Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 9

message: How come this article doesn't explicity mention population demographic. It is just buried in landholding arrangment/argument (which has implication that it was a fault of "British" system). I know Amartya Sen pointed out that many famine happen even when food are plenty and often the economic/political system is at fault. But he did examine population/food aspect first before making his case. Nothing of this kind is done in this article. As with any controvercial topic, narrative should start from "fact" (whatever that mean). Generally, narrative order or article should be in order of historical event (such as potatoe blight), followed by demographic fact (including population and deathtoll and immigration), followed by economic, plolitical and social argument.  Why Genocide topic, which many, in the context of Irish famine, consider it as ideological topic or identity politics (i.e. silly ass argument on both side debate) is put at the begining?   FWBOarticle
: For a number of reasons, but here's the best one: One of the essential elements of Malthus' model is the belief  that "Population level is severely limited by subsistence" (quote: Malthus,1798 Essay).  Malthus believed that a society's agricultural/industrial development would ultimately lead to: a) unsustainable population growth; b) overconsumption of native resources; and, c) inevitable economic collapse.  Thus, if you were going to search for a Malthusian explanation to the Irish Potato Famine the only possible arguement is this: the British successfully avoided points a), b) and c) through the colonization of other regions throughout the world.  This point may be entirely valid, but, at the same time, there is no question that the economic gain from the colonization of Ireland was irrelevant compared to the wealth that came from other regions colonized far later in history (India, the African colonies, North America).  Furthermore, I've never seen a history which contends that the British really depended on resources which came from the Irish colony (that is, I've never seen a history which argued that, without this colony, the Empire would have been at a great risk of economic collapse).  The same can not be said for the Indian and African possessions (without them, the British would have faced massive cuts, especially within the military). Finally, there is no debate among historians that the Irish, who existed at the lowest level of subsistence during the British colonial period, had a far more wholesome and diverse diet before the British invaded, destroyed the native polity and reduced the native population to a status little higher than Serfdom.  Malthusian theory can be interesting, but I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who believes that it can be honestly applied to the plight of the Irish. --(Mingus ah um 21:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malthusian Argument 

message: I have removed this article from Wikipedia:Good_articles/Nominations because:
#The article has several stub sections, and a lengthy first hand account of the effects of the Famine with no source or authorial context given. 
#There are some statements like "the vast majority of its MPs and government ministers had never set foot in Ireland" that really needs specific citation. Andrew Levine 18:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. There's also some dubious language - "perverse farce" caught my eye. The article also lacks context (as usual). How does the Irish famine compare with Scotland in the same period (or, indeed, in the 1830s famine) ? How does the reponse by Westminster and/or landlords compare ? There's no mention of the general European food shortage which led to price increases in 1846: the famine in Flanders was particularly serious. This needs a lot of work. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 15:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fail GA

message: I think there should be a decent introduction to any personal descriptions, especially those that start mid-sentence.  If anyone out there has (or has access to) the quoted source, any elaboration would be useful. --(Mingus ah um 02:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: The ''Famine'' Section

message: The section previously described Lord Russell as "laissez-faire" reformer.  The author must have been confused, since Sir Peel was the free trade advocate and lost his job for it.  There was also a section in the middle going off on a tangent about the author's pet theory on how the famine could have been avoided, and which also inaccurately stated that Lord Russell "refused" to import corn.  The rest was just an irrelevant bit on the Act of Union. Salvor Hardin 09:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformed "Response" Section 

message: "The notable difference between the Famine and other humanitarian crises was that it occurred within the imperial homeland, at a time well into the modern prosperity of the Victorian and Industrial age."
It ought to be noted that people also starved in England at the time - you only have to read Dickens. Victorian times were not "prosperous" for the majority of people, and certainly not by modern standards. Because of the poor communications of those times, lack of photos etc, then Ireland may have been seen as being further away than the US is nowerdays. In Victorian times, it was thought wrong for the government to interfere in people's private lives. I imagine it was rather like US governance nowerdays - and we know that nothing was done to help the hurricane victims in the southern US. 
I think it is a big mistake to judge those times by modern standards of prosperity, affluence, communications, governance, and so on. 
Paddy.
:Paddy, Paddy, Paddy... Of course "people also starved in England at the time"... Throughout the 19th century, there were food shortages all over the developing and the colonial world.  You are, of course, correct to point out that "Victorian times were not 'prosperous' for the majority of people," but this should not divert our attention from the fact that, while British society was reaping great benefits from the toil of its working class, the Irish gained nothing from their serfdom.
:I would argue that the more important thing to consider is what the English possessed and/or gained which the Irish did not: 1) an immensely powerful landed aristocracy; 2) a highly functional and quite stable polity; 3) a developing middle class; 4) global (and relatively cheap) access to a wide variety of natural resources; 5) responsiblity for the destruction of the local Irish polity; 6) military control over Irish society; 7) responsiblity for the development of Irish property relations; etc, etc.
:While it is generally a good idea to believe that "it is a big mistake to judge those times by modern standards of prosperity, affluence, communications, governance, and so on," the simple and honest truth is that, only a couple of decades after the Irish Potato Famine, the British intelligensia of the 19th century were vociferously attacking a similar but foriegn form of colonialization: King Leopold II's exploitation of the Congo.  While it is true that far, far more Congolese died, compare the projected per capita death toll with the projected per capita death toll of the Irish Potato Famine and Cromwell's period of colonialization.  And then then tell me that it is not right to hold the British to their own standards. --(Mingus ah um 21:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mingus - you move between "England/English" and "Britain/British"  as if they were the same. Please clarify as there are a fair few Scots and Welsh who will not thank you for referring to them as English. For good of for bad your description of "what the English possessed" also includes Scots and Welsh landowners and indeed some Irish as well. Also it should be noted that one of the senior figures of the "British intelligensia" criticing Leopold and his actions in the Congo was a British consul by the name of Roger Casement. A socialist view of the history of the period and the famine might argue that divisions were based more on social class than nationality - and technically all Irish people were "British" at the time. --mgaved 11:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People also starving in england at the time 

message: I've just noted that this article and Irish potato famine (legacy) are redundant (and indeed identical) to great extents. This duplication of text must be avoided, as the texts will be edited independently and diverge, causing duplication of effort, confusions etc. See WP:POVFORK. If no regular contributor volunteers to re-merge the articles, I reserve my right to do it myself (but probably very roughly). Sandstein 17:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy with [[Irish potato famine (legacy)]] 

message: " ... much the same number of people emigrated to Great Britain, the United States, Canada, and Australia (see the Irish Diaspora)." All of Ireland was part of Great Britain in 1845; and so "Great Britain" needs changed. Maybe to England, Scotland, and Wales. Jon 15:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ireland was never part of the island that is Great Britain, at least not since the Ice Age.-- PD 20:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary section emigration

message: "Some paleo-nutritionists estimate that potato consumption before the famine averaged an astonishing 6.3 kg (14 pounds) per day per adult."
This number may be somewhat exagerrated. Even assuming that it's physically possible to eat 6.3 kg of potatoes every day, 14 pounds of potatoes contain in excess of 5000 calories. That's is a reasonable caloric intake for a medieval peasant involved in hard physical labor all day, but not for an Irish peasant. As the article says, potatoes grow essentially by themselves, no labor needed.
This article mentions 9 pounds a day, which is still large but more realistic. --Itinerant1 22:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potato consumption 

message: How do we know the woman in that very well known picture was called that? Up until this article I had thought her to be an anonymous peasant. El Gringo 23:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an illustration to a story about her plight from the Illustrated London News, 22 December 1849. Paul B 12:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brigid O Donnell?

message: The "Response of United Kingdom Government" section needs to be placed in a more chronological order; currently it seems to jump around a bit... AnonMoos 20:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronological order needed

message: This article is pretty bias
The statement 
"Dr. Kinealy's research proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there was sufficient food in Ireland to prevent mass starvation"
is absolutely outrageous. It doesn't prove that there was sufficient food in Ireland to prevent starvation.
I have included a piece by Austin Bourke who wrote on the matter. He debunks this myth and I'm sure other historians have aswell.
--Liam123 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: This article seems to assume a previous knowledge of the Famine. Nowhere in the article is there a straightfoward account of what happened 1845-49. Colin4C 20:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inadequate History 

message: Added books by Young Ireland which are relevant to this period in history. These books would be considered “Primary Sources,” and are referenced by a number of writers on the period. --Domer48 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added book list 

message: Removing unreferenced Material, and replacing it with unreference material is very unproductive. It would help improve the Article all-round, if contributions were sourced and reference.--Domer48 08:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unreferenced material 

message: Placing POV tags on one section of an  article, and adding unreferenced material is in no way improving the article. All sources must be referenced! All the more so when the article is disputed. Regards--Domer48 17:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placing Tags 

message: What caused the Irish Famine? While all agree, that the potato blight was a significant factor, the fact the country still produced and exported large quantities of food stuff’s would naturally mean that there were a additional of causes. So it most definitely dose not mean only the biological causes. While I advocate that all material added must be referenced, I do not consider replacing it with unreferenced sources as acceptable. --Domer48 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A more inclusive section is warrented IMO.  I've put together the "Cause" paragraph along with several other factors that were recently deleted under, apparently, because they were not "causes" per se.  Let's see if the new title "Causes and Contributors" helps assuage the sensibilities of the more literally minded.... Geeman 17:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A useful and practical solution. The only problem I would have is that one would think that the main cause was the potato blight. The were quite a number of deaths from hunger before 1840, and this should not be lost sight of. If I might suggest, that the blight and its description be placed under a separate heading, such as its common name with its scientific name along side it in brackets.  Regards --Domer48 19:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that'd be the best way to go. At present there's only one paragraph on the blight itself, though, so giving it a whole section might look a little awkward. More detail would be appropriate and help deal with this issue.  As time permits, I guess.... Geeman 20:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some recent changes have not been to the points. Needs a relook. Causes? Well, Penal Laws , Act of Union, Racial hatred, as documented in Victorian England , Punch etc, plus a few more. Ireland was still exporting food, so political attitudes too. Not really flax. Gold♣heart 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological "Causes" 

message: The inclusion of a book review as a header to the article on the Irish Famine is extremely inappropriate. This becomes especially erroneous, when the book in question itself is heavily biased. To illustrate this point I would refer editors to a letter written by Colm Toibin, in the London Review Of Books, Vol. 23, No.23, 21.11.01. Responding to Oxford academic Mary Beard (LRB, 4.10.01) who had asked in response to the events of  11th September for a more “nuanced” response, Toibin wrote, “Over the past twenty five years in Ireland I have made a point of asking anyone who went to school with members of the IRA, the INLA, the UDA and the UVF what these people were like at the age of ten. All have agreed that each child displayed a nasty early sign of terrorism long before he had a “cause”. One of them spoke for many others when he described his schoolmate, the embryonic terrorist, as “a resentful little cunt”. Had a cause not come their way, these people would have beaten their dogs or their wives and children, attacked one another at hurling matches or taken out their resentment on a long back garden.” And this the work of an unbiased writer of Irish history, I hardly think so! This book should be placed in the additional reading list, and not be given any more prominence then the rest of the book written on the subject.  --Domer48 17:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be my opinion, that books relating to an article should be included in the Reading List, or Additional Reading List. This I might add, is regardless of the POV of the author. To place a book, with a clearly illustrated bias as a header, is a form of POV which, should it go unchecked could well leave Articles being relegated behind the reviews. For example, I could do reviews on books which I found interesting, and regardless of the bias or otherwise of the author, I could then place it at the top of any article relevant to the subject. I could push and peddle any bias I wished under the guise of a review. Is this the road we wish to go down? I do not believe it is. The Article has primacy on the page, and the discussion page is the forum to discuss and debate the contents.  --Domer48 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't with labelling Toibín and Ferriter's book as the definitive, or best book on the Famine.  Far from it, actually.  It is a simple formatting issue.  You see, The Irish Famine redirects here, to Irish Potato Famine.  As the book is called The Irish Famine, there should be a header at the top of the article (as is seen in thousands of other articles) specifying that this is the article about the famine, and if you want to view the article about the book, see [here].  The wording could be tweaked to better illustrate this, i.e. The Irish Famine redirects here.  For the book of the same name, please see The Irish Famine (book).  gaillimhConas tá tú? 18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaillimh is right. It has now been changed incorrectly with no mention of the book, so that anyone looking for the book will think there isn't an article on it. Please change per Wp:disambiguation#Disambiguation_links: When a user searches for a particular term, he or she may have something else in mind than what actually appears. In this case, a friendly link to the alternative article is placed at the top.. Tyrenius 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, it's little to do with the book itself and its contents.  The issue is with formatting and allowing for users to easily access the material they wish to find.  As the famine itself is by far the more important article, I saw little need to create a disambiguation page.  However, as one of the article's redirects is also the same name of a notable book, it's reasonable to note this in such a way that allows users looking for this book to easily access it.  This is especially necessary, as it's unlikely that most users will know to type in The Irish Famine (book) when searching for it gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, at no point have my concerns being answered, or the issues’ I have raised being addressed. As to not wishing to have to create a disambiguation page for this article, I would agree, if a disambiguation did not already exist. Since one dose exist titled “Other Uses” I suggest that the article link you have created should go there, as it is a case like you say of disambiguation. It is also worth pointing out, that the title of the book is the same title as many books on this subject, and this is not mentioned in the header. Having raised this point, it is only obvious that I should question the notability of this particular one? What makes this particular book notable, when compared to any of the others? You have also made this point yourself in your edit "The issue isn't with labelling Toibín and Ferriter's book as the definitive, or best book on the Famine.  "Far from it, actually".  It is a simple formatting issue". So the book has nothing notable about it other than its title.  Regards  --Domer48 08:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that Galway shouldnt be allowed to advertise his book like this. Firstly the book is barely notable and secondly it could be a "Also see" at most - remove it.--Vintagekits 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have questioned the notability of this book in the past. No improvement has taken place on its article page, and the fact that the book title is "The Irish Famine:A Documentary" and not "The Irish Famine," would lend weight to the suggestion that it is simply an advertisement for a none notable book. The book is included in the additional reading list on the article page, and I do not think that you could make the mistake in book title and article title as suggested. It is still my intension to renominate the article as it is simply not notable.On previous nominations there was no consensus to keep the article.  --Domer48 06:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using a Book as a Header 

message: The authors fail to mention that a major contributing factor to the Potato famine was that a great portion of Ireland's other food crops, corn, wheat, etc. were being exported to England to feed the population there, leaving essentially ONLY Potatoes to feed Ireland.
:Well, these are commercial crops. Obviously, for these food to be allocated to famine relief, the government must purchase it then give it away for free. Of course, the failiure for Russell government to do so is attributed as the main reason crop failiure was transformed to famine.. Idea that there are direct link to total quantity of food and famine has been debunked. Yes, the fact that food being shiped out from famine stricken area seems perverse in subsistent economy. It is not so in more commercialised society. Feel free to present this POV anyway. I hear it's a popular POV in ireland. Vapour
"The fact that food is being shiped (sic)out from a famine stricken area seems perverse in subsitent economy.  It is not so in more (sic) commercialized society." ??!
Are you kidding with that statment?  In a "commercialized society" with no moral compass at all maybe, a society of sociopaths with no ability to see beyond their wallet maybe.  I come from as commercialized a society as can be found and it not only seems perverse to me but clear evidence of genocide.  While my feelings regarding genocide are certainly my POV there is no question, based on the records kept by the British themselves, that Ireland, throughout the famine was a net exporter of food to England.  There was no problem with the Irish production of wheat, rye, beef, poultry, pork or fish.  The Irish catholic population was a subsistance population and worked almost exclusively on barter, the Irish rarely had or used currency, so "selling" them food would work only to the extent that they had some small amount of coins or currency. Once whatever supply of money was gone they were intentionally left to die.  In reading the article I was looking to see if it contained just the point requested by the initial question.. is there a mention that Ireland during the potato famine was a food rich country?  The reason I was looking for this reference was that for many many years while I was aware that there had been a potato famine and that the English government had done little to nothing to alleviate the plight of the Irish, I had always thought that Ireland had little to no food at all.  Just saying potato famine, while technically accurate, does not truly bring out the horror of the situation.  My only current edit of the article was to add Mr. Gallagher's book, Paddy's Lament to the additional reading list.  This is an excellent work on the subject, and extremely well documented from British records. As soon as I can find my copy again, I will be able to add additional detail to the article.
I have reviewed the entire discussion portion of this article and have noticed that the fact that food was consistantly exported from Ireland has come up on numerous occasions, as this fact is IMO extremely important in a basic understanding of the life of the Irish during this time, and is an undisputed historic fact, I feel that the main body of the article should contain this, possibly with some figures.  I intend therefore to add a reference to this fact barring someone talking me out of it here in the discussion.  This may take a little while as I have to hunt up the numbers and the relevant references.--Casement 05:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such exports are often cited as evidence of deliberate genocide or  a moral injustice.  The fact is that in a free market economy, the farmers and traders had their own markets which they continued to supply within and outside Ireland.  The starving Irish were a world away to them and as such the exporters were no more immoral than the multi-national companies and countries of today continuing to do business as normal  when parts of the world are starving.  In an ideal world, both situations should not happen, but neither are consious evils of the purpetrators.  Ultimately the cultural nature and indifference of the British Government institutions and even, let's not forget, many wealthier Irish was the reason such a tradegy could occur. Dainamo 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  England raped & stole from Ireland (murdered too) as it did to other counties it took over. They didn't CARE about the Irish only about their Greed. If the Irish did 10% to the British what they did to us you would never hear the end of it.   Culnacréann  09:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exports to England

message: It says here that 
"Plant pathologist Jean Beagle Ristanio speculates that the pathogen (not a fungus but an oomycete) arrived in Europe on a shipment of potatoes from South America in the 1830s."
But in school I remember being told that the blight caame over with a guano shipment. 87.33.53.61 13:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of blight

message: Just noticed that you also in a comment line accused me of "bad faith edits" which is extremely rude, incivil and false. I intend to complain unless you apologise immediately. MarkThomas 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breach of WP:CIVIL at [[Great Irish Famine]] 

message: If anyone has any verifiable sources discussing genocide, please list the relevant quote below with the reference. An equivalent, such as "the British government deliberately set out to kill all the Irish people" is also relevant.  This section isn't for discussion. It's for factual matter. Thank you. Tyrenius 21:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tyrenius, the opening section deals with the issue, and is referenced. To suggest that it is not a subject that is discussed would be wrong. I mean to suggest it, and not you. Regards --Domer48 21:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't find that text "disarmament, degradation, extermination and periodical destruction of the Irish people" in the article. Where is it? Tyrenius 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genocide per [[WP:V]]

message: This whole debate would be greatly simplified if editors stuck to what the sources say and put that in the article, rather than argue about how to interpret what the sources say. Tyrenius 21:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The notion that sources can't be/don't need to be interpreted is not valid. Most sources must be interpreted all the time. Any sources distant from us linguistically or temporally have to be interpreted by someone. Can you read classical Greek? Or do you quote interpretations which are secondary, tertiary and beyond? If Mitchell said "a deliberate attempt to exterminate the Irish" (no idea if he used those exact words) but didn't use "genocide" (not least because the word didn't exist) it is utter nonsense to suggest translating that into modern English as "genocide" is pov pushing. (Sarah777 22:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so we're not quibbling over semantics: paraphrasing is often necessary (if only to avoid copvyios). Paraphrasing is saying exactly the same thing, but just using different words. Your Mitchell example is a paraphrase, but it would be necessary to find he had been that specific. Interpretation, the way I'm using it, can involve a subjective element and should be avoided. If something is "open to interpretation", it means that different meanings can be read into it. It's not our job to read meanings into things, and different people can equally validly read different meanings. This then becomes POV. This use of "interpretation" is different to the use as in "to interpret a foreign language", which again should ideally be saying exactly the same thing, but using different words (in a different language of course). Tyrenius 23:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know; this brings to mind the phrase used vis a vis Britain and America; that they are "separated by a common language". I often think the same could be applied to Ireland and England. Btw, did I hear an apology for threatening to  block me in there anywhere? Regards (Sarah777 23:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it doesn't apply, then ignore it. Tyrenius 00:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really good enough Tyrenius. You leave me playing Russian Roulette; I'm just trying to build Wiki. You leave me the the only safe option of avoiding all reference to genocide. Not acceptable. Please retract. (Sarah777 01:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above, my post 03:20, 25 June 2007. It would be helpful if you look at my remarks on /Genocide. Tyrenius 03:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did indeed read that. Unfortunately I find it fails to address the fact that many referenced sources consider the Great Famine to be Genocide, which is rather important if we are to produce an article that conforms to WP:NPOV. (Sarah777 08:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Way forward

message: I have reviewed and commented on that section. Click on the link in the heading. This is not intended to be definitive, but is hopefully a way forward again. It might be an idea to work through the section on the sub page, rather than the main article? Tyrenius 00:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[/Genocide]]

message: @Mark; "Using genocide as a political point-scoring term devalues the word and reduces the impact of truly horrible and proven cases like the Holocaust and the Turkish slaughter of the Armenians, Stalin's destruction of various Soviet peoples, etc.". In Turkey it is illegal to call the Armenian massacres "genocide"; Stalin's were collateral damage from a political/nationalist policy; exactly what apologists for British holocausts claim British ones were - a side effect rather than a calculated primary effect. What devalues the term "genocide" is politically motive exceptionalist use of the term. (Sarah777 22:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We know none of those things actually. Stalin's primary intent was to implement a political programme, just the defence Britain claims. Turkey denies genocide so strongly it has laws against the claim; they don't deny lots of Armenians died. I never mentioned Hitler, so why do you include him? And this whole debate is about the denial of genocide by (mainly) the British. Genocide as clearly defined by the UN would include the Great Famine and the "lack of intent" in the British Establishment is far from being established. They used similar tactics in India and elsewhere. (Sarah777 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Selective Use of "Genocide"

message: Removed unreferenced information, material added to articles should have citations, otherwise they may be challenged and removed. --Domer48 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This cannot possibly apply to every sentence and word in an article. The sentence in question conveys context. Sony-youth, you wrote this sentence in originally, what's your take on it? MarkThomas 20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The assertion that few ascribe the term genocide is being challenged by both authors and historians, and more importantly why there was so little written on the subject. That new books have begun to appear, in particular since the 150 anniversary. There have been a number of books on the subject. Of those which deal with this assertion, Irish Hunger by Tom Hayden, Famine Diary, by Brendan O Cathaoir, and Revision of Irish Nationalism by Desmond Fennell. The request to provide references has been ignored and the unreferenced material wilfully replaced. If editors wish to added material, they should provide references, and be able to cite sources, otherwise their edit may be challenged and removed. --Domer48 21:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't write the offending sentence. It was part of the block that I bulleted. If a source is necessary, however, maybe we can use the citation already in the article i.e. "only one modern Irish historian ... can be said to have endorsed [the interpretation of genocide]." One strikes me as a sufficiently low number to support the statement "few modern historians." --sony-youthpléigh 21:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Sony there is more than one, such as A. J. P. Taylor, a noted Historian and a reputable scholar. Now there is more! I'm putting information together on it like I said. Is that ok. Regards --Domer48 21:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course its okay - but removing stuff on the grounds that its unreferenced, when a supporting reference is just one bullet point below it, appears a little hasty. --sony-youthpléigh 22:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sony in addressing this, there are two ways to go, a short note to say it is contested, or a whole new section on the current debate on the subject of revisionism. You done the lay out, and this was the only section wich had a lead, why can the referenced sources speek for themselves, why the lead? Regards --Domer48 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence was already in the text. I deliberately didn't remove any text for fear it would create trouble. I only reordered text already there so as to make the quotations provided coherent and someway comprehensible. That sentence was the only one that wasn't a direct quote so it wasn't appropriate for a bullet point. That's the only reason it was there. No hidden agenda. No conspiracy theory. --sony-youthpléigh 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No Problem Sony, can we agree to let the referenced material do the talking? Regards --Domer48 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. (At least in the short term. The section needs (re)writing though. Quotes alone aren't enough in the medium term, but I'm sure you know that and it sounds like you're working on building something strong, so you've got my blessing.) --sony-youthpléigh 22:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sound. Regards--Domer48 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we may have to insist on the same standard of reference for all statements in this article. And perhaps, as some editors appear to feel it important, the attitude to the Union should be added. Using the 15:1 thinking, after factoring out Nationalist/Unionist bias if is even 5% of the references support suggestions of genocide we can conclude that opinion is evenly split. Domer; can you find two references (and of course we can dismiss the semantics claiming that actions meeting the Hague definition cannot be called "genocide" because they were perpetrated either before the term was coined or before the Hague Convention.(Sarah777 22:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Wikipedia articles are more than just lists of sentences each supported by a reference. The article should create context and can include general text. The real issue here is how to characterise the range of historians who call the Irish Famine a "genocide". In modern academic opinion that is a minority view, and the Wikipedia article should reflect that, otherwise it is POV. MarkThomas 08:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree Mark, that good Wikipedia articles are more than just lists of sentences each supported by a reference. My concern was that the view denying or failing to support the famine as genocide be accorded the same scrutiny as the view that it is. We all know that very many people in Ireland and America regard  the famine as genocide based on the known facts, just as we also know that British historians mainly deny it. But it seems that getting a clear statement of the former is challenged at ever step; whereas the latter pov is being given relatively unchallenged access to the article. Obviously this leads to grave danger of bias. (Sarah777 08:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not just British historians who deny it, or the dreaded revisionists of Irish lore. The histoical route to substantiating the genocide claim is a dead-end. More substantive and important is the significance of the famine to British-Irish relations - and that significance is every bit justifiable, deep, devastating and poisoning as to make it paramount to genocide. --sony-youthpléigh 08:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It most certainly is not a dead end! As has been pointed out here repeatedly, under the definition of the Hague Convention the evidence of genocide is strong. (Sarah777 09:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Will do, working on more than that. Whole new section! Regards --Domer48 23:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: References added. --Domer48 19:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sony, as requested, Additional references deal pacifically with the term genocide. --Domer48 20:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and Citations 

message: As the only editor at the minute actually providing referenced material to this article, I take no delight in pointing out that editors, through bias or POV pushing, have and are being disruptive. The vast quantities of unreferenced material in this article, they have blatantly ignored, and focused on only sourced material.  No matter what BS excuse they use and there will be plenty, their actions speak louder than words. These editors have in addition abused the talk page and have turned it into a forum for point scoring and abuse. Regards  --Domer48 20:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you specifically accusing of "bad faith" and "disruptive editing" Domer48? Statements like these about other editors are breaches of WP:CIVIL. Please enlighten us. MarkThomas 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that Domer had nobody in particular in mind, just a general feeling that editing here and discussion on the talkpage has become more about point-scoring than improving the article. "The vast quantities of unreferenced material in this article, they have blatantly ignored" - Domer. Well, that takes me back to an earlier suggestion that we may have to pay equal attention to ALL the sentences; not in favour of "references strung together" approach (I agree with Mark there) but if may be necessary to avoid bias and ensure we maintain the Wiki policy of WP:NPOV (Sarah777 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Sarah, you can read me like a book. Thanks for your encouraging remarks. I will have another section ready soon. It is a pity no one has the were with all to address the rest of the article. Regards --Domer48 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Domer, I feel sure that with a bit of unoriginal research you will find the wherewithal (note the spelling young Domer). You have a keen mind and a forensic intelligence. And I don't say that to everyone I encounter. (Sarah777 21:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad faith and disruptive editing 

message: The removal of referenced material is disruptive. If it continues, I will consider it vandilism. --Domer48 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should be made aware Domer48 that accusing people of vandalism in an unjustified manner is quite a serious breach of protocol and a good many editors have in the past been blocked for various periods for it. I hope you are ready to justify such an accusation, I can't see any justification for it. As with the accusations of "bad faith edits" you have levelled against me, this is a breach of WP:CIVIL. Note that due to your and other's edit-warring, I have also applied that this article be fully protected for a week to allow a proper discussion to take place here without the constant barrage of undiscussed significant edits you are currently engaged in. Also as no apology has been forthcoming from you to me in the matter of your abusive comments, action will take place on that. A simple apology and a slight calming down from you would relax all of us and make these steps unnecessary. Right now I don't see you as acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. MarkThomas 22:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism, Domer. Vandalism. You can get an automatic spell-checker with Firefox. And I know you only said that you would consider it vandalism IF a certain type of editing continued. And that you have thus far accused nobody of vandalism.  (Sarah777 22:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sarah, I would be lost without you. But this constant harassment is becoming quite tedious. I almost think I’m being goaded and baited into things. All I wish to do is contribute material, not sit on the sideline snipping at my every move. What would you suggest? Regards --Domer48 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest you guys all chill out, frankly. This revert-warring is in nobody's interest here and nor are the creeping assumptions of bad faith - Alison ☺ 22:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest you all go to bed - and heed Alison's advice! Remember if you think you are being goaded, letting yourself be goaded ain't too bright?! Keep plugging away with the good references. You find them; I'll make them stick! (Sarah777 22:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do, takes a bit of the pressure off. I will go back to the other articles I'm working on. Referenced quotes are good though. Regards --Domer48 22:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing referenced material 

message: An obvious, IMHO, edit is to alter the first few words to "The Great Irish Famine, or the Geat Famine ... etc ........ forgot to sign sorry. Abtract 18:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Abtract 18:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so sure. "The Great Famine" is the common term in Ireland. (Sarah777 00:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: But the name of the article (much to my surprise discussed at length above Talk:Great Irish Famine#Name of Article) is the Great Irish Famine Abtract 01:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indisputably true. I withdraw my reservations. I'm having a bad hair night! (Sarah777 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be thankful you have hair. Abtract 01:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: first few words