Mainly to JTD (i think) - I've just scanned through this discussion stuff having read the article. My initial impression was that this was going very kindly on the British indeed. It is admitted at some point in the discussion that there is a move among Irish historians away from previous over-simplifications of the matter - but isn't this move itself perhpas reactionary? I mean, Irish historians of this or any generation speak for their times, and, for lay readers like myself, the CONTEXT of this estimation of the role of the British imperial adventure in the famine is lost to those who have not studied so carefully the history of the history of the famine. This is, afterall, a general encyclopedia. So please twist the screws a bit. 
I won't go editing the article, but some feedback would be appreciated in this regard,
Basically, you're all better historians than myself, but maybe some of your nuances are therefore misplaced here,
(a bit less d'Alembert and more Diderot as it were)
Cheers,
Simon