might be able to source it or to supply a referenced alternative. The Course of Irish History, which is all I have to hand, remarks upon the different experience of the north-east and the rest (pp. 276-7), but it doesn't offer any explanations. I'm sure a more detailed history would do so. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides which the Penal Laws, no matter how distasteful did not forbid them to be educated --- not that the mass of the labouring classes in any 18th century country were ever going to get a really first-rate education --- they simply could not be educated by catholics, or go abroad to be educated ( something poverty would in any case deny outside the ranks of the gentry unless you wished to be a catholic priest ). Even these provisions were successfully evaded much of the time with the use of hedge-schoolmasters and hedge-priests. Catholics could not buy land,but if they owned it already it was not confisticated and they could lease land up to 30 years: besides which the catholic aristocracy and larger landowners don't seem to have lost any land during the period... Other than those who rebelled of course: but that happened everywhere, and most of the wealthy catholics knuckled under to the Whig Supremacy as soon as humanly possible. Claverhouse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC).

Need a link to an article on the Royal Commission's composition and findings. It's hard to square the Daniel O'Connell quote with the subsequent quotes of the commissioners. Having some of the substance of the Commission's findings would give a context to O'Connell's criticism, and any efforts to reform the governance, tenancy system, etc in the years just before the famine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.240.40 (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bold text I needed information on the relief works of the Famine!!! Ugh!!! People these days —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.239.9 (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if this has already been discussed, but with 15 pages of archive I really don't fancy wading through it all to find out. I'd like to prefix this by saying I'm aware the article title is pretty much the common-use name for that period in history. Is it right that the article should be called "Great Famine (Ireland)"? There was no famine as such. There was a widespread potato blight. All other crops (to the best of my knowledge) and livestock were fine, but forcibly exported. Again, I know "famine" is common use - but it just doesn't seem right. I'd suggest the English translation of "an Gorta Mór" (the Great Hunger) would be a more accurate and more appropriate title. It describes what actually happened far more closely than does "Great Famine". Thoughts? Jack of Many (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh please no! It's been discussed, at huge length. I think there may even be Arbcom rulings involved... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

*choke*! That's some discussion. Think I'll stay WELL out of that one. I'll stand by my comments about "famine" being an odd word to describe the loss of a single crop through blight and the loss of the others through export until I'm blue in the face - but as for the name of the article - nah. Not worth getting into it. Thanks a million for the link to the right archive page. Slán. Jack of Many (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I just read through the discussion in Talk:Great_Famine_(Ireland)/Archive_13 and I cannot understand how there was a ruling of no clear consensus. There is a clear consensus to move it to Irish Potato Famine per WP:COMMONNAME and a vocal minority opposing it. Hot button topic I know but just doesn't seem right. -Johnm4 (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as often on Wikipedia, repetition of opinion trumped discussion of facts. At the time of that discussion at least, Irish Potato Famine was the common name. Probably still is. Easy enough to check. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think the name of the article should be changed to Irish Potato Famine, which is clearly the most commonly used name. I'd vote in favor of a change of name if someone asked for another vote on the topic. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Crikey..the article intro doesn't even contain the term "Irish Potato Famine"! Wow. WP:IDONTLIKEIT has been playing its role here. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Irish Potato Famine is already a re-direct. Two 'votes' is hardly likely to make a contentious title change stick. As has been stated WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't cut much ice. RashersTierney (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

<>If you read the previous discussion you'll find plenty of evidence that Irish Potato Famine is the common name, and far more than two votes. You'll also see that WP:IDONTLIKEIT was essentially the only argument against Irish Potato Famine. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest you go ahead and propose another vote on a name change. I notice that it's called Irish Potato Famine by other online encyclopedias. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick check shows that the term "Great Famine" turns up over 1 million hits, many of them references to other events than the Irish Potato Famine, including the Black Death. The term Irish Potato Famine is specifically used as the title of the online Encyclopedia Britannica article: (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/294137/Irish-Potato-Famine), an article at The History Place (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/famine/), in this Science Daily online article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090909133022.htm) and so on. On Amazon, the titles of books related to the topic seem to be evenly divided between "The Great Hunger", "Irish Potato Famine", and "Great Irish Famine", though potatoes are sometimes referenced in the title, as in "Black Potatoes: The Story of the Great Irish Famine (1845-1850)" by Susan Bartoletti and "The People's Potato and the Great Irish Famine" by Tony Hills. I think the most widely used term for this event continues to be Irish Potato Famine and Wikipedia generally uses the name something is known by. Very, very few people are going to look up "Great Famine" or "Great Hunger" and know what is being talked about. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The two authors you cite above, Hills and Bartoletti refer to the event as 'the Great Irish Famine'. I don't see how this advances your proposal for a change to 'Irish Potato Famine'. Quite the contrary in fact. RashersTierney (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are several others that refer to "The Irish Potato Famine," among them "The Great Irish Potato Famine" by James Donnelly, "The Irish Potato Famine," by Joseph O'Neill; "The Irish Potato Famine" by Don Nardo and Brian McGovern; "The Irish Potato Famine: Irish Immigrants Come to America" by Jeremy Thornton; "The Irish Potato Famine: The Story of Irish American Immigration" by Edward Dolan; "Indifference, not genocide (The Great Irish Potato Famine) (Book Review) by Margaret Preston from the Irish Literary Supplement; "The Great Irish Potato Famine" by Christine Brendel Scriabine; "The Irish Potato Famine" by Don Nardo, etc. etc. etc. I've included titles from the past quarter century only. There are other books as well that do call it "The Great Hunger" or "The Great Irish Famine" but the titles pop up when I search for Irish Potato Famine and you don't get the same broad result searching using the other titles. It also appears to be in use as a common title in Irish newspaper articles this year. Last week, in the Irish Independent, Sarah Stack refers both to "The Great Famine" and "the potato famine of 1845-49" here (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ceremony-to-remember-victims-of-the-famine-2173964.html) It's also in common use in American newspapers. "The Irish potato famines" are referred to in this article in the Liverpool Echo last week here (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-entertainment/echo-entertainment/2010/05/08/genealogy-merseysiders-links-to-irish-ancestors-100252-26400750/) Tracy Turner refers to "The Irish Potato Famine" in an article Saturday in The Columbus Dispatch here (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2010/05/15/blight-again-threatens-tomatoes.html?sid=101) And here is the article in last year's Science Daily which also refers to "The Irish Potato Famine" (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090701163647.htm) This appears to be a common term for this event in newspapers and magazines in America as well as in Ireland and the UK as well as in common talk. This is why the name needs to be changed to Irish Potato Famine and the other titles referenced in the lead. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is important to note that within Ireland the event is probably most often called "The Famine" or "The Great Famine". There are/were commemorative events recently and "Irish Potato Famine" doesn't feature in the event-related press, whereas "The Famine" and "The Great Famine" do, but "Irish Potato Famine" is the globally most known and unambiguous name. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding what is "the globally most known and unambiguous name", I don't think that is the case. I did some simple Google searches yesterday (minor stat. changes today), with the following results:

• "great irish famine"
  

Web 349,000 results
Scholar 1,560
- In Title 158 results
Books 777 results
Books - In Title 170 results

• "irish potato famine"
  

Web84,900 result
Scholar3,380 results
Scholar - In Title 55 results
Books940 results
Books - In Title 28 results
There seems to have been some ambiguity, possibly arising from the former Wikipedia article title on the Irish Famine (1740–1741) regarding the adjective 'Great', but that article title has been changed. To the best of my knowledge, the 'Great Famine' in an Irish context almost invariably refers to the 19th century crisis. The overwhelming 'name' in common usage for the event under discussion would appear to be 'Great Irish Famine'. I agree that in Ireland it is usually referred to as 'The Famine' or 'The Great Famine'. In previous discussions here the term 'Great Irish Famine' was characterised as a neologism. My own view is that this is not correct RashersTierney (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth another vote. Based on what I've seen Irish Potato Famine is the most common name internationally, though scholars may have moved towards Great Irish Famine or Great Hunger in recent years. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Rasher's data is interesting. I don't remember doing exactly that search (it'd be in the archive if I did), but I did a bunch of similar searches in the past and they showed "Irish Potato Famine" as the most common. I'll have to have a look at the data. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...the Google count seems flaky today. When I add -Drochshaol as an exclusion term, a word I chose as being sufficiently odd and in the WP article to see if there were lots of Wikipedia mirrors in the results, I got 1.72 million results. That's odd, since I should get fewer results, yet 1.72 million is definitely more than 352,000. So for the moment I can't comment on or contradict Rasher's data. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Still keeping an eye on this, and the Google count is still acting strangely. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

<>Here's an interesting one, which is similar to one I did before. It shows what people search for on Google and compares the two terms. [1] "Great Irish Famine" is hugely outnumbered by "Irish Potato Famine" as a search term. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There might be a bit of vandalism on this site soon. Just word around the campfire. Fergananim (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This article has a distinct racist bias. Namely the reference to Irish as 'Native Irish'. As opposed to what, exactly? Foreign Irish? Are you implying that Protestants are not 'native'? There is no such thing as a 'native Irish' person - even the most ardent fenian would agree with me, in both John Mitchell's 'Jail Journal' and O'Donavon Rossa's 'Recollections', they never once refer to a 'native irishman'. Please correct this obvious insertion of racist bias. 86.40.196.177 (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you people are content to allow racist thugs to run riot on this article. Makes me sick. 86.45.211.71 (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Native Irish is used sometimes as opposed to Anglo-Normans and subjects of the British empire who all lived in Ireland for years. You can't call Protestant Scots settlers in the plantations of Ulster for example call Irish but they are in some way. Hence you have native Irish people and new Irish.

Even Orangemen refer to themselves as Irish. Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Another debate is whether it is a famine or a genocide. After all, Irish people didn't die of starvation because there was no food in Ireland but because they were forced to rely on a crop that was prone to failure and when it did they didn't receive any aid. The powers that were in that time were quite content in explaining Ireland was overpopulated and that mass-starvation was a blessing and natural selection. Ireland during the 5 years of the genocide exported more food than the rest of the empire could consume. Hence I call for adding a section on genocide. Making sure though it isn't anti-British since most Brits were subject to the same policies and Wales and Scotland got no support either during famines. Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Should the paragraph on John Waters thoughts be removed? This paragraph reports strong opinions, rather than historical facts or a clear argument about those facts. The allegation that developing a lack of economic diversity was a "holocaust waiting to happen" is extreme. The strong terms used - holocaust, racism - are used in ways that stretch the meaning of those words. The closing statement that relief efforts were irrelevant is also questionable. The term genocide involves both intent of the criminals as well as their murderous effects. Hence Water's argument is wrong by definition. At the least, this paragraph should be recast from the very strong language currently used, and flagged as a controversial and unusual interpretation of the term genocide. Though I would suggest trimming it is the better option. --winterstein (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now removed the paragraph on John Waters thoughts for the reasons explained above. --winterstein (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between what you said you intended to do, 'recast', 'flag as controversial' and 'trimming', and removing all reference to this undoubtedly strident statement by Waters. The quote was referenced and you have made no attempt to make a case for its complete removal. RashersTierney (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I said "at the least" it should be recast. In the context of which, "trim" should be read as "trim from the article" - but I accept that is unclear. The case for removal is: this is an extreme opinion from one man, using language in a dubious manner. The article does not make a case for the quote's inclusion, beyond that its the opinion of a columnist and song writer. If it were the opinion of a notable historian, that would justify inclusion. A columnist doesn't, nor does a reference. --winterstein (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hillarious! Firstly you delete Water's comment even though it is referenced, then you drop your own particular pov in the mix without so much as a blush. If the only people worthy of citation on Wikipedia were historians, in would be a very different place. Water's is clearly no light-weight as a commentator on Irish social life and opinion, as is evident from his biography here. He has strong views on the famine's legacy, not to everyone's taste necessarily. RashersTierney (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, as I pointed out above: a reference does not make an opinion right for inclusion. The reference only shows that somewhere there is a book quoting John Waters. Secondly, saying I inserted my own pov is simply false (and your tone is a little provocative). What is my pov here? I am not aware of having expressed one, beyond that the comment in question is an unevidenced opinion rather than historical research. This edit was about a minor improvement to the quality of the article, and I'm a little disappointed to now be engaged in a slightly daft edit debate. So John Waters is a columnist. Are we to include the views of every newspaper pundit? There are plenty of more notable people hold strong opinions which do not get included in Wikipedia history pages, and for good reason. This is a historical article not a forum. The case for including John Waters comment is weak. He is not a witness or a historian. He does present an evidence base argument. There is no indication that his opinion has significantly shaped the debate. By all means include this comment on John Water's page if you think it is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterstein (talk • contribs) 11:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Charels Edward Trevelyan (1764-1857) did nothing to help in the Famine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toni Diver (talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumably not, as he would have been rather past it by then, whomever he was. Sir Charles Edward Trevelyan ( 1807-1886 ) no doubt did his best. Being a whig with complete classical liberal economic beliefs somewhere to the right of lunatic libertarianism, it was necessarily a remarkably poor best. Claverhouse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC).

As a primerary source of information publicly available, this article needs protection from those who would use it for their own ends. I've just come from a facebook site (Irish Holocaust - Not Famine. The Push to educate in facts) that abuses this subject to further hatred. An Gorta Mor was the single biggest disater to occour in Ireland in modern times, and needs to be treated with respect. Fergananim (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In all seriousness, since Ireland is an island, why couldn't they just walk to the shore, cast in a line and eat fish? I've read the entire article and can't find a satisfactory answer to how these people starved to death when such a seemingly simple solution was at hand. If there's an obvious answer, then it should be included in the article. 71.194.222.230 (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to add something on this, O'Grada's Ireland: a new economic history, 1780-1939 (pp. 146–152) would be a good place to look. If you want to understand why fisheries did not and could not possibly compensate for failure of the potato crop, O'Grada will again be a good place to start. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I just created a new category called "Famines in British Empire" and added this article to the category. If you are aware of other articles dealing with famines in Ireland or elsewhere under British rule, please add them to the category. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, I know this is a touchy subject but the standard of the 'causes and contributing factors' section is woeful. How does a section on the causes of a potato blight affecting the whole of Europe start with the phrase, 'Starting in 1801, Ireland had been directly governed, under the Act of Union, as part of the United Kingdom. Executive power lay in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Chief Secretary for Ireland...'. Someone is clearly pushing a particular line here. Surely the section should start with discussion of the European Potato Failure, the root cause of the entire famine? This needs to cover the relative rates Potato dependency should surely come second, perhaps followed by some discussion of the relative economic development of the region, the rural nature of the west of Ireland and so on. This should then be followed by a review of the Anglo-Irish landlord system, but that section needs to be completely re-written to actually describe the system, and perhaps also to explain how the system differed to other parts of the UK or Europe (and so why the blight affected Ireland differently). The section on 'Laws that restricted the rights of the Irish' is misleading: the same lack of rights applied to English, Welsh and Scottish Catholics. 90.193.97.39 (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My recent edit quoting Nobel Laureate Sen was recently undone by User:Snowded [2]. Edit Summary said "Inappropriate for this article and this is starting to look like soap boxing Z". I disagree. Sen has done considerable work on famines and has debunked the Food availability decline (FAD) theory and replaced it with an entitlement theory which is very relevant to this article as it shows the the famine was caused by inappropriate policies. I would ask User:Snowded to please undo his revert and bring back my content to the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The political issues and issues of the culpability of Westminster are already covered here. The article does not advocate FAD theory per se and including material on India is simply not relevant. Good work on the references but you seem to have a particular need to have Indian famine material on a lot of articles at the moment. --Snowded ^TALK 06:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you step back, take a look at my edit history and try to grasp the big picture rather than viewing everything through the lens of the recent happenings at British Empire. You will find that I've been trying to improve famine related articles for a while now. You and the British Empire cabal are now really impeding my efforts to improve articles that have nothing to do with BE. This is beginning to look like WP:BULLY to me. I would politely request you yet again to re-introduce my edit in the article after you've spent time with FAD, FEE, famines, British policy between 1800-1900 regarding famines, colonialism, etc. You will find that your soap-boxing conclusion is not rational. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said, good work on the references but I think the recent edit is inappropriate to this article so I removed it per WP:BRD. Your lobbying attempts at British Empire and your persistence against consensus on the talk page were an error (we can all make them during our editing career). However I am happy to accept your word that this is not an extension, in which case you need to address my content based points in relationship to the relevance of this insert. --Snowded ^TALK 07:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"I suggest you step back, take a look at my edit history and try to grasp the big picture " - lol well i can certainly see the bigger picture of all this. Your recent edit history speaks for itself, although i will agree with Snowded your additions of references are good. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to access the deleted reference from the edit history but can't do so. Could the link be made available on this page so that eds. can see what all the fuss is about? RashersTierney (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it here. RashersTierney (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

See discussion at WP:NPOVN#Famine in India. Sen's view is relevant to famine in India, I think, and probably also to famine as a general topic. Less so on this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sen has propounded a theory about causes of famines. I can't see why a theory can be appropriate only to a certain geography or a few selected famines and not others. Older famines such as this one have been re-visited through the lens of Sen's theory. Adding his material to the relevant (causes) section will improve the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It it simply his opinion. The causes section details specific issues, not one persons opinion of famine in general, and clearly someone who specifically focused on India. It is irrelevant here, and to include this one guys opinion where you did was clear undue weight. Not to mention the the fact the random sentence looked out of place.BritishWatcher (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

But it misses out on why it was so. It should be mentioned about the British governments failings in the Irish famine, for more clear clarification. Thanks --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know the book by Blake intended as a source for this statement This corn was then re-sold for a penny a pound. at this location in the article?. And can the refs be confirmed, such a succinct claim hardly extends from pp 221–241. RashersTierney (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Although Peel took some action on these lines - for example, the purchase of American maize, 'Peel's brimstone', which was retailed at a penny a pound - his principal remedy was to open the ports to duty-free foreign and colonial grain."

See Blake, Robert (1967), Disraeli, University paperbacks, St. Martin's Press

I've fixed the source and the citation in the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that which resolves 90% of issue. I'm not very familiar with the citation style used here, but the 'hotlink' from citation to reference doesn't work yet. On the substantive issue of the price of meal, it should carry the proviso 'initially', as the price was eventually to largely follow the market, and as the famine developed (under Whig administration), so prices rose dramatically. Even grain from government stores was eventually sold to distributors at a price far in excess of that at which it was bought (ie a substantial profit). This point needs to be made in the article. RashersTierney (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The 2nd citation (52) is fixed now. I've used the {{sfn}} template for the citations in conjunction with the {{citation}} template in the references section. Nothing special is required to 'hotlink' the two, it will happen automatically as long as you get the year and the last name of the author right (or consistently wrong in both places). Regarding the content - this line already appears further below "The new Lord John Russell Whig administration, influenced by their laissez-faire belief that the market would provide the food needed but at the same time ignoring the food exports to England,[57]" but if a more appropriate location can be found, it can be moved there. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've created a new infobox template that can potentially be used in every famine article on Wikipedia. The usage documentation still needs some improvement and the template might undergo minor teaks further - all feedback/suggestions for improvement of the template are welcome! Zuggernaut (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The introduction is flawed because it neglects to show that there were enough patatos for the Irish but the English took them from the Irish people and tried to starve them. Throughout history the English have been a brutal people and this should be known —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.205.238 (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ah yes, those dastardly English. Stealing Irish potatoes in between games of Cricket. 84.65.21.188 (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Do editors think that brief introductory summaries covering in brief the more detailed material of a wikipedia article on a historical topic are unwelcome on the wikipedia? Please state your reasons why this is a bad idea. Is it deliberate vandalism or a good faith attempt to clarify a lengthy and disordered main part? Does it distract from a wikipedia readers enjoyment, having to read the paragraph in question?:

":For more detail see Chronology of the Great Famine The Famine started in September 1845 when blight was first noted in Wexford and Waterford. By November half the potato crop was ruined.^[1] The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.^[2] Food aid had to be bought at market prices, a requirement which meant that the aid itself was less than fully effective since many poor Irish had no money at all and employment on Relief Works was not always immediately available.^[3]

The first deaths from hunger took place in the spring of 1846.^[4]The new Whig administration under Lord Russell, influenced by their laissez-faire belief that the market would provide the food needed, then halted government food and relief works leaving many hundreds of thousands of people without any work, money or food.^[5]Grain continued to be exported from the country.^[6]Private initiatives such as The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends (Quakers) attempted to fill the gap caused by the end of government relief and eventually the government reinstated the relief works, although bureaucracy made food supplies slow to be released.^[7]Grain continued to be exported from the country.^[8]The blight almost totally destroyed the 1846 crop and the Famine worsened considerably.^[9]By December a third of a million destitute people were employed in public works.^[10]

1847's exceptionally hard winter made conditions even worse.^[11]A typhus epidemic killed tens of thousands, including wealthier people as the towns were now also affected.^[12]1847's harvest was largely unaffected by blight but too few potatoes had been planted so the Famine continued unabated.^[13]The Soup Kitchens Act provided financial assistance to local authorities to help them feed Famine victims but this Act was withdrawn in September and relief was made the responsibility of local poor rates and of charitable organizations.^[14]This put impossible loads on local poor rates, particularly in the rural west and south. Emigration reached new heights and the infamous coffin-ships crossed the Atlantic in large numbers carrying people fleeing from the famine.^[15]

The blight returned in 1848 and outbreaks of cholera were reported.^[16]Evictions became common and Famine victims on outdoor relief peaked in July at almost 840,000 people.^[17]A doomed uprising against the government was led by William Smith O'Brien.^[18] The potato crop failed again in 1849 and famine was accompanied by cholera outbreaks.^[19]

In 1850 the potato crop was okay and the Famine mostly ended.^[20] By 1851 Census figures showed that the population of Ireland had fallen to 6,575,000 - a drop of 1,600,000 in ten years.^[21]The famine left in its wake perhaps up to a million dead and another million emigrated.^[22]The famine caused a sense of lasting bitterness by the Irish towards the British government, whom many blamed — then and now — for the starvation of so many people.^[23]The fall-out of the famine continued for decades afterwards and Ireland's population still has not recovered to pre-famine levels.^{[24][25][26][27]}"

Please note that this material is not duplicated from anywhere else on the wikipedia but was written by myself. As for my credentials I often write articles for hard-copy encyclopedias, the latest ones of which were published by the Cambridge University Press, last year, so I am not a total klutz in the matters of writing encyclopedia articles. Colin4C (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll remind you again of what Angusmclellan said "So far as Ross is concerned, I have never heard of his work." Angus also suggested "it would make a great deal of sense to go through the article looking for poor quality references and replace them with whatever it is that O'Grada, Kinealy and Donnelly say." Now I've done most of that. Ross’s is a general history devoting 4 pages to the subject. Academics, like Christine Kinealy, Cormac Ó Gráda, Cecil Woodham-Smith, Cathal Póirtéir, Helen Litton, James S. Donnelly, and Peter Gray have devoted entire volumes. You might be interested to read WP:WEIGHT, and as you have said yourself, "fringe theories are not acceptable on the wikipedia" and to compare Ross to the above academics, would be like comparing “A Pocket History” to Encyclopædia Britannica. Your post above raises a number of issues, issues which have all been gone through before and I shall not be going through it all again. Likewise the Chronology of the Great Famine, we've been there already. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please give academic references regarding the merits or demerits of Ross. The opinions of wikipedia editors are not valid. Hell, I'm an academic who has edited several books and nobody listens to me here....But just to add that in the world of academia nobody I know is snorting down their nose in fury at Ross. He has done a decent, workmanlike job in his volume with no errors of fact as far as I can see. Please point these out these errors if you can see them, just out of interest for me. The point of refs (for academics) is that they are an indication that the whole thing is not a personal fantasy on the part of the author. Questioning the credentials of refs usually leads into an infinite regress. Therefore, we academics are usually quite tolerant of most things intended to increase knowledge, it is POV pushing journalists, lawyers and politicians who get most hot-under-the-collar at anything they dissaprove of (for political reasons), throwing sand in the eyes of the "opposition" and, inter alia, censoring opposing viewpoints (also authors who self publish their "works of genius", rather than getting it peer-approved by academics, but that is another matter...of interest mainly to academics...I guess...). On all accounts, avoid infinite regress, that way lies madness. Colin4C (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well Colin for an academic you certainly do talk a lot of nonsense. You also seem to be advertising yourself for a job. Are you unemployed now and that is why you are bolstering your credentials. Now let me tell you how real academics think. I understand that history gets its name from his story which is probably why you only continually cite Ross, but the fact is in academia you can’t use one point of reference as being the official reference. This would be similar to the bible. I know history is difficult to account for because statements are taking from the past. But as we know those that win battles write history and so it is subjective. You are possibly a proud British citizen and want to hide the true cause of the famine. As for your credentials of writing for Cambridge press, that is all well and good but they have been incorrect in a number of their articles they have published, most notably in the Cromwellian years in Ireland which is currently under review by academics in Britain and in Ireland. They have uncovered some new statements and are using scientific techniques to examine these documents. In addition, they are using psychology theories to try and understand the mentality of people in that genre. You are incorrect on two areas of your synopsis on the potato famine in ireland.

You are quite incorrect when you say the primary cause of the famine in Ireland was the potato blight. Ireland was still growing other crops and was producing foods for export. However, these foods were expensive for the common person in Ireland. The Irish dependency of the potato came after the British brought it in to Ireland as a substitute food for the Irish people. This was so landowners could profit from the other crops being exported. The British didn’t expect the Irish to embrace the potato as they did. As rents were increased on tenant farmers, they changed their crops to potatoes because it was cheap and easier to grow. This meant a number of the tennant farmers stopped growing the profitable crops, so that they could survive. This infuriated some landowners who would see their profits diminish where in a letter by a landlord to the British government he clearly says “a lazy crop for a lazy people”. In addition many tenant farmers rebelled against the increase of their rents and refused to pay. This is where the word boycott entered the English language after the name of one landowner. Landowners’ in a reprisal to see their profits’ return, began to evict the tenant farmers and rented the land for grazing of animals because animal meat was expensive. When the famine began there were calls from statesmen within Ireland and abroad to use the crops that were being exported abroad to feed the millions of hungry Irish people. This was refused by the British government. Instead workhouses were opened and Irish people were giving a bowl of barley water to quench their hunger. This is when Irish people started to emigrate. Maybe you should watch a documentary by the discovery channel titled Famine to Freedom which is a joint work by British, Irish, and American academics (and not just one academic from each country but a number of them).

The second error is the census records. Again you cite Ross but nothing from the National records authorities in Ireland and Britain. Maybe because there are no reliable population figures for Ireland before 1841, however estimates of the population (often based on Hearth Money Returns) have been carried as far back as 1700. This means they didn’t go door to door to find out who was living in each household. These estimated figures show that Ireland's population rose slowly from around 3 million in 1700 until the last half of the 18th century when it had reached 4 million. It then entered a rapid period of increase (around 1.6% per annum) which appears to have slowed to 0.6% by 1830. By 1841, the population had reached 8.2 million (according to the census, but the actual figure may be nearer 8.5 million). The population would probably have levelled off at a value of 9 million had it not been for the famine that began. After the famine was over, these estimates show the Irish population being just under 4 million, decimating the population numbers to a return at the end of the 18th century. The million dead can be accounted for as people who paid rent on land and the million that emigrated can be accounted for the registration process the Americans and other such countries had when people arrived off the boat from Ireland. Now I am no mathematician but the figures seems to be wrong here. If we say that the population of Ireland was 8 million before the famine and we can account for 2 million people that died or emigrated, then that should leave us with a total of 6 million people (because 8 minus two equals 6). So then what happened to the other 2 million people? Do you suppose that an alien ship came down from space and took the 2 million people with them? I would suggest these people died, however, you may disagree. Many of these people that were not accounted for in the census were old and frail or were too young to work the lands which is why landlords never accounted for them because they never supplied an income for them. It was common practice for when someone died; their remains would be burned because it was cheap and easy. This would leave no evidence for historians to examine. Secondly while people had to make the long walk through Ireland to the boats, many of them died along the way. They were buried without any headstone or marker. For all we know archaeologists may have uncovered some of these bodies but were uncertain whether they were famine victims because historians don’t illustrate this properly in their publications. Finally some did reach the boats or as they were called COFFIN SHIPS (named after so many people died aboard them). Many of these people died as a result of disease that is usually contributed to cramped spaces or poor hygiene. Those people that died were thrown overboard and were subsequently shark food which left no evidence. so it is clear why the Americans didn't register them when their loved ones arrived because they never made it to America. Secondly, many of the Irish that arrived in America were badly educated and some didn't speak any English at all, but spoke Irish. To finish, there are no exact figures of the population in Ireland before and after the famine. There were estimates and those estimates reveal that Ireland’s population after the famine plummeted to half its population before the famine began. This would mean that Ireland had 4 million fewer people on the island of Ireland and not the 2 million fewer through death and emigration as reported by you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.17.164.155 (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The source seems dodgy to me - it seems to be a website quoting one person quoting another person quoting another. Not really solid evidence - This turkish magazine quoting someone called Thomas O'Neill quoting someone else. I personally would delete it unless anyone can find something other than internet hearsay. Alternatively make it clear that there is not much evidence to support it. That is not to say that I rule out the generosity of the then sultan. He was probably wealthy enough to make a gesture like that. The personal attribution to Queen Victoria of the refusal sounds unlikely though. If the story is true and the money was refused, it was probably an over-zealous diplomat rather than a personal response from QV. Muchado (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Update... after some research, I find the following source from a book scanned by Google:

"During the year of famine in Ireland, the Sultan heard of the distress existing in that unhappy country; he immediately conveyed to the British ambassador his desire to aid in its relief, and tendered for that purpose a large sum of money. It was intimated to him that it was thought right to limit the sum subscribed by the Queen, and a larger amount could not therefore be received from his highness. He at once acquiesced in the propriety of this resolution, and with many expressions of benevolent sympathy, sent the greatest admissible subscription." pages 20-21, "The Sultan of Turkey, Abdul Medjid Khan: A Brief Memoir of his Life and Reign, with Notices of the country, its Army, Navy & present Prospects", Rev. Henry Christmas, published by John Farquhar Shaw, London, 1854

I propose that this quote be added rather than the current content, unless full support for it can be found. Also, it seems that there may be some historical reference to aid from Turkey to Drogheda - this should probably also be put in if it can be sourced. Muchado (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

On the latter - no. The President made reference to it recently in a speech (namely the inclusion of the crescent moon in Drogheda's coat of arms, which she said was in response to Turkish aid in the famine) and it then had to be retracted, as the symbol had been present for centuries. See here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hyperlink to pp20-21 of ref supplied by Muchado: The Sultan of Turkey, Abdul Medjid Khan: A Brief Memoir of his Life and Reign, with Notices of the country, its Army, Navy & present Prospects There is however no reference that the Ottoman Empire "secretly sent three ships full of food", either at this source or the questionable source in the article at present. See WP:REDFLAG for referencing 'extraordinary claims'. RashersTierney (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This section is just the regurgitation of a provable fabrication. Simple questions which will show this are as follows: What is the name of this "Irish representative"? Ireland did not become a separate nation until May 1923, and somehow managed to get out of the agreement to the "no foreign policy" under Britain and get membership and a representative to the League of Nations by July 1923 According to the actual content of the treaty the "Irish Representative" was "HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND AND OF THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA: The Right Honourable Sir Horace George Montagu Rumbold, Baronet, G.C.M.G., High Commissioner at Constantinople" details at - ^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.211.103 (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Food exports to England section doesn't mention why exports continued / increased. Was it because the people in power needed/wanted the money from food exports? Was this money used to help the Irish people (i.e. is it possibly justifiable)? Or was it because the Catholic church told the people it was required? Gronky (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If you apply the search term laissez-faire ('free market' ala Adam Smith) with 'Ireland' and 'famine' you will get a wide variety of interpretations of how this economic policy of the time influenced the reaction/inertia of the authorities. Not sure why you think the Catholic Church took the view you propose. Hope this helps. RashersTierney (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Some Irish traditional music criticises the Catholic church for taking England's side and betraying the Irish people. Some older people from Ireland said the same to me. ...but I never studied Irish history in depth. I heard the economic suggestion for the first time only recently. I'll try to look into in the next while. Gronky (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There was the Bishop Kennedy & Father Kenyon incident. The Bishop suspended the priest for encouraging the Young Ireland rebellion. Then Pope Pius XI forbad "political activity" by Irish priests 5 Feb 1845. Twenty parishes in Tipperary declared that they would not attend mass again & nailed the church doors shut. - ClemMcGann (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The hierarchy has generally been hostile to 'radicalism', and the threat of excommunication was occasionally applied to those who advocated 'physical force resistance/unlawful violence'. RashersTierney (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I came to this page looking for the Roman Church role in the famine, and I cannot imagine there was none, so where is it? Did it supply aid, or was it a contributor to the suffering, or both? For one thing, the RC specified sexual positions to promote reproduction and hence human capital giving the RC a possible role in the population increase that increased loss of life during the disaster. If capital is a component (I am beginning to believe that racism is merely a side-effect of resource exploitation), then was the RC structure in Ireland at the time a component of Anglo capital?--John Bessa (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that after a search for "fish" the word doesn't appear at all in the article. I mean, it's commonly talked about in reference to the famine. Could someone please add it in an appropriate context in the article? ... at the very least to dispel myths about fishing and the famine. It's not very informative for the article to ignore fishing altogether. 220.239.203.84 (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Issue touched on at this source. RashersTierney (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You are one person. You stand by the river for 10 hours. You catch 1 fish. How will this feed 8 million people? I think you are failing at realising that fishing is very difficult. Did you ever try it? You will probably catch nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.32.169.14 (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE change American Indians to Native Americans? Being not from India, the tribes in America are not 'Indians' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siren singing (talk • contribs) 03:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It is now changed to Native American. Thanks for pointing it out and welcome to Wikipedia, cheers, jonkerz♠ 04:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Section heading added as well. D.S.

I'm not sure how politically correct the term "Native Americans" is. See the disambiguation page for the different meanings of American Indian. The article on Native Americans in the United States states right in the lead that the term may be controversial. "American Indians" may be alright to use but an even better term would be "indigenous peoples in North America". Zuggernaut (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, it is a controversial term and it has also been discussed multiple times (on and off-wiki). The problem with keeping American Indian is that it may refer to four different things. Changing it to "indigenous peoples in North America" is a sensible alternative but would still have the same problem with the wikilink pointing to Native Americans in the United States. The naming of the main article was what actually made me change it. Personally I'm not too well-read on the subject, but given that Native Americans in the United States is named like it is, and even became a featured article in 2006 I thought it made sense. That said, feel free to revert the change (or rename it like you suggested) if you don't believe it made the article better. jonkerz♠ 04:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted this, as the source would not appear to meet the standards of WP:RS, and it's not even clear where exactly does say what it's supposed to. I think something better is needed for an assertion that "great crime" is common usage. Moreschi (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The first line of the article states: « In Ireland, the Great Famine was a period of mass starvation, disease and emigration between 1845 and 1852. » --- The source citation provided states: « Throughout the Potato Famine, from 1845 to 1847, more than one million people died of starvation or emigrated ». --- While I don't doubt the Great Famine extended beyond Black '47, please provide a new source to match the statement, or change the ending date in the first sentence to match the existing source. Tchao, Charvex (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. The ref. currently is the book title This great calamity: the Irish famine, 1845-52. RashersTierney (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I clicked on the link under the first "Reference" (American University (1996), Irish Potato Famine and Trade, American University, retrieved September 24, 2010), which gave that date range, rather than following through to see the first "Citation." My error. Amicalement, Charvex (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This article's references aren't numbered. They need to be.66.241.83.239 (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Where are the suggestions? We need help to upgrade this article, please. (Sarah777 02:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) Can't find the event. (Sarah777 12:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

My suggestionm deals with the first sentance: "An Gorta Mór" translates to "The Great Hunger" not the "Great Famine" as the author implies. This is more than mere semantics as it come down to the difference in the way this tragedy is perceived. Famines are acts of nature, "Hunger" is usually the result of a failure of government policy. British Government Policy was depisct this as a "Famine" that was outside there control, where as those that dispute this claim will call it "the Greta Hunger". In a spirt of impartiality both terms should be describe and the correct translation of An Gorta Mór provided. 67.85.84.191 (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It´s not clear how or why the famine ended.Acolombo1 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The there a number of reasons, from a scientific perspective, consider to use of bluestone to combat the blight fungus - if you want a reference: [3] ClemMcGann (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest: Modern historians regard it as a dividing line in the Irish historical narrative be replaced with something less obtuse: Modern historians regard it as a significant event in Irish history Gc9580 (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello As i was reading this excellent article the thought came to my head that i thought that Ireland was over populated at the time of the Famine. Possibly propaganda planted in my mind during my British up-bringing, but i can't be the only person who would read the article and wonder the same thing. I know that the following statement was included ; "The population of Ireland was increasing no faster than that of England, which suffered no equivalent catastrophe."

However, wouldn't it be true that there was more scope for English families to move to towns and work in the expanding industrial sector once they had been cleared off their rightful land ? Also that they weren't dependent on a monoculture to the same degree.

I had a look at this discussion and see that there seems to have been more content on over-population before, but it has been removed because it was reinforcing negative stereotypes of Catholic Irish people.

Surely if claiming that over-population was partly to blame for the Famine is incorrect it can be refuted with facts, not hidden for political reasons ? Danhwiki (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No that is just bullshit, at the time a certain English academic whose name I can't recall, proposed that the population of the Earth can not exceed 2 billion people and that ALL natural disasters are necessary to keep the population of the earth down.

Thus there was little aid given to Ireland because they thought the horrific deaths were necessary. Well at least that was their excuse for not bothering to help anyway. --79.97.144.31 (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The name your looking for is possibly Thomas Robert Malthus.--Domer48_'fenian' 09:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I just happened to turn up this article for historical research and was surprised at the restrictions in place. In my view, the article has little or nothing to do with The Troubles and should therefore not be subject to the corresponding editing restrictions. Furthermore, I believe this article deserves reassessment as a "Good Article" but feel uncomfortable about putting it forward under these circumstances.

Do others agree with my position and if so, what is the procedure for returning the article to normal editing status? - Ipigott (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you'll forgive any misdemeanors I may make here, but I read this a short time ago and felt the need to comment.

Overall, I don't think the article is neutral, seeming for want of a more eloquent expression, to blame the British for deliberately handling the situation as a form of persecution rather than being a combination of misfortune, mishandling and politics.

It also forgets, perhaps deliberately, that in this era, what we would nowadays call 'abuse' of the lower social classes was common, and the norm. If you look at Peterloo, in 1817, protestors were charged by cavalry for daring to protest. There were very many poor, starving people elsewhere in Europe too, but the article is written as though to suggest that the Irish persecution by Britain, and lack of social provision was unique in the world. It is a truism that the further away you are from the seat of Government, the less concern Government feels for the people living there. That is as true now as it was then. It is easy to close one's eyes to something happening hundreds of miles away, especially when many people don't know it is happening.

In terms of the 'landlord exploitation', every landlord and indeed every asset owner seeks to maximise return from that asset. That was as true today as it was then. Today, we have landlords who exploit the lack of affordable houses for purchase by demanding high rents, but who provide the minimum of maintenance, whilst looking for ways to charge the tenant for 'damage' rather than foot the bill for 'wear and tear'. Companies employ accountants who have among other things, the duty of exploiting tax rules in favour of the company. Taking advantage of others is common place, and always has been, it wasn't invented by the British as another form of persecution of the Irish.

As for the statement that £6m left the country in one year, there is no source, but the figure seems unrealistic bearing in mind the size of the population and GDP at that time. One reason for annexing/conquering a foreign land is to gain access, and control of, its assets, its been going on since the Romans and Egyptians, and again, wasn't invented by the British as a means of persecution. Presumably, the exported crops weren't stolen by the British, they were bought and sold on. That would be capitalism then, another form of exploiting the lower classes it may be argued.

As for the connections or otherwise with the Troubles, when the article depicts murals which are (in general) a well known political symbology arising from the Troubles, then the article becomes part of the political landscape of the Troubles, and IS part of the dialogue of the troubles. After all, the mural shown in the article wasn't created to remind the residents that they should count their blessings that their diet today is calorie rich, it was created to make a political point, that of persecution and occupation by a foreign power. In short, it is propaganda, and when the article uses such material to reinforce its message, without comment on the political background of the image, it stands accused of also being propaganda.

I tend to agree that the article is too long, and is heavy going, partly because of the un-neutral slant to the writing. To give an example of how I would describe the 'feel' of the writing, the article doesn't say something like:

millions of people died because of a succession of crop failures, and the failure to provide adequate Governmental relief which was caused by a variety of factors such as lack of real understanding of the situation by sufficient people with sufficient clout to do something; a general lack of willingness for the Government/decision makers (who are all of the wealthy classes) to take adequate steps because of the social beliefs they held that if they help poor people then the poor people will stop trying to help themselves and rely on others (a comment still made by some today when the question of famine aid to starving nations is mentioned); and perhaps the fear that if they gave too much assistance to Ireland, then other deprived ares of the Empire may be resentful); and the fact that Governments of that time did not have a social conscience or believed it was their job to look after individuals

instead, the article puts forward a succession of points designed to show that it wasn't any of the above points, it was simply a matter of deliberate policy by the British to cause the Irish to die, and even mentions genocide. Now, lets be serious, if genocide was intended, sending ANY aid shouldn't be part of the plan, but why let facts get in the way of adding impact to a story?

As an aside, the university lecturer who allowed a student to copy a picture without a citation, and who then laughed it off as no big deal should be ashamed. In the right place, such an image has its part, but to allow others to believe it was real (even students) is shameful, and pretty much the same comments can be applied to its (once) inclusion in this article.

The failures were a disaster all over Europe, not just Ireland.

Another way of looking at it is that despite many, many previous crop failures due to blight, the Irish continued to practice single crop farming, and to become more and more reliable on the potato and to ignore the warning signs that disaster was inevitable. With such wide scale reliance on the potato, the impact of severe, widespread and successive crop failures was bound to be impossible to manage and wide-spread hunger and death was inevitable. Perhaps those commenting should consider that those growing the potatoes should take some responsibility for their predicament and their blindness to the warning signs, rather than blaming others for not rescuing them.

For what it's worth, I'm Irish, but I dislike history being selectively reported especially in such highly charged areas. Yes, the British could have handled it better, but its quite probable that ares of Britain would have been left to suffer if they had had a similar misfortune.

Now, I daresay there will be plenty who want to rip my comments to shreds, so I'll let you get on with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecr (talk • contribs) 01:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What might be worth referring to in this article was the behaviour of the British Empire to Ireland was really a test bed for their behaviour in other jurisdictions they occupied in the name of the empire.

Removal of the local populations rights to own the most fertile land to support themselves and their families, deportations, removal of legal rights, assigning land to loyal subjects and willing collaborators, the policy of imposing British Ideas onto the population under the term Civilisation.

These methods were used around the world - you only have to look at countries like Kenya, South Africa, Malaysia etc often having tried out the techniques in Ireland. Unfortunately they all pretty much ended up with the same results - where eventually they had to make a quick exit from the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.236.182 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bold textWhat might be worth referring to in this article was the behaviour of the British Empire to Ireland was really a test bed for their behaviour in other jurisdictions they occupied in the name of the empire. - - Removal of the local populations rights to own the most fertile land to support themselves and their families, deportations, removal of legal rights, assigning land to loyal subjects and willing collaborators, the policy of imposing British Ideas onto the population under the term Civilisation. - - These methods were used around the world - you only have to look at countries like Kenya, South Africa, Malaysia etc often having tried out the techniques in Ireland. Unfortunately they all pretty much ended up with the same results - where eventually they had to make a quick exit from the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadamod (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The Irish Times revealed in March 2010^[1] that the whole story of the Ottoman aid is based on a local myth in Drogheda, a fact that caused some trouble for the Irish president Mary McAleese on a state visit to Ankara.

--Eusc (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There has been an article in the IT from March 03 2010 indicating that the story of the Ottoman aid is based on a local myth rather than on historical facts. Therefore I propose the following addition and correction to be made to the Ottoman aid chapter. --Eusc (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Does the reference, Killen, Richard (2003), Gill and Macmillan Ltd, refer to Timeline of Irish History by Richard Killeen (two ees)? Also, Killeen published Short History of Ireland in the same year (by a different publisher) which was later published by Gill and Macmillan.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

<img src="//bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.18/common/images/magnify-clip.png"

"A graph of the populations of Ireland and Europe indexed against 1750." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.147.70 (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a graph in this article that shows the population of Ireland is 8 million while the population of Europe is something crazy like 2 million. First of all, I generally consider Ireland to be part of Europe. Someone tell me if I'm wrong. Second of all, there's no way that the population of Ireland was ever greater than the population of Europe. What am I missing here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.147.70 (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are. The population of Ireland is measured agains the left hand vertical axis while the pop'n of Europe is v the RH axis. --Red King (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The article correctly points out that a primary reason for eviction was that rates (on properties under four Pounds) were the responsibility of the landlord. However, the article does not point that high local property taxes were a fairly recent feature of Irish life - tithes had existed in the past, but a high local property tax was really a feature of the 19th century, this may explain why evictions were far less common in 18th century famines.2.26.103.212 (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that makes that connection then perhaps it can be used. RashersTierney (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There are inaccuracies on the science content of the article. For example, Phytophthrora infestans originates from the Toluca Valley of Mexico, not from the Andes. The pathogen was only introduced in the Andes in the mid 1900's. Neiderhauser discovered the sexual stage of the fungus in the Toluca Valley in 1958, thereby proving it's origin. See Neiderhauser, JS 1991 phytothora infestans the Mexico connection pp 25-45 Symposium of the Mycolocical Society. Lucas Shattock Shaw and Cooke Ed. Cambridge University Press. Oomycetes are currently considered fungi. Consult any general plant pathology book, for example, Plant Pathology by Agrios The introduction of late blight into Europe occurred after it's introduction in America and is well documented, by Bourke, 1964, The Emergence of Potato Blight 1846-1828. Nature 203:805-808. There are many many other pathogens of potato including bacterial wilt (or brown rot) that are much more important than leaf curl. The latter is caused by Potato leaf roll virus, well controlled with seed potato certification standards and sound cultural practices. Once these practices were in place, the importance of leaf curl in reducing yield or causing crop failure was greatly diminished. A good source of info on potato diseases would be the Compendium of Potato Diseases by the American Phytopathological society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlantpathPhD (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful comment: I've amended the text accordingly - please check my work. I've left the Oomycetes reference (because the Oomycetes article describes it as 'fungus like') alone. Perhaps you could leave a citation at talk:Oomycete that says that it is a fungus. --Red King (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I find this a bit hard to believe, given that maize corn is often boiled on the cob and eaten straight off the cob in America. Maybe the British didn't know about this way of eating maize? — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 19:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely in 1845 they made up a lot more than 80% of the population? 109.77.9.249 (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any opinion regarding whether the "country" field in the infobox should show the United Kingdom or simply "Ireland"? I changed it originally to avoid odd-looking repetition and in keeping with the format at Holodomor (and maybe others – I'm not watching any other articles about famines), but it's been objected to. Comments appreciated. Cheers, — JonC^ॐ 08:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary to say Ireland twice but unfortunately the template is badly designed and does not work properly if fields are left empty or removed. I would prefer "country" to be removed and use "location" only, as that is the option that is most likely to be acceptable to everyone. This option requires the use of a different template or an edit to the template so that empty or unused parameters are not shown. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' isn't used here, particularly as 'government policy' (or lack thereof) has been identified as a significant contributing factor. I previously sought clarification on the issue at Template talk:Infobox famine. RashersTierney (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, RT, I suppose I should have checked there too. Did you ever make the appropriate change to the article back in 2010? Is there any reason why it now says Ireland again, twice? — JonC^ॐ 10:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Its a while back now. I must have intended raising it here. I don't recall making the change. RashersTierney (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

What connection does the word "Speranza" (hope) and the footnote about Oscar Wilde's mother have to do with the poem or the general topic of food exports? I feel something has been lost or inserted in the wrong place. Bielle (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Jane Wilde, the author, wrote using the pen-name Speranza. It should perhaps be clarified with a piped link? RashersTierney (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I've elaborated at the footnote. Hope this clarifies matters. RashersTierney (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Rashers. It's nice to find a way to (get someone else to) make an improvement and learn something at the same time. Bielle (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity. RashersTierney (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We all need to stop using the word "England" it's Great Britain at the the time and using the word "England" is biased,leaving out Scotland,Wales,The Isle of Man,Cornwall,Lancaster,Jersey,Guernsey.It would be best if it was changed to Great Britain.

I thought there were oysters, mussels and kelp in abundance but 19th century irish culture viewed it as toxic?

is this worth adding if the citations can be found?--Patbahn (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, if you can find the references. — Jon C.^ॐ 14:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

http://mysite.verizon.net/cbladey/patat/seafood.html

In her famous work The Great Hunger Cecil Woodham-Smith responds to this issue with a environmental determinism which pits strong and determined fishermen against an all powerful sea and cliffs. There is little background provided to demonstrate that the government's opinions of Irish fishermen were not based upon hard fact-that as her account of the Claddagh fishermen demonstrates Irish fishermen were a class unto themselves and extremely hard to deal with-even in the face of famine. Woodham Smith does expose significant cultural concerns which do indicate that "fisherman culture" was a factor as strong as those of the environment in the limitation of efficient exploitation of the resources of the sea.

More important perhaps, is the observation that rather than appearing as an industry overburdened by demand which overtaxed its resources the Irish fishing industry appeared to be an industry with no customers and weak demand even at the height of the Famine. This has all of the hallmarks of a problem related to cultural practice and failure to adapt to a ready food resource.

(Now some of this appears to be quotes from Woodham smith and some to be observations of the author of the webpage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 22:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The starving were more 'culturally disposed' to eating grass than fish. What a load of rubbish! RashersTierney (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Aside from calling it rubbish, could you please explain why there are fish in the Irish Sea and the pacific ocean, but the irish weren't heavily exploiting this resource?

I've made a citation to the literature discussing the claddagh fisherman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, research precedes theory, but to get you started... (on tenterhooks to see how fish in the Pacific fits into your theory) RashersTierney (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

your link to the galwayindependent is dead, but, I appreciate the sentiment. --Patbahn (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

references mention Phytopthora infestans (or some such) correct name PLEASE DOUBLE CHECK is Phytophthora infestans (provide a link to that wiki page) It is annoying when editors lock pages for editing while allowing spelling mistakes, which hoi polloi - the likes of me then cannot correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.127.240 (talk • contribs)

If you created and used an account, you would be able to edit semi-protected pages. DrKiernan (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Re

The corn when it arrived had not been ground and was inedible[dubious – discuss], and this task involved a long and complicated process if it was to be done correctly and it was unlikely to be carried out locally.

The ref. needed here (among many) is: Three Famines: Starvation and Politics By Thomas Keneally, p.224

The problem with dried "Indian corn" is that it needed to be milled into flour, which is gritty because of the high starch content of this variety (hence "Grits"), or treated with lye to make hominy because it had a hard, inedible outer shell. There were no mills of the proper sort in Ireland, as discussed in The History of the Great Irish Famine of 1847 (3rd Ed.) (1902) By John O'Rourke, Can, p.166. Dschwend (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ummmm The famine occured when there were record crops in Ireland of wheat, barley and corn. This was mostly reserved for shipment to England, and few adjustments to this arrangement were made when the only other source of large scale-food crop in Ireland (the potato) failed; meaning that the famine was really human-caused despite the potato fungus. So a million people starved due to the actions of other people, not merely a natural crop-blight, and there is nothing in the historical record that would cause a reasonable historian to debate this. One of Wikipedia's flaws is that fringe historians can camp out on an article, dominate it, and re-write history in the process. This article is a sad example, there is no meaninigful debate about what really caused the Irish famine, but there are fringe theorists who want to deny that in the mid-1800's, Britains leadersip of that time was decisive in the death of a million people in the Great Irish Famine. 98.173.62.28 (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed very much so. 81.170.234.118 (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Many, many historians dispute the claim including prominent Irish historians. You are entitled to have an entrenched pov but do not expect others to have it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.66.29 (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ireland was in fact a NET importer of grains between 1846 and 1848, according to Cormac O'Grada of UCD, as detailed in his book, "The Great Famine". But don't let the facts get in the way of your Shinner BS now! In fact there is not a single, respected, Irish Academic Historian, who currently supports the "Genocide" bullshit claim. Not that that minor thing matters to the bigots in any way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.143.90 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There were a couple things that the Irish thought were causing the famine. One idea is that there were fairies in the country side destroying the potatoes. The second idea was God punished the Irish for wasting a lot of there huge potato harvest the year before.

• citation

Bartoietti, Susan. Black Potatoes. Boston:houguon miffin company, 2001. print.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esudbr6319 (talk • contribs) 11:08, January 23, 2013

Many, even at the time, drew a distinction between what may have caused the blight, and what caused the famine. RashersTierney (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Footnote 6 can't be right: the Lady Gregory to whose page the link leads was not born until 1852, so her fortune can't have been dissipated by her husband in the 1840s and 1850s 194.46.224.76 (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC) bjg

The footnote isn't well worded. The fortune he lost was not hers, but one he himself inherited (in 1847), long before either of his two marriages. Will clarify footnote accordingly. Not sure that it is particularly relevant to the article in any case.RashersTierney (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like a paragraph on the ending of the famine.--76.92.113.139 (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

In the section regarding Charity from Native Americans, please change the spelling of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma's newspaper from "Bishinik" to "Biskinik."

The correct spelling can be found and verified on the Biskinik's web archives -- http://www.choctawnation.com/news-room/biskinik-newspaper-archive/

Lokisquid (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Done This contradicts the source on the article, but in this case I am more willing to believe the primary source you provided. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

In the "Potato Dependency" section, "dependants" needs to be corrected to "dependents." 98.202.1.105 (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: While this is correct in American English, I believe "dependant" is correct in Irish English, which is the spelling that would be used for this article. BryanG (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In the section on "Reaction in Ireland," the 6th paragraph states that on February 28th of 1846 John Mitchel wrote about the "Coercion Bill which was then going through the House of Lords" "Coercion" links to a Wikipedia article (via redirection) on "Protection of Person and Property Act 1881." Clearly this is not the same Bill.

Being a Yank, I don't know enough British Parliamentary history to know to what law the Coercion Bill should refer. Nor, would I be able to find out if there is an article about it already in Wikipedia. Is there someone who does know the history who can correct this? I may remove the link. Ileanadu (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Further to the point that it's not the same legislation. The Irish Potato Famine article states that "the bill was subsequently defeated and that Peel's government fell. The linked to article says that piece of legislation was introduced by Gladstone.Ileanadu (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I made a change. See if that helps. — goethean 19:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The heading Laws that restricted the rights of Irish Catholics should read 'and Ulsters presbyterians'. Who suffered under penal laws which were just as restrictive if not more so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.240.41 (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Currently the sentence about the famine being known as the Irish Potato Famine only mostly outside Ireland is supported by a reference that - as far as I can see - says no such thing.

Page 9 of the O'Neill book says nothing like that, but page 7 says "this tragedy is known as the Irish potato famine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.36.50 (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

hi it says O Neills page 1 ... not page 9 or 7 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.11.7 (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

hi im new here so not really sure how to go about this, can someone please change the translation for "GORTA MOR" in the first paragraph ill copy and paste below, the word gorta means famine , the word ocras means hungry/hunger, the word mor(i cant do the fada over the o)means big/large/great.... so can the translation be changed to the great famine instead of the great hunger... im Irish so i know the proper translation for the word. thank you. copy and paste below:
In Ireland, the Great Famine was a period of mass starvation, disease and emigration between 1845 and 1852.[1] It is also known, mostly outside Ireland, as the Irish Potato Famine.[2] In the Irish language it is called an Gorta Mór (IPA: [ənˠ ˈɡɔɾˠtˠə ˈmˠoːɾˠ], meaning "the Great Hunger")[fn 1] or an Drochshaol ([ənˠ ˈdˠɾɔxˌhiːlˠ], meaning "the bad life").— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.11.7 (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

In Ireland births fell by about one third, resulting in about 0.5 million "lost lives".^[1] The European subsistence crisis of 1845–1850: a comparative perspective 83.71.30.126 (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In the subsection Irish food exports during Famine can we please have some citations, or at least a citation needed tag for the following claims.

"In Ireland before and after the famine, Cormac O’Grada points out, “Although the potato crop failed, the country was still producing and exporting more than enough grain crops to feed the population. But that was a 'money crop' and not a 'food crop and could not be interfered with.” Up to 75 percent of Irish soil was devoted to wheat, oats, barley and other crops that were grown for export and shipped abroad."

As far as I am aware the question of whether Ireland was a net exporter during the famine years is contested. Cormac O'Garda, quoted above, seems to be saying something entirely different in this paper from 2004 http://www.ucd.ie/economics/research/papers/2004/WP04.25.pdf. From page 19 "During the famine Ireland switched from being one of Britain's bread-baskets to being a net importer of food-grains" along with a table from a paper by Peter Solar showing that Ireland was a net importer during the famine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C p mcdowell (talk • contribs) 00:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite, it is also worth noting that P.M.A. Bourke states that some 146,000 tons of grain were exported in 1847 compared with 472,000 tons annually before the famine

P.M.A., The Visitation of God? The potato and the great Irish famine (Dublin, 1993), p. 168.

Meanwhile, Professor James Donnelly writes:

"The food gap created by the loss of the potato in the late 1840s was so enormous that it could not have been filled [through preventing grain export]"

James Donnelly, The Great Irish Potato Famine (Sutton, 2001), p. 215.

It appears that this section needs to be seriously revised.--144.124.228.44 (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The section "Blight in Ireland" says: "In 1770, the crop largely failed again. In 1800, there was another "general" failure, and in 1807, 50% of the crop was lost." The section "Irish food exports during Famine" says: "When Ireland had experienced a famine in 1782–1783, ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish." Was there a potato failure in 1782-1783? Or was there a different cause of this famine? Was the potato less of a dominant food in 1782? It seems slightly odd at the moment that 1782 is highlighted as when the famine was bad enough to close the ports, but apparently the potato crop was fine. --Merlinme (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I find the last sentence of the second paragraph in the introduction section awkward and confusing.

I propose we change

"As a consequence of these exports and a number of other factors such as land acquisition, absentee landlords and the effect of the 1690 penal laws, the Great Famine today is viewed by a number of historical academics as a form of either direct or indirect genocide."

TO

"As a consequence of these exports and a number of other factors such as: land acquisition, absentee landlords and the effect of the 1690 penal laws, the Great Famine today is viewed by a number of historical academics as a form of either direct or indirect genocide."

OR

"As a consequence of these exports, land acquisition, absentee landlords, the effect of the 1690 penal laws, and a number of other factors, the Great Famine today is viewed by a number of historical academics as a form of either direct or indirect genocide." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodoge (talk • contribs) 04:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The article states: "The corn when it arrived had not been ground and was inedible[dubious – discuss], and this task involved a long and complicated process..." There was nothing wrong with the corn, it could be milled with simple tools, as Mexicans had done for thousands of years, but the Irish had no idea what to do with it. Most grains can be made edible by long boiling; but this is not true for corn (maize); the hull is too tough. I believe the way to treat the corn is to boil it with an alkali (typically ashes), which ruptures the hull and also frees B-vitamins in the grain.

I'm sorry that I can't provide references.

Jonrysh (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you might want to read Nixtamalization. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

In Castle Richmond by Anthony Trollope, who witnessed the Famine at first hand, during his career with the Post Office in Ireland, this problem is described in some detail. "The food as food, was not nice to look at; and could not have been nice to eat, or probably easy of digestion when eaten. ...it was rough and hard, and ... the particles were as sharp as though sand had been mixed with it. The stuff was half-boiled Indian meal,(i.e. maize Englishbriar (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)) which had been improperly subjected at first to the full heat of boiling water; and in its present state was bad food either for children or grown people.

"It was quite true that the grains of it were hard and sharp, as to give one an idea that it would make good eating neither for women nor children. The millers and dealers, who of course made their profits in these times, did frequently grind up the whole corn without separating the grain from the husks, and the shell of a grain of Indian corn does not, when ground, become soft flour. (Castle Richmond by Anthony Trollope,p85, Edited by Mary Hamer, The World's Classics, Oxford University Press 1989) Englishbriar (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The next sentence doesn't make much sense either: it says the cornmeal had to be cooked before it could be eaten but no-one eats raw cornmeal just as no-one eats raw potatoes. DrKiernan (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The article does not, in my opinion, give enough attention to this aspect of the famine. The greatest burden of the famine fell on a dispersed rural population. The town and city dwellers paid for their food and would, in the most part, be able to continue to do this. The rural population was dispersed and would have had less exposure to, and therefore resistance to, the diseases prevalent in the more crowded urban areas. Rural families would not have left their land before their condition had become desperate, and the only places that offered any possibility of relief were the towns. The government concentrated what food relief it provided in the towns, there was no attempt to distribute food to the rural areas. Therefore, a population largely unexposed to the infectious diseases of crowded towns were concentrated in these towns, vastly increasing the burden on scanty sanitation provision. No wonder so many died of cholera, no wonder so many more died of infectious disease than died from starvation as such. Urselius (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Im in general agreement with this. It is a medical fact that people in a state of starvation are more prone to any disease. Rural people often tried to stay with town relatives who could offer help. Those who had no help lived and died under the hedgerows on the outskirts of the towns. Laws prevented town dwellers from accomodating any itinerants or beggars. Tension was further created by desperate Irish men being employed to protect the property (and food) of the wealthy. These Irishmen were called upon to shoot at their starving relatives -to their credit they nearly always missed the targets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I happened upon this article by chance, and it seems to me to be in need of some TLC in order to shine as an informative encyclopedic article on this contentious historical subject. It has been receiving some (e.g. by User:DrKiernan), but I think more is needed in order to recover from the battleground mentality that has plagued "Troubles" related articles.

For one thing, the article is quite long, and seems to drift off topic from time-to-time. There are problems with tone too: the article seems assertive rather than explanatory in places. The relevance of the repealed Penal Laws is not explained, and there is very little on the Corn Laws and laissez faire economic doctrine. But there is also lots of great material here, so I am sure it can be brought up to approximately GA standard without too much work. Geometry guy 00:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Popery is an offensive term which is why I ask the question. 86.40.17.62 (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There would appear to be a few inconsistencies in this article:
(1) The section "Potato dependency" quotes (Rifkin, 1993): "The British colonized … [Ireland] into an extensive grazing land to raise cattle … " However the section "Irish food exports during the Famine" states: "Up to 75 percent of Irish soil was devoted to wheat … and other crops … " So, on the one hand, Ireland was a vast pasture, but on the other hand, Ireland was devoted to raising grain. Which claim was true?
(2) The section "Reaction in Ireland" quotes John Mitchel, stating: "It was Mitchel's opinion that 'if Yorkshire and Lancashire had sustained a like calamity in England, there is no doubt such measures as these would have been taken, promptly and liberally.' " However, this article neglects the Wikipedia article "Highland Potato Famine". The situation in Scotland was similar to that in Ireland, and the two lands followed similar courses — although mortality was far lower in Scotland than in Ireland.
(3) Although charges of genocide are considered, there is historical evidence that the British were simply inept at famine relief. In the sections "Government response" and "Analysis of the government's role: Contemporary", Charles Trevelyan, who administered British famine relief in Ireland, is quoted claiming that the famine was the just "judgment of God" which would cure the "social evil" of the Irish. But was Scotland also a target for genocide? What justified / motivated Scotland's suffering? Furthermore, regardless of Trevelyan's attitudes towards the Irish, he was answerable to the Prime Minister and to Parliament. In late 1845, Prime Minister Robert Peel purchased £100,000 worth of maize and cornmeal secretly from America, and Peel's successor, John Russell, "introduced a new programme of public works" in 1846 (section: "Government response"). The evidence supports charges of ineptitude rather than malice.
The Wikipedia article "Timeline of major famines in India during British rule" and associated articles further evince British ineptitude at famine relief. During the "Orissa famine of 1866", the British attempt at relief was frustrated by transport problems. The British administration was better prepared for the "Rajputana famine of 1869", but influxes of famine victims from non-British states overwhelmed British relief efforts. British relief efforts during the "Bihar famine of 1873-74" proved excessive, leading to few deaths but also to an inadequate response to the subsequent "Great Famine of 1876-78". Like the Great Irish Potato Famine, the 1876-78 famine in India was characterized by high mortality (ca. 5.5 million) and high emigration. Administrative confusion during famines persisted even as late as the "Bengal famine of 1943".
72.74.180.143 (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The article isn't written by one single author with a particular point of view. Many contributors (including you, if you so wish) include information from many sources (following policies, neutral point of view, appropriate weight, etc) and this is the resulting article. You've pointed out many interesting things about the article - feel free to work them into the article (so long as what you insert is properly sourced, etc) and the article will surely benefit. I especially like your point (3) and you seem to have sources already for making this point in the article. I've heard point (1) made before, and I believe the "trend" at that time was to move from farming livestock to grain because it required less people but more land, so landlords had to first clear their land of tenants they no longer wanted or needed, and this changing requirement contributed towards the landlords' uncaring reaction during the famine. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Your point about the genocide question is quite right. Currently the article is balanced in a way which gives equal credence to the idea that the famine was a genocide. Yet historians overwhelming reject that assertion and it is extremely rare to find a professional historian of Irish history who makes that claim. For instance, a typical analysis by an historian:

"To begin with, we need to be clear in our minds that this was primarily a disaster like a flood or earthquake. The blight was natural, no one can be held responsible for that. Conditions in Ireland which had placed thousands upon thousands of people in complete dependence on the potato are another matter. Yet the historian, if he is conscientious, will have an uneasy conscience about labelling any class as individual as villains of the piece. The Irish landlords held the ultimate responsibility, but on the whole they were as much involved in the disaster as their tenantry. The ministers of the crown who had to take responsibility once the disaster occurred were callous, parsimonious, and self-righteous. Yet these are the very qualities which Charles Dickens, for instance, found so distasteful in men of their class, and they were exhibited as much to the English as to the Irish poor."

E.E.R. Green, 'The Great Famine (1845-1850)', in T.W. Moody & F.X. Martin (eds.), The Course of Irish History (Dublin, 1984), pp.273-274.

And in summary of the historiography:

"Most historians find it impossible to sustain the charge of deliberate genocide, since there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the famine was planned or deliberately prolonged by the British with the intent of destroying the Irish population."

Dan Ritschel, 'The Irish Famine: Interpretive and Historiographical Issues', Department of History, University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

Surely, the article should be written to reflect the secondary sources, not to present a misleading balance as if there is a serious or legitimate debate about this question. There isn't.144.124.228.28 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

It trivializes the deaths of a million people by giving the same importance to a single unmade television program by a non-notable, unknown writer as other aspects of the famine. Ephemeral news items do not deserve this level of coverage, if at all. DrKay (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree the material is disproportionate and not appropriate. If the controversy lingers, gets picked up or generally becomes notable then something might be appropriate but not now, not with that sourcing. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I also agree. It was news on a slow news day, and nothing about it since. Covered by WP:NOTNEWS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Like Ireland, the Ukraine is a fertile region" - a line that could only be uttered by someone who has never had to farm the bog gardens of Connaught! Fergananim (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

As it is unsourced, I've cut it. DrKay (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It says under Tenants, subdivisions and bankruptcy: "Holdings were so small that no crop other than potatoes would suffice to feed a family, nor could ranching be a possibility due to the limited land" I presume this means that keeping the odd cow or pig or a few chickens wasn't practical. I don't have access to the reference used but wouldn't mixed farming be a better link, or maybe just something about keeping livestock to supplement the diet? Ranching is mainly an American term that suggests lots of animals on large tracts of land which I don't think is what is meant here. Richerman (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It was tacked on in this edit with no source or explanation. Who knows what the intention was and though true (in the sense that wind farming wasn't an option either), whether it was a WP:ENGVAR or cultural misunderstanding or a joke, it seems to be an original thought and should go. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok that's fair enough, thanks. Also, I wonder why Dr Kay tagged the newspaper sources in this edit as primary souces that need replacing? Newspapers are usually classed as reliable sources and there doesn't seem to be any analysis or synthesis of the ones used. Richerman (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That material has been selected for inclusion in the article by a wikipedian rather than by what secondary and tertiary sources consider important, and is presented without secondary analysis or contrary views. It is also unwise to use a nationalist propagandist from the 1840s and 50s as a source for the same reason that it is inappropriate to use anti-Irish Victorian ones. The article should represent modern scholarly opinion. DrKay (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see where you're coming from but I don't think that's clear from the tags you've used. If you follow the link from the tag there's nothing in WP:PRIMARY that explains that problem. I think it needs something with the tags to explain what the problem is - perhaps a link to an explanation on the talk page. Richerman (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Yes, I've put them in the template. Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The Reaction in Ireland paragraph starts with "The Corporation of Dublin sent a memorial to the Queen, 'praying her' to call Parliament together early...". The implication is that there were folks who were praying to the queen as one would offer supplications to a deity. I'm assuming the original text says something like "we pray you", which at that time, simply meant "please". I recommend this text changed to be "pleading with her to". Jogar2 (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Changing the Choctaw contribution from $170 to $710. Angie Debo's book^[2] had a typo and has been cited and recited ad nauseum. I have Debo's book and looked up her source^[3] (available online) which says $710. DrHenley (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The quote attributed to O'Grada in this section is incorrect. Simply following the link to the source shows you that this quote comes not from a historian but from the 'Pocket Book of Ireland'. O'Grada's own claim is precisely the opposite, that Ireland imported far more than it exported during the famine and can be found here: https://books.google.de/books?id=sH-J4WxqknkC&pg=PA123&dq=food+imports+ireland+famine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj__8n40rnNAhWJC8AKHaK4AHEQ6AEINTAB#v=onepage&q=food%20imports%20ireland%20famine&f=false. Could someone change this so it is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.128.210.18 (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The export of wagon-loads of food under military guard, portrayed much later in political propaganda, was a very rare occurrence at the time. The real problem of logisitics was the suddenness of the famine, no railways to the affected areas, bad roads and slow communications. If you were a Catholic, you were told that it was divine punishment, end of story. Most people starved because their neighbours wouldn't share food, so distribution was also a problem at the local level.78.19.196.204 (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@DrKay: Re [4]. I could revert you using the same edit summary too. You don't seem to have understood my edit summary. The map clearly shows population fall in Ireland, with areas that did not experience a fall indicated as not having experienced a fall, but without a percentage figure. This is also supported by the title included in the image itself. Please explain why you think "population change" is more accurate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

A fall is a change. The figure also shows rises in the urban areas, which is also a change. DrKay (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

But the figure doesn't show "rises in urban areas"; it shows areas that did not experience a fall in population. This is no doubt why the title engraved in the image itself said "population fall" rather than "population change" until you edited it yesterday. This means that my interpretation is supported by a reliable source (the creator of the image), while yours is just your opinion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The no change areas are shown in yellow. The rise areas (the city of Belfast, the county of Dublin and the district of Cork) are shown in green. DrKay (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@DrKay: The no change areas are shown in yellow. Where are you getting that? The key in the image itself says that yellow is "0 to 10% [fall]". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

0 is no change. DrKay (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No, 0 is "no fall", and yellow does not signify 0; it signifies "0[%] to 10%". How are you still not getting this? And I just now noticed that your alteration of the image has made the key look silly -- without clarifying somewhere that we are talking about population fall the percentages (which do not have "-" signs) look like they indicate population growth (or something else -- population is no longer mentioned) and the only way to correctly interpret it is to read "Population Rise", the last of categories, first and realize that by implication the others signify a population fall. How on earth can you not be understanding this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

0 is yellow. Both yellow and green signify "no fall": yellow for no change and green for rise. DrKay (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe what I'm reading here. How can you not see that yellows is between 0% and 10% fall? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, I can. It shows both no change and falls less than 10%. It is plainly obvious by this point that your statements are designed to goad, bait and belittle. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Incivility#Identifying incivility. DrKay (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Your edits look like trolling to me, too, but I have not put such thoughts to words because I am trying my darnedest to be civil. The reason the original title is "population fall" is because that is what it is. All areas that did not experience a population fall ("0 to 10% fall" is still a fall, if a small one) are marked in the same colour, where areas that experienced different degrees of population fall are shown on a gradiant scale. Do you have any reliable sources that refer to a similar style to chart to this one as illustrating "population change" or don't you? The original source of the image clearly supports me on this. Additionally, you should not alter images in a manner that makes them difficult to read. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Incivility#Identifying incivility point 1d, please do not belittle fellow editors by calling their edits "silly" or "trolling", or questioning their intelligence with comments such as "How are you still not getting this?", "How on earth can you not be understanding this?", and "How can you not see?".

Table 3.2 on page 62 of The Great Irish Famine (1995) by Cormac Ó Gráda, for example, is entitled "Population change".

It says "Population fall" in big black letters at the top of the image. It is unnecessary to repeat the identical same phrase in the caption. Continuing further discussion on this issue would merely show that the argument is being continued for the sake of the argument and not from any genuine desire to include this wording (it is already included). DrKay (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

But your edits make no sense -- I have been trying my very best to interpret them as a good-faith misunderstanding, and only admitted that they really looked like trolling after you accused me of trying to "goad, bait and belittle" (essentially, you outright accused me of being a troll, and in response I explained why I have not accused you of trolling despite your edits really looking that way).

Your citing other sources with other graphs does nothing to change the fact that the graph in our article at the moment is of population fall, not population change. And your claiming that it doesn't help our readers to have the words "population fall" both in the image itself and in the label is also moot, because you also indicate that you want to remove the title from the image itself.

How about this: we restore your crop of the image on Commons, but change the label back to "population fall"?

Alternative solution: we keep the title in the image itself, and don't give a label below the image at all.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Incivility#Identifying incivility point 1d, please do not belittle fellow editors by saying their edits "make no sense" or suggesting that they look like "trolling". I accused you of being uncivil after you called me silly and questioned my intelligence. If you do not wish to be accused of incivility, then be civil.

I have limited desire to continue an argument about editor behavior on an article talk page. So, as there appears to be no substantive issue about the article to discuss, I won't be responding to any more of your abuse. DrKay (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That rule assumes that there is some way to interpret others' edits as making sense. Your edit to my eyes did not, and when I asked you for an explanation you have repeatedly failed to provide one. Hence, makes no sense. I also did not suggest you were trolling until after you did the same thing to me.

If you are not going to respond to my proposed compromise, then I will assume tacit approval on your part of my edit.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait, you accepted my compromise, and then accused me of not proposing a compromise and not trying to discuss article content? Oh well. We're done here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

As anyone can see by looking at the timestamps on the edits, you're either a liar and a hypocrite or a moron. DrKay (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No lying at all. I read your above highly inflammatory comment, and at 21:21 I posted the a reply. I then went to the article to make the edit I said I would, and noticed it was already done. I looked at the page history and saw you were he one who had done it. I then posted again on the talk page. Why is it not possible to do this in the space of two or three minutes? I don't monitor all of your edits, or all edits to the article; I was monitoring this talk page as I did not intend to edit the article again until consensus was reached. Also, calling someone "a liar and a hypocrite or a moron" right after accusing them of being uncivil? Classy. It is also highly inappropriate to refrain from responding to any of the content-based material in someone's comments, while accusing them of trying to discuss user conduct on an article talk page. Anyway, are we done here? Can we both go back to what we were doing before, please? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

For anybody as puzzled as I was, the above refers to this edit. --Scolaire (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

What about being puzzled by dead links before I find them and comment in my poor English?Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Famine (Ireland). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319153837/http://aboutbiodiversity.org/agbdx/eireblight.html to http://aboutbiodiversity.org/agbdx/eireblight.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The article implies that the potato was used as a staple for religious, social and ethnic reasons as well as political and economic. There is no support within the article for the former but plenty for the latter, particularly economic. It was introduced as a cheap starch (economic) and became a staple through English suppression and forced land practices (economic and maybe a little political). The other reasons should be stricken from the article.Mcleodsmith (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Great catch Mcleodsmith I completely agree unless someone is able to find a contrary reference. Catrìona (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree; the tragedy developed because the monoculturalists had worked out that the spud gave them the most carbs for the least effort - but it was still a lot of effort. That choice was nothing to do with religions or ethnicities.PatrickGuinness (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Because the Holodomor was engineered deliberately by Stalin. The potato famine wasn't, and while the British government of the time may have been guilty of negligence in handling the crisis, they didn't start it. — Jon C.^ॐ 13:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the section Great Famine (Ireland)#Genocide question deals with the genocide question at some length. Scolaire (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@JonC, Actually there is no consensus that Stalin engineered the famine in USSR and even if he did that this famine killed People of different Ethnicities, not even all Victims of the so-called "Holodomor" were ethnic Ukrainians. There was no Intention and Motivation to annihilate Ukrainians at all. Mengistu Haile Mariam maybe also engineered the famine in Ethiopia but the Tigray don't claim that they became victims of a Genocide.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

For what it is worth, there is now an official international consensus of governments in the region and elsewhere, including the Russian Federation, that the Holodomor was man-made, "the cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime. The Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine (Holodomor), which took from 7 million to 10 million innocent lives [not counting deaths in other countries] and became a national tragedy for the Ukrainian people."

But note that neither the words "genocide" nor "murder" are contained in the document. And this despite the fact that thousands didn't starve but were shot by the military.

See this UN document: http://repository.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/246001/A_C.3_58_9-EN.pdf

"Joint statement by the delegations of Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Egypt, Georgia, Guatemala, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Nauru, Pakistan, Qatar, the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States of America on the seventieth anniversary of the Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine (Holodomor)"

Of course some individual academics will have other opinions. And the world's remaining Stalinists will obviously have other opinions. But an official international consensus of governments has been reached.

There is one other point of interest in that UN document. How the countries in the region do not blame all Russians or all Soviets for the actions of Stalin and the Soviet Communist Party and military leaders. Despite only 70 years having passed since the Holodomor they have/had reconciled. (Sadly, since the declaration was signed Russia has annexed Crimea and invaded Donetsk, Ukraine.)

"Recognizing the importance of raising public awareness on the tragic events in the history of mankind for their prevention in future, we deplore the acts and policies that brought about mass starvation and death of millions of people. We do not want to settle scores with the past, it could not be changed, but we are convinced that exposing violations of human rights, preserving historical records and restoring the dignity of victims through acknowledgement of their suffering, will guide future societies and help to avoid similar catastrophes in the future. ..."

50.71.169.56 (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If you wanted to argue that the tragedy was a genocide, you would have to explain why Daniel O'Connell was such a firm supporter of the "genocidal" Liberal government. Nobody has ever done so.PatrickGuinness (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Famine (Ireland). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701133947/http://www.groireland.ie/history.htm to http://www.groireland.ie/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest a note to the effect that treatment of the famine as a subject of humour can be controversial, as with the 'famine Song' in Scotland, for example.91.85.208.0 (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

I cannot agree with this article as long as "famine" remains in the title. I will try to avoid the politics of An Gorta Mór, but a famine means that all or nearly all food crops failed and animals grown as meat starved as well.

A famine means there is not enough food to keep everyone alive. A famine does not require the total or almost total death of all crops and animals -- nothing in history would meet that definition. A drop in food production of 1/3 is going to cause deaths from starvation and so meet the definition of a famine. The Holodomor in Ukraine was a man-made famine, together with a military invasion and shooting death of thousands, and the official UN declaration on it does not mention the words "genocide" or "murder". I think the desire is to reserve the word "genocide" for actually trying to wipe out a population, which requires that the genocidal party not simply stop on their own, but be stopped by external force.

As well you have all those actions PM Peel took in an unsuccessful attempt to alleviate the famine, actions those with a partisan view like to pretend didn't happen.

So I don't think a change is needed to the article.50.71.169.56 (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Just looking through the references section the word 'famine' appears in 24 of them. That's why we use it - because that's what the references say and it is the commonly used term - see wp:commonname. Richerman (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention that the name of the article has been discussed at great length, and consensus also has it at this title. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't make up its own history. Most sources call it a famine and that's why Wikipedia calls it a famine. But to be fair, it wasn't a famine. Wikepedia's own definition of a famine defines it as a widespread scarcity of food. There wasn't a widespread scarcity of food in Ireland at the time. Ergo, it isn't a famine. 05:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Georocks47 (talk)

At the moment this article radically misrepresents the consensus of historians on the question of exports. The bulk of the space is given over to Christine Kinealy's view from her 1997 book and the text goes so far as to state her claims in the editorial voice, making the bald statement that "The problem in Ireland was not lack of food, which was plentiful, but the price of it, which was beyond the reach of the poor". A non-historian (John Ranelagh) is then used to support the claims about exports in the final paragraph, while the only mention of the countervailing view comes with a brief comment about one particular grain in the last sentence. The reality is that the whole line of thought here is very much a minority position in the scholarship on the subject. To quote a recent summary of scholarly views given given by an eminent authority on the subject: "Few historians support the case advanced by John Mitchel that Ireland produced sufficient foodstuffs to have filled the 'potato gap' in 1846-1847, but for a partial exception based on the view that Irish exports were significantly under-reported, see Christine Kinealy ..." (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FDk_AwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=oxford+handbook+of+modern+irish+history+exports+kineally&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFkYqrxM_WAhUrI8AKHatODuQQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=kinealy&f=false). In this article we are currently taking that exception to the scholarly consensus and elevating it to the position of the principle view, when the actual view of historians is the opposite. 6of1 (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great Famine (Ireland). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.education.ne.gov/SS/irish/unit_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051103000213/http://www.thegreathunger.org/ to http://www.thegreathunger.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622103532/http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Famine to http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Famine
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/famine/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great Famine (Ireland). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017094035/http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=269871 to http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=269871
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511162720/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/michael/www/choctaw/retrace.html to https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/michael/www/choctaw/retrace.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The article says exports were made under military guard. The source it cites does not mention this at all:

https://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/food-exports-from-ireland-1846-47/

I do not have an account, but someone should change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.231.172.154 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Look at the last edit: "aka The Irish Holocaust" <-- no one but internet kooks refer to the famine in this way. look at the imbecile who added this change. adds useless one word edits and engages in urine therapy, obviously. I cannot be bothered to create an account and submit to the semi restricted page nonsense to correct a lunatics political agenda edit to this page.

Request: Revert this inflammatory "aka The Irish Holocaust" edit. 69.157.114.229 (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 07:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The great hunger is a somewhat modern title, the name at the time was Droch Shaol(though it would have been spelled differently in Ireland in the 1840s, before the standardization of many european languages and thus closer to Droċ-Ṡaoġal or Droch-shaoghal.) The latter variant of which, as the handwritten letters hosted on the Meitheal Dúchas.ie website, also clearly attest to.

However, before I edited, this article was completely devoid of any hint or mention to the contemporary name, Droch Shaol. It was no where to be seen in this article. So can this article really pretend to be encyclopedic without using the actual common name of the period? Essentially stealing the voice of those who experienced it? Wikipedia, you truly never cease to trouble me.

Droch Shaol is usually translated, though rather rudimentarily as "the bad life", however the word Droch is more akin to the english word -wretched- than the simplistic "bad" that is the commonly encountered translation. Drochshaol would be more accurately something like "wretched life, wretched times" or "un-life"

With the greatest impacted areas to the west and south of Ireland, were the Irish language was still the majority tongue, the period was contemporaneously referred to as, in Irish: An Drochshaol, loosely translated as the hard-times, in particular the worst year of the period, that of Black 47, is referred to in Irish: Bliain an Drochshaoil.^{[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]}

Boundarylayer (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That should be in a footnote. It's not important enough for the second sentence of the lead. The article is about the famine not an obscure point of linguistics. DrKay (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Obscure? Exactly what gives you the opinion that the name for a period, as experienced by these people, is something that is "obscure", "not important" or that it should not be at the very top of the article?

As the article is about the period, to exclude the contemporary name, the voices of those who lived it, is therefore essentially indistinguishable from a form of misinformation, as really, how are readers interested in the letters from the era, ever going to know about their existence, if they're searching for this relatively modern term, "an gorta mór"? In contrast, if they search for Draochshaol, particularly Droċ-Ṡaoġal, then they might have a chance to connect with the primary literature. Opening up a path into the thoughts and lives of those who lived it.

If this encyclopedia is going to be anything, it should be to serve readers with scholarly information and where to find it. Having come to this article and noticed the complete sanitization of the entire article of the phrase Draoch-shaol. Is for that reason, really deeply troubling.

Boundarylayer (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say exclude it. Read my comments. DrKay (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Your comments? There is only one edit history comment from you, is that what you wish to draw my attention to? That comment suggests that because the "material" is not in the body of the article, then it should not be introduced to the lead. However as true as it was then as it is now. I do not see any discussion of the origins, beginnings or really any discussion of the related name for the period, that of An Gorta mór, to be found anywhere in the body of the article. So I hope you can see the obvious open hypocrisy in which I view this, your comment.

The article should translate some of the Irish language letters from the era, which I will leave to other editors to do, to give voice to those who experienced it, rather than continue to do, what the article presently does, which is to treat the entire era as some kind of cold mute event, that equates those who were politically disenfranchised with the equivalent of having never had any voice on the matter themselves.

Boundarylayer (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

So, you agree then, that I never said to exclude it. DrKay (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Dolotta (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The famine brought an influx of funds raised from multiple religious denominations especially throughout the US and Britain. The most recognized groups being Protestants, Catholics, and Quakers. Each of these groups played a large part in the collection of funds for Ireland during the Great Famine. The Quakers were the main distributors of the goods and funds collected in America, trusted to be fair and not express denominational favoritism. The first appeal started December 3rd of 1846, Quakers in America raised 500 pounds sterling during their first appeal and continued to send funds and supplies even after many federal programs had ceased in 1847^[1]. Quakers led the forefront in the distribution of funds from around the globe, and were some of the main advocates of the soup kitchens. Quaker leaders included Jonathan Pim and his brother William Harvey Pim, who helped to set up the Society of Friends in Dublin. Quakers were also known for being successful in communications to newspapers on needed aid. Protestants - often recognized as mainly the irish landowners - were often criticized on not helping enough. However, there were a handful of landowners that assisted by lowering costs of rent and opening up private soup kitchens. The Catholic church provided assistance as well especially through church collections in both Britain and America. Similar to Queen Victoria’s appeal, Pope Pius IX released a public appeal asking for donations, and made his own personal donation as well. His support ceased in 1848 when he had to flee Rome due to revolutionary struggles^[2].

Relief within the Protestant party was extremely common during the famine years due to their social and political prevalence within Ireland. Although Protestantism was the minority compared to Catholicism in Ireland in the nineteenth century, Protestants were a part of the British Union making them capable of holding wealthy positions that controlled the region ^[3]. Because Protestantism was the religion of the state, many wealthy landlords, poor law commissioners, and individuals of power were responsible for their tenants or other people living under their authority. The Protestants provided relief through the Irish Poor Laws which developed workhouses and soup kitchens for the starving and unemployed. The Irish Poor laws were a series of proposals that began in 1838 before the years of the famine and were made up of commissioners and board of guardians^[4]. "The 1838 Poor Law Act attempted to take a neutral position between the different religions in Ireland. Because of religious tensions (and unlike the situation in England and Wales), no clergyman of any denomination was allowed to sit as a member of a local board of guardians" ^[5]. Many of the poor and destitute were Catholic because of persecution and regional distribution of religion, causing Catholics to be more seriously affected by the famine than Protestants due to them living in more vulnerable areas. Although relief efforts were put into place, they were politically fueled for the conversion of Catholics to the religion of the rule. Some of these efforts include souperism, which is the exchange of food for conversion to Catholicism, religious claims of illegitimate children, separation of families in the workhouse, and abuse by landlords because of the potato blight^[6].

In 1840, Ireland had a large peasant society in which Catholic tenants worked for Protestant landowners. Ireland was 75% Roman Catholic^[7]. Ireland was traditionally very religious. Catholics married young. The increasing availability of potatoes allowed the population, even the poorer population, to grow and stay healthy. Many people relied on potatoes because they grew quickly, did not require much land, and were inexpensive. When the blight came and destroyed the crops, the tenants had no food to fall back on. Many churches, Catholic and Protestant were active in relief efforts. They provided work, clothes, and free health care to victims of the famine. Some landlords were active in relief efforts for the tenants. Many landlords were absentee and were not aware of their tenants suffering. Societies, known as Ribbonism, were formed in response to the harsh living conditions of the Catholic tenants and laborers^[8]. They used violence to protect the rights of the farm workers and laborers. Millions of tenants died from starvation. The exact number of deaths may never be known as the majority of those who died were Catholic and their births and deaths were not recorded. Many Catholics began to move abroad. The large number of Irish emigrating resulted in travel restrictions in many areas and was not welcomed by many countries, including the United States and Canada^[9]. Many landlords believed the famine was a punishment to the Catholics for their lifestyle and laziness. They thought the Catholics were having too many children and were not raising them right. In response to the famine, Catholics married much later in life. If they did not have a reasonable farm or a steady income, they did not marry at all. Catholics also began to take their religion even more seriously. This caused increased tensions between Protestants and Catholics.

The Quakers were a rather small organization, compared to other relief organizations. However, they were well trusted among the people. They built this trust by focusing their efforts on bettering the people, not just throwing money and food at them. One of the ways they first accomplished this was by investigating the causes of the famine^[10]. They did not believe that it was simply all the Irish people’s fault or a visitation from God. The Quakers were a very organized group and had many connections throughout Ireland. This allowed them to move goods efficiently all across Ireland. The Quakers gave direct grants of food to the people or they gave money in order for people to purchase food. They knew food was the main problem and that people were starving. Quakers declared that “the people lived on the potato because they were poor, and they were poor because they could not obtain regular employment”^[11]. The actual relief provided by the Quakers varied, from employment to clothing donations. They created ‘Model Farms’ where the destitute were employed and taught modern farming techniques, including farm management. This allowed acres of waste land to be put to use. They also taught very small landowners how to make the best of their land using minimum resources. These farms were not entirely for profits, like some other farms; it was just to keep the Irish people afloat and employed. Quakers also saw the potential of rebuilding the fisheries. They sought grants and loans for fishing gear, boats, and hemp for the women to work on building nets^[12]. There may not have been a market on the homeland for fish, but England needed seafood. These fisheries provided work and food for families. The Quakers had a lasting impression on the Irish as being very trustworthy and respected. Their efforts were all in hopes to bring Irish people back on their feet and not spite them. They did not pressure the people with conversions or profits. They recognized that people were suffering and needed jobs to help them in the long term. They invested in the people to bring about change. Theflowerchild1 (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC) )

This has the potential to be misleading and does not account for regional differences especially between Ulster and the other provinces. "Protestantism" may be the religion of the state but what that really means is Protestantism in a historical sense i.e. Anglicanism. There are many other dissenter religions present in Ireland and to read this would imply that they were all treated on an equal footing. Writings on the famine in Ulster are lacking, though both Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter were affected. Most of the Protestant population of Ulster would have been Presbyterians and not members of the Church of Ireland. You could argue that this is perpetuating the myth that historians are now trying to dispel, that Protestants were not affected when they were. ^[1] I would refer to this ^[2] based on the wording. 2A02:C7F:864B:CC00:FCFD:683:13F8:F7E6 (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

In the info box it says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" but the things is actually happened in the Ireland so I think should put the name of the country Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.197.249 (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

No editor may perform more than 1 revert per 24 hours on this article.

1st revert undoing [5] 2nd revert undoing [6][7] and [8]

There is also no justifiable reason to remove the "page needed" tags, unless the pages are provided. The sources tagged as self-published are self-published and therefore are not reliable sources, per WP:SPS.

Furthermore, this edit is just inane. It obviously breaks the ref formatting. (Look in the citations section.) DrKay (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have a clear WP:AXE to grind here, as this isn't over a content dispute, in fact it is a pretty big stretch to argue that edit-warring and reverts are designed not to communicate issues over content disagreements, but instead in your view, they include the hair-splitting minutia over the simple copy-editing oversight of some "page needed tags".

You didn't calmly communicate your, assuming good-faith "concerns". Instead from all this hoardingly obvious cherry-picking and nit-picking over some overlooked "page needed tags" and a reference we both agree is just supplementary. It's obvious to me now, you are WP:COMBATIVE and not here to build an encyclopedia.

For example, can you tell us how long this [apparently oh-so offending edit] that as you said, broke the ref formatting, remained before I self-corrected it? Did it exist and was it there for less than a few minutes? Yes it was.

So for now, I am leaving your apparently coveted "page needed tags" alone, to prevent any of these truly inane suggestions of "warring" or "reverting" taking place.

Though do let us know when I can add the page numbers, won't you? Or are you here for another reason?

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't lie about me. You only corrected the reference error, after I pointed it out to you. I pointed it out at 19:51; you corrected it at 23:50. I could not revert it because I had already reverted once that day. Unlike you, I don't edit-war to force my view on this article.

You added the sources, so you add the page numbers. That's what the point of the tags is. The tags should not be removed unless the page numbers are provided. DrKay (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You have still not undone your 2nd revert. You must either reinstate the tags you removed in the 2nd revert or remove the self-published sources. DrKay (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"Don't lie about me"? You don't get it. You do a pretty decent job of becoming visible with the things you actually do and say. Such as tossing a label at someone that they're "edit-warring" and claiming that they did, not 1, but apparently 2 "reverts"?...When honestly really anyone can take a gander at the edit-history and see, no one has even done a single solitary revert to talk about, let alone your notion of two. All that happened was an editor editing a page, as they always do and two "page needed tags" and other similar tags, got lost when a contributing editor was updating the content and supporting references. Wow. Though the so-called User:DrKay thinks, there is a war afoot!

You also don't seem to realize that after tossing this unfounded label of "edit-warring" my way, on my talk page, you then went about performing a cardinal sin and failed to notify me about this, this your sad talk page entry. Were you attempt to stretch the idea of edit-warring to also apparently include an edit that broke ref-formatting momentarily before I self-corrected it. It is only from having unfortunately encountered editors with this exact M.O before, that my experience has taught me, to be prudent & come check this talk page, as these type of "try-to-get-other editors banned, are real mask-themselves-types, so best to check the talk-page. At which point, didn't I serrendipitiously find what you were up to? Not pinging editors and doing a truly laughable merry-round of mischaracterization-moodies?

Maybe I come from a different stock but to me, the courteous thing to do, is to always ping an involved editor on the talk page of the article, if you think somethings afoot. Instead the problematic way you operated was:(A) You came to my personal page, manufacturing the notion of edit-warring, over some overlooked tags (B) You did not notify me, the editor you are supposed to be communicating with about your post here, that is specifically related and on me. Having just serrendipitously found what you were at(due to experience with dealing with editors like you) (C) You have devolved to continue to lie and invent narratives without any basis in reality whatsoever, to save face.

There really is no justifiable reason for you to operate in this manner. As this is not a content dispute. Your "warring" claims are baseless. Nor is there any actual hint of "warring" taking place. You started this, due to some tags being lost in updating. Though now I think I'll end it, by lighting up how you do not assume good-faith, you go throwing farcical labels around, talking about non-existent reverts and you appear to have an axe to grind.

Without starting a talk page discussion and pinging me(the courteous and not to mention protocol thing to do if you suspect something). Instead you went right into tossing around "edit-warring" labels my way. Arranging a sad list of "infractions", you did not promptly notify me and now you just dropped the mask, that you were attempting to conceal yourself behind by most recently claiming that "unlike you I don't edit-war to force my view on this article". When what "view" is that exactly DrKay? something larger than "page-needed-tags" getting lost? ...Is that my view? Or could it be, that what we are actually dealing with here, is an editor with a seething disagreement with content hidden behind this, the veneer of just being a diligent wiki-editor, engaged in what is fast becoming, the most transparent ulterior-motivatation-for-nitpicking, in the history of mankind?

Moreover, having asked you the direct question of; how long it took between an edit and me fixing that exact momentary ref formatting. I asked, how long that took. You instead moved to reply with a tall-tale of the time it took between a completely different set of edits and you end your tall-tale, with a demonstrable lie about "pointing it out to me". You truly disingenuously supply this diff, that, as discussed already had no ping to me. Yet you're so-so sure you "pointed it out to me". Is that right? 19:51 Though I'm really fascinated now, please tell us how in your mind, that without a ping, or any other means of notification. How exactly did I even know you started this sad talk page entry? You invent narratives about things that bear no resemblance to actual reality, with motivated reasoning claims of pointing(in an empty room) and things happened, so you take credit for it. All of this, stands alongside the other fantasies, you may have of "a war", as that too, is all in your head. You didn't ping me, so while you may feel you had pointed at something, you do realize no one was even in this room at that time to see you waving your arms about?

Without any ping to come to this talk page. I, like most editors would, had to physically go check the edit history to find out why in the heavens, would someone just drop an "edit-warring" notifications on my talk page and I took it from there, looking at the edit-history and re-applying the overlooked tags. So for a reply that includes, a request to "don't lie about me". You just showed that you're actually lying about yourself, as you have no clue what you're talking about with these tales you manufacture and with that, we're beginning to see into the core of how you go about generating your false narratives with this, your most recent one, of claiming you "pointed things out to someone and they saw and they made changes". When that's just in your head, just what you think happened.

Now on the matter of your false narratives, as they're pretty tiresome. Let's have a look at them, at this stage, what are we dealing with so far User:DrKay? Have you done (1)Claims of "Edit warring", yet no actual evidence of such exists nor is presented. (2) Claims of not one but two reverts when anyone can check, no one ever hit the revert button (3) Claims of "pointing things out to you", yet you never actually alerted people but that doesn't stop you thinking your pointing in an empty room made results. So while I can assume good faith, that you have a pretty clear case of motivated reasoning at play. The most recent, (4) Claim of "unlike you I don't edit-war to force my view on this article", that truly is just about as revealingly unsubstantiated and loaded an assertion, you've made yet.

When this isn't over a content dispute so that's another reason why your initial claim is bogus. It's tags being lost, when a contributing editor is updating the article, with actual content. That's all it is. However with this most recent claim about WP:POV, well isn't that revealing. I got you to drop your charade for us there, as no one would start this over some lost tags, so this is definitely why we're actually here, despite your now honestly transparent nitpicking, to suggest otherwise. Though with this accusation, should I thank you for letting us see into your mind and with that equally revealing "pointing it out, to an empty room tale", for also neatly giving us a perfect example of how disturbingly prone you are to make jumps to conclusions, for your own ends?

Boundarylayer (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I come from a different stock..., is an unveiled criticism of the editor who made the request above your long post. Please confine your comments and criticisms to the editorial content supplied by your colleagues and refrain from commenting on the "stock" from whence they came. Edaham (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

A straight revert of the addition of an 'unreliable source' or similar tag would be considered a revert for the purpose of a 3RR or 1RR limitation. BUT: reverting the addition of the tag while providing an alternative or additional reference must merit as a legitimate edit and not a revert. After all the purpose of the tag is to call for a better reference which is what is being provided (regardless of whether it actually is better). TheVicarsCat (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

When I say "don't lie about me", I refer to the claim that I didn't calmly communicate the problem with self-published sources, when I have done so, in edit summaries, by adding tags and on talk pages. DrKay (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages, that again, you failed to ping the involved editor, about? Rendering your claim of calm communication, not only mute but deeply questionable? Especially when, after I asked you what this was about on your talk page, the only thing you initially wrote back, was "[don't be disingenuous]". I am curious, do loaded statements like that, really fit your criteria of proper communication of a problem? ...over some page-needed-tags that I simply overlooked?

To reply to TheVicarsCat, they would be my thoughts exactly. Especially when they started this all over some page-needed-tags being overlooked when updating the article. Seeing that as an opportunity to start their false claims of "wars afoot" and prejudicially charging that "...you are a disruptive user...".

I also don't think it wise to "refrain from" anything when I see repeated breaches of basic WP:CIVILITY, with strings of mischaracterizations being directed my way. As editorial civility and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH is the editorial stock I come from. Though it seems Edaham has gone nit-fishing to shoe-horn this, to be about a "whence thy came" issue? Are we reading that right there? Really? The problem here is not "unveiled criticisms" of another editor. The problem here is very clearly the type of editors engaged in intentional mischaracterizations, false narratives and what has all the hallmarks of veiled & deceitful maneuverings.

As to speak of requests that I have made of my "colleagues". I have made two requests, neither of which were met. The most concerning above, was to tell us what POV you are in the closet over, with this quote "unlike you I don't edit-war to force my view on this article", that quote . After reading that, I requested to know, what "view" is that specifically, that you think I'm "forcing on the article"? Can you enlighten us? We're all still waiting for an answer on what specific "view" you are referring to here, DrKay. You know, to see what you're really doing all this for, over some dropped tags, is it, really?

Boundarylayer (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Shoe-horn? You make it sound like I've got some kind of agenda here. I read the article as a reader while browsing. Checked the talk page out of curiosity and remarked on a piece of text I thought to be inappropriate. If you say someone is courteous or discourteous because you are from different stock, then that means (to pretty much anyone who reads it as a passerby) that they are being discourteous because of their upbringing or otherwise inherently bad manners. That's not nit fishing, that's how I read it. Not making those kinds of comments, in conjunction with a bit of general affability will almost certainly expedite whatever affect you aim to have on the article. I hope I haven't overstepped. Have a great day and good luck with all your editing. Edaham (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

As I said, there is no requirement to ping editors, and many editors consider pinging to be a form of harassment (see for example, [9]). So, if you were watching this page, which I presumed you were, the assumption would be "do not ping".

The tag removal looked as though it was deliberate, not incidental.

By "view", I mean the view that self-published sources are acceptable in a heavily contentious topic area like Irish history. DrKay (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

AFTER THE LINE < beyond the reach of the poor.[114]>
INSERT <Throughout the 1840s and 1850s, "Irish Mess Pork" (salted in barrels) and "Cork Rose Butter" were frequently advertised for sale in Australian newspapers.>
ENDINSERT
Irish Mess Pork -- 2126 references, from 1840 to 1859 incl.
Cork Rose Butter -- 1867 refs.
Check by e.g.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=&exactPhrase=Cork+Rose+Butter&anyWords=&notWords=&requestHandler=&dateFrom=1840-01-01&dateTo=1859-12-31&sortby= 78.147.39.239 (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

An arbitration clarification request concerning the Great Irish Famine arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)