Talk:Great Famine of 1315–1317

message: Hmmm... so where does However there was one catastrophic dip in the weather during the Medieval Warm Period that coincided with the onset of the Great Famine. Between 1310 and 1330 northern Europe saw some of the worst and most substained periods of bad weather in the entire Middle Ages, characterized by severe winters and rainy and cold summers. come from? William M. Connolley 20:26:34, 2005-09-05 (UTC).
:William C Jordan (1996), The Great Famine: Northern Europe in the Early Fourteenth Century, pp16-17
:He cites with numerous footnotes (if you need it) work done by Pierre Alexandre "..the most thourough of modern researchers.." specifically Le Climat en Europe au moyen age (1987). His information is "..culled from hundreds of narrative sources..", focuses only on Northern Europe, and is independently verified by dendrochronology (of which I could go deeper into the sources if needed). --Stbalbach 20:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for catastrophic dip phrase

message: The evidence for cannibalism during the Great Famine is ambiguous and controversial for historians. There are reports from Livonia and Estonia, as well as Ireland and most other parts of Europe. Many historians discount it as being impossible, that in a time when the Renaissance was just starting, while Dante was creating one of the greatest works of literature in history, at the same time people in Europe were eating one another. However, perhaps it says more about modern values, which attribute cannibalism to "the other", than about the realities of people doing whatever it took to survive.
Which historians? When? Is this still disputed today? And the Renaissance did not "start" until a century later. Bastie 20:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Petrarch and Dante were alive during the GF and are considered some of the founding fathers of the renaissance, indeed it was Petrarch who first called the previous period the Dark Age. It all depends in what context and geography your speaking. In this quote its relevant -- Italy was spared the Great Famine (perhaps one reason it moved ahead faster than the north.. but purely speculatory) --Stbalbach 04:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannibalism

message: Also, the picture is of the Irish famine of six centuries later. Could we not find a more appropriate image? Bastie 20:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The GF saw bad weather, but there were other periods of bad weather throughout the middle ages -- it was more than just bad weather that caused the calamity. To attribute it to climate is an answer in search of a solution, its not the simple. --Stbalbach 04:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish famine

message: No reason given for the contradict tag. It is just a controversial topic, doesnt mean its contradictory. 
Removed the "citation needed" -- it is the first book on the subject. Dont know what else to say. Read the book if you dont believe it, its self-citational and has an extensive bibliography. --Stbalbach 02:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed tags 

message: I've removed this
:Many historians discount it as being impossible that, in a time when the Renaissance was just starting and Dante was creating one of the greatest works of literature in history, people in Europe were eating one another. However, perhaps it says more about modern values, which attribute cannibalism to "the other," than about the realities of one's ancestors doing whatever it took to survive.
I get the idea, maybe it can go in the article but not in this form, you can't say that it's a disputed view and then present your own view as "reality". I tried rephrasing but I didn't find a satisfying result. Try something like "Some historians this, while others that" And find a source, when the topic is controversial. Piet 14:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, there's a source now, but apparently it is a quote, and should be presented as such. I might do it but not right now. Note also that it is probably not the predominant view. Piet 17:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a direct quote, why would you quote something you've never read before? I'm also not sure why your taking this to such an extreme level of citation. Your asking for hyper-accurate citations, then you just casually say "it is probably not the predominant view" with no support. --Stbalbach 00:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the same paragraph you call the evidence of cannibalism ambiguous and controversial, and then you talk about the reality of it. If it is not a quote then you are introducing your own a point of view. Also read Wikipedia:No original research. Moreover the tone is inappropriate. If it is not a quote it has to be rewritten. I will not make any further changes to the article but I can assure you that in the future someone else will take it out or rephrase it. Until someone does it will annoy many readers. Please also read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. No offense intended, but it is not acceptable. Piet 07:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I didn't say that correctly. You're not introducing your own point of view. But you're presenting the view of Teofilo Ruiz as reality. You have to make clear that it is just one point of view. Piet 07:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a direct quote, where you put quotation marks, but it is a paraphrase of what he said, and is (now) cited directly in line. The issue is somewhat ambiguous and people have different opinions about it; the text does currently favor the view that cannibalism did happen and frankly, those who study this event seriously agree; it's some historians who characterize the period as one of "light" and "rebirth" - a renaissance - that have trouble with integrating this into their narratives. Essentially this is a historiography and periodization issue, and rather than getting involved with a lot of muddy details of that nature which distracts from the main point, it mentions there is some debate, but presents the current prevailing view. 
--Stbalbach 15:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Any source listed in References section. -- Stbalbach 03:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed speculation 

message: This article did not go through the current GAN nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 10:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: Using the average life expectancy to prove that "old age" in this period was considered 30 years of age is misleading, as the average life expectancy figure is simply a mathematical average that is affected by infant and childhood mortality. If someone was able to live into young adulthood or able to withstand the Black Death, through genetic immunity or other factors, they had as good a chance of living into their 60s or even later as any other human living in any other time frame (except of course the 20th century for developed Western nations which DID increase life expectancy significantly). This claim that people only "lived to the age of 30" in "X" time period is widespread but wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.216.99 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 26 February 2007
Also, the sentence structure referring to the English royal family records leaves the claim of life expectancy ambiguous - Is the life expectancy for the royal family or for commoners?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.60.189 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Old age

message: Is there a map of affected area of Europe available? The description "from Russia to Ireland and from Scandinavia to Alps" is not very descriptive. The famine did not hurt Poland or Hungary for example. So, it should be more detailed. Merewyn (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map? 

message: In the current revision, the last paragraph of the section "Great Famine" offers speculation that this crop failure might have been due to natural events; however, no evidence is offered for conditions elsewhere in the world where we have historical records, for example China, Japan -- or the lands of the Middle East. (For the record, there is no indication of crop failures in Ethiopia at this time, although the historical record in that country at the time is so fragmentary that this is hardly conclusive by itself.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited to Europe or a worldwide event? 

message: This section is unsourced and reads like original research. I have deleted it; if someone can find a source, they can re-insert the section.Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete 'Consequences' section

message: I edited this page today,  changing "Stores of grain for long-term emergencies were limited to the lords and nobles." to "Stores of grain for long-term emergencies were hoarded by the many of the rich." I did so as the earlier version excluded rich merchants, clergy, black marketeers, etc, from the class of people who could buy grain, and the verb for this is indeed hoarding. The user Dia, reverted this and admonished me on my talkpage not to remove other people's stuff.
I'm quite inexperienced with this and not familiar with the culture here, does my edit not read the way I meant it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtdriver (talk • contribs) 03:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A recent reversion 

message: There are several problems with this section. First, one expects that the headlines reflects the number of consequences. Second, it is said: "Third was the failure of the Medieval governments to deal with the crisis. Just as God seemed unable or unwilling to answer prayers, the earthly powers were equally ineffective, eroding and undermining their power and authority." Besides the fictional tone of the phrase "Just as God seemed...", it is not clear why the failure of the Medieval goverments is a consequence. It seems to be either a cause or a conciedence (in the sense of something co-ocurring), but in no case a consequence. I suggest to completly remove this from the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.202.149 (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four consequences don't make sense 

message: Article says, "At first the Irish/Scottish alliance seemed unstoppable, winning battle after battle and gaining control of most of Ireland in less than a year, seemingly on the verge of driving the Anglo-Norman settlers out of Ireland altogether."  After that one expects to read something like, "But the Anglo-Normans took heart & whipped the Irish/Scottish next year."  But instead of that the article seems to say that the I/S went on to victory.  Thus the "seemed unstoppable" needs revision.  Should it read, "The I/S began and continued an unstoppable and irresistible attack leading the total expulsion of the A-N" ??? (EnochBethany (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It goes on to say that Edward Bruce was defeated, so I am not quite sure of your point here.--SabreBD (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diction of Paragraph is Strange 

message: Substituted at 16:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Apparently: For most people there was often not enough to eat, and life was a relatively short and brutal struggle to survive to old age.
If the struggle was "to reach old age", then "relatively short" is untrue. On the other hand if the struggle is relatively short (relative to what?) then the rest of the person's life is free of struggle, which is probably not what's intended. I'd just go ahead and remove "relatively short and" but I'm not sure whether the whole thing is POV/editorialising anyway. Tonywalton Talk 20:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs re-wording 

message: What the hell is Dearth? 2601:18F:E82:A10:3568:48C0:A95A:28AC (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  In 1315 the was a great famine of Dearth ??? 

message: The article mentioned extreme rain, but what caused the rain? Were there any volcanic events in the northern hemisphere? 78.1.161.168 (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Third paragraph of the "Background" section. -- GreenC 23:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes?