Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)

Where are the suggestions? We need help to upgrade this article, please. (Sarah777 02:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) Can't find the event. (Sarah777 12:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

---

Past entries in this famous discussion are archived in:

.1 , .2 , .3 , .4 , .5 , .6 , .7 , .8 , .9 , .10 , .11 , .12 (empty)...

Arbitration Committee mentorship

To all who are involved with this article:

As many of you were aware, the Arbitration Committee ruled that this article was to be placed under the mentorship of "three to five administrators to be named later". The Arbitration Committee today announced that Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and myself, Daniel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), will be taking on this role effective immediately.

According to this remedy, please remember that:-

• All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page.
• Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing Great Irish Famine or a related page (all bans will be logged at the arbitration page and also on the users' talk page and this article talk page).
• We have been instructed by the Arbitration Committee that we should favor article bans over page protection.
• The mentorship arrangement will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee in early December if anyone involved with this article requests it. The Arbitration Committee will consider ending the mentorship if the review reveals that this article no longer needs it to develop without further major issues. Unless the Committee determines as such, this mentorship will run for a year.

Please remember the first two points, especially the first. Article bans can be issued by any of the three of us, and no veto exists for any one of us. The section below is for the article bans as noted in point two - with any luck, hopefully we won't need it.

This message was simply to let you know that the mentorship has started. If you have any questions, feel free to ask any of the three of us on our talk pages, or via email (please note that any email you send about this issue may be forwarded between the three mentors and/or the Arbitration Committee):-

• Angusmclellan
• Daniel
• Ryan Postlethwaite

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Log of article bans

• Bastun (talk · contribs) banned from editing article page only for ten days, starting 00:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC), for revert-warring after warning. Article reverted to version when enforcement began to prevent martyrdom. Daniel 00:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion about the mentorship.

Article quality

OK. I have no idea if tempers have cooled enough to try to make some suggestions on this article, but I'm hoping the talk page is still on lots of people's watchlists. The article REALLY needs improvement. The name is bad, the intro paragraph is bad, the content is disorganized.
Anyone coming to this article without having suffered through all the recent "consensus" discussions would be mystified about the event itself.
Why do I think the name is bad? Well, the term "The Great Hunger" is a translation of the local Irish name for the event. That would be a fine name if the article was operating in an purely Irish (or even British and Irish) context, but the article is in a global encyclopedia. Using the name "The Great Hunger" in this way is somewhat equivalent to having an article called "The People" and having the article be about the Inuit, or the Sioux, or any of a number of peoples whose name for themselves was in their own language and was - essentially - "The People". It's not a suitable or helpful name for a event in a global encyclopedia. Calling the article on the famine "The Famine" or even "The Great Famine" - both of which are common descriptions in Ireland - would be equally inappropriate because it is equally unspecific. For heaven's sake, doesn't the name of the article need to include the word "Irish" somewhere!?!
Next, why do I think the intro paragraph is bad? The paragraph gives several different (and almost all bad) names for the event, says that it is still controversial, but hardly actually describes the event at all. How about a when, what, where, why, who, summary paragraph rather than some political balancing act on names?
Why do I think the content is disorganized? Well, read the "Background" paragraph. It's an uneducational mess, and a sample of most of the rest of the article.
Now, I don't know enough about the event to try to help in any major way on this article, but it's apparent that after all the recent fighting there must be a bunch of people who do. Further, I suspect that most of the article's problems are the result of to-and-fro hacking during recent edit wars rather than any lack of ability or knowledge on the part of the editors. PLEASE try to re-examine this article and re-write it in a useful and educational way rather than having edits be proxies of political arguments. For such a major event in Irish history (and an event that affected the USA and the UK in such major ways) to be so badly represented in WP is a real shame, a real shame. Hughsheehy (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. This was called The Great Irish Famine (modesty prevents me for stating who decided that) to replace the execrable "Irish Potato Famine". But we couldn't leave good enough alone I guess. Why not do a re-write yourself; then we can all turn on you and savage your work? (Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Execrable? Hughsheehy (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That means "utterly obnoxious", from the Latin exsecrabilis, "detestable". - (Sarah777 (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

I know what execrable means. I don't know why "Irish potato famine" is execrable. Hughsheehy (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, after lengthy discussion "The Great Hunger" was determined to be a scholarly, fairly unambiguous name which divided editors the least. These names which you call "bad" are some of the names by which the event is known in both the academic and popular press, and suggest the degree to which opinion diverges. Mackensen (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Great Hunger" is a translation of the local Irish name for the event." Well it's national really, and can be referenced in most works on the subject. It is also an actual name, for example "Irish War of Independance," "Flight of the Earls" "The Troubles" or the various names for particular battles. In short it is a name / title. 9/11 is not a suitable or helpful name for a event in a global encyclopedia for example. So anyone in America reading the article for example would know, that is what it is known as in that particular country. Now the use of the word "famine" in the title is misleading. It would suggest that there was no food in the country, which we know is not the case. Now the lead gives some of the alternative names used, so no real problem there. That's my take on it anyway. --Domer48 (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Domer48, "Famine" simply means that people starved or went hungry. They did starve and go hungry. (the word is from the French for hunger) What caused the famine when there was potentially plenty of other food around is another matter entirely and British policy deserves plenty of blame, and probably more recognition than it gets (I would guess that most British people are almost entirely unaware of the famine, let alone any potential UK government responsibility for it, or the fact that potentially much of the English population's food at the time was effectively stolen from the mouths of starving Irish people).
However, to quote WP (unreliable though that may be) "Although many famines coincide with national or regional shortages of food, famine has also occurred amid plenty or on account of acts of economic or military policy that have deprived certain populations of sufficient food to ensure survival." What happened in Ireland was a famine and use of the term is not misleading at all. Famine ≠ Natural Disaster, at least not always
"The Great Hunger" is a name for the event, no argument there and it has become a proper name - as you suggest - somewhat like "The Long March" or "The Holocaust". However, several points arise. (i) I doubt that it is the most commonly used name (ii) it is far from the most helpfully identifying name. Like saying "The Civil War", it is insufficiently specific. Do we mean the American Civil War, the English Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, the Irish Civil War? "The Great Hunger" is too vague. Even the majority of books that use the term "The Great Hunger" say "The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-49" or something similar. The books "The Great Hunger" that don't refer to Ireland include a novel and a book about a famine in Greenland in the 1880's.
Irish official sources generally just refer to "The Great Famine", but this can't be the title of the article because there were also "Great Famine"s (and they were man-made famines) in the Ukraine in the '30s and in China later on, and that's ignoring Ethiopia, etc.,etc.,etc. In any case, translating "An Gorta Mor" into "The Great Hunger" rather than into "The Great Famine" is arbitrary, since Famine just means hunger anyway.
As I said before, the title of this article should include the word "Irish" or "Ireland" somewhere in order to avoid being a too vague designation. It should use the most common unambiguous name for the event, which is probably either "The Great Irish Famine" or Sarah77's execrable "Irish Potato Famine". If we just have "The Great Hunger" then we may need a disambiguation page to separate the article on the Irish famine from either those other books (and the Greenland famine) or the documentary about Shane McGowan.
As for the rest of the article, particularly the introduction and the higher-level pieces, I still regret to say that it stinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughsheehy (talk • contribs) 11:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hugh, the problems you outline can all be overcome with the utility of the re-directs. Any and every name you could think, will all bring you to the right article. The first thing readers will notice is that in Ireland it is known "The Great Hunger," which comes from the Irish "An Gorta Mor." Nearly every book I have read on the subject makes reference to the term "An Gorta Mor." As to it being a too vague designation, just type "the Irish Famine" into the search bar on Wiki, and it brings you stright to the article. I've tried it with all the titles. --Domer48 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It could be called "The Flying Kazinski Brothers" and redirects would bring you to the "right" page. Hughsheehy (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I just tried, and no it did not. --Domer48 (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha Ha. My point is still valid. Hughsheehy (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Hugh, The Great Hunger quite unambiguously refers to the famine in Ireland between 1845 and 1850. This can be clearly evidenced by a Google book search (search) or the many references that use that name. The common sense argument is that the name hadn't already been "taken" by another "Great Hunger" and there is no disambiguation page for the phrase.

A google search also shows that there is little between each term for the event:

• "Great Famine": 58,400 (search)
• "The Great Hunger": 41,500 (search)
• "Great Irish Famine": 39,500 (search)
• "Potato Famine": 32,100 (search)

(Policy is to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." If you swallow the above results, then in this case that would be The Great Hunger since there are many "Great Famines" already. A precedent is Holodomor.)

I agree that the article is a mess and that we need to all get on-board together and stop bickering and mis-trusting each other. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Sony, "The Great Hunger" is NOT unambiguous. It's at least one disconnected book, a documentary about Shane McGowan and a famine in Greenland in the 1880's, albeit a not very well-known famine in Greenland in the 1880's. Looking at commonness and Google hits, I find that "Irish Potato Famine" is WAAAY more common than any of the others, with >100k hits. As you say "Great Famine" can be several events, including several that are AFAIK far larger than the Irish famine. Having a title, like the books generally do, of "The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849" would be unambiguous but I am still completely unclear as to what is wrong with the term that is apparently the most common name, i.e. "The Irish Potato Famine". Whatever one feels about the the political aspects (and "God sent the blight, the English created the famine" is still as good a summary as I've seen) that term does seem to be the most common. It might not be the term most used in book titles, but it's the most common term. It also matches the similar Highlands and European famines. Hughsheehy (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the name is OK. I wobbled a bit but have now fallen back in line with Sony/Domer. But even leaving aside the controversial bits we need someone who can really writeto get this into shape. Sarah777 (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we all agree that "we need someone who can really writeto get this into shape." Could I suggest that we park the name issue just for the moment, and focus on the other aspects? --Domer48 (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the very proposal of the name change states that the proposed new name (i.e. "The Great Hunger", which the article now carries) is NOT the most common name for the event!!!!! Instead, the name change is proposed on the basis of some package deal in regard to content and people agreeing or not agreeing on their views on the events around the famine. Have I been transported to another planet or are we still supposed to be on planet Wikipedia? Would the proposer of the change, i.e. Sony-youth, care to comment on what IS the most common name for the event? Hughsheehy (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In Ireland, "the Famine" or "the Great Famine" - in that order. Not speaking for Sony IGWS. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

Hugh, no doubt you've read what I wrote above, but I'll repeat it here. As I maintained before (see discussion), it's my belief that Irish Potato Famine is the most common name. I argued vigorously in defense of it, but consensus was overwhelmingly against me. That's the way things work on Planet Wikipedia. The "rightness" or "wrongness" of that term, and others, is the problem (i.e. Sarah's argument that "potatoes didn't starve"), and is, I admit, backed up by published works. In any event, you surely must admit that "The Great Hunger" quite uniformly refers to this event, and it's advantage is that, to paraphrase what Christine Kinealy writes, an NPOV name.

Dictionary.com has an entry on the phrase (link). I cannot see the Shane McGowan or Greenland (is it the novel?) book you are referring to, do you have a link? Could the Shane McGowan book title be based on the name for the event? --sony-youth^pléigh 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary.com also has "The Irish famine" as a title for the same event, but that isn't a suitable article name either. As for consensus...WP isn't a democracy and I don't believe that we should pick the wrong name just to be convenient or because people are persistent in pursuing mistakes. This article correctly used "Irish potato famine" for a long time. Further apart from not being the most common name I repeat the simple fact that "The Great Hunger" isn't an unambiguous name. There are at least two books (one about another famine) and one movie called "The Great Hunger" that have NOTHING to do with the event this article is about. The movie is a bio of a famous singer/writer and the two books are a novel by famous Norwegian writer and a book about a famine by a moderately famous French Explorer. For heavens sake, even the books titled "The Great Hunger" say that they are about "the Irish potato famine". They're using "The Great Hunger" as a dramatic title, not as the normal description of the event, e.g. the back notes of Cecil Woodham-Smith's book, which is titled "The Great Hunger", talks about "the Irish potato famine".
The initial objection to "Irish potato famine" seems to have been an observation that "it wasn't the potatoes that starved" and some feeling that the term was a political escape to let the British off the hook. Apart from the fact that an editor's personal preferences are entirely irrelevant, it's too easly to point out that neither the Highlands nor potatoes starved in the "Highlands potato famine", but that's what the famine is called.
I feel a disambig page coming on and refer you to the disambiguation page for "The Great War" as an example of where this sad episode ends up. Now, surely no-one would say that "The Great War" isn't a common name for World War 1, but it's NOT unambiguous and it's NOT the most common term. Hughsheehy (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And around in circles we go, Hugh, and the article gets no better. Look back through the archives. It's rubbish like this that's been dogging the article, I proposed a solution that I thought everyone could live with - if you want to drag it back up again, then by all means that's your right, but please don't wrap it up in a box labeled "concern for the article quality" because the end result is nothing of the sort.

Yes, Hugh - undoubtedly there are two books and a bloody video in existence entitled "The Great Hunger" (I still can't see them, I asked you for a link, is that not forthcoming?) that have nothing to do with the Irish event, but there are thousands of others that exclusively are. Christ, I'm sure a quick look will find you a book called "Irish potato famine" that has absolutely nothing to do the event either, so what? It's called creative license, Hugh. There's no copyright or trademark on the phrase. If someone want's to use it in another circumstance, there's nothing to stop them. Two books and a bloody video?? That's all you can find??? I get 850 results on Google books alone and all you can say is that, "There this book on this, and another book on that ..." --sony-youth^pléigh 12:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Rubbish like this"? I'm expressing serious concern about the article quality, expressing serious concern about the article's name and expressing serious surprise about the way that the name has been changed in complete contradiction to what the proposer himself thinks is the most common name. How does all that come to be "Rubbish like this"? As for the 880 hits on "the great hunger", about 440 of those hits (on google books) are from one of the other books alone. [1]
As for working on article quality, it seems that the recent focus has been on quieting political fights and not on focusing on referenced content. Hughsheehy (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sincerest apologies - I had actually just popped back to remove the entire post because I didn't like my own tone. You don't deserve to be treated like that, Hugh, and I genuinely extend by most sincerest apologies.

"... it seems that the recent focus has been on quieting political fights and not on focusing on referenced content." Yes. However, The Great Hunger itself is referenced. As popular as the Bojer novel appears to be, it was written in Norwegian in 1916. If we have to go back almost a century and switch languages to find a opposing, and fictional, The Great Hunger (if it indeed the title refers to an event - what is the book about? is there an event in it called The Great Hunger? is it fictional or real? or is that just the title of the book? is love or rage or some other human emotion the "hunger" that Bojer refers to?) then we can be pretty safe in assuming that, in the English language at least, The Great Hunger unambiguously refers to the Irish event - and we have references from reputable secondary sources and a dictionary definition should anyone disagree with us.

Maybe, we could start a new page, The Great Hunger (novel), if we have any information on the 1916 book worth mentioning. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

<reduce indent> A lot of names are referenced, including "The Irish Holocaust" and "The Famine". That doesn't make either of them the most common name or the best to use for the article title. Meantime "The Great Hunger" is the name of the Bojer novel in English and the Google books references to that novel actually outnumber the English language Google books references to anything famine-related so lets not try to pretend we're talking about some bizzare and minor book written by some flaky Norwegian. In addition there is also a "The Great Hunger" that refers to a Greenland famine in the 1880s. "The Great Hunger" is the name of that book "in English" too, since it was published first in French. Then we have the movie about a vastly talented and immensely drunk Shane MacGowan. So, we are back where we started....we have an ambiguous name for the article and also a name that is not the most common name for the event - a double whammy of reasons to revert to the long-standing, unambiguous and commonly used "Irish Potato Famine".
We need to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a forum to argue out or to agree historical compromises about the topic. We are making an encyclopedia and not writing legislation, so there is no need to engage in the kind of horse-trading that so demeans the normal political process. If you think that the event should be called something other than the Irish potato famine then there needs to be a good and verifiable reason to say so, not just personal preference or a hope that other editors will "play nice" on the rest of the content. Hughsheehy (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW - while we're talking about ambiguity, even a quick search about the Ukraine famine in the 1930s shows that it is reasonably often called "the Great Hunger" when written about in English. The WP article on that famine uses the Ukrainian term but there are plenty of references to the Great Hunger if you care to look. Then there are references to a "Great Hunger" before/during the Black Plagues in the 14th century, descriptions of the Mao famines in China as "The Great Hunger", another famine in China in the 11th century that was called "The Great Hunger", etc...etc.
Again, this article needs to have the word "Irish" or "Ireland" in the title. Hughsheehy (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The great hunger is not a good name...It really should use the common name of the Irish potatoe famine (which is shortened to just the famine in Ireland due to it being local).

What I find worst though is the horrible practically never used Irish holocaust being up there in the introduction as if it was a accepted name on a par with the others.--Him and a dog 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The most common name for the starvation in Ireland of the 1840s, "the Famine" is most certainly not a shortened version of anything. It is THE name for the event; sometimes disambiguated as the Great Famine. Type simply "the famine" into Google; the first six hits specifically refer to the Irish famine of the 1840s; out of the thousands of famines in recorded history. If we want to change the name from "The Great Hunger" then simply "the Famine"; with disambig for other famines. Or if that is too Irish-centric for some them the Great Irish Famine has the quadruple-whammy of being (a) the second most common name in Ireland after "famine"; (b) It is not both unused in Ireland and meaningless like "Irish potatoe famine"; (c) is is unambiguous; (d) It is the most common name used by people searching for an article on the famine. And don't bore me with talk about using the "most common name" - I fought long and hard that Ireland should be the name of Ireland on that basis but was overruled because the most common name wasn't the only determinant. Other factors had to be taken into account. (Sarah777 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

Although I wasn't involved in the "Ireland" debate, I believe the key issue there was ambiguity/confusion and unfortunately that is an issue with "Ireland". As Metallica said, "Sad but True". Now, this isn't the "Ireland" article, but the issue of unambiguity is key. The name for this article should be an unambiguous name. "The Famine" fails that test, as does "The Great Hunger". As for a disambig page for "other" famines, there is already a page called "List of famines". There are depressingly many, and some of them are depressingly recent.
However, I must again ask why "Irish potato famine" is supposedly a meaningless term? Sarah777 has described it as meaningless and as execrable, but I'm entirely unclear why the most common name for the event should be so described. Hughsheehy (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Famine" certainly is a shortened version of something. Its the way naming local historic events generally works. For instance the American Civil War is just called the civil war in the US. I'm Irish myself but calling it the famine is really too Irish-centric, there have been many other famines in many other nations of the course of history. --Him and a dog 10:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason that I proposed to have the article at this title was to resolve a dispute concerning the inclusion of the term "Irish holocaust" in the lead. That was the "package deal" described above. Since that term has been removed, the "package" no longer exists, and I no longer support the article being at this title. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In Ireland the name used is An Gorta Mór, translated "The Great Hunger." This can be referenced to most books on the subject. This would defiantly satisfy the criteria on Irish names in wiki policy, that is, it should be the English version. If you look at the translation, it is less POV than any of them. As to the Great Irish Famine (1740-1741), that in Ireland is called the "Forgotten Famine." Like I said, the utility of the re-directs, should be employed. --Domer48 (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that "The Great Hunger" isn't the most common name and even if it was, it isn't an unambiguous name. Hughsheehy (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see how the potato famine or the great famine or any of that sort of thing is POV. Which POV is it suppose to be representing exactly?--Him and a dog 16:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that question. I don't see how calling something a "famine" belittles it in any way. If anything, calling it a "a great hunger" makes it sound less dramatic than a famine....imho...but only mho. _{(reedited, since mho isn't particularly important)} Hughsheehy (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue of POV is no one of my own, but raised by Christine Kinealy in her “This Great Calamity.” It concerns the use of the word “famine,” in situations were large amounts of food were still being produced and exported while people starved. She points out that although potatoes were the main subsistence crop in Ireland, they only accounted for 20% of agricultural output. --Domer48 (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Issues around what to call the event, and how choices over what to call it reflect the struggle over interpretation of the event, are well documented in the literature. Christine Kinealy's description of this on the first page of "A Death-Dealing Famine" was the source my reasoning that "The Great Hunger" was the most NPOV of titles, under which the phrased ranging from the "Great (Potato) Famine" to the "Irish Holocaust" could be included neutrally. This can be read on Google books, the relevant passage is below:

"The relative absence of academic research arose partly from ideological struggles concerning the nature and purpose of Irish historical research during the period from 1845 to the present. Even the designation of the Famine has been an area of debate. In popular understanding 'The Great Famine' has become the most common sobriquet for the years of devastation and destruction in Ireland. Yet, 'The Great Hunger', 'The Great Calamity', 'The Irish Holocaust' and the Irish phrases 'An Gorta Mór', 'An Droch-Shaghal' and 'Bliain an CGhorta' are all ways of describing the same event, and indicate differences of interpretation and emphasis. Canon RoRourke, in his early account of the Famine published in 1874, noted that during the course of the Famine, relief comittees and government officials avoided using the term 'famine', substituting instead 'distress', 'destitution', 'dearth of provisions', 'severe destitution', 'calamity', 'extreme misery', and so on. The Irish phrase 'An Gorta Mór', meaning 'The Great Hunger', is regarded by some as being an accurate description of years of hunger, which were not merely caused by food shortages. For the same reason, the use of the term 'famine' is disliked by a number of nationalist commentators on the grounds that between 1845 and 1852, large volumes of food were exported from Ireland as thousands died of starvation. For others, the word 'holocaust' is too emotive and ascribes too much culpability to the British government. The word is also closely associated with the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis in the twentieth century, although it was used by a number of nineteenth-century commentators when describing the Famine - Michael Davitt, for example, refers to it as 'the holocaust of humanity'."

--sony-youth^pléigh 18:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehm...I don't get the point of the above post by Sony. It seems Christine Kinealy uses the word "famine" a lot, and merely comments that other terms have sometimes been used. That's hardly news. Hughsheehy (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Josquius' question was: "I really don't see how the potato famine or the great famine [meaning the name given to the event] or any of that sort of thing is POV. Which POV is it suppose to be representing exactly?" You seconded that question.

The passage from Kinealy shows that the view within the published literature on the subject is that the name given to the event reflects particular points of view (POV) on the subject. It also explains which POV some names are supposed to represent.

You asked a question. I answered it. That';s all that's to it. Can you not follow your own questions? --sony-youth^pléigh 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

<reduce indent>So, let me see if I have this right.
Govt officials at the time avoided "famine" so that they didn't give the appearance that there was actually a famine and that people were starving to death.
Meantime nationalist commentators disliked/dislike the word "famine" because they felt that calling it a famine didn't recognise the fact that the famine occurred in a country that was still exporting tonnes of food. (actually, since Ireland wasn't really legally a country at the time Sarah777's often expressed point that the famine occurred in the UK and only persisted because food was forcibly removed from an unfavoured bunch of people in an unfavoured part of the UK to feed a favoured bunch of people in a favoured part of the UK is rather relevant).
Then although the word "holocaust" was at least occasionally used at the time it has (particularly since WWII) many emotional connotations that make it a highly charged and contentious word to use, probably since "Holocaust" is now practically synonymous with a large-scale, planned-in-advance-over-drinks, well-organized and entirely deliberate genocide.
At the end we're still left with a simple fact. The famine is almost always called a famine. Even in the Kinealy ref, while discussing the POV around the various terms, the one neutral term she returns to is "famine" and she then mentions a bunch of other terms as descriptions that are also used with "The Great Hunger" simply listed as one of these.
Fine. This is all nice content for the article....but is the article to be called "The Great Irish Famine (1845-1849)" or "The Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849)"?
AFAIK, "Irish Potato Famine" is the most common term.
_{in a counterpoint to Sarah777's assertion that calling it a potato famine seems to indicate that the potatoes starved, I'd ask whether the famine was really something that we want to call "Great"? are we really reduced to such apparently silly debating points as these?} Hughsheehy (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What does this diatribe have to do with the question that you asked? Clearly your enthusiasm for arguing over this matter has caused you to miss this post and my lenghty defense of "Irish Potato Famine" here, which I directed you to before. What's more worrying through is the manner in which you disregard and demean published work on the subject in favour of your personal opinion and your opinion of divergent view on the topic. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Diatribe? What diatribe? Also, where am I demeaning published work, pushing a personal opinion or demeaning divergent views? Please show me because I don't see it. I'm arguing and questioning about FACTS and published references, nothing more or less, and asking to understand why/where there are problems with what everyone seems to say is the most common term because I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S PROBLEMATICAL and I'd like to understand any problem before proposing changes to the article...particularly because this article has been put under ArbCom supervision.
The reason I'm asking so many questions is because I'm trying to understand the other views, not to demean or ignore them. Right now I don't understand them and my read of the talk page archives didn't educate me.
My post above is my attempt to summarize my understanding of the POVs that are supposedly illustrated in the reference given and which are supposedly the reason the article's name was changed. As for your previous posts, I read them and I understand that you also think the name of the article should be "Irish Potato Famine", as do most people I can find in the talk page archives. Hughsheehy (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus wept, Hugh. You say that you read the discussion above but I can hardly believe that you have - see above the discussion above entitled Discussion about term "Irish Holocaust", and specifically here and here.

The article was moved NOT because people thought that "The Great Hunger" was the most common name, but because it was a name that we all could live with and would ALLOW US TO REWRITE THE LEAD so as to include the phrase "Irish Holocaust" in a manner in which we all could agree. REWRITING THE LEAD WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE MOVE. The agreed rewrite of the lead has since been changed (i.e. references to the "Irish Holocaust", which was the contentious point, have been removed from it). As things stand now, there is no good reason for the article to be located at this title anymore from my point of view. However, should the term "Irish Holocaust" be reinserted, the trouble will probably start all over again. If you can think of a better way of resolving the impasse that that term presents (specifically the matter is WP:WEIGHT) then I'm all ears.

Does this clear things up for you? My comments about diatribe above were because you comments made no sense in terms of the question you asked or in terms of why the article is now located at this title. If that was down to crossed wires then I take it back. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your points about reading your previous posts and the references I did read them. I think the rationale of negotiating a wrong name for the article on the basis that some fudge can then be agreed on some other words in the article is entirely unhelpful and bound to lead to longer term problems - any my aim is to address one thing at a time. Furthermore, although one of the posts you asked me to read says that Kinealy describes "The Great Hunger" as the most common name, the reference you've posted above doesn't say any such thing....so EXCUSE ME for being confused. I think we have now established beyond any reasonable doubt that "The Great Hunger" is the WRONG name for the article. How to address terms like "The Irish Holocaust" is a separate argument and I'm sure that we can find a suitable solution. God help me, but I edited the "Suggestions of Genocide" section yesterday and the change doesn't seem to have attracted too much opprobrium. Hughsheehy (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Who said that "The Great Hunger" was the most common name? Certainly not me. Could you quote me saying so or direct me to a diff? There is no such thing as a "right name" or a "wrong name", as the Kinealy quote demonstrates, only perspectives on what to call the event. Unless you can find a source to say that calling the event "The Great Hunger" is wrong, I'll take that to be your personal opinion, which you are entitle to but which is irrelevant here.

Like policy says, naming conventions are just that: "conventions, not rules carved in stone." In any case, the proposal to move was put under IAR in order to resolve a thorny issue that we found ourselves wrapped up in. Consensus at the time was to go ahead cautiously. You don't agree with it? Wonderful. Consensus does change. Put up a notice that you want to move the page back and just get on with it. Whinging on about it like it's the worst thing since Cromwell isn't to anyone's benefit. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity... is there some way we can tell how many people come directly to this page by typing "The Great Hunger" into the WP search engine, and how many are redirected to this page after typing "Irish Potato Famine"? If so, I would suggest that that would be a good way of determining what the most appropriate title of this article should be. Personally, I'd never heard of "The Great Hunger" title until I noted the redirect, but I'd be perfectly happy to bow to the majority in this case.... Geeman (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that neither of the two options you give would win such a test. "The Famine"; "The Irish Famine"; "The Great Famine" or "The Great Irish Famine" are all more likely candidates. For example, in Firefox if you type "the famin " the "suggestions" drop-down lists "the famine" first and then "the Irish Famine" second. Sarah777 (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, but my point is that we should use as the title of this page the most often searched for term in WP. Is there some way to find get stats from the WP search engine? Geeman (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The answer to that question lies beyond the horizon of my knowledge! Sarah777 (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of the term The Great Hunger, but I've heard of Irish Famine. Anyways, call the article whatever yas want. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a few suggestions about how the article can be improved. I've noticed several sections where the content doesn't match the heading. For instance, under 'Food exports to England' the last three paragraphs are not about exports at all. They cover private charities. Further down, under 'Charity', only the last paragraph discusses charity. Most of the 'charity' section is taken up with reactions and proposals from Irish contemporaries. Their tone implies opposition to some earlier British proposal which isn't mentioned, but they are not directly related to the heading 'charity'.

What I would suggest is moving the last three paragraphs of section 3.3 to section 5.3 on grounds of relevance and consistency. And moving all of the current 5.3 (except the last paragraph) to the 'reactions' section. Either that or put these excerpts in a new section, perhaps with the heading 'Irish proposals'.

How does that sound? Asmaybe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Article quality-arbitrary navigation break

I still don't see variants of the name famine as POV. That source only really proves that one POV sees such names as a POV. The Great Famine/Potato Famine being POV is in turn a POV. Most Irish and British certainly don't regard it as such, its just a fairly matter of fact name for the events.

I would also agree that the great hunger sounds less impressive then calling it a famine but yeah that is just POV.--Him and a dog 12:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"I still don't see variants of the name famine as POV." Your opinion, my opinion, and the dog's opinion don't matter, only published sources do.

"That source only really proves that one POV sees such names as POV." Which POV? The source mentions "academic debate", "relief comittees and government officials", "some", "nationalist commentators" and "others" all wrestling over different names for the event depending on POV. That's a lot of POVs.

"The Great Famine/Potato Famine being POV is in turn a POV." Everything is POV. There is nothing wrong with POV. In fact, please stop using the term POV; or at least read WP:NPOV first. We want POV in articles on Wikipedia. Articles on Wikipedia depend on having POV. They flurish on it. POV is the lifeblood of this project. In fact, it is actual policy that articles on Wikipedia contain POV. A neutral POV, attributing due weight to differing POVs, but POV none the less.

"Most Irish and British certainly don't regard it as such, its just a fairly matter of fact name for the events." The source itself regards "The Great Famine" as the most common name for the event. This page was located at Great Irish Famine before the move to facilitate the rewrite to the lead. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you for a source that says the sky is not green.--Him and a dog 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is handled in Wikipedia:Verifiability ("Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."). This is one of key policies of Wikipedia. I'm not about to search for references, but, making assumptions about what sources exist, here's how it works:

• "The sky is not green." - There is no source for this, so this statement CANNOT be included.
• "The sky is green." - There is no source to support this statement, so this statement CANNOT be included.
• "The sky is blue." - There is a source to support this statement, so this statement CAN be included.

Now for another core policy, Wikipedia:No original research. Suppose you find a source to back up the statement that "Blue is not green." You could very easily deduce:

• "The sky is blue. Blue is not green. Therefore the sky is not green."

This deduction on your part, as true as it is, is not sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia because it is original research based on a synthesis of published works. ("'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.")

Finally, the last of Wikipedia's core policies is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. While you will be able to find sources supporting the statement that the sky is blue, you will also find sources supporting statements that:

• "The sky is colourless."

This statement, which is verifiable, needs to be combined with another statement is verifiable ("The sky is blue") in a neutral manner that accords each due weight (along with other such as "The sky is blue during the day." etc.) even though they are in conflict with each other (i.e the sky cannot be both blue and colourless at the same time). This is the hardest part of writing an article on Wikipedia, and why you will find people shouting "POV! POV! POV!" so often. I think that the current version of the Sky article does a good job of this:

• "During daylight the sky of Earth has the appearance of a deep blue surface, as the result of the air's scattering of sunlight.")

You may think that it does not present a neutral point of view. Together we will have to iterate through edits of the article, or discuss it on the talk page, until we find a version that we can agree on. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say leave the article as The Great Hunger. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As an actual citizen of the Republic of Ireland and having studied a lot more Irish history than most people who seem to have posted here, I might be qualified to inform you that in Ireland this tragedy is referred to as The Famine. Not "Potato Famine" nor "Great Hunger" or any of the ridiculous names put forward by experts who have never set foot on Irish soil let alone learnt about the event in the classroom as a Irish child. The "Irish Potato Famine" is also likely to cause offence, for reasons that have been discussed above. The famines in Somalia etc. were not referred to by their crop failings so why is the Irish Famine labelled in such a way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.32.154 (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because we are saddled with a language, English, which is heavily embedded with pro-English POV. And a lot of non-Irish editors are unable to accept this simple fact. Sarah777 (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Datapoints for the name

FWIW:

• Irish primary school curriculum uses "the Great Famine"
• Junior Cert history guidelines uses "the Famine"
• Leaving Cert history syllabus uses "the Great Famine" and "the Famine"

jnestorius^(talk) 14:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm responsible for the name change to it's current state. The idea didn't work out (see from here down) and I would support a change back or to another. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My preference would be for Great Famine (Ireland). jnestorius^(talk) 15:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Irish Famine,or Great Famine (Ireland), whatever gets the traffic going. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Either one. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) should apply here. --John (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion: 'The Great Famine' or 'The Famine', known in Britain as 'The Irish Potato Famine', refers to (&c., &c.)... ? --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it know in Britain as the "potato famine" as a form of denial? Doesn't seem so bad if only the potatoes starved! Sarah777 (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Photograph

The photograph captioned "A starving family in Carraroe" is certainly not from the 1845-50 famine this article discusses. The Illustrated London News printed many engravings related to that famine, based on sketches by their correspondents, but given the state of photography technology at the time, I can't believe this photo is from that time period. More likely it's from around 1890. The citation is to the National Library of Ireland, but I haven't found it in their online collection. Sttaylor (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This should help you out here. --Domer48 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You linked to an Illustrated London News article from 1849. It has six illustrations but no photograph. Asmaybe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Starvation in England

Cannot see any mention that it was common for people in England to die of starvation at the time, although it was I believe called dropsy at the time, due to the swelling that occurs during the last stages of starvation. 80.0.121.148 (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should there be? Article is about the Great Irish Famine. Maybe there needs to be an article about the Great English famine. If it was even a fraction as devestating it is rather astonishing if there isn't already one. Sarah777 (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A very POV article

the author has exploited every opertunity to make the British Governmnet look bad, and has left out some of the efforts of the conservative British govermnet, prior to the Liberal government (which thought the best option was to let market forces deal with the problem) such as the importing of grain from America. It also fails to metion that food was being exported to England By Irish farmers (aswell as Anglo-Irish landowners). This is a poor article and another example of the anti-british sentiment that seems to exist in all articles relating to the Irish question. . 217.42.148.217 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. And like is the Holocaust article poor 'cos it doesn't reflect well on Hitler (to get my Godwinism in first)? Sarah777 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you just jettisoned any credibility you had by Godwining this. Grow up. 69.253.222.184 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If the Godwin fits....wear it. In this case it fits like a glove. Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a spectacularly bad example of moral equivalence. Can you really think that a famine caused by (get this!) nature is the equivalent of genocide? It's fair to call that deranged. It cheapens genocide and the Holocaust and betrays and ignorance of proportion and history. But then, that's what Godwin is all about. Got that? 69.253.222.184 (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a spectacularly good example of willful ignorance. The Ukranian genocide perpetrated by the Soviet Union also involved the manipulation of a famine. 68.183.223.200 (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A famine in a country (get this) with an abundance of food, shipped out under armed guard? It's fair to call that deranged, and betrays and ignorance of proportion and history.--Domer48 (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Been wondering. Can we get a reference for this "shipped out under armed guard"? I've seen reference that food coming in to Ireland was 4 times more than food going out and that the food stores were certainly under guard in the ports, but no reference to food being "seized under armed guard" from anywhere. Saying "shipped out under armed guard" implies a forced negative net flow of food, which I have not seen in any reference. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Bastun for coming up with this reference ("Curriculum" section, below):

• According to John Mitchel, quoted by Woodham-Smith, "Ireland was actually producing sufficient food, wool and flax, to feed and clothe not nine but eighteen millions of people," yet a ship sailing into an Irish port during the famine years with a cargo of grain was "sure to meet six ships sailing out with a similar cargo."
• Dr. Kinealy's most recent work is documented in the spring, 1998 issue of "History Ireland". She states that almost 4,000 vessels carried food from Ireland to the ports of Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool and London during 1847, when 400,000 Irish men, women and children died of starvation and related diseases. The food was shipped under guard from the most famine-stricken parts of Ireland: Ballina, Ballyshannon, Bantry, Dingle, Killala, Kilrush, Limerick, Sligo, Tralee and Westport.

Scolaire (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, even if the page is a tad partisan in its approach. I've got refs that, while noting the huge exports, also says that imports were even higher. Must dig them up. Meantime I'll try to find the original Kinealy that New Jersey is quoting. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Irish Potato Famine

I suggest we change the title of this article to "Irish Potato Famine" as that is how it is almost universally known. "The Great Hunger" is just an emotive translation from the Irish Gaelic term for it - and a biased one at that. TharkunColl (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Do I detect some anger there Tharkun? I suggest one can't be biased against genocide. Do you think so? Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the emotive translation. "The Great Famine" would have been just as acceptable as a translation from Gaelic, rather than Hunger. But in any case it wasn't genocide, because that implies intent. TharkunColl (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call it "The Great Hunger" - I thought "The Great Famine" was a much more common name (that is what it is near universally called in Ireland - though I know that doesn't count in your view). It was, of course, genocide as it meets the modern UN definition. Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It does seem peculiar that the article refers to the event as "the potato famine" in several of the blurbs beneath the graphics, mentions the potato crop as both a cause and a misnomer throughout, and simply has the word "potato" in it over three dozen times, but actually using the word in the title of the article itself seems to bring up the immediate response about genocide.... I suspect the suggestion that it should be named something OTHER than The Irish Potato Famine is as NPOV as any other name, but at least that title seems to reflect the facts as presented in the article in its current form--which some folks would argue is already NPOV despite using the supposedly biased term throughout. If the issue is with how the period is to be characterized, I don't think using the word "potato" is really much of an issue.

It similarly seems telling that the link to the article about the results of the famine Irish potato famine (legacy) can be named according to the common usage without any argument. Surely we should change the names so they have parity with one another. That article also deals with the same issues described here, and in additional detail when it comes to a few particulars, so if "Irish Potato Famine" is such a problem for the naming of this article it seems like it would have been brought up on that article's talk page sooner.

Incidentally, when I go to the links above that do Google searches on the respective names I get 421,000 hits for "potato famine" not 32,100. Google also yields 148,000 hits for "great famine" not 58,000. So unless those searches are somehow flawed that would seem to put the "potato famine" well ahead of the others in terms of common usage. The current name of the article "great hunger" scores the lowest of all four names with 34,200. I don't know how the numbers posted above were derived but things seem to have changed quite a lot since last January.... If common usage is to be the standard then "Irish Potato Famine" is the clear winner. Geeman (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No. "The Great Famine" is the best name, I've corrected the errors you've highlighted. Sarah777 (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected some of your "corrections". Much as you may object to the word "potato", if an external site referenced here uses it in its article or page title, then we do. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that they are not "corrections" to begin with. The Google searches on this page pretty clearly indicate that most people do, in fact, refer to this event as a "potato famine" rather than a "great famine or hunger" or other term. The difference is dramatic. 3x as many results (420,000+) from Google for "Potato Famine" than "Great Famine" (134,000). That's definitive. If the WP policy is to use "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" then Potato Famine is clearly that name as it is used more than twice as often as all three other naming suggestions combined. Geeman (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure Google is a reliable approach. And "most common name" isn't a binding Wiki policy - the country of Ireland is called the "Republic of Ireland" on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Any other evidence for commonality would be helpful, so if there's anything else we can use for this purpose then I'd be happy to entertain it. Incidentally, the "Republic of Ireland" article is to describe the modern state. There is also an "Ireland" article to describe the land itself. So I don't think that works particularly well as an example for how things should be handled here.... Geeman (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Could I just ask editors to review previous discussions here and here, and the many archives. It will stop all the repetition. --Domer48 (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good shout Domer. FWIW I think "The Great Hunger" is a ridiculous name. Call it what the world calls it. This is an international project. --John (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, anything but the great hunger, besides its utterly undescriptive, mentioning potatoes is much more descriptive as that is what makes people think of 19th Century Ireland. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Great Irish Famine (1844 - 1849), anyone? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish potato famine- this article itself admits that's what it's most commonly called, and that's what we name articles after on Wikipedia. special, random, Merkinsmum 00:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Great Irish Famine (1844 - 1849)" is better than the current title, but "Potato Famine" does appear to be the more common term. I don't think we should make the majority of people looking for this article redirect to something they probably wouldn't recognize. Geeman (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Irish (Gaeilge) name is AN GORTA MOR, and that translates into English as The Great Famine. In Ireland, it has always been called "The Great Famine". 78.19.9.60 (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If this were the Gaeilge version of wikipedia then that'd be a pretty good reason to name the article An Gorta Mor or something based upon that term... but since this is the world-wide English text we should use the most common and descriptive term in that language.

Just to illustrate the issue regarding the specificity of the title and why it should be called something other than, say, The Great Hunger: that title can refer to a general translation from the Irish, but it also refers to things like novels on technology by Johan Bojer or Eskimo life and culture by Leonard Peterson, and intimates things ranging from cultural events across the planet to bad weight-loss programs. The Great Famine (without a year or location attributed to it) subsumes things like The Great Famine (1315-1322), Holodomor (also called the Great Famine of 1932-1933) and I would guess several other similar events around the world. Conversely, "Potato Famine" refers to one and only one event. Geeman (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish potato famine --John (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish potato famine is a neologism. -78.19.171.224 (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that a problem? Geeman (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider this to be appropriate and the article its self illustrates the point quite well here, here and here. The people did not die because of a lack of potatos, but a lack of food. That the country was exporting food during this period (be it under armed guard), put a question mark over the term "famine." Could editors please read the above mentioned discussions, so we do not have to keep repeating the says arguements. Like I keep saying, the re-directs will bring you to this article regardless of what term you use, because regardless of what term is used, you get to the article you want. --Domer48 (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the kind of issue that belongs in a discussion as part of the article, but shouldn't determine the name of the article itself. The Holy Roman Empire was not holy, Roman or really an empire, but that is the term we use to refer to that conglomeration. We could use a term that people and leaders of the HRE used themselves like "Regnum Francorum Orientalium" or "Regnum Francorum" which translate to "Kingdom of the East Franks" or "Kingdom of the Franks" but they are not the common usage terms in English, and would lead to confusion with Charles the Great, his kingdom and any number of other historical periods and cultures. The more sensible use of redirects is from less frequently used titles to the more common one. In the long run, I suspect the WP redirects for terms like "The Great Hunger" and "The Great Famine" will lead to a list of book titles, historical periods and various cultural issues rather than to just this article on one period of Irish history. Those are relatively general terms and could/should have several articles dedicated to them. In the short term we should prepare for that eventuality AND use the most common English term. Geeman (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please hurry up and change the name of the article. The great hunger is a stupid name that I have never heard. The article states - "The Great Famine in Ireland itself and The Irish Potato Famine internationally" so who the hell apart from wikipedia is using the great hunger. The name of the article should be the Irish Potato Famine (relevant dates), I do not understand why this has not been implemented apart from a few POV contributors moaning that this downplays wider issues. Such discussion is a matter for the article NOT THE TITLE. Also it doesn't matter what it's called in Gaelic, this is the English wiki. CHANGE PLEASE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.63.92 (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction / repetition

"... the Choctaw Indians themselves victims of the genocidal Trail of Tears famously sent $170 (although many articles say the original amount was $710 after a misprint in Angi Debo's "The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Nation") "" -- and a couple of paragraphs later "a group of American Indian Choctaws collected $710 (although many articles say the original amount was $170 after a misprint in Angi Debo's "The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Nation")" Jooler (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hidden unreferenced text

There was a lot of hidden and unreferenced text, which did not appear in the article. I have removed it.--Domer48 (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dormer - just seeing this comment now, after I'd reverted. Some of that text is unreferenced, and some has fact tags since October as you said - but a lot is also referenced. And nobody could see the text to see it required citations as someone had hidden it... I'd prefer if we could unhide the text and see what's valid and should remain after referencing, and what isn't and should go? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ye what ever you think yourself, I hid the text months ago, as it was unreferenced, and it was considered a good call at the time. Rather than just removing it I left it there to be referenced by those involved in the discussions. If you check the history on the talk page, it should have been noted at the time? --Domer48 (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus on destination of article. JPG-GR (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger → ? — Most opinions I've read agree that current name is unsuitable (I had literally never heard current title till now). At the very least a proper survey is needed. For the sake of easy counting (and making actual progres) an official move request has been made. The options I propose are (add as necessary):

1. The Great Famine
2. The Irish Potato Famine
3. The Great Hunger (current title) —^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 02:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Great Famine
5. Irish Potato Famine
6. Great Hunger
7. Great Irish Famine
8. Great Famine (Ireland) jnestorius^(talk) 22:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
9. Great Irish Famine (1845 - 1852) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 06:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Option 2. Name with which I'm most familiar. Have commonly heard option 1, but I feel it is too vague a title. As said above, had never heard current title until this point. The translation of the Irish name is ambiguous, but irrelevant - the title does not need to be either of the possible translations unless it is the most common English name (per WP:NC). - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 02:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that there were several famines in Irish history caused by potato blight, not just one and that logically it was the people who starved not the potatoes. The potatoes were afficted with blight which caused starvation. I think we should keep the present title as indicating that this was the Great Hunger as opposed to the lesser known famines of Irish history. Colin4C (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so but to me that immediately fails the policy of "use most common name" (WP:NC) since I had never heard that before. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 12:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Cecil Woodham-Smith wrote an acclaimed book on the famine entitled The Great Hunger, 1845-49 (Penguin). The one I have never heard of is the 'Irish potato famine', which is not surprising as it is illogical. Colin4C (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Cecil Woodham-Smith's is the most popular book ever written on the subject, and still out sells all of the others combined. It is also the most cited of all the books written. --Domer48 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Then save the title for an article on the book, which we should have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Order of preference, favorite first: #8, #7, #5. The rest are unacceptable. (Note: I've added options #4-#8 as part of this edit.)
  • Options #1, #2, #3 are all excluded under WP:THE. I've aded #4, #5, and #6 as "the"-less alternatives, though personally I don't like any of them.
  • Option #4 is currently a DAB, and #1 should redirect to the same DAB rather than to this page.
  • Re options #2 and #5, "Potato Famine" may be a common collocation abroad I've never heard it used in Ireland. Commenters stating it is "illogical" are, I suspect, masking a visceral WP:UGH with a veneer of half-baked logic; but in their defence, if the bulk of the population of the country where the event took place go "ugh!" at the proposed title, maybe it's time to look for another title.
  • Re options #3 and #6: "The Great Hunger" is just a poetic nickname, suitable for use by historians (or poets like Patrick Kavanagh) for their magisterial surveys but not suitable as a generic neutral term. There must be plenty of books about World War I called The War to End All Wars, or about Elizabeth I of England called The Virgin Queen, but each is a bad name for the Wikipedia article. jnestorius^(talk) 22:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• "The Great Hunger" is just a poetic nickname? While Irish can be considered poetic, it is not in this case. It is a WP:NPOV title, which is both WP:V and WP:RS. The use of the term "famine" in the title is POV, please review passed discussions. --Domer48 (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option #5. Appears to be the most common name used globally (from OR in 4 continents). Rockpocket 07:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option #5, per similar OR - on 5 continents. Ha. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to repeat that 'potato famine' is illogical. It was the people who starved not the potatoes! Maybe this illogic has a bearing on the term not being used very much? Also I don't see what is 'poetic' about 'The Great Hunger' in the context of the famine. In that context it is a bald statement of fact. Therefore I think we should retain the present title. Colin4C (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I approve of the title "potato famine", but the charge of illogic is spurious. I challenge you to cite any actual example of a phrase "<noun> famine" where <noun> is the thing that starved rather than the thing that was scarce. OTOH, one can easily google for "grain famine", "wheat famine", etc. jnestorius^(talk) 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bangladesh famine of 1974, Dutch famine of 1944, Great Chinese Famine, Bengal famine of 1943, Bengal famine of 1770, Great Irish Famine (1740-1741), 1998 Sudan famine, North Korean famine, Russian famine of 1921, Irish Famine (1879), Vietnamese Famine of 1945, Soviet famine of 1932-1933, Finnish famine of 1866-1868, Deccan Famine of 1630-32, Tenpo famine ... et cetera. Only Highland Potato Famine and European Potato Famine follow the "common" form so far as I can see. By this point I am suffering from jamais vu where the word "famine" is concerned. Time to stop. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I was commenting on "<noun> famine", not "<adjective> famine". I've already stated I prefer "Irish famine" to "[Irish] potato famine". My point was that the argument "potato famine is illogical because the potatoes didn't starve" is only valid if people actually say things like "peasant famine" or "prisoner famine" or whatever, referring to the group that starved. jnestorius^(talk) 09:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Irish famine of 1845-1852 is the way to go then. Rockpocket 02:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Picking an end-date of 1852 is also controversial. jnestorius^(talk) 09:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything that isn't controversial about this? Rockpocket 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly when it comes to naming things, logic often isn't top of the list. IPF is most informative in that it imparts who (Irish), how (potato) and what (famine), which is presumably why it is used to extensively. Rockpocket 23:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The other Irish famines were also potato famines. jnestorius^(talk) 09:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats not really the point, is it? Its more informative than the other option. Rockpocket 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Option #5 is probably the least worst option. Names such as "Great Hunger" or "Great Famine" are simply too vague even within the context of Ireland and are hopelessly ambiguous to the majority of users who reside outside of Ireland. As far as the comment that "'potato famine' is illogical" goes: 1). Language is often not logical. 2). There is no requirement that Wikipedia be logical especially if at the expense of clarity or precision. — AjaxSmack 02:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The Great Hunger is what the Irish call it. It is only ambiguous to those who know nothing about history. Would you change 'The Holocaust' to 'The Killing of Jews in Europe by the Nazis (1941-45)' in order to be more precise and to aid those who have never heard of it? Colin4C (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "The Great Hunger" is not what most Irish people call it. They usually call it "The Famine" or "The Great Famine". This is reflected in official school syllabi (primary, Junior Cert, Leaving Cert), in Oireachtas debates, and in the government's 150th anniversary Famine Commemoration Committee. jnestorius^(talk) 12:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • None of these is suffciently unambiguous to be a title. Even within the context of Ireland, "The Great Famine" is ambiguous as the Great Irish Famine (1740-1741) makes clear. "The Great Hunger" is inappropriate whether one knows "nothing about history" or not. Among others, the famine that killed ca. 30 million people in China during the Great Leap Forward in the early 1960s is also known as "The Great Hunger." "The Holocaust" is not an appropriate analogy because that term is only commonly applied to one event. A better analogy would be "The War" which has a meaning that varies both temporally and spatially. (And there are not articles for The War (1861-1865) or The War (1939-1945) either.) — AjaxSmack 19:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • There is only one event called the "Great Famine" in Ireland. The other article should be moved to something like Irish famine of 1740–41 because WP:COMMONNAME relates the the currently-common name, not the originally-common name. jnestorius^(talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I've changed my mind on this...I am thinking now that 'Great Irish Famine' would be best as it is more specific and is the name of some publications on the subject. I agree with Jnestorius that the other article should be renamed. Colin4C (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'd call it either Irish Potato Famine or The Irish Potato Famine. I had no idea what The Great Hunger referred to. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm. Then this article is tailor-made for you. Sarah777 (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • How do you figure that? The current name of the article is confusing. It is known internationally as the Irish Potato Famine. Wikipedia is international and has a policy of using the most common name for a subject in article titles. Hence, options #2 and #5 would seem to be the obvious best name for the article. I had ancestors who came over after said potato famine and that's what it's always been referred to as in my family. I know the subject matter quite well, but the Great Hunger is a completely unfamiliar title. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Any option except #2 and #5 which are totally unacceptable and will lead to massive edit-warring, drama and controversy. They are British POV usage to downplay the Genocide and also imply that the potatoes starved; which isn't true. Sarah777 (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option 8 if a change was to be made; though the status quo is the best option. Sarah777 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • • BTW, I note the relentless crusade to impose British POV on all Ireland-related articles continues unabated. We have got to call a halt somewhere. Sarah777 (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Option #2 or Option #5. They're basically the same and either will do. Reviewing talk, there are many reasons that "The Great Hunger" is not suitable. It's not unambiguous; it's not the common name; apparently it's not even the most common subject of the term "The Great Hunger" if you look on google books. Even if they're the common names in Ireland, "The Great Famine" has many of the same problems, as has "The Famine"; primarily lack of exclusivity. There have been lots of Great Famines. "The Great Irish Famine" with dates might be acceptable, but I can't say it's good. The "Irish Potato Famine" meets the need best. It's common, unambiguous, internationally recognizable. I find the apparent threat of edit-warring above to be rather scary. I hope/assume Sarah777 doesn't mean that she'll edit war! Also, I'm mystified about this idea "the potatoes didn't starve". WTF is that supposed to mean?? Besides, surely any presentation of British responsibility for the starvation/death of a couple of million people in one part of the UK while another part of the UK ate food removed by force from the starving part can surely be made more productively in an article that lots of people might find and recognize. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Option #5 per our naming conventions. --John (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Option #5 per WP:COMMONNAME. Alternatively Option #9, in keeping with Great Irish Famine (1740-1741). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 06:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The view within the published literature on the subject is that the name given to the event reflects particular points of view (POV) on the subject. It also explains which POV some names represent. A number of editors have said based on their WP:OR which I assume is Google searches, they suggest #5. Based only on published sources, would they reach the same conclusion? Use of the term "Famine" is POV, not based on my opinion but on a published source. Could editors provide a source which says "Famine" in the title is not POV, and base their opinions on published sources. --Domer48 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer48, and which source is this? If you mean the Kinealy book then your argument is a REAL stretch. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And following on, if "Famine" is so horribly POV then why does the Irish government use the term in all the educational syllabuses, history books, etc? Seems that they see no problem with the term. Also, "Famine" has been used as the term to describe many other man made famines. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Cecil Woodham-Smith contended that "famine" was a POV term and favoured "hunger" as a better label. However, the bulk of subsequent "published literature" has not supported this view, to the extent of continuing to refer to the event as a "famine". The term "famine" does not have the widespread dislike in Ireland that, say, "British Isles" does; the majority of Irish people refer to the event as a "famine" without any implying political stance. There are exceptions, such as Sinead O'Connor, whose rap "Famine" begins:

OK, I want to talk about Ireland

Specifically I want to talk about the "famine"

About the fact that there never really was one

There was no "famine"...

These lyrics are not aimed at educating foreigners about the Irish viewpoint; they're aimed at educating the uninformed Irish majority about the informed viewpoint. The fact that O'Connor feels the need to do this shows how the Woodham-Smith interpretation remains a minority one. For Wikipedia to adopt Woodham-Smith's name in contrast to both the bulk of scholars and popular usage would therefore be POV. The issues can and should be discussed in the article, but not flagged in the title. jnestorius^(talk) 10:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of O'Connor's comments, I'd say that "The Great Hunger" is akin to calling the Civil War in the United States "The War Between The States" or "War for Southern Independence," both terms that Southerners are more apt to use than anyone else. O'Connor and, I would guess User:Sarah777, are representing a minority viewpoint. If you want people to actually be able to find this article or know what it is, you call it the Irish Potato Famine, which is what most people call it, academics and lay persons. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

One difference being, of course, that the South isn't a nation, so there's no possibility of such usage being preferred on "national varieties of English" grounds. (That said, its use here would probably be over-application.) Alai (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As is usual, all I see is comment and opinion. If this was an article, there would be more citation tags than diff's. For example "the bulk of subsequent "published literature" has not supported this view" or "Woodham-Smith interpretation remains a minority one," as just two most recent examples. Were are the sources? --Domer48 (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's one:

McLean, Stuart John (2004). The Event and Its Terrors: Ireland, Famine, Modernity. Stanford University Press. p. p.167, fn 21. ISBN 0804744408. Cecil Woodham-Smith's Great Hunger, originally published in 1962, a work that, although criticized by many professional historians for the quality of its scholarship, its populist style, and its unashamedly partisan stance, remains probably the best-selling book on Irish history {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

jnestorius^(talk) 13:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just my opinion that the Irish Government uses the term "famine". It's an easily verifiable fact. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be pretty heavy support for Option #5 and not a lot of recent action. Is the survey over? Wotapalaver (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Of the ten books specifically on the Famine in the 'Further Reading' section NONE has 'Potato Famine' as the title or part of the title. In fact the word 'potato' is not mentioned in ANY of them. And as me and Sarah have stated over and over again, above, 'potato famine' is illogical. It wasn't the potatoes who starved it was the people. Colin4C (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C, that is your view. Is the name "potato famine" described as illogical in any serious texts? Probably not. I certainly haven't seen it. Meantime if we use your argument I'm sure that calling the famine "Great" could be described as illogical too, since starving to death or dying of typhus doesn't seem so "Great" to me. Similarly we should surely rename all the civil wars on Wikipedia and call them uncivil wars. After all, people weren't being very civil during these wars. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

More seriously, many famines have been called "The xxx Rice Famine", or the "The yyy Corn Famine". It's not by any means unique to the Irish Potato Famine and I certainly haven't heard people saying 'but it wasn't the rice that starved'. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The term “The Potato Famine”…"annoys some: the argument being that the Irish died, not because they lacked potatoes, but because they lacked food." Ref: The Irish World Wide: History, Heritage, Identity, The Meaning of the Famine Vol 6, Edited by Patrick O’Sullivan, pg.3. --Domer48 (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's one. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Irish Potato Famine is the commonly used term, however, and that's what people are going to look for it under. I still throw my strong support behind Irish Potato Famine. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Cormac Ó Gráda, in his introduction to Ireland’s Great Famine, says “for an event with such deep and enduring ramifications, it seems fair to say that until the 1980’s the Great Famine remained under-researched.” Patrick O’Sullivan in his introduction to The Meaning of the Famine agrees, “We can, like Ó Gráda, think of reasons for this neglect of the Irish Famine by Irish historians.” Christine Kinealy in her introduction to This Great Calamity, says, “between 1921 and 1994 only two substantial accounts of the Famine were produced, the first reluctantly…The Irish Famine: studies in Irish history, edited by R.D. Edwards and T.D. Williams,” and six years later Cecil Woodham-Smith’s The Great Hunger was published. Kinealy say “the placatory nature of the volume [The Irish Famine], in relation to the role of the British government was clearly evident in the Introduction,” on Woodham-Smith, Kinealy says, “she was the first modern historian to carry out comprehensive research amongst government papers and workhouse records” which lead Woodham-Smith “to conclude that the British government and some of its administrators were culpable of abandoning the Irish poor.” O’Sullivan goes on to suggest reasons why the subject was neglected “Generally in these islands we are looking for reasons to love one another rather than reasons for hate. The Famine is a controversial subject: and formal academic careers, at lease in their initial stages, are not helped by controversy.” So as far as this subject is concerned, according to Kinealy and O’Sullivan the best selling published source “of all time” on this subject is, The Great Hunger. So would it be possible to reference "Irish Potato Famine" is the commonly used term, when the best selling book of all time on the subject is not the "Irish Potato Famine." Can we please used published sources, as opposed to comment and opinion? --Domer48 (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

YES WE HAVE NO POTATOES! I invite all the editors here to point out the occurence of the word 'potato' in the title of any of the books on the famine:

• Mary E. Daly, The Famine in Ireland

  R. Dudley Edwards and T. Desmond Williams (eds.), The Great Famine: Studies in Irish history 1845-52

  Peter Gray, The Irish Famine

  Cormac Ó Gráda, Black '47 and Beyond

  Christine Kinealy, This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845 - 1852[3]

  John Mitchel, The Last Conquest of Ireland (1861) (University College Dublin Press reprint, 2005 paperback)

  Cecil Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, 1845-49 (Penguin, 1991 edition)

  Marita Conlon-McKenna, Under the Hawthorn Tree

  Thomas Gallagher, Paddy's Lament, Ireland 1846-1847: Prelude to Hatred

  Canon John O'Rourke, The Great Irish Famine Veritas Publications 1989. First published in 1874.

  Liam O'Flaherty, Famine

  Colm Tóibín and Diarmaid Ferriter, The Irish Famine Colin4C (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Colin4C for pointing this out. I myself have 26 books on the subject (I will provide a list if editors wish), of which only one has potato in the title, that being James S. Donnelly, Jr, The Great Irish Potato Famine. The books I have would cover the broad spectrum of alternate views on the subject. In addition, I have a number of books from this period in history by contemporary authors who treat this subject extensively. All I would like to see is a discussion based on published works and not based on opinions or personal commentary. Regardless of personal preferences as to the title of the article, through the facility of Redirects the reader will arrive at this article.--Domer48 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I notice none of Domer48's quotes refer to the "Great Hunger" except as the book title. The title of a book is not as good a guide as the way the event is referred to in the text of the book. Titles are often more florid: nobody would argue for "This Great Calamity" as the article title.

• Article titles and aliases in various encyclopedias (augment as desired):

Britannica

Irish Potato Famine also called Great Potato Famine, Great Irish Famine , or Famine of 1845–49

Encarta

Irish Famine, the Great Hunger (Irish an gorta mor)

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

potato famine, Irish

encyclopedia.com From: A Dictionary of World History

Irish Famine

Encyclopaedia of Ireland

Great Famine

Oxford Companion to Irish History

Great Famine

jnestorius^(talk) 16:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• It seems likely from all the discussion and evidence to date that the popular name outside Ireland is "Irish [potato] famine" and the popular and scholarly name inside Ireland is "the [Great] famine". I don't know about the scholarly name outside Ireland. The question amounts to whether the local name deserves extra weight. There are far more English-speakers outside Ireland than inside, but Irish people talk about the famine far more than most of them. I don't know how to reconcile the various applicable Wikipedia policies. Are there any other articles we might look at as a model for this case?

jnestorius^(talk) 21:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

References to the term “Great Hunger” (and not the book)(augment as desired)

• Irish Hunger, Tom Hayden, pg.11
• A Death Dealing Famine: The Great Hunger in Ireland, Christine Kinealy, pg.1
• Heathcliff and the Great Hunger: Studies in Irish History, Terry Eagleton, Chapter 1
• History of Ireland, Malachy McCourt pg.192

Now we could add a number of authors, who both use and are familiar with the term, but I think this is sufficient. Now I will not respond to the comment and opinion, as I have outlined above, it will lead no were. Try to restrict yourself to referenced opinion and not your own, thanks.--Domer48 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And books that do call it the Irish potato famine are also numerous:

• The Irish Potato Famine - Carole Gallagher, March 2002
• The Great Irish Potato Famine - James Donnolly, Sept 2008 (yes, not yet released)
• The Irish Potato Famine - Nardo & McGovern. 1990 (a history for children)
• The Irish Potato Famine: Irish Immigrants Come to America (1845-1850), Jeremy Thornton, Aug 2004
• and more..
• The Woodham-Smith book, "The Great Hunger", has the following on its own back cover to explain what the book is about; "The Irish Potato Famine of the 1840's, perhaps the most appalling event of the Victorian era...", so don't tell me she doesn't use the term. The Woodham-Smith book has 160 pages with reference to "famine", and 41 with the word "hunger".

There are also lots of references to 'Irish potato famine' in other books. A search on google books for "potato famine" brings up more than 1000 returns, all of which (as far as I can see) talk about the Irish potato famine [2]. If I search for "The Great Hunger", I get hits about the Irish famine, plus a Chinese famine, plus a Ukrainian famine, plus a novel from Norway, plus a famine in Greenland, plus histories of WW2 battles for the Philippines, a Canadian play, plus "The Great Hunger: Poems for Meher Baba, Avatar of the Age", which means that "The Great Hunger" isn't a unique phrase to describe the Irish famine, so I limit the search to books with the words Ireland or Irish. Then there are ~750 hits, lots of which are cross references to the Woodham-Smith book or the "Heathcliff and the Great Hunger" book. If I eliminate those I'm left with <700. [3]. So, it's possible to line up more references to the Irish potato famine than to the (Irish) Great Hunger. Each one of the google books hits is a published source, so please don't talk about my opinion. Many of the references have text like "The Irish Potato Famine, known in Ireland as The Great Hunger..." Wotapalaver (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Although since the Irish school syllabus and books call it "the Famine", it's debatable what the famine is most commonly called in Ireland. "The Famine" seems most common. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one. From Cormac O'Grada's "Black 47 and beyond", listed above by Domer48 or Cormac4C among the reasons the article shouldn't be called the Irish Potato Famine. Here's a sentence from Chapter One, page 1, line 1 of the book. 'Whoever says "irish famine" says potato.' Elsewhere on the same page he says 'Understanding the potato famine means understanding the role of the potato before the famine.' I suppose I could go on. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How about 'The Irish Famine, 1845-1852', and change the 1740 page to 'The Irish Famine, 1740-1741'?

The second sentence in the current article answers the discussion here: 'It is known by various names, such as The Great Famine in Ireland itself and The Irish Potato Famine internationally'. Asmaybe (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Option 2 or 5: Both have wide usage and are more suitable than the current name. --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In the 1840’s the Catholic bishop of Derry, Dr. Edward Maginn, who criticised the inactivity of the Whig government of Lord John Russell, had the priests of the diocese compile a list, from November 1846 to April 1847, of deaths through starvation. On Mayday 1847, these lists, wrapped in a black covering, were formally placed among the diocesan records, labelled with an inscription “the Murders of the Irish Peasantry, perpetuated… under the name of economy”. Funny how he did not mention the Irish Potato as being responcible for the Murders? Probably because it would have sounded ridiculous. This discussion has continued below, please join it. --Domer48 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And what the Bishop of Derry called it may or may not be relevant to today. People, and coroner's juries, in various places blamed Lord Russell for the deaths. It's a separate point. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Option #2 or Option #5, followed by Option 7 and Option 9. I grew up with option 2/5, so I suppose for me, it's the common name. --Bardcom (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Snapshot. Looking at what people said, and counting (option 2 or option 5) as a preference against each, the survey shows:

Option 2 - 4 preferences

Option 5 - 8 preferences

Everything else is one or two preferences. --Bardcom (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You should read the policies outlined here, and read up on the discussion. --Domer48 (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Something that in my experience is often helpful in contentious Wikipedia pagename debates is to add a section to the relevant article discussing (encyclopedically and with references) the various names for the topic that have been used, by whom, and criticised, by whom. The discipline of having to conform to the MOS and WP guides may distil the rather lengthy roll of assertions on the Talk: page into a manageable concentration of pertinent facts. Currently there are just two uncited sentences in the introduction about this. jnestorius^(talk) 18:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Relevant policies and guidelines: Wikipedia:Naming conventions; Wikipedia:Naming conflict; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names); Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) jnestorius^(talk) 13:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I can add a couple of pages of relevance here: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically that Wikipedia is not a democracy, a soapbox or a battleground. Oh, and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. You'll have plenty of time to discuss the issue and to find a compromise. Rather than simply saying what you'd like best, it would be helpful to say what you don't want and what you'd accept grudgingly. The list of redirects should cover most possible names. That's here.

There are some other things to consider. Have you notified the relevant Wikiprojects? Will a note at the village pump bring in new ideas? Would adding this to the article RfC list help? Is Domer48 right to say that references would help here? Questions, questions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Domer48 is right that references will help here. I've started going through many of the references. So far "Irish Potato Famine" comes out ahead as the most common unambiguous name. "The Great Famine" and "The Famine" are common in Ireland, but there the assumption that they mean the Irish famine is valid; that isn't the case on WP. "The Great Hunger" is a fairly common term, but it's neither the most common nor an unambiguous name. See some references above. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK - I'd accept "The Irish Famine" or the "Great Irish Famine"; but not the "Potato famine". Sarah777 (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you say why not potato famine? Wotapalaver (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the unproven assertion that "Irish Potato Famine" is the most common name. I agree with Sarah that "Great Irish Famine" is best plus dates. Colin4C (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On what grounds do you dispute that it's the most common name? Wotapalaver (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As has been demonstrated above the majority of titles of books and articles on the Famine do not include the word 'potato' and NONE of the books in the further reading section do so. Colin4C (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been demonstrated above that there are many books called "The Irish Potato Famine", and that many of the books in the reading list call the event the Irish potato famine. If none of the books in the Further Reading section have Irish Potato Famine in the title then we can fix that. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Never heard the term used amongst the folk whose ancestors actually starved, aka The Irish. Secondly the potatoes didn't starve, did they? Sarah777 (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have, extensively. So what? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The "potatoes didn't starve thing" is an irrational argument. It's a commonly used term and it looks to be THE most commonly used term for this event, so much so that most people will be looking for it under the term Irish Potato Famine, not Irish Famine or Great Irish Famine and certainly not The Great Hunger. Wikipedia is international and it makes use of the most common title in the English language. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Potatoes didn't starve... Now, that's funny & witty. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"In the Irish language, the Famine is an Gorta Mór, the Great Hunger. The Great Famine is also widely used. But the term “potato famine” is the most common label for many Americans, tending to reduce the Famine to a freakish accident caused by an unknown fungus that happened to a backward people. In this common narrative, nature is the villain rather than British colonialism." Ref Irish Hunger: Personal Reflections on the Legacy of the Famine, Edited by Tom Hayden, Roberts Rinehart Publishers, USA and Canada, ISBN 1 57098 233 3, pg.11. (High lighted by myself). --Domer48 (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia. The Irish language Wikipedia may call the famine "An Gorta Mór" all it likes. Further, the reference provided by Domer48 says that potato famine is the most common name in America, right? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I doubt it's the most common name only in the United States either. When writing for an international audience, it's proper to title an article by the most common, widely used name. The fact that they would have to specify which famine they're talking about by putting dates in parenthesis is a good indicator that there has been more than one famine. Great Irish Famine is not a specific name. Irish Potato Famine is highly specific to this particular famine and is widely known. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." “Potato famine,” I think we can all agree is misleading, the people did not starve because of a lack of potatos, but because of a lack of food. The blight was only one of the proximate cause's, therefore to suggest it was the cause as “potato famine” suggests, is unacceptable. Now I have provided a source which says the term “potato famine” is the most common label for many Americans but not however as being the most common name. --Domer48 (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The body of the article explains the causes and the history. The title itself needs to be the most widely used, most easily recognizable, topic specific title. That's Irish Potato Famine, not Great Irish Famine or Great Hunger. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So having read the article, it is your opinion that the blight was the sole cause of the famine? Dispite the many other proximate cause's you consider the "Irish Potato Famine" is a topic specific title? "The title itself needs to be the most widely used," based on how you answer the first two questions, I like to see a reference which supports your opinion. --Domer48 (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that those of us here in the British Isles have as much or more right to use our own accepted terminology on this matter as that used in the States. The Famine occured in the British Isles not America. Colin4C (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about an international encyclopedia, however, not one that's geared only towards an Irish audience. Irish Potato Famine is far better known and is more specific to this topic. That title doesn't need to be clarified with dates explaining which of several famines is being discussed. The references others have quoted all use Irish Potato Famine or refer to it to better explain their preferred title. It does appear to be the most commonly used terminology. It's also the title that has the most votes in the survey above. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Bookworm Wikipedia is not ademocracy, so your point on votes I'll dismiss, rather than ignore, unlike you, who simply ignores the points I rasied above. "It does appear to be the most commonly used terminology." Which simply put means, it may not be the most commonly used terminology, and to date, the only source we have provided is based on original research. This original research comes in the form of Google searches, the standard now used by an international encyclopedia? I have attempted to use published sources which conform to our policy on verifiability, to illustrate the points I'm trying to make. What have I got in return? A Google book search based on the title of books? Please provide sources, and we can have a reasonable discussion. By the way, the best selling title of all time on the subject is "The Great Hunger" and thats sourced. --Domer48 (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

From Amazon.com:

• The Irish Potato Famine (World Disasters)

by Don Nardo ISBN 1560060123

• The Irish Potato Famine: The Story of Irish-American Immigration (Great Journeys) by Edward F. Dolan ISBN 0761413235
• The Irish Potato Famine: Irish Immigrants Come to America (1845-1850 (Primary Sources of Immigration and Migration in America) by Jeremy Thornton ISBN 0823989577
• Shamrock Cargo. A Story Of The Irish Potato Famine.

by Anne Gretzer ASIN B000WU98U6

• Indifference, not genocide.(The Great Irish Potato Famine)(Book Review): An article from: Irish Literary Supplement [HTML] (Digital) by Margaret Preston
• The great Irish potato famine (Focus Jackdaw)

by Christine Brendel Scriabine ISBN 156696248X

• The cry of the famishing: Ireland, Connecticut and the potato famine (Unknown Binding) by Neil Hogan ASIN B0006R77EY

From the Web:

• Irish Potato Famine</ref>
• Encyclopedia Britannica Online "The Irish Potato Famine."

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And the point your making is? --Domer48 (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How many of those books make reference to the Irish name used for this period in their history? Now it is a direct question, could you answer it? How many of them address the role of the British government response to the impending disaster? The issue is addressed in all the books I have read, so would it be your opinion having read them books that the title of the article should in fact be “The Great Hunger” based on the conclusions that the authors draw? Which of them would you consider the most detailed? --Domer48 (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The point I have been making is that it is that Irish Potato Famine is the more widely used term. I got over 3 million hits with that term using a raw Google search, compared with 500,000 using The Great Hunger. Not conclusive evidence, but it's still highly suggestive that the one is more common AND more specific. It's also what Encyclopedia Britannica has entitled its article. No, I don't have all the scholarly books you're referencing, but I don't think that matters for an article title. I think we should go by what is the most familiar name INTERNATIONALLY for this topic and the title that is most specific to the subject. You can address the British government's response and all of the other names for the potato famine in the body of the article. It looks to me like the article covers the subject nicely for a layman. But they have to be able to find the thing first to learn about all of the poltical ramifications, etc. And I DO think that the votes of the majority matter here. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict..Domer48, the book you keep referring to as the most sold book on the topic (The Great Hunger) refers to the famine as the Irish Potato Famine, as shown earlier. That's sourced. What support (if any) have you got that any other term is more common? Meantime, what you refer to as OR was actually a collation of a list of sources that refer to the famine as the Irish Potato famine. It's not OR. As for Bookworm's point, it's at least that there are MANY books called Irish Potato Famine, and whether or not they deal appropriately with British culpability for the events in Ireland is a different argument. "The Great Hunger" is verifiably the name for several different events, so it's not a good name for a WP article on any specific event without a disambiguation page. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Wotapalaver are you talking about a review on the back of the Woodham-Smith book? Ok so you conclusion is based on Bookworm's own original research, and not on any source that meets our standard on verifiability. Bookworm you also say, based again on your own original research, that the result is only suggestive, and again you suggest, based again on flawed research ("Not conclusive evidence") that it is in fact "the most familiar name INTERNATIONALLY for this topic." Not only that but the "Irish Potato Famine" as a title is "more specific," dispite the fact that the people did not starve because of a lack of potatos, but because of a lack of food. The blight was only one of the proximate cause's, therefore to suggest it was the cause as “potato famine” suggests, is misleading. Now what was the proximate cause and please explaine how "Irish Potato Famine" is "more specific."--Domer48 (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked for places where the term "The Irish Potato Famine" was used. That is what I supplied, based on the list that popped up when I typed the term "The Irish Potato Famine" into the search engine at Google and at Amazon.com Those are the books and their ISBN numbers. How does that qualify as Original Research? I don't own those particular books or any others on the topic, so I can't supply page numbers and in-depth commentary on their quality and the perspective of their authors, etc. But they are indisputably books that have Irish Potato Famine in the title. There's even an abstract of a book review by an Irish newspaper of a book that calls it the potato famine. People know this event by the name "potato famine." They are not confused by that term; they do not think the potatoes must have starved. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer, it isn't a review on the back cover, it's the description of the book on its own back cover. And again, the material Bookwork is supplying isn't OR, it's references. And again, the article can easily explain any culpability beyond the blight (e.g. God sent the blight, the English created the famine) in loving detail as long as sources can be provided. None of this changes the fact that the most common name, as found using the various objective tools available to us, is Irish Potato Famine.

Further, "The Great Hunger" is NOT a suitable name, for verifiable reasons already given. You can continue to raise distractions, but it won't change either of these two facts. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wotapalaver, it is a review on the back of the book and not by Woodham-Smith. The material Bookwork is supplying is OR, if it was an article on books dealing with the subject then it would be used as a source. Again, the suggested title is misleading, and saying that it is "specific" to the subject is just a distraction. None of this changes the fact that the most common name, using the various objective policies available to us such as [[verifiability, is not Irish Potato Famine. In fact our policies on WP:NPOV should be reviewed in relation to this suggested title. In addition, what verifiable reasons have already been given which says that "The Great Hunger" is NOT a suitable name?--Domer48 (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer, it's not a review, it's the back of the book. It's the book's own description of itself, if not the author's description then it's the publisher's (they probably specify that it's about the Irish Potato Famine to make sure people understood what a book called "The Great Hunger" was actually about). As for the verifiable reasons why "The Great Hunger" isn't a good name, there are numerous examples, including the fact that it's the name of several other events, books, poems, famines, etc. List of references is not OR so Bookworm is not engaging in OR. You're just trying to throw any possible distraction into the air to avoid simple facts. I can't understand why, but I'm sure you'll tell us. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please! There are three possibly 4 reviews on the back of the book, your suggesting that Woodham-Smith wrote of herself that "In this vivid and disturbing book Cecil Woodham-Smith provides the difinitive account." The rest of your post is comment, opinion, and just a plain old trying to throw any possible distraction into the air to avoid simple facts.so I'll not bother with it. --Domer48 (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that American usage of the names of anything dominates the internet and google searches for the simple reason that there are free local calls in the USA - a circumstance not replicated anywhere else in the world (the rest of us in the world have to pay for our computer usage). Wikipedia nomenclature should not be the outlet of American cultural imperialism based on phone rates. Colin4C (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. American cultural imperialism? This is an international encyclopedia. The title used for this article needs to be what is most easily recognized and most specific to the topic. There were other Irish famines. There were other Great Hungers. People throughout the English speaking world know exactly what is meant by Irish potato famine. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment and opinion, please provide sources. In addition, read my comment under the title "Edit break" below. Refusing to address the points I raise, is not considered a responce. --Domer48 (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I did and I have. You refuse to accept them. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer, it is NOT a review. If it's not an own description by the author (and yes, author's can easily refer to themselves by name) it's by the publisher. Anyone can view the back of the book on Amazon.com and see that it's not a review.

The rest of my post referred to facts. "The Great Hunger" is several possible things, including books, plays, other famines, poetry, etc. As for 4C's suggestion that the name "Irish Potato Famine" would potentially be giving in to "American cultural imperialism based on phone rates", that's good! I must remember that! Wotapalaver (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a famine that happend in Ireland. Why not call it The Irish Famine? a very straightforward title. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(A) Because there were several famines (B) Because that's not what this famine is most often called. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Howabout The Irish Famines? GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is just about one of them. --Domer48 (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit break

How can we have a reasonable discussion when an editor states as a fact that an author writes their own review on the back of their own book. Not only that, but deliberatly ignores the other reviews, and then offers us (having first stated as a fact) if it was not the author, it was the publisher. They then carry merrily on their way to suggest that the Author/Publisger did it to "specify that it's about the Irish Potato Famine to make sure people understood what a book called "The Great Hunger" was actually about." Look, the way it is, this is just plain disruption. This article is the subject of an ArbCom ruling. Please abide by the letter and spirit of that ruling. Now, once again, can we confine ourselves to published sources, and not speculate or use comment and opinion as fact. Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can read the back of the book on Amazon.com. [4] The text "The Irish Potato Famine of the 1840's, perhaps the most appalling event of the Victorian era...." appears on the back cover of the book "The Great Hunger". There are also reviews on the back cover, but they're separate. Domer, this isn't disruption, this is an awkward fact if you're saying that the name of one book should be the main driver of the name of this article and then that one book explains itself by describing the event as the Irish potato famine. I'm abiding by published sources. As for the Arbcom ruling, it seems that part of the judgement of that ruling was that you were no editing saint, so don't lecture please. Wotapalaver (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

When you have something to add to the discussion, let me know? --Domer48 (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So, reviewing:

first, the overwhelming view from the survey is that Option #2 or Option #5 are preferred because they best meet WP:COMMONNAME

second, the reasoning behind naming the article "The Great Hunger" is weak because it isn't the most common name of the event (even the best sold book on the event calls it the Irish Potato Famine on the back cover, and other books listed as reasons that "Irish Potato famine" was not acceptable also use the term potato famine.)

third, the reasoning behind naming the event "The Great Hunger" is weak because "The Great Hunger" is the name of a number of other famines, a play, poems, and apparently a biography of Shane McGowan.

This indicates that, unless there are better arguments than provided so far, the article should be renamed "The Irish Potato Famine" or "Irish Potato Famine". Wotapalaver (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How long is the discussion supposed to drag on here? The survey did show a majority vote in favor of Options #2 and #5 due to WP:COMMONNAME. There are three vocal editors in opposition to those options, but their opinions appear to be in the minority and their arguments thus far have not been convincing. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Option #2 and #5 do not meet WP:COMMONNAME Naming conventions, which say that "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." It has been illustrated, through referenced sources, and the article itself that the suggested title is misleading.
• Illustrates clearly that they have failed to read previous discussions on this topic, and are completely ignorant as to how the title was agreed upon. In addition, one editor is attempting to use misleading information, and present their opinion as fact.
• Editors attempting to introduce spurious arguments. There is no other article on the project with the same title. Even if there was disambiguation will address any potential issues.
• Final point is just more comment and opinion.

Now all I can suggest is you read all of the previous discussions on this subject, and read up on a couple of our policies such as Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Now Wikipedia is not a democracy or a soapbox so stop trying to disrupt this discussion. Every title suggested is already a re-direct so the reader will find the article they are looking for, and the lead in the article makes clear why the suggested title will not do. --Domer48 (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

as far as I can make out, the section Domer48 is alluding to is this:

All that said, I'm happy always to ignore all rules where there is merit to it. I posted above a compromise. That was to have the article moved to The Great Hunger and to have to lead rewritten to something as follows:

'The Great Hunger (Irish: An Gorta Mór 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-youth^pléigh 10:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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))

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)

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

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)

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. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just saw this. I really don't think ranging from the great famine to the Irish holocaust is a good way of saying it. For one that implies 'the great famine' is somehow a name that defends the British, surely if we are going to extremes a article by some scholar or other with a very pro government name for the events can be found? Not saying we should do that, just if we were using extremes. The great famine is the common name in Ireland, not at all pro-government at the time. Overall I think this Irish holocaust stuff is nonsense written by people with a obvious bias to try and draw more attention to themselves. Mention that some decide to call it that in the article by all means but it doesn't deserve to be given as a true alternative name. Sources are supposed to show broad facts, not minor exceptions.--Him and a dog 20:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

— Talk:Irish potato famine/Archive 11#Starting this again

Wikipedians agreed on this combination of title and intro in good faith. That does not mean it was the best decision. It certainly does not mean it is a permanent decision: cf WP:CCC. The current intro is rather different from the agreed one; the viability of fixing an intro at all seems questionable to me. It seems the decision was taken in an effort end a big edit war about the description of "holocaust". That debate may have died down, but I'm not sure it's a result of editor satisfaction rather than editor fatigue.

Let me again suggest that, in cases where the nomenclature is controversial, the controversy deserves a section of its own, rather than trying to squeeze the controversy into the straitjacket of the standard intro ("The foo, also known as the lesser Elbonian foo or the Elbino foobar, is a ...) jnestorius^(talk) 18:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I belive that the editor (Sony-youth) who organized the above compromise, recently came out against it - describing it as failed, a mistake, etc. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I also still entirely fail to see how the term "Irish Potato Famine" is misleading. This keeps being asserted without explanation, as if it was obvious - which it's not. If nothing else, since there are many books, including apparently the most sold book on the topic, that are happy to refer to the event as the Irish Potato Famine, it's not clear what's misleading about the term. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Option #5 per standard WP naming conventions regarding common usage. The objections to the use of the word "potato" in the title seem to me to be often POV bias, and in this case a clear minority is dictating a naming convention inappropriately. It seems quite appropriate that a section of the article itself should address the naming convention and why some folks object to the use of that name, and such section would actually even be more relevant if the article were named properly. Geeman (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Afraid not, please read the the discussion as the reasons are perfectly well outlined. It might also help to read this contrabution here. --Domer48 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing options #2 and #5 from the list

I would like to suggest removing options #2 and #5 from the list of suggest titles. My reasons would be:

• The titles do not meet WP:COMMONNAME Naming conventions, which say that "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." It has been illustrated, through referenced sources, and the article itself that the suggested title is misleading.
• Other than editors original research, no sources have been cited which state that it is the most common name. However I have provided a source which says it is the most common name for many Americans.
• Based on both the article, and clearly indicated in the Lead, I would suggest that our policy on WP:NPOV form part of this discussion, in that: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.
• Based on the nature of the subject, I would also draw editors attention to our policy on Article naming, which says "A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view..."
• There are many discussions on this topic in the archive, jnestorius has provided a section from just one, please read the previous discussions, and at least have an informed discussion. Contrabutions should be based on sources, and not comment, opinion or speculation. --Domer48 (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That option is unacceptable given the discussion that has been carried on at length and the majority preference for Options 2 and 5. You have failed to prove your point that the title Irish Potato Famine is misleading. In fact, ample evidence has been presented that it is a more specific and less confusing title than the other options presented. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Contrabutions should be based on sources, and not comment, opinion or speculation. Pointless discussion will not be entered into. --Domer48 (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have NOT presented any proof demonstrating that the title Irish Potato Famine is misleading, that it does not meet the common naming conventions, or that original research has been conducted. Other editors have listed multiple citations proving the contrary. It is not acceptable to remove Options 2 and 5 from the choices given when the majority prefers them for the reasons I listed. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Bookworm. Quite a bit of evidence has been presented. "The Great Hunger" is shown not to be a suitable title. Irish Potato Famine is shown to be the most common name globally. Domer48 is engaging in repetition ad infinitum to try to bluster through. Most editors prefer Option 2 or 5 as per COMMONNAME. That name is NOT misleading, and is certainly clearer than "The Great Hunger". I mean, it wasn't particularly "great" and people actually DIED instead of just getting hungry. Enough already. Wotapalaver (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It clearly isn't the common name where the issue is likely to be discussed most often. Options 2 and 5 are totally unacceptable and are pov-ridden. (As I have said the potatoes didn't starve - the people did). This attempted move is part of a wider campaign by British Nationalists and their unwitting allies to impose British pov across a wide range of Irish articles; current examples are the "British" Isles; Great Britain and Ireland and now this attempt to downplay the Irish Holocaust. See? Check the links - absolutely no deviation from British Nationalist pov permitted. Sarah777 (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ratchet down the political rhetoric. The question is, pure and simple, what the most common name for this topic is. Irish Potato Famine is far more widely used internationally and is more specific to the subject, as has been demonstrated by the list of titles including Irish Potato Famine provided above by editors. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Who is a British Nationalist? Me? You cannot even demonstrate that, let alone prove it. In any case, some of the editors on British Isles would disagree with you. Stick to facts. Options 2 and 5 are not POV ridden. Irish Potato famine is internationally the common name. Irish authors call it that too. There are more books that call it that than anything else. The most sold book on the subject calls it that on its back cover. In Ireland it's most often called "the Famine" as it doesn't need disambiguation from other famines, of which there have been many. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have explained above the 'most google hits' method is not the most scientific way of discovering what a phenomenon is called. It is best to rely on the names of books and articles on the subject. These show that books and articles with "potato" in the title are very few indeed. "Potato famine" is a very slipshod, illogical, inaccurate, POV shorthand. Just because internet junkies often use illogical and pov terminology is no good reason for the wikipedia to follow their lead. Colin4C (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's best to look at what the event is called, not what books about the event are called. (and in any case there are many books called the Irish Potato Famine, as previously shown).

The article is about the event, not about the books. The event is most commonly called the Irish potato famine, in books, on the internet, etc, and there are few "internet junkies" that spend their time writing about the Irish potato famine. There's nothing "slipshod, illogical, inaccurate, POV or shorthand" about the name Irish potato famine. Repeating it won't make it so. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

SIMPLE Question: Was the Potato the single cause of the disaster. YES OR No?--Domer48 (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not the right question. It's as silly as asking whether the Great Hunger was really "Great" and using that as the basis for a name. Is the event most commonly called the Irish potato famine? Yes. Can this be demonstrated? Yes. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are verified by reliable references. Internet chatter is not a reliable reference. Books and articles by scholars are. According to the latter the term 'potato' is very rarely used as part of the description of the subject. Colin4C (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The titles do not meet WP:COMMONNAME Naming conventions, which say that "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." It has been illustrated, through referenced sources, and the article itself that the Irish potato famine a suggested title is misleading. The fact that you are not willing to answer a simple question, indicates that to answer it would rubbish your whole arguement. --Domer48 (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The subject is NOT misleading. Irish Potato Famine is the most commonly used name for this event. There were multiple Irish famines and a number of other things are called The Great Hunger. Irish Potato Famine has been the title of a number of books and articles about this subject or the phrase has been used to clarify the meaning of another title. Citations and ISBN numbers for those books have been provided above. Clearly, the title is NOT misleading. You have not proved your point; reiterating it again and again does not make it so or eliminate the known facts. Removing Options #2 and #5 from the given options -- the options preferred by the majority -- simply is not acceptable. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

SIMPLE Question: Was the Potato the single cause of the disaster. YES OR No? --Domer48 (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WRONG question. "The Irish Potato Famine" is the most commonly used term for the event internationally and the sources that I found with that title, even skimming through article descriptions and synopses, also incorporate descriptions of the behavior of British landowners, British politics, British attitudes towards the Irish, the Irish economy, mass deaths and emigration. The title simply is not misleading; it's simply the most common name for an event. "The Great Hunger" and "The Great Irish Famine" are not as familiar and are probably actually misleading because they could refer to other events. Again, eliminating Irish Potato Famine as a title option is simply not acceptable. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as support for my point that:

• The titles do not meet WP:COMMONNAME Naming conventions, which say that "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." It has been illustrated, through referenced sources, and the article itself that the suggested title is misleading.--Domer48 (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you may not take that as support. The name Irish Potato Famine is not misleading. You can continue to talk in circles, but the facts haven't changed. There's ample evidence above to the contrary. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

@Domer, repeating something doesn't make it true. It does start to make you look obtuse. The name Irish Potato Famine is not misleading. @Colin4C, describing the articles, websites, book references that come up on a google search as "internet chatter" is disingenuous in the extreme. Also, since Irish Potato Famine brings up more Google books references too, it's certainly not just the normal internet where the event is known as the Irish Potato Famine. Time to review again.

• Irish Potato Famine is the most common name. (shown by google books hits, google hits, google scholar hits, etc)
• The Great Hunger is not.
• The Great Hunger is the name of several other events, including other famines.
  Let's look at google scholar, to eliminate what Colin4C calls "chatter".

[5] is a search for "potato famine" with the words "Irish" or "Ireland". It gets 5110 scholarly hits.
[6] A similar search for "the great hunger" with the words "Irish" or "Ireland", to eliminate the other "great hungers", famines, plays, books, etc., gets 440 hits, i.e. <9% of the number of hits.
I excluded the words "Woodham", "Heathcliff" and "Kavanagh" on both searches to eliminate cross references to three specific books. You could, if you like, add three hits to "The Great Hunger", which would make it +5000 scholarly references Vs 443. Clearly, Irish potato famine is by far the most common term. Unless there's an actual factual argument now I think we're left with ranting from Domer48, Colin4C and (maybe) Sarah77. The case is pretty closed. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used the word "ranting", but I agree with you that this discussion is over now and we need to get someone uninvolved to move the article. This title never was a good one, and per our policies we use the common name for things when we write articles about them. It's clear there is a vocal minority who oppose this, but I am not convinced by their arguments although I understand why they want to use a particular name for this. Let's close this and move onwards. --John (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the page title should be 'Irish Famine, 1845-1852', on the grounds that 'Irish Famine' is the most commonly used name. However, WP:COMMONNAME doesn't clearly say how to decide what the most common name is. Except to say, 'ask yourself: what word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?' Irish Famine would be the most likely, I think, not the Great Hunger. 'Irish potato famine' includes the words 'Irish Famine', but the average user may not know the significance of the potato. In this regard, the WP:COMMONNAME page says that 'using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more'. The dates in my suggested title, 'Irish Famine, 1845-1852' aren't required to bring up this page and typing 'Irish Famine' doesn't lead to WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Neither does 'Great Hunger' by the way, but 'Potato Famine' does. Asmaybe (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Searching for scholarly references shows that potato famine is more commonly used than Irish famine when referring to the famine in question. Also, I do like the quote from the first page of the O'Grada book, Black '47. 'Whoever says "Irish famine" says potato.' Elsewhere on the same page he says 'Understanding the potato famine means understanding the role of the potato before the famine.' Wotapalaver (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The average user is not a scholar and may not know the significance of the potato. That's why 'Irish Famine' is a better title than 'Irish potato famine'. 194.46.252.221 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"The average user may not know the significance of the potato"? I wonder if that IP address maps to any average WP editor. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. If you check you'll see that I used the same words in the earlier comment you responded to: 'the average user may not know the significance of the potato'.

For what it's worth (an opinion), I don't think these two options should be deleted. As I said earlier, the WP:COMMONNAME page doesn't give satisfactory guidance for deciding which title is more commonly used. I think 'Irish Famine, 1845-1852' meets the criteria mentioned better than 'Irish Potato Famine' though. Asmaybe (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Wotapalaver you assume good faith in relation to the IP. "Searching for scholarly references shows that potato famine is more commonly used than Irish famine" , otherwise its just WP:OR, comment, opinion, speculation. I suggest you read this section in the article all of which is referenced. In relation to adding the years "1845-1852" Christine Kinealy say recent research suggests that no one died of starvation in 1845, (a point also made by Ó Gráda) likewise people were still dieing after 1852, she makes reference also to her own book and her use of the dates in the title. I have no real problem with the dates either way. Ó Gráda is at least a reference, so what has he to say in Ireland's Great Famine pg.253, "The Irish famine is often described as the ‘potato famine’." Highlighting my own. So for the last time:

• The titles do not meet WP:COMMONNAME Naming conventions, which say that "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." It has been illustrated, through referenced sources, and the article itself that the suggested title is misleading. --Domer48 (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Who wasn't assuming good faith? I thought it looked like an existing editor. It was. Meantime, we again have Domer48 with irrelevancies and misdirection about what we might have to do IF The Irish Potato Famine was a misleading term, which it isn't. I certainly hope it's "for the last time". O'Grada's text re "potato famine" in Black '47 and beyond is still extant, and calling it the Irish Potato Famine nicely avoids any fuss with start and end dates in the title. Can we move on now? Wotapalaver (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I so glad you decided on Ó Gráda as an example, and that you state quite clearly that "re "potato famine" in Black '47 and beyond is still extant," because if I now give you the additional part of the Ó Gráda quote from Ireland's Great Famine, first published in 2006 I might add, Ó Gráda himself will tell you why it can't be used, and I quote "The Irish Famine is often described as the "potato famine." Giving it a more contextual focus implies paying more attention to the potato and agriculture." Now this article is not about "the potato and agriculture," as the name suggests. This article is much broader than that therefore the name is misleading. Now same book same author "The proximate cause of the Great Irish Famine (was the fungus Phytophthora infestans (or potato blight), which reached Ireland in the autumn of 1845." Notice the use of the word proximate cause, and how we use it in the lead. A very clever word to use, I hope you agree, (it was not me who first used it) and also illustrates why "potato famine" can not be used. They should be taken of the list. --Domer48 (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, you're glad. It still doesn't mean the name Irish potato famine is misleading, and if it did then "Great Irish Famine" would be misleading too, since it wasn't "Great" and there was no shortage of Irish people, there was a shortage of food. "The Great Hunger" would be similarly misleading, right? This has gone on long enough. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Since we accept Ó Gráda as a source, we accept is opinion as to the use of the term "potato famine." Which is that "The Irish Famine is often described as the "potato famine." Giving it a more contextual focus implies paying more attention to the potato and agriculture." Since this article covers a much broader aspect, "potato famine" in the title would be misleading and should not be used. --Domer48 (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

'The Irish Famine is often described as the "potato famine."' Yes, it is. As far as we can see, most often. If misinterpreting O Grada is the best you've got to demonstrate misleading-ness then we're done here. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Irish Famine is often described as the "potato famine." Q.E.D. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Giving it a more contextual focus implies paying more attention to the potato and agriculture." Q.E.D. --Domer48 (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have four old history books in front of me. Three say "The Famine", and one says "The Great Famine". I have enquired from my Irish side, and they say "The Famine", not the potato famine. Neologism it appears to be. Cherry rose (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange then that there are >5000 scholarly references and a bunch of history books called the Irish Potato Famine, as shown above, and that the most popular book on the subject also calls the events the Irish Potato Famine. Neologism it isn't. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to do an article on books called "Irish Potato Famine" then go right ahead, but on this article it is misleading. The most popular book on the subject is called "The Great Hunger," and a review on the back of a book, who you can not even tell anyone who wrote it, will not wash with anyone. "The Irish Famine is often described as the "potato famine." Giving it a more contextual focus implies paying more attention to the potato and agriculture." Now is this article about the potato and agriculture, NO. Is it the focus of this article, NO. So either you reference your comments / opinions or move on. --Domer48 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Once more, it's not a review. Second, do you really want me to give 5000+ references? Really? Wotapalaver (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Adding text

I have a referenced quote by John Waters: Irish Hunger, Edited by Tom Hayden pg.29 / 103

“ The Famine was simply the most violent episode in a history characterised by violence of every conceivable kind, the inevitable consequence of the destruction of Ireland’s cultural, political and economic diversity. Revisionist semantics about the source of the blight or the feasibility of aid efforts once the Famine had taken hold are utterly irrelevant to the meaning of the experience. The Irish economy, reduced to a virtual mono-cultural dependence, was a holocaust waiting to happen. For this reason, it is meaning less to discuss the Famine outside of the context of the colonial process in which it was rooted...When I speak about it in public, I make a point of saying, unequivocally, that the Famine was an act of genocide, driven by racism and justified by ideology. ”

I would like to add a summary of this quote to the article, would editors like to offer suggestions on the summary. --Domer48 (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not proposing this as a formal suggestion, but I certainly think that something like "Although the arrival of potato blight and the failure of the potato crop were not pre-planned by the British government, the reduction of a huge proportion of the Irish population to poverty and dependence on a single crop, the reluctance and inadequacy of the official response to famine in the country, and the way in which the Russell government in particular welcomed the reduction in the Irish population have all contributed to a widespread feeling that the famine represented something approaching genocide. At the time, and since, the famine was called a holocaust." Since many serious historians (and I think Waters is a columnist not a historian) have said that they don't think it represented genocide as-such, that would have to be presented too. I'm not sure that a quote from John Waters should be in the article, but could certainly be in a reference. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer48, why not quote directly instead of paraphrasing? Asmaybe (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

@Asmaybe. Problem with lots of direct quotes is "which ones to pick and how much to include?". It can be a slippy and messy slope. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wotapalaver thanks for the suggestion, and since no one has a problem with quoting Kevin Myers who would have a problem with Waters. Why were the Irish reduced to having to rely on a single crop? Why were the ports not closed to exports of grain like other countries? Asmaybe when I quote directly I get knocked and called a quote farm, when I try paraphrasing I get accused of pushing a POV, thats just my experiance. --Domer48 (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer, Kevin Myers doesn't seem to be quoted in the article. As for the problems you might have with quoting references, perhaps your creativity in going from references that clearly call the famine the potato famine to arguing that they're advocating that the term potato famine shouldn't be used is an indication of why you might occasionally have disagreements with other editors about your use of references. It's not a sufficient reason to turn the article into a series of block quotes. The substance of the message can still be adequately presented, with quotes cited. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh but you do on the "British Isles" article. The fact that I can quote references from books, and not only that, but that I acutally read them might occasionally mean I have disagreements with other editors. It is usually limited though to those who can't see beyond a PC screen, who happen to be the same ones who seem to rely on comment and opnion. It also helps in the fact that I edit articles I'm intrested in and have read about, a lot. I read hundereds of articles, but only edit the ones I understand. --Domer48 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I do, do I? First, Myers is cited in a reference, not quoted directly in the article. Second, I didn't put that reference there. Read again. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Time line and chronological sequence

As the potato blight was only one of the proximate cause’s, it would be inappropriate to begin the time line with the arrival of the blight. The conditions and circumstances leading to its arrival would also have to be included. One example to illustrate this point would be the claims of potato dependency. What were the contributing factors which gave rise to the dependency in the first insistence? I have therefore placed the time line at the foot of the article pending further discussion. It would also be an opportune time to discuss the chronological sequence of the article, taking the same factors into consideration. --Domer48 (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it's necessary to move the timeline pending discussion. It does seem reasonable to present significant dates leading up to the event itself, e.g. the phases leading towards dependency on potatoes. It'll be tricky to identify particular dates, since the process was gradual, but go ahead and suggest some. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Timeline is there at the beginning of the article to give a brief overview of the main events of the Famine to those readers of the wikipedia who know little about it. The rest of the analysis makes little sense without some prior knowledge of the basic facts. Colin4C (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. If events pre-famine are to be included, which might be a good idea, the formatting should reflect it, perhaps with "Pre Famine" (or something) then "The Famine Years" and "Post-Famine Years" as categories (or similar). That would allow a straightforward presentation of economic, political, demographic factors and events prior to the famine to be neutrally presented too.Wotapalaver (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD in addition you have the background section at the beginning of the article to give a brief overview of the main events. The rest of the analysis makes little sense without some prior knowledge of the basics unless you put the article in chronological sequence. --Domer48 (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with time lines is that they can go on for ever. I think it should be removed. I've added some information, disolving the Irish Parliament should explaine why the ports were not closed. Malthus gives some idea behind the thinking of the day. Act of Union is very important. --Domer48 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be put into continuous prose if that looks nicer. The idea is to give the basics of what actually happened during the famine getting into the heavy analysis. Alternatively we could divide the whole article into an historical first part and an analytical second part. If we do that, though, it will mean fairly extensive modifications to the whole article - for which we will need some sort of concensus. And I think your Malthus quotes should go into an analytical section rather than into the historical narrative... Colin4C (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C we have a lead section and a Background section, what is the point behind the timeline? If we discuss the chronological sequence of the article, it will help a lot? --Domer48 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just on Malthus. Malthus is a bit too indirect to have in a section of bullet points. These should be more like " 1800 - Population of Ireland reaches 4.5 million" and " 1801 - Act of Union passes; Ireland and Great Britain form the new United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" etc. Malthus MAY speak to thought processes in the British government, but so would John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith. Malthus doesn't belong in the bullet points of a timeline. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission is set up under Edward Lucas." Yet it dose not mention the fact that it was to be sold to the people at cost price. It made not difference how much it cost to people with no money, and in addition, by selling it at cost price they were contradicting the very policy they would later use as a defence for not supplying Relief, because it would undermining market forces and the normal cource of trade. So why is that placed in the timeline as a stand alone statement, when it is obviously misleading? The Malthus statement is very direct, and has more reason to be in that section than the one about peel. --Domer48 (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer, I'm not talking about the Peel statement, I'm talking about Malthus. Malthus is indirectly related, if at all - and there's no evidence cited in the article (that I know of) to say that he's relevant at all. Peel, whether the statement about him is adequate or not, was a directly involved player. There are plenty of things that can be said about Peel, but at least he was probably better than Russell or Trevelyan. Let's focus on either justifying or removing Malthus. Right now he's a distraction rather than a help. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• 1798 The Reverand Thomas Malthus publishes an Essay on the Principle of Population explaining how famine can be a “positive check” on population.
• 1826. Thomas Malthus 6th Edition: “. . .we should facilitate...the operations of nature in producing this mortality. .and if we dread the frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should...encourage. - forms of destruction (for example) make the streets narrower, crowd more people into houses, and count on the return of the plague.”

Keeping references that I removed from the article. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

BYW, Malthus's words in this passage are irony See Gregory Bungo, Irony in Thomas Malthus' "Essay on Population". Paul B (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have again moved the "Timeline" to the foot of the Article, per WP:MOS for Articles. The rational suggested for the timeline is "to give a brief overview...before getting into the heavy analysis." As per MOS, we have the Lead section and the Background Section which give a brief overview. The heavy analysis, comes near the end of the article under the section Judgement of the governments handling of the Famine. Now as I have illustrated above, placing single stand-alone statements can be misleading, and are best dealth with within the article. Now the "Timeline" makes no sence, can editors point to another article were a timeline appears at the start of the article. Like I have already said, what is the Lead Section for? --Domer48 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer, you're so desperate to remove Peel that the logic is now broken. How can Russel stop aid programs if you never let Peel start them? We can adequately state that the corn was to be sold rather than given and that this was a problem. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, apart from removing Peel from the timeline, you entirely removed 1845 - the year the famine started. [7]. Please edit carefully. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the Timeline to the top as giving a succinct overview of the whole Famine. The material in the body of the article is prolix, confused and incomplete and also appears to assume previous knowledge of the events of the Famine. Colin4C (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C can you point me to another article with such a "Timeline"? Can you explaine how this fits with our WP:MOS? What is the lead section and background for? --Domer48 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we call it or the format. The idea is to give the basic facts in a brief summary. The fact is that anyone interested in the history of the famine is ill served by an incredibly prolix, repetitive, confused and incomplete mixture of narration and analysis here. If you want comparisons it's as though the article on World War Two was some senile ramble about Rommel in the Desert which missed out the battle of Stalingrad. We should have in mind the interests of readers of the wikipedia who are not already experts on the Famine. This article needs a lot of work basically to make it more coherent. The most basic information is missing. E.g. the information I have provided on the beginning of the famine:

"1845 - On 9 September potato blight is noted in Wexford and Waterford. By November half the crop is ruined. The Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission is set up under Edward Lucas."

This information is not mentioned anywhere else in the whole article. Do you assume that the reader already knows all this or that it is not important to know the circumstances of the beginning of the famine? That is just one example. Colin4C (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead section according to WP:MOS should give the basic facts in a brief summary. Your suggesting that it dose not. The answer therefore is to address the LEAD. If you consider that the reader is ill served by the article then outline suggest solutions, again this has nothing to do with the Lead section but the article in general. You have still not explained why the issues you have raised i.e. "the basic facts in a brief summary" can not be dealth with according to our WP:MOS, and contained in either the Lead Section, or the Background Section. Now you have already said "It can be put into continuous prose if that looks nicer." Colin4C, it already has, and its called the LEAD. So can I suggest that you remove the Timeline, and re-write the Lead and give the basic facts in a brief summary, because you can not have two, giving the exact same information as you suggest. --Domer48 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay I've put the Timeline material after the Background within a new initial History section. I hope that is agreeable to everybody. If the bullet point style of the Famine sub-section is felt inappropriate it can be altered. Colin4C (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin, quite frankly it’s ridiculous, no offence intended. Add the information as part of the narrative, and not bullet points. --Domer48 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have restored my edit. Feel free to improve it but don't resort to blind reverts. Be constructive. Colin4C (talk)

Colin, please address the points I have raised, and don't accuse me of blind reverts. I have being using this talk page to raise relevant points, which you have not answered. You have said yourself you "can be put into continuous prose" as outlined in the Lead Section according to our Manul of Style. I will continue to assume good faith, but your last revert could appear to be just you making a point. --Domer48 (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer, the points you have raised are just throwing mud and unspecific references to MOS. Colin's points are perfectly correct and his replacement of the timeline is right. If you want to replace the timeline then add the content first, then remove the timeline, don't just delete useful information. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your contrabution is as useful as they were on the previous discussion? Now since the point I raise is not being addressed, I'll spell it out for you "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Now is that clear enough for you? How dose a "Timeline" improve on this, and explaine why you consider we need a Lead Section, Background and a Timeline section. Please don't waste editors time with stupid accusations and just answer the question. --Domer48 (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My contributions are about references, verifiability. You might not like that. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. This addition is not concise, and for example in relation to Peel it dose not mention the fact that it was to be sold to the people at cost price. It made not difference how much it cost to people with no money, and in addition, by selling it at cost price they were contradicting the very policy they would later use as a defence for not supplying Relief, because it would undermining market forces and the normal cource of trade. Therefore it is not able to stand alone as a concise overview. The Lead should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. These editions do none of this, and leave numerous questions unanswered, such as why did John Russell halt government relief works, when did Peel recognizing that this could be a serious problem, as it is contradicted within the article, why were the rules that were applied to the aid extremely restrictive etc etc. Since this article is under ArbCom ruling, all additions to the article, likely to be challenged should be discussed on the talk page first. --Domer48 (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This was not an addition, it was a rewriting of existing material into a different form. Remember that this article went to Arbcom because of you, not me, and it was YOUR suggestion that the timeline be replaced by a proper lead. That's what I did. Leave it there. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As has been the case with your contrabutions, you refuse to address the points raised, ignore them infact, like now. Now address the issues I have raised, and stop editwarring. --Domer48 (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring, I'm addressing the issues as reasonably as possible, and you're on 3reverts already today. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Addresss the issues I've raised, as it now appears you simply wish to make a WP:POINT. If this is the case, you have come to the wrong article. --Domer48 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No WP:POINT here, just trying to help re-write the article, which really needs it. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move II

A majority of respondants in the first title discussion appeared to prefer Options No. 2 and No. 5. Therefore, I am requesting that this page be moved to Irish Potato Famine, the title that is most commonly used for the event. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that to have repeated discussions over a trivial matter like the article name is at best unhelpful. Please do not submit another move request until a reasonable interval has passed. All this energy would be better focussed on the content. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the administrator's move was clearly wrong. The majority wanted it moved to Irish Potato Famine because it is the most commonly used name. A vocal minority should not be permitted to dictate the title of this article. There WAS a consensus here. It's not a trivial issue. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look above you will see that the result of the debate on the proposed move was "no consensus on destination of article." I think the article title should stay as it is. 'Potato Famine' is a loaded POV term, which a lot of people do not accept. The present title is NPOV. Colin4C (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

On a point of order; I was warned that reintroducing a motion to move "The Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (state)" two months after an earlier attempt to move it constituted disruption. So I assume that principle would apply to all articles? Sarah777 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

On a point of order (2); I've lost count of the number of bad Admin calls I've seen - but challenging them is still regarded as "disruption". (Though in this case I cannot agree the Admin made any mistake). Also, please remember that consensus isn't decided by a vote. Sarah777 (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I dislike the current name, and don't consider it a trivial matter, I don't see the point of reopening the discussion at present. There was a majority in favour of "Irish Potato Famine", but a majority is not the same as a consensus. (Cf WP:PNSD and WP:CON.)

The name issue deserves, as I've said before, more discussion in the article itself, as opposed to the Talk page. Perhaps the article might also bear being refactored into subarticles in a new category (presumably called Category:The Great Hunger — for now) which could have a detailed timeline article, a controversy article, a statistics article, etc.

jnestorius^(talk) 22:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If consensus has to mean unanimity then there can almost never be consensus and I can think of a lot of articles where consensus has been declared with several dissenters. In this case the vast majority of editors supported a change, the facts and references supported a change. The only opposition was incoherent and unsupported by references. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The opposition raised several important points around issues of POV. POV titles are just not acceptible on the wikipedia no matter how many people vote for them. The present title is NPOV. Colin4C (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The current title is not the most common name and is ambiguous. The most common name is also NPOV. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, this whole discussion is pointless as the administrator has already made his judgement on the matter. Maybe we can now concentrate on more important matters of article content? Colin4C (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead Section

As outlined in WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article."

The recent additions fail to address the above guidline, and have undermined the context of the Lead section. Editors should read up on the Lead Section first, as these additions as they stand will be removed. --Domer48 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. The new LEAD meets that requirement pretty well and can be improved without being blankly deleted. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The recent additions fail to address the above guidline, and have undermined the context of the Lead section. Editors should read up on the Lead Section first, as these additions as they stand will be removed.--Domer48 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the requirements. The new lead isn't perfect, but it's a reasonable start and can be improved without being blankly deleted. It's concise for a 5 year famine, summarizes the most important points, certainly explains why the subject is notable, briefly describes the controversies (albeit this could be improved), and the emphasis is appropriate to the importance of the topics. There is no teasing, it's 4 paragraphs long, is sourced (albeit this could be improved) and is written in as clear a style as I can manage. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The recent additions fail to address the above guidline, and have undermined the context of the Lead section. Editors should read up on the Lead Section first, as these additions as they stand will be removed. --Domer48 (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You've said that already. It's still not true. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this editor is either incapable or unwilling to address this issue and refuses to, I suggest that the edits be reverted. In addition, that they provide quoted citations from the one reference used, as it appears to be quite flexible when one looks at how many times the wording and context have adapted. Since all of the contributions can be viewed in a particular context, without balanced statements that appear biased. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject can and should attest to that. This lead section has been stable for a long time now, and was the result of consensus and discussion, this editor only wishes to make a point, on a subject they know little about. --Domer48 (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The new lead is adapted from referenced material from elsewhere in the article, which has been turned into sentences from bullet points. Instead of making generic accusations of bias, please tell me which of the bullet points were biased, and which of the text is now biased. I am working on the assumption that the content previously stable in the article was correctly referenced as it had survived here for some time. I'm not refusing to address any issues, simply not able to address undefined complaints that simply call for blanking reversions. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you are incapable of even seening the bias illustrates your lack of knowledge. Now I have highlighted some of the issues already here, and you did not address them. The onus is on the editor who add's material to the article, so explaine how the reference has been able to adapt to the changes in context. Explaine how the lead is able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article, with sentences which need to be broadened to include the context. It should establish context and summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. For example why is it important to establish when Peel understood how bad the situation was and why is it the subject of controversie. How do you explaine the statement that the famine started in 1845, yet no one died till 1846. Why is the date of the famine 1845 used? Now answer the questions, or remove the text, provide referenced quotes for the reference being used? --Domer48 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, nonspecific accusations of bias. I wonder does Domer feel that I am defending Peel/Russell or damning them? The famine started in 1845 because that's when the crops failed and people started to go hungry. The first deaths were - according to the references I have - in 1846. The text is not added material, simply reformatted material. It was already referenced and I didn't add or subtract references. I've already explained how the lead meets the requirements of WP:LEAD. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its possible one reference got deleted along with the text that went with it....it can be seen in the diffs. IIRC it wasn't an important one. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, you have failed to address the points I have raised here. The Lead is not able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article, because of the number of questions left unanswered. You have failed to explaine how the reference you are using is able to adapt to the changes in context, and still be the same reference. You have failed to produce the quoted references I requested. You have failed to explaine how you say that the Famine started in 1845, when in fact it was the blight and not the famine. You did not simply reformatted material, you added text to the Lead which was not there before, therefore the onus is on you as the editor who added material to explaine how and why it should be there. Now read again our guidlines on the Lead section and address the problems you created or remove the information, and leave it in the article were it belongs. --Domer48 (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I have already addressed those points. The lead stands as a concise overview. It cannot possibly answer ALL questions and remain concise. The references I used were those already in the article, each of which addressed the point it still addresses. The references are there. It's generally regarded that the famine started in 1845 because the blight came then, relief started then, and people started to starve then. The lead section can surely be improved but it does not need to be blankly deleted. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wotapalaver's edit provides much needed information for the reader on the history of the Famine. Colin4C (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It still needs work. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

One last time and then the information gets removed from the LEAD. As outlined in WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article."

Now is that clear enough. This is the LEAD Section. Wotapalaver contradicts themselves in the one breath with "The lead stands as a concise overview. It cannot possibly answer ALL questions and remain concise." So the LEAD which they have edited is not a concise overview. Having changed the text in the reference being used, they are responcible for that text, so saying the reference was already there is not excuse. Colin4C if you have a problem with the information in the article, address it. The way to go about it is not by messing about with the Lead. --Domer48 (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer48, the lead as it stands meets requirements and is a concise overview. Do not delete it. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who edit wars regarding the lead on this article will be banned from editing it. Consider this a warning. Daniel (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Daniel, now could you possibly add some opinion to the issue at hand? All content reversions I have made on this page have been discussed on the article talk page. While I have raised issues based on our guidlines and MOS, the responces have been nothing short of disruptive, the last being a good example. Now if I have not explained myself well enough on the talk page and illustrated the problems based on our guidlines as well as I should, please let me know. Now the Lead Section has to be addressed, please offer some suggestions? --Domer48 (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we should be constructive in terms of providing a coherent account of the famine in the article: as Wotapalaver has in fact done. Colin4C (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is pointless discussing this with you, as you point blank refuse to follow the Guidlines as laid down in Lead. Your problem is with the Article, and I suggest you deal with that. Your support for a botched effort is only undermining the work that was done to present the Lead in a balanced way and be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. All you have done is present information which is devoid of context, and due to the history and nature of the subject presented it in a biased way. Now I have illustrated this point and have included examples, but you simply refuse to address this. I will now have to address the issue of NPOV in regard to the Lead, and with Daniel watching, fobbing me off will not be an option. --Domer48 (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No-one has been fobbing you off. With Daniel watching I hope that we'll have some constructive discussion. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, now answer the points I have raised. --Domer48 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have said already that I consider them addressed. If you don´t then list them one-by-one rather than saying vague things. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You have not addressed anything! Now its up to the Arbitration Committee mentors to decide if the current version of the Lead Section is presented in a balanced way and is able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. Dose it establish context, or summarize the most important points and briefly describe its notable controversies. The answer is no, and in fact quite the opposite. This version set the context quite clearly and was the result of detailed discussions by editors who actually knew the issues and difficulties involved. So its up to the mentors now. --Domer48 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The current lead is far too long => it is not consise. It suffers from trying to summarize the entire article into the lead. Can I suggest that the current lede is shortened to just before the paragraph "The famine started in" as this paragraph could be moved to a "Chronological Summary" section. --Bardcom (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Domer48 and WP:LEAD, it's supposed to summarize the article. See World War 1 for a similar lead. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right....and that article certainly breaches the 4 paragraphs guideline. I could take an editorial axe to that lead and summarize it down to at about half it's size. --Bardcom (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cutting valuable and relevent material on the Famine is unhelpful. Wotapalaver has provided a coherent and referenced account of the course of the famine. If anything needs an editorial axe is the rambling and incoherent mess of the rest of the article not Wotapalver's contribution. We should support constructive edits here. Colin4C (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Now its up to the Arbitration Committee mentors to decide if the current version of the Lead Section is presented in a balanced way and is able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. Dose it establish context, or summarize the most important points and briefly describe its notable controversies. The answer is no, and in fact quite the opposite. This version set the context quite clearly and was the result of detailed discussions by editors who actually knew the issues and difficulties involved. So its up to the mentors now.--Domer48 (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

All the editors on the wikipedia are equal and have an equal right to contribute material to articles. 'Mentors' do not have any more rights to edit an article than anybody else. Do they have a special knowledge of the Famine that none of the rest of us have? Colin4C (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No they have a special knowledge of policies and guidlines, such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. All of which have been breached, and must be addressed.--Domer48 (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there was an ArbCom ruling some time back that appointed 4 mentors to this article to prevent edit-warring, etc. --Bardcom (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentor's role

A number of people above have said that it is the mentor's role to decide if the current version is acceptable, etc.; it is not. Our job is not to issue content opinions, decisions, or anything like that. Our job is to stop edit warring, incivility and disruption. We cannot provide an opinion on content because we must remain neutral. Our job is to keep the atmosphere at this article conducive to resolving any disputes, and from removing people who breach standards of behaviour from the article. Daniel (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats grand Daniel, so don't issues any warnings again in relation to how this page is edited. Your opinion, is flatly contradicted here were one of the mentor's provide an opinion to help move the discussion forward. They also provide an opinion here to prevent disruption. Now as outlined here "All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page," which I have been doing. Now the other point is "Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing Great Irish Famine or a related page, clearly says you as a mentor must clearly show a good reason to ban an Editor. To date all you have done is wave a stick. Now based on your above contrabution, please provide us with a diff were it outlines exactly what your role and function is, in particular "Our job is not to issue content opinions, decisions, or anything like that. Our job is to stop edit warring, incivility and disruption. We cannot provide an opinion on content because we must remain neutral. Our job is to keep the atmosphere at this article conducive to resolving any disputes." Thanks --Domer48 (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"How the page is edited" is different from "the content of the page". I will certainly be warning and/or banning anyone who edit wars, acts disruptively, is uncivil, makes personal attacks, games the system, etc. We will also provide some guidance on how you, the parties, can best resolve the dispute if we feel it is warranted, such as this. What we will not provide is opinions on who is correct. That is not our job. Daniel (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That was my own humble opinion on the subject of repeated move requests and their likely impact on the atmosphere. If I say something as a mentor, like Daniel I'll be explicit in saying that that is the case. For the record, the terms of the mentorship are described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Mentorship and above in the #Arbitration Committee mentorship section. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I welcome the marked change in tone as to the role and function of mentor's and look forward to the a marked change in the atmosphere. Now as to the current impass, I have presented the issues as best I can, and both editors have refused to address them. Now I intend to revert to the last stable version, based on WP:LEAD. These changes were not discussed prior to their addition, as were the most recent changes. If I have not covered the issue surrounding the section enough, please let me know, and I'd welcome your opinion on how I should proceed. This is not asking for an opinion on content I might add.Thanks again for the measured tone, in your reply.--Domer48 (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The text should not be unilaterally reverted by one editor without discussion or concensus. This is in accordance with what the mentor said above: "Anybody who edit wars regarding the lead on this article will be banned from editing it." Constructive modifications which add information rather than reverts might be a better way forward. Colin4C (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, the text was not unilaterally reverted by one editor without discussion. The discussion did take place, and you refused to address the issues raised, and you don't need concensus to remove unreferenced text. The onus is on the Editor who adds text to be able to support it with sources. Now the fact that you have had the book which is cited all along, and not once attempted to remove the blatant WP:OR or even mention it is telling. That also explaines why, dispite my repeated attempts and requests to have the quoted references provided to editors I was ignored. Now your problem is with the Article, not the Lead, so why don't you place the origional Lead back in, and I will provide all the help you want on the Article. What ever you want to see in the article, I'll find, reference and source. --Domer48 (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have lots of books on Ireland. Should I mention all of them here? Assuming we are now talking about David Ross's Ireland: History of a Nation (2002), I can safely say that the notes in the intro (3-8) which refer to this book are correctly referenced. If everybody in the dispute can provide themselves with a copy of this book they can check this up for themselves. As I have said before the information provided in the intro is mostly descriptive and non-controversial: giving the basic data of the succesive yearly potato blights during the Famine and the government responses. The old version omits basic information on the Famine - a deficiency which is not made up in the body of the article which similarly omits basic information of eg the yearly potato blights and their effects. Colin4C (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• 1845
• Potato blight crosses the Atlantic and appears in England. It crosses to Wexford and Waterford (first newspaper report, 9 September). Half of the annual potato harvest is ruined (November). The Great Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States. A Relief Commission is set up under Edward Lucas.

• 1846
• Potato blight almost totally destroys the year’s crop. The Famine worsens.

Whig government falls. Lord Russell’s Tory government halts food and relief works (re-instates them by end of year). The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends is set up to alleviate suffering. Despite the Famine, large quantities of grain are exported to pay the rents of absentee landlords. Almost a third of a million destitute people are employed in public works (December)

• 1847
• The Famine worsens after an exceptionally bad winter. Typhus epidemic kills tens of thousands. The Soup Kitchens Act provides financial assistance to local authorities to help them feed Famine victims. However, the Act is withdrawn in September when funding relief becomes dependent on local rates and charitable donations.

The Poor Relief Act allows magistrates to extend help to the needy (excluding tenants holding more than a quarter acre). The potato crop is healthy but so few have been planted that the Famine continues unabated (August).

• 1848
• The Famine continues. There are outbreaks of cholera and the potato harvest fails. The number of evictions rises. Famine victims on outdoor relief peak at almost 840,000 people (July).

• 1849
• The potato crop fails again. Irish countryside devastated by famine and further outbreaks of cholera.

• 1850
• The Great Famine ends. Its aftermath of emigration and rural deprivation lasts for over a century.

From your reading of this source,("I can safely say that the notes in the intro (3-8) which refer to this book are correctly referenced.") I can understand why you can not grasp our guidlines and policies. I will place each point in my post below, to further illustrate my point. By the way, this is actually the way they appear in the book. --Domer48 (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Er...just to say that the relevent parts of the text in the intro ARE supported by the extracts from the book you have quoted above. Editors here can confirm this for themselves by comparing them. Just to add that the above information is extracted from pages 311-313 of Ross's Ireland: History of a Nation (2002). Ross provides more extensive information on the Famine in Chapter 13, pages 223-228. Colin4C (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Move Proposal - Straw Poll

The consensus recently formed is to move the article.

The admin correctly closed the discussion as there seemed to be no consensus as to which destination to move the article to. In my opinion, this was caused by too many options, and options that were too similar (for example, with and without the word "The").

This straw poll limits the options to the ones with the most expressed preferences (including an option to leave as is) with the objective of testing to see if a consensus has formed.

Please show a preference for only one option, and give a short reason. Discussion section below.

1. Irish Potato Famine
2. Great Irish Famine (1845 - 1852)
3. The Great Hunger (current title)

Option 1 - As per WP:COMMONNAME. --Bardcom (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Option 1 - as per WP:COMMONNAME. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Option 1 - As per WP:COMMONNAME. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussions

This discussion was concluded with the administrator's judgement of 'no concensus'. It is illegitimate to open it again less than a week later. Colin4C (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

According to whom? You and two others wanted the article title to remain as it was; a majority of the others wanted it moved to a different title. It's proper to carry on further discussions to determine what that title should be. My request to move the page to Irish Potato Famine was a different request than the one that was originally made. That one presented multiple options. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No its not there is no consensus for change. BigDunc^Talk 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that to have repeated discussions over a trivial matter like the article name is at best unhelpful. Please do not submit another move request until a reasonable interval has passed. All this energy would be better focussed on the content. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC). Was this not clear enough? I consider this plain disruptive. --Domer48 (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Please re-review the poll above. Everybody that expressed a preference said to change the title, therefore a consensus for change has been shown to exist. The straw poll above is to test a consensus for a destination with a reduced set of options based on the majority of preferences. The closing admin did not state that a consensus did not exist, only that a consensus over a destination was not clear. This straw poll is not to test whether a move is required or not - that consensus has already been established. Please express your preference via the straw poll above. --Bardcom (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that to have repeated discussions over a trivial matter like the article name is at best unhelpful. Please do not submit another move request until a reasonable interval has passed. All this energy would be better focussed on the content. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC). Was this not clear enough? I consider this plain disruptive. --Domer48 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

"The Great Hunger was a famine in Ireland between 1845 and 1849 which led to a reduction of 20% to 25% in the Irish population and the death of approximately 1 million people.[1] The Great Hunger is often called simply The Famine or The Great Famine or Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, literally The Bad life in Ireland itself and internationally more often called The Irish Potato Famine."

This recent edit is wrong and un-supported by references. The reference only supports the 20% to 25% figure, nothing else. The years are also wrong, 1845 and 1849, not supported by references and take no account of the recent work of both Kinealy or Ó Gráda, highlighted by me on the talk page. WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS

I have now addressed this part, and added additional references.

The famine started in September 1845 when blight was first noted in the country and by November half the potato crop was ruined. Not supported by references, and incorrect anyhow.Based on WP:OR and not supported by WP:V and WP:RS

This has been removed, as it is not supported by references, in addition it is confusing. The blight appeared in 1845, not the famine. As I have already mentioned, this point is raised by both Ó'Gráda and Kinealy.

The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.[3] Not supported by the reference, and contradicted in the article itself. See here, and here. Not an accurate summary, and devoid of context. "immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine," is not mentioned in the reference at all, Based on WP:OR and not supported by WP:V and WP:RS

• 1845
• Potato blight crosses the Atlantic and appears in England. It crosses to Wexford and Waterford (first newspaper report, 9 September). Half of the annual potato harvest is ruined (November). The Great Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States. A Relief Commission is set up under Edward Lucas. Actual Source used.

• Article:The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.[3]

• Source: "The Great Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States."

Clearly shows that the text is not supported by the reference being used.

Food aid had to be bought at market prices, a requirement which meant that the aid itself was less than fully effective since many poor Irish had no money at all and employment on Relief Works was not always immediately available. The first deaths from hunger took place in the spring of 1846. The new Whig administration under Lord Russell, influenced by their laissez-faire belief that the market would provide the food needed, then halted government food and relief works leaving many hundreds of thousands of people without any work, money or food. Not supported by the reference, and devoid of context, leaves to many questions to be decribed as a concise summary. Based on WP:OR and not supported by WP:V and WP:RS

• 1846
• Potato blight almost totally destroys the year’s crop. The Famine worsens.
• Whig government falls. Lord Russell’s Tory government halts food and relief works (re-instates them by end of year). The Central *Relief Committee of the Society of Friends is set up to alleviate suffering.
• Despite the Famine, large quantities of grain are exported to pay the rents of absentee landlords.
• Almost a third of a million destitute people are employed in public works (December)Actual Source used.

This section is compleatly unsupported: Food aid had to be bought at market prices, a requirement which meant that the aid itself was less than fully effective since many poor Irish had no money at all and employment on Relief Works was not always immediately available. The first deaths from hunger took place in the spring of 1846, and has been removed.

This section is not supported by the reference: The new Whig administration under Lord Russell, influenced by their laissez-faire belief that the market would provide the food needed, then halted government food and relief works leaving many hundreds of thousands of people without any work, money or food, and has been removed.

Grain continued to be exported from the country. Private initiatives such as The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends (Quakers) attempted to fill the gap caused by the end of government relief and eventually the government reinstated the relief works, although bureaucracy made food supplies slow to be released. The blight almost totally destroyed the 1846 crop and the Famine worsened considerably. By December a third of a million destitute people were employed in public works.[4] Not supported by the reference, and devoid of context, leaves to many questions to be decribed as a concise summary. For example why did Grain continued to be exported from the country? Why did the government end relief? "The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends (Quakers) attempted to fill the gap caused by the end of government relief and eventually the government reinstated the relief works although bureaucracy made food supplies slow to be released" is not in the reference at all, Based on WP:OR and not supported by WP:V and WP:RS Actual Source used.

• Whig government falls. Lord Russell’s Tory government halts food and relief works (re-instates them by end of year). The Central *Relief Committee of the Society of Friends is set up to alleviate suffering.
• Despite the Famine, large quantities of grain are exported to pay the rents of absentee landlords.
• Almost a third of a million destitute people are employed in public works (December)Actual Source used.

Not supported by the reference:Private initiatives such as The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends (Quakers) attempted to fill the gap caused by the end of government relief and eventually the government reinstated the relief works, although bureaucracy made food supplies slow to be released, and has been removed.

• 1847
• The Famine worsens after an exceptionally bad winter. Typhus epidemic kills tens of thousands. The Soup Kitchens Act provides financial assistance to local authorities to help them feed Famine victims. However, the Act is withdrawn in September when funding relief becomes dependent on local rates and charitable donations.

The Poor Relief Act allows magistrates to extend help to the needy (excluding tenants holding more than a quarter acre). The potato crop is healthy but so few have been planted that the Famine continues unabated (August).Actual Source used.

1847's exceptionally hard winter made conditions even worse. A typhus epidemic killed tens of thousands, including wealthier people as the towns were now also affected. 1847's harvest was largely unaffected by blight but too few potatoes had been planted so the Famine continued unabated.[5]Not supported by the reference, and devoid of context, leaves to many questions to be decribed as a concise summary. For example why was too few potatoes? "including wealthier people as the towns were now also affected," is not in the reference at all, Based on WP:OR and not supported by WP:V and WP:RS

This section is not supported by the reference:"including wealthier people as the towns were now also affected. 1847's harvest was largely unaffected by blight but too few potatoes had been planted so the Famine continued unabated," and has been removed.

The Soup Kitchens Act provided financial assistance to local authorities to help them feed Famine victims but this Act was withdrawn in September and relief was made the responsibility of local poor rates and of charitable organizations. This put impossible loads on local poor rates, particularly in the rural west and south. Emigration reached new heights and the infamous coffin-ships crossed the Atlantic in large numbers carrying people fleeing from the famine. The blight returned in 1848 when outbreaks of cholera were reported. Evictions became common and Famine victims on outdoor relief peaked in July at almost 840,000 people. Not supported by the reference, and devoid of context, leaves to many questions to be decribed as a concise summary. For example when did evictions start and why? The Soup Kitchens Act, did that not go against laissez-faire, is that a contradiction?"This put impossible loads on local poor rates, particularly in the rural west and south. Emigration reached new heights and the infamous coffin-ships crossed the Atlantic in large numbers carrying people fleeing from the famine" is not in the reference at all, Based on WP:OR and not supported by WP:V and WP:RS

• 1848
• The Famine continues. There are outbreaks of cholera and the potato harvest fails. The number of evictions rises. Famine victims on outdoor relief peak at almost 840,000 people (July).Actual Source used.

This section is not supported by the reference:This put impossible loads on local poor rates, particularly in the rural west and south. Emigration reached new heights and the infamous coffin-ships crossed the Atlantic in large numbers carrying people fleeing from the famine, and has been removed.

The potato crop failed again in 1849 and famine was accompanied by cholera outbreaks.[6]. What about all the other diseases, typhus was already mentioned? It is devoid of context, and leaves to many questions to be decribed as a concise summary. "accompanied by cholera outbreaks" the source says "further outbrakes" not being the first of such outbrakes.

Left it in, will address later.

The famine is generally regarded as ending in 1849, although people continued dying in smaller numbers. The famine left in its wake perhaps up to a million dead and another million emigrated. The famine caused a sense of lasting bitterness by the Irish towards the British government, whom many blamed — then and now — for the starvation of so many people.[7] The famine is generally regarded as ending in 1849. By whom? Not supported by the reference at all. "although people continued dying in smaller numbers." So either it did or did not end in 1849 which is it? Devoid of context, leaves to many questions to be decribed as a concise summary, and is not in the reference at all, Based on WP:OR and not supported by WP:V and WP:RS

• 1849
• The potato crop fails again. Irish countryside devastated by famine and further outbreaks of cholera.Actual Source used.
• 1850
• The Great Famine ends. Its aftermath of emigration and rural deprivation lasts for over a century.Actual Source used.

Removed, not supported by source.

This section is not supported by the reference and has been removed.

By 1851 Census figures showed that the population of Ireland had fallen to 6,575,000 - a drop of 1,600,000 in ten years.[8] The fall-out of the famine continued for decades afterwards and Ireland's population still has not recovered to pre-famine levels. This is contradicted above on two occasions, the figures just don't add up. The census figures have been rightly challanged but thats not mentioned here. Its devoid of context, and leaves to many questions to be decribed as a concise summary. Based on WP:OR and not supported by WP:V and WP:RS Removed, not supported by source.

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article."

This Lead fails on all points, every issue can be challanged by either side, and its notable controversies are not addressed at all. However, the version below: Is able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It establishs context, summarizes the most important points, explains why the subject is interesting or notable, and controversies. It has been carefully worded as appropriate, and written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article. This Lead dose not assume that the reader knows all about the subject, and acknowledges that it is contentious.

The Great Hunger (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life) is a highly contentious period of history between 1845 and 1852 during which the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent.[1] It is known by various names, such as The Great Famine in Ireland itself and The Irish Potato Famine internationally. The proximate cause[2] of the famine was a pathogenic water mould, Phytophthora infestans, the disease it causes is commonly known as late blight of potato. Though P. infestans ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, its human cost in Ireland was exacerbated by a host of political, social, economic, and climatological factors which remain the subjects of heated historical debate.

The famine was a watershed in the history of Ireland. Its effects extended well beyond its immediate demographic impact and permanently changed the island's political and cultural landscape. For both the native Irish and those in the resulting diaspora, the famine entered folk memory and became a rallying point for various nationalist movements. Virtually all modern historians of Ireland regard it as a dividing line in the Irish historical narrative, referring to the preceding period of Irish history as "pre-Famine."''

The reason the Article was the subject of an ArbCom ruling is because of the contentious nature of the subject. The version being pushed is contentious because of the weight giving to some aspects of the subject and the misleading presentation. Now I have asked a number of time for quoted references to support the flexible reference being used, just provide it. If you place information on the Article page the onus is on the editor to back it up. The contradictions on dates and numbers have to be addressed. All unreferenced information must be removed. Which version best meets our guidlines on WP:LEAD and why? --Domer48 (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the book to which notes 3 to 8 refer in my hand at the moment: Ireland: History of a Nation (2002) by David Ross. Checking it I see that the appropriate text of the article is supported by reference to this book. As the introduction is by its very nature a brief summary there is no room to go into all controversies in depth. And anyway, virtually all the text is descriptive of events which are generally agreed by historians to have happened. Questions as to why things happen are often not in the realm of history at all but speculation. Such speculation can be addressed in the body of the article. Colin4C (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait till you have checked the book before responding. --Domer48 (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors responce above "Assuming we are now talking about David Ross's Ireland: History of a Nation (2002), I can safely say that the notes in the intro (3-8) which refer to this book are correctly referenced." I think someone else should explaine to them what WP:OR is? --Domer48 (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of the above responce I would call on Mentor's to address Points 6 and 7 which also fall under the remit of Mentorship on the section entitled "Principles." With opinions like this discussion is pointless. --Domer48 (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The text in question is referenced to David Ross's book, therefore it is not original research. QED. Any editor here can confirm the statements in the text by referring to this book. Colin4C (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

MANY more references can be added. Just taking a couple of examples from only two books. Peel's actions are described in one as "prompt action", his relief measures as being "prompt, skillful and on the whole successful". Another states how Peel, although believing that the Irish tended to exaggerate, was "alarmed" already in September. The same book, although noting that Peel's measures were not going to help the poorest and hardest hit says "by the standards of the day Peel had acted quite imaginatively".

On the starting dates and first deaths, I have two different sources to hand and they give two different dates. One says August 20th for first reports, the other says September. On spread of the blight, one says that "about half the country was affected" by late September, another that three quarters of the Irish potato harvest was destroyed by Feb 1846. One source I don't have to hand right now said that half the crop was ruined by November, but that's consistent with the ones I do have in front of me. On deaths, a reference says that by February 1846 "no-one had yet died of starvation", yet people died widely in 18466 - albeit mass deaths started in the Autumn after the failure of the second harvest.

I never claimed the LEAD was perfect, but Domer48's blank reverting wasn't and isn't exactly helpful. If there are things that could be better expressed or referenced then please propose such improvements without simply accusing (incorrectly in at least MANY cases) everything of being OR. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing which isn't mentioned is the fact that starvation was staved off in the first year of the Famine (1845) by the mass consumption of virtually all the pigs in Ireland. This, plus 'Peel's Brimstone'... Though the text is not perfect, as you say, I think it does emphasise the fact that it was not just a single crop failure which caused the Famine, but a whole succesive series of them year after year which dealt the hammer blow of death. Colin4C (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, if you can not see the problem here with WP:NPOV, WP:POV and WP:OR there is not point discussing this with you. I'll put just one example to illustrate the point.

• Article:The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.[3]

• Source: "The Great Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States."

If you insist that "I can safely say that the notes in the intro (3-8) which refer to this book are correctly referenced," then it is just plain disruptive, and should be addressed by the Mentor's. --Domer48 (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's replace it with REF: The Course of Irish History, 1994. Edited by T.W.Moody and F.X.Martin. Page 268. Mercier Press. ISBN 1 85635 108 4. We could replace "immediately" with "promptly", which might well be a better word anyway. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No. That view is contradicted! Please read the previous discussions on this subject, because I'm not going through old ones. --Domer48 (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have. It'll be a relief if you don't. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you read the previous discussions, you were aware of the ArbCom ruling. Dispite being aware that "All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page." You ignored it and inserted contentious material, ignored our policies on verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view and our guidlines on Reliable sources and Lead Section. Now your breaching our policies on WP:CIVIL. I have illustrated the issues and addressed the edits, now you have to. --Domer48 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you were reverter-in-chief I hope you'll now abide by Arbcom. Meantime, I didn't insert contentious material, ignore our policies on verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view and our guidelines on Reliable sources and Lead Section. Nor am I breaching our policies on WP:CIVIL. I have illustrated the issues and addressed the edits, now you have to. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No detailed attempt has been made to address the issues above and having allowed a period of time to do so nothing was provided to support the changes. Acting on the advice of Daniel here, I have attempted to have all content reversions discussed on the article talk page. I have removed the un-supported text and un-referenced text. This text needs to be addressed:

Grain continued to be exported from the country. By December a third of a million destitute people were employed in public works. 1847's exceptionally hard winter made conditions even worse. A typhus epidemic killed tens of thousands. The Soup Kitchens Act provided financial assistance to local authorities to help them feed Famine victims but this Act was withdrawn in September and relief was made the responsibility of local poor rates and of charitable organizations. The blight returned in 1848 when outbreaks of cholera were reported. Evictions became common and Famine victims on outdoor relief peaked in July at almost 840,000 people.

While referenced, it is devoide of context, and simply a pick and mix of statements. It really should not be in the Lead section.--Domer48 (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Two Versions of the Intro

If people here are wondering what the differences are between the old and new versions of the intro, here they are. Compare and contrast and make your own minds up which is best, or feel free to write a third version or any other modifications:

Old Version

The Great Hunger (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life) is a highly contentious period of history between 1845 and 1852 during which the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent. It is known by various names, such as The Great Famine in Ireland itself and The Irish Potato Famine internationally. The proximate cause of the famine was a pathogenic water mould, Phytophthora infestans, the disease it causes is commonly known as late blight of potato. Though P. infestans ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, its human cost in Ireland was exacerbated by a host of political, social, economic, and climatological factors which remain the subjects of heated historical debate.

The famine was a watershed in the history of Ireland. Its effects extended well beyond its immediate demographic impact and permanently changed the island's political and cultural landscape. For both the native Irish and those in the resulting diaspora, the famine entered folk memory and became a rallying point for various nationalist movements. Virtually all modern historians of Ireland regard it as a dividing line in the Irish historical narrative, referring to the preceding period of Irish history as "pre-Famine."

New Version

The Great Hunger was a famine in Ireland between 1845 and 1849 which led to a reduction of 20% to 25% in the Irish population and the death of approximately 1 million people. The Great Hunger is often called simply The Famine or The Great Famine or Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, literally The Bad life in Ireland itself and internationally more often called The Irish Potato Famine.

The proximate cause of the famine was a pathogenic water mould, Phytophthora infestans, which causes a potato disease commonly known as late blight, where the potato crop is destroyed at about the time of the harvest. Though blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland — where a huge part of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food — was exacerbated by a host of political, social, economic, and climatological factors which remain the subject of historical debate. The famine was a watershed in the history of Ireland. Its effects permanently changed the island's demographic, political and cultural landscape. For both the native Irish and those in the resulting diaspora, the famine entered folk memory and became a rallying point for various nationalist movements. Virtually all modern historians of Ireland regard it as a dividing line in the Irish historical narrative, referring to the preceding period of Irish history as "pre-Famine."

The famine started in September 1845 when blight was first noted in the country and by November half the potato crop was ruined. The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up. Food aid had to be bought at market prices, a requirement which meant that the aid itself was less than fully effective since many poor Irish had no money at all and employment on Relief Works was not always immediately available. The first deaths from hunger took place in the spring of 1846. The new Whig administration under Lord Russell, influenced by their laissez-faire belief that the market would provide the food needed, then halted government food and relief works leaving many hundreds of thousands of people without any work, money or food. Grain continued to be exported from the country. Private initiatives such as The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends (Quakers) attempted to fill the gap caused by the end of government relief and eventually the government reinstated the relief works, although bureaucracy made food supplies slow to be released. The blight almost totally destroyed the 1846 crop and the Famine worsened considerably. By December a third of a million destitute people were employed in public works. 1847's exceptionally hard winter made conditions even worse. A typhus epidemic killed tens of thousands, including wealthier people as the towns were now also affected. 1847's harvest was largely unaffected by blight but too few potatoes had been planted so the Famine continued unabated.The Soup Kitchens Act provided financial assistance to local authorities to help them feed Famine victims but this Act was withdrawn in September and relief was made the responsibility of local poor rates and of charitable organizations. This put impossible loads on local poor rates, particularly in the rural west and south. Emigration reached new heights and the infamous coffin-ships crossed the Atlantic in large numbers carrying people fleeing from the famine. The blight returned in 1848 when outbreaks of cholera were reported. Evictions became common and Famine victims on outdoor relief peaked in July at almost 840,000 people.

The potato crop failed again in 1849 and famine was accompanied by cholera outbreaks.. The famine is generally regarded as ending in 1849, although people continued dying in smaller numbers. The famine left in its wake perhaps up to a million dead and another million emigrated. The famine caused a sense of lasting bitterness by the Irish towards the British government, whom many blamed — then and now — for the starvation of so many people. By 1851 Census figures showed that the population of Ireland had fallen to 6,575,000 - a drop of 1,600,000 in ten years. The fall-out of the famine continued for decades afterwards and Ireland's population still has not recovered to pre-famine levels.

Colin4C (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed compromise Version

The Great Hunger was a famine in Ireland between 1845 and 1849 which led to a reduction of between 20% to 25% in the Irish population and the death of approximately 1 million people.

The proximate cause of the famine was a potato disease commonly known as late blight, where the potato crop is destroyed at about the time of the harvest. Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland — where a huge part of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food — was exacerbated by a host of political, social, economic, and climatological factors which remain the subject of historical debate. The famine was a watershed in the history of Ireland and its effects permanently changed the island's demographic, political and cultural landscape.

The famine started in September 1845 when blight was first noted in the country and by November half the potato crop was ruined. The first deaths from hunger took place in the spring of 1846. The blight almost totally destroyed the 1846 crop and the Famine worsened considerably. 1847's exceptionally hard winter made conditions even worse. A typhus epidemic killed tens of thousands, including wealthier people as the towns were now also affected. 1847's harvest was largely unaffected by blight but too few potatoes had been planted so the Famine continued unabated. Emigration reached new heights and the infamous coffin-ships crossed the Atlantic in large numbers carrying people fleeing from the famine. The blight returned in 1848 when outbreaks of cholera were reported. Evictions became common and Famine victims on outdoor relief peaked in July at almost 840,000 people.

The potato crop failed again in 1849 and famine was accompanied by cholera outbreaks.. The famine is generally regarded as ending in 1849, although people continued dying in smaller numbers. The famine left in its wake perhaps up to a million dead and another million emigrated. The famine caused a sense of lasting bitterness by the Irish towards the British government, whom many blamed — then and now — for the starvation of so many people. By 1851 Census figures showed that the population of Ireland had fallen to 6,575,000 - a drop of 1,600,000 in ten years. The fall-out of the famine continued for decades afterwards and Ireland's population still has not recovered to pre-famine levels.

--Bardcom (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe (A) that the old version was entirely inadequate. It didn't even say that people died. Also, if nothing else, since the Famine was preceded by the largest nationalist movement in Irish history, the impression given that the Famine somehow jump-started Irish nationalism is misleading. The longer version may be too long. I'd be inclined to shorten the second paragraph. All the "watershed" discussion is IMHO too verbose. The third para could also be tightened up. I also believe that the inter-relation and sequence of events, particularly in late 1846 and early 1847, could be better expressed and clarified, e.g. how/when Russell stopped and restarted aid, when the Quakers (and other private organizations) got involved, when massive deaths and panicked emigration started. IF I have time I'll try to propose a better text. Not today, unfortunately. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As the original author of the current intro, I'm moved to defend against its characterization as "entirely inadequate." It was a dramatic improvement over what preceded it, and it did a reasonably good job of summarizing the Famine for readers who are unlikely to read beyond the table of contents. The current version of the intro is at least twice as long as it ought to be.

At that time, the article properly included "famine" in its title. It goes without saying that people died; it was a famine. While I agree that I probably could have put it better, it's also correct that the Famine changed the character of Irish nationalism. It caused many ambivalent parties and erstwhile supporters of Union to reconsider the effectiveness of British administration in Ireland. The people who emigrated, and their descendants, gave the cause a foreign lobby and fundraising wing.

That said, I applaud the ongoing efforts to improve this article. I know how frustrating it can be when an article is being camped by experienced wikilawyers. Just try not to let the struggle for editorial balance obscure the goal of an organized, accessible narrative. Dppowell (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The current version is probably a bit long, although it's still within guidelines. The existence of a famine doesn't, in itself, imply that people died. As for changing the character of Irish nationalism, it's probably true that it did, although the failure of the Repeal movement - which happened before the famine - was probably another main factor. And yes, right now there is lots of quoting of policies but the aim is a simple, clean narrative. The facts can speak for themselves. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The number of deaths is disputed. Daniel O Connell did not lead an Irish Nationalist movement, the French and American revolutions jump-started Irish Republicanism (United Irishmen). The Young Ireland movement (1840's) jump-started Irish Nationalism. This period is a "watershed" in Irish History, and is supported by notable sources on the subject. Now since everyone now agrees that their is problems with the lead, it should be replaced with the most stable version. The version that was produced through heated discussion by editors who understood the subject well enough to agree to disageee and produced a Lead that was balanced. --Domer48 (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The number of deaths may be uncertain, but people certainly died. The old lead didn't even say that so "heated discussion" didn't come up with anything very useful. The repeal movement that O'Connell led was a nationalist movement and has been described as such. I suppose Grattan was a nationalist of a sort too. O'Connell's failure to achieve repeal of the Union through constitutional means was instrumental in the fact that subsequent movements did not follow always the constitutional path. Just because O'Connell was non-violent doesn't mean he wasn't a nationalist. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Look I'm not going to give you a history lesson, if you think O'Connell was a Nationalist fine. The Lead that you have removed was based on informed discussion, by editors who actually understand the subject. The fact that it was informed discussion is what made it heated. Now I have placed a detailed outline of the current Lead on the talk page, start to address that. --Domer48 (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't give me a history lesson, I don't expect I'd learn much. Since I never met O'Connell I think he was a nationalist because reputable sources tell me he was. The National Library of Ireland (a pretty eminent institution) thinks he was too, listing their collection of political papers as including "Political papers. The collection represents most of the nationalist movements from the 18th century onwards, and includes papers of Wolfe Tone, Daniel O'Connell, William Smith O'Brien and James Fintan Lalor." Oops. Other eminent sources say similar things, although one says that O'Connell has "sometimes been regarded as an afterthought to modern Irish nationalism", which seems a pity. Are your other points on the lead going to be as easy to debunk? Wotapalaver (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Hi, I've added a compromise version above which tries to keep the chronology and main events intact, but leaving out detail that may be better further in the article. Just trying to reach a balance between summary and detail. --Bardcom (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Initial reaction? Not bad Bardcom! As before, will not be able to get into detail today. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom's version looks good to me also. Colin4C (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been away from these discussions for some time, but I also agree that Bardcom has come up with quite a good introduction that seems to tip its hat towards compromise gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The solution I would favour is for the Article Lead to be returned to last Stable Version, and issues raised can then be discussed as to content being added. The proposal currently being made on the talk page is aimed a addressing a problem created by the recent contentious additions, and not building upon a non-contentious and stable version. For that reason, I consider the proposal premature. --Domer48 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you would prefer to revert again? Wotapalaver (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting is very negative. We should be constructive here. Colin4C (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. I will remove or revert and consider myself a constructive editor. Now reference it. After all Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. --Domer48 (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The intro IS referenced and is neither misleading or false. Let's be constructive. Colin4C (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have more than satisfied the criteria as laid out in the Arbitration Mentorship were “All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page.” This is demonstrated here, comprehensively here, and here and here. I have outlined continued problems here, here and here. In addition, I raised continued concerns here, here and here requesting additional opinions. Now all my edits are policy based, and not once has any editor produced any quote from a referenced source to contradict my detailed review. Now the next time information is added which is not supported by a reference, is misleading or based on original research the matter will be forwarded to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement were editors will have to provide the information that they have thus far failed to do. --Domer48 (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest Version of Intro

This is the latest version of the intro by Domer. Any comments? For myself I am concerned that the third paragraph seems to be a non-sequitor (particularly the statement "by December" which does not indicate the year in question) referring back to non-existent information relating to the first two years of the Famine 1845-6. In my personal opinion it would be useful for the reader of the wikipedia to know what happened in the first two years of the Famine and would make the intro more coherent:

The Great Hunger (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life) is a highly contentious period [8] of history between 1845 and 1852 during which the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent. It is known by various names, such as The Great Famine in Ireland itself and often outside Ireland asThe Irish Potato Famine. The proximate cause of the famine was a pathogenic water mould, Phytophthora infestans, the disease it causes is commonly known as late blight of potato. Though P. infestans ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, its human cost in Ireland was exacerbated by a host of political, social, economic, and climatological factors which remain the subjects of heated historical debate.

The famine was a watershed in the history of Ireland. Its effects permanently changed the island's demographic, political and cultural landscape. For both the native Irish and those in the resulting diaspora, the famine entered folk memory and became a rallying point for various nationalist movements. Virtually all modern historians of Ireland regard it as a dividing line in the Irish historical narrative, referring to the preceding period of Irish history as "pre-Famine."

Grain continued to be exported from the country. By December a third of a million destitute people were employed in public works. 1847's exceptionally hard winter made conditions even worse. A typhus epidemic killed tens of thousands. The Soup Kitchens Act provided financial assistance to local authorities to help them feed Famine victims but this Act was withdrawn in September and relief was made the responsibility of local poor rates and of charitable organizations. The blight returned in 1848 when outbreaks of cholera were reported. Evictions became common and Famine victims on outdoor relief peaked in July at almost 840,000 people.

The potato crop failed again in 1849 and famine was accompanied by cholera outbreaks.. Colin4C (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already indicated that I would remove the third paragraph altogether. The grain leaving the country is contentious. The weather conditions aside, people were still starving to death and dieing of disease. Would fine weather have made a difference? The Soup Kitchens Act should be dealt with in the article. As all the schemes were contentious, to indicate one is to exclude others. This covers a lot in the first paragraph “Ireland was exacerbated by a host of political, social, and economic factors,” without going into great detail. Which details should be included and which not in a contentious article. Colin4c agrees as much when they say “As the introduction is by its very nature a brief summary there is no room to go into all controversies in depth.” My view is why go into any at all in the WP:LEAD. One will simply borrow another in my opinion. The same would be true of detailing individual years. Deciding which, would be based on editors preferences and prove contentious. This article is broad in its scope because the blight is only one of the contributing factors, and the lead must reflect that and maintain balance. --Domer48 (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether you indicated it or not, by removing the third paragraph you have made the intro incoherent and introduced a non sequitor. The readers of the the wikipedia would benefit from the information you have removed about the first two years of the Famine. An encyclopedia should mention the basic facts about phenomena. To that end I have created a new referenced section which gives, inter alia, details about what happened in the first two years of the Famine. Colin4C (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you have again reintroduced misleading and factually incorrect information, despite my detailed rational for its removal I can only conclude that you wish to make a point. While this may appear to me to be disruptive, I will leave that for others to decide. The rational is exactly the same which resulted in the removal of the information in the first instant. To remove it now, I would be conscious of the likely impact on the atmosphere and will therefore refrain for the moment. The new section you have just created is a WP:POV magnet, and as such only serves to undermine the article. --Domer48 (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have provided basic, referenced information on the Famine in a coherent narrative form. Most of this basic information is not mentioned elsewhere in the article or is presented as incoherent scaps here and there. Providing basic information on a topic is the purpose of an encyclopedia. Colin4C (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Domer48's recent edit has made the lead incoherent nonsense. He's not engaging on talk, simply repeating meaningless slogans. I'm contacting mentors. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Engagement has been attempted by me on the talk page here and here and previous to that here and here. That you have continually refused to get the point has now become disruptive. You have both added material which is misleading, and un-sourced original research and has be demonstrated by me to be nothing more than an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Pages 311 to 313 of the source used, I have comprehensively shown to be misleading, and page 224 I have forwarded to the Mentor’s showing the very same thing. While adding the material in the first instant could be considered misleading its re-insertion is disruptive. Further discussion is pointless under the circumstances having only a negative impact on the atmosphere, therefor pending a reply from the Mentor’s the next step will be to forward the incident to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.--Domer48 (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a good example of not engaging. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

By selective deletions the intro has been reduced to incoherence. The third paragraph is now a non sequitor. That is not in the best interests of readers wanting to know about the Famine. Bardcom's version makes a lot more sense IMHO. I think we should adopt that version. Colin4C (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remove "or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life" from the opening sentence, thereby changing "The Great Hunger (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life) is a highly contentious period [1] of history between 1845 and 1852[1] during which the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent" to "The Great Hunger (Irish: An Gorta Mór) is a highly contentious period [1] of history between 1845 and 1852[1] during which the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent". I think this would be more fluid and encourage users to continue with the article.

Any objections? Asmaybe (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No objection in particular. Also, I agree with Colin4C; we should return to Bardcom's version. Domer48 has written an incoherent lead. If nothing else, calling it "a contentious period of history" that "reduced" a population is just so weak. It was a famine; people starved to death. Wotapalaver (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to remove "An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life," what is your rational? In reply to editors who feel the lead is incoherent now, due to the removal of un-referenced and misleading information, I agree and have now removed it, as it is repeated verbatim in the new section below. --Domer48 (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, Domer48 finally thinks he has an excuse to revert entirely. No. The material previously edited and moved into the lead by me, commented on and checked by Colin4c and further modifications suggested by Bardcom was not agreed to be deleted. You're just reverting again. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The concensus of me, Bardcom and Wotapalver is in favour of the Bardcom version of the intro which I have now added more references to. Colin4C (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's gone now, but to answer Domer48, my aim was to make the lead flow better. And I never came across the phrase anywhere. Asmaybe (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No consensus was agreed. The only consensus was that the third paragraph was In according to all editors who felt that the lead was incoherent now, due to the removal of un-referenced and misleading information, I agreed and have now removed it, as it is repeated verbatim in the new section below.--Domer48 (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll not be edit warring over this as the information has been given to the medator's which illustrate the misleading and disruptive nature of you edits. --Domer48 (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good. No edit warring would be good. Now, please identify any issues one-by-one without being vague and we can fix them. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The issues have all been raised before with the source being used. The information is misleading and disruptive. Bardcom has not suggested that the reference is correct at all. Only you and Colm have. Now it is in the hands of the Mentor's, and after that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.--Domer48 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you raised the issues in a manner that was unclear and hard to read and - in at least a couple of cases - did not demonstrate any problem. If you believe that the text is unsupported by the references, please be specific. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Another question. What happened to the other names of the famine? Why have we lost them all? Wotapalaver (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro is an exact replica of the Bardcom version above. Feel free to add the other names of the Famine and make any other constructive edits which would improve it. Note: random deletion of paragraphs which reduce the intro into an incoherent mess cannot be classed as 'constructive'. The wikipedia is not a battlefield in which we score points off people by sabotaging previous edits and making a mess of them. The wikipedia is an encyclopedia designed to provide useful information for readers. See this policy: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND Colin4C (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Domer has pointed out quiet clearly his reasoning unlike other editors here. I have seen the concerns raised and the actual source that was forwarded to the mentors, which I requested from Domer through email, and they bare no resemblence to the actual text in this article. Domer IMO you should take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement as editors are trying to make a WP:POINT. You have made your points succulently and have been ignored and reverted contary to arb guidelines and under the nose of the mentors who have failed to act on this. BigDunc^Talk 14:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point out an instance or instances where the text is not supported by the reference and we shall fix it. I have several books to hand about Irish history, including Woodham Smith's. The information provided is mostly very basic, descriptive and non-controversial and occurs in several books about the Irish famine. Colin4C (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what POINT I would be trying to make, except that the lead was incoherent and uninformative and it doesn't need to be. Domer48's reasoning was not clear to me at all. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As for me I am trying to improve this article by providing referenced, valid BASIC information from a variety of sources on the Irish Famine. If there are any errors then editors are free to correct them rather than assuming bad faith on my part. And are we talking about the current version of the page or about some superseded edit of a few days ago? Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Colin4C (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of recent edits again please, Domer clearly illistrated in very fine detail what you are attempting to introduce is wrong, also I have an email with the updated ref which clearly shows you have breached policy on WP:OR. Also have a read of WP:AAGF thanks. BigDunc^Talk 15:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You see, I don't think he did. I think he made lots of assertions, but didn't clearly illustrate anything. If you've got an email that claims I've breached OR, then send it to me too! Wotapalaver (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The present version of the intro includes input from me, Watapalaver, Bardcom and others, introduced in several separate edits in the last two weeks or so, up to today, not all of which Domer has commented on. Therefore please list in detail below all instances where you believe that the present text is not supported by the several references provided and all instances of original research. By doing this we can all improve the article. Colin4C (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As with previous edits the use of The Great Shame, by Thomas Keneally, Anchor Books, New York (2000), ISBN 0 385 72026 2, Pg. 109, 100 & 135-140 do not support the text provided. Since the information has been challanged in a detailed way, and the issues have failed to be addressed I will address it but just to indicate this to the Mentor's first. I have also addressed the same information in the new section, having dealth with this information in the previous discussion. No consensus was agreed for the introduction of flawed and misleading information, and Bardcom has definitely not indicated that they supported the sources, or misuse of them. It is obvious that Colin4c still maintains that the information reflects that of the source here, and while supported in this by Wotapalaver it is telling that they suggest changing one of the sources here. But Colin4c really shows the fallacy with the introduction of The Great Shame reference, in an attempt to bolster no existent arguments. Likewise the introduction of additional page numbers for the David Ross book, here and here, a copy of which has been emailed to the Article Mentor’s, do not support the text added. Now I have gone out of my way to discuss this, and I really think the Mentor's should address this now. While they do not have to comment on content, they must ensure that policies and guidlines must be followed. I do also understand that like me they volunteer their time on the project, and I do not take that for granted. It is for that reason I would suggest this be taken to the ArbCom inforcement. I am also aware as they are of the number of Socks who have abused this article, and who I unfortunatly engauged in discussions with. Since ArbCom will as a matter of course run a checkuser, I will feel much better about engauging editors on the talk page. --Domer48 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Its the article which is important not me. The information provided in the intro about the dates of the various potato blights, the epidemics and the government etc responses is absolutely basic and supported in countless texts about the Famine and within the article itself. Colin4C (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Domer48, your note is unhelpful. You haven't addressed anything in any detailed or coherent way and as for me "changing" a reference, I proposed an additional or alternative reference that supported text that you said wasn't supported by reference - and demonstrated that it WAS supported. Meantime you're just throwing lots of words around. I'd be delighted to take this to Arbcom enforcement and for checkuser to be run on me at anytime. Please concentrate on making suggestions to improve the article, not to simply revert. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The information was challanged. Now you can provide quoted references from the source being used, to support the information, "the editor inserting or restoring the challenged material should be able to provide page numbers and/or direct quotes from the original text supporting the material, upon request."--Domer48 (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Which information was challenged? Be SPECIFIC. Otherwise (and I see you're at it again) you're just block reverting. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor has been provided the oppertunity to support the information, they restored. Tags were placed, indicating the intension to remove it and time was provided. The editor has indicated that they have no intension to provide the quotes or address the concerns. The challenged material was placed on the talk page by myself, quoting directly from the source and no attempt was made to engage. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.--Domer48 (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead Section

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The first paragraph needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. Which is for example "What=Name" "When=Date" and "Why=proximate cause." It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. All of the circumstances surrounding the subject contain notable controversies, this is breiefly summarized as "is a highly contentious period." This is what I have attempted to do. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless must not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. If editors wish to build upon this, they should suggest what could improve this section and adhear to the guidlines outlined in lead section.

Current Version of the Intro

Feel free to suggest improvements to the current version of the intro:

The Great Hunger was a famine in Ireland between 1845 and 1849 which led to a reduction of between 20% to 25% in the Irish population and the death of approximately 1 million people.

The proximate cause of the famine was a potato disease commonly known as late blight, where the potato crop is destroyed at about the time of the harvest. Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland — where a huge part of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food — was exacerbated by a host of political, social, economic, and climatological factors which remain the subject of historical debate. The famine was a watershed in the history of Ireland and its effects permanently changed the island's demographic, political and cultural landscape.

The famine started in September 1845 when blight was first noted in the country and by November half the potato crop was ruined. The first deaths from hunger took place in the spring of 1846.The blight almost totally destroyed the 1846 crop and the Famine worsened considerably. 1847's exceptionally hard winter made conditions even worse. A typhus epidemic killed tens of thousands, including wealthier people as the towns were now also affected. 1847's harvest was largely unaffected by blight but too few potatoes had been planted so the Famine continued unabated. Emigration reached new heights and the infamous coffin-ships crossed the Atlantic in large numbers carrying people fleeing from the famine.The blight returned in 1848 when outbreaks of cholera were reported. Evictions became common and Famine victims on outdoor relief peaked in July at almost 840,000 people.

The potato crop failed again in 1849 and famine was accompanied by cholera outbreaks.. The famine is generally regarded as ending in 1849, although people continued dying in smaller numbers. The famine left in its wake perhaps up to a million dead and another million emigrated. The famine caused a sense of lasting bitterness by the Irish towards the British government, whom many blamed — then and now — for the starvation of so many people. By 1851 Census figures showed that the population of Ireland had fallen to 6,575,000 - a drop of 1,600,000 in ten years. The fall-out of the famine continued for decades afterwards and Ireland's population still has not recovered to pre-famine levels.

Colin4C (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion 1 - put back the other names of the famine. The Great Famine, The Famine and the Irish Potato Famine. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Suggestion 2 - put back the links to the potato blight page. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Suggestion 3 - mention the fact that the British government started, stopped, started, stopped giving aid. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Suggestion 4 - the line about 1848 seems to connect the famine to cholera. It should say "and outbreaks of cholera were reported" instead of "when outbreaks of cholera were reported". Wotapalaver (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Suggestion 5 - Put back An Drochshaol, which seems to be supported (pending Domer48s references) Wotapalaver (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The current version includes the phrase "An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life" in the first sentence and I propose removing it on grounds of WP:Verifiability. Asmaybe (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that is a policy based reason, and I will reference it for you. --Domer48 (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you go here, I'll put together some book references also. --Domer48 (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, Domer, that you have now got rid of the version above and reverted back to the old inadequate version of the intro, inter alia getting rid of a mass of relevent referenced material - your edit not based on any concensus here. You have also mass deleted a whole other section of the article "Chronology of the Famine", your edit not based on any concensus also. Could a mentor look at this latest edit and give his opinion? Colin4C (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Domer48, that website is called 'Irish language' and is run by a Paulo Ferreira of Salamanca. Hardly a reliable source in the WP:RS sense (eg. no peer review, not an authority). Moreover, the linked page translates "An Drochshaol" as "Great Famine", not "The Bad Life" as our lead states. Therefore I'm removing this phrase on grounds of WP:Verifiability.

Bear in mind also that if there were a source for "An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life", WP:LEAD still requires that "the first paragraph should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence", one that "avoids needlessly awkward phrasing". In this respect too the lead is better off without this phrase. Asmaybe (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll deal with both issues later. --Domer48 (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added both phrases back in. If you simply google the term "Drochshaol" and "famine", there are over 1,200 hits including this from the RHS and this from UCD on the first page. It took me 20 seconds to find these references - hardly an obscure fact to check... --Bardcom (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the term "Drochshaol" doesn't exist, but that there's no source for it meaning "the bad life". Neither of your links provides verification for that (in fact, your second link doesn't mention Drochshaol at all). I've removed this phrase again on grounds of WP:Verifiability. Asmaybe (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Drochshaol doesn't mean "the great hunger" either. Asmaybe (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you continue to remove Drocshaol on the grounds that it isn't verifiable. I'm not providing an English translation - the term is included because it is used, in the Irish Language, to refer to this particular famine. It's a bit like the British referring to part of world war II as the Blitz I suppose, only this term, Drochshaol, is used in scholarly and academic articles. So the term is references, and is verifiable as referring to this famine. I'm not trying to translate it, but even if I was, so what if it doesn't mean "the great hunger"? It's a term, not a translation. Please don't remove it again. --Bardcom (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom, the words "An Gorta Mór" are an Irish translation of "the great hunger". They're put in brackets for that reason. They're not an alternative name for "the great hunger". From what you've written it's clear you think "An Drochshaol" is an alternative name, not a translation: "It's a term, not a translation". Therefore it doesn't belong in these brackets. My deleting this phrase follows the WP:Reasonability rule, namely "if an action cannot be considered 'reasonable' or 'acceptable' by an objective third person, that action should not be performed". It is not reasonable to include the words "an drochshaol" in the brackets following "the great hunger" because they are not a translation of "the great hunger". Please do not edit war.

May I add, if you're suggesting another name then you should say so in the article. You should also provide a reliable source, one which contains a translation. After all, this page is in English. Bear in mind that the only source cited so far, which provides a translation for "An Drochshaol", says it means "the great famine". here Asmaybe (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed a number of issues which I raised above, and have repeated on a number of occasions. You have again re-introduced information which I have substantially addressed and which you are now going to address. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Please quote directly from the source you are using which shows that it directly supports the information as it is presented.--Domer48 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My edits are all reliably referenced according to wikipedia standards. None of it is original research. My original research into Ireland's history is confined to discovering some Neolithic axes in the fields of County Carlow in 1992...which I haven't added to this article...or any other article on the wikipedia for that matter...I used to be an editor of an academic journal, by the way, and have contributed articles to hard-copy encyclopedias so I do know a thing or two about the proper use of citations...Wikipedia:Assume good faith Colin4C (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You have again been asked to Quote from the source you are using that directly supports the information as it is presented. We can start with this one: The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered Indian corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up. Please provide ISBN Number and actual page number. --Domer48 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As before. If you doubt one ref, here's another. REF: The Course of Irish History, 1994. Edited by T.W.Moody and F.X.Martin. Page 268. Mercier Press. ISBN 1 85635 108 4. We could replace "immediately" with "promptly", which might well be a better word anyway. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you use material out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research; see Synthesizing material. Please Provide the quotes I have requested. --Domer48 (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of this version is far better than the current article version which doesn't even mention that it was a famine; it refers to a 'contentious period'. The second sentence says it is known by different names including the 'Great Famine', but when the third sentence says 'the proximate cause of the famine...' it's relying on sentence two rather than sentence one to explain 'What Famine?' The reader has to assume 'contentious period' means 'famine'. This proposed version is much clearer and meets the WP:Lead policy better. Asmaybe (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the use of the word "Famine" is contentious might explaine that, and if you look at the meaning of the word "proximate cause" you will notice how and why that word is used. The blight did not cause the people to starve, the lack of food did. Why did the people have no food, when the country was producing more than enough?--Domer48 (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a famine. It's most often called a famine. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Was it a man made disaster? --Domer48 (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone genetically engineered the blight and deliberately shipped it to Ireland in the 1840s, it wasn't a manmade disaster as such, no. The effects of the disaster may have been worse than they should have been because of things men did, both at the time and earlier but that's not the same thing as it being a man-made disaster. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Domer48, 'the proximate cause of the famine' begs the question 'what famine?' There's no answer in the opening sentence, so what famine is it referring to? "Contentious period" doesn't mean famine. There may be contention about causation, but the article isn't about causation; it's about famine. The proposed version is a better version. Asmaybe (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please "proximate cause" says exactly what it is meant to say, that blight was the result off... This article is not about famine, it is about a period in Irish History. On the article on Auschwitz, do we concentrate on the nature and properties of gas? The article is about causation! Please read it!--Domer48 (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're right, then according to the article the 'proximate cause' of this 'period in Irish History' "was a potato disease commonly known as late blight", clearly an absurd statement.

I see that once again the opening sentence has reverted to the more meaningful version so I'll leave it at that. Asmaybe (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'll deal with it later and add more references. --Domer48 (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you really believe "the article is about causation!" then explain why the causality page isn't called "The Great Hunger". Seriously, you're giving precedence to a secondary issue, a WP:POV that properly belongs in the body of the article. I'm reverting the lead to the suggested version because it better conforms to WP:LEAD policy. Asmaybe (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Colin4c please quote directly from the source you are using which shows that it directly supports the information as it is presented. If you use material out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are engaged in original research; see Synthesizing material. Please Provide the quotes I have again requested. --Domer48 (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Examples:

Actual Source verbatim: Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States. A Relief Commission is set up under Edward Lucas. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

Actual text added to article: The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered Indian corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.

:Actual Source verbatim: Whig government falls. Lord Russell’s Tory government halts food and relief works (re-instates them by end of year). The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends is set up to alleviate suffering.David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

:Actual text added to article: The new Whig administration under Lord Russell, influenced by their laissez-faire belief that the market would provide the food needed, then halted government food and relief works leaving many hundreds of thousands of people without any work, money or food. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

:Actual text added to article: Private initiatives such as The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends (Quakers) attempted to fill the gap caused by the end of government relief and eventually the government reinstated the relief works, although bureaucracy made food supplies slow to be released. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

The information is supported by the references cited in the article, not all of which you have quoted above. It has been put into different words than the sources to avoid plagiarism. Plagiarism is not allowed on the wikipedia. Colin4C (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between changing something to avoid plagiarism and your own take on what is said. BigDunc^Talk 16:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please list below all instances where I have put my own take on what is said rather than adhering to the sources I have cited in the article so that we can improve this article. Note: the sources mentioned by Domer above are just a selection from the ones I have cited in the article. For instance I have cited, several times, Cecil Woodham-Smith's standard book on The Great Hunger. Please, therefore, refer to all the sources I have cited and then tell me in detail what you believe to be original research. Colin4C (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I have clearly illustrated your attempts at original research you are now scrambling around for references to justify your edits. You have and are engaging in original research which is pacifically addressed in the ArbCom Rulings. “If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.” Your attempts to add additional sources now, having insisted all along on reinserting misleading information I find disruptive. Now with the additional sources, you’re suggesting that they not only explicitly reach the same conclusion as the article, but also the original source you used. Now that is simply not possible. That you are attempting the same thing now with the Keneally reference I have also had to address, and additional editors agree with me. Based on this your use of Cecil Woodham-Smith is questionable. That you use such broad page ranges like 49-65 and 174-187 is also a cause of concern. That they can not support both the reference you have used and the article I suggest you remove them also and that one of the Mentor’s review you edits based on the above ArbCom rulings. --Domer48 (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The edits here have been made and modified and supported by a variety of editors, not just me. Lets talk about the subject matter and assume good faith. Wikipedia:Assume good faith Colin4C (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Many reference volumes can be used to back up the text, not just Keneally. As for doubting Russel's laissez-fair beliefs and saying that they're not supported by references, that's just silly. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sentence added to lead

• "The fall-out of the famine continued for decades afterwards and Ireland's population still has not recovered to pre-famine levels."

Firstly the first part of this is unsourced, and the second part is sourced only by primary sources. I believe the analysis in terms of expecting population recovery is wholly inappropriate. For the sake of argument, we shall accept the 1851 census figure of 6,552,385 as accurate. Now if the analysis added by Colin4C is correct, we should expect the population of Ireland to have "recovered" since then, and possibly have exceeded that figure. However one source used gives the population of Ireland several years ago as 5,602,603, which is less than the 1851 census figure. Therefore the whole analysis based on population "recovery" is dead in the water before it has even begun. If a source has made such an analysis please cite it, but no analysis of primary sources please. These comments can be taken as advance notice that this sentence will be removed in due course unless it is sourced properly. Domer48 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the sentence is correctly sourced in accordance with wikipedia rules. But if you want more references I can provide them. This is fairly basic widely accepted information and not original research on my part or anybody elses part. I am not a personally an Irish census enumerator but have presented information based on census returns. As far as I'm aware published census data is allowed to be used in the wikipedia. The 1851 census was post-famine by the way. We are talking about the decline from population recorded in the pre-famine census of 1841. Viz: 8,175,124. Colin4C (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please address the issue, and answer the question. Your additional reference dose not support your analysis. --Domer48 (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Published census data can be used, but any analysis or comparisons should be sourced to secondary sources. As you have seemingly had difficulty understanding what I said before, I shall try again. Your own personal analysis (which does not belong in the article) is that the population of Ireland has still not recovered to the level it was pre-famine. However, who was actually expecting the population of Ireland to "recover"? You? Your analysis does not belong in the article. Was a secondary source expecting it? Cite them. You have missed the point regarding the 1851 census by a long way, so I shall explain this too. According to your own personal analysis and expectations the population of Ireland should have now recovered to pre-famine levels. However the figures show your expectations are nonsensical. Since the end of the famine the population of Ireland has decreased not recovered, perhaps now you understand why your own analysis about the population not "recovering" does not belong in the article? Domer48 (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Read carefully what I have written above. We are talking about the 1841 census, not the 1851 one. Colin4C (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read it, you clearly don't even understand the implications of the analysis you added, which is usually the way with original research. The population decreased between the 1841 and 1851. Now according to your own personal analysis (WHICH DOES NOT BELONG IN THE ARTICLE) the population of Ireland has yet to increase to pre-Famine levels. However the figures actually show that since the end of the famine the population of Ireland has DECREASED, so secondary sources that expected the population to "recover" are needed, as opposed to what you think the current expected population of Ireland is. Domer48 (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Domer48 here. The text should simple state that pre-famine, the population was 8,175,124 and afterwards, it was down to 6,552,385. Although this is already partly covered by the lead statement. Question: why does the lead state that it resulted in the deaths of 1 million people, when the population declined by 1.6million people? Is the difference down to emigration, natural attrition without a corresponding birth rate, etc? Still a significant difference ... --Bardcom (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, emigration. One million dead is the 'ball park' figure mentioned in almost all studies of the Famine.

The problem here is implication behind the word "recover". If we are using primary data (and that itself isn't necessarily an issue), the we should simply state that the population of Ireland was X pre-famine and today Y. Leave the reader to draw their own conclusion of what that means. Its the analysis of the data that requires secondary sources. Rockpocket 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue of limited population recovery is an important one as Ireland seems to be almost unique amongst nations in the fact that its population is less now than it was in the mid nineteenth century. The Famine was a cause and catalyst of this decline. This startling fact of demography was not discovered by me but is a commonplace of Irish history and politics and culture. If you want more references I can supply them. Colin4C (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is a secondary or tertiary source that discusses the issue of population recovery in those terms, then the problem would be resolved and it probably should be noted in the lead. Rockpocket 17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Population recovery is one thing, but not when misleading information is being presented. As Colin4C knows, the source he added in this edit states that "1850 and 1914, some four million people left Ireland a rate of emigration larger than any other country's. The figure is probably an under estimate, since many travelled unrecorded to Britain", a fact which is conveniently left out of the lead giving the reader a misleading picture of events. Domer48 (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Rock that is exactly what I asked for in my first post, "If a source has made such an analysis please cite it, but no analysis of primary sources please." --Domer48 (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it was, Domer. I was just chipping in in support. Rockpocket 17:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For those interested in the subject Thomas Keneally's The Great Shame is a brilliant and disturbing book on the demographic catastrophe and total dislocation caused to Irish society by the Famine, emigration and political repression. Once again, these are very well known facts taught to schoolchildren in Ireland and mentioned in scores of books and not based on my original research. My original research into Irish history is limited to Neolithic activity in County Carlow. Colin4C (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now cited Keneally in the text of the article. Colin4C (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have checked Keneally, and it does not source the text under dispute. Keneally does not analyse, predict or draw conclusions, he just states the population at various points in history. All you are sourcing is the actual population at various points in history and making your own analysis based on those figures. That is original research, to the letter. Domer48 (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Page 101 of Robert Kee's "Ireland - A History" gives the census data for 1841 (8175124) and 1851 (6552385), gives an estimate of what population would have been in 1851 without the famine (9018799), gives an estimate of emigration (1500000), an estimate of deaths (1 million) and a modern estimate of deaths (~800000). It's not the most academic history text in the world, but it covers that much. Haven't got a reference on the "recovered" topic to hand, but I absolutely don't doubt that one exists. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

An article that mentions long-term impact of the famine is here [9]. It even describes the effects of the famine as "permanent". Wotapalaver (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not engaged in original research. I have not made an 'analysis'. The facts are obvious and are backed by the citations provided. Colin4C (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Since three editors have agreed a secondary source is needed for the analysis of figures being made and none has been provided and Colin4C's only counter-argument was "I have not engaged in original research" I have removed the sentence as OR. Domer48 (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Move Proposal - Straw Poll 2

More than a week has passed, time to reopen a straw poll to retest consensus.

The consensus recently formed is to move the article.

The admin correctly closed the discussion as there seemed to be no consensus as to which destination to move the article to. In my opinion, this was caused by too many options, and options that were too similar (for example, with and without the word "The").

This straw poll limits the options to the ones with the most expressed preferences (including an option to leave as is) with the objective of testing to see if a consensus has formed.

Addition: I propose the poll is closed in 5 days, 10 June at 18:00 UTC

Please show a preference for only one option, and give a short reason. Please indicate which options are preferable and which options you object to. Discussion section below.

1. Irish Potato Famine
2. Great Irish Famine (1845 - 1852)
3. The Great Hunger (current title)
4. The Great Famine

• Option 1 - As per WP:COMMONNAME. Option 4 also acceptable. Object to Option 3. --Bardcom (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1 - As per WP:COMMONNAME. Rockpocket 17:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1 - As per WP:COMMONNAME. --John (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1 - As per WP:COMMONNAME. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Option 4 - I've never heard the designation "Potato Famine" outside of WP; only "Famine" or "Great Famine". Scolaire (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1 - As per WP:COMMONNAME. (Scolaire can look [10] for some examples of "potato famine". Wotapalaver (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Question - Why was a redlink chosen as an option rather than Great Irish Famine which, even if it was not the favourite option of most, was more likely to be supported than this? Scolaire (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1 - As per WP:COMMONNAME. I still vastly prefer Option 1, Irish Potato Famine, as the most simple, clearly descriptive title but Option 4, Great Irish Famine (1845-1852), is probably also descriptive enough to let people know what the subject of the article actually is. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1 - As per WP:COMMONNAME. Berks911 (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Decided this after reading Famine and Hunger. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1 - As per WP:COMMONNAME. And since I, like everyone else here, am being accused of "just adding there [sic] names to a list without forwarding any opinion or rational [sic],"[11] please get off your lazy ass and scroll up to where my (and others) opinion was ignored the last time I (and others) impertinantly decided that I was qualified to debate an article title. — AjaxSmack 15:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Option 4 "Potato" is simply an unnecessary discriptor that I have never heard applied to the actual name of the famine, outside of scientific circles. I would point out to any closing admin that if everyone's rationale is simply that that is the common name, without any valid argument, then their votes carry no weight --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Option 4 --Domer48 (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Option 4 - As per WP:COMMONNAME. When talking about Ireland it's either The Famine, or the Great Famine, gorta is the Irish for famine. And Gorta Mor, means the Big/Great Famine. There was lots of food available at the time, so "potato famine" what an uneducated person's way of referring to the event. It's never "properly" called potato famine by Irish historians, although it might google well, it still not the proper name used by educated historians. Armchair historians might use it, but even anorak historians will use the proper name, ie "The Famine", or "The Great Famine". -- Citation; "The making of modern Ireland, 1603-1923", by JC Beckett, Faber& Faber 1966, SBN 571 09267 5 (fpce). -- Diarmaid Ferriter a more modern historian, The Irish Famine (co-authored with Colm Tóibín). Profile Books Limited. ISBN 1861974604 -- 93.107.8.58 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Option 4 -- For all the reasons given previously. Failing consensus then no change. Sarah777 (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Option 4 -- Irish Potato Famine is misleading and reasons outlined above. BigDunc^Talk 12:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed end date struck out. I suggest allowing a week from the time that this is listed at requested moves. I also suggest that listing this as a history RfC and canvassing opinions at relevant WikiProjects, and perhaps the Village Pump, will ensure the widest possible participation. A site notice may be a step too far, but it wouldn't hurt either. It would be best if this matter were dealt with decisively, once and for all time (or, since that's not possible, as decisively as possible so that we are not back here again three weeks come Wednesday). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Poll updated - now not mutually exclusive

Current indicators update as necessary

• Option 1 Supported by 9, Objected to by 5
• Option 4 Supported by 8, Objected to by NONE

--Bardcom (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Poll Discussion 2

I've been trying to get to the bottom of where the title "The Great Hunger" came from. I've never heard of this term before, and in schools around Ireland it is still referred to as either the Great Famine or the Irish Potato Famine. In my opinion, it comes from a bad translation - the Irish word for famine can also be used to mean hunger. Seems to me that somebody somewhere decided to use the word Hunger, but there's no doubt that in Irish, the term Gorta Mór refers to the Great Famine, and not the Great Hunger. --Bardcom (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger is the title of a book by Cecil Woodham-Smith [12]. I suggest that after this page is moved it would be worth changing it to an article on the book. Scolaire (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire, in Ireland an gorta mór is also the name of the catastropic events of 1845-1852. It is from the Irish name for the events which prompted the name of Woodham-Smith's book. Its just that one would get the impression that The Great Hunger is the only the title of a book. If you would like to read The Cause of Ireland, by Liz Curtis pg. 41 she makes reference to this fact. --Domer48 (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that to have repeated discussions over a trivial matter like the article name is at best unhelpful. Please do not submit another move request until a reasonable interval has passed. All this energy would be better focussed on the content. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC). Was this not clear enough? I consider this plain disruptive. --Domer48 (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Two responses. First, this is the opinion of Angus, and is not policy. Second, there was a clear consensus to move but the destination was not decided. As per the last attempt at a straw poll, This discussion was concluded with the administrator's judgement of 'no concensus'. It is illegitimate to open it again less than a week later. - well a week has passed. The topic is reopened. --Bardcom (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If the poll is to be closed after five days, may I suggest that Sarah777 (talk) be given an opportunity to vote by proxy? She has had a lot of input into this discussion and it would be a shame if a "consensus" were agreed while she is still negotiating an unblock. Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

She appears to be blocked for three months for frequent incivility. Given her responses in the above discussion, it can be assumed that she would vote to retain the current name of the article or would want Great Irish Famine. If a proxy vote is something she wants to do, I don't object, but the majority still appears to favor the title "Irish Potato Famine." --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked her. Scolaire (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative,", and Irish Potato Famine is misleading. Christine Kinealy, lists 10 names for the famine on the first page of "A Death-Dealing Famine" (1997) and explains that each has a specific meaning, bias and view. The one's she lists are:

• The Great Famine
• The Great Hunger
• The Great Starvation
• The Bad Times
• God's Visitation
• The Great Calamity
• The Irish Holocaust
• An Gorta Mór
• An Droch-Shaoghal
• Bliain an Ghorta

She suggests that Great Hunger is the most accurate and least biased among these, whereas "Famine" and "Holocaust" represent opposing ends of a spectrum of bias.--Domer48 (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

With due respect to Kinealy, what makes her opinion better than anyone elses? Look, the article is about a famine mainly caused by potato blight in Ireland. The title "Irish Potato Famine" looks spot on to me, especially as it is justified by content in our Famine article. Now, read our Hunger article. The title "Great Hunger" most definitely does not fit our Hunger article. Nor does it fit our Greatness article, which clearly labels "great" as a concept that is heavily dependent on a person's perspective and biases, in other words it is POV. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"What makes her opinion better than anyone elses?" The fact that you can cite no other opinion other than your own. Now what about Ó Gráda's, "The Irish Famine is often described as the "potato famine." Giving it a more contextual focus implies paying more attention to the potato and agriculture." The "famine" was not mainly caused by potato blight in Ireland. Read our Article here on it. Now provide an opinion, other than yours that supports your comments. --Domer48 (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well now, lets have a little rationality hereabouts. My opinion is based on the English language. In case you missed it, the article is about Ireland 's (as in where the Irish live) Potato (as in spuds got blight) Famine (as in caused by no spuds to eat). Nothing comes anywhere near describing the article better, unless we substitute Ireland's for Irish. Suppose we could write "Ireland's Great Hunger Caused by Famine Caused by Potatos Becoming Inedible Due To Blight (and other causes)". We could, but a succinct heading accurately describing the actual content of the article is preferable. Do I need a cite for that too, or will commonsense be okay? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The people did not die because there was no potatoes! They died because they had no food! Was there no food in the country? Why yes there was, plenty of it. But it was shipped out under armed military guard. So it was'ent just the blight then? No. While every country in Europe was covered in blight only in Ireland was there a "Famine." How is that? Because in every other country, their native government closed their ports to food being exported and actually bought food stuffs and had it shipped in. So the Irish had not native government then? No! They were governed by England. So why is the article not called "British Government Famines in Ireland"? Come back when its not just your opinion. --Domer48 (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What part of "(and other causes)" do you not understand? Do section headings have to have a thousand words? You mention opinion. It is not my opinion -- because you are demonstrating it here for all to see-- that you are throwing all sorts of red herrings about but not addressing the fact that the heading must be pertinent to the article content. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So you have gone from saying it was just the blight to accepting that there were other causes. Now I have asked you to provide a source other than your opinion and I'm still waiting. Were talking about the title of the article, not a section heading, and the Title must be pertinent. So since you will not read the article, or this discussion I put it here again just for you: Christine Kinealy, lists 10 names for the famine on the first page of "A Death-Dealing Famine" (1997) and explains that each has a specific meaning, bias and view. She suggests that Great Hunger is the most accurate and least biased among these, whereas "Famine" and "Holocaust" represent opposing ends of a spectrum of bias. So I have cited someone who has published a review on the name. In addition Ó Gráda quote in Ireland's Great Famine, "The Irish Famine is often described as the "potato famine." Giving it a more contextual focus implies paying more attention to the potato and agriculture." Again a published source who addresses the name. So based on our own interpretations of the information available, then my view "is entirely valid." Based on the information I have provided, it is reasonable to ask that editors provide a cite that says "Irish Potato Famine" is "the most common name", and that it is not misleading as published authors have suggested. Now stop throwing all sorts of red herrings about and addressing the fact.--Domer48 (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If you could comprehend what you had read above (if you actually read it), you wouldn't have led with your chin by saying "So you have gone from saying it was just the blight to accepting that there were other causes". What do you think my hypothetical, verbose, heading was demonstrating? Seems it needs to be spelled out for you. It mentions there are other causes as well, but in the real world that doesn't need to be mentioned in an article title. Irish Potato Famine fits the article admirably, and does not preclude the fact there were other causes. Also, how do you conclude from "Look, the article is about a famine mainly caused by potato blight in Ireland" that I have suddenly accepted there were other causes? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because of the misleading Lead Section you have concluded that this article was just about the blight. The Lead is only there because of an editwar and will be addressed. This is the origional lead here. However, apart from the lead, it is clear from the article it is not just about the blight. In addition, you have still not addressed the issues raised by the published sources. Now deal with them, and get back to me. --Domer48 (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Could editors cite a source which establishes what is the "Common Name." --Domer48 (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: A good test for common name is to see how sources refer to it, not when it is the subject of the study (since those sources tend you use more specific language), but when it is incidental to the subject. So, for example, when scientists discuss the pathogen responsible for the blight, how to they refer to it? [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Rockpocket 20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Could editors cite a source which establishes what is the "Common Name." I have cited what is considered the most accurate and least biased, and its not misleading. Ó Gráda quote from Ireland's Great Famine, first published in 2006 "The Irish Famine is often described as the "potato famine." Giving it a more contextual focus implies paying more attention to the potato and agriculture." He says its used often, not that it is the most common name, and the use of the term "potato famine" implies paying more attention to the potato and agriculture. Now that is not what this article is about, so the name is misleading.--Domer48 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please bear with me here. I know I've come late to an old and complex debate. It is clear that there is a discussion on whether to move, and to where. "The Great Hunger" is apparently opposed because it is not a common name; "Irish Potato Famine" because it is misleading. But why is "Great Irish Famine" opposed, and why was it moved from there? I'd just like to get a handle on this because it should be possible to agree on a "least controversial" name. "Irish Potato Famine" looks set to get a large majority in the straw poll but that doesn't mean it's uncontroversial, or won't be strenuously opposed. Scolaire (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Strenuousness doesn't mean that there is any significant validity. I could strenuously propose that we call the article "The Irish Holocaust", or "The Trevelyan Disaster". There'd be some documentary support, but not enough. Should I be able to block progress with strenuousness? Wotapalaver (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a demoracy, a large majority in a straw poll? Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domer48 (talk • contribs)

This is the second or third discussion in a month and the majority are agreed that Irish Potato Famine is the most common name for this event internationally. Evidence has been provided above. There has been more than one Irish famine. I'd object to Great Irish Famine because it is not specific enough and because Irish Potato Famine IS the more specific title, understood by everyone to refer to the event in question. Even those who use alternate titles for it in the literature appear to reference "Irish Potato Famine" so that people know what they're talking about. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Provide the Diff's to support "Evidence has been provided above" --Domer48 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to do diffs. I am referring to Rockpocket's post above and to the previous discussion of a month ago, in which plentiful evidence was provided. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell me the time, date and editor and I will get the diff's. You can get them by reading the discussion. --Domer48 (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Domer48 participated actively in the discussion at [18] so he knows the diffs. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Provide the Diff's to support "Evidence has been provided"--Domer48 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The most specific reference I can find above is by "Wotapalaver (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)" You objected to the reference, and at great length, but it's still evidence that Irish Potato Famine is a term that is widely used. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the diff [19]. Scolaire (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Scolaire for that, so there is no "Evidence has been provided" just comment and opinion.--Domer48 (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My question was: why is "Great Irish Famine" opposed? The only answer I've had so far is "I'd object to Great Irish Famine because it is not specific enough". That seems a very mild objection compared to what has been said about the alternatives. My point about the straw poll is that a large majority is worth precisely nothing if the minority is implacably opposed. Again, can somebody tell me in simple terms what is objectionable about "Great Irish Famine" and why it is no longer on the menu? Scolaire (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider that a "mild objection." The title of the article should be specific to a particular event and it should be the most common name for the event. Great Irish Famine doesn't fit the bill because there is more than one famine AND because Irish Potato Famine is the most common name for this event. I also disagree that a vocal minority should be permitted to determine the name of this article when ample evidence has been provided of the common use of the term Irish Potato Famine and of the preference for that name by the majority. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Could editors cite a source which establishes what is the "Common Name." Provide referenced sources, comment and opinion are not considered sources.--Domer48 (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Bookworm. Thank you for the clarification. Can anybody else tell me what is objectionable about "Great Irish Famine"? As I said above, I think we should be looking for a "least controversial" name, not a "biggest majority" one. Whatever a vocal minority is permitted to do, it has to be listened to if consensus is to be achieved. Scolaire (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The vocal minority has been listened to and the title has been discussed at great length. That doesn't mean it must get its way in the end or that the discussion must continue ad infinitum. "Irish Potato Famine" is the most common name and the most specific to this particular event. "Great Irish Famine" and "The Famine" are not specific, particularly since there's more than one famine in Irish history. I don't agree that "least controversial" should trump "most common" name, particularly since "Irish potato famine" isn't universally controversial. One editor above noted that Irish potato famine is also a term used in Ireland. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Could editors cite a source which establishes what is the "Common Name." Provide referenced sources, comment and opinion are not considered sources.--Domer48 (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's simply not a common name. Common are "Irish potato famine", "The Great Famine", "The Famine". Of these, only "Irish potato famine" is specific enough. "Great Irish Famine" is not terribly common and is primarily an attempt to disambiguate "The Great Famine" for an international context. Remember that the objector to "Irish potato famine" also says that it wasn't a famine at all. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Could editors cite a source which establishes what is the "Common Name." Provide referenced sources, comment and opinion are not considered sources.--Domer48 (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about specificity? Reading Great Irish Famine (1740-1741) I see that it "was due to extremely cold and then rainy weather in successive years, resulting in a series of poor harvests." In the absence of more detail, I would conclude that people died for want of potatoes! "Potato Blight Famine" might be more specific but not "Potato Famine". Bear in mind that I'm coming to this as a previously uninvolved editor with a view to seeing if we can get a stable title, rather than force through a name that will prolong this dispute. Look at it as an excercise in challenging people's assumptions. In opening the poll, Bardcom said "In my opinion, this [the failure of the RM] was caused by too many options...", and this has been taken as a given. But what if it failed because you asked the wrong question? What if, instead of the current poll, you listed the most likely names and asked "which one of these are you most against? By process of elimination, might we not come up with a name that has a greater than evens chance of being stable? Scolaire (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Could editors cite a source which establishes what is the "Common Name." Provide referenced sources, comment and opinion are not considered sources. --Domer48 (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Domer, did you say something about citing sources for "common name"? I'm going to address that issue a bit later today, when I've done some research and typed it up. I don't know what you'll think of my "sources" but I think you'll find my arguments interesting. Scolaire (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem as long as your research is not original I don’t mind. If it addresses the issues and concerns raised by both Kinealy and Ó’Gráda all the better, because to date all we have had is Google searches and Book searches.--Domer48 (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Domer. Proposing the reason why one considers a name common inevitably relies on some original research. Unless someone else has published a comprehensive review of what the most common name is in a global context (highly unlikely), then we all have to rely on our own interpretations of the information available. That may involve OR, SYN or simply just opinion. As long as one expresses the basis of their interpretation (as I have done above), then it is entirely valid. It doesn't make it right, just a valid opinion. You may disagree with those interpretation, and express your own, but repeatedly demanding reliable sources that state something is the most common name is not really going to help, because I don't believe that information is available. Ultimately, there is no right answer here, there is only the consensus of justified opinion. Rockpocket 19:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Christine Kinealy, lists 10 names for the famine on the first page of "A Death-Dealing Famine" (1997) and explains that each has a specific meaning, bias and view. She suggests that Great Hunger is the most accurate and least biased among these, whereas "Famine" and "Holocaust" represent opposing ends of a spectrum of bias. So someone has published a review on the name. In addition Ó Gráda quote in Ireland's Great Famine, "The Irish Famine is often described as the "potato famine." Giving it a more contextual focus implies paying more attention to the potato and agriculture." Again a published source. So based on "our own interpretations of the information available" as you suggest, then my view "is entirely valid." Demanding that "Irish Potato Famine" is "the most common name is not really going to help, because I don't believe that information is available."--Domer48 (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats a very interesting comment, Domer. Because the two quotes you provide no evidence that the current name is the most common one. Indeed, if anything they support the opposite view: The Irish Famine is often described as the "potato famine." while the other says "The Great Famine" has become the most common sobriquet for the years of devastation and destruction in Ireland (Its not clear to me whether that ...in Ireland is in reference to the place of the devastation or the place of the common sobriquet). Either way, neither suggest The Great Hunger is the most common name, which appears to be your preference. You appear to be making an argument about the meaning, inferred or implied, behind each of the names. That is a very different kettle of fish to what the most common name is (which is entirely irrespective of what one might infer from them). Yours is a valid argument, actually - I certainly wouldn't dispute that - and is something we should consider. However, the interpretation of any name inevitably depends on whose glasses one reads it through. Kinealy acknowledges as much with her "regarded by some...", "for others..." and "a number of nationalist commentators...". For me, a more important consideration in casting my !vote is how the average, educated English speaker would refer to the event. I believe the Irish Potato Famine best reflects that (followed by The Irish Famine) and nothing in the sources you provide appears to counter it (as far as my understanding goes). Rockpocket 01:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What I clearly show, and you forget to mention is that she says The Great Hunger is the least biased and that is what we are discussing. You have compleatly ignored Ó'Gráda so am I to asume that too is not relevant. You have done nothing to illustrate that your prefared option is the most common name, and not misleading. For me a more important consideration is how the average, educated English speaker would refer to the event, if they were informed of the misleading way it has been described. Now please, no more opinion. Support your comments with citable sources, which says your prefared option is not misleading. --Domer48 (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On Kinealy, Domer48's interpretation of what she says is creative. I invite anyone to read the pages. [20]. On O'Grada, Domer48's creativity in interpreting an author who says that more attention should be paid to the potato and agriculture as an argument that the famine shouldn't be called the Irish Potato Famine is admirable, but fantastically unconvincing. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, The Encyclopædia Britannica calls their article on the subject "Irish Potato Famine", and then notes also called Great Potato Famine, Great Irish Famine , or Famine of 1845–49 . Rockpocket 23:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica means "The British Encyclopædia", doesn't it Rock? Sarah777 (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As you know, we don't judge the reliability of independent third party sources by their country of publication or their name. Rockpocket 22:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's often done in the real world. A good historian will look at the background of the authorship of an article before reading it. That's the way the real world works. Ask any true historian! 93.107.8.58 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I don't know that Rock 'cos I'm not sure it's actually true. In this case you assume the "independence" a priori. Which is a bit of a stretch! Sarah777 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We are not true historians, though, and our goal is not to reflect the technical minutia that professional academics do. If so, our article on the horse would be at Equus caballus, dog would be at Canis lupus familiaris and Zebrafish would be at Danio rerio. A good academic would refer to these animals by their correct name, but we refer to them by their most common name. Why? Because we are not a resource for expert historians or biologists, we are a resource for the man on the street. The question is not "How would an expert Irish historian refer to the famine", the question is "Of all the names, which would the average reader type in the search box to find out more about the famine".

EB is generally considered a sterling source, Sarah. In fact, that was the deciding factor on what to call our animal testing article. I don't think you are going to get too much mileage out of suggesting, because it has "Britannica" in its name, it is somehow biased towards Britain. Rockpocket 23:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rock, I'm not trying to "get mileage" - I'm drawing attention to problems with the source. the question is "Of all the names, which would the average reader type in the search box to find out more about the famine". I'd suggest that the average reader who is interested in quizzing Wiki about the Famine would type in "The Famine" or "The Great Famine" - not by any means clear they'd type in the word "potato". If I was starting a search for info on Chinese famines I'd hardly start with typing "rice" or "pork" into the search box. Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your "problems" with the source (Globally considered one of the most reliable tertiary sources available, no less) appears to be based on the fact that it shares a name with a country. That is ludicrous by any reasonable standard, Sarah, and does little to justify your opinion. Rockpocket 23:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

By no means should anyone, or anything be considered infallible. To say EB is an unquestionable source is really stretching credibility, as it is primarily written for a UK readership. No doubt EB has modernised somewhat this last few years, but it is still very much in the process. 93.107.8.58 (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It is most fortunate, therefore, that no-one is suggesting that EB is an unquestionable source. Rockpocket 06:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, am I the only one who believes that Encyclopædia Britannica is an American, not a British, publication? Scolaire (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Could we stop beating about the bush and get people to be open about their problem with EB as a source? Express now, or forever hold your peace. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the eventual title

I will leave it to all of you to determine which name should go in the title... but I do think that whatever is eventually chosen, the other common names should be listed in the opening sentence as alternatives (per WP:NAME).... using the current title as an example, I would suggest:

• The Great Hunger (Irish: An Gorta Mór) (Also known as the Irish Potato Famine, and the The Great Famine) was....

Obviously, if the page is renamed, the current title would be swapped with whatever was chosen. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Common name

Almost all of the editors who have voted for Option 1 in the current poll believe they have established that "Irish Potato Famine" is the (rather than a) common name for the event. If I may, I'd like to review the evidence for this. For a start, let's dispense with the Catch-22 argument that "Great Irish Famine" is far less common than "Great Famine", but "Great Famine" cannot be used because it is unspecific. For fairness, these two must be taken together when looking at common names; otherwise you're shooting with a loaded dice. Now, anecdotal evidence on this page suggests it is better known as the "Famine" or "Great Famine" in Ireland and the UK, and better known as "Irish Potato Famine" elsewhere (at least in the English-speaking world—see below); articles on Potato Blight in scientific journals refer to it as "Irish Potato Famine" (but they would, wouldn't they?) and a Google search gets more hits for "Irish Potato Famine" than for "Great Irish Famine". All of this has impressed the editors here, but none of it is proof, or even concrete evidence, that "Great Irish Famine" is not common. In fact, it's not even proof that "Great Irish Famine" is less common, since Google has never been validated as a measure of common-ness. As somebody once said, if there's only one answer it's probably the wrong one. Scolaire (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Having gone the Google search route, what about a Wikipedia search? Clicking on 'languages' in this article we are brought to the following (I am not a polyglot, by the way. My translations are based on deduction, on context, on the word for famine and/or potato where it is available in Wiktionary, and on the similarity of languages e.g. Ukrainian and Russian. I am of course open to correction on any of them):

• Catalan: Gran Fam Irlandesa (Great Irish Famine)
• Czech: Velký irský hladomor (Great Irish Famine) – "potato" is brambor
• Welsh: Newyn Mawr Iwerddon (Great Irish Famine)
• Danish: Hungersnøden i Irland 1845-1849 (Irish Famine 1845-1849)*
• German: Große Hungersnot in Irland (Great Irish Famine)*
• Esperanto: Granda malsatego en Irlando (Great Irish Famine)* – "potato" is terpomo
• Spanish: Gran hambruna irlandesa (Great Irish Famine) – "potato" is patata
• French: Grande famine en Irlande (Great Irish Famine)*
• Irish: An Gorta Mór (Great Famine) – "hunger" is ocras
• Italian: Grande carestia irlandese (1845 - 1849) (Great Irish Famine (1845-1849)) – "potato" is patate
• Dutch: Ierse aardappelhongersnood (Irish Potato Famine)
• Norwegian: Hungersnøden i Irland 1845-1849 (::::)
• Polish: Klęska głodu w Irlandii (Great Irish Famine)* – "potato" is ziemniak
• Russian: Голод в Ирландии 1845—1849 (Irish Famine 1845-1849) – "potato" is Картофель
• Serbo-Croat: Velika glad u Irskoj (Great Irish Famine) – "potato" is krompir
• Swedish: Potatispesten på Irland 1846-1848 (Irish Potato Famine 1846-1848)†
• Ukrainian: Великий голод в Ірландії (Great Irish Famine) – "potato" is Картопля

Notes: *or Great Famine in Ireland (has this name been considered?) †This is tagged with what looks like a move request to "Den stora svälten på Irland" (lit. Great Starvation in Ireland).
Is anybody having second thoughts about the "most common name"? Scolaire (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia site. You have provided a number of titles of Wikipedia articles in other languages. No, I'm not convinced that Irish Potato Famine is not the most common title in English. In the May discussion there were a number of book titles, article titles and references cited that use the term "Irish Potato Famine." Since there's more than one famine in Irish history, I don't think "Irish Famine" or "Great Irish Famine" is specific enough. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As regards the May discussion, where did I say that books don't "use the term"? As regards more than one famine, see my remarks here. Potato famine isn't "specific enough" either. And what does "This is the English Wikipedia site" mean—that the usage among the ****s and the *****s isn't worthy of note? Scolaire (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we are talking about an article in English and a title that is supposed to be the most familiar to people who read and write in English, yes, the usage in English is of more note than the usage in other languages. It doesn't much matter what the Germans or the Russians or the French call it if that usage isn't also the most common in English. And you have yet to prove to my satisfaction that Irish Potato Famine is not the most familiar term internationally in English. Book titles and article titles and other references made in the discussion of May are all very good indicators of English usage and of the "common name". I do not find the Great Irish Famine a specific enough title. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And you have yet to prove to anyones satisfaction that Irish Potato Famine is the most familiar or "common name" in any language. --Domer48 (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point, I doubt if there will be a unanimous agreement on whatever name is chosen. Whatever consensus forms on the destination will be implemented. Your arguments against option 1 are good arguments - time will tell if they influence enough people to form a consensus in line with your arguments. But there is no right or wrong with any of the names - they are all valid choices for different reasons. --Bardcom (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What I am attempting to do here, as I said above, is not to establish the "right" name, or even get unanimous agreement, but to hit on the name that is least likely to lead to further RMs and the consequent battles on the talk page. In fact, I'm going to opt out at this point and just let things take their course. I do hope that good sense and good will prevails. Scolaire (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

They are not my arguments, they are the views of notable academics with published works on the subject. All I'm asking for is sources which reflect some of the other opinions being put forward. Consesus is not built on personal opinion, but informed ones. Straw Polls are not consesus, if they were you could get a group of editors to move the name to "British Famines in Ireland" if that was the case. --Domer48 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to do an article on book titles for this subject please do so. Is anybody going to cite a source for what is the "most common name"? This is the English "Language" Wikipedia site, which means it is written in English thats all. --Domer48 (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I came to see if we were any closer to changing the name of theis article to a less nonsensical one. What do folk think? --John (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The poll [21] closed a couple of days ago. No votes were registered for the current name of the article. 9 votes were registered for "Irish Potato Famine", citing WP:COMMONNAME. 2 votes were registered for "Great Irish Famine (1845-1852)". Wotapalaver (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not one person has provided any evidence which shows potato famine to be the common name. Not one. I on the other hand have provided sources from notable authors in this field which show it to be both biased and misleading. No some editors are under the impression that this is some kind of vote, its not. If that were the case we could get a group of editors to propose "British Famines in Ireland" and using the same evidence that they have not provided call it to a vote. --Domer48 (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the evidence you provide seems, to me, to suggest that different groups of people infer different meaning from different names, some of which object to Irish Potato Famine. In my opinion, noting that some find it biased and misleading is not the same things as them showing it to be biased and misleading. If that is your interpretation, which you are entitled to of course, you must appreciate that others respectfully disagree with you. I can only speak for myself here, but I understand how some find the term objectionable. I simply don't consider that the paramount factor in deciding upon the name, because pretty much every alternative would offend someone for some reason. Instead, I have explained above my reasoning for my !vote and provided sources backing it up. In the absence of contrary "evidence", I believe that is a perfectly justifiable argument. So rather than repeatedly claim your interpretation is correct, and everyone else's is wrong (and thus must be discounted), why don't you ask an uninvolved administrator to read these discussions and close the debate? If your reasoning is the only one that cuts the mustard, then everything else will be dismissed and your preference will be enacted. Rockpocket 21:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Rock would you listen to yourself, "seems, to me, to suggest" "In my opinion" "I can only speak for myself" "I understand" "I simply don't" "I have explained above my reasoning" "I believe" its all your opinion. You have not provided any evidence to support your suggestion that it is the "Common Name." All you have offered is your opinion that it can not be sourced or cited. Here is another SOURCE for you.

“ A further concern to some ‘faminists’, especially in North America, related to the use of the word ‘famine’. In general, they preferred the phrase Great Hunger’, which they believed was more appropriate to describe a situation in which large amounts of food were still being produced and exported, while people starved. As the work of Amartya Sen, a world authority on twentieth-century famines, has shown, the decline in food availability is only one of the ingredients that results in famine and he has urged historians to pay more attention to food distribution and ‘entitlement of the poor to resources’. In this regard, what occurred in Ireland in the 1840s has parallels with many twentieth-century famines. This Great Calamity, Kinealy, pg. xxiv. ”

Now provide a source that suggests "Irish Potato Famine" is A)The "Common Name" and B) that it is not misleading. Now it is my opinion that ‘faminists’ are people who specialise in the subject of "Famines" and that Amartya Sen is something of an authority on the subject of Famines. We know both Kinealy and Ó'Gráda specialise and are authorities on this subject, so their opinion is more valid to this disscussion than ours. So address the issue and provide the sources. --Domer48 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is my opinion, Domer. I, personally, don't consider it appropriate to declare to others that I am right and they are wrong. All I will do is offer my interpretation of the information I am aware of and hope that my justification and reputation is sufficient for that opinion to carry some weight in the debate. This is why I purposely couched my comments in those terms. Likewise I note it is your opinion "that ‘faminists’ are people who specialise in the subject of "Famines" and that Amartya Sen is something of an authority on the subject of Famines".

This is what we do, when discussing these types of things: offer our considered opinions and respect those of others. I have told you already why it is my opinion that "Irish Potato Famine" is the most appropriate name. I am entirely comfortable with that, and I suspect from reading the comments of others, they too are content with their justifications. Therefore, I suggest we let someone a little less invested decide the outcome at this stage, because I don't see any constructive progress being made. Rockpocket 23:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say I think the list on non-English names above is rather important and revealing. One of the arguments supporting that Anglo-American version that I have read here repeatedly is that the name "potato famine" is the near universal name outside of Ireland. Clearly that isn't the case and the Google list would suggest that the most common name both globally, and in Ireland where the name is apt to be most used, is NOT the "potato famine" but the Great Famine. We have a serious case of systematic bias at work here in pushing the title "potato famine", IMO. And in defence of WP:NPOV we must all try and eradicate that, surely? Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to read the section more carefully. This isn't the result of a google survey, it is Scolaire's translation of the titles of other Wikipedia articles. Assuming the titles in other languages aren't as contentious as this one, all it does is tell us the most common name in other languages. It doesn't tell us much about the most common English name is, which is what we are interested in. NPOV does not apply to ascertaining the most common title in every language, just in English. Rockpocket 23:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing really stopping Wikipedia from having a redirect from IPF to its proper name "The Great Famine". 93.107.8.58 (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket, I'm not being combative here - I know there's still a lot I don't know - but where does either Common name or NPOV say we can only judge "commonness" by looking at English language sources? Common name says "Use the most common name of a person or thing..."; I see no reference at all to 'English-language'. NPOV says "Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used" (emphasis mine); very different IMHO from saying that "NPOV does not apply to ascertaining the most common title in every language, just in English" It also says that WP "takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, describing corporate entities such as cities and states by the names by which they describe themselves (or by the English-language equivalent)", which (again IMHO) suggests a radically different approach to what you said. My reading of both Common Name and NPOV is that how other-language wikis refer to an Irish event is highly persuasive.

93.107.8.58, there already is a redirect from every (blue) name to the current name, so I'm not sure what your point is. Scolaire (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, Scolaire. The whole point of determining the common name is to help English speakers find the information. Even if the English name is idiosyncratically different from the translation from every other language, it doesn't change the fact that that is the name we should use. Therefore, when we have an English language name for something, that English speaking people commonly use, its our prerogative to use that title. Now, investigating what other languages use and translating that directly into English is an interesting way of determining the common English name. It certainly adds something to the debate. However, there are certain flaws. Firstly, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the title of the Wikipedia article in any other language is the most common name used. Secondly, we have no idea whether those articles, and hence the titles, are not simply translated from the English title the author happened to use as a source. This would be a circular argument.

Regarding NPOV, please read the context it was being used in. Sarah said: in Ireland where the name is apt to be most used, is NOT the "potato famine" but the Great Famine. We have a serious case of systematic bias at work here in pushing the title "potato famine", IMO. And in defence of WP:NPOV we must all try and eradicate that, surely?. Her point appears to be we should go with the name preferred in Ireland in interests of NPOV. Well, that statement is contradictory. If we use that reasoning, we are not following NPOV, we are following Ireland's point of view! Rockpocket 18:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You miss my point; Irish people are the most likely to search for the article - thus if we wish to determine what terms the average reader who is likely to search for this article is most likely to use we must consider who those people are. No contradiction at all in what I've said if it is read fully and in context. Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think so? There are probably about 5 million Irish people. That leaves about another 370 million people speak English as their first language (not to mention the 750 million people who speak English as a foreign language and may search for information using it). Rockpocket 22:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, and with all due respect, I would appreciate it if all editors leave their mantras aside until their post-wiki meditation session - I have known from Day 1 that this is English language Wikipedia! I totally reject, and I defy anybody to justify, the assertion that the difference between "Great Irish Famine" and "Irish Potato Famine" is a matter of idiosyncrasy. English speakers, if they have any interest at all in the famine, will at some point have heard both "Great Famine" and "Potato Famine", so let's drop this pointless pretence that one of them is endlessly baffling while the other is crystal-clear, okay? Now, as to your substantive arguments, do you genuinely believe there is nothing "to suggest that the title of the Wikipedia article in any other language is the most common name used"? Does that mean that Norwegian or Italian Wikipedians habitually and deliberately use a less common name? That would be very strange indeed! And no, we have "no idea whether those...titles are not simply translated from the English title the author happened to use as a source", but both "Great Irish Famine" and "Irish Potato Famine" have been titles of the en.wiki articles in the past, so it is at least worth asking why only two other wikis went with the "potato" title, of which one appears to be in the middle of a move request! Finally, I read both Sarah's and your posts and their contexts, and you have no cause to imply otherwise. Sarah's invocation of NPOV, as I understand it, refers to the fact that some people see in the apparently harmless name "potato famine" a political agenda i.e. that the tuber alone was reponsible for starvation and death, and not government or landowners, while the same has not been shown of the alternatives. To reply to that that "NPOV does not apply to ascertaining the most common title in every language, just in English" misses her point completely as well as being inaccurate on just about every count. I was hoping you would be able to justify that statement to me but in fact you haven't even tried. Just what is this mental block that stops so many people from acknowledging that "Great Famine" is a common name for the tragedy? Scolaire (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

With the same respect, Scolaire, we appear to be talking across each other. You spend have your response totally rejecting and defying anyone to justify something that I didn't even suggest. I said even if for some reason the English language common name was idiosyncratically different from that used in other languages, that would still be the name we use per WP:COMMON. It was a hypothetical it illustrate the limitations of looking at other languages. I did not make any "pointless pretence that one of them is endlessly baffling while the other is crystal-clear." My position is not that which you attribute to me here. Let me state it clearly: It is my, personal, understanding that Irish Potato Famine is the most commonly used name and the name that describes the event best. If, for whatever reason, that option was not on the table, I would support the Great Famine be used (since it is clearly also commonly used and is relatively descriptive). Both of those options, and a few others, are better than The Great Hunger, which by my understanding, is not commonly used outside Ireland or academic circles and is frustratingly non-descriptive. Regarding Sarah's "invocation of NPOV". I have no insight where your interpretation comes from. My understanding of her comment was that she believes NPOV to be served by taking into account what non-English speakers and Irish people would call it (since they, apparently, refer to it most) rather than what the rest of the English speaking world call it. My comment addresses that interpretation. In the context of WP:COMMON, I do not believe NPOV is in any way served by taking into account non-english names for the famine, because (and excuse me if this sounds like a mantra to you, but it is the justification you asked for) this is the English language Wikipedia and the english language name is what we are interested in. Rockpocket 20:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Other than to point out that "Velký irský hladomor" or "Newyn Mawr Iwerddon" is nothing more than a translation of the English language name, I won't take issue with anything you say there. I welcome your commitment that "if, for whatever reason, that option was not on the table, I would support the Great Famine be used." It's all I ask of anyone and I think it would take a lot of the heat out of the situation if others could say the same (Ironically, perhaps, it's not necessarily the name that I will vote for in the end - my mission all along has been only to make the point that there is not only one possible name). I think in the end we will achieve a consensus and in the meantime I'll keep plugging away. Regards. Scolaire (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"A further concern to some ‘faminists’, especially in North America, related to the use of the word ‘famine’. In general, they preferred the phrase Great Hunger’, which they believed was more appropriate to describe a situation in which large amounts of food were still being produced and exported, while people starved." Are the North Americans not English speakers or Australia, and half of Canada, New Zealand etc. This is not the English Wikipedia, its the English language Wikipedia. Please just provide a source which says "Irish Potato Famine" is not misleading. Beacuse you have already agreed you can not find one which says its the most common name. In case you have not noticed, I've been using English language sources, what your suggesting is that English sources take preference. I don't think so. --Domer48 (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

By English, I meant the language, not the country. Apologies if that mislead you. Rockpocket 19:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"I must say I think the list on non-English names above is rather important and revealing. One of the arguments supporting that Anglo-American version that I have read here repeatedly is that the name "potato famine" is the near universal name outside of Ireland." A fallacious argument, I'm afraid. This article previously lived at Great Irish Famine for quite a while, so its only to be expected that other wikiprojects doing conversions would use this article as the basis for naming their own. (Welcome back, btw). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 07:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And how many of the quoted articles took that name during the (rather short) time that this article was called "The Great Famine"? I'd suggest you do some checking before characterising my point as "fallacious". It isn't. Sarah777 (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It also lived at "Irish potato famine" for quite a while (maybe longer?), so why did so few articles adopt that name (and none of the articles that named it differently, such as Irish Famine 1845-1849)? Scolaire (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just on this whole Google nonsence, nonsence as a source that is. Burma and Myanmar show how a simple Google search does not determine the common name, which is why the article is currently at Burma per WP:COMMONAME. So would anyone like to actually provide any evidence to back up their assertion regarding the common name of this article?--Domer48 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a novel idea; why not source a quote from a notable author in the field as to what the common name is? Now we have two quotes from notable authors who say “Irish Potato Famine” is both biased and misleading. Editors using Common Name have ignored the section which says “In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative.” So even if they could provide a source which says it’s the common name (which they can’t), it still could not be used. Why do editors persist when they know this is the case? Why in light of the sources provided did they not say two notable authors says its misleading, so under Common Name scratch my vote? All that was provided was Google Searches. --Domer48 (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the sources do not say that. They say that some people find it biased and misleading. Which is hardly news. Rockpocket 19:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a novel idea, Domer, why not leave your mantras at the door - notable authors, reliable sources etc. and try to talk to people on their own level. This is a discussion page for supposedly intelligent people, and consensus is more likely to be reached if you talk to others as if they have the same level of understanding as you. Scolaire (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Common name - arbitrary break

Domer, also note that "Bombay" is found under "Mumbai". Why? Because the type of arguments presented for the "potato" version here couldn't find a majority in face of the number of Indian ENG:Wiki editors! (IMHO) It seems WP:COMMON (as interpreted by some) demands the commonest English name used in the past (regardless of how common) even if that is likely to confound the average reader looking for information on the topic! And it makes no allowance for what any of the 7 billion people whose first language isn't English might call it or search for it or for what that subsection of the English-speaking population who'd actually look for it might call it. When you don't have the numerical strength to force through such a Jesuetical argument in favour of you POV you get "Mumbai"! Sarah777 (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What, you still it Bombay? How very Anglocentric of you! ;-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring that pointless jibe - note also that if the Indian EN:Wiki community were saddled with the Irish Manual of Style the article would be called "Bombay" in the same way that Gealtacht towns and villages are adorned in Wiki by the English "common" version, despite the official and locally used name. Sarah777 (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Bombay & Mumbai are both irrelevant. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely relevant - this argument is around policy. Sarah777 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that the city was officially renamed in 1995. English is an official language of India, so the name change is official for that language also, not just in translation. If there was an "official" name for the famine, then that would be a strong argument for using it. In the absence of that, I fail to appreciate the relevance of the comparison. Especially as the dramatic conflict you recount, with the numerous Indian en.wiki editors defending the name, is nowhere to be found in the archives. Lets keep focused on the matter at hand. Rockpocket 23:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Effectively it's irrelevant. Application of policy to a case in India will not be helpful to a case about Ireland unless everyone can share a joint understanding of WHY policy was, or should be, applied to the Indian case. That is unlikely. If you wish to discuss the Mumbai/Bombay case, best do it on the article talk pages. I suspect you'll find a long history there. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have. (I recently had a long Wiki-break and read a bit). Analogous situation and a reasonable guide as to how consensus might be achieved here. As I am discussing the naming of the Great Famine I can't really see how bringing it up on the Mumbai talkpage would help. How do you see that resolving the current discussion? Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be renamed England, as per WP:COMMONNAME. Stick to the rules? Don't believe so. "Irish Potato Famine" is not the common name, it was called that for years on Wikipedia, that's how it spread around.

Cells left-aligned, table centered

Name	Google Hits
"Irish Famine"	159,000
"Irish Potato Famine"	126,000

93.107.143.66 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - or maybe "the UK" or "Britain". But it seems policy is to change policy in every different situation! (And whatever you do don't try to point this out!) Sarah777 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved from WP:RM

Copied from WP:RM by JPG-GR (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC):

Comment: This discussion closed on a move request here on the 24 May. Since then there has been more requests request made, one in fact on the same day it was closed,here. It was later removed by one of the Article Mentor’s appointed after and ArbCom ruling. In addition we have had Straw Polls based on the opinion that the no consesus was in fact wrong. The same editor then started another Straw Poll, again suggesting that the consensus was to move the article. They have now placed another Move Request on the Article. Is it the case that an editor can just keep adding requests until the get the result they want? Editors are just adding there names to a list without forwarding any opinion or rational, hardly consesus. --Domer48 (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Is it the case that an editor can just keep adding requests until the get the result they want? ?" Maybe. But it could be the case that admins keep ignoring "consensus" until those participating give up in frustration. The current WP:ADMINWILLDECIDE system of deciding the best title serves to wear down the stamina of participants so the status quo can reign. Most, if not all, of the participants you accuse of "adding there names to a list without forwarding any opinion or rational" have participated previously (copiously) and might be more succinct now due to the fatigue of having been ignored in the previous discussions. I too have added a support for an option with no opinion or rationale because I've already provided such before and if others are too lazy to scroll up and read the previous discussion, then so be it. — AjaxSmack 15:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Is it the case that an editor can just keep adding requests until the get the result they want? ?" Maybe? I have been involved in all of the discussions and ignoring "no consensus" indicates that the arguements, even of a majority were not good enough to change anything. Come up with a better rational and consensus may change. Now I'll ask the question again, "Is it the case that an editor can just keep adding requests until the get the result they want? ?" Now I would like an answer from someone who is not too worn down due to the fatigue of having been ignored because they were to lazy to come up with a better arguement. --Domer48 (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The admin comment on the previous proposed move was "no consensus on destination", not no consensus to move. The new proposal has fewer options for destination. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Same suggested move, still no consesus to move. Its not a vote. --Domer48 (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment This move relates to the same article as before, and has been relisted because there was a clear consensus to move, but there were 7 options previously, with the most popular option - "Irish Potato Famine" being selected 8 times, and the 2nd most popular "The Irish Potato Famine" being selected 4 times (even though it should have not been provided as an option (see WP:THE). There were only a total of 14 selections made in total, meaning that 12 out of 14 selected a variation of "Irish Potato Famine". The closing admin should perhaps have moved to "Irish Potato Famine" previously, excluding options in breach of WP:THE. A subsequent move request was immediately initiated but was defered till a week later, at the request of an involved editor. The current poll, so far, also reflects this concensus. --Bardcom (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The poll [22] has now closed. No votes were registered for the current name of the article. 9 votes were registered for "Irish Potato Famine", citing WP:COMMONNAME. 2 votes were registered for "Great Irish Famine (1845-1852)" . Wotapalaver (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but no rational for the move has been place on the discussion. The only rational has been opinion. Again editors assume that it is a vote, could someone please explaine our policies to them. Citable sources have been used which say the name suggested is misleading, could editors please address the issues raised by notable authors. --Domer48 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You have ignored what evidence has been presented in favor of the most common international name being "Irish Potato Famine" and prefer to call it merely opinion and comment. This poll and discussion, just like the earlier ones, indicate that there is a clear consensus to move this page back to the title Irish Potato Famine. A vocal minority should not determine the title when there is such a clear consensus. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

@Domer48, the Talk page has several hundred lines devoted to this topic from more than 10 editors. Rational was given for the move - please take the time to read it. You may not agree with it, but you rejecting the reasons is not the same as stating that no rational was given. --Bardcom (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The previous discussions, in which references were provided by multiple editors, are above on this talk page. Domer48 doesn't accept them as anything but "comment and opinion." I disagree. I also don't see the point in reiterating the whole argument. The vote above shows a clear consensus for changing the name because Irish Potato Famine is the most common name. The discussions last month, during which references were provided, also support it. This poll is now closed, the time limit declared for discussion is passed. At some point this discussion has to end and the page needs to be moved. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Provide the diff's which address the cited sources I have used? Provide the sources which support the opinion that it is the "Common Name." Provide the citable sources which state that the suggested title is not misleading. Since I took the time to pick up a book and cite sources, I would expect the same from others. Opinion is not a citable source. --Domer48 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a single person has provided any evidence which shows it’s the common name. --Domer48 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is extensive data to show that it's the most common name. In any case, the time has closed on the poll. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems Domer is quite happy to quote (ad nauseum) - and write - policies that he likes, and ignore others that he doesn't. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And still no sources provided which say it is the common name. Sources for saying it is a biased and misleading name yes. All I see is comment and opinion. But we should all be worried when an admin says "I am aware of and hope that my justification and reputation is sufficient for that opinion to carry some weight in the debate." No it dose not! Your opinion is not a citable source. Now the Encyclopædia Britannica calls their article on the subject "Irish Potato Famine", and then notes also called Great Potato Famine, Great Irish Famine , or Famine of 1845–49 , but it dose not suggest it is the common name. Yet a respected author on the subject says it is biased, and another says it is misleading. Your "reputation is sufficient for that opinion to carry some weight" that is some opinion you have of yourself. Please! --Domer48 (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, Domer48's claims about these references are - how shall I put it - less than entirely accurate. Interesting that Britannica calls the event the Irish Potato Famine and doesn't apparently even mention the "Great Hunger".Wotapalaver (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on consensus, a consensus of opinion, based on purely nothing is not the foundation of consensus. Just give me one diff which says that “Irish Potato Famine” is the “Most Common Name.” I have provided cited references which say it is biased and misleading. Were not counting heads! Now just one diff please. --Domer48 (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't the result of the Google searches sufficient evidence? Geeman (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Becaues the search result dose not say that it is the common name, and would you describe a Google search result as a WP:RS, a reference or the product of WP:SYN. We also have two sources which say it is biased and misleading. Editors are using Common Name as their rational. Yet Common Name clearly states that: In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative. Now once again, provide one diff which says its the Common Name. --Domer48 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Its spelt "rationale". Constant repetition of your one point is disruptive. If a Google (or Yahoo, or whatever) search for all the commonly used terms throws up "Irish Potato Famine" as the most common result, then Q.E.D., it is the most common name. You're asking for a cite from a source specifically quantifying all the various terms used and stating that one is the most common? Get real. Not necessary. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"If a Google (or Yahoo, or whatever) search for all the commonly used terms throws up "Irish Potato Famine" as the most common result, then Q.E.D., it is the most common name." Afraid not! We never used a simple Google search for the common name, as countless previous discussions show.Wikipedia:Search engine test says "As such, Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles -- only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity."--Domer48 (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Come back when you cite a source, troll a few books. Now just one diff please. --Domer48 (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, this discussion is at an end. People have presented evidence; you refuse to accept them and call them "comment and opinion." You refused to vote in the poll, but even if you had the vote would still have been a large majority of 9 in favor of "Irish Potato Famine." The time given for the poll and the continuing discussion has long since past. It's time to put this discussion to bed and move the page to "Irish Potato Famine." This is the last time I will respond on this topic. I suggest others also just leave it up to an administrator to weigh the responses and, hopefully, see that a clear consensus has been reached in favor of the name "Irish Potato Famine." --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A large majority of 9? It seems to me it was a small majority of four: nine for "potato" against five for "great". If an administrator was closing he/she would se a clear no consensus. But does an administrator close a Straw poll? If so, why is it called a "straw poll"? Scolaire (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

People presented nothing. What they did do was refuse to engage in the issues raised during the discussion. Now for the last time, this is not a Vote. Provide source which says it is the "Common Name" and says that it is not biased or misleading. --Domer48 (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we get ANYTHING that suggests "The Great Hunger" is the most common name? No? OK, then, can we get consensus that the current name of the article is not correct? If so, then we must only weigh evidence between two terms "Irish Potato Famine" and "The Great Famine". Apart from the fact that WP:THE will apply and leave "Great Famine" as a slightly generic term, we could then put evidence for one term in one column of a table and evidence for the other term in another column. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A new poll?

Angus McLellan struck out the proposed end date here suggesting "allowing a week from the time that this is listed at requested moves." Now Wotapalaver says that "the time has closed."[23] I am in agreement with Wotapalaver but I would like to have clarity. If it is indeed closed, I want to repeat my earlier suggestion[24] that we open a new poll, listing the most likely names and asking "which one of these are you most against". The names getting the fewest votes could then be discussed to see if any of them is capable of winning a consensus. Angus McLellan also said it "would be best if this matter were dealt with decisively, once and for all time." It has been proved time and time again that basing a name change on a majority vote won't do that; only a consensus. Scolaire (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Angusmclellan also said "I suggest that to have repeated discussions over a trivial matter like the article name is at best unhelpful. Please do not submit another move request until a reasonable interval has passed. All this energy would be better focussed on the content. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Since then we have had another Two. You are right though "It has been proved time and time again that basing a name change on a majority vote won't do that; only a consensus."--Domer48 (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I really feel that repeated attempts to move this article should attract the same censure as would be the case if I tried to move "The British Isles" every other week. I'd be damned by an endless series of editors for being "disruptive" etc etc etc. Some folk would suggest permanent bans. Why does that not apply here? Sarah777 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see it as an attempt to move, so much as an attempt to agree where to move it to, in advance of any future MR. But the current/most recent straw poll stands at 9:5 which is a no consensus by any standards. That's why I think we need to change tack. Scolaire (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that NOT A SINGLE VOTE is for the current name. Also, if we take the votes from the previous and current polls, it's far from 9-5. More like (and I haven't counted) 20-5, and one of the 5 is an SPA and two others are editors who have an interesting history on this article. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Spin it how you want, in this straw poll there is no consensus. It was a good faith attempt to arrive at a generally agreed name and in the last analysis it has not done that. 'Tis true 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true. Now, does anybody have any comment, positive or negative, on my suggestion? Scolaire (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Having nothing better to do, I decided to do a count myself just to see. In the RM that was closed on 24 May "potato famine" in some form had 13 votes, "great famine" in some form 10 votes, and "great hunger" two. The straw poll of 28 May stood at three potatoes to nil when it was abandoned, so even taking those votes into account in all polls the totalled votes are 25:15:2 which is a far cry from 20:5, do you not think? Scolaire (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Some editors just can not get their head around the FACT, that this is not a vote. Their is no consensus, so the name stays as it is. --Domer48 (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And some editors just cannot get their head around the FACT that there is a clear consensus to change the name of the article. We appear to be split between a choice of two names, and Scolaire's suggestion above is a good one. Although Irish Potato Famine appears to be a common name, there are valid reasons to object to the name. On the other hand, I for one, do not object to "The Great Famine" as a second choice. I've changed the poll above to reflect this, rather than kick off a new poll. --Bardcom (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, Bardcom, I'd much rather kick off a new poll, because (a) polls shouldn't really be tinkered with after they're underway, (b) polls should be at the bottom of the talk page so they can be easily accessed and (c) my idea is not for a "pro" and "anti" poll but simply an "anti" one. Now that somebody has supported my idea :-D I'll set it up and you can see how it will work. In the meantime it might be better if you reverted your edit above :-) Scolaire (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire they changed it to a Move Request, did you not know that. They even listed it on the RM page. But that was when they thought it was going their way. So it was a poll first, untill it looked good for them, that was turned into a move request when they thought it was in the bag. They even listed it on the RM page, and started to call close the poll close the poll. Now that it has gone against them, and it is "no consensus" they're calling have a poll have a poll. What we should ask for is that this move request be closed. If there was any honesty in the process that is. Wait till you see the arguements they use in the next poll, "Common Name" --Domer48 (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that RM, Domer? We definitely do need to have it closed. Scolaire (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Found it. Done it. Removed the template. Scolaire (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It is still a move request, and it was listed there after a request was made to do so. Do not remove the template - it is still listed. @Domer48, your were aware that Angus requested that it be listed in RM, and you were aware that he requested that the poll was closed after a week once it was listed. Your phrasing that the poll has "gone against them" only serves to polarize a complex issue, and gives me concern that your actions are merely designed to be disruptive in order to maintain the current name. There is a clear consensus to move this article Live with it. @Scolaire, your recent poll is premature and disruptive - let's finish one process before starting another. I have moved the poll to the end, at your suggestion, to see if those that opted for Option 1 would agree to Option 4. --Bardcom (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong to remove the template. I wrongly but honestly believed that a request hadn't been made. I hope I have grovelled sufficiently on my talk page. I don't see my new poll as either premature or disruptive. Since there is still no consensus on where to move the page to, it represents another attempt to arrive at one. I state very clearly that it is a brainstorming exercise and not a binding vote. Let's just give it a few days and see what comes out of it. Scolaire (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we see a single argument for "Great Hunger"? Not one. There is consensus to change the name, but apparently not yet to what. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Chronology

This section needs to be addressed. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." This includes such things as page numbers etc. an example would be : "Cormac Ó Gráda, Ireland's Great Famine, University College Dublin, 2006, ISBN 1 904558 57 6, pg. 7." "The editor inserting or restoring the challenged material should be able to provide page numbers and/or direct quotes from the original text supporting the material, upon request. Direct quotes may be posted on the article's talk page for evaluation." As per the Policy outlined above I would request that the editor please place "Direct quotes" on the article's talk page for evaluation of this information by editors.

"The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered Indian corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up." As the information, based on a review of the sources used do not IMO support the text as presented above. --Domer48 (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As Domer48 well knows, I´ve provided a ref for this already several times. He, or Colin4C are welcome to include it. Meantime, claiming that this text isn´t supported by references is misleading in the extreme. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Provide a Diff or provide a quote, as our policy states: "The editor inserting or restoring the challenged material should be able to provide page numbers and/or direct quotes from the original text supporting the material, upon request."--Domer48 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For the third time I provide the ref that Domer48 hates so much. [25], [26]. If Domer48 denies this ref again I'll have to start assuming that he's deliberately ignoring it, which is not a legitimate tactic. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Woodham-Smith, Peel was very quick off the mark in noticing the implications of the potato blight for Ireland and had already noted the potato blight in England before it arrived in Ireland. Somebody wrote to him from the Isle of Wight in August of 1845 notifying him of potato blight there and elsewhere in England. Peel also set up a scientific commision to find out what was wrong with the potatoes. Colin4C (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have that book as well and it dose not support the text in the article, and since it is not being used too I have no intrest in it. If you want to put your quote from the book up here, please do so, "for evaluation of this information by editors," and if editors agree with you we can place it on the article. What I am intrested in, is the reference that is being used. Now again provide a quote, as our policy states: "The editor inserting or restoring the challenged material should be able to provide page numbers and/or direct quotes from the original text supporting the material, upon request."--Domer48 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Woodham-Smith IS being used a reference and does the support the text of the article:

The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered Indian corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.

• Cecil Woodham-Smith (1962) The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-9: 39-53 [Peel's recognition of the disaster in Ireland]
• David Ross (2002) Ireland: History of a Nation: 311 [orders corn and sets up Relief Commission]
• Cecil Woodham-Smith (1962) The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-9: 49-65 [orders corn and sets up Relief Commission]

Colin4C (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is it you are incapable of understanding what two small words mean? The words in question are "direct quotes". Please try again. Domer48 (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content and not the editor please dont attack other editors or you will be reported and blocked. BigDunc^Talk 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we now have the additional reference added, which also dose not support the text I would request that the quote be provided here on the talk page as per policy outlined above. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." "The editor inserting or restoring the challenged material should be able to provide page numbers and/or direct quotes from the original text supporting the material, upon request. Direct quotes may be posted on the article's talk page for evaluation."--Domer48 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Page numbers have been provided in accordance with wikipedia policy and guidelines. Viz pages 39-53 and 49-65 of Woodham-Smith's book, page 311 of Ross's book and page 268 of The Course of Irish History edited by T.W.Moody and F.X.Martin. The policy says that "the editor inserting or restoring the challenged material should be able to provide page numbers and/or direct quotes from the original text supporting the material, upon request". Page numbers have been provided strictly in accordance with this policy. Colin4C (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Colin4C (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For those of us that don't have access to all the books, would you mind providing the quotes here? A question I have - are you stitching together this sentence from 3 different quotes? --Bardcom (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not asked for page numbers, they were already cited. I have asked yet again that you provide direct "quotes from the original text supporting the material," and that per policy you should do so "upon request." "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic." "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research." Provide the text, or remove the reference? --Domer48 (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia policy says that "the editor inserting or restoring the challenged material should be able to provide page numbers and/or direct quotes from the original text supporting the material, upon request". This policy has been strictly adhered to. The sentence has been formulated according to the same standards as every other acceptible sentence in the wikipedia, as dictated by wikipedia policies and guidelines. Colin4C (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, myself and another Editor have asked you to provide the direct quotes from the book, please do so. --Domer48 (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia policy says that "the editor inserting or restoring the challenged material should be able to provide page numbers and/or direct quotes from the original text supporting the material, upon request". This policy has been strictly adhered to. The sentence has been formulated and sourced according to the same standards as every other acceptible sentence in the wikipedia, as dictated by wikipedia policies and guidelines. Colin4C (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you, or have you not, stitch together your sentence from different sources. This is against policy as it constitutes WP:OR (because you are interpreting the meaning of different quotes and merging them together). See WP:SYN where it states Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources.. --Bardcom (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentence has been formulated and sourced according to the same standards as every other acceptible sentence in the wikipedia, as dictated by wikipedia policies and guidelines. Peel's recognition of the disaster in Ireland and his measures to combat it are present in a single source Cecil Woodham-Smith (1962) The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-9: 49-54. So, no, there has been no original research and no illegitimate synthesis of different sources. If people think that the info from these 5 pages of Woodham-Smith's book as been crushed into too small a space I can be more discursive. However the wikipedia policy at WP:SYN says "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing." Colin4C (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You use the term immediately, which is very pertinant, and the sentence states a cause-effect. Did Peel immediately recognize that disaster would follow the crop-failure and immediately order meal, etc, to be shipped in? The term immediately is causing me trouble because it makes the sentence read as if Peel ordered the meal *before* the crop had failed because he recognized, in advance, what was about to happen. --Bardcom (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The first signs of crop failure in Ireland were in September. In October Peel set up a scientific commission to look into what was then a mysterious disease. The disease was discovered to be untreatable and ineradicible: a predatory fungus which left the experts baffled. Oct 31-Nov 1, Peel, in Cabinet, instituted a Relief Commission. By November the blight had affected about half the crop. Nov 9-10 Peel ordered the Indian corn from America. So, I think, all in all, that Peel was pretty quick off the mark. It might be an idea to mention the Scientific Commission in the text to make all this a bit clearer. Colin4C (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a (small) quote from Woodham Smith pages 49-50: "as the news from Ireland grew steadily worse, Peel suffered mental torture. 'I never witnessed in any case such agony,' wrote the Duke of Wellington. By Oct 15 Peel's decision had been made [to repeal the Corn Laws]". Perhaps we should mention Corn Law repeal also...This issue politicised the Famine in a very unhelpful way - with those who supported the Corn Laws minimising the disaster in Ireland. Colin4C (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Definite steps in the right direction, but it appears that you are (perhaps unknowingly) synthesizing text. I would not have used the word immediately then or now. Given that Peel was aware of Blight because he'd seen it in England before it had even arrived in Ireland, and the fact that it appears that several months after it had arrived in Ireland elapsed before ordering Indian corn, it is not appropriate to construct a sentence that does little justice to the slow machinations of government. As you've pointed out above, Peel did not "immediately" do anything - instead he set up a scientific commission. And so on. The fact that *you* think that Peel was pretty quick off the mark is not relevent, and should not be reflected in the text (that's the point about synthesizing text). --Bardcom (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe the text should be reformulated, giving the dates of the various events and responses and the reader can then make up their own mind how quickly Peel responded. I'll set to work on that "immediately". Colin4C (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the quotes as requested, so other editors can see for themselves there are no policy violations. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear in providing the quotes surely?--Domer48 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've provided a reference several times already that says Peel acted "promptly", that his actions were "prompt". Substitute "prompt" for "immediate" and there's not even a possibility of synthesis. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record here is what I have gleaned from Woodham-Smith's book regarding Peel and the Potatoes in the first year of the Famine. The numbers in brackets signify the page numbers of Woodham-Smith's book:

In August reports reached the government of widespread potato blight in England (39-40). On September 13 blight was first reported in Ireland (40). In mid October potato blight was reported as widespread in Ireland (43-4). On Oct 15 Peel decided to repeal the Corn Laws to reduce price of grain/bread for the poor (50). On Oct 18 Peel set up a Scientific Commission to go to Ireland and investigate the potato blight and report on conditions (44). An emergency Cabinet meeting on Oct 31-Nov 1 instituted a Relief Commission plus other measures to alleviate distress but Peel's proposal to repeal Corn Laws was rejected (51). On Nov 9-10 Peel ordered the purchase of £100,000 worth of Indian Corn from America for distribution in Ireland (54). On Nov 15 the Scientific Commissioners reported that half the potato crop has been destroyed (51). On Nov 20 the Relief Commision first met (57). Unable to convince his Cabinet to repeal the Corn Laws on Dec 5 Peel tendered his resignation to Queen Victoria but was reinstated days later when Lord John Russell was unable to form a government (52).

Makes me wonder how the poor in England were affected by the blight. These were the big days of the Chartists, so I guess the potato blight did have an affect in England??? Colin4C (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, "promptly" recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered Indian corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up."

I have already requested that you provide the Quote which supports the above text, your suggestion changes nothing. You are also agreeing now that as it is their is a possibility of synthesis. Which is WP:OR, so please provide the quotes as requested, so other editors can see for themselves there are no policy violations. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear in providing the quotes surely?--Domer48 (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Domer48, I've provided a book and a page number which is what policy requires. Go read it yourself. It may help educate you a little. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content and not the editor please dont attack other editors or you will be reported and blocked. BigDunc^Talk 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets all assume good faith and talk about the issues and be constructive. And I recommend everyone get a copy of Woodham-Smith's book because it might take me a long time to copy out all 511 pages of it for the benefit of editors here... Any good library should have a copy, so you don't have to pay any money. There's a new bio of Peel out as well by Douglas Hurd which sounds interesting. Colin4C (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tags

According to wikipedia guidelines the tag disputing the factual accuracy of the article should be placed at the top of the article, not where it is now. See Wikipedia:Template messages. Move it or remove it. Colin4C (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a tag {{Accuracy-section}} which is intended precisely to dispute the accuracy of a single section. If I follow the donnybrook right, it should be placed immediately after the header 1845. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the dispute tag applies to the 1845 entry. Since I've now added a reference that supports the disputed text I'm removing the dispute tag. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The dispute tag applies to the whole section. We are just starting with 1845. --Domer48 (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Then specify your questions/concerns briefly and coherently. I've already addressed the Peel "immediate" issue. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The revision by Colin4C has made the 1845 subsection much more encyclopaedic. If that is the result of adding a tag then by all means let the tag remain until the section is re-written. Scolaire (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "result" of the tag. The discussion and work was going on anyway. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, let the tag remain until the section is re-written.--Domer48 (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's give the tag 5 days. If someone can list SPECIFIC factual inaccuracies then they can be addressed. If they can't then we remove the tag. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As per previous discussions, the article has now been tagged. This is to allow you the opportunity to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, and that the information is directly supporting the information as it is presented. --Domer48 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no specific issue on which Domer48 believes there is a problem, this tag is purely there to make a point. All policies have been met and citations have been provided. Domer48 is attempting to be disruptive. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that Colin4c has removed his misleading source and replaced it with a more suitable source. However, the text continued to contain some embellishments. This occurs when you replace one source with another, and the text remains the same despite the change. This can happen when editors try to cite their opinions and not cite sources, we call that original research. As has now happened here, the introduction of a new source has still not removed the original research, because the text remained unchanged. So again Colin4c is trying to cite their opinion and not the source. I have attempted to remove the embellishments and cite the source correctly. If editors consider my revision dose not adequately address the removal of the original research please suggest alternative wording here. I have outlined the changes below:

Quoted from the Article: The famine caused a sense of lasting bitterness by the Irish towards the British government, whom many blamed — then and now — for the starvation of so many people.

Quoted from old Source: Census figures show that the population is now 6,575,000 — a drop of 1,600,000 in ten years. Irish Members of Parliament form the Catholic Defence Association to oppose new laws curtailing the rights of the Catholic hierarchy — they are afterwards dubbed ‘the Pope’s Brass Band’. A free medical care system is provided through plans to establish dispensaries throughout Ireland. Sheridan Le Fanu publishes Ghost Stories and Tales of Mystery. (Ross)

Quoted from new source: The famine left hatred behind. Between Ireland and England the memory of what was done and endured has lain like a sword. Other famines followed, as other famines had gone before, but it is the terrible years of the Great Hunger which are remembered, and only just beginning to be forgiven. (Woodham-Smith)

Replaced embellished version: According to Cecil Woodham-Smith the famine left hatred behind between both Ireland and England because of the memory of what was done and endured. She says that it is the terrible years of “the Great Hunger” which are remembered and she suggests only just beginning to be forgiven.

Might I suggest to editors that there are now quite a number of books dealing specifically with this subject and using general histories while on occasion can be useful are not really appropriate to this particular subject. --Domer48 (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wotapalaver made no attempt to discuss the recent reversion they just did, which they have to do before reverting. BigDunc^Talk 14:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That only applies to me removing WP:OR and WP:SYN. The logic of Wotapalaver removing the text was that when your dead your opinion dose not count. Strange but thats how they see it. Putting WP:OR back into an article seems to be ok with the mentors, and thats why they do it. --Domer48 (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but when you die in 1977 you can't be quoted as saying much about opinion today. Besides, filling the article with block quotes is not a way to write a good article. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And when your book was written in - what - 1962, it can't be quoted directly as if it was contemporary. That's not only SYN and OR, it's downright wrong. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Tag Lead Section

I have placed a tag on the Lead section. The two issues which have to be addressed are:

The Great Hunger (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol) was a famine in Ireland between 1845 and 1849 which led to a reduction of between 20% to 25% in the Irish population and the death of approximately 1 million people.

The most obvious flaw in this section is the dates are incorrect and not supported by the source. All reference to alternative names have been removed. All reference to the contentious nature of the subject have been removed. For example the origional lead contained the following:

The Great Hunger (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life) is a highly contentious period [27] of history between 1845 and 1852 during which the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent. It is known by various names, such as The Great Famine in Ireland itself and often outside Ireland asThe Irish Potato Famine. The proximate cause of the famine was a pathogenic water mould, Phytophthora infestans, the disease it causes is commonly known as late blight of potato. Though P. infestans ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, its human cost in Ireland was exacerbated by a host of political, social, economic, and climatological factors which remain the subjects of heated historical debate.

As will been seen from the above text all the relevant information is addressed and all the text is supported my referenced sources. None of the information removed was the result of consensus, whereas its original introduction was. I suggest it be replaced.

The second issue relates to the introduction of this information:

By 1851 Census figures showed that the population of Ireland had fallen to 6,575,000 - a drop of 1,600,000 in ten years. The fall-out of the famine continued for decades afterwards and Ireland's population still has not recovered to pre-famine levels.

This has been raised here and the result of this has been a conclusion of original research and should be removed. Suggestions for addressing this have been suggested. --Domer48 (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahah! Another mass blanking from Domer48! Wotapalaver (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Address the edits and not the editor. --Domer48 (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggest additions or changes, don't make mass deletions. Wotapalaver (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Address the edits and not the editor.--Domer48 (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The edits have been addressed. Which of the blanked text, EXACTLY, did you feel needed to be blanked? Wotapalaver (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed text which is repeated verbatim in chronology section.--Domer48 (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. I've made it non-verbatim so it can remain. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you have now taken responsibility for the text you have added, please illustrate to editors how the source supports the text. Having provided quotes from the source myself on the talk page, which clearly show it to be original research , I would now request you explain your edit or remove the text. --Domer48 (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the text is now altered, please address your comments to the current text. And be specific. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the text is now altered by you, please address your comments to the current text. And be specific. I have already outlined my rational here. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Please quote directly from the source you are using which shows that it directly supports the information as it is presented. --Domer48 (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are cited. If you believe there is an issue, please describe it. Please do NOT refer to your previous extremely long and incomprehensible critiques, which I find impossible to understand. Bullet points and SPECIFIC issues. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you have things back to front. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You restored the material, I've challanged it. Now provide editors with your rational, bullet points and SPECIFIC issues. It would help if you provided direct quotes and I would request you do so. If you are not willing to provide the information requested the information will be removed. I have outlined my issues and you ignored them, and now the burden of evidence lies with you. --Domer48 (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have it back to front. The burden of evidence is met. Reliable sources are cited. If you believe there is an issue, please describe it. Please do NOT refer to your previous extremely long and incomprehensible critiques, which I find impossible to understand. Bullet points and SPECIFIC issues. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you again refusing to provide the quotes which support the text you have restored. You are suggesting that I have provided an extremely long and incomprehensible rational, yet you have not provided any at all. Please provide the information requested or the information will be removed based on my extremely detailed rational. --Domer48 (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The references are cited and clear and meet policy. If you have an issue please mention it and be specific. Do not blank text. Your previous rationale referred to different text and was —IMHO— incomprehensible, yes. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. That is our policy on WP:V. You must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. That is our policy on WP:OR. Content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. That is our policy on WP:NPOV. The information has been copiously challenged, and one editor, Colm4c has now started to address some of the issues raised. You have again refused to address the concerns of editors, and have chosen to prevaricate. Provide the information required and requested, or the information will be removed according to our policies outlined above. --Domer48 (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The references are cited and clear and meet policy. If you have an issue please mention it and be specific. Do not blank text. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the relevant policy, which is met. WP:V "If a reliable source is not readily available (e.g., freely accessible online), the editor inserting or restoring the challenged material should be able to provide page numbers and/or direct quotes from the original text supporting the material, upon request." Wotapalaver (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As per previous discussions, the article has now been tagged. This is to allow you the opportunity to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, and that the information is directly supporting the information as it is presented. --Domer48 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no specific issue on which Domer48 believes there is a problem, this tag is purely there to make a point. All policies have been met and citations have been provided. Domer48 is attempting to be disruptive. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And again Domer48 is engaging in massive reverts without justification. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Or consensus. As you said above, all policies have been met and citations have been provided. Some of those tags added by Domer to the lead need to be removed, too. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He's reverted again, with an edit summary of "(All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page.)" Now, I can see my contribution above... no sign of Domer's. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers for book sources and direct quotes if challenged. Now the issues were not addressed, and the information was restored. This is disruptive and should stop. --Domer48 (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus for Domer48 to make a sweeping revert in the above discussion, as he did at 10:58, June 14, 2008 (and subsequently re-reverted to the 10:58 version at 12:46, June 14, 2008). His extensive, long-term revert was discussed (as required by the mentorship), but didn't have consensus (as required by policy). His re-revert was not an applicable interpretation of the mentorship, as the editor reverting him was discussing it here, and was right that there was no consensus for Domer48 to reimpose his version against the status quo without consensus. On this ground, I would encourage someone to restore the consensus version, and if Domer48 insists on re-adding his non-consensus version (as seen above), he will be page-banned. Daniel (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that input, Daniel. I'll not revert it myself, but would invite Domer to self-revert. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert away! But that is edit warring. And just because you have an admin encouraging you to do it is no excuse. You have to be responcible for your own actions. No if you restore the information the burden of evidence is on you. As this has already been addressed, it is edit warring and disruptive. And since Daniel has said there was consensus he might like to provide a diff to support this? --Domer48 (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my words. I said there was no consensus for you to do a sweeping revert to a version a number of revisions back in the history. If you asked me, though, the support for your version is far lower than the other version. There is no need for a diff - just see the discussion above (I cannot point you to a diff saying "here is consensus" because it is I judging consensus). I'm struggling to see any sort of support for your version, while the other version has considerable more support. Revert-warring to restore a version that does not have consensus support is disruptive, which is what you have done on multiple occasions over the last couple of weeks. Daniel (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your reverts to restore identical versions of the lead ("your version") which does not have consensus:

• 12:46, June 14, 2008
• 10:58, June 14, 2008
• 18:31, June 12, 2008
• 20:30, June 3, 2008
• 07:52, June 3, 2008
• 15:39, May 31, 2008

That's simply in the last fortnight. Has anybody else reverted to restore this version? Has anyone else supported this version, even? Daniel (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

So there was no consensus to insert that information. Your struggling aside, I am supported by policies. Now if editors wish to add information to the lead, fine. As long as it complies with our guidlines on WP:LEAD and supported by WP:RS and WP:V, there will not be a problem. Now show me were it says that you as a mentor can be judging consensus on the one hand and ignoring policies on the other. You have said there is consensus to introduce misleading and incorrect information into this article lead, show me the diff. --Domer48 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus disagrees with your application of policies. Consensus disagrees that it's "misleading and incorrect information". Your word is not gospel, especially when consensus disagrees with your interpretation of the situation. This attitude is what got yourself involved with arbitration in the first place, and unless you change it will most likely have you involved with it again. Seriously, stop it. Now. Daniel (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As any administrator should know, consensus cannot override policy. Simply because two people joined at the hip repeat the mantra "That is not original research" without providing any counter-arguments against well reasoned points from one person as to why something is original research does not mean there is a consensus to include original research in the article. It is strength of argument that matters not counting heads, and if the only counter-argument roughly equates to "I don't agree" then it is clear where the consensus lies. What landed us at Arbitration before was various things including the addition of original research, which is something I am actively trying to remove yet you are encouraging people to add it back to the article. Domer48 (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

When did the Famine End?

Rather than reverting to some supposedly perfect previous edit, we could be constructive and address some issues here about the Famine which no edit has yet addressed. A fundamental question is one of dates. Woodham-Smith gives 1845-49 as the dates of the Famine, whereas Kenealy gives 1845-52. What is the consensus view? Maybe we should put 1845-49/52 and reference both Woodham-Smith and Kenealy? We could add a clarification which states that the last crop failure was 1849 but that the immediate effects of the Famine lingered on till 1852? What do people think? I don't have a copy of Kenealy's book to hand and would like to know what her reasoning is for giving 1852 as the end date. Colin4C (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Woodham-Smith gives 1851 as the end of the famine. Pg.411.--Domer48 (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, on Kenealy, she says that blight-free harvests did not return to Ireland till 1852, which was also the year that the special relief measures had ended, but the effects of the food shortages and government relief policies lasted far beyond this date. Since you added the sentence on population you will know the effects lasted much longer than 1852. Since blight was still present in 1852 it is a reasonable date to use, as the last crop failure was not in 1849. Should you require direct quotes, I'm more than happy to provide them. --Domer48 (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposed clarification is fine. I think that we'd have to be clearer than "immediate effects" and find a reference to people dying, or something more concrete, into the 1850's. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just checked Woodham-Smith and she does not mention 1851 as the end of the Famine on page 411 or anywhere else as far as I can see. Maybe I have a different edition. Could you give me a quote? Colin4C (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just checked too. All I can see on page 411 is "in 1851, after the famine...". Page 411 doesn't give ANY indication when the famine ended since 1973 was also "after the famine". Woodham-Smith also gives 1845-1849 as being the dates of the famine, as do many other authors and books. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, here's the quote:

"In 1841 the population of Ireland was given as 8,175,124; in 1851, after the famine, it had dropped to 6,552,385...". Woodham-Smith is referring to the dates of the Census not the dates of the Famine. If the last crop failure was in 1849 then logically the Famine would have ended when the new crop sprouted in 1850 - which is the date given by our other source: Ross. Colin4C (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

in 1851, after the famine. If the last crop failure was in 1849? Were dose Woodham-Smith say 1849 was the last crop failure? What are you talking about? Did the blight finish in 1849? When we say blight do we mean famine? Please stop projecting your opinion and analysis of sources into the discussion. Kenealy says that blight-free harvests did not return to Ireland till 1852. You can not get much clearer than that. --Domer48 (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW Domer48, what page does Kenealy say that on? Please supply a page number. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In 1973, after the famine. Domer48 is wonderfully creative in his reading! Meantime, the title of the Woodham-Smith book gives 1849 as the end of the famine, others (Campbell Bartolleti) give 1850, Toibin&Ferriter describe deaths through 1846-1849. The back of Kenealy's book gives 1845-1851, O'Grada gives 1846-1850. As for "blight-free harvests", there is basically no such thing to this day. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Some refs say that the famine was "officially" over in 1849 but that famine conditions persisted on the western seaboard into 1852. see [28] on page 22 and [29] page 196. Perfectly possible and likely that the famine "phased out" rather than there being a day when everyone could go "yaay, it's over". Wotapalaver (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you just have to back up your opinion. --Domer48 (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Famine that affected Ireland from 1845 to 1852 has become an integral part of folk legend. Kenealy Pg. 342

• The potato blight, which appeared in varying degrees throughout Ireland from 1815 to 1852, was remarkable for its longevity and its geo graphic spread. Kenealy Pg.345

• This Great Calamity chose to end in 1852, when the potato blight had virtually disappeared and the special relief measures had ended, but the effects of the food shortages and government relief policies lasted far beyond this date. What recent research has confirmed is the longevity of the crisis, moving away from a previous view that ‘Black 1847’ was the Famine year, recent research suggesting that just as many people died in 1849. Kenealy Pg. xxiv

• The proximate cause of the Great Irish Famine (1846-52) was the fungus Phytophthora infestans (or potato blight), which reached Ireland in the autumn of 1845. O’Gráda Pg.7

The date is 1852 and based on recent research. --Domer48 (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Great Famine of 1845-1850 was one of the great disasters of the 19th century. O'Grada. Back cover.
• The Great Hunger 1845-1850. The arrival of Phytophthera infestans or potato blight in Ireland was first noted in the press on 6 September. O'Grada. Page 32.
• Interestingly, a footnote in a paper by O'Grada [30] which contains the date 1852 refers to a paper still (then) to be published and gives the date as 1850 ("The potato famine of 1845-1850: causes and effects of the 'last' European subsistence crisis"). The same paper also says "In west Cork, a notorious black spot, the worst was over by late 1847, but the deadly effects of the famine ranged in Clare until 1850 or even 1851.", which matches the references I gave above.
• The Great Famine of 1845-1851. Kinealy, back cover.
• Kinealy also gives 1852 as an end-date in other publications.
• Bartoletti, page 167 says that the 1849 harvest was mostly healthy except for parts of the south and west and that by 1850 the famine was "mostly over".
• Woodham Smith gives 1849 as the end date.
• After the Famine: Irish Agriculture, 1850-1914 by Turner describes the famine (as do many other books) as being from the 1840's.
• Donnelly's book, The Great Irish Potato famine, has publishers notes that describe the famine as being from the 1840's.
• Jordan, in "An Awful Visitation of Providence", gives the dates as 1845–1849
• Kohli gives the dates as 1845-1849.
• O'Grada, in "Black '47 and beyond", on page 41 and 42, says things like "The end came unevenly", and proceeds to describe the regional variations - again in line with previously provided refs, with the famine ending between 1849 and 1851.
• O'Rourke's paper on the long term impact of the famine gives 1849 as an end-date.
• I'm not even scratching the surface yet.. must we go on and on?

There is now reputable source that the famine was mostly over in 1849 (or 1850) but that it persisted in some areas into the early 1850s. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is a stupid question, but do we have to have a date for the end of the famine? Could the article not say "the Famine began in 1845..." and then detail the various milestones you all have listed above? Wars end with an armistice; governments end with an election, but there is no one day when you can say "Mary Murphy, the last victim of the famine, died today." Scolaire (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it didn't end in 1973. If there was - as sources say - an uneven ending, we can still say that it was mostly over by xxxx but that some regions still experienced famine conditions until xxxx. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely my point. We can add as much or as little detail as we want but there is no need to say "it ended in..." Scolaire (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Not precisely your point. We should say when it ended. It's useful information. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't contradict me just for the sake of contradicting me - I said "Could the article not say 'the Famine began in 1845' and then detail the various milestones you all have listed above?" You said "we can still say that it was mostly over by xxxx but that some regions still experienced famine conditions until xxxx." Precisely my point! Now you say "We should say when it ended. It's useful information." I disagree. We can't say when it ended because we can't agree when it ended because there was no day when it ended. If we can't, we shouldn't, and we don't need to. Scolaire (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry..didn't mean to give the impression I was contradicting you..just that we can say it ended before 1973, so we should - however we phrase it. I think my phrasing is accurate, informative and in line with references. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Wotapalaver. I do think it would help, though, if we retired the 1973 joke :-) Scolaire (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm..maybe you're right, but I retain the right to illustrate serious points through use of facetious statements. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

We could use a formulation like: 1845-49/52 which encapsulates all the options. Colin4C (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not 1845-52 which encapsulates all and is sourced and referenced correctly? --Domer48 (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And then again, why do either? Wotapalaver's formula of "it was mostly over by xxxx but some regions still experienced famine conditions until xxxx" encapsulates it perfectly. I am still waiting to be told why a single year or a slash year is useful, never mind necessary. Scolaire (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The slash version would indicate the disagreement between historians about the end date without indulging in an original research synthesis by wikipedia editors of the various estimates. Woodham-Smith's '49' is thereby distinguished from Kenealy's '52' by simple expedient of a '49/52' formulation. The '49' and the '52' divided by the slash being referenced respectively to Woodham-Smith and Kenealy. Colin4C (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This Great Calamity chose to end in 1852, when the potato blight had virtually disappeared and the special relief measures had ended, but the effects of the food shortages and government relief policies lasted far beyond this date. What recent research has confirmed is the longevity of the crisis, moving away from a previous view that ‘Black 1847’ was the Famine year, recent research suggesting that just as many people died in 1849. Kenealy Pg. xxiv. What part of the highlighted text can you not grasp? Were dose Woodham-Smith disagree with Kenealy? Were dose Woodham-Smith disagree with what recent research has confirmed? Find a historian who say what recent research has confirmed is not correct and then you will have a disagreement between historians. A bit of a clue for you, find one who did not die before Kenealy's book was published. --Domer48 (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Bear with me here. As I understand it, both of you are concerned to put a time span on the famine, that can be succinctly stated. That's fair enough. The options expressed are:

1. "The famine lasted from 1845 to 1849/1852, with disagreement between historians about the end date." (Colin4C)
2. "The famine lasted from 1845 to 1852, although some historians put the end date at 1848 or 1849." (Domer48 - and yes, the qualifier is required by NPOV)
3. "The famine began in 1845. The worst of it was over by 1849 but the blight persisted until 1852 and the effects lasted even beyond this date." (Wotapalaver)

Now, leaving aside your POVs for a minute, if you were reading for the first time about a comparable event in another part of the world, which would you find most readable? Scolaire (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Mine and Wotapalver's formulations are the most readable IMHO...Domer's looks very awkward. Can I just add that my formulation also obviates the original research conundrum as to what we define as 'the Famine' by ascribing the definition to the respective authors as well as the dates...Colin4C (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What recent research has confirmed is that the blight lasted till 1852, and that the effects lasted even beyond this date. Population is an obvious example here. Two terms, first, the blight, and second the famine. The famine did not arrive in Ireland in 1845, the blight did. The blight lasted till 1852. That is a clear period of time. This article is about that time period in Ireland. The blight returned to Ireland in the 1860's and 70's, but that falls outside the scope of this article because its not about blight per se. The period is clearly defined and confirmed based on recent research. All of the books written on the subject fall within this time period and are we in error by using 1852 no. --Domer48 (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, in other words you are both being kind enough to reply to me but neither of you is listening to me. Go ahead and have your futile argument. I forsee that it will last to 2052 and beyond. Scolaire (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Emigration

On the use of figures. In Ireland's Great Famine, p.17, Cormac Ó Gráda says "The famine also resulted in emigration on a massive scale. Again precise estimates are impossible." In The Great Irish Potato Famine, p.178, James S. Donnelly, JR, says, "Emigration,...did offer the chance of escape...by no fewer than 2.1 million Irish adults and children between 1845 and 1855." Helen Litton in The Irish Famine: An Illustrated History, p.102, says "between 1846 and 1852, over one million people left Ireland." How dose the author being cited explaine a figure of one million due to emigration, and approximately one million for starvation and disease. This dos not reflect the article at all with perhaps the best-known estimates of deaths are those by Joel Mokyr whose mortality figures goes from 1.1 million to 1.5 million Famine deaths in Ireland between 1846 and 1851. --Domer48 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The figures for emigration up to 1855 are higher than the figures for emigration during the famine. Others [31] give the same figures for emigration up to 1855; about two million. Many (previously cited) give figures of about 1 million emigrated during the famine (typically with the end of the famine being between 1849 and 1851). If you counted emigration up to 1973 you'd have higher numbers of emigrants still, but that's to be expected. Also, it should be noted, the book referenced above notes that the population in Ireland before the famine was higher than it has ever been, including since the famine, which adequately references the already well cited point that the population of Ireland still hasn't recovered to pre-famine levels. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, there was famine all around Ireland well before 1845. The Irish were forced off their lands and although they produced more food than England the population was starving. The food was shipped to all parts of the empire and the Irish could do nothing but trly on potatoes for food (a crop that contains all necessary vitamins, is easy to grow and will grow almost everywhere). To say that the blight was THE cause for the Great Hunger (or Irish genocide as some choose to call it) is incorrect since it was only one of many causes. Even during the Famine Ireland continued to produce vast quantities of grain for the empire. Whigs in England actually agreed that there were too many Irish people and believed this was a natural selection process. There are many sources supporting this theory. Most Irish sources agree that the Great Hunger was unnecessary and could have been avoided. As for the end; most agree the last blight was in 1849 and the Great Hunger ended in 1851. The effects last until present day Ireland. Some parts of Ireland are still deserted and the population still isn't at the level it was in the 1831 census. I think we should keep 1851 was the "official" end. --Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, much of the population passed at least part of the year in semi-starvation even before the famine. However, the conditions after the potato crop entirely failed were appreciably worse than before. Fault can easily be discussed in the article. The Whig - and other British - views at the time can easily be presented and will speak for themselves. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Reversion proposal

I would like to revert an edit made here: [32]. An English Quaker who toured Ireland for six weeks in 1847 was turned into a Mayo Quaker by this edit, no source provided. What I propose is the following wording: "In Mayo, English Quaker William Bennett wrote of..." and then the existing quote. I will also add a footnote: William Bennett Narrative of a Recent Journey of Six Weeks in Ireland (London, 1847), cited in A Critical Examination of a selection of travel writing produced during the Great Famine, by Gillian Ní Ghabhann, (Cork, 1997).[33]

I'm following the Arbcom ruling here ("all content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page") and hope this reversion is acceptable. Asmaybe (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see no problem at all with that suggestion. --Domer48 (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Famine / Blight

I have a problem with this sentence in the opening line of the WP:LEAD, "was a famine in Ireland which started in 1845." A simple question, what started in Ireland in 1845? Was it that the blight arrived or was it the famine started? I would suggest that the article covers a specified period of Irish history and is known by various names. My suggestion would be:

"The Great Hunger (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol, litt: The Bad life) is a highly contentious period of history between 1845 and 1852."

Could editors outline any concerns they would have with this and why? --Domer48 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Great Hunger" self evidently refers to the Famine not "a highly contentious period of history" of which there have been many in Ireland from the 12th century to the present day and not all of which have concerned lack of food. Colin4C (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your simple question is, I would guess, it was that the blight arrived. The way to deal with that in the lead, I would suggest, is "The [Gorta Mór] was a famine in Ireland that followed the arrival of potato blight in 1845." While we're on the subject, is there any way to re-word "proximate cause"? That one phrase turns me off the whole article! Scolaire (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What the f*** is a "highly contentious period of history" when it's at home? More to the point, in Ireland can anyone point to a non-contentious period of history? Was 1849/52-1890 not a highly contentious period of history? How about 1830-1845? That was pretty darn contentious too. What period of Irish history wasn't contentious? As for "proximate cause", it's a precious (and accurate) quote from one author. Remove it and see how fast reverts can happen. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Great Hunger" self evidently refers to the Famine! So you will be changing your vote then? Well I can and have provided sources which say it is still the subject of heated historical debate. Therefore it is a "highly contentious period of history." If editors want to suggest another word for "proximate cause", which means that the blight is only one of the factors which lead to the deaths put forward a your opinions. --Domer48 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I already did: "the famine followed the arrival of potato blight in 1845." Scolaire (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer your original question, the concern I would have with your suggested opening sentence is that "contentious" is defined in Wiktionary as "Marked by heated arguments or controversy." AFAIK the period 1845-1852 was not marked by heated arguments or controversy, but by death on a large scale. The debate on the period has been marked by heated arguments or controversy, and this ought to be stated in the lead, but not in the opening sentence. Scolaire (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As you said before in another context, Scolaire, lets imagine someone who knows nothing about 'The Great Hunger' asking what it is and getting the reply that it was "a highly contentious period of history". Would he or she be any the wiser for that answer? Colin4C (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Imagine the discussion. "What killed your great great grandmother?".

"Ah, 'twas a contentious period of history that got her. It knocked her down flat and she never recovered. Them contentious periods of history can be terrible things when they get ya."

Right, that explains everything (NOT!). Wotapalaver (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire its a simple case of cause and effect. Did the blight cause the famine? "the famine followed the arrival of potato blight in 1845." I don't think your suggestion covers the issues. The blight was only one of the factors. It is intresting to note that the potato only accounted for 20% of produce in Ireland during this period. According to our policy on WP:NPOV this must be made clear. --Domer48 (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position, Domer, I absolutely agree that all of the facts and factors have to be discussed, and in an NPOV manner; but they can't all be dealt with comprehensively in the opening sentence (otherwise what would the rest of the article say?) so IMO the best way to achieve NPOV is state only a bald fact, one which is not disputed by anybody. Notice that I haven't said "the famine followed from the arrival of potato blight in 1845", only that it followed it in time. It's a succinct summary of what you said - the blight arrived in 1845, the famine in 1846 later on. It doesn't need a reference, because it's an absolutely uncontroversial fact. Is that not the best way to begin any article? Scolaire (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There was already famine in late 1845. People were running out of food, starting to starve. That's famine. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Whichever! The sentence only says that the start of the famine came after the appearance of blight. Or did your great great grandmother die of starvation due to the impending failure of the crop? Scolaire (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess that actual crop failure would be more likely than impending crop failure as a cause for hunger. Blight hits pretty fast though, so there are only days between one and the other. Blight in late August or September, half the crop gone by November. People hungry and desperate before the end of the year. First deaths of starvation in the spring. It's pretty much what we had in the article before. Am I missing something? Wotapalaver (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are! The question, the only question, being asked here is: does "the famine followed the arrival of potato blight in 1845" make sense? Why on earth did you think I want a scientific analysis or the day-to-day diary of a nineteenth century Irish peasant? Don't bother answering that. Maybe I'll get a response from Domer, maybe not. Either way, we're only cluttering up the page with irrelevancies right now. Scolaire (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Scolaire, I understand what your saying I was just confusing it with the "proximate cause" and your concerns with that. In the opening line your wording will be fine I think, slightly expanded upon in the second paragraph with an alternative for "proximate cause." A step forward I think? --Domer48 (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so :-) Scolaire (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the proposed wording again? Wotapalaver (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Here it is: "The [Gorta Mór] was a famine in Ireland that followed the arrival of potato blight in 1845." The square brackets to be substituted by current name, aka, translation etc. Scolaire (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, I would probably change that to "...followed the appearance of potato blight..." Scolaire (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that 'appearance' is the best word. 'Arrival' seems better to me. The blight arrived in Ireland from somewhere else, it didn't appear there on it's own. Perhaps simply "The famine started with the arrival of the potato blight in 1845.." Wotapalaver (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Tag

The "dubious" tag just added to the first paragraph is only to be used in articles in the wikipedia if:

"It contains unlikely information, without providing references."

"It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify."

None of this is true: the information is referenced, fairly common knowledge and easy to verify. Here is the quote from the page referred to in the text (David Ross (2002) Ireland History of a Nation: 226):

"Sober estimates of the number of deaths accountable to the Great Famine stand at around a million people. During the years 1846-50 a further million left the country."

I am therefore removing it. Colin4C (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I will give you the oppertunity to remove your WP:OR. Now provide direct quotes to support your opinion. --Domer48 (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

@Domer48, please explain - with specifics - WHY the dubious tag was placed. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If Domer has the text in front of him I don't see why he needs me to confirm the evidence of his own eyes. But just to please him, here is a fuller quote from page 226 of Ross:

"Starvation, malnutrition, exposure, exhaustion and the accompanying range of diseases had dramatically accelerated the death rate. Sober estimates of the number of deaths accountable to the Great Famine stand at around a million people. During the years 1846-50 a further million left the country."

And here is the appropriate text of the article:

"The Great Hunger (Irish: An Gorta Mór or An Drochshaol), also known as the Irish Potato Famine and the Great Famine was a famine in Ireland...which led to the death of approximately one million people through starvation and disease and the emigration of a million more."

Where, pray, is the original research? And as per the wikipedia definition of a "Dubious" tag - Wikipedia:Disputed statement - what is the "unlikely information" and where is the "information which is particularly difficult to verify."? Colin4C (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I presented a reference with essentially identical numbers. Where is the "dubiousness"? Wotapalaver (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead Section "a famine in Ireland which started in 1845, lasted —depending on the region— until 1849 [Cecil Woodham-Smith (1962) The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-9] or even 1852 [Christine Kinealy (1995) This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52] and which led to the death of approximately one million people through starvation and disease and the emigration of a million more. [David Ross (2002) Ireland: History of a Nation: 226]" Chronology (1851) "By 1851 census figures showed that the population of Ireland had fallen to 6,575,000 - a drop of 1,600,000 in ten years. [David Ross (2002) Ireland: History of a Nation: 313]"

Colin4c could you explaine to me why these population figures do not add up, and why there is no discretion affixed to the 1851 census figures. One only has to read the section on death toll to understand why the census figures and population are problematic. What dates are used by your source in the lead for the million deaths and what dates are used for the emigration of a million? Could you provide a quote from Cecil Woodham-Smith which says the blight or famine ended in 1849, I can't seem to find one. If you could include the page numbers, ISBN numbers, and publication year it would also be really helpful. I've been using the 1962 edition to follow your edits only to discover your using a more recent publication. --Domer48 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, have already supplied reference on the population issues. Domer48 knows it well. As for the blight or famine ending in 1849, or any other year, there are a bunch of references on this very page - many of which use 1849 as the end date and several of which discuss the varied and uneven end of the famine. Domer48 knows that too because he supplied several of them. Neither is relevant to his repeated mass blanking of text from the article. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Explaine why these population figures do not add up, and why there is no discretion affixed to the 1851 census figures? Diff's if it was explained?
• What dates are used by your source [David Ross (2002) Ireland: History of a Nation: 226] in the lead for the million deaths and what dates are used for the emigration of a million?
• Provide a quote from Cecil Woodham-Smith which says the blight or famine ended in 1849? When did the blight end 1849 or 1852?
• Provide Diff's which "discuss the varied and uneven end of the famine." --Domer48 (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There are answers to all these questions provided above already, several are here [34] where Domer48 was also participating. At the moment Domer48's approach is to keep asking the same question again and again, even after it's been answered, and he persists in pretending that no answer has ever been given. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If they were answered, I would not be asking. Now avoide the questions if you will, but don't come back giving out if the information is removed. --Domer48 (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, more threats to blank information! Wotapalaver (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets make it simple shall we. Explaine why these population figures do not add up, and why there is no discretion affixed to the 1851 census figures? --Domer48 (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You're a schoolmaster now, Domer? Or an editor-in-chief that the rest of us must satisfy before editing? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Domer appears to be asking for an original research synthesis theory on the whys and wherefores of Irish demography - which is not allowed on the wikipedia. Our information must be based on the sources, not our own speculation. Colin4C (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok lets put it another way. You support the information or it gets removed. Please read WP:NPOV. Bastun I expect nothing less from you, so your best just ignored. However, the other two think by ignoring the questions they just go away, they don't. Explaine why these population figures do not add up, and why there is no discretion affixed to the 1851 census figures? Next step is to place a tag, pending its removal. Address the question. --Domer48 (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content and not the editor please dont attack other editors or you will be reported and blocked. BigDunc^Talk 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There are references provided. Besides, once again, I can't understand your question. What the heck does "Explaine why these population figures do not add up, and why there is no discretion affixed to the 1851 census figures?" mean anyway? The population figures provided several times add up perfectly. Which one doesn't "add up"? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The information is supported and its place in the article is not dependent on answering incomprehensible questions. Colin4C (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"On the 1851 census both Cormac Ó Gráda & Joel Mokry would also describe it as a famous but flawed source. They would contend that the combination of institutional and individuals figures gives “an incomplete and biased count” of fatalities during the famine. Address it now, or it will be removed under our policy of WP:NPOV. --Domer48 (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Easy. The text in the lead can (and IIRC did) say "approximately" and the reference can be noted with exactly this point on potentially inaccurate data, although of course all census data is slightly inaccurate. No need to blank text. In any case, it's not an NPOV issue. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"On the 1851 census both Cormac Ó Gráda & Joel Mokry would also describe it as a famous but flawed source. They would contend that the combination of institutional and individuals figures gives “an incomplete and biased count” They "would"? Or they "do"? Which is it? Hmm, what's the template to use in such situations - oh yes... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But it is WP:NPOV, and I've just addressed it. I thought hightlighting this “an incomplete and biased count” would have helped, but obviously not. --Domer48 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

They would, or they do? Please give publication, page number and - since you insist that it's better - a full quote. Lead by example. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of edit

Domer48, with this edit, cited that there was a consensus on this page that the text he was removing had been adjudged as original research. I am struggling to find any discussion, let alone consensus, on this talk page for this issue. Can someone please point me to it? Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? Now here is the discussion, and stop struggling. --Domer48 (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And consensus? There wasn't any. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say Domer48's position enjoyed more support than the alternative. However, it was 10 days ago, and if sources can be found that would nullify Domer48's objections a new discussion would certainly be in order. Daniel (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the text which was removed: "...Ireland's population still has not recovered to pre-famine levels". Is it classed as original research to notice that the figures given for the current population of Ireland are less than those given for the pre-famine census? In simpler terms is it original research to say that 10 is more than 5? Colin4C (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources were found and presented. At the moment the tactic Domer48 is following is to make blanket accusations of OR or that references don't support the text, but never actually with anything specific. I presented references for population at the time, for the long term effects of the famine and Colin4C presented modern population figures from the Irish census. Where is the OR? Nowhere, that's where. It doesn't stop Domer48 waiting two weeks since the last rebuttal in the discussion from returning and claiming that there was consensus. There wasn't. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Daniel. The discussion did not end in the area of talk that Domer48 pointed to. It continued here [35] when Domer48 again claimed that the lead section contained OR. There was no consensus to delete any of it and there were repeated requests for specifics about what Domer48 thought was missing or incorrect, which were never answered. The delete was against consensus, again. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I really don't know what Domer's game is here, but it seems like a huge case of WP:OWN. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You had 10 days to find sources that would nullify the three editors objections. A new discussion would certainly be in order if you provide sources to support your opinions. --Domer48 (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

See this graph for confirmation that "...Ireland's population still has not recovered to pre-famine levels":

A graph of the populations of Ireland and Europe indexed against 1750 showing the disastrous consequence of the 1845—49 famine.

I think describing the disastrous demographic impact of the Famine on Ireland is very important infomation to provide for anybody interested in the history and contemporary reality of that country. Colin4C (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The graph is fine, and probably accurate, but it's not sourced. In any case, the references already presented various times were sufficient and there was no consensus to delete the material. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, as there was no concensus to delete it I'll restore the info. Colin4C (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And in case there was any doubt about the numbers. [36] and [37]. Oh, a source I listed a couple of days ago also said that the population before the famine was higher than ever before or since, so we can now put this whole sorry episode to bed. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The three of you just agreeing with each other is not consensus. Daniel could explaine that or you can just read WP:CONSENSUS. Now you have not addressed the issues raised and supported by three editors and still re-added the material. I suggest you do. --Domer48 (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no clear consensus on the issue (unlike the lead); what I said was that the June 6 discussion showed more support for Domer's view than the alternative. I believe this comment by Rockpocket sums up the current best practice stance on this issue:

"If there is a secondary or tertiary source that discusses the issue of population recovery in those terms, then the problem would be resolved and it probably should be noted in the lead. Rockpocket 17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)"

Analysis of primary sources is restricted to only the most uncontroversial of situations, and there's clearly controversy here. The best way to solve the problem is to find a secondary source which does the analysis for you. At this point, I'd say that there's no more support for either position (a change from June 6 discussion), but on the basis of policy the argument to exclude shades the argument to include given the split in support. Daniel (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And the reference I provided already does exactly that. [38]. Maybe people could read it, or any of a number of other references that can be found in 30 seconds. Duh. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Domer, your response? Daniel (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Or this [39], or this [40]. What we have here is something VERY well known. Besides, it's hardly synthesis to look at a few census numbers and to say "the population number before the famine is bigger than any of the numbers since", which is pretty all the text said. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a controversial subject. NOBODY, not even Domer, has ever denied that Ireland's population has not recovered to pre-famine levels. I don't understand why this is a problem. The facts are uncontroversial and as for the play-ground game of 'Prove it' Wotapalver has demonstrated over and and over again that the facts are supported by the references given. As I understand it the original research rules were evolved in the wikipedia largely due to some bright sparks improving on the theories of Newton and Einstein and presenting new theories of physics here. They were not meant to be used to cast doubt on information which has never been denied by anybody, anywhere at any time. Domer has not said that the information is false he has just shouted 'Prove it' over and over again: Colin4C (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentence under dispute:

The fall-out of the famine continued for decades afterwards and Ireland's population still has not recovered to pre-famine levels

Anyone who isn't a dribbling simpleton knows that you cannot compare two population figures, see one is lower and add a sentence saying the equivalent of "It's all the famine's fault". That source does not source the sentence in question, neither does that source or that source. Furthermore if sources are so easy to find for that sentence, why did nobody wishing to retain the information look for one in the 10+ days since secondary sources were requested? I have removed OR again. Daniel suggested I leave just the bare figures in, however given what precedes it in the sentence ("The fall-out of the famine continued for decades afterwards") even doing that would be a direct implication that today's population was affected, which is not as yet supported by the secondary sources cited in the article. I welcome further discussion here about the wording of any properly sourced addition, as the sources provided so far do not support the wording that was in the article. Domer48 (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No-one, dribbling simpleton or not, did what Domer48 describes. The sources are easy to find and support the text very well. As for not supplying references in 10 days, I did supply a reference in a talk page contribution at 12:29 on 6 June 2008, which describes the permanent (and yes, today's population is still affected) effects of the famine and describes the fall in population that persisted until the 1960's. Of course, Domer48 pretended not to see that reference either. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I maintain that the sources provided do not properly source that sentence. If you would like to propose a sourced version of the wording you wish to add we can move forwards? Domer48 (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources support the sentence very well indeed. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well how about you propose a wording complete with sources? As I maintain none of those proposed sources support the previous wording. Domer48 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The citations support the text but feel free to censor it and deny it twenty times a day. Colin4C (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll add the additional references later today. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

POV Rambles

Domer48 has re-added a section to the 1847 chronology with the edit summary 'please explaine "POV Ramble" '. I'm unsure whether other editors are supposed to understand this, or what he's added. The content may be suitable for the article, but would seem to belong more in a section on "British Attitudes to the famine", or similar. The whole piece added could easily be summarised in one line in the chronology section. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Other editors would have read the edit summary you buddy used and understood it. But thats other editors and not you I suppose. Since you did not bother to look at your buddy remove the information without explaining why, I not surprised with your ignorance. --Domer48 (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content and not the editor please dont attack other editors or you will be reported and blocked. BigDunc^Talk 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Are we allowed to do things like that Bastun? Sarah777 (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about Domer? What the heck does "Other editors would have read the edit summary you buddy used and understood it" mean? As for my supposed ignorance, please provide reference. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the IMHO inexplicable POV ramble that Domer has added to the Chronology. Any further comments?:

The poor law amendment act was passed in June 1847. According to James Donnelly in Fearful Realities: New Perspectives on the Famine [48] it embodied the principle popular in Britain that Irish property must support Irish poverty. The landed proprietors in Ireland were held in Britain to have created the conditions that lead to the famine. It was asserted however, that the British parliament since the Act of Union of 1800 was partly to blame. [49] This point was raised in the Illustrated London News on the 13 February 1847, “There was no laws it would not pass at their request, and no abuse it would not defend for them.” On the 24 March the Times reported that Britain had permitted in Ireland “a mass of poverty, disaffection, and degradation without a parallel in the world. It allowed proprietors to suck the very life-blood of that wretched race.” Colin4C (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The content - and more of it - could be very useful in a section on "British Attitudes to the famine" or something similar. IIRC, The Times was one of the papers that started out very anti-Irish and ended up realising that its view had not been "fair and balanced". A one-sentence version of the points above could/should be in the chronology but the quote-dump version is too long for the chronology. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Something concise and to the point about the Irish Poor Law Amendment Act would be okay for the Chronology section with a more extended analysis elsewhere. By the way the Irish Poor Laws article is very meagre. Colin4C (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's grand then, so we remove the whole chronology section, based on our policy of WP:NPOV. Your POV editing of the section to date is not being addressed, but your WP:OR is and will be. --Domer48 (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't remove the whole chronology section. NPOV doesn't apply. Domer48 has been trying to delete this text for ages. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources

Having read the source indicated, and the page numbers provided I have been unable to find the text which supports the text below in the article. Quite possibly I reading a different edition, mine being published by Anchor Books, ISBN 0 385 72026 2. Could the editor please provide the chapter number and a quote to help me narrow it down? --Domer48 (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Emigration reached new heights and the infamous coffin-ships crossed the Atlantic in large numbers carrying people fleeing from the famine."(Thomas Keneally (1999) The Great Shame. London: Vintage: 135-40)

Then try "The Course of Irish History", 1994 edition, pages 271, 272, 273, or any one of a number of other sources. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Since your suggesting Colin4c is again adding their opinion and not actually citing sources why don't you change the reference? --Domer48 (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything. I don't have the book Colin referenced. I do have the book I referenced - and others. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you offering an alternative source then? I do have the book Colin4c referenced and can not find the information to support the text. So reference the information with the book you have, and remove Colin4c's WP:OR. --Domer48 (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Domer really saying that in his edition of Keneally's book there is no reference at all to the Irish emigrating across the Atlantic in, inter alia, 'coffin ships'? Irish emigration due to the Famine etc is the theme of the whole book! Such emigration is extremely common knowledge in Ireland and elsewhere, is mentioned in hundreds of books and IS supported by the reference given. It is not original research. Colin4C (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Supply the quote then I have requested per our policy WP:V. --Domer48 (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As per the policy read it for yourself: Thomas Keneally (1999) The Great Shame. London: Vintage: 135-40

Sorry Colin4C but that's the old version of the policy, please try and keep up. The new version says you should provide a quote if there's a dispute, so how about a quote then please? BigDunc^Talk 16:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I can reference it with the source I have. There are others too. That's easy. Would that solve this "dispute"? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The current issue is whether Colin4C has engaged in original research yet again, let's see him provide the quote that he says supports the text BigDunc^Talk 16:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As per the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability Big Dunc read it for yourself: Thomas Keneally (1999) The Great Shame. London: Vintage: 135-40. If you have a different edition look at the index under "'Ireland': emigration from; and 'illness and death on emigrant ships'". This should convince you that at the time of the Famine the Irish emigrated to America, and died aboard ship in great numbers due to fever etc. Have you never read about this before? I thought it was common knowledge not something I made up. If you doubt this all you have to do is open the book and read the words. Please keep up! Colin4C (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read what I said before Colin. The policy has changed, if there is a dispute you should provide a quote. What possible reason is there not to provide the quote which policy says you should? BigDunc^Talk 16:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is about how to improve the article. If someone wants to accuse Colin4c of something then they should open an RFC or something. This is NOT the place to do it. In any case, if Colin4c was making things up it's amazing because it matches stuff I've got in reference books. As for the policy, should I go to the policy page and change it so that it doesn't require a quote? That's what Domer48 has been doing recently!! Wotapalaver (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that I confine controversial original research to the Talk page. Viz: 'In Ireland it rains a lot', 'Ireland is an island' and 'It's a great day for the Irish' and other controversial statements too boring to mention....Colin4C (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, per policy, please provide an exact quote for the sentence under dispute. BigDunc^Talk 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy says nothing about 'exact quotes'. Please keep up! Colin4C (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Last I saw, policy requires it as a courtesy. I wonder if, after some recent edits by Domer48 on Angusmclellan's talk page, whether Colin4C owes that courtesy to anyone? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The cited passage is five pages long. Am I obliged to quote all of it here? Colin4C (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just the parts of it that source the disputed sentence thanks. BigDunc^Talk 17:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It is sourced from the a summary of the whole five pages, that is why I say pages 135-40. Colin4C (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok maybe we can get somewhere now, so can you quote the passage that sources infamous, and Emigration reached new heights for starters thanks. BigDunc^Talk 17:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not allowed on the wikipedia. By the way Domer's addition to the verifiability policy has now been reverted. It is no longer policy. See Wikipedia: Verifiability. Colin4C (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Colin, please try reading the current policy in full which proves you are talking nonsense, and just provide the quotes as required please. BigDunc^Talk 17:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I just read it. Domer's additions have been reverted. Colin4C (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find you are wrong Colin, so provide the quotes please? Domer48 (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find you are wrong, Domer. Check it. Or put back your alteration to the policy. Colin4C (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again Colin, and the page hasn't been edited since yesterday. So if you have quite finished wasting everyone's time and being a dick, now would be a really good time to produce those quotes. Domer48 (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks Colin4C (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:DICK is not a personal attack Colin, it's a wake-up call. Quotes please? Domer48 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You'd better change this policy as well then: "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly. Calling someone a dick can be considered poisoning the well (a logical fallacy that is a special case of an ad hominem attack)." Colin4C (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please stop with this nonsense Colin4C and provide the ref that Domer and I have requested, I really can't understand your reluctence to provide it, you seem to have a habit of when asked for something a little drama errupts around. So once again please provide the source requested and we can move on from this thanks, BigDunc^Talk 18:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You want me to quote the whole five pages? Yes or no? Violate copywrite? Break the law? Yes or no? Colin4C (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above Ok maybe we can get somewhere now, so can you quote the passage that sources infamous, and Emigration reached new heights for starters thanks. please thanks again BigDunc^Talk 19:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The text is a summary of information from the whole 5 pages of the book, which is why I cited 5 pages rather than one or two or three or four. As I do not have the time or the energy to transcribe five pages here and as it is against copyright anyway I have added an online ref to the text. I hope that satisfies you! Colin4C (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Colin we've been remarkably civil under the circumstances, given your constant stonewalling and refusal to provide the quotes in question. How is it possible that five pages are needed to source the word "infamous"? Domer48 (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The online ref doesn't support the text either. --Domer48 (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Read it. Colin4C (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The two sections you were asked to quote were passage that sources infamous, and Emigration reached new heights. Even using "find" my browser produces no mention of "infamous." Again, please provide the information requested. --Domer48 (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

... Are we really having this discussion?! What would you like instead? The "well-loved" coffin ships? The "famous" coffin ships? Every single word in the article doesn't need a source, Domer, especially on something as self-evident as this. What are you actually trying to achieve here - to drive everyone but yourself off this article? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Could I also ask why its taken from 13:36 today, and several edits by Domer and BigDunc, until 19:46, to find out that what you're actually looking for is a source for one word, "infamous"? Could you have not pointed that out at the start? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me...Colin4C (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd extend the assumption of Good Faith to Domer. I doubt he is trying "to drive everyone but himself off this article". Of course, I could be wrong. Sarah777 (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that an attempt at humour Colin? I'd like to warn you that in the event of a dispute at some future time those words may be used in evidence against you. Sarah777 (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That would indeed be "infamous". Colin4C (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on, it can't take five pages for those two phrases can it? Unless their, dare I say it, not there? --Domer48 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an "infamous" suggestion, Domer. Colin4C (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And in any case, I've already provided another source. Meantime, I now also feel that Domer48 is trying to drive everyone but himself off the article. His tactics are varied and determined, but I feel it fair to say that I now do not assume good faith with Domer48 any more. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And if you want to source the word "infamous" just type '"coffin ships" infamous' into google and pick from any of ~1000 links. Really. If Colin4C is supposed to be making this stuff up the way that Domer48 suggests he's doing a remarkable job! <sarcasm> He seems to invent things that are perfectly accurate! </sarcasm> Wotapalaver (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You are completly missing the point again, can I just point out the issue isn't whether infamous could be sourced by any other source, it is whether it is sourced by the book Colin4C repeatedly said it was, so is he lying? Because what reason would he have to continue to fail to provide a ref when asked. It is a simple task, he has the book in front of him, so again why no ref produced? BigDunc^Talk 09:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am absolutely not missing the point. If the fact that the coffin-ships were "infamous" was in dispute then there MIGHT be a need for that specific word to appear in the source. This fact is not in dispute (or are BigDunc and Domer48 suggesting otherwise?) so it's perfectly reasonable for an editor to condense a 5 page section of a text into a few lines. I don't think that Colin4C's edit is in any way inaccurate or unreadable and so far no-one else as said that either. Also, demanding transcription of 5 pages of text is unreasonable and goes way beyond courtesy, which in any case is a stretch since Domer48 has stated and/or implied that Colin4C and I are simpletons, idiots, liars and the like. If Domer48, or BigDunc, wish to accuse Colin4C of something then they should make a formal complaint. The article talk page is NOT the place for this kind of thing. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep out of the most heated arguments, but I really don't like the way this is going! I have read the supposed "new version of the policy" and nowhere does it state, imply or suggest that an editor can be forced to quote a passage from a source to justify the use of a single word, the aptness of which is not in dispute. That is not what WP:V or WP:RS is about at all. The tone here is nasty and I think it's time for the mentors to come in and have a word. Any implication that someone is lying is bang out of order and should be withdrawn immediately! Scolaire (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added sources that make the text undeniably well referenced in the disputed section. Unless there are editors who wish to argue whether or not Ireland had a famine in the first place, this can stop. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Curriculum

http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/Irish/irish_pf.html, the reference in question, clearly states New Jersey, not Nebraska. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Third straw poll: the "favourite hate" name poll

This section was moved to the bottom of the page on 21 June 2008 at 11:10 (UTC) to allow the poll to be closed Scolaire (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Although a new move request ought not to happen until three months after the closing of the previous RM i.e. 24 August 2008, recent discussions on this page have made two things apparent: first, that if there is to be another RM and if it is to have a chance of success there needs to be a lot more discussion in the interim; and second, the names with the most supporters seem also to be the names that are the most opposed. With this in mind I am conducting a poll to find the names that most people are against, and that therefore have the least chance of becoming (or remaining) an agreed article name. Taking these names out of the discussion might just leave us with some candidate names that could achieve a consensus. A few ground rules:

• Most importantly, this is a brainstorming exercise only and should not be used in an "it was decided that…" or "some people tried to undemocratically…" argument down the line.
• Please indicate which one option you are most opposed to, and give a short reason.
• Names may be added at any time, but should be names that in the opinion of the editor are worthy of consideration and likely to reach a consensus. Please do not add red herring names to draw votes away from your own preferred choice.
• If adding names after votes have been cast, please inform everybody who has voted to allow them the opportunity of changing their vote.
• Please do not engage in tactical voting i.e. "the name I dislike most, x, has plenty of votes already so I'll vote for y and knock it on the head too."
• Please do not leave comments under other people's votes. In the discussion section, please try to avoid re-stating arguments that everybody is already familiar with.

Scolaire (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The options are:

1. The Great Hunger
2. Irish Potato Famine
3. Great Irish Famine
4. Great Famine in Ireland - Scolaire 14:10, 18 June 2008
5. Great Irish Famine (18xx-18yy)

Third straw poll: survey

• Oppose The Great Hunger and the Irish Potato Famine. The former is a mistranslation of the Irish gorta. The latter is disingeneuous to the actual reasons behind the famine, i.e. yes there was a potato blight, but at the same time a lot of other foods were being exported out of the country, which only exacerbated the situation. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 14:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The Great Hunger. Unclear and not the common name. Berks911 (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The Great Hunger. Not the common name by any standard and non-descriptive to anyone that doesn't speak Irish. Rockpocket 15:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The Great Hunger. Unclear mistranslation. Not the common name. --John (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The Great Hunger. It isn't a common name, just the title of a book. Irish Potato Famine is too narrow. Asmaybe (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The Great Hunger. It is not the most common name and is far too confusing for anyone trying to find this article. It does not describe the subject matter of this article adequately for an international English-speaking audience. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The Great Hunger. Not the common name. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The Great Hunger. Not common name. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Irish Potato Famine - definitely the most POV-tinged name. Sarah777 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The Great Hunger - not common name. Also slightly oppose the various makey-uppy versions of "The Famine" and "The Great Famine". The versions actually on offer are (A) not what anyone actually calls the famine and (B) require extensive disambiguation to avoid confusion with any of the other "great famines" and (C) are terribly POV since only Whigs thought the famine was "Great" since it eliminated all those troublesome Irish. Also, calling it "The Great Famine (Ireland 1845-18xx)" is troublesome since the xx is not easy to agree on. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Irish Potato Famine a lot more to it than that. BigDunc^Talk 12:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Irish Potato Famine, as per BigDunc & Sarah777 reasonings. 93.107.131.116 (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC) — 93.107.131.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• I oppose The Great Famine. It is unclear and not the common name. It is also inappropriate to describe a famine as great at all. It is not per WP:MOS. Berks911 (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC) [Moved from section below] Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose both The Great Hunger and Irish Potato Famine about equally. Nuclare (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The Great Hunger --Bardcom (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The Great Famine - (1) it is a The and (2) it is also the name of the Great North China Famine, the Great Famine in Finland, the Great Famine of 1315–1317 etc. etc. Scolaire (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Third straw poll: discussion

I've been asking myself, why should there be a difference between the common name in Ireland (and the UK) and the common name in the US (and the UK, it depends who's talking)? I believe the answer lies in the sources pointed to by Wotapalaver here and Rockpocket here. Students from outside Ireland and the UK, as well as many in the UK, come to the subject via biological sciences such as microbiology, plant pathology and ecology where it referred to in terms of its "proximate cause" i.e. the Irish Potato Famine. Those in Ireland, on the other hand, come to it via the history of Ireland, and many in the UK through the history of the UK (the Tory Party, Peel etc.) where it is referred to in terms of the scale of human tragedy i.e. the Great Famine or the Great Hunger. A look at the revision history of this article is interesting: in June 2001 it was primarily about the blight, while by January 2003 it was about the human tragedy, and the naming dispute was already under way. This might explain the curious phenomenon of people on both sides saying "this is what it's called; it's never been called anything else!" Taking just one step back from that stance might help to put this vote into perspective. Scolaire (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To those that are saying "The Great Hunger" isn't a common name or is just the name of a book... a Google Books search (which even excludes "Cecil" and "Woodham" to avoid people who are just citing the book) returns around the same number of results as any of the supposedly more common names. Domer48 (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so google search is valid now? If you make IDENTICAL searches looking for "potato famine" for "the great hunger" and for "great famine" and eliminate the cross references to the common books (including the often referenced Kavanagh poem which is almost certainly the origin of "The Great Hunger" in English) from both searches you get nearly a 2:1 ratio in google books and a huge ratio in Google Scholar between "potato famine" and "great hunger". "Potato famine" is WAAAY ahead of "the great hunger" on regular google search too. There are slightly more book references to "great famine" than to "potato famine", slightly more scholar hits on "potato famine" but more than double the web hits on "potato famine" compared to "great famine". The event is commonly known as the potato famine.

"Potato famine" on Google Scholar. 4830 hits [41]

"potato famine" on google books. 1104 hits. [42]

"potato famine" on the web. 354,000 hits. [43]

"The Great Hunger" on Google Scholar. 347 hits. [44]

"The Great Hunger" on google books. 653 hits. [45]

"The Great Hunger" on web search. 50,300 hits [46]

"Great Famine" on google scholar. 3990 hits. [47]

"Great Famine" on the web. 158,000 hits. [48]

"Great Famine" on google books. 1116 hits. [49]

Since Domer48 now doesn't oppose google hits, these results are pretty illuminating. "The Great Hunger" is nowhere. "Great Famine" is pretty common. "Potato famine" is most common. Note that I've made the search the same for all terms. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you appear to have great difficulty reading, I will try make it simple just for you. One editor above says the “Great Hunger” is just the name of a book. Now here is the Diff, saves you having to look click on this. My reply, here is the diff, was to show that it was a common name and not just the title of a book. Now if you are still having trouble understanding this, just ask an admin for help. --Domer48 (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have difficulty reading. Even if I do, it doesn't change the fact that "Great Hunger" is far less common than any other of the names under discussion, nor that "potato famine" is the most common name. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wotapalaver, I would have to say that you really did follow my instructions to the letter when I asked people to "please try to avoid re-stating arguments that everybody is already familiar with." Having said that, I have to confess that I found "[a]lso slightly oppose the various makey-uppy versions of "The Famine" and "The Great Famine". The versions actually on offer are (A) not what anyone actually calls the famine and (B) require extensive disambiguation to avoid confusion with any of the other "great famines" and (C) are terribly POV since only Whigs thought the famine was "Great" since it eliminated all those troublesome Irish" to be the most convoluted and hard-to-get-my-head-around arguments ever on WP ;-) Apart from anything else, every option other than "Great Hunger" and "Famine" tout court is a makey-uppy version of "the Famine", is it not? But back to the point: notwithstanding what Domer says, Google searches have been dealt with and the numbers game has gone its three minutes of added time. We're now down to the level of what we can live with and what we can't. It seems to me that a picture is beginning to emerge, so that has to be good, yeah? Scolaire (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you find my arguments hard to get your head around. As for the "numbers game" indeed, I see lots of people ignoring the numbers. That's not necessarily good. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody could possibly ignore the numbers, Wotapalaver! What you see is people holding to their POV despite the numbers. That's not necessarily bad. If numbers were the only or even the main criterion, the page would have been moved to IPF long ago, over Domer's and my objections. It hasn't. So, now that the numbers argument has been dealt with exhaustively, we are moving on to other arguments. You can come with us, or you can sit here going "google google google" and really being ignored.

And yes, my previous comments were facetious and unhelpful. Consider them withdrawn. Scolaire (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying "google google google", I'm saying "common name", and I'm refraining from any personal diversions into WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is still a move request pending. It is clear that a consensus has formed to rename the article.

6 people selected Option 4 and also appear to object to Option 1.

9 people indicated Option 1, but did not object to Option 4.

Can those editors that took part in the previous poll and selected Option 1 please revisit the previous poll here and indicate if Option 4 is also acceptable. If so, perhaps a consensus for Option 4 will swiftly emerge, making this current poll superfluous. --Bardcom (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe a consensus for that option will emerge out of this! Will it matter where it emerges from? Do we really need all the bold type? Scolaire (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My fear is that a closing admin might once again decide that no consensus exists. If that's the case, we'd be stuck with "The Great Hunger" for 6 months (bad). The bold type is just to draw peoples attention to the previous poll. A lot of discussion has moved it off the bottom and makes it difficult to find (it can be found here . --Bardcom (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia keep any record of redirects? If they do, they may show what is the most frequent term that's searched for, and whether redirects are more frequent than direct searchs for "the great hunger", or vice versa. That would be a way of establishing common usage. Asmaybe (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but Google can let you compare notes on who is searching for what. It's hardly super scientific, but here it is.

Here's "potato famine" against "great famine" [50] which shows "potato famine" outnumbering "great famine" by 100:6 with "great famine" more popular in Ireland. "The Great Hunger" doesn't even get a mention [51]. That tells you what people are looking for and what's common usage. "Potato famine" is common usage. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That supports what you're saying, but the current theme (what's the most objectionable?) is more persuasive. Asmaybe (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no way of establishing which is the most objectionable from a poll like this. With just a few long-term partisans you can assert all sorts of things. I don't even doubt that there are people in Ireland who find "potato famine" somewhat annoying, potentially with good reason. However, for good or bad, that's still what the famine is called around the world. The British actions before, during and after the famine, culpability for the famine, etc., are all topics which can easily be presented in the article. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That form of Google search comparison is rather cool. :-) Indisputably Irish potato famine is commonly used, but I wonder how well those comparisons assess what people think of as the name for the event? If I were asked to give the name of the famine, I'd call it the Great Famine, but to find info. online about this famine, that's not what I'd search for. I'd probably just plunk the words (not in quotation marks) Irish famine or famine Ireland or Ireland famine into Google. Nuclare (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

@Domer: Your earlier point was "To those that are saying "The Great Hunger" isn't a common name or is just the name of a book..." (my emphasis added). No need to have a go at Wotapalaver for responding to what you actually said. @Bardcom: I voted for Option 1 in the previous poll; Option 4 would also be acceptable to me. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear to most of us that "[Great] Famine" is the common name in Ireland and "Irish potato famine" is the common name elsewhere. If policy is to use the common name, then regrettably it must be the latter (with no "The", please!). If the policy is to use the local name, it should be "Great Famine (Ireland)". The Great Irish Famine (1740–1741) article is a red herring; I would long ago have been bold and moved it to Irish Famine of 1740–1741 but I didn't want to be accused of trying to influence this debate surreptitiously. jnestorius^(talk) 21:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

jnestorius you are not alone! As soon as this debate is over (as I hope it will be soon) I would like to see that other article renamed, either through boldness or through an RM (which I would expect to be far less contentious!). Scolaire (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Famine (Ireland) is a good alternative suggestion. Rockpocket 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Third straw poll: conclusions

I have asked people which names they are most against. My conclusions, at this point in time, are:

1. that there is a consensus for change, and
2. that Irish Potato Famine will not get a consensus in this or any RM.

What has also come out, much to my surprise I have to admit, is that no name that incorporates "famine", "great" and "Ireland/Irish" is opposed in a straight vote. In other words, a name incorporating those three elements is most likely to get a consensus. As it happens, this is my own POV, but it's now also an objective fact, supported by a (carefully designed and unbiassed) poll. I suggest that the way to reach a consensus from here is to talk about (not vote on) variants of names that incorporate these elements with a view to hitting on one that satisfies everybody's requirements i.e. that it be easily recognisable, that it be unambiguous, and that it not be seen by anybody as contentious. These will include, but need not be restricted to:

• Irish Famine
• Great Irish Famine
• Great Famine (Ireland)
• Great Famine in Ireland
• Great Irish Famine (1845-18xx)
• Great Famine in Ireland (1845-18xx)

Bardcom is anxious to conclude this RM at the earliest possible date. He is afraid (although I don't agree) that if an admin closes it too soon it will not be possible to open another one. So how about it? Is any of these capable of winning acceptance as a POV-free, common and specific name? Scolaire (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching but not contributing to this debate. I'm a little curious about the word "great" being used. I've heard of it being used in conjunction with the famine, but it just doesn't seem right to me. That said, I would generally be in favour of a simple name incorporating Famine, Ireland/Irish and the dates. I personally think that's best.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Many of the people who previously participated in discussions have not yet been invited to this one. I haven't had time to invite them. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

But you've had time to go on talk pages multiple times to explain you don't have time! Scolaire (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha Ha. I haven't had time. Saying that there are people who need to be invited takes less time than listing the names and inviting them. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't be invited. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You gave me three names only. You posted to my talk page twice, and this page once - exactly the same time as it would have taken to go to those three editors and notify them! But here's what puzzles me: the people you're referring to did not participate in "Straw Poll 2" (which became a move request) either, because I notified everybody that participated in that. Yet you never once in three weeks voiced any concern that they hadn't been "invited" to the RM. What makes this poll different? The outcome was different, I suppose, with "Irish Potato Famine" getting a big majority on "Straw Poll 2" and a big "no" vote on this, but it's inconceivable that somebody of your integrity would try to stack votes! ... Isn't it? Scolaire (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Re "Great": it doesn't just mean "more than good" - definitions 1-3, 5, 7, 10 and 14 from the first entry here would all apply. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing gained by Great. Happy with Irish famine. Berks911 (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What would be gained is a way of describing this specific famine, which was just one of many famines in Ireland. The scale of this famine was what was different, thus, it is the 'great' famine. The other thing that is gained is that "The Great Famine" is an actual name used by the Irish for the event. Having said that, I don't object to "Irish famine (Dates)", but Great Famine is a more specific name to tie to this particular event. Nuclare (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) "Irish Famine" implies there was only one. The options incorporating dates may prove problematic (see above conroversy on when did it end). "Great Irish Famine", "Great Famine (Ireland)", and "Great Famine in Ireland" would all be fine with me and would naturally disambiguate from other countries' Great Famines. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As regards "great", just go to the famine article and see how often that word is used, in the sense of "on a large scale". A typical example is "A few of the great famines of the late 20th century were: the Biafran famine in the 1960s, the disaster in Cambodia in the 1970s, the Ethiopian famine of 1983–85 and the North Korean famine of the 1990s." That is "great" with a small 'g', but specific famines are referred to as the Great North China Famine, the Great Famine in Finland, the Great Famine of 1315–1317 etc. (per my vote above). I'm by no means clinging to the "great" name, just making the point that it is both reasonable and common. Having said that, I can see how "Great Irish Famine" might make you think of "Great Irish Breakfast". From that point of view "Great Famine in Ireland" or "Great Famine (Ireland)" might be better. "Great Famine in Ireland" has the additional advantage that it is already the article name on many wikis (see note 1 to the list of article names at Common name above). Scolaire (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As regards options incorporating dates, I would agree with Bastun that the dates would be difficult to fix (in the sense of "settle definitely") at this time, but I wouldn't rule out a further move six months or more down the line if dates were agreed in the meantime. Scolaire (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Are the dates contentious? I for one have no problem having it set in the title as the latest possible year, which I gather from the article is 1852?Traditional unionist (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose putting just the start date might be deemed deceptive??, but it's an idea. As in "Great Famine in Ireland (1845)." Or "Great Famine (Ireland 1845)." The paranthesis comments would be there only to differentiate previous famines, rather than needing to be fully descriptive. Only someone who didn't bother to read any of the text could be deceived by it. But...that's just a suggestion, if end date is too contentious. As to the list of title suggestions: I'm not much fond of "Great Irish Famine," but any of the others, as general formats, "Irish famine," "Great Famine in Ireland," "Great Famine (Ireland)" would be fine. Nuclare (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Nuclare, I had the exact same thought, and I had the exact same reservations. My feeling is that if you asked somebody in Ireland when the Great Famine was, they would answer "well, it started in 1845." so I, for one, would happily live with either of your suggestions. Scolaire (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And I.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that Irish Famine is not specific enough. All the others are fine (assuming dates could be agreed on) but my preference would be Great Famine (Ireland) or Great Famine in Ireland. I'm not sure the start date is required, unless there is was another Great Famine in Ireland (and I was under the impression that the "Great" was what distinguished this one from the others). Rockpocket 18:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"I was under the impression that the "Great" was what distinguished this one from the others" That's my impression as well. But, then again, I don't claim to know a lot about the discourse surrounding the 18th century famine, which I know was also very devastating. I'm not saying it's set in stone, but it does interest me as to the rationale for setting up the Wiki page on that famine as a "Great" famine. No doubt it was 'great' (in the sense of large scale devastation), but is it *called* "Great Famine" in English? I've never seen a source call it that, but, then again, one doesn't see much discussion of that event full stop. It's obviously far more common to call the 1845 famine 'The Great Famine,' so we are safe in that regard. I'm assuming *if* some form of 'Great Famine' was applied to the 1840s famine, than that earlier famine would be "Irish famine (1740-1741)"? Nuclare (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For discussions on this page of what it is called, see Grahamzilch (aka sony-youth), jnestorius, Colin4C and jnestorius again. The short answer is "yes, it is called the Great Famine". And yes, the article on the 18th century will hopefully be renamed very soon. Scolaire (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Great Famine (1845)" type suggestions would be problematic, as that might create the impression that the famine lasted only that year; or that the article was one of a series of articles detailing the individual years of the famine. As you say, reading the text would clarify that, but in my experience, if I am confused by an article's title and have to read on to understand it, it straight away annoys me a little. jnestorius^(talk) 18:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

((outdent)) So far, everyone appears to agree on some form of the words above. Does anybody not agree? --Bardcom (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. Making up a name for the article based on consensus or a vote and is not attributable to a reliable, published source would not be supported by wiki policies. --Domer48 (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of including dates in the name, which seems to have little support, the other proposals are not disqualified by WP:NOT or WP:V. All are in widespread use in published reliable sources.

• Irish Famine: 70,400
• Great Irish Famine: 53,200
• Great Famine in Ireland: 1,040

"Great Famine (Ireland)" certainly comes within WP's naming guidelines, in my opinion. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I must part ways with my esteemed fellow editor here and say that any of the three above seem OK and are in common use (except obviously the third but that is only a dab addition so I'd have no problem with it - though I don't personally like it - surely a point in its favour hereon?). Sarah777 (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, your personal approval is very important to me at least :-) When you say "the three above" I presume you mean the three googled (blue) options. Have you any feelings on the fourth one, "Great Famine (Ireland)". It's more obviously a dab so maybe you'd like it better? Scolaire (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Famine (Ireland) is better than "Great Famine in Ireland"; the latter implies GF in I is a name or title whereas it is really a dab/sentence. Sarah777 (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Irish Famine (1845-1852) would be my selection. Another option, which wasn't in the polls, would be 'Irish Famine (1845-1852)', and then move the 1740 famine to 'Irish Famine (1740-1741)'. Asmaybe (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My conclusion? No-one has any good reason to reject "Irish Potato Famine". The only reason that's coming up is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is irrelevant. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfair assessment of the discussion to date. It's not the reason. Read discussion again, and also I LIKE IT. 20:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.137.69 (talk)

@Wotapalaver, my interpretation is that it has been rejected for a number of reasons. Firstly, some editors claim it is not the common name. For me, it is, but it seems that many Leaving Cert students today call it the Great Famine instead, so perhaps there's a generation thing going on. Second, I suspect that some editors reject it because as a term, it grossly oversimplifies the causes, etc, and somehow infers that the Potato was the sole cause of the deaths, and not government policies, etc. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, but given the fact I've since learned that many (younger) people today refer to it as the Great Famine, I'm happy to accept this term too (but not for the 2nd reason, only the 1st). --Bardcom (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a generation thing, Bardcom. I did my Leaving in 1969, and I never heard "Potato Famine" until two weeks ago - it was "The Famine" or "The Great Famine" back then too. Scolaire (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there's two common names then? --Bardcom (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

@Wotapalaver, the question I raise is whether one should use the common name in Ireland or the common name outside of Ireland. While there are more English speakers in the latter group, those in the former group would refer to the event in question a good deal more frequently than those in the latter. I genuinely don't know what policy is on this question: WP:COMMONNAME does not address this. jnestorius^(talk) 23:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy on this question. Policies deal with general issues, not specific ones. There must be 20 suggested names on this page, and no one of them is more in keeping with, or more in violation of policy than any other. COMMONNAME helps in the great majority of cases, but if it doesn't, as in this case, all we can do is note the fact and move on. At the end of the day, the only important thing is to have consensus. Scolaire (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Plea to editors

Some of the threads above have developed a horribly nasty tone. While Domer paid the price for his comments, some (but not all) of the other editors involved in those discussions were skating on thin ice themselves. I am not an ArbCom sanctioned mentor of this page, but I have been watching the discussions for some time (while keeping my own comments restricted to the name issue). I have seen good faith and respect leech away, to be replaced by what appears to be personal battles of will. Irrespective of the rights or wrong of the incidents that have sparked these battles, the fact things have got so out of hand are detrimental to the article. For example, it doesn't matter who provides a source. It doesn't matter whether the content of the article can be sourced by that citation originally offered by one editor, or by one offered later by another. What matters is that the content accurately reflected the content of a citation.

There are editors who are attempting to (and I believe could succeed in) improving this article through consensus, but it is delicate work and the invective we have seen recently is hindering that progress. Therefore I urge all editors to view further discussions with fresh eyes. Leave the bad feeling and suspicions of other editors at the door. If you feel you can't do that, then please take a voluntary break, because if we continue in this tone, I am going to propose to the group of mentors that a number of page bans be given. That appears to be the only way to overcome the handicap of constant bickering. Rockpocket 18:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am amazed that a year after I last looked at this article you are still debating the name ... in 10 years time it will be Great Irish famine so why not just accept that and move on to making the article better. :) Abtract (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It sure is nasty. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Domer48 page banned and other remedies

The Arbitration Committee-appointed mentors, following a review of the events surrounding this article in recent weeks , and in light of the disruption that has occurred, have decided to implement the following remedies, as authorised by the arbitration committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Great Hunger#Mentorship, with immediate effect:

1. Domer48 (talk · contribs) is banned from editing both the article and the article talk page for one month, that is until 2008-07-23 12:00 UTC, and is banned from editing the article only for an additional one month, that is until 2008-08-23 12:00 UTC, two months in total. This ban is imposed as a result of Domer48's repeated reversion to non-consensus versions, misrepresentations of consensus, disruption of the talk page with incivility and assumptions of bad faith, opposition to proposals seemingly based only on the user proposing them, and refusal to compromise or cede as required by the wiki model.
2. After three months the mentors will review progress to determine which period, that is the one month total ban, the one month article-only ban, or the final month with no restrictions on Domer48, produced the least disruption of the building and improvement of this article, and will then decide whether to reinstate any or all of the prior restrictions on Domer48.
3. All editors are reminded that civil standards of discussion must be maintained and personal attacks avoided at all times. Inappropriate language, including, but not limited to, unnecessarily patronising messages, or accusations of lying, will result in sanctions, which may include blocks or talk page bans. In view of the highly contentious nature of the topic, the best interests of the project will be served by conducting all discussion in a calm and reasonable manner.
4. All editors are requested to exercise particular care when paraphrasing or summarising references, and to ensure that content policies, and in particular Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research, are observed at all times.
5. The article has been semi-protected indefinitely. The nature of the Arbitration Committee restrictions, in particular the requirement that all content reversions be discussed here on the article talk page, makes editing by non-registered users potentially disruptive.

Our thanks to all those who are contributing constructively to this article and talk page, and especially to Rockpocket for his calming comments and analysis. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)