Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)

Imported Grain Used As Livestock Feed

These edits added the claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=887787383

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1170685821

This claim seems to be completely unsupported by the given sources or the literature. Cheezypeaz (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"genocide"

In the genocide section, there is a statement claiming that a non-scholarly "assessment" by two law professors who argued that the Irish Famine was a genocide in order to reshape a history curriculum in New Jersey has been "supported by various later genocide scholars," and it then links to one chapter, in one book, by one scholar, Neysa King. Considering this same source has been used to include a section on the Irish Famine in the main article for genocide, there seems to be a deliberate effort to elevate a theory that's got little scholarly backing (and, as we will soon learn, even this is a generous description of how this theory's been received by professional historians).

When this issue was previously raised on this page, user 'SeoR' made the following statement which I think is a good basis to start a discussion:

"It is quite clear that *few* but not *no* historians see genocide as a key factor', but how this is presented can be explored.."'

So, expanding on this point, let's revisit two of the rules we're expected to honor when we edit this encyclopedia:

• An acknowledgement that Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, and not a laboratory for testing novel ideas.

• That it is not enough to demonstrate that some minority of scholars hold a view, but rather that the minority view is significant.

Now let's look at how the source in question opens the chapter:

"Today, Irish and British historians categorically reject the notion that British actions during the Great Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) amounted to genocide."[1]

So, the first sentence in this chapter acknowledges that the theory is not just rejected by academics, but "categorically" so.

Another source I'd add is Mark McGowan's piece in the journal Genocide Studies International:

"The fact that virtually all historians of Ireland have reached a verdict that eschews [the genocide] position, be they Irish-born scholars from Britain, North America or Australasia, has weakened the traditional populist account."[2]

So, language like "categorically reject" and "virtually all historians" tells us exactly how the information should be presented: as a fringe perspective that's only mentioned insofar as we are telling readers it's a theory that's been widely rejected by the mainstream of Irish academic history.

Discuss. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• The King source is a conference proceedings book; the article is short and doesn't cite much, and the presentation was by someone who may have gotten a Master's degree but does not work (and publish) in academia. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Which raises even more questions.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Sure, but that's not necessarily for here. One question I have is who added that. Another is what all this says about Brill, and that's even sadder. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

      Probably the same person who went into the article on historical genocides and added the same content into a Great Famine section which shouldn't even be there. This is very simple: the view that the GF was a genocide is fringe and should never be mentioned on here except to say that it's a fringe pov pushed mainly by people who don't have the relevant background in economic, social or political history for the period in question. The endless iterations of John Mitchel's polemic about "food exports" is case in point. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Overlong lead

I agree that the lead is far too long but the recently reverted quote from a future PM actually supported the prior, unreferenced sentence - "Additionally, the famine indirectly resulted in tens of thousands of households being evicted, exacerbated by a provision forbidding access to workhouse aid while in possession of more than one-quarter acre of land." The subject of the reverted quote is found in several statistics in the Eviction section. Because this very strong quote was made near the beginning of the disaster and was made by the future Prime Minister I thought its placement in the lead section was appropriate. I believe the quote belongs somewhere in this very long article, either in the Lead or the Eviction section.Palisades1 (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Then put it in the Evictions section, since the objection was to the length of the lead and to the inclusion of material in the lead that is not in the article body. DrKay (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Go to talk prior to revert. Palisades1 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you've written this comment because we've both followed the Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle and neither of us has broken the 1 revert per 24 hours editing restriction on this article. It is also obvious that I'm not going to revert an edit that I have already agreed to. It is also obvious that I'm not going to revert an edit that occurred 6 hours before you made this comment at a time when I was clearly active on wikipedia. Consequently, it looks like an unnecessarily offensive and aggressive demand that is designed to insult and provoke. I will therefore not obey it and I will revert whenever and wherever it is reasonable and justifiable to do so. DrKay (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Genocide section

Please note that the editor Cdjp1 has added controversial content to the genocide section today. This issue is currently in dispute resolution and these additions should probably be reverted until it's resolved. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a mischaracterisation of how you have framed your arguments in the Genocides in History (before World War 1) talk page and the DR discussion. You have maintained your issue is the great famine's inclusion in that article, and you even suggested that any information from the scholars present in that article should instead appear in the relevant section in this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What I had tried to say was, any discussion of genocide theories belongs in this article in the relevant section, but that the Great Famine should not be listed in an article about pre-WW1 genocides considering scholars don't believe it was a genocide. I also said that this article covers the genocide controversy rather well (and never said I thought the section needed to be expanded). I also don't think scholars who have backgrounds in famines in other countries and continents are authoritative on this subject. All scholars that study famines agree that every famine is political -that hunger can happen naturally but when it rises to the level of famine there's politics involved. But that also highlights why the most reliable sources on the Irish Famine are historians with some expertise in British/Irish political history. As far as Robbie McVeigh goes -he only ever writes about Ireland from one colonial perspective, and we have to wonder why his opinion is so at odds with the mainstream. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Removal

I noticed this edit, which removes material apparently on the basis that it is allegedly from a partisan source, and is "over 150 years old". I wasn't aware that we were not able to use sources older than a certain age. DrKay, can you shed any light on this? John (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for guidance, in particular "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history", "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest", "in academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed" and "cite current scholarly consensus when available". DrKay (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. I was thinking about WP:BIASED which I thought applicable to exactly this sort of situation. I'd imagine you to be familiar with it. If not, it's definitely worth a read. I also found the reference to the source's age a bit weird. What was that about? Older sources and biased sources can be very useful if they are properly used. We can use Mein Kampf on an article about Hitler. So, why did you remove that material? Note that at this stage that I'm not contesting the removal, just saying the edit summary makes no sense. John (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I have already answered. DrKay (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I had the same question, as Template:Obsolete source indicates that older sources only need to be removed if more recent developments supersede the older information, and I see nothing on Template:Better source needed about age of source. Thank you for raising this discussion, John. Littlemisssunshine22 (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I have already answered. DrKay (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Not in any way that makes sense though. Are you able to explain in plain language why the article is better without this material? John (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to restore the material, please find a better source, as was requested four and a half years ago. There are three talk page sections above this one contesting the genocide theory. We shouldn't be using a source promoting the genocide theory that was written over 160 years ago without context. It doesn't reflect modern scholarship. DrKay (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There's only one use of the word "genocide" in that passage and it's fully attributed to Mitchel. Is the problem that Mitchel's claims are being given in Wiki-voice? Surely Mitchel's views and statements on the crisis are wholly relevant to the narrative. Or is the problem that Mitchel's writings are being used as a primary source here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason to confuse the issue. The passage relating to Mitchel on that score is retained. Indeed, the same quote is in the article twice. DrKay (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You've removed the three Mitchel references wholesale? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It's fine to use Mary E. Daly and Peter Duffy as sources for Mitchel's views. Though I believe Thomas Gallagher was an amateur historian, his book received favorable reviews, so I have no problem with its use. DrKay (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

My question is not with your removal but why the reason for "better source needed" given as that the source is old. (I believe someone else marked this years ago.) I don't see anywhere in the Wikipedia policies that a source should be removed solely due to its age, so if I'm missing something please let me know where I can read more about this policy. I believe this is the same question that John had. Was the source removed due to age or bias? Just trying to understand the rationale behind the edit(s). Littlemisssunshine22 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)