Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 11

message: "During the 1846–49 Irish Famine, Tory government head Sir Robert Peel bought some foreign maize for delivery to Ireland, and repealed the Corn Laws, which prohibited imports of cheaper foreign grain to Ireland. The Irish called the maize imported by the government 'Peel's brimstone' — partly because of maize's yellow colour, partly that it had to be ground twice, partly that maize does not have--as potatoes do have--Vitamin C. Repeal of the Corn Laws during 1846 to 1849, came too late to help the starving Irish, and was politically unpopular, ending Sir Robert's ministry."
This isn't quite correct. First of all, the formal name of Peel's party after the Reform Bill was Conservative, not Tory. Second, the Corn Laws didn't prohibit the importation of cheaper foreign grain to Ireland, they simply maintained an artifically high price of domestic grain, like most tariffs. The sentence as worded implies a specifically anti-Irish intent of the law. Third, repeal had the support of the Whigs, the Liberals, the Radicals, the Irish, and about one-third of the Conservative Party. Peel carried repeal against the wishes of his own followers, yes, but the measure was broadly popular. The Crown also supported the measure, in a rare show of partisanship. In so doing Peel broke the party in half, with the protectionists following Lord George Bentinck and Benjamin Disraeli. The protectionists were mostly country gentlemen and did not command wide support either in the House of Commons or outside of it, and that faction did not command a majority until 1874 (at which point it looked a good deal different). While the split occurred over the Corn Laws; Peel's government actually fell over the second reading of separate Coercion Bill on June 25, 1846 (the same day the Corn Laws passed the Lords). I'd suggest this wording: 
"In 1845 Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel took steps to alleviate the growing famine in Ireland: he purchased American maize, which was then re-sold for a penny a pound, and in 1846 moved to repeal the Corn Laws, tariffs on grain which kept the price of bread artificially high. The Irish called the maize imported by the government 'Peel's brimstone' — partly because of maize's yellow colour, partly that it had to be ground twice, partly that maize does not have--as potatoes do have--Vitamin C. Repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 did little to help the starving Irish; the measure split the Conservative Party, leading to the fall of Peel's ministry."Blake, 221-241.
The reference in question is Robert Blake's biography of Benjamin Disraeli. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the concept of Vitamin wasn't even invented until 1912, I seriously doubt that the Irish of 1846 had any worries about the lack of Vitamin C in their diet. TharkunColl 21:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, the repeal of the Corn Laws, resulting in Irish farmers getting less for their crops, which payed their rents (not actually reciving money), with the result that the Landlords did not get their rent. This then increased the number of evictions. --Domer48 08:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peel 

message: Usually demand decreases as price of a commodity increases. However, an economist noticed the opposite in regard to this famine. The reason was that potatoes were both the cheapest commodity bought by a typical family and at the same time the main thing being eaten. Therefore, as prices of potatoes increased even less money was available to other food. Then all money had to be used to buy the cheapest food, i.e. potatoes, and prices increased even more. In economics even today this is taught at universities as an example of a market functioning in a very peculiar fashion. I don't remember the name of the economist, but I believe his surname began with the letter G. I think a short discussion of these mechanisms should be included in the article. --Smallchanges 20:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing note about economics - higher prices leads to bigger demand. 

message: Good to see that the real authority took control of this article and banned those Irish from telling the Irish side of the story. Now, this article can be wonderfully impartial. No better people than the British for being impartial about what that lovely Englishman termed 'those barbarous wretches'. 86.42.76.166 22:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't gone away you know! (Sarah777 23:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And even if it was the case, which I'm glad to see it's not, there's a bunch of neutral folks who don't want EITHER side to dominate this, and will block people making personal attacks.. like the one you're getting. SirFozzie 00:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly (and thankfully) the attacks have virtually ceased in the past two weeks! Maybe the "bad guys" are on holidays"??!(Sarah777 00:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finally, the Irish are gone

message: Given the long-term effects of this disaster, as with so many others, the concept of survivor guilt must be considered. The feeling of guilt by the 88% who survived - who ate their last mouthful because otherwise they would join their dying neighbours - including my ancestors - hasn't ever been explored. Also I don't see anything on Dan O'Connell's campaign to end the union with Britain in the 1830s; by the time of the famine one attitude in England was that the Irish clearly didn't want to be a part of Britain and should look after themselves.86.42.198.83 10:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...hasn't ever been explored..." This sounds to me like you are suggesting original research. As for the rest, feel free to put it in yourself - just make sure you have a source that has that conclusion. :) Jgillett (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Could we add something on survivor guilt?

message: Not included in the memorials section are the Slea Head Famine Cottages, near Dingle County Kerry.  . This is an original cottage from the 1840s now set out a a museum with antique furnishings, explanatory panels on the famine , and a collection of local breeds of farm animal. Lumos3 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Slea Head Famine Cottages 

message: Can we not put in a section that leads up to these tragic events to give the reader a better perspective on the arguments that are taking place re this article.BigDunc 12:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. But we'll probably fight about whether we should start with the introduction of the potato or the introduction of the English! (Sarah777 13:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background to Famine 

message: This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The article Great Irish Famine is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. The mentors are to have a free hand, do not have veto over each other's actions, will be communicating closely and will generally trust each other's judgement. Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing Great Irish Famine or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Documentation of bans. When possible, mentors should favor article bans over page protection. The Committee will review the mentorship arrangement in approximately one month upon request of any involved editor and again at future points if warranted.  If a review reveals that the mentors agree that the article has demonstrated the ability to grow without strife, the mentorship may be ended.  Otherwise, the mentorship will continue for one year. 
This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Further information concerning the selection of the appointed mentors will follow. Newyorkbrad 21:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So who decides on the mentors? Catchpole 11:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arbitration Committee. Mackensen (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine]]

message: I am a thinking person... I LIKE the fact that there was information that was provided that does not meet with the stereotypical "the victors write history" view of things.  I can sort out what is said, and why someone might have said it, and how much credence I am going to give any given person's views.
It is no secret that many of the British did intend genocide.  The very fact that it is discussed as "The Irish Problem" speaks volumes, in my opinion.  While I have not done the exhaustive research necessary to pick apart the finer points of this history, to deny the heated nature of the Irish/British controversy by censorship (which a good deal of the objection seems to me to be), and to pretend that the darker parts of British history didnt happen, runs contrary to the whole point of having information available.
My unsolicited opinion:  Dont change anyone else's work.  Post your own work, offering alternative points of view, with supporting facts and figures.  This is not a very difficult thing to do.  "An alternative point of view on this matter is..."
And as those who have made this whole thing personal:  Thumper's mother says... "If you cant say something nice, don't say anything at all."  It's good advice.
68.25.240.90 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the proof that the British intended genocide? The Irish issue was descibed as 'the Irish problem' well into Gladstone's time and beyond - it didn't indicate that a possible solution was mass murder. The real reason for inaction by Trevelyan et al was a blind faith in the powers of the market and in 'providence'. Trevelyan was undoubtably callous, saying of Ireland that "innumerable had been the specifics which the wit of man had devised; but even the idea of the sharp but effectual remedy by which the cure is likely to be effected had never occurred to any one. God grant that the generation to which this great opportunity has been offered may rightly perform its part, and that we may not relax our efforts until Ireland fully participates in the social health and physical prosperity of Great Britain, which will be the true consummation of their union!" His reasoning may have been brutal, but it doesn't imply _deliberate_ murder. 82.28.247.93 (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A disinterested party's opinion 

message: These two sentences don't link up properly:
These killed few people, partly because they were less severe, but mainly for a complex range of reasons. However, on the other hand, the population in Ireland soon shrank...
On rereading it becomes clear that the shrinking population is one of the "complex reasons". The second sentence should read: "First, the population of Ireland soon shrank..." 
BTW, I find the article as it stands pretty clear and balanced on the genocide controversy.
It may be helpful to point out that the term genocide is recent and was unknown in the 1840s; contemporaries woul dhave spoken about extermination, murder, etc. The modern term was coined by Raphael Lemkin in the 1930s to express a wider concept than extermination, as in the UN Convention. Lemkin defined genocide as A coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. It would therefore include the Nazi plans to enslave the Poles and assimilate the Czechs.
So in assessing British guilt for the Irish Famine you have to distinguish between the concept available at the time (extermination; and the historians don't seem to support this), and the retrospective application of a modern term, in the sense of a campaign to break Irish identity, reduce the population, and assimilate the survivors to English farmers. I think the latter, a much more plausible claim, is what is really being claimed by what looks like the Irish nationalist side in the editing dispute.
--JamesWim 11:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath - style 

message: "The Irish called the maize imported by the government 'Peel's brimstone' — partly because of maize's yellow colour, partly that it had to be ground twice, partly that maize does not have--as potatoes do have--Vitamin C."
:This cannot be entirely correct. Vitamins were not identified until 1912 and Vitamin C was not isolated until the 1930s. Jooler 22:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, it a mixing up of two things commonly mentioned at once in histories of the famine - the nickname given to the maize and a consequent of it (scurvy from lack of V.C.). The vitamin thing of course was not known at the time. --sony-youthpléigh 22:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also according to our page; potatoes have 20mg per 100g Vitamin C, whilst maize has a not incomparable 7mg per 100g (90mg being the current UK RDA). So unless the variety of maize prevalent at the time contained considerably less Vitamin C it would appear that the latter clause, as quoted above, seems to be entirely incorrect. Of course one would have to eat 3 times as much corn as potatoes to obtain the same amount of vitamin C and one would imagine that such an intake would bee very unlikely, however I would also assume that the RDA would far exceed the absolute minimum requirements. Jooler 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a doctor, so I don't know, but I suspect the flaw in your reasoning may lie, as you hit at yourself, in that it would be very unlikely that people would have been able to eat 3 times as much weight of corn as they had previously eaten of potatoes - or in fact anything like it. A famine that resulted in 1 million deaths and 1 million refugees was underway. So, yes, that would seem unlikely. (Remember the rule of thumb: famine = less food.) Like, I said, I'm not a doctor, so I don't know, but maybe these people can help you. --sony-youthpléigh 11:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another important point is that, as far as I recall, the Whig government which replaced Peel in mid-1846 stopped these imports altogether. Mackensen (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't doubt that under normal conditions, let alone famine conditions eating three times as much corn as potatoes is very unlikely and I didn't hint at this I stated that openly that this was very unlikely. There's no flaw in my reasoning, for I am not reasoning that everything should have been great because they has this wonderful corn substitute, or any argument along those lines. I'm merely pointing out that the statement "maize does not have--as potatoes do have--Vitamin C." is not correct. If the ratio was 1:10 or higher rather than 1:3 I think one might allow the statement. According to this 10mg of Vit-C will prevent  the symptoms of scurvy. If the line was changed (and moved as it is out of context) to say that there was not as much Vit-C in corn as in potatoes then that would be more accurate. Jooler 14:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, Jooler. What's the point of this discussion? So we can surmise that the average Irishman and woman (living, apparantly in the richest and most powerful country in the world at the time) ate less than 150mg of maize per day during the famine? Just remove the Vit.C. stuff, we know its untrue ("... 'Peel's brimstone' — partly because of maize's yellow colour, partly that it had to be ground twice.") Vit. C. and survy stuff for somewhere else. --sony-youthpléigh 14:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I'm saying. Jooler 15:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very long-winded way of saying it since I agreed with you from the start. --sony-youthpléigh 16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestions of a "flaw in your [i.e. my] reasoning" followed by a sarcastic comment like "rule of thumb: famine = less food." both appeared to suggest that I was affirming some kind of revisionism The final shoulder shrug of  "I don't know - [(paraphrase) go look it up in these books]" - prompted a response from me to clarify my view and provide more information. Mackensen has now edited out the VitC clause. Jooler 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - it was the medical theorising that got on my nerves. See page 151 in this book (in relation to vitamin B, not C) for why it doesn't work out so simply. The suggestion to "look at these" book, while not phrased very politely, was intended genuinely: the answer is in the secondary sources not in guessing the answer by gluing bits and pieces together from here and there on Wikipedia. --sony-youthpléigh 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The theorising was limited to that required to contest the statement in the article that said that Vitamin C was absent in Maize. There would be a certain point, at which the low level of Vitamin C might as well be zero, because one would have to eat more than would be physically practicable, especially true when the resource is limited or rationed in some way. My theorising was merely on whether the level of Vitamin C in maize was low enough to let the statement stand. The incidence of Pellagra is an entirely  different subject. Jooler 20:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peel's brimstone

message: I take it that this article should be in Hiberno-English/British English rather than American English. There are a few instances of the latter. Jooler 20:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hiberno-English]]

message: I have added some tags which need to be addressed. Some of the older tags I will remove the unreferenced information and I will reference some of the information which has not been tagged. The references need to be cleaned up, and I will do that while I reference.--Domer48 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Tags 

message: Currently the article has no background information which would place the potato blight in some sort of context. I would propose the following, in an attempt to address this: 
It may need to be edited down a bit, but this just gives an outline. --Domer48 21:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good and reads well - my only question would be on "...sheltered by both the British Constitution and Habeas Corpus." - as Britain didn't (still doesn't) have a written constitution. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have put the section in place. Like I said, it may have to be edited down a bit, but at least if gives some context. --Domer48 10:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background suggested title 

message: The current intro, stating that the Famine is "known as The Irish Holocaust to some", was introduced in this edit on 26th September.  This is very much a minority term and does not deserve the prominence of being included in the lead.  The references lead to a website "irishholocaust.org" and a Google book search for the term, among others.  Tellingly, many of the books discussing the term put the phrase in scare quotes and discuss it in the context of language.  I therefore propose that this phrase be removed from the lead - it is adequately covered, in context, under the 'Suggestions of Genocide' heading. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point on the lead section, and would offer this Lead as an alternative. The references used on the holocaust could be placed in one of two places, in the external sources or as additional referencing in the “Suggestions of genocide” section.  Though I’m not familiar with that style of referencing.  I’ve removed some of the repetition from the lead, which appears later on in the article.  
I think this is a bit more concise? --Domer48 09:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ihave introduced the proposed changes. Most of the information was repeated in the text of the article. This I consider to be a concise account on the article. --Domer48 08:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the quotes around "relatively speaking"? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The Irish Holocaust is a term used by Christine Kinealy author of "This Great Calaminity," a very notable work on the subject. Describing the term as mainly an Irish-American interpretation, is a bit like saying "Holocaust" is mainly a Jewish thing. I don't have a real problem with it, and would just like to have the lead concise. --Domer48 08:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The genocide / holocaust angle is mainly an Irish-American interpretation". Hardly. (Sarah777 13:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we please have a quote for Kinealy calling it a "Holocaust", I don't believe it appears in The Great Calaminity. -sony-youthpléigh 14:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Irish Holocaust" 

message: Would editors be willing to address some of the citation tags on this article. How long should they be on, before the information is challanged and removed? --Domer48 19:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Tags 

message: Hello. I'm new to Wikipedia, so please be patient as I learn the ropes. 
I just posted details from the 1851 census which showed that 21,770 died from starvation in the previous decade and included a reference to John Killen's The Famine decade. This was deleted in its entirety. What did I do wrong?
Also, I amended a section which used 'blight' as a metaphor for famine, changing blight to famine, and this was undone. My aim was to enhance clarity. Don't you think that hand-me-down metaphors like that may not always work in a certain context?
Asmaybe  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmaybe (talk • contribs) 21:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On your first point, you can add the reference, but you should discuss it here first, the reason I say this, is, the figure of deaths by most if not all authors is 1 million +. Therefore it is a minority view, and would have to be presented as such. On your second point, 'blight' was not being used as a metaphor for "famine." That is your opinion. I have told you about your changes, and what is required. I have resorted to reminding you on your talk page, please read the links that have been provided, they will help you with your editing. So they best way to proceed from here is, discuss first, and then apply the changes. Thanks --Domer48 21:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Did they count dead people in the 1851 census? (Sarah777 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Who did they ask when whole villages had disappeared? (Don't know of any history claiming only 20k died in the famine - so it can't be relied on that much). (Sarah777 01:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Bit of an "Angels on a pinhead point" though; very few folk EVER die from starvation in any famine; infectious diseases usually finish them off. And how could the "survivors" distinguish; they were hardly medically qualified! (Sarah777 02:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Its also worth noting from the book that the famine coincided (perhaps not unnaturally) with a major Typhus epidemic. Our Typhus article notes "a major typhus epidemic occurred during the Great Irish Famine between 1846 and 1849. The Irish typhus spread to England, where it was sometimes called "Irish fever" and was noted for its virulence. It killed people of all social classes, since lice were endemic and inescapable, but it hit particularly hard in the lower or "unwashed" social strata.". This Famine article barely mentions Typhus and indeed the only mention has a  tag on it. Jooler 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Lord John Russell, the British Prime Minister after 1846, refused to keep a register of famine mortality, a request made by Benjamin Disraeli and other MP’s in the House of Commons. Christine Kinealy. In Ireland the population in 1841, stood at 8, 175, 124. In 1851, the population was 6, 515, 794, a drop of  1, 659, 33 that is according to the Census, of 1851 (Thom’s Official Directory). The Typhus did not coincide with the famine, it was as a result of it. There is enough information by a number of authors to totally refute the figures produced.  But that is not the point, this information replaced the original reference. So with all the interest now created, rather than bog ourselves down with this, lets reference or remove the unreferenced material, and then fine tune the information we have. --Domer48 08:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Domer: I don't want to sound like a a Nazi apologist stating that the vast majority of deaths in concentration camps were through disease (Belsen springs to mind of course), but I think it is very important to be clear on what Typhus is. Typhus is associated with squalid conditions not lack of food. It is caused by being a host to infected lice, or in the case of endemic typhus is spread by infected rats. In the days before antibiotics and proper hygiene typhus killed a vast number of people whether they were well-fed or not. That said, as in Belsen, those already in a weakened condition are certain to suffer greatly and die if they are afflicted by the disease.  Sarah: "one set of figures included deaths from typhus" - Please. I would like to know where this set of figures is. People today, even in Iraq, are not hosts to body lice in the way they once were, and Typhus is now easily treatable with antibiotics. I hesitate to say that I find what you say (specifically in respect of Typhus) unlikely. But by all means prove me wrong. Jooler 10:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jools - my apologies, I was quoting from a casual read some days back, can't remember where. It was obviously TYPHOID and not TYPHUS they were talking about as [here]. But none of this really has any bearing on my comment - which is that disease kills most famine victims worldwide and the survivors questioned in 1851 were hardly any more medically qualified than I am! (Sarah777 13:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "Isn't there something dubious about using fictitious statistics?" Was it not you who cited the cencus figures as "a primary source, something later histories rely on." Even Jooler has said "quoting a figure of 21,770 deaths  through starvation can definitely be misleading." Lord John Russell, the British Prime Minister after 1846, refused to keep a register of famine mortality, a request made by Benjamin Disraeli and other MP’s in the House of Commons. How would this effect the "Official" figures? The cencus commissioners calculated that at the normal rate of increase the population should have been around 9,018,799, giving a drop of 2.5 million. So you are being selective in your use of the figures, accept one conclusion, and reject the other. There are enough authors who would refute the figures. Splitting hairs between starvation and disease serves no useful purpose, unless you wish to illustrate how the figures have been used by some to mitigate the actual number of deaths! Typhus was the result of the conditions under which the people were forced to live, as was the effects of the blight. Like I have said, the people did not die from a lack of potatoes, they died from a lack of food. Lee's figures in the graph illustrate my point well, and are supported by many authors. You replaced this with information which can be described as "definitely be misleading"   --Domer48 12:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The 9m figure is as much guesswork as 21,770. Hardly. It being easier to count live people than dead ones. (Sarah777 14:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Domer I object to your use of the phrase "Even Jooler..." which suggests that I have some kind of extremist agenda. Please withdraw it. Jooler 15:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Its' the words "Even Jooler I'm talking about and that I object to. By prefixing your comment with that phrase you suggest that I am trying to push a POV that would make the statement that follows it an admission of something that negates from the thrust of that point of view. If this is not what you intended then please explain why you used such a phrase. If this is what you meant then it as a personal attack and I would like you to withdraw it. Jooler 15:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Official figures were unreliable, a point conceded by William Wilde. So if you wish to use the figure of 21,770 you are going to have to preface it with an outline of the use of the term marasmus and dropsy as opposed to famine-induced diseases. Having done that, you will have to point out that this figure is still a poor indicator of starvation, which will become obvious from the above. That should satisfy some of the medical background to that figure. As to the political background, the request of Lord John Russell should be explained since it would have some bearing on the unreliability of the figures. One question which could be asked is why was their a reluctance on the part of the authorities to return a verdict of “death by starvation” at inquests? I will to lend a hand with this, but still think addressing the unreferenced text first is the best approach. --Domer48 22:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits are being edited or deleted 

message: This article is in a very sorry state a the moment with a large amount of unreferenced information. Could we not deal with the unreferenced information first, before we start to add more of it. I would be willing to address some of it, but it would require some amount of time. Could editors discuss changes here first, as to avoid problems later. Thanks. --Domer48 21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing the Article 

message: I view of the last post by me on Ó Gráda, I would like to see the refrenced statement "Modern historians[specify] estimate that between 800,000 and 1,000,000 died from disease and starvation. [25] [26]," addressed. It would be my contension that the inclusion of Ó Gráda in this lends weight to the contensions of Lee. One might get the impression that Ó Grada is one of the "Modern historians" who would lend weight to the figure of 800,000, which is definitly not the case. Something on the lines of Lee says 800,000, but Ó Gráda (and the rest) say 1 million +.--Domer48 09:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've amended the footnote to reflect what you've suggested. Asmaybe 11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As to your comments and opinion here, all I can suggest is that we have to avoide origional research, and stick with the sources. If you can reference your comments and provide sources that is fine, but the onus is on you to to reference it. --Domer48 12:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The footnotes name the historians. I restored an earlier version after you changed it to this: "Modern historian Joe Lee estimate [sic] that between 800,000 and 1,000,000 died from disease and starvation". Lee says 'at least 800,000'. So your edit was wrong. If anyone is being disruptive, it's you. Asmaybe 15:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There are several things to point out here. Firstly, this recent editing began when you added the inaccurate sentence: "Modern historian Joe Lee estimate [sic] that between 800,000 and 1,000,000 died from disease and starvation". I restored the previous version. Secondly, the version before yours was partly composed by me, a compromise between Roy Foster and Lee after discussion. What I had suggested was 'from 775,000 to 1,000,000', citing Foster. I also left in the previous footnotes. This may be the source of uncertainty. I would prefer to cite Foster. Asmaybe 16:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it possible  Asmaybe for you to clarify for me if it is a single historian or a widely held belief on the amount given in article. This is the reason I replaced tag so this could be specified for other readers of this article, thanks BigDunc 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an amalgam of different historians, so it wasn't an agreed range. I didn't realise how uncertain this area was until I tried to name specific historians. Foster doesn't even say 775,000-1,000,000. Instead he says 775,000 and 1,000,000, so that's what I've put in the article, leaving in the Lee footnote as well. Asmaybe 19:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Death toll redux

message: The Young Irelanders were members on the Repeal Association, prior to establishing the Irish Confederation. The influence through writing and public speaking had on politics at this time was profound. In their publications during this period they gave detailed accounts of both the progress of the blight and its effects. Their publications are still used today as both primary and secondary sources. Any study of this period would have to be cognisant of there views and opinions. --Domer48 13:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree!  I'm in no way suggesting that the YI movement and its writings are somehow irrelevant to the Great Famine.  I'm not even suggesting that the list doesn't have value, which it clearly does...and its use in the Young Ireland article is obviously appropriate.  It makes much less sense within the Famine article, however.  The fact that the YI was a contemporary movement that was heavily influenced by the Famine means that they should probably receive a prominent mention in a description of the famine's social and political effects, but that doesn't mean that a catalog of YI's publications should receive its own section in the article.  I'm merely trying to rein in what appears to be a bit of listmania. Dppowell 13:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: One other thing I meant to add--where possible, we should use/quote the YI sources to reinforce & illustrate ideas presented in recent historical scholarship.  Again, I've no quarrel with the sources themselves...merely the list-style presentation. Dppowell 13:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A list does very little to "enhance the depth and coverage of the article."  It's only a list.  Try to look at the article from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about the subject.  If the article employed and cited actual content from the books, that would be one thing.  As a standalone list, it's a non sequitur. Dppowell 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an article on the Great Famine, not Young Ireland.  YI has its own article--which includes this same exact list.  YI's peripheral connection to the topic doesn't warrant the inclusion of YI's corpus in an encyclopedia article on that topic.  I've provided several rational reasons for removing the list; I might add that referring to other editors' motivations as irrational isn't going to do much to help you build consensus around here.  If you insist on re-adding the list, I'm not going to remove it again, but I will probably put out a call for other interested editors to join the discussion.  Thanks, Dppowell 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Neither you nor I nor any other editor needs "a policy-based reason" to make good-faith edits.  You may want to review WP:OWN. Dppowell 22:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid we're really talking past each other, here, and I'm no longer hopeful of reaching a consensus unless some more voices join the discussion.  My objection to the book list is one of basic outlining and organization of information.  The main heading of this article is "Great Irish Famine."  Each subheading of the article should have a primary relationship to the main heading (e.g., history, causes, response, domestic/international reaction, aftermath, etc.).  A list of books authored by the members of Young Ireland does not meet this criterion, and would not even if the books were explicitly about the famine, which they are not.  You apparently disagree.  Unless I've badly misunderstood, I think we're stuck here until some others chime in. Dppowell 00:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact remains, the books take nothing away from the article, they in fact, add to it. As to having to have a “primary relationship,” to the article, without Young Ireland the article would be like talking about the famine without mentioning the blight. The Young Irelanders are as much apart of this article as the blight. As a navigation tool between historical and contemporary sources they are invaluable in organizing information in an article. So we have a section which is relevant, that provides information, can be used as a navigation tool, and can be used in the development of the article. The content of the section is obvious from the title, as opposed to say “related topics” or “reference list.” Finally the content of this section is encyclopaedic, the only failing being that it will have to be put in chronological order.  So the only question is, should it be listed in a) by author or b) publication date? --Domer48 09:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dppwowell's comment above - clearly it should be described and summarised but the list belongs in Young Ireland. MarkThomas 14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Since I have pointed you in the direction of WP:LIST it being your main contension, and you have not raised any issue based on WP:LIST I will re-add the books. When the citations have been addressed, I intend to add a great deal of information, using primary sources most of the time. Rather than a summary of the movement, I was going to add there comments on the economic, social, cultural and political aspects of the period as each topic is raised. I don't doubt that it will survive a sustained improvement drive to reach GA or FA status, based on the rational I have used. Now if you would like to help in the drive to reach GA it would be more than welcome. --Domer48 15:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've reversed it; can we try to achieve consensus Domer48 in particular? I feel that you are determined to add the list come what may and the arguments you put in favor don't seem to several of us to justify re-insertion. Why do you not feel that it should really be in Young Ireland alone since that is the key article? If we can clarify that first we can make progress. MarkThomas 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I should add that I've been watching the article closely for some time and on the whole have agreed with many of Domer48's edits, so please be assured this is not something personal; I do however feel that the list would be wrong in this article, and would like Domer48 to explain it further and to have consensus on it, but it isn't a do-or-die issue of course! MarkThomas 16:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So we are on to the subject of consensus now? Where was the consensus to remove the information? It’s a valid question, and I’d like a clear reason for its removal. Now the whole thing has revolved around what editors have described as a “list.” Not one editor has mentioned WP:LIST, or the guidelines contained on it. I pointed editors to WP:LIST and still no one cited it as a reason for the removal of the information. So all you have is your opinion as to its removal, and nothing else. So here once again is the link WP:LIST, how dose it fail to meet the criteria WP:LIST?Oh and your juvenile attempts to make me out to be unreasonable, don’t work, Admin’s can read they are not stupid.  --Domer48 17:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Was there consensus to remove the information? No. To replace the information, you now need consensus! It was you who described it as a list, and have continually referred to it as such. I point you to WP:LIST and you call it a strawman! I think you should read it first, before you cite it. So first things first, no consensus to remove / consensus need to replace. Have I got that right? It’s acceptable according to WP:LIST but because we are not talking about WP:LIST , were talking about Your  “LIST” based on your definition and criteria, and it fails. Have I got that right? Now since you continue to address me and not the edits you will have to read this. While you are there you should also read this and it pretty much covers what you have been doing. Now answer the questions I asked re:Consensus and “LINK.”--Domer48 19:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I take it that you are devoid of any answer to my valid and reasonable questions. That being the case, I see no reason why the information should have being removed, the only objection being your opinion. I will again allow you the opportunity to replace it, failing that I will. Should it again be removed, and consensus is cited, I will insist on it being replaced by an admin, and consensus be established first, before it can be removed. I would also put editors on notice, should they continue to attempt to personalise this discussion, I will consider it disruptive. --Domer48 19:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As no concensus was reached in the first place I feel edits by MarkThomas and Dppowell pre empt this discussion. BigDunc 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: My reading of this is that any changes should be disscused before changes are made. BigDunc 20:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Domer, you're free to allege to anyone who will listen that I am attacking you or being uncivil.  I'm comfortable with the way I've conducted myself in this discussion and would welcome a review by anyone dauntless enough to wade through this entire thread.  This discussion isn't productive right now, so I'm stepping back for the moment. Dppowell 20:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Domer, I've already explained that position here, here, here, and here.  As to the other, I've said three or four times now that if you'd like to report my allegedly disruptive edits, along with the myriad of other violations you've accused me of, please be my guest.  Here's a link.  I'd be pleased to have an experienced admin or two review both this discussion and the recent edit/reversion activity in the article history.  I've resisted the temptation to do it myself, because I know that admins are busy and that as disruptions to the encyclopedia go, this situation is probably around a 2 or 3 on a 1-to-10 scale.  But don't let that stop you. Dppowell 00:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Does anyone else other than Domer48 seriously believe the above referenced comment by Dppowell is evidence of "disruption"? Really, this is nonsense! Can an admin take a look at what's going on here and ask Domer48 to stop casting allegations around please? LiberalViews 09:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LV, if you'd like to make a report to WP:ANI, feel free.  I'm reluctant to do so because in the grand scheme of Wikipedia, this is a relatively minor disruption...and because there's an arbitration decision which is supposed to govern what's going on here.  Queries about the status of the mentoring have been made to the ArbCom, so I'm taking a hands-off approach until one of their representatives chimes in.Dppowell 17:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't. And on the matter of the YI books list, IMHO they're just clutter. Condensing them to "Several books by Young Irelanders make reference to the Great Irish Famine" is more than enough. --sony-youthpléigh 15:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it a bit of a turn-off to see editors personally picking at eachother, and it makes me reluctant to enter my opinion. Nevertheless, I would suggest that these primary sources should be noted, and should recieve a broad mention in the article at the very least. Editor32 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes the Young Irelanders did play a significant role during the period, in both the Repeal Association and the Irish Confederation. Their newspaper the Nation became the most dominant influence in the whole course of the blight. New Laws had to be rushed through Parliament (Treason Felony Act) to curb their activities, transporting the Leaders to penal colonies. The subsequent papers The United Irishmen, The Felon and The Tribune were all suppressed, and the owners transported. They witnessed starvation, and wrote of their experiences and gave graphic accounts. This they carried to the United States, which was to have a profound effect on Irish politics. Those who escaped Ireland and fled to the States were the founding member of the Fenian’s there, and in Ireland the IRB. They were to go on to stage the Ester Rebellion of 1916.  There is not one account of  the suffering caused in the article. I will be quoting extensively from these books, on the effect of the physical blight, on the policies suggest by the Irish Leaders, and the ones adopted by the Government[s]. The effects of those polices, and the view adopted by future historians. Like I have already said, to talk about the famine without the Young Irelanders, would be like not mentioning the blight.   --Domer48 18:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Can I paraphrase your response Domer? No, there's nothing in the article that currently references those works. So I plan to add a load. Correct? LiberalViews 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears now that we are back to list again, so could editors tell me how it fails WP:LIST? Could Editors tell me why we have reading lists? Could Editors tell me why we have Additional Reading lists?--Domer48 19:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If they're in the reference section, as he describes, I think that's a perfectly good solution. Dppowell 19:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In the reference list, not in a list of their own. Dppowell 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There is nothing wrong with the list, all by itself.  It's a fine list.  It properly appears, IMHO, in Young Ireland.  WP:LIST, however, doesn't address whether a list is appropriate for use in a given article...and that's the core of the issue currently being disputed. Dppowell 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No problems here. Dppowell 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Tell me how it fails WP:LIST? What dose WP:LISTaddress, it addresses whether a list is appropriate for use in a given article?--Domer48 22:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't understand the continual referrals to WP:LIST.  It describes how to organize and format a list.  There's nothing wrong with the organization and formatting of the YI book list.  As I've said numerous times, the subject and scope of the list do not warrant their own exclusive section in the article.  Those titles, if used in the body of the article, belong in the references section with any other sources. Dppowell 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:LIST, according to its description indicates "This guideline explains when and how to use lists appropriately". As far as I can tell, most of the page is for how to use lists - what to include, formatting, title, etc. The when is very general, and is mostly listed in the first section "Purpose of Lists". There it lists three types of lists, of which this is clearly an information list (it is not a development list, and it is not a navigation list). Regarding such lists it says "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." This does not, I believe, give sufficient information on how we should decide whether or not a particular list is pertinent to a particular article, which is the question at hand (but I expect is the subject of some other guide). If there is a section I am overlooking which gives suggestions on when a list is appropriate to a given article, please mention it. Other wise, I cannot see how WP:LIST is pertinent to this conversation. (I started this before Dppowell's comment, it's somewhat redundant, but I'm going to put it in anyways)Buirechain 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young Ireland Book list 

message: Dppowell could you explaine how the YI Books are only tangentially related to the main topic. Could you cite sources to back this up. And we should really deal with the question of WP:NPOV also, as you comment here could be seen as suggesting being disruptive. --Domer48 00:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Domer, I've already explained that position here, here, here, and here.  As to the other, I've said three or four times now that if you'd like to report my allegedly disruptive edits, along with the myriad of other violations you've accused me of, please be my guest.  Here's a link.  I'd be pleased to have an experienced admin or two review both this discussion and the recent edit/reversion activity in the article history.  I've resisted the temptation to do it myself, because I know that admins are busy and that as disruptions to the encyclopedia go, this situation is probably around a 2 or 3 on a 1-to-10 scale.  But don't let that stop you. Dppowell 00:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Does anyone else other than Domer48 seriously believe the above referenced comment by Dppowell is evidence of "disruption"? Really, this is nonsense! Can an admin take a look at what's going on here and ask Domer48 to stop casting allegations around please? LiberalViews 09:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LV, if you'd like to make a report to WP:ANI, feel free.  I'm reluctant to do so because in the grand scheme of Wikipedia, this is a relatively minor disruption...and because there's an arbitration decision which is supposed to govern what's going on here.  Queries about the status of the mentoring have been made to the ArbCom, so I'm taking a hands-off approach until one of their representatives chimes in.Dppowell 17:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't. And on the matter of the YI books list, IMHO they're just clutter. Condensing them to "Several books by Young Irelanders make reference to the Great Irish Famine" is more than enough. --sony-youthpléigh 15:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it a bit of a turn-off to see editors personally picking at eachother, and it makes me reluctant to enter my opinion. Nevertheless, I would suggest that these primary sources should be noted, and should recieve a broad mention in the article at the very least. Editor32 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes the Young Irelanders did play a significant role during the period, in both the Repeal Association and the Irish Confederation. Their newspaper the Nation became the most dominant influence in the whole course of the blight. New Laws had to be rushed through Parliament (Treason Felony Act) to curb their activities, transporting the Leaders to penal colonies. The subsequent papers The United Irishmen, The Felon and The Tribune were all suppressed, and the owners transported. They witnessed starvation, and wrote of their experiences and gave graphic accounts. This they carried to the United States, which was to have a profound effect on Irish politics. Those who escaped Ireland and fled to the States were the founding member of the Fenian’s there, and in Ireland the IRB. They were to go on to stage the Ester Rebellion of 1916.  There is not one account of  the suffering caused in the article. I will be quoting extensively from these books, on the effect of the physical blight, on the policies suggest by the Irish Leaders, and the ones adopted by the Government[s]. The effects of those polices, and the view adopted by future historians. Like I have already said, to talk about the famine without the Young Irelanders, would be like not mentioning the blight.   --Domer48 18:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Can I paraphrase your response Domer? No, there's nothing in the article that currently references those works. So I plan to add a load. Correct? LiberalViews 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears now that we are back to list again, so could editors tell me how it fails WP:LIST? Could Editors tell me why we have reading lists? Could Editors tell me why we have Additional Reading lists?--Domer48 19:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If they're in the reference section, as he describes, I think that's a perfectly good solution. Dppowell 19:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In the reference list, not in a list of their own. Dppowell 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YI Books tangentially related to the main topic  

message: Could editors tell me how it fails WP:LIST? --Domer48 20:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with the list, all by itself.  It's a fine list.  It properly appears, IMHO, in Young Ireland.  WP:LIST, however, doesn't address whether a list is appropriate for use in a given article...and that's the core of the issue currently being disputed. Dppowell 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No problems here. Dppowell 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Tell me how it fails WP:LIST? What dose WP:LISTaddress, it addresses whether a list is appropriate for use in a given article?--Domer48 22:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't understand the continual referrals to WP:LIST.  It describes how to organize and format a list.  There's nothing wrong with the organization and formatting of the YI book list.  As I've said numerous times, the subject and scope of the list do not warrant their own exclusive section in the article.  Those titles, if used in the body of the article, belong in the references section with any other sources. Dppowell 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:LIST, according to its description indicates "This guideline explains when and how to use lists appropriately". As far as I can tell, most of the page is for how to use lists - what to include, formatting, title, etc. The when is very general, and is mostly listed in the first section "Purpose of Lists". There it lists three types of lists, of which this is clearly an information list (it is not a development list, and it is not a navigation list). Regarding such lists it says "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." This does not, I believe, give sufficient information on how we should decide whether or not a particular list is pertinent to a particular article, which is the question at hand (but I expect is the subject of some other guide). If there is a section I am overlooking which gives suggestions on when a list is appropriate to a given article, please mention it. Other wise, I cannot see how WP:LIST is pertinent to this conversation. (I started this before Dppowell's comment, it's somewhat redundant, but I'm going to put it in anyways)Buirechain 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:LIST]] Young Ireland Books 

message: I was wondering if editors could review the article. In particular the chronological order of the sections.  There is also a doubling up of some information. And as usual, with me, the unreferenced material. Can it be cited or removed? --Domer48 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the information is repeated or repetitive, I agree. Reading through it, I also notice a fair bit of what looks like "tactical" use of the cite tag - facts that appear to support one view are not tagged for cite but treat very specific facts as referenced by whole books without page numbers, etc. Other places where this is done supporting a "contrary" opinion, the whole work is not trusted as a reference but instead the paragraph is sprayed with cite tags. An example of the latter is the plant pathology notes in the "Causes and contributing factors" section. Really the whole article could do now with a few more editors taking a good look through - it's also much too long now and some of the material just reflects determined efforts to try to "support a case" rather than write well. There is no need for much of this as the earlier "battles" here were really about small points of concensus rather than the general impact of the famine, which all agree was appalling. MarkThomas 16:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I doubt that it's incivil to suggest that cite tags have been placed tactically; MarkThomas doesn't suggest any particular individual did it. The above remark seems quite offensive in itself; is Wikipedia always this vituperative? LiberalViews 18:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I suspect MarkThomas is well aware of the arbitration ruling. In no way is the ruling intended to enjoin editors from reasonable editorial commentary. Mackensen (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never accused MarkThomas of directing his comments at any one editor just his use of tactical is not Assuming good faith on editors of this article. BigDunc 11:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  order of the sections 

message: I have asked for citations to be addressed a number of times now and not much has happened. Is it safe to assume that this unreferenced information can now be removed? I will then start to go through the article section by section and offer suggestions. --Domer48 21:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Gotta be WP:BOLD betimes. (Sarah777 01:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree and I also have to say it's pretty obvious what is happening here. Looking back over this article it had quite a long period with no editing allowed any my opinion is this should happen again. I will request it as evidently things are heading back into ignoring consensus-building, as above. LiberalViews 18:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One other note, I have checked the policies carefully and it looks to me as though Domer48 is edit-warring with his/her repeated insistence against other editors on re-inserting the Young Ireland booklist; would you agree Mackensen? Thanks for any help in this. LiberalViews 19:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My question was to Mackensen. Domer48 is edit-warring because a number of editors now have stated that they oppose re-inserting the list and have removed it, and each time Domer48 has replaced it and raised spurious grounds for doing so. LiberalViews 19:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If the dispute's over the list of books by Young Irelanders, it seems to me that inclusion is warranted if the books therein are cited in the text. I haven't read over the whole article in a while; how many of these works does the article quote from? Mackensen (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If one of the works is quoted from, it should be properly cited and appear in the references, like any other source.  If they're not cited in the text, they shouldn't appear at all.  There's no reason the Young Ireland books, none of which are exclusively about the Famine, require special placement in the article, never mind their own section.  Given the political slant of the books, I could even make a case that giving the books special placement is a NPOV violation. Dppowell 23:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My original objection still stands. The titles are only tangentially related to the main topic and do not warrant placement as a list with its own section.  The NPOV angle is merely another potential objection; I don't see it as the main problem. Dppowell 00:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Tags redux

message: This message is to advise all interested editors that I'm seeking follow-up on the arbitration case that closed at the beginning of September.  Mentors were apparently supposed to be assigned to this article, but they don't seem to have made themselves known.  I'm attempting to ascertain whether mentors have been assigned and, if so, to request their review of the recent activity here.Dppowell 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Dppowell, I would also support that. In particular I would propose we need to achieve consensus on the talk page before any change where it is disputed. LiberalViews 18:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand this last comment. Can you explain please Domer48? Thanks. LiberalViews 19:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration followup 

message: Mackensen could you explain to me how it works with me adding material? Should I post it on the talk page first, and have it reviewed by my fellow editors, or just mentors? Or add them to the article, as you and Asmaybe have done, and they will be reviewed from there. Thanks --Domer48 19:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your edits are reverted for good faith reasons (such as with the Young Irish list) you will naturally seek consensus on this talk page before simply reinstating them? Abtract 10:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Where in the decision does it say that lists cannot be removed to improve the article? Abtract 10:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have said what I think, I will leave it to others to comment now. If they don't, then so be it ... Life's too short to worry. Abtract 11:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for noticing my attempt at a compromise but the words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind. Abtract 10:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I presume you mean the list that you inserted without discussion and that the weight of editor opinion on the talk page wishes to see removed? I have replaced the list with a compromise cross reference to where the list can be found; this compromise solution is liked by other editors. I suggest you heed your own advice, stop edit warring and, having failed to achieve consensus for your view, move on to more productive editing. I have been in your situation and I understand that it is difficult when you know you are "right" but everyone else stupidly can't see it - edit warring is not the answer. Abtract 09:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list was added months ago prior to the arbitration, and was there until recently, despite the arbitration. I suggest you read this again, it clearly states “All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page.” You have again ignored this. There is still an on going discussion here, which you have chosen to ignore. There is also clarification of removing material here, which again you have ignored. I suggest you revert it now, having been made aware of all of this, and should you persist, I would consider your actions as running contrary to both the Arbitration Committee, an Administrator not to mention your fellow editors. --Domer48 10:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Several of my "fellow editors" have stated on the talk page that they see no place for the list in the article and that they prefer my compromise solution. You have continued to ignore this and reinstated a list for which there is no consensus. As to the arbitration, I see nothing in that which prevents improving the article ... and this is what I am attempting in my small way. I suggest you put your energies into gaining consensus for your views on the article talk page rather than badgering me on mine. Abtract 10:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that Abtract is intent on starting an edit war on this issue he is ignoring the discussion and just reverting could you make yourself familiar with WP:3RR and dont edit war. BigDunc 13:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that the complete opposite is true. Most editors, including at least one admin, are of the view thatg the list does not reflect a citation need in the article, and is therefore best suited to Young Ireland. Domer48 has consistently ignored this and holds a minority view and instead of seeking to gain consensus on it, has attempted to muddle the issue and declared it to be a WP:LIST point, which it manifestly is not. It isn't Abtract who is at fault here, he is just trying to defend the article against what LiberalViews has quite rightly declared to be "nonsense". Also, please note the findings of fact in the recent arbitration decision which  declared that Domer48 had "edited disruptively" and used "tendentious edit summaries". Since this is happening again, is there any chance that the original arbitrators could review his actions? Thanks for any help. MarkThomas 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In line with the above, I have reverted the pointless re-insertion of the book list; clearly we need to establish a consensus before including it, and at the moment that consensus is to not include it. MarkThomas 13:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick comment on that, Mark; whether an editor is an admin doesn't (and shouldn't) have any bearing on the weight of his/her opinion in the discussion. Agree otherwise. Dppowell 14:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Excuse my ignorance but could you show me where the consensus was reached on this matter. My reading of it and correct me if I am wrong but it was removed without discussion or consensus thanks. BigDunc 13:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would again remind editors of the Arbitration remedies in relation to this article. "All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page." This notice was given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee (User:Newyorkbrad). Might I also remind editors edits which are deemed to be uncivil, considered personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may be blocked."When possible, mentors should favor article bans over page protection." In addition, "if there's a dispute, it needs to be discussed here and consensus obtained before the questioned passage changes again," (Mackensen)"If there's a dispute then it needs to be discussed--reverting the article accomplishes exactly nothing, and encourages further reverts." (Mackensen) This is all inline with the arbitration. Since MarkThomas has now accused me of "edited disruptively" or "tendentious edit summaries," I will allow them the oppertunity make an official complaint or stricke their remarks. Their involvment in an edit war, and the removal of material, without consus is also noted. --Domer48 14:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Your dismissive attitude towards the process of discussion is lamentable. Your inability to provide  sufficient justification for the removal of information makes your attitude understandable. Having disregarded the direction of arbitrators and an administrator your attitude towards moderators is at least encouraging.  --Domer48 15:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thankfully we now have page protection on. I propose it be left on until such time as Domer48 shows some willingness towards genuine discussion and consensus-building. Alas, the latest comment above shows why this has become neccessary. This is not your personal page Domer48. LiberalViews 16:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding material  

message: Please read the talk page before you make any changes to this article. The article is currently under probation and mentorship. Please read this, having now been made of this, you should use the article talk page before any changes are made. Your changes pre-empted the discussion, and have been reverted. Thanks  --Domer48 11:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing my attempt at a compromise but the words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind. Abtract 10:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I presume you mean the list that you inserted without discussion and that the weight of editor opinion on the talk page wishes to see removed? I have replaced the list with a compromise cross reference to where the list can be found; this compromise solution is liked by other editors. I suggest you heed your own advice, stop edit warring and, having failed to achieve consensus for your view, move on to more productive editing. I have been in your situation and I understand that it is difficult when you know you are "right" but everyone else stupidly can't see it - edit warring is not the answer. Abtract 09:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list was added months ago prior to the arbitration, and was there until recently, despite the arbitration. I suggest you read this again, it clearly states “All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page.” You have again ignored this. There is still an on going discussion here, which you have chosen to ignore. There is also clarification of removing material here, which again you have ignored. I suggest you revert it now, having been made aware of all of this, and should you persist, I would consider your actions as running contrary to both the Arbitration Committee, an Administrator not to mention your fellow editors. --Domer48 10:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Several of my "fellow editors" have stated on the talk page that they see no place for the list in the article and that they prefer my compromise solution. You have continued to ignore this and reinstated a list for which there is no consensus. As to the arbitration, I see nothing in that which prevents improving the article ... and this is what I am attempting in my small way. I suggest you put your energies into gaining consensus for your views on the article talk page rather than badgering me on mine. Abtract 10:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that Abtract is intent on starting an edit war on this issue he is ignoring the discussion and just reverting could you make yourself familiar with WP:3RR and dont edit war. BigDunc 13:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that the complete opposite is true. Most editors, including at least one admin, are of the view thatg the list does not reflect a citation need in the article, and is therefore best suited to Young Ireland. Domer48 has consistently ignored this and holds a minority view and instead of seeking to gain consensus on it, has attempted to muddle the issue and declared it to be a WP:LIST point, which it manifestly is not. It isn't Abtract who is at fault here, he is just trying to defend the article against what LiberalViews has quite rightly declared to be "nonsense". Also, please note the findings of fact in the recent arbitration decision which  declared that Domer48 had "edited disruptively" and used "tendentious edit summaries". Since this is happening again, is there any chance that the original arbitrators could review his actions? Thanks for any help. MarkThomas 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In line with the above, I have reverted the pointless re-insertion of the book list; clearly we need to establish a consensus before including it, and at the moment that consensus is to not include it. MarkThomas 13:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick comment on that, Mark; whether an editor is an admin doesn't (and shouldn't) have any bearing on the weight of his/her opinion in the discussion. Agree otherwise. Dppowell 14:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Excuse my ignorance but could you show me where the consensus was reached on this matter. My reading of it and correct me if I am wrong but it was removed without discussion or consensus thanks. BigDunc 13:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would again remind editors of the Arbitration remedies in relation to this article. "All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page." This notice was given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee (User:Newyorkbrad). Might I also remind editors edits which are deemed to be uncivil, considered personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may be blocked."When possible, mentors should favor article bans over page protection." In addition, "if there's a dispute, it needs to be discussed here and consensus obtained before the questioned passage changes again," (Mackensen)"If there's a dispute then it needs to be discussed--reverting the article accomplishes exactly nothing, and encourages further reverts." (Mackensen) This is all inline with the arbitration. Since MarkThomas has now accused me of "edited disruptively" or "tendentious edit summaries," I will allow them the oppertunity make an official complaint or stricke their remarks. Their involvment in an edit war, and the removal of material, without consus is also noted. --Domer48 14:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Your dismissive attitude towards the process of discussion is lamentable. Your inability to provide  sufficient justification for the removal of information makes your attitude understandable. Having disregarded the direction of arbitrators and an administrator your attitude towards moderators is at least encouraging.  --Domer48 15:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thankfully we now have page protection on. I propose it be left on until such time as Domer48 shows some willingness towards genuine discussion and consensus-building. Alas, the latest comment above shows why this has become neccessary. This is not your personal page Domer48. LiberalViews 16:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transferred from personal talk page because more relevant here

message: Mackensen you might want to re-write that bit I put in. Was that page number any help? I will put one of the YI comments in their also, one of C. G. Duffy's. --Domer48 15:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose the following insertions in this paragraph: 
--Domer48 14:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government response redux

message: Since the stated purpose of the current protection is to allow consensus to be found, I suggest we indicate which of the following options are preferred:
*A) List alone. Inclusion of the Young Ireland book list without the so-called compromise wikilink to the list.
*B) List and Wikilink. Inclusion of both the list and the wikilink.
*C) Link but no list. Exclusion of the list but inclusion of the link.
*D) Exlude both. Make no mention of the list or the link.
*E) Some other solution
In all cases it is understood that any suitable book, whether on the list or not, may naturally be included as a specific citation.
===Editors' preferences and comments===
*C) Link but no list. To no-one's surprise I support the compromise solution of showing a link direct to the list but exluding the actual list, which imho is intrusive, non-standard and adds nothing to the article. Abtract 17:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I refer you to a very interesting site Domer48, which stands up well in comparison to the quality and believability of your comments, and where I personally feel you would do well contributing. .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalViews (talk • contribs) 20:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not really familiar enough with the YI material to sort the wheat from the chaff! Maybe select the most comprehensive representations of their analysis/reporting of the famine? (Sarah777 02:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeking consensus on "the list"

message: *C) Link but no list. To no-one's surprise I support the compromise solution of showing a link direct to the list but exluding the actual list, which imho is intrusive, non-standard and adds nothing to the article. Abtract 17:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I refer you to a very interesting site Domer48, which stands up well in comparison to the quality and believability of your comments, and where I personally feel you would do well contributing. .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalViews (talk • contribs) 20:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not really familiar enough with the YI material to sort the wheat from the chaff! Maybe select the most comprehensive representations of their analysis/reporting of the famine? (Sarah777 02:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editors' preferences and comments

message: I propose to insert the following into the above section:
On the 8th of December, Daniel O’Connell, in the Repeal Association, proposed the following remedies to the pending disaster: 
Mitchel writes that in the latter part of O’Connell’s speech after pointing out the means used by the Belgian legislature during the same season—“shutting the ports against export of provisions, but opening them to import, and the like,” O’Connell continued:
William Smith O’Brien, speeking on the subject of charity in a speech to the Repeal Association February 1845 was to say: 
 
Mitchel was to write in his The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps), on the same subject, that no one from Ireland ever asked for charity during this period. That it was in fact England, who sought charity on Ireland’s behalf, and, having received it, was also responsible for administering it. He was to say:  
 
The response from Ireland was that the Corporation of Dublin sent a memorial to the Queen, “praying her” to call Parliament together early (Parliament was at this time prorogued), and to recommend the requisition of some public money for public works, especially railways in Ireland. The Town Council of Belfast met and made similar suggestions to those of Dublin, but neither body asked charity, according to Mitchel. “They demanded that, if Ireland was indeed an Integral part of the realm, the common exchequer of both islands should be used—not to give alms, but to provide employment on public works of general utility.” 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.”  John Mitchel,  Last Conquest Of Ireland (Perhaps)], Lynch, Cole & Meehan 1873, reprint 2005,  Pg. 94-96
A deputation from the citizens of Dublin, which including the Duke of Leister, the Lord Mayor, Lord Cloncurry, and Daniel O’Connell, went to the Lord Lieutenant (Lord Heytesbury), and offer suggestions, such as opening the ports to foreign corn for a time, to stopping distillation from grain, or providing public works, that this was extremely urgent, as millions of people would shortly be without  food. Lord Haytesbury told them they “were premature,” and told them not to be alarmed, that learned men (Playfair and Lindley) had been sent from England to enquire into all those matters; and that the Inspectors of Constabulary and Stipendiary Magistrates were charged with making constant reports from their districts; and there was no “immediate pressure on the market.”  John Mitchel,  Last Conquest Of Ireland (Perhaps)], Lynch, Cole & Meehan 1873, reprint 2005,  Pg. 94-96 Of these reports from Lord Haytesbury, Peel in a latter to Sir James Graham was to say that he found the accounts “very alarming”, though he reminded him that there was, according to Woodham-Smith “always a tendency to exaggeration in Irish news.” Woodham-Cecil Woodham-Smith (1962), 41-42
--Domer48 16:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charity section  

message: As an alternative to being bold and removing unreferenced material, I have placed it within the following brackets < !- -  - - > . This means that the material it is still available to editors on the article. As the material is referenced, just remove the brackets and it is replaced in its original position. Should editors disagree with this approach, simply revert the change to the sections they wish to reference. --Domer48 17:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a decent way to handle existing material that is probably verifiable or useful, but hasn't been referenced yet.  I'd recommend against adding any new material in that manner, if only because the editing window would soon get very messy/confusing. Dppowell 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, we agreed on something!  Next time I'm back over, I'll buy you a pint.  ;)  Dppowell 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My mother and uncle, as well.  Alas. Dppowell 17:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced Material  

message: :The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
Would editors agree with Sony’s suggestion for the Name change to “The Great Hunger,” as being the most accurate and least biased. 
*Agree:--Domer48 20:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Th most common name in normal conversation in Ireland is simply The Famine or, much less commonly,  The Great Famine.  And, frankly, you lecturing about "half-truths" brings to mind the old "glass-houses-and-stones" proverb. Please cut out branding Irish contributors who contribute in good faith. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarah777, this is your only warning. Please refrain from using incivil personal remarks about other editors in this discussion, especially when it is in no way pertinent to the content being discussed. Any further infringements of this will be enforced as noted by the mentorship provision. This warning will be duplicated for anyone else who does so in the future, as this discussion is detiorating and I'm obliged to stop that. Daniel 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Was that a royal we or a slip of the tongue, Domer, because I don't see anybody else around here that you could be speaking on behalf of. --sony-youthpléigh 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No slip Sony. We are getting really tired of your smears and allegations. WE. Domer and me that I know about. Though I don't doubt there are more. I suggest you withdraw your remarks (so reminiscent of those you made repeatedly to me way back when) and apologise unreservedly to Domer. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: An arbcom I wasn't involved in? Some nonsense posted to my talk page? Vagaries mentioned elsewhere on the project? More editors expressing their worry at your behaviour? And an arbcom that found that you edit disruptively this very page? Maybe that "we" was a sign of something more concerning than a mere over-stretched ego, Domer. What ever are you on about, man? --sony-youthpléigh 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well Domer48, you have an odd habit of responding to arguments that I don't make, so I can well understand Sony's consternation. At the same time I'd encourage all parties to tone it down a notch. As to the issue, I oppose a page move until the matter of the introduction is settled. Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such consensus; please read my contributions and those of other Irish contributors. And frankly, I must say that YOUR blatantly transparent personal beliefs have no bearing here (seeing as you are engaging in a bit of adhominalism). (Sarah777 (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My beliefs are transparent? Obviously they are to you, but then you called me a Nazi during the course of the past arbitration. I base my view on the article not any personal emotional judgement, but on a thorough review of academic work published over the last twenty years. Historians agree that while the conduct of the British government was negligent and contributed to human suffering, it was not genocidal. I've challenged you to provide reliable sources that prove otherwise. I have given good reasons why the opinion of a lawyer working for a Genocide Committee is not a trump, and why personal websites decrying an "Irish Holocaust" have no place in this discussion. You're responded by asserting that only Irish editors matter, and by attacking a fellow Irish editor because he doesn't back you up. Let's focus on the content. Will you or will you not bring forth a reliable source to support your views. If not, can we please adopt Sony's wording (or a version thereof), and get back to editing the article? Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mackenson, I don't think I called you a Nazi. Also, I don't know where I said "only Irish editors matter". (Though I might, in kind, suggest that it appears to me that some folk think they don't matter). Isn't so fortunate that so many of the victims of the Famine were illiterate poor people who in many cases didn't even speak English never mind get their writing into a mainstream English newspaper; their voices died with them I guess. How convenient. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you did, whether you remember it or not. My ancestors were kicked out of Acadia by the British but eventually crossed back into the US, so it's an accident that I'm speaking English and not French. I don't know why you would specifically draw my attention to the contributions of Irish editors, and emphasize their Irishness, except to suggest that the contributions of a non-Irish editor are not wanted or not relevant. If that's not your intention then I apologize for that incorrect interpretation but am left wondering why you brought it up on the first place. In any event, let me ask you to return to the question at hand: reliable sources on the question of genocide. Can we please discuss this without questioning everyone's motives? Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Mackensen says, please refocus this discussion on the content and not the contributor. Daniel 00:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
===Starting this again===
Enough! This is a generic final warning to all people who take part.
*Do not even mention the motivations of other contributors who take part in the discussion.
*Do not be uncivil or assume bad faith.
*Only talk about the content being proposed and its' merits against the relevant policies of WP:V and WP:OR etc., not the intent behind it or the merits of the user suggesting it.
Seriously, lets refocus this, and now. I will be applying page bans of varying time limits for this page if anyone continues. The Arbitration Committee wanted to stop this, and now I have the job of enforcing it. I expect everyone's full co-operation. Daniel 01:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I find it unusual how we can not address the issue of the article name, until the lead has been addressed. They are two totally separate issues.  While I’m no expert on the subject, a thorough review of published works over the last 70 years by noted academics is challenging the tailoring of Irish history. It would be wrong to suggest therefore there is consensus in academia on the issue. Now on the issue of the lead, there are now five sources to reference the word “Irish Holocaust.”  The sources are notable enough to warrant inclusion I will admit. I can not really put forward a good reason for removing it other than I don’t like it. That the Holocaust Education Commission, which was largely composed of Jewish educators, including some of the death camp survivors, supported an initiative that the Irish Famine should be included in Holocaust Education would lend considerable weight to it I suppose.--Domer48 (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's have these five source enumerated right here so that we can discuss them. Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Remember too, that no one is (yet) objecting to inclusion outright, the question is wording and placement. Mackensen (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as the RTE thing is concerned, it might also be good to know what scholars were featured in the program and what they had to say about "Irish Holocaust". That might help to understand whether the term is used for scholarly reasons or for reasons pertaining to popular television. Buirechain (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the sensible thing might be to use the spectrum form of words in the body of the article, suitably referenced. There is no need that I can see to have this term in the lede; there could even be a section devoted to the different terminology that has been used over the years and by different elements, if such can be referenced. Having a (selection of) various POV synonyms in the lede isn't good wiki style and will be likely to engender further sterile bickering into the future. As long as all the relevant redirects are in place and working, the title of the article isn't that important either. Let's get the content of the article and the lede especially into better shape and the rest will follow easily. --John (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 'The Great Hunger ( or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life) reduced the population of Ireland by 20 to 25 percent between 1845 and 1852. It is a highly contentious topic of history and known by various names ranging from The Great Famine to The Irish Holocaust depending on perspective.
The point of this was to arrive at at place where all of the competing perspectives were represented fairly. It is based on Christine Kinealy description of The Great Hunger occupying the most neutral line in perspectives on the event whereas The Great Famine to The Irish Holocaust occupy opposing points (not necessarily equally extreme). Doing one (moving/rewriting) without the other doesn't cut it, they both go hand-in-hand i.e. I proposing that the event only be called The Great Hunger, but that the lede acknowledges two competing perspectives: The Great Famine and The Irish Holocaust. This cannot be separated into small parts without introducing a bias one-way-or-the-other for the reasons I outlined above (e.g. WP:COMMONNAME  or WP:WEIGHT). --sony-youthpléigh 10:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: OK. Agree with Sony's "package" proposal. Meantime, no need to fight about the current intro if we are replacing it with this version! (Hint, hint).  (Sarah777 (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As before, I'm content with Sony's proposals as they properly locate the article within current academic and political discourse.  Mackensen (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: OK. Agree as per above editors. --Domer48 (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Would agree, providing commas are inserted and we use lower-case "the": "... by various names, ranging from the Great Famine to the Irish Holocaust, depending on perspective".--Damac (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd also agree with the package proposal as outlined by Sony. Caveat: I would like to see some wider discussion first. Last time we had a page move on this issue (IIRC it was a copy and paste move rather than a 'proper' move) it was done at very short notice and resulted in some acrimony. A proposed move (package or no) should at least be flagged with the proposal template and notified on the appropriate Irish-related noticeboards. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There are no objections do you want to go ahead make the changes.--Domer48 (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep - go ahead and do it. I think Bastun was the only one who cautioned for time, are you okay with gong ahead Bastun? --sony-youthpléigh 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - even if there were huge objections later it could always be undone if its a 'proper' move rather than copy/paste. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only noticed the name-change now. But I'd like to record my support for it. - Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  “The Great Hunger”  

message: Enough! This is a generic final warning to all people who take part.
*Do not even mention the motivations of other contributors who take part in the discussion.
*Do not be uncivil or assume bad faith.
*Only talk about the content being proposed and its' merits against the relevant policies of WP:V and WP:OR etc., not the intent behind it or the merits of the user suggesting it.
Seriously, lets refocus this, and now. I will be applying page bans of varying time limits for this page if anyone continues. The Arbitration Committee wanted to stop this, and now I have the job of enforcing it. I expect everyone's full co-operation. Daniel 01:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it unusual how we can not address the issue of the article name, until the lead has been addressed. They are two totally separate issues.  While I’m no expert on the subject, a thorough review of published works over the last 70 years by noted academics is challenging the tailoring of Irish history. It would be wrong to suggest therefore there is consensus in academia on the issue. Now on the issue of the lead, there are now five sources to reference the word “Irish Holocaust.”  The sources are notable enough to warrant inclusion I will admit. I can not really put forward a good reason for removing it other than I don’t like it. That the Holocaust Education Commission, which was largely composed of Jewish educators, including some of the death camp survivors, supported an initiative that the Irish Famine should be included in Holocaust Education would lend considerable weight to it I suppose.--Domer48 (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's have these five source enumerated right here so that we can discuss them. Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Remember too, that no one is (yet) objecting to inclusion outright, the question is wording and placement. Mackensen (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as the RTE thing is concerned, it might also be good to know what scholars were featured in the program and what they had to say about "Irish Holocaust". That might help to understand whether the term is used for scholarly reasons or for reasons pertaining to popular television. Buirechain (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the sensible thing might be to use the spectrum form of words in the body of the article, suitably referenced. There is no need that I can see to have this term in the lede; there could even be a section devoted to the different terminology that has been used over the years and by different elements, if such can be referenced. Having a (selection of) various POV synonyms in the lede isn't good wiki style and will be likely to engender further sterile bickering into the future. As long as all the relevant redirects are in place and working, the title of the article isn't that important either. Let's get the content of the article and the lede especially into better shape and the rest will follow easily. --John (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 'The Great Hunger ( or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life) reduced the population of Ireland by 20 to 25 percent between 1845 and 1852. It is a highly contentious topic of history and known by various names ranging from The Great Famine to The Irish Holocaust depending on perspective.
The point of this was to arrive at at place where all of the competing perspectives were represented fairly. It is based on Christine Kinealy description of The Great Hunger occupying the most neutral line in perspectives on the event whereas The Great Famine to The Irish Holocaust occupy opposing points (not necessarily equally extreme). Doing one (moving/rewriting) without the other doesn't cut it, they both go hand-in-hand i.e. I proposing that the event only be called The Great Hunger, but that the lede acknowledges two competing perspectives: The Great Famine and The Irish Holocaust. This cannot be separated into small parts without introducing a bias one-way-or-the-other for the reasons I outlined above (e.g. WP:COMMONNAME  or WP:WEIGHT). --sony-youthpléigh 10:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: OK. Agree with Sony's "package" proposal. Meantime, no need to fight about the current intro if we are replacing it with this version! (Hint, hint).  (Sarah777 (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As before, I'm content with Sony's proposals as they properly locate the article within current academic and political discourse.  Mackensen (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: OK. Agree as per above editors. --Domer48 (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Would agree, providing commas are inserted and we use lower-case "the": "... by various names, ranging from the Great Famine to the Irish Holocaust, depending on perspective".--Damac (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd also agree with the package proposal as outlined by Sony. Caveat: I would like to see some wider discussion first. Last time we had a page move on this issue (IIRC it was a copy and paste move rather than a 'proper' move) it was done at very short notice and resulted in some acrimony. A proposed move (package or no) should at least be flagged with the proposal template and notified on the appropriate Irish-related noticeboards. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting this again

message: It's been about five days now; we all agree on the movement and the wording. If there are no objections I'll go ahead make the changes. In the meantime, I've reverted Domer48's removal of the POV tag; the whole reason we're making this change is because of the objections to the existing wording. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no objections do you want to go ahead make the changes.--Domer48 (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep - go ahead and do it. I think Bastun was the only one who cautioned for time, are you okay with gong ahead Bastun? --sony-youthpléigh 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - even if there were huge objections later it could always be undone if its a 'proper' move rather than copy/paste. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only noticed the name-change now. But I'd like to record my support for it. - Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going forward 

message: At the request of an editor, I deleted two edits in which s/he accidentally revealed a work-related IP address. Best, Mackensen (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: I've rewritten the "Suggestions of Genocide" section; the main changes are converting the list into paragraphs, adding some context, and reducing duplication. I don't believe that the overall meaning as changed overmuch from this. I'm unsure about retaining A.J.P. Taylor without context; he was famous for his polemics and having at go at folks he didn't like. No one would rely on his history of Germany, for example, as it's now considered tendentious. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A breif reading of it would suggest a well deserved well done, however just one or two things I wouls like to say. Dennis Clark, an Irish-American historian, Irish historian Cormac Ó Gráda, why the need for nationality? Robert Kee is English, not that it would make a difference, I'm just saying. "Critics of British imperialism," dose that not seem to imply something. I'll have a better read of it later, but over all well done. Is their any chance we can introduce the changes agreed to above? --Domer48 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the nationality was there already. Critics of British Imperialism has a point--it establishes the critical framework for those particular criticisms (that paragraph is in a different section, incidentally). I'll also go ahead and make the suggested change. Mackensen (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide