Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These important facts are all skewed in this article

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

The second paragraph of the lead section says this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure now:

 Origins: 1) Causes and contributing factors,

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

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

 Legacy: 9) After the famine

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

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

I want to upload these two or three pictures [1]&[2] to this article's section "Emigration". They are essential to the entry. But I don't know whether they belong to the public domain. I am also not familiar with Wikicommon's criteria for uploading. Please help me to work it out.--波斯波莉斯 (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will delete it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inserted a quote from Beyond Beef by Jeremy Rifkin

Multiple issues.

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

I'm going to delete it.

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

Both quotes were added in a single commit.

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

I will be removing them for the following reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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