From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Man-made famine?

In the short descriptions of the Holodomor and the Soviet famine of 1930–1933, the famines are described as "man-made", yet in this article, the short description does not use that adjective. But this article does seem to suggest that, at least in some part, the famine was man-made. What are the thoughts of the editors here on the short description here having the "man-made" descriptor added, or the introduction having a line similar to Bengal famine of 1943 that says "Some scholars characterise the famine as anthropogenic (man-made), asserting that wartime colonial policies exacerbated the crisis. Others argue that the famine was the result of natural causes." It seems like that would be a good summary of how scholars debate to what extent the Great Famine in Ireland was exacerbated (or mitigated) by the British government. Please share your thoughts. JasonMacker ( talk) 23:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply

We don't decide the question of whether the famine was any particular thing, we are encyclopedists and can only work from sources. To include such a descriptor, we would need a substantial supporting body of knowledge. The Holodomor and other Soviet famines were caused very directly by deliberate and / or insane actions (some based on spurious "biological" theories, some about political ideas / class and industry reorganisation concepts). Now, there is no doubt that the famine in Ireland was caused by natural events (the spread of a disease), and while there is equally no doubt that its effects were grounded on a dangerous level of accumulated crop dependence, and grossly exacerbated and prolonged by policies we would now call "heartless" or worse - on the face of it, "man-made" looks a stretch. "Man-exacerbated", perhaps, but is there a scholarly source for that? SeoR ( talk) 00:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Agreed, except that calling it "man-made" would be wrong and misleading. I think the Bengal line you quote is rather dubious too. Think of the recent earthquake in Turkey & Syria. Clearly a natural disaster, but many deaths will result from inadequate rescue & relief work afterwards. That doesn't mean it should be called "man-made". In fact the loss of life from the great majority of really big natural disaters is increased by "inadequate" government intervention afterwards. Johnbod ( talk) 02:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Have you read the article? It makes it clear that the British government played a large role in the famine. You also mention that the Holodomor was "caused very directly by deliberate and / or insane actions (some based on spurious "biological" theories, some about political ideas / class and industry reorganisation concepts)" This fits the Irish famine perfectly. Many British government officials and intellectuals at the time believed in Malthus's ideas and thought that Ireland was overpopulated, so the famine killing people was bringing balance in their view. This was combined with their belief in the racial inferiority of the Irish people that causes them to produce too many children. That sounds like a spurious "biological" theory to me! This is detailed in the Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Contemporary_analysis section of the article, which could use some expansion. And another part of the article specifically quotes historian Mark Tauger that states that the circumstances of this Great Famine and the Holodomor are similar. JasonMacker ( talk) 18:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Short descriptions should be short and simple. They're not the right place for the discussion of spurious theories. DrKay ( talk) 19:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Who asked for a "discussion of spurious theories"? I'm asking for a short description that is in line with the actual content of the article which discusses how it was man-made. JasonMacker ( talk) 04:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
No, it doesn't really. The article is rightly clear that the "proximate" (as it puts it) cause was a plant disease. Yet you want to completely ignore that in the short description? No. Johnbod ( talk) 04:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The proximate cause is a plant disease... ok but plant diseases happen. Crop failures happen. But those don't necessarily mean famine. The reason why it became a famine is because of the British system created where many Irish people were depending on one, single crop, namely the potato. If I eat from a variety of vegetables, a plant disease affecting one of them will negatively impact me, but proportionately. If there's a government policy forcing me to ONLY grow the one crop that is impacted by plant disease, that's when famines happen. Again, I encourage you to read the article, where this is all detailed. Without human (government) intervention, the famine would not have happened, thus, it is man-made, and this is detailed in this article as it currently exists. If you have a problem with the way the current article describes this, feel free to provide sources and suggest changes to be made. My proposal is simply for the short description to be representative of the article. JasonMacker ( talk) 16:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
No. Short descriptions should be short and simple. They're not the place for complex issues or statements that require detailed explanations or countering arguments. DrKay ( talk) 16:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
At the start of this section, I pointed out that other articles clearly find it useful to include "man-made" in their short descriptions, so what you just said is clearly false, unless you're of the opinion that "man-made" should be removed from the short descriptions of those other articles too. JasonMacker ( talk) 18:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
You also mentioned the Bengal famine of 1943, which (rightly imo) doesn't use "man-made" in the short description; like the Irish one it had "natural" causes, but was made worse by government policy. Short descriptions should avoid all possible controversy and doubt, so yes I would far rather remove "man-made" from the Soviet ones than add it to either of those under British rule. Johnbod ( talk) 19:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Ok, I've done this for you. Also happy to add it to the Irish one. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 14:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Since your position is against consensus on those pages, it should be added to this one rather than removed from that. If you disagree, you can take it up on those pages and achieve consensus there. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 14:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

" Ireland's Holocaust" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ireland's Holocaust has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 30 § Ireland's Holocaust until a consensus is reached. estar8806 ( talk) ★ 02:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply

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) reply

Imported Grain Used As Livestock Feed

These edits added the claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=887787383

https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1170685821

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

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Great_Famine_(Ireland)&oldid=1209169456"