Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)

No Historians take Genocide Seriously

I was reading an article that reexamined the intentionality of the famine by the british authorities and it made me think about this wikipedia article, which makes it seem like no scholars consider the Irish Famine a genocide. I won't pretend I am not biased after reading this article, so looking for feedback on these thoughts. I am thinking at the very least we can add some qualifying words to make the debate seem less conclusive in one direction with no active scholarly discussion. [1]https://brill.com/display/book/9781904710820/BP000013.xml#:~:text=By%201849%2C%20the%20forcible%20displacement,genocide%20against%20the%20Irish%20people. 2600:1700:5650:3EB0:45E4:C2CA:7216:ACDB (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

We can certainly debate how the article might best reflect the scholarly discussions. It is quite clear that *few* but not *no* historians see genocide as a key factor, but how this is presented can be explored - but here, before editing the body, as this is a very controversial matter. We can disregard the point that genocide was not a defined crime at the time, as the meaning of the term is clear, and genocides certainly occurred over thousands of years. So the question is whether British government actions rose to the needed level - in particular, was there intent to kill massive numbers of people. Sources may be offered, but I've read many books touching on or including this topic, and to me, the evidence just does not seem to be there - many officials did not like the Irish, despised poor people in any part of the UK, disapproved of large families, etc., and there was an imbalance of population to resources more severe on the island of Ireland vs. the island of Britain. And their behaviour was, especially by modern standards, despicable and heartless, the failure to even make a gesture towards redirecting exports wrongheaded, stupid and partly lethal, and the results awful with few equals as to percentage of population impacted by a single disaster - and there were years to do better, so many missed opportunities. But did someone somewhere sit down and plot to spread blight, or to take advantage if a blight came...? this is not evidenced anywhere I have seen. But let the debate continue... SeoR (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify a point - the exports are described as "partly lethal" because it is a reported fact that some of what was exported was not in much demand in Ireland, in the same way that a country surrounded by fish-rich seas did not gain significant cover from, say, a massive fishing drive. But it is equally factual that some of the exports could usefully have been held, and past governments had done so in times of want - and some could have been exchanged for more useful supplies, rather than the near-useless maize that was imported, as per the text. Part of the problem is that European governments in that period were small organisations, and lacked technical expertise in matters seen as relevant to private enterprise - agriculture-rich Ireland had no relevant government department until the early 20th century, for example. SeoR (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The article in question appears to have been written by this person. If so no further discussion is needed. Not an historian.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/neysa-king Cheezypeaz (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

They have a degree in history and it is a published peer reviewed source though. 204.14.36.137 (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

A reading of the great famine wikipedia talks about government officials treating the famine lightly or as providence due to its furthering of governmental goals. Is not the neglect and furtherance of stealing of irish wealth a continued stated english policy, and enough to call this genocide. They may have made excuses in their minds and not called for death explicitly, but it is clear implicitly the policy of the government facilitates the famine, and is thus, I would argue, genocide. 204.14.36.137 (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Then you are a fool. Ignorance and indifference does not equal malevolence. There has to be an intent to destroy, of which there is no evidence. 84.65.168.106 (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Speak in terms where we can actually improve the article with a scholarly leg to stand on, or go away. Remsense留 20:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I empathize, but Wikipedia is expressly limited in that it follows sources. Also, personally, the question of whether xyz terrible artificial event particularly constitutes genocide seems to me to be a distinction without a difference, or a thought-terminating exercise: the word means something, but it does not mean everything, and I do not understand how the 'seriousness' a given topic is treated can be boiled down to whether a very specific word is usually used to describe it, especially a word created in a modern context being projected backwards onto historical events (which of course, is what history is) Remsense聊 18:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The Popery Act

Currently the article states that “The Popery Act (Penal Law) of 1704 required that a tenant's land be divided equally between his sons upon his death.”

It didn’t. It required Catholic land owners to split their inheritance between their Catholic sons if they didn’t have a Protestant son.

If I correct the statement it’s then making an erroneous argument about the land splitting that went on.

I’ll delete it. Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Imported Grain Used As Livestock Feed

These edits added the claim.

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

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

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

"genocide"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Today, Irish and British historians categorically reject the notion that British actions during the Great Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) amounted to genocide."[2]

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

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

"The fact that virtually all historians of Ireland have reached a verdict that eschews [the genocide] position, be they Irish-born scholars from Britain, North America or Australasia, has weakened the traditional populist account."[3]

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

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

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

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

Overlong lead

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

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

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

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