Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 8

• 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.

User: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. User: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]] 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. User: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! User: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

Orphan factiod

Could this sentence properly be placed in the "evictions" section that starts "From 1846 a disastrous application of the laissez faire..." or anywhere else in this article?; "In Tipperary, this sparked the Tipperary Revolt, which was an unsuccessful nationalist revolt against British rule that was put-down on July 29, 1848 by a government police force." --mav 07:38, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Laissez faire

Perhaps I am missing something, but I thought that the Corn Laws - a version of the modern CAP - had an impact: it kept grain prices high which both encouraged exports from Ireland to Great Britain and discouraged grain consumption in Ireland. One effect of the Famine was the repeal of the Corn Laws - and thus increased political instability in the UK which reduced the possibility of a decent government response to anything. I must admit I find the article weak in a number of areas: it starts on Catholic Emancipation which I would have thought was a minor "before the Famine" issue (in terms of the Famine rather than Irish politics) compared with: a monoculture, a rapidly rising population, a bad property and tenure system, a weak government in Westminster, and so on. The "during the Famine" parts are slightly better but difficult to read. There are some other issues - I believe that people in Ulster (both Protestants and Catholics) fared better than elsewhere in Ireland. Why? (perhaps different tenure patterns, different landlords, the possibility of work in industry or some other reason - I don't know). And "after the Famine" could look a bit more at the issue of population - a huge number of Irish people simply had no children at all, and this probably had a bigger impact on the population decline after 1851 than emigration (or starvation) - this wasn't sexual conservatism but family planning. --Henrygb 23:49, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To accuse the laissez-faire of causing the heinous Irish Potato Famine is the uttermost nonsense I've ever read. The text of this article containst the valuable information, but it's mixed with some of no merit.

1. Peel, not Russell introduced Laissez-Faire policies, namely: abolition of the Corn Laws. From the wikipedia article on corn laws:

The Manchester Anti-Corn Law League was formed by men such as Richard Cobden, John Bright, Sir David Roche and Charles Pelham Villiers and they battled for free trade in and out of parliament.

The debate was hastened by the first appearance of the potato blight in Ireland. Sir Robert Peel, Conservative Prime Minister, responded to the crisis by purchasing cheap American wheat and proposing to remove all import duties on grain.

And it's abolition of import duties which constitutes laissez-faire policy. Thus, Sir Robert Peel was a supporter of laissez-faire policies, which would probably allow to end the Famine. And 'importing maize in exchange for corn' would be a laissez-faire thing, as it would depend on the openness of borders for goods. Checking WHY it was impossible or at least difficult, we find the Corn Laws.And probably, some other countries have responded to them with tariffs on British products, which was a barrier for British export and prevented such an exchange from taking place. To mention laissez-faire among the causes of Irish Potato Famine would be an insult to the supporters of free trade (and free trade=laissez faire) such as the gentlemen I mentioned: Richard Cobden, John Bright, Sir David Roche or Charles Pelham Villiers, who were working to help the Irish people by freeing trade.

2. neither public works nor "Poor law" constitute laissez-faire, but state's interventionism

3. No laissez-faire economy may exist in the conditions of oppression and legalized theft (ie. appropriation of the Irish land by British lords), because it depends on the _sanctity of private property_; if the property is not private but used by many people, it's sanctity should be respected, too, and giving it to someone else (eg. a lord) is the same theft as taking someone's home

4. few laissez-faire economists would argue, that the victims of a natural disaster should not receive any real aid from their own government or other sources; l-f theory applies to the normally working economy of a country, and not the cases of natural disasters

5. Building the 'workshops' for the expropriated Irish people could be a parody of l-f at best: first some strongman robs some person, and then, forces him (or her) to work for him in order to survive.

Now, I think that there are some actual, REAL causes of the Irish Potato Famine; each of them contributed to this horrible series of events:

1. first of all, it was caused by the natural disaster called 'potato blight', which is quite well described in the article

2. to this disaster, the following factors have contributed:

(1) the extremely low diversification of crops; had there been other crops as barley, wheat or rye in the significant volume, people wouldn't starve (some notion of it is in the article)

(2) the poor quality of the soil, combined with opoppression of Ireland by the British elite, which appropriated the lands and made the owners the tenants, thus discouraging them from improving the soil they worked on, and causing some other economic problems (well described in the article)_

(3) dependence of the most or even whole economy on farming (had it been otherwise, ie. had people have any money, that had imported food from other countries), what, in my opinion, made way for the Malthusian catastrophe

(4) an impact of the long history of Corn Laws and their repeal should also be taken into consideration; it seems probable to me that, as Henrygb wrote, the prices of grain were artificially kept high (and thus, I think, they fell rapidly after the prices have been freed, what decreased the profitability of the export of Irish crops).

To me, it seems that Ireland has experienced the Malthusian Catastrophe in 1846: poor and mostly rural country depending in most or even whole on farming; small farms that could not yield enough volume of the harvest even for their owners; rapidly growing population that could not be fed with it. The essence of Malthusian Catastrophe is, that, if some society depends in most or whole on farming, and if the fertility of the crops improves, the population grows rapidly; then, the volume of harvests is not enough and hunger strikes the people with deaths, what leads to the decrease in population.

To me, that the potato blight in the 1870s wasn't so tragic, is the real effect of the laissez-faire policies which encouraged the urbanisation and living off work in the cities rather than off the land. After all, the end of XIXth century is known as one of the most laissez-faire (classical liberal) periods in history, and is being called so both by suporters and opposers of l-f and classical liberalism.

Another question I would like to ask is about the "evils" of sub-division. Today, it's the only legal form of inheritance in most of countries; for example, in Poland, *all* children, regardless of their age or gender, are eligible for inheritance after their parents, and still it doesn't cause any havoc, quite opposite: it is thought to be honest. On the other hand, sub-division might have encouraged people to stay on the land, instead of emigrating abroad or moving to the cities, and thus it's abolition might be the wise decision.

And besides, what wrong could the political emancipation cause? How could it contribute to the Gorta Mór? It's called "mixed blessing", though, along with the allegedly "laissez-faire" policies.

In Friendship, Critto

I beleive that 'laissez-faire' is a general descrpition of UK goverment policy throughout this period. It came about after the industrial classes gained much political control after 1832. i.e. it meant the end of slavery in the Empire and the end of state handouts to people in the UK. Good and bad liberalism. Poor law admendment effected the British very badly as well, although it wasn't applied so ruthlessly in certain areas like the North of England where over 1 million unemployed (a huge proportion of the population) meant the workhouses couldn't even begin to cope.

The article itself is full of POV inter-mixed with good info. Figures and facts are occasionally cited but often in isolation to illustrate a point.

The link between emigration and the famine is poorly put. There was massive pre-famine emigration (400,000 from Ireland to Britain 1800 - 1840 alone ). To suggest that the famine alone caused emigration is wrong. Also emigration became more popular with increased opportunities abroad i.e. Cananda and the USA. Cormac 0 Grada notes that in the late 1840's a immigrant to the USA could get 600+ acres in Montana. This is not to underplay the effects of the famine but to put it in context.

The number of deaths is disputed and rightly so. I thought that most people didn't die for want of food but through the reduction in the immune system and then diseases. Whilst this is a truism (?) it doesn't natrually follow that all deaths from disease were famine caused, I beleive that cholera didn't care for rich or poor etc. Disease would have certainly spread with malnutritioned rural people being massed in cities, ships and workhouses. Also people died in large number prior to the famine, in Britain your chance of making it to 7 were 50/50 and life expectancy differed hugely between rich and poor (25 Vs 50). The figures relating to population decline are more interesting and don't need to make guessess.

The 'Suggestions of Genocide' page should either be removed or heavily reworded. Genocide is the killing of a race and brings to mind 'The Holocaust', whilst Britain has been involved in several such as the highland clearances and many elsewhere the arguements for Potato famine = Genocide are pathetic. 1) More Irish people move to Britain as a result of the Famine. 2) If the British hated the Irish so much why didn't they kill the million+ (including decendents) living in Britain at the time, why also did heavily British controlled areas such as Dublin see an increase in population. 3) Autralia and Canada were under British control at the time, so why didn't they stop them emigrating there?. 4) Over 60% of the British military were Irish(37%) or Irish British (25%).

Ireland was in terms of population over-represented

According to figures I find at the following link: http://www.gendocs.demon.co.uk/pop.html#EW,

the population of Ireland was 7,767,401 in 1831 ( no reliable earlier figures), compared to 13,896,797 for England and Wales and for Scotland 2,364,386: these figures give Ireland 32% of the UK population. Assuming roughly the same proportions in 1800, Ireland would need (more than) 1 seat in THREE to be over-represented.

People seem to forget that, population-wise ( and potentially trouble-wise), Ireland was a much more important part of the UK than it became later.

Populations and representation comparisons are completly meaningless for this period. Before the Reform Act of 1832 some seats had literally a handful of electors. Many had less than a thousand. In Ireland before Catholic Emancipation the vast majority of the population had not right to vote or be elected to Parliament. Mintguy (T) 17:31, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Voting was based on wealth even after 1832. The poorest 40% of UK men only got the vote in 1918. Agricultural workers received lower incomes and it's a fair bet that Irish Catholics were amongst the poorest.

I am disapointed that almost no mention is made of the relief efforts by britain (such as are touched on here http://eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=ograda.famine which makes the article very partisan. Please could there be an article on the famine relief of the time (when, incidently, poor people in england were also left to starve). Thanks. Fred.

It would also be interesting to have some more objective history about what happened on the ground in Ireland.

1.1: The effect of laissez-faire economics

It's not clear from reading the sectioin "The effect of laissez-faire economics" what the connection between laissez-faire and the famine is supposed to be. The first paragraph makes the point that England at the time was industrialized, but it hardly follows that agricultural prices will fall. One might expect them to increase as English population and purchasing power rise. It may be that there is a meaningful connection, but it should be stated more clearly. The second paragraph contains one sentence tentatively blaming poor relief efforts on laissez-faire, which is a fair point as far as it goes. The third paragraph concerns problems with absentee landlords of large estates; this could arguably be described as a problem caused by private property (although a society without private property will not necessarily allow free hunting), but it is clearly not a case of laissez-faire, given that the article pointedly states that, rather than "leave things alone", the British government had stolen the land in question and awarded it to the landholders.

We should probably just change the title of the section. - Nat Krause 06:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The land was not stolen by the British government but by the Normans 600+ years earlier in the same way they stole the land in Britain. Almost all land is eventually stolen from some distant first-people i.e. USA, Canada, Australia etc.

Actually that's not quite true. As a read of the relevant section in History of Ireland will tell you, the Normans (or rather the Anglo-Normans) were eventually pushed back and lost most of the lands they had gained in Ireland. The real land thefts occured in the 1650's and the 1690's, in the aftermath of the Irish Confederate Wars and the War of the Two Kings/Williamite war in Ireland. I should know; my ancestors include the Anglo-Normans, and my family lost all we had in the 1650's. Fergananim 23:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually most of the land was stolen in the 17th century, under the Penal Laws. In 1641, 60% of the land was owned by Catholics, compared to 5% in 1660. After the Act of Explanation 1661, this rose to 20% as lands were restored to Catholics. However, a new round of Penal Laws after 1691 reduced the Catholic-owned % to 5% by 1700 and virtually nothing until Gardiner's Act in the 1778 century removed much of the restrictions on land-ownership for Catholics.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11611c.htm#II However, the damage had already been done, and virtually all the land in Ireland was owned by English absentee landlords by the time of the Famine. These landlords were mostly indifferent to the plight of their tenants, and most refused to take a more lenient stance on rent-collection in the light of the Famine. Catholic tenants were mostly too poor to afford what food their was because of rack-rents from colonial landlords, and the legacy of centuries of economic discrimination which imposed a virtual economic blockade on Ireland and banned them from many professions. When Irish people say that Britain caused the Famine, we are not referring to the Blight. We are referring to the poverty which made most of the food too expensive to afford, and therefore forced us to an overdependence on the potato. Hence when the potato blight happened, people starved.

Capitals

I've moved this page to Irish Potato Famine, on the following grounds:

• It's the proper name of a historical event, like the Battle of Hastings, the Holocaust and the Boston Tea Party. It's not an Irish potato famine, it's the Irish Potato Famine.
• Google searches show more support for the all-caps title than the lower caps title (this is guesstimated, however, because Google is not case sensitive).
• The article spells it this way, as well as all the other titles.
• Britannica also does it.

JRM 19:41, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Firstly it is one of a at least seven Irish potato famines. Secondly its actual name was the Great Irish Famine. Irish potato famine is a generic name, not the actual one, so it should not have been capitalised. Thirdly you never corrected the links. FearÉIREANN 22:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moved?

Anyone care to explain why the article was moved form Irish Potato Famine to it's current form. In the form that it is in now it implies there is multiple Potato Famine in Ireland, that have as such of an importance as this one to warrant chronological entries. Now granted my Irish history is not as good as some on here, but i don't recall their being another one of such magnitude as this one, either historically, economically, or socially. Any way this move should have went threw the Requestied moves, unlike the previous move which was just a question of capitalization of letters, which if it was it was never tagged on this page, and it seems a rather arbitrary move. Any way i am moving the page back to its previous location, and any move form that location should be requested or consulted with the community before hand. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you don't know much about Irish famine history. There were a whole series of famines in Ireland, including two major ones. I moved it (and have moved it again) because

• the name here is a made up name, not the real name.
• someone capitalised it, implying this is the real name. It isn't. The real name was Án Gorta Mór or The Great Famine.
• I am putting in articles on a series of articles on all the famines, including the dates so people know which one each page is talking about, whether the 1740-41 one or the 1879 one.
• some idiot turned potato famine into a re-direct some time ago, meaning that other world potato famines redirected to the Irish one.
• the links are all over the place, with quadruple directs. I am in the process of cleaning up the mess so many other people seem to have made by first of all putting a makey-up name on to this famine, not pointing out that this refers to the 1845-49 famine and not the earlier ones, and linking Scottish famines to the Irish famine page.

I didn't rename the page. I simply added in the dates, which does not need to be requested. The dates should have been in at the start but need to be in now when a series on Irish famines is being created. All I did was correct the elementary mistake that was here of not indicating which of the Great Famines this page is about. FearÉIREANN 22:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aid

There are some words on aid received, but they are under 'evictions'. This deserves a heading in its own right --ClemMcGann 23:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV - Seems to be rather anti-English

I notice that this article seems to have a rather anti-English POV. Frühstücksdienst 19:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly not anti-English, as it talks solely in terms of the "British". Furthermore, it cannot be anti-British in that it establishes the historical context throughout. So is it anti-historically-contextualised-British? Perhaps in the opening of "Ireland and Great Britain" it is, but the only possible phrase might be: "vast majority of the its MPs ... showed little interest in it or its problems" (after having stated that 100 MPs should have represented Ireland through the Act of Union). The shortcomings of this section have already been highlighted in the discussion above. The more extreme "genocide" theories from the US are mentioned, as they should be since their existence cannot be denied, but then countered with more balanced views. All in all, surely a pretty good attempt at NPOV for a subject that evokes a lot of emotion? --stochata 21:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

In the section Ireland and Great Britain, there's a bit I don't follow:

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

The article doesn't make it clear how either the Test Act or Catholic Emancipation related to trade terms applying to the various "British nations." Since 1800 the English would have regarded both "Irish merchandise" and "English merchandise" as "British merchandise" - didn't they? -- Redgrittybrick 22:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Figures

we need a better review on the numbers who starved

however, imo, a section on aid received is more urgent --ClemMcGann 10:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this should be called the Irish 'Potatoe' Famine. No Potatoes starved to death. Its not know by this name in Ireland "The Famine" or the "Great Hunger" are used. Since the Famine occured in Ireland, surely the Irish have the right to name it? Just like 9/11 is not know as 11/9 in Europe, even thoguh that wa the date in occured by European Calenders.

The inclusion of the word 'Potatoe' is usfuel to disminsh British responsibilty for these horrible years.

"The Irish Famine" (1845-1849) will suffice.

The Great Famine

As is noted in the first paragraph, the 'Irish Potato Famine' is widely known as the Great Famine, particularly in Ireland. But when I did a Wiki search for this phrase, I came up blank. Couldn't you put in a link to this phrase too? -Aoife

Done.

By the way, you can easily "sign" your talk posts by including four tildes (~~~~) after your post. When you press (Save changes), these will be replaced by your username in a handy Wikilinked format and a timestamp for your edit will also be included.

Atlant 11:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Misc. points

First of all, the role of laissez-faire philosophy has been greatly overstated in writing about the Great Famine, on this as in many other sources. Laissez-faire is a convenient excuse for British apathy and inaction but it doesn't hold water when you look at the Corn Acts, the Navigation Acts and many other acts of parliament designed to give English industries an unfair advantage over Irish, Welsh and Scottish competitors. For example no ship could sail directly from an Irish port to a third country, it had to pass through an English port first.

Secondly, although the Great Famine was not a deliberate act of genocide, many people in power openly welcomed the dying out of the Irish. The London Times exulted (paraphrasing from memory): "An Irishman will soon be as rare as a red man in Manhattan, and Papism as defunct as the worship of Astarte." And certain evangelical groups took the opportunity to compel the Irish to convert from Catholicism; they ran soup kitchens which were only open to those who would embrace Protestantism. To this day in Ireland, the phrase "to take soup" is used (usually with bitterness) to refer to a turncoat.

It is fair to say that the Great Famine was Ireland's Holocaust, and its impact (which continues to this day) cannot be minimized. Though I'm not a historian, it seems to me that a large reason for the upsurge in Irish nationalism later in the 19th century was the realization that no matter how "well-behaved" and loyal to the English monarch the Irish were, they would be left to starve to death when the chips were down.

Section removed?

I note that the below section (hidden - edit to view), The effect of laissez-faire economics was removed, as visible in this diff. Was this deliberate? While the section was undoubtably better suited for the end of the article, it seems that little of the material was reintegrated. -St|eve 17:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

'In' or 'on' Ireland?

I understand the point which Bastin8 is making regarding the island of Ireland not being a single political entity, but why should that stop us using the more natural preposition 'in'? No-one has any trouble saying "in Antarctica" or "in Europe", and neither of these are politically unified. Besides, phrases such as "small holdings on Ireland" and "restrictions on Ireland" are jarring, suggesting that what is being restricted, say, is the island of Ireland itself. Oh, by the way, according to Wikipedia, the OED, Webster, and Dictionary.com, genocide can refer to national or political groups as well as "races". RMoloney (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree on the genocide point, but that's pretty much secondary and irrelevant; I'm sure this page has witnessed that discussion myriad times.

Islands always use the word 'on' unless they are coterminous with a political entity. Thus, it's 'on Sicily', 'on Baffin Island', or 'on South Island'. The best examples of a clear difference are Taiwan (those that believe the ROC is, or should be, an independent state use 'in', whilst PRCers use 'on'), Malta (referring to the country uses 'in', whilst any Gozoan or Cominoan would be angry if you didn't use 'on' for the island), and Great Britain and Ireland (in 1801, Great Britain turned from 'in' to 'on', whilst Ireland went in the opposite direction).

I dispute your examples of Europe and Antarctica; when it's a continent, it's different, simply because there is no contrast between continent and water as there is island and water (hence the 'on', as opposed to 'off', i.e. in the sea). I do agree on the 'restrictions on Ireland' part, which could be confusing; keep 'in' in that instance, but the others should be 'on'. Bastin8 00:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Do google searches for the phrases "in Ireland" and "on Ireland" respectively. The former gets 16,800,000 results, the latter, 717,000. I scanned the first 150 results for "on Ireland", and not one of them uses the phrase in the sense you propose. If the English language were governed by the rules of logic, I would agree with your point above; but we all know that language is too vibrant an entity to be governed by such laws. RMoloney (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if a single example of this "on Ireland" usage can be found elsewhere. --Ryano 11:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't supposed to repeat common mistakes, simply because they are commonplace. It is to correct those mistakes by contradicting them, and to become the most authoritative source on the subject. Bastin8 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

In terms of language, we follow common usage, and in this case universal usage is "in Ireland". Anything else constitutes original research. RMoloney (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In terms of language, we don't follow common usage; we follow correct usage, whether or not the uneducated use the incorrect form. Bastin8 12:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting this from. If everyone, or almost everyone, makes the same 'mistake' (and I'm not saying that there is any mistake in using the word 'in' here) about the use of a word, then that mistake is 'correct'. Examples? How many do you want? The phrase "plain sailing" was originally "plane sailing". The word 'nice' originally meant 'foolish' or 'stupid'. 'Banjo' is how 'bandore', the original name of the instrument, was mispronounced by slaves in the southern states of America. RMoloney (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The correct term is "in". Ireland was no longer a separate kingdom but it was effectively a form of separate governing region, with a government under the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Chief Secretary for Ireland. It had its own police force, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Attorney-General for Ireland, legal system, courts system, political parties, army battalions, even for part of the time its own currency and exchequer. So there is no need for on. The correct one is in. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Those were minor administrative notes (and many are less important than that, but I'll refrain). Such minor bodies and distinctions afforded to the island certainly don't qualify it for the adjective 'in'. Sicily is an autonomous region of Italy, Crete is a periphery of Greece, and Hokkaido is a prefecture of Japan: statuses all more important than that list of 'notable' exceptions to the United Kingdom's unitary government. Yet, those three islands' names are all preceded by the adjective 'on'. Irish exceptionalism, I guess. Bastin8 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

No. Facts. Ireland and Scotland both had separate governmental, judicial and institutional structures to the rest of the UK. It is nonsensical to refer to either as on. The lord lieutenancy was not minor; it was the representative of the Crown, BTW. The Chief Secretary was a full British cabinet minister. You seriously misunderstand the nature of Ireland in the 19th century. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The Lord Lieutenancy is, and was, minor; my own county, Hertfordshire, has a Lord Lieutenant, who is the representative of the Crown in this neck of the woods. You're looking at this from the perspective of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland: two of the most centralised states in the world. Look abroad, to other islands, for contemporary examples. Sicily has its own legislative body, yet its adjective is 'on'; Corsica has its own regional council, yet uses 'on'; Åland is practically independent of Finland, yet uses 'on'. Nothing short of federalism justifies the use of 'in'. Bastin8 00:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"on Crete", "on Sicily" and "on Corsica" all sound wrong to me. Can you provide any sources for these being the commonly accepted usages? --Ryano 09:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't provide any authoritative sources, simply because it is so widely accepted amongst those that could capably offer definitive explanations. There may be one on the Internet, but I can't find an educated person amongst all the travel agents' sites. I'm sure (and I mean no offence when I offer this advice) a guide to English prepositions, for non-native speakers, would explain. Certainly, one will never find a source, written by an expert, that advocates 'in' for Crete, Sicily, Corsica, or Ireland, when referring to their geographic entities at a time when they didn't have independence. Bastin8 12:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

If you can't provide sources, I will. "In Ireland" is used by R. Dudley Edwards and T. Desmond Williams (both then professors of Modern Irish History at UCD) in their 1956 book The Great Famine. "In Ireland" is also used by one William E. Gladstone (I assume I don't need to cite his credentials), in his 1886 essay, The Irish Question. If you want, I could pick out a few more books from my college library, but I hope we can agree that no further evidence is needed to show that this phrasing is indeed the one used by experts and laymen alike. RMoloney (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant an expert on language, not an expert on history. However, you may well need to run through Gladstone's credentials (not only because he was an abominably short-sighted romantic, but) because he wasn't an expert on language either. More to the point, he was writing about Ireland as a political entity, hence The Irish Question; by comparison, any reference to Ireland in this article would be to it as an island. Go, ask an English professor which preposition it is, and come back here with your tail between your legs. Bastin8 23:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No. As I stated above, "correctness" (which you have not come close to establishing, incidentally - an analogy does not a proof make) is meaningless if it is not the accepted usage. I have provided numerous examples of "in Ireland" being the universal usage; you have yet to provide a single cited example of "on Ireland" being used at all, never mind generally. Until we get at least that far, I really can't see what point there is in this discussion. RMoloney (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Right back at you. An analogy does not a proof make. Your examples of non-experts using the term does not prove it to be 'universal'. Ask yourself why it's always "on the island of Ireland", even when not referring to rock formations. Then, ask yourself what makes the references in this article different from "island of Ireland". Or, to hit two birds with one stone, ask an expert on the English language which it is. Do that before throwing bloody Gladstone at me. After all, I'm clearly a Disraeli man. Bastin8 01:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not proceeding by analogy - I am providing evidence. (If you want some more, Encyclopædia Britannica and Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable both use "in Ireland" when talking about the famine.) And, yes, "on the island of Ireland" is correct, as is "on the continent of Asia". But "in Ireland" and "in Asia" are both also correct. The difference is not one of content but of form. I am still waiting for you to provide citations supporting your view. If you've never seen it in print before, then it is unequivocally original research. RMoloney (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I could cite sources written by non-experts 'til the cows come home (Lawrence James uses 'on Ireland' in all of his book, except Warrior Race). However, unless your sole objection is to original research, rather than what it correct, that doesn't help the situation. I don't claim that there are as many non-experts referring to events 'on Ireland' as there are referring to them as occurring 'in Ireland'. I simply claim that any expert on the subject would come down on the side of 'on'. As unfortunate as it may be, I have no doctorate in linguistics (or anything at all). It's true, I admit. Keep 'in' for the time being, for all I care. However, the minute you receive a reply from an expert, I advise you to change them all. Bastin8 17:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. The Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland was not remotely comparable with the lord lieutenancies you are comparing it with. Those lord lieutenancies were merely local notables. The Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland was a chief executive of a government, a viceroy representing the monarch who delivered speeches from the throne at the State Opening of Parliament and who lived in a royal residence where he held court. For much of the 19th century he sat in the British cabinet and served as Grand Master of the Order of St. Patrick. There is absolutely no comparison whatsoever between the lord lieutenants of counties and the Lord Lieutenant. I honesty don't think you understand the constitutional structures of Ireland in the 19th century. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that you understand the difference between ceremony and responsibility, nor between high society and high politics. Being a cabinet member is ceremonial, as is being head of a knightly order. After Union, the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland was given to apathetic members of the aristocracy, and, as such, was similar to the Lord Lieutenancies of counties (say, as that on the Isle of Wight), despite being far more prestigious. None of those factors that you cite reflects any notable political independence of Ireland, when the standard is actually so very high. Bastin8 00:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I am astonished that anyone so completely misunderstands what being a member of a cabinet is. Please read any elementary political book, constitutional textbook or talk to anyone with even the slightest grasp of cabinet government. To compare being a cabinet minister with being head of a knightly order is so laughably ridiculous it should be preserved on a special Wikipedia page for craziest suggestions ever made on Wikipedia. What next? Being queen mother is like being a dalek? Being pope is akin to being a banana? Being John Prescott is akin to being sexy? lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have rocks for brains? I did not compare the two. You brought both of them up. I simply refuted both in the same breath.

Perhaps you'd like to look at a list of Lord Lieutenants after 1801. They weren't a particularly important bunch. More to the point, they didn't actually do anything. You summed it up pretty well when you described their duties as having "delivered speeches ... lived in a royal residence where they held court". Bravo, and your proof that it qualifies as political independence is where?

It's also interesting that you bring up Two Jags. He's a member of the cabinet: proof enough that it's a position not worth holding. Bastin8 23:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

My God. You really understand as little about the working constitutional systems as you do about Irish history. I'm flabbergasted that anyone could seriously know so little about elementary cabinet government. If you think being in cabinet isn't a position worth having you lack of knowledge on the subject is breathtaking. Try telling people who are the victims of Prescott's crazy planning decisions that the man does not have power. Zeeech. How can anyone not know what a cabinet minister is? Try reading a basic book on the constitutional law. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a cabinet minister. Get your facts straight about my country, or drop the snotty, arrogant tone. Personally, I'm flabbergasted that you think that being a cabinet member means anything, i.e. that every cabinet member is important to running the country. Tell me that Ian McCartney is important to the government of the United Kingdom. Do the same for John Hutton, for Des Browne, for Baroness Amos, and for Geoff Hoon (excluding yesterday's replacement of Prescott, who's now too important for Parliament). Whilst an individual in the cabinet may well have power (and, thus, the cabinet itself is a collection of powerful personalities), being a member of the cabinet doesn't make a peasant into a prince.

Oh, and I didn't claim that being a cabinet member wasn't worth it. After all, it comes with another £12k a year. Bastin8 01:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You ignorance of your constitution is mindboggling. Read a constitutional textbook. Or reading a newspaper, even the Sun. You might learn something of the elementary facts as to the British constitution and how it functions, and learn precisely what a prime minister, a minister of the Crown, the Privy Council, the House of Commons and House of Lords actually do. People may not understand obscure low profile aspects of the constitutional system like the workings of the Royal Assent and the constitutional role of the Privy Council. But to misunderstand what a cabinet minister is remains mindboggling. Your average 7 year old would know. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, you didn't answer the question. How is John Hutton an important man? How does his membership of the cabinet affect the constitutional situation of the Duchy of Lancaster? Of course, you didn't answer, because being a cabinet minister (especially an on-off one!) doesn't change anything about the relationship between the Duchy of Lancaster and the UK, just as the Lord Lieutenant's (infrequent) membership of the cabinet doesn't change anything for Ireland. Furthermore, I must point out that there's no such thing as a cabinet minister, so it's pretty much impossible to 'misunderstand' what one is. Royal Assent, on the other hand, is an integral part of our constitution. Everyone that reads the Sun knows that.

Now, I've taken your insults with good grace, so far, but there's still a limit to my patience with uppity arseholes. Learn yourself some manners, learn yourself political theory, and then engage in a discussion with me. Otherwise, take it elsewhere. Bastin8 22:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As anyone with even a minimal understanding of British politics knows, the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster is used as a minister without portfolio within the British system. Clearly you don't know what the cabinet is, what a minister of the Crown is, what role they fulfil, the constitutional operation of the Privy Council, what the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was, what role the Lord Lieutenant fulfilled, how Ireland was governed under the lord lieutenancy, the nature of government in Ireland during its membership of the United Kingdom. For information on your system of government try reading Blondel, Haldane, Mackintosh, Gordon Walker, Bagehot (either his original 1867 edition or the edition edited by Crossman in the 1960s), de Smith, Marshall and Moodie, Hailsham, Hennessey and Arends and all the other major writers on British government. For information on the lord lieutenancy of Ireland, the Irish Privy Council and the functioning of the Irish executive both during the Kingdom of Ireland and during Irish membership of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland look at F.S.L. Lyons, Roy Foster or the works of major historians. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I well know the role of the Chancellor of Lancaster. However, you original statement was that a person that was any role that entitled someone to be a member of the cabinet was, ipso facto, an important role. Well, if membership of the cabinet is handed out like invitations to an eight-year old's birthday party, that can't be the case.

I have read Bagehot, Hailsham, and much of Hennessy's work. Bagehot is clearly not the best man to comment on the subject of Ireland (considering his own political views, expressed in his magnum opus), but, regardless, he describes cabinet membership as being important, but arbitrary. Equally, the Viscount Hailsham saw Bagehot's cabinet government as the epitome, but not the actuality, and questioned the veracity of Bagehot's assertions on the issue (even 120 years later). What I have read of Hennessy on the issue of the cabinet is not readily memorable, and I'm sure that it was equally as unconvincing. It sounds as though you just read some names from a bookshelf, rather than paid attention to how the content supports your argument.

Having not read either Lyons or Foster, I cannot comment on their interpretations. However, I can comment on that generally produced by historians, i.e. that the United Kingdom failed to respond to the Potato Blight, and subsequent famine, because it was monolithic. Now, either contradict that, or say what every British historian says: that the ceremonial instruments of Irish government were practically non-existent. Bastin8 00:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is all very interesting, but I think this business can be resolved without recourse to a full disquisition on Ireland's constitutional position in the years 1801-1922. Bastin8's case for "on Ireland" can be boiled down to two main claims, which I summarise below:

a) That the English language provides for only one "correct" preposition to use with "Ireland" when referring to the period during which the whole island was part of the United Kingdom, and this preposition is "on". He has stated that this would be self-evident to any linguistic expert and borne out in a "guide to English prepositions" for non-native speakers.

b) That this "correct" usage should be imposed in preference to the common usage as found in the vast majority of available literature.

He has not been able to provide a single source or reference to back up the first claim, and the second claim is in conflict with accepted Wikipedia policy. I think we can leave it at that until the position changes in respect of one or both of the above. --Ryano 21:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I really don't care about this issue as much as I pretend that I do, and I can't really complain if people ignore my shouting and arm-waving. Just in case someone does turn up with a PhD in English language and linguistics (it will happen; 8 pages of discussion is just the tip of the iceberg), know that I'd be interested in a re-opened debate. Until then, I can make myself look scarce. Anyone that checks out my user contributions will know that, as long as, when referring to events after 1801, Wikipedians use 'United Kingdom' instead of 'Great Britain', I'm happy. Bastin8 23:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Deliberate Genocide

A user RMoloney keeps taking this bit out, "This was a deliberate genocide against the Irish people by the British government. Some contend that if this is called a "famine", then the holocaust should be called "The Great Oxygen Deprivation Period". This is not POV, it is fact.

If you take away people's food, they die. If you put them in camps and take away their oxygen, they die. What is the difference? Nothing, and it is irrational to say otherwise. If this "famine" happened in Yorkshire, the English government would have reacted differently. That is also a fact. --Celtic1

These are not facts, they are POVs in a historical/political debate which is covered in the article under the section "Suggestions of genocide". --Ryano 13:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

If this happened in London, Birmingham, or any other English town, the government would have done their best to feed the people. The English government deliberately acted in order to commit genocide. If you take away people's air, then they die -- the same goes with food. People that state that this was not genocide are in the same camp as Holocaust revisionists.

The other point is that the sentence "Some contend that if this is called a 'famine', then the holocaust should be called 'The Great Oxygen Deprivation Period'," appears to be original research. Are you quoting an expert on this, or is this your own assessment? RMoloney (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I am quoting common sense -- Since only a babe, most people know that without Air, Food, water, we expire. The Nazi's deprived people of oxygen, so they died. The English government deprived the Irish of food, so they perished. Hence, it is a misnomer that this deliberate catastrophy is called a "famine". Further, it is fairly indisputable that the English government would have taken much greater care if this happened in England. "Paddies" were expendable to them, and it was a good way to get rid of a million of so. "Historians" that dare not call this intentional are either deluded or insane.Celtic1

A Wikipedia saying comes to mind, RMoloney, "Don't feed the trolls." The smell of "sockpuppet" is in the air! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old "His points are good and I can't debate them, so I will write something inane" tactic. Been smelling your socks again, this is what you are saying? Off my island. Celtic1

But was it deliberate? I won't deny that the lazziez-fair attitude of the British made matters worse. But to say it was deliberate implies that this was a planned event, when in fact it was simply a man-made disaster waiting to happen turned into a catastrapohe by nature. The roots of the Famine go far deeper than you would like to think, and neither were all British people the villians you would like them to be. Finally, what's with this "Off my island" line? Fergananim 00:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was a deliberate act to keep food from the Irish after the famine hit. See my comments concerning had this happened in London, or anywhere else in England. The people would have been fed. The Irish were intentionally starved, just like the Turks killed Armenians, and the Nazi's to Poles and Jewish. The get off my island line speaks for itself. Celtic1

This constant attempt to link the Famine with the Holocaust speaks more of your bias than your comment earlier about the island. There was no escaping the holocaust, you would be hunted down and captured, brought to a camp or ghetto and eventually gassed or otherwise disposed of. The Germans not only made use of established methods for murdering people but adapted and developed their own methods, entirely controlling the process of industrialised slaughter from start to finish. There was no likely escape from the holocaust for Jews and other "undesirables", the Nazi regime was liable to kill every single one they could get their hands on. People caught helping Jews were liable to face a similar fate.

To achieve something similar the British would have to refuse to allow the Irish to leave Ireland, making them stay on their land, have invented (presumably through an early form genetic manipulation) and promoted the potato blight, refused to take any action to assist the Irish, arrested or shot anyone amongst the British population trying to help them and carried on this process until the population of Ireland ceased to exist.

Co-incidentally people died from starvation, appalling conditions (usually leading to disease) and poverty in England all the time during the 19th century. With some notable exceptions like the first Lord Leverhulme most industrialists and politicians didn't care for their plight either other than how it impacted on their profits. This was an era of workhouses, appalling sanitation, unhealthy working conditions and slum housing after all. The only reason a similar problem in England would have been reacted to differently was that it would have been caught much earlier and have been harder to ignore due to the more prominent location and therefore more decisive impact on the economy. The lack of interest in the Irish population's plight stemmed less from anti-Irish/anti-Catholic attitudes and more from a lack of compassion and understanding for poor people in general coupled with economic policies that were based in profit rather than a population's need.

The effect was still the same but to suggest it was comparable to the holocaust is just plain madness. privatehudson

This part of the article is peculiar:

Critics have observed how during this time, Irish & Anglo-Irish landowners exported corn (and other crops) and livestock which could have saved the lives of many Irish people. Although there were also not enough mills immediately available in Ireland had all the corn been kept to be used at home, the livestock and other crops would have sufficed until the milled corn could have been brought back from British mills. Peel's solution was different: keep exporting to avoid the economic collapse of the landlord system, while importing Indian maize to feed the starving. Russell, his successor, refused to do the latter, making catastrophe inevitable.

Unmilled grain is perfectly edible. It can be boiled as is, or can be hand milled - two rocks will do, as people have done for ages. Starving people would certainally eat the grain in whatever manner they had to - if it wasn't being exported.--RLent 17:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Land/Theft:Comments

Not sure who wrote the following comment (as it was unsigned) but I thought I should put it and my subsequent reply down here in case the person concerned may wish to reply. 83.70.154.81 00:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• "The land was not stolen by the British government but by the Normans 600+ years earlier in the same way they stole the land in Britain. Almost all land is eventually stolen from some distant first-people i.e. USA, Canada, Australia etc."

• • "Actually that's not quite true. As a read of the relevant section in History of Ireland will tell you, the Normans (or rather the Anglo-Normans) were eventually pushed back and lost most of the lands they had gained in Ireland. The real land thefts occured in the 1650's and the 1690's, in the aftermath of the Irish Confederate Wars and the War of the Two Kings/Williamite war in Ireland. I should know; my ancestors include the Anglo-Normans, and my family lost all we had in the 1650's. Fergananim 23:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)"

Memorials in the UK

I have added the details of some memorials in the UK that were not listed or mentioned. Two are in Liverpool and a third in Cardiff, both "cities overseas with large populations descended from Irish immigrants."

Privatehudson 14:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)PrivatehudsonPrivatehudson 14:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Causes of the famine (constructive criticism)

I've had a very hard time working out the political causes of the famine. The information is probably in there, but it is back to front and mixed up, and I don't have the knowledge or patience to dig it out. For example, I found political causes listed under the heading of blight! I think the causes should be organised into political, social, economic and natual headings, like this:

• Causes
  • Political
    • The various Goverments, laws etc.
  • Social
    • Traditional land division
    • Potato monoculture
    • Emigration
  • Economic
    • Exports to England
  • Natural
    • Blight

This would lead to some minor duplication, I admit, but easy reference is preferable to efficiency (within reason). The third-level headings are just fillers of course, I'm no expert on the famine...but I'd be a lot closer to one if the article was organised better! ;-) --Tom Edwards 13:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph order

I don't have a problem with the page contents, but with the order in which it's presented. The first two paragraphs are a highly academic, theoretical discussion which is uncalled for those of us which at first just want to know what it was. I'm an American, I've heard the term, but knew nothing about it whatsoever. Fortunately, I managed through the first two paragraphs and got to "The Potato in Ireland", and those that followed. Those should be the start of the article. Articles should start easy, assuming the reader knows nothing about the subject, then progressively give more detail for those that are interested in in-depth knowledge. Ideally, WikiPedia should aid high school students as well as grad students.

"This page is 85 kilobytes long."

This page ought to have been archived looong time ago. The page takes too long to load. Plus the size make it difficult to follow the discussion. Why does it take several screen page down to get to table of contents. And "Please do not archive important contents" is not intelligent. How many peole have enough time to spend more than one hour (takes 20 min to read 30kb) reading and deciding what is or what is not important. Feel free to revive whatever content deemed important. It's subjective POV anyway. FWBOarticle