Talk:Irish potato famine

Past entries in this famous discussion are archived in:

. .1 , .2 , .3 , .4 , .5 , .6 , .7 , .8 (empty[?] , .9 (empty[?] , .10 (empty[?]...

• For slow connections, please limit the size of this talk page to (roughly) 2 pages. 15K
• Please refrain from removing useful or nessessary content to archieve.When there is contention, it does not defuse the situation.
• Please read appropriate web pages to do this in a manner that has been found to be generally acceptable to the community.

 please post links here because almost all jthe principles of refactoring have
 been violated, and many of the principles of Jimmy Wales have been violated.

Two16

Temp:Irish potato famine, and Temp:Irish potato famine (legacy) for revisions. These should be workable buffers for larger changes to be made.

---

From Wikipedia:Editing policy:

"There are a number of talk or other discussion oriented pages which could use a bit of traditional Wiki refactoring. There's useful content there, sometimes, that can be transferred to the article itself. Sometimes large chunks of old talk pages can be completely wiped out with no harm done--feel free to do so, unless you think there's some value in preserving the discussion. In refactoring a talk page, one solid recommendation is to use the traditional wiki refactoring technique of adding a summary with whatever consensus we've arrived at the top, grouping separate discussion items together, and placing them towards the bottom."

---

This article is more than 37,000 bytes. Anything more than 32,000 bytes causes trouble for some browsers on some platforms. Because of this, and the fact that anything more than 20,000 bytes is really too big for an encyclopedia article, we should work-on summarizing some of the sections in this article and spinning off the detail onto daughter articles. --mav

---

copying material to Temp:Irish potato famine for revisions. -Stevert

---

I have nothing of substance to add -- but the past couple of days work on this topic is extraordinary -- serious substantive improvements both to the content of the discussion and the tone of interaction. Bravo! Slrubenstein

---

It is simply a side effect of Lockdown Sv Rule. Two16

---

I think the quality of this article has greatly deteriorated. The first section "Social, Political, and Economic Origins of the Famine" is over-wordy and tangential. Mintguy

I believe that the section you are referring to is well-written and informative -- but does not belong in this article; I have stated before that it belongs in an article on Irish History, or at leasat part of it belongs in a longer history article and parts of it could go at the end of the article in a section on different analyses of the causes of the famine.

That said, a number of particpants in this article have made it clear that it is too long and parts of it need to be moved into other articles. So while I recognize the problem to which you refer, I do not see it is a deterioration but as an intermediate stage.

I suggest -- to JTD, Sv, PML, 172 and others -- that it might make sense to spend a day or two limiting contributions to this talk page, in a discussion of how best to define the limits of this article, and its organization, and what parts should be spun off into new articles, or cut and pasted into other existing articles. From the constructive tone of recent discussion I bet youse guys can reach a working consensus fairly quickly.... Slrubenstein

Mint is right somewhat: the section was originally written to replace the genocide section , where i felt it would be repetitive at that point. So i suggested to 172 that it be a top level summary,, though it needs some work. look at Temp:Irish potato famine for some reworking of this for introductory use. I think it has most of the essential elements to understanding the background of the IPF.

As for the split - I made it at the logical break point: The Main article/ The Legacy of... article. The total length shouldnt be too much more that what we have already and it would make no sense to break it up into more sister pages. My creation of a footer article was done first, and might be re-added to the main, if people want. the sizes for the main two are roughly 24K and 15k. I did it because it was the logical thing, and couldnt imagine anyone finding reasonable arguement with the split point, though changes can be made...

Thats all for today. Thanks SL, J, Mv, Mint... and "crazy" two.-Stevert

At first blush this seems like a logical place to split. I'll have to read over both articles to see if it really "works." Either way, the text in this article needs a bit more trimming to get it below 20 K. --mav

---

"I suggest -- to JTD, Sv, PML, 172 and others -- that it might make sense to spend a day or two limiting contributions to this talk page" - that's what I have been doing.

to finish my sentence, "in a discussion of how best to define the limits of this article, and its organization,"

 In regards to what I outlined yesterday about clarifying the implications of absenteeism, 

to which I certainly have no objection

I suggest that unless I see some reason why not, in a few hours the pause for thought on that particular point will have elapsed. If I'm free, I shall write it up then. PML.

fair enough. In any event, the way you quote me sounds a bit defensive - if so, please rest assured that what I wrote was in no way meant to disparage you or your contribution, Slrubenstein

Your observations were very interesting, PML. It is nice to see a reasoned debate here. My only quibble is with space. The famine is a very large topic already and we all have to be careful not to so load it with information that even your average faminologist would take an almighty gulp before reading it (let along your average reader). But in general, well done on a useful contribution. JTD 01:29 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

I've added in some minor suggested changes to the temp version - they are highlighted in brown with an explanation for the suggestion beside them. JTD 02:28 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

---

Okay, I took matters into my own hand and made a major structural change. I did not change any content. First, I added a new second paragraph to serve as a sort of "roadmap" for the article. Then, I switched the potato and the landholding sections. I made some very minor changes in wording that I hope no one considers significant -- I just wanted the section headings to fit the roadmap. My "map" doesn't directly adress the last two sections -- but if all of you agree that the changes I did make are in the right direction, it should not be too hard to reorganize the last two sections to fit my map, or modify my map to accomodate the last two sections. I do want to know what JTD, 172, and Sv think (and hey, Mav and Mintguy too). Slrubenstein

---

I think these paragraphs ...

The 1801 Act of Union stipulated that Ireland would have in the United Kingdom one-fifth the representation of Great Britain with 100 members in the House of Commons. Ireland was in terms of population over-represented. The trouble was not Irish representation in the UK parliament but that the UK parliament, by definition, was less in tune with the needs of Ireland, given that the vast majority of the non-Irish MPs and ministers had never set foot in Ireland. The union of the churches of England and Ireland also cemented British rule, strengthening the preeminent position in Ireland of the Anglicans by securing the continuation of the British Test Act, which virtually excluded nonconformists (both Catholic and Protestant) from Parliament and from membership of municipal corporations.

Part of the agreement that led to the Union Act stipulated that the Penal Laws were to be repealed and Catholic Emancipation granted. King George III, however, blocked emancipation, arguing that to grant it would break his coronation oath to defend the Anglican Church. A campaign under lawyer and politician Daniel O'Connell led to the conceding of Catholic Emancipation in 1829, so allowing Catholics to sit in parliament. O'Connell mounted an unsuccessful campaign for the ?Repeal? of the Act of Union.

Not until 1828-29 did the repeal of the Test Act and the concession of Catholic Emancipation provide political equality for most purpose, including free trade between the British Isles that Irish merchandise would be admitted to British colonies on the same terms as British merchandise.

... could be summarised, or moved, it leads us away from the thrust of the article rather than leading us towards it.

The next paragraph begins by mentioning laissez-faire but it is out of context. Only after this paragraph does article start to give the reader what he is after, i.e. the immediate causes of the famine. [MINTGUY]. (your signature didn't come up, MG, so I've filled it in. JTD)

Personally, I would keep the third paragraph, but I fully agree that the first two could be compressed into a couple of sentences. Is the content in these two paragraphs in an article on Irish history? If not, I would also try to incorporate it into that article, Slrubenstein

The article seems like its getting much better. Its meatier, meaning it has charachter of a relevant human interest story; and its starting to flow in an organised in a way; the summary for the quick read, and the solid facts where the more involved reader can get to them. g'day. -Stevert

---

---

I disagree with Mintguy as well. It?s important to chronicle more than just the immediate, superficial causes of the famine, such as the blight. It?s also important to briefly develop the socio-political and economic context.

By doing so, we can avoid the fruitless debate over Britain?s complicity. As of now, this topic is left unstated explicitly, and left free of values-based judgments.

172

In otherwords 172, its starting to make sense?... via the historical setup.-Stevert P.s.I'm not a fan of avoiding controvery, though, 172, as we all know... But neither are the people who are interested in dispensing with controversy by actually explaining it. ;)

---

See? This controversy?s cooling-down. We now have a solid, detailed, NPOV article.

172

Is there anyone who could beef up the science of the article, ie details of the blight, etc? I certainly would be interested in learning more of the science behind what happened? Any takers? JTD 22:31 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

One can be God-righteously suspicious of the concept "NPOV", as stated from the POV of someone who likes to use the word "avoid". :!-Stevert

---

JTD?s a good historian just looking to explain this phenomenon dispassionately and objectively. Sv is also right to point out Britain?s role. This fight shouldn?t go on.

I?ll look into the blight, as JTD suggested.

172

---

LoL.... That opinion could not be substansited by an examination of the archives. There is all that problem with blind assertion of NPOV when Sv was lockdown on this page. He pointed out that objectively an article which makes the statement "..not like the fake Irish - those living abroad" could never be consider npov by any reputable historian. From the first moment JTD typed into these talk pages he has been blind to himself and the category his posts fall into all too often:

I presume the above editing was done by some two year old who is

playing with a computer. It certainly wasn't done by anyone with an

elementary grasp of history. If they wrote the nonsense they placed in the : page on a history exam, they'd be laughed out of the exam hall and told

try reading a book on history sometime. The laughable garbage has

been removed and the correct factual stuff re-instated. JTD :19:27 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

His disrespect to intellectual discourse and to wikipedian ethos and practice are evident in his response to my complaints that proper refractoring technique was not being followed:

Don't be such a childish prat, Two16. It called making room on the Talk :page so people like you can whinge a bit more. If you are this paranoid, :see a psychiatrist. JTD 23:53 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

This however by itself was not enough indication to the sysop self-assigned to IPF that the community had valid complaints about the conduct and scholarship of "good historian" JTD.

Not even when Jtd produced some rent-a-wikipedians did mav's fire alarm bells ring:

Ignore that idiot's abuse, JTD. I like the page too. It is very informative and : well written. It matches the history I was taught. You get a couple of

'cranks' always complaining about something. Usually they don't know

much. Just complain, complain, complain. When someone shows up

the limits of how little they know, they throw their little tantrums. Two16

seems like a typical tantrum thrower!

159.134.168.165[?]

count me in as part of the consensus on leaving the page the way it is. It

is fine, as far as I can see. i wish all the other pages were as

comprehensive. What is Two16's problem? The page is what I was

taught as well. DuggieH

I invite every member of this community to examine the issue, paying particular attention to the user histories of DouglasH and 159.134.168.165. Especailly to the intriguing question of wheather JTD is 159.134.168.165.

Their posts read like an attempt to turn NPOV into some sort of voting scheme. There comments were posted after Sv proved that the community standards would protect the integrity of the encyclopedia even if he had to resort to behavior that is normally beyond the pale. It is quite likely he would have been thrown off the system had I not initiated a campaign of non-violent resistance against tyrany (called by me Lockdown Sv Rule. ). Any incidentalist medium, like the Wikipedia, provides guarrentee against unaccoutable authority.

Consulting IEEE @ [[1] (http://www.computer.org/proceedings/iswc/1318/13180047abs.htm)] will prove illuminating about the whole notion of accountablility in the wikipedia.

No I am not. JTD 19:15 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Pardon me. You are not what? And as if that is the only thing that

demands a reply here. Two16

wait, this seems like a fun (albeit stupid) game -- let me guess. Someone above says that there is an intriguing question, Whether JTD is 159.&c. Then, JTD writes, "no I am not." Then someone writes "You are not what?" So I am going to take a big flying leap here and guess that JTD means "I am not 159..."!!!

JTD -- am I right? Slrubenstein

Correct, Sirubenstein. I am not this 159. . . person. Two other people occasionally use this computer; my partner and my flatmate, but as far as I know they aren't on Wikipedia. (I can check but not tonight; my partner is currently in either Brussels or Frankfurt - his job brings him between both cities constantly. My flatmate is in Limerick with his family for a break.) But 159 . . . certainly is not me. JTD 20:07 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Well thanx for clearing up about those rent-a-wikipedians. We can come back to the timing of those entries and how they match up to JtD's user record if this needs to go this far. IT IS ALL ON RECORD. What part of this don't you understand? Don't you know that ignoring the other items in my post only serve to make a stronger case against your actions? You cannot dismiss my post simply by taking on the simple question. What is your response to the much more serious items brought up by your ignorant (standard dictionary meaning) postings to the surface. REPENT! Two16

Oh do stop it Two16. Only you and Sv seem to have had problems with JTD. Everyone else who has looked into the matter thinks that JTD's edits are above average to excellent in the accuracy and NPOV department. --mav

---

As a historian myself, though not specialized in Irish history by any means, I?d have to agree with Mav regarding the work of JTD. The article seems accurate, insightful, and even-handed.

I'll return to this article and others shortly. I've been relatively busy lately.

172

---

This article states that potatoes "rotted in the ground" due to the blight. That's just not right. The potatoes rotted after harvest, not before. They rotted because they got the blight when they came into contact with the vines. Potatoes in the ground could not rot because the blight cannot live in contact with the soil. One of the standard potato harvesting methods to prevent the spread of blight is to remove the vines a couple of weeks before lifting the tubers to minimize the exposure of tubers to blight. Please get facts right! jaknouse 15:49 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

Contemporary reports from 1846 and 1847 described the potatoes as rotting in the ground. I know absolutely nothing about the nature of the blight, merely what those who witnessed the phenomenon described, that when the potatoes came from the ground they were rotting, with farmers frantically searching their crops for any potatoes that were not rotting when pulled from the ground. Those that were not already rotting rotted immediately after removal from the soil. STÓD/ÉÍRE 20:16 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

I can only assume that that means that either the potatoes were dug and exposed and then left exposed at the surface of the ground, or that they were grown so shallow that they must have had air exposure. jaknouse 23:00 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

---

Has anyone actually read the article recently? I mean the whole article, not just bits of it? It's actually quite repetetive. Also, it falls short of NPOV in a few places, for example the assertion that the IRA's 1922 destruction of the Irish Public Records Office was "meaningless" --PS4FA

There is not a single person who has ever described the destruction as anything other. In fact one of those responsible told his family when he was dying that he never forgave himself for what he had done. It was utterly meaningless. Not one iota of information in there was of any relevance to the Civil War. Among the information contained was lists of baptisms, marriages and deaths, property deeds from the 14th century, an eleventh century treaty, etc etc. Calling it meaningless is the understatement of the century. One historian sympathetic to the republican cause in the 1980s in a newspaper article in The Irish Press called in "an act of cultural genocide that shamed and disgraced Irish republicanism and for which I would happily have shot the bastards responsible. (E. Crinion. 1987 if I remember correctly. The paper has since closed down so I don't have access to the article, just a note of the quote.) Eamon de Valera too described it as "senseless and stupid, an act which shamed every Irish republican". BTW the article has been extensively NPOVed by people with knowledge in the area. FearÉIREANN 02:04 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I was not seeking to justify the act itself, rather I am apparently being too postmodern for Wikipedia. I should also apologise for my assertion that the word "meaningless" was used, instead the article uses the term "pointless" (too many articles open at the same time too late at night). Nevertheless, I still regard that as a value judgement that could be phrased more neutrally. For example, "apparently pointless", or "..., an act universally condemned as pointless". Both of these statements are undeniably true and are without any trace of value judgement --PS4FA

PS4FA is correct, and postmodernism has nothing to do with it. "Meaningless" is a value judgement, and must be presented as such. Slrubenstein

No. When it is opinion of 100% of people, including those responsible (Frank Aiken, who was in the PRO when it was boobytrapped and was a leading republican, called it "meaningless, shameful and a disgrace") that it was meaningless, it was meaningless. Or are we to ignore the views of 100% of people on both sides of the Treaty debate, including those who boobytrapped the building, because Sirubenstein has a problem with the views of 100% of the people involved? NPOV means neutral point of view - ie neutrality between alternative viewpoints. Where there are not two sides to the argument and where 100% of people are all agreed, it is perfectly OK to state that as a fact. For example, Lord Longford's account on the Treaty negotiations is universally regarded by all sides as the most accurate account. It was discussed whether it could be described as such and the agreement was that it should be so described. Indeed it was said that where there is 100% agreement on something, absolutely NPOV language can in fact be POV, by implying that there are two sides to the debate when in fact they aren't. As there is 100% agreement on the issue of the destruction of the I PRO the form of words here was agreed as the correct form. Using NPOV in this instance could give the impression that it is a matter of opinion of debate, when it isn't. In that circumstances such an implication which flows from normal NPOV language would actually be POV, by misrepresenting reality and creating a non-existent viewpoint by implication. The language used here re the I PRO was agreed by all sides, including by wiki users who are passionate about NPOV language (I am one of them), and by professional historians who contributed to this page, in an otherwise heated debate on the issue of the IPF. FearÉIREANN 16:20 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Since those responsible regarded their action as pointless, perhaps Sirubenstein could care to suggest what the point was? If not, I will reinsert the word, pointless as that is the view of 100% of participants, 100% of historians, 100% of Irish people? FearÉIREANN 16:25 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As written, it was editorializing. The change that PS4FA suggested was reasonable, and jin no way diminished the content. As for JTDIRL's histrionics, I did not know that there was any survey of "100%" of all participants and historians. But even if "100%" of historians have yet to suggest any possible meaning or point to the act, that does not mean that some future historian will not propose one. To label the act as "pointless" is to make a claim not only that no one ever has suggested a point, but that no one ever will. It is mere editorializing. On a separate note, I really wonder why JTDIRL cares so much about adding a qualifier. It certainly doesn't damage the article. No article belongs to any one person. Wikipedia is a collaborative process. It is true that in the past there have been a few contributors who really damaged articles, but it is clear to me that in this instance PS4FA is not one of them. learn to accept the contributions of others. Slrubenstein

I agree totally. PS4FA (who I think is a new user - correct me if I am wrong!) seems to have all the characteristics of an excellent contributor. It doesn't really bother me about a qualifier. But given that those who did the deed themselves said they did not know why, that it had no motivation, no logic behind it, and themselves universally called it pointless, it is stretching NPOV to absurd levels to suggest that just in case someone at some stage in the future makes up some excuse for the action, we should leave that option open. Historians can analyse situations and guess at motivation where there is a dispute over it. Using language in a way that leaves closed issues open to allow someone to make up a motivation that did not exist at the time is regarded by most historians I know as bastardised history. In fact some historians refer to such actions as "historical turds" after a term used in an Irish newspaper debate on a similar matter where the motivation involved in some act was unambiguously known, but then new motivations were created by a writer. (She didn't know the person whose motivations she was judging was still alive - aged 99 - and he came out to give her a bollicking, telling her not to "manufacture history and motivation" that was purely a creation of her overactive mind. FearÉIREANN 17:07 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, I guess we've all made our point so I'll leave it at that without further comment on the issue itself, other than to say I might take it up one day on Talk:Postmodernism :) PS4FA 21:49 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, rather than editorializing by categorically labeling the action as "pointless," why not instead write that the participants in the action later decided (or admitted?) that the action was pointless? This would handle the NPOV issue, by identifying a view, and it certainly is important information worth adding to the article. Slrubenstein