Jump to content

Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gold heart (talk | contribs) at 10:23, 10 August 2007 (→Name change again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Irelandproj

Where are the suggestions? (Sarah777 02:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

An event mentioned in this article is a June 27 selected anniversary

Past entries in this famous discussion are archived in:

.1 , .2 , .3 , .4 , .5 , .6 , .7 , .8 , .9 , .10 (empty) , .11 (empty)...


Manipulating and disruptive editing

I consider it only right to clarify a couple of points in order to address any misunderstanding that may arise from the recent discussion. Sony has made a number of allegations and I feel they should not go unremarked. Sony has brought manipulation and misrepresentation to an unprecedented level, and can be illuminated thus: Having made an accusation against me [1], I replied in a like manner, suggesting they take another look, [2] at the edits and see the mistake they were making. Obviously unable to cop their mistake, they replied, [3]. Left with no alternative, I had to spell it out slowly and step by step, [4]. Still not the brightest, the alternative being just disingenuousness, I stated it straight out, [5]. I then became a bit more direct, [6], not liking people who prevaricate. Finially I got the answer, long winded, but an answer, and they concluded with a retraction, [7]. Conciliatory messages all round, from me, [8], from them, [9]. And move on! Not so, another discussion, and what do they bring up, the quote, [10]. A bit miffed, but I keep it cool, [11], and I get another apology, [12], with of course some self justification thrown in for good measure, Sony clearly states and addresses Sarah on the quote. I step in to put this to rest and hope that is the end of it, [13], but that would have been the end of it! Full blown discussion, ignored my offer, and yacked on and on! And then slips the quote in again, directed at me and a totally unrelated subject [14]. First I dismiss it and let it go, but hey its not me, I have a pop, [15]. And they makes the same accusation again [16]. I’m at this stage not having it and make it known, [17]. And all you get is the same crap again, [18]. I have been patient, tried tact, got annoyed, all to no avail. Sony is argumentative, manipulative, disrupting, and provocative and is a self-perpetuating rambler. Unless they are challenged, their clearly established pov pushing agenda will lose wiki some good editors. Now having set the record straight, I’m done with this conversation, and this editor!--Domer48 11:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say Domer, I know exactly how you feel. (Sarah777 12:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Domer, this has got out of hand. My posts to the talk page were always in relation to the O'Donnell quote. I have 
no reason to want to keep discussion of the genocide claim out of the article. I want the case to be made strongly 
and clearly so readers can appreicate the extent and impact of the famine on Ireland, and how it relates to the 
national question and the history of relations between Britain and Ireland. The O'Donnell quote is misrepresented, 
but don't mix up my opposition to it being used in the way that it is with opposition to discussion of the genocide 
claim. There is plenty to support the argument but I would like it copper-fastened against the basic criticisms of 
the view. The famine is taught as genocide, alongside genocides, in a number of American states. See here for 
suggested curriculum material from New Jersey (or here for the same source listed it alongside the Holocaust, 
Cambodia, Native American genocide, Armenia and the Ukraine). There's lots of supporting material for the view, 
my only concern at the moment is the O'Donnell quote. I'm not harking back to it - its simply the only thing that I 
object to. --sony-youthpléigh 08:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above was originally posted to User_talk:Domer48 and was posted here by Domer48. --sony-youthpléigh 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what if I did post it here? This is were the discussion is! You are lying again, and anyone who reads my post, will notice that you can not stand over your accusation and therefore change the subject of the complaint. You accused me of changing a quote to suit my alleged POV. Now, no more BS! --Domer48 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manipulating and disruptive editing II

User:MarkThomas, the editor who had this article locked, has had nothing but a disruptive influence on this article. They have created the conditions which gave rise to a number of disputes. In addition, they have continually baited editors, one of whom is the subject of a Rfc. That it is not just this article is evident, and forms a clear pattern of disruption. They refuse to contribute referenced material, preferring to add opinion, which they consider as good as, if not better than any reference. Any reference they dislike and which dose not reflect there opinion, is either Republican in origin, therefore biased, a minority view, folklore, or one which is only held by extreme nationalists. They have also abused the 3rr policy by baiting editors with malicious edits. In addition, playing the victim, and using Add min’s in a calculating way has been common practice. If this is to continue, Wikipedia will lose any decent editors they have, and discourage any potential editors. I consider that the lock on the article was inspired and perpetuated by this editor. Below are just some examples, and this is only three articles!

The Great Famine Article

Removed information which they accepted, but removed, with comment and no reference, [19] Baiting and abusive comment, removed referenced information, [20] First contact, questioning source, no problem, [21] Unqualified comments, and opinion, [22] Baiting an editor, [23] Baiting comments, Re anti British, [24] Baiting editor, [25] Baiting the same editor, [26], notice edit comment. Baiting editor, [27] Argumentative, baiting editor on Rfc, [28] Baiting editor on Rfc, [29] Baiting editor on Rfc, [30] Having provoked a reaction, wants apology. [31] Baiting editor on Rfc, [32] Argumentative, and suggesting POV, [33] Accepts things one minute, [34] Unreferenced comment, questioning referenced ones, [35] As before, [36] Blocked for baiting editor, [37] Unreferenced comment, [38] Referenced of the net, [39], very contentious issue, I left it alone. Insinuation and bad faith comment, [40] Questioning, but not referencing concerns, just comment, [41] Accepts a source, questions same source, build an uncivil case [42] Contradicting themselves, and questioning source again, POV suggestion, [43] POV pushing, questioning source they agreed with, [44] Analysis, comment, opinion, no references, [45] Baiting, argumentative, [46] Bad faith edit, baiting, [47] Argumentative [48] Bad faith edit, POV, Baiting, [49] Assertions, Opinion, argumentative, [50] Baiting, [51] Adding unreferenced opinion, [52] Baiting, [53] Questioning sources previously accepted, POV pushing, [54] Reasonable, [55] Baiting, POV pushing, [56] Argumentative, Baiting [57] POV Pushing, Baiting, [58] Baiting, the trap is closing, [59] Baiting, provoking, harassment, [60] Now the victim, [61] In goes the report, [62] Notification, abrupt, [63] I make my point, [64] We love to play the victim, [65] Making a point that has noting to do with them, [66] Other editors get involved, [67] Argumentative, baiting, [68] Clearly lying, [69] Argument, [70] He’s now asking for references, [71] Another lie, [72] Comment, opinion, cites no sources, he’s words enough, [73] Peddling the bait, [74] Comment, opinion, cites no sources, he’s words enough, [75] A bogus report about me, [76] Constructive at last, [77] Inculcate editors, [78] Go with any point if it contradicts Sarah, [79] Rambling comments, opinion, [80] Baiting, [81] No citation, no references, [82] Start another RV battle, [83] Opinion, no reference, [84] Needs back up, POV pushing, [85] Out to wind up, baiting, [86] Playing the victim, [87] Baiting, [88] The trap opens, [89] Wider, [90] Added opinion, baiting, [91] Removed referenced quote, [92] Helpful, [93] Victim again, [94] Trap failed, put on a block, [95] Victim, still wants a block on me, [96] Victim, hurt, wounded, [97] Needs back up, accusation, [98] Vindication, at last, [99] Defence of backup, [100]

Oliver Cromwell Article, is next for a lockdown! Inappropriate statement, [101], “Republican History,” no references, just comment. Argumentative POV, [102] A total rewrite, [103] Baiting, [104] Opinion added to article, baiting, [105]


British Isles Suggestions of anti-British [106] Baiting Editor: [107] Suggested statement of fact, no reference: [108], i.e. . “no serious scholar” Use of the term “extreme view” [109] to have an alternative view. Removed unreferenced material, [110], backed up with unreferenced comments. Removed a tag, they felt unnecessary, [111] Unreferenced comment, [112] Changing a referenced quote[113] no substantiated with a reference. Argumentative edit, [114] Comment, POV, Opinion, [115] Baiting editor, [116] More opinion, [117] Getting references, still waiting, [118]

Regards--Domer48 17:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent research Domer. I was preparing to do something on those lines myself in my response to the RfC, but when the process was reduced to a forum for trolling, abuse and was been taken as a green light to launch personal attacks on me I had to call a halt. One of the editors you mentioned had to be blocked for repeated personal attacks, despite numerous warnings; and I noticed the total refusal of one of the instigators of the RfC to condemn the abuse I was getting. He "couldn't see any abuse"; thankfully an Admin had better eye-sight. (Sarah777 19:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The above represents a large number of quite unjustified accusations of bad faith editing, repeatedly breaching WP:AGF and amounting to a campaign of personal abuse and vilification directed against myself. I have (again - for the last time) requested an apology from Domer48. Nearly all of the "allegations" above are false, misleading or downright malicious or trolling, or combinations of these. MarkThomas 15:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this remark above by Domer48 accusing me of "Bad faith edit, POV, Baiting" on diff no 57, which refers to a small (and correctly referenced) change is solid evidence that Domer48 (and by agreeing with this above, Sarah777 by inference) regard any content disagreement as evidence of bad faith. MarkThomas 15:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations at Talk:Great_Irish_Famine#Manipulating_and_disruptive_editing_II

You are repeatedly accusing me of bad faith editing at the above-mentioned talk page location. This is against Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:AGF. I have repeatedly asked you not to do this. Please apologise and retract the statements. Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia.

Note that this last pasted edit above was done by Domer48 and is pasted content that I originally placed privately on his talk page in an effort to politely request an apology without involving others. Thanks. MarkThomas 17:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, it has already been pointed out that there is no such thing as posting privately on a Wiki talk page. You have been corrected on this point before.
(Sarah777 22:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It was posted unsigned; I was explaining who had posted it. As regards the correction, I stand by the basic point that it isn't usual to do this. MarkThomas

Man, ya'll need to take it easy.

I tend to doubt anyone on this talk page is a truly bad person, as is insinuated over and over, so maybe if you treated each other with a little respect you'd get the same in return. What you should be doing is workshopping these POV/Baiting/Bad Faith edits on this talk page before editing the article itself. Al1encas1no 02:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 19:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

I strongly recommend that none of the parties in the GIF ArbCom case edit this article any further while the ArbCom case is active. We do not need to have the article locked down. SirFozzie 16:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur but with caveats:
  1. You're an admin, so is there a way of enforcing your recommendation if it is ignored by one or more of the parties to "the GIF ArbCom case"?
  2. Could you provide a clickable internal link to the "GIF ArbCom case" so that we can read what it's about?
...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 19:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my talk:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--sony-youthpléigh 19:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Sony. You really are a star!...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 20:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! He's back a day early. Like Jason sneaking into town on October 30th. (Sarah777 22:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Wah-ha-ha-ha! Got to keep you on your toes, Sarah! --sony-youthpléigh 23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
150

Last night's SPA edit

A new account (one edit only) made major changes last night - diff, and the edit summary is blatantly incorrect: (Added unused source J. C. Beckett in the introduction). I've not been following the history of this article properly for the last few weeks what with holidays, so I've no idea which is the "correct" version to be left in place while ArbCom is looking at this. Perhaps an interested admin could take a look and revert if necessary? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it. Note that the proposed restriction was only on editors IN the GIF ArbCom.. If this account is reverting back to either side's preferred version then it would be considered a proxy.. if it's significant changes, I'm not sure what to do to be quite honest, but I'll take a look at it sometime today. SirFozzie 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The account reverted to Domer48's significant edit after ArbCom had opened (see diff) with the insertion of some additional text. Can we have a Checkuser please to dispell any unmerited concern. (I would prefer if SirFozzie didn't do the checkuser as he is also involved in the ArbCom.) --sony-youthpléigh 15:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have checkuser priviliges anyway ;) SirFozzie 15:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will say nothing! Bite my lip, again! J. C. Beckett ah ye, there will be no complaints about that author. And why will that not surprise me? Lets see, next thing will be more people died of diseases than hunger, as if there is a difference! --Domer48 16:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference. Most deaths caused during famines are the result of disease. The process of starvation causes the body the shut down or mutilate its own parts in a desperate attempt to survive. This shutting down and mulilation causes disease or weakens the bodies resilliance. Disease and starvation are in thus inextractable from each other during famine. This often has a double effect, which was especially visible during the Irish famine. Whereas the resulting disease killed the young and the old died - who's bodies were less capable of surviving such ravages - after the famine the remaining adult population were afflicted by infertility resultant their body's desperate self-sarcrafice.
Domer, would you mind if I requested a checkuser between yourself and Pappin76? Simply to clear the air. --sony-youthpléigh 11:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sony you assume good faith, but since you already requested one "Can we have a Checkuser please to dispell any unmerited concern," and in the process were insulting to an Admin "I would prefer if SirFozzie didn't do the checkuser as he is also involved in the ArbCom," in my opinion, I fail to see why your asking me? --Domer48 12:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assumption of the sorts. A first-time user makes a single edit reverting to a cententious state, which the orginal editor is barred from reverting to while ArbCom is on-going. Its probably nothing, but it easy to see how Bastun or SirFozzie could find it suspicious or question whether it was made a sock puppet or proxy. Surely a checkuser would be useful to dispell unmerited concern of sock puppetry? Since that unmirited suspicion, in this case, would naturally fall onto you, I'm asking you solely out of politeness. What's the big deal? When its done, Bastun and SirFozzie will have no grounds to falsely suspect you. --sony-youthpléigh 12:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I'm not accusing any single author of sockpuppetry. All I stated was that a newly created SPA had made the edit. It could be anyone - or (admittedly, in my opinion, less likely) someone entirely new to WP. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appologies. I struck it out. --sony-youthpléigh 13:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we revert it to the pre-Arbcom state as before, clearly we can't have random unsigned users doing such massive alterations to the article without discussion. Note that there is also a CEM proposed on this at SirFozzie's page, so you could join that Domer48, I see you've been invited to - that would be a good place to make suggestions about user conduct across the Ireland and Britain related articles. MarkThomas 12:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the edits of 5 editors is grossly uncivil. Should you continue you will be reported on the administrators notice board. --Domer48 12:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now propose, given that Domer48 and an unsigned user are persistently attempting to revert the page to the post-Arbcom-initiation state that Domer48 placed it in, that we revert it to the Arbcom state and apply for further page protection. Does anyone object other than Domer48? Thanks. MarkThomas 12:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None from me. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. --sony-youthpléigh 13:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony you are making allegations against me, and I suggest you stop now! In addition, I’m not barred from editing any article! A proposal was made that was it, no decision was taken. It is you Sony who requested the check user, so go ahead and make the request officially. There is no suspicion on me! So make the request or let it drop! That is all I have to say on the subject! --Domer48 13:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. --sony-youthpléigh 13:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check user

I've open a check user request to see if Pappin76 or SeaOfTranquility are puppets of anyone involved in the current ArbCom case. --sony-youthpléigh 14:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the IP number be in there as well Sony? Amused to see myself and SirFozzie included as well! :-) MarkThomas 14:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your ongoing Harassment has been reported. --Domer48 15:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, you're getting taking this the wrong way. 1. I moved you comments to the talk page because they are not a request for checkuser but talk about the request. 2. I don't have no ill intent with the request - both you and I know it will show that Pappin76 is not you, I just want to know who it is. 3. I think Marks requests is without foundation, but so what if he does ask for it - again, you and I know it will show that Sarah is not you!

Finally, please stop posting comments such as "This is all part of a campaign of Harassment" in response to my post. I am not harassing you. Why on earth would I harass you? --sony-youthpléigh 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Posted on my talk page but forms part of this discussion, it will probably be removed like a another one I placed here, but want to maintain a tread with this discussion. --Domer48 22:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New SPA?

(Edit conflict) There now appears to be another SPA/newly created account who has found its way very quickly to this article. After Domer and it (SeaofTranquility) were both given 3RR warnings by me, its been reverted to Domer's version by GoldHeart. Can I at this stage plea for calm and a moratorium on edits until Arbcom look at this? In any case, I've gone ahead and requested full page protection. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A Fine Welcome

I would just like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for the genuinely touching welcome, did I just say touching? What I meant to say was, hostile, intimidating and accusatory. Having submitted my first edit 2 day ago, I have been the subject, of what in my opinion is some sort of concerted effort to intimidate me off WP. At least that's how it feels to me, firstly I was accused of being "Blatantly Incorrect" in my edit summary by Bastun, secondly sony-youth calls for some sort of checkuser, which I understand to be a type of 'get that guys address' or IP address at least but the sentiment is the same, thirdly Domer48 seems to have some sort of problem with my choice of Beckett as a reference and finally on the second day I stand accussed of being some kind of puppet who according to sony-youth couldn't possibly have the ability to edit a page, which I find very patronising and insulting, as editing a page is hardly rocket science. By the way for those interested I have confirmed my IP address with WP so again thank you all for the fine welcome, maybe the next time a new user does something that displeases you guys, you might consider reaching out to the person on their talk page and offer advice before being so judgemental. By the way I will be notiyfing Admin about this horribly unwelcoming reception fraught with suspicion and allegation --Pappin76 22:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Pappin. I've left a message on your user page which I hope will explain the situation. --sony-youthpléigh 22:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Pappin, I stand over my comment about your edit summary, which was blatantly incorrect. It stated: (Added unused source J. C. Beckett in the introduction). The actual changes were far more substantial - over 70Kb worth. That, plus the fact that it was first ever edit, and to an article already in the middle of an edit war - well, its understandable if people jump to conclusions. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Pappin76, my comments were not directed at you, but at the self appointed edit police. About your use of Beckett as a source, and that particular quote, I thought you where using the same logic as another editor, only difference you could provide a reference! Which is more than most, and thats your first edit. Work away with Beckett though, between the two of use we might be able to pull this article together. Welcome to Wiki, and don't get the wrong idea about the place from this, its usually worse. Take care and have fun, Regards --Domer48 22:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. You sound like someone who can handle a row, you have to be Irish? No offence intended by the way![reply]

Article Probation.

The only content dispute on this article is the content some editors don’t like. They consider the worst material added is that which is referenced. If it’s wrong and has a citation tag, the only problem is the tag. Now until such a time as an administrator steps in and challenges this it is going to continue. This is not a contentious article, for anyone to suggest it is, is missing the whole point. It’s the editors who make it contentious. I suggest one rule, back up everything you add with a reference, source citation. That will put a stop to the trumpeted up little POV merchants, who like to have lock pages. So is there any Administrator out there who wants to put this article on their watch list. Review what been added place it on Article Probation. If not, locking it is a poor excuse. --Domer48 08:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trumpeted up little POV merchants... er, WP:NPA, Domer. As the editor who requested the pageblock, I assume you mean me. Please apologise. The reason I requested a lock was because an edit war was underway. You yourself reported 2 editors for breach of 3RR yesterday - and the closing admin there warned you. I hadn't edited the page since 25th June, and when the edit war broke out, I didn't participate, instead appealling for calm discussion, twice (see above). I've also already explained to you that the version that gets locked is without prejudice to what should be the correct version. The lock is now in place. It can be lifted early - that depends on discussion taking place here, and consensus being arrived at. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concencus on what? --Domer48 09:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the only concensus that editors on this page want is that Domer48 and Pappin76 do not make any more "referenced edits" in favour of sony-youth and MarkThomas or page will be reverted and then blocked from further edits,or is it until two mentioned get what they want since I have began watching this page it is the 2nd time it has been locked.BigDunc 12:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concencus on what?

While I consider BigDunc's opinion on the concencus to be close to the mark! Why not find out what is it they want concencus on? Is it 1) No referenced quotes, 2)No sources they do not like, 3) Only cite anti-Irish authors, 4)Nothing to be added to article untill approved by who ever they decide. 5)Opinion carrires more weight than fact. 6)Only selected editors on this Article. 7)Balance dictates no Irish sources (always biased) 9)NPOV, dictates no Irish sources 10)Failure to meet theses demands means Article lock. I may have missed some in my eagerness to get it right. Lets see how editors feel? --Domer48 21:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11) None of the above. Domer, in fairness, you're losing the plot. All I have done to invite your wrath is to comment out one reference by James Donnell (seen here) on the basis that the reference, which you later provided in full, does not support the interpretation that Donnell believes that the Famine was a genocide or that such a view is gaining academic respectability.
I'm of the opinion that your edits after the article was unprotected (seen here) threw out more baby than bath water, but am more worried that you would make such a substantial edit despite knowing that you were in a dispute over the content of the article.
More to the point, what did you think we were disputing over? --sony-youthpléigh 22:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to your comments on the article and the issue of consensus, I’ll draw your attention to this post [119]. You have chose to ignore this offer! For the other issue you raise on the amount of edits I make I would suggest you read this wiki policy, Wikipedia:Be_bold. It addresses also the subject of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral_Point_of_View. I would suggest you should read this policy Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, though I consider it to be more a case of holding it to ransom. So without a long drawn out discussion are you now going to accept this offer [120], a simple yes or no will suffice. This is the only issue to be resolved on this article. Any personal issues we can deal with else were.--Domer48 11:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I was ever interested in - how it could get stretched out to be an campaign against you, Ireland, truth, or whatever grand-stand you are mouthing-off from today, is bewildering - but, why does this sentence still appear in the Genocide section: "The 'flowering of famine scholarship' [James Donnell] maintains has given academic respectability to the view that the famine was genocide"? In fact, what is the bullet point about Donnell doing there at all? The reference has nothing to do with genocide? Do you accept that? How such a simple edit - remember I never removed to quote, just commented it out and said it would be useful elsewhere - could blow up into all this fuss is something we both need to take stock of to understand what went wrong.
Regarding your large edit, I made no comment about it until you persisted to edit war with MarkThomas over it, which you knew yourself to be out-of-order, and even then only once (see your comment on SirFozzie's page). Being bold is good, but don't burst into tears if someone reverts your work for being too bold in one go. Why not take to it the talk page to discuss what to keep and what to revert, rather than revert warring in future?
The wild accusations against me - like the above list of "consensus" - which I've had to endure, don't enamor you to me, as neither do your constant accusations against anyone who proffers an opinion not identical to your own - but fools have to be suffered. References are great, we all appreciate them, but more valuable is the input of your collaborators in writing Wikipedia. Maybe on WikiQuote you did not have so much opportunity to collaborate, or scope for disagreement on interpretation, but here you have to work in a team. That means you will have disagreements, it does not mean you have to right to accuse anyone or everyone of bias at every turn when you don't get your own way. You must learn to work in a team. --sony-youthpléigh 12:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ye, Ye are you finished twisting; the question was yes or no! My comment on your talk page must have hit a nerve! But that your problem. I’ve agreed to be civil, so I will ignore your throwing the rattle out of the cot. Stop waffling, when your stuck in a hole, my advice is stop digging. Now one more time! Are you going to accept this offer? YES or NO. --Domer48 13:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really do have problems. Yes. Take out the misquote of Donnell. How many different ways do I have to say that? The piece you cited did not ask me if that was what I wanted, you said, "I will replace the quote." That never happened. Instead you kept insisting that "key nationalist perspectives" is code for genocide. (The later substantial edit will have to be rewritten in parts, but that another matter.) --sony-youthpléigh 13:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Sony, I see by your opening line that you will accept that offer. It’s just when I seen the tome you’d written I viewed it through distracted eyes. Sorry about that. --Domer48 13:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlock Article

I've asked User:Bastun to request to have the article unlocked. --Domer48 13:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is - are cooler heads going to prevail now (on all sides) and is edit-warring going to be avoided? If yes, everyone's sure we can move on and discuss changes on the talk page at least for the time being, then I will ask for the protection to be lifted. Alternatively, we can leave it there for another few days and in the meantime use the {:editprotected} template on this talk page to request an admin to make the agreed edit. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that - but we all know that the article is going to be reverted by Domer to "his" version. If that's the case, and I don't mind, then I'm going to perform an equally thorough rewrite (the "Background" section is particularly poor) - and there's no guarantee that MarkThomas won't simply revert before then. In that event, I don't want Domer crying foul (or that I'm persecuting him, or that I'm anti-Irish, or I'm anti-NPOV, or whatever else). Alternatively Domer could explain what issues exist in the current version and we can work to resolve them together. (I suspect, however, that even asking for this will to taken as a sign of my serpent-like mastery of deception - Ha ha ha! I am so evil and manipulative!) --sony-youthpléigh 15:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I feel that unless Domer48 and Sarah777 (when she gets back from her hols) are willing to commit to actually discussing changes in a reasoned way on the talk page, the page should be perma-locked, since from their behaviour so far, they are absolutely committed to deeply POV edits on this article, distortion and misleading allegations against other editors and an utter refusal to enter into anything remotely resembling Wikipedia discussion. This should probably apply to other articles edited by Domer48 in particular as well, but sadly my attempt to get him sanctioned for his repeated incivility only ended in a pointless Arbcom full of lies and false accusations. Suffice to say, I'm in favor of the page remaining locked! Domer48 will now respond. When you do Domer, please say why you have refused to sign up to SirFozzie's attempt to introduce Community Mediation to these issues. Thanks. MarkThomas 16:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sony, I think you seriously need to sit down and take something! You seem to be under some sort of strain or pressure. I’m under the impression that you use some kind of medication and possibly have forgotten to take it. As to you persecuting me! I suggest that it would be like being savaged by a dead toothless hamster in a bright yellow raincoat. But less of the niceties, I will edit as I wish, and will only be constrained by the policies outlined and applicable to all editors. Now if Mark wants to play their petty games, that’s fine. I will not rise to it, as the other editors on the article will ensure that this disruptive behaviour will not be tolerated. Now the issue is resolved so the block should be lifted! No preconditions and no predicting the outcome! --Domer48 16:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this last contribution by Domer48 is a model of how to get blocked for incivility on Wikipedia. I just marvel that this hasn't happened to you Domer - I presume most of the admins are on holiday! Anyone in doubt can see for example Sony-youth's talk page where Domer48 states that he finds reputable editor Sony-youth "to be grossly dishonest apt to prevaricate and manipulative". Anyone ever going to intervene with this sorry excuse for a Wikipedian? MarkThomas 16:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I will not rise to this type of edit or editor [121], I'm like a calm lake on a winters morning. --Domer48 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you just cited is to your own accusations Domer48, none of which are true. Once again you attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes with obfuscation and distortion. It isn't working. You appear to be stuck at stage 2 of WP:GRIEF and unable to move on. Your false allegations, distortions, deliberate confusions and conflagrations will not help. Discuss your edits in a reasoned way before plunging in and you might get somewhere. Until then, you may as well pack your bags and find something else to do. Although you do offer a bit of entertainment with your endless hypocritical little twists and turns, like "not rising" (tee hee) as above. MarkThomas 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These conscientious editors concerned to improve Wikipedia[122]. Which ones? Plat time is over, unlock the article --Domer48 16:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Were you an only child Domer? MarkThomas 17:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed for Article Unblock

So Sony, Is it agreed we unblock the article?--Domer48 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just up to Sony, it's either a consensus on the talk page (consensus is not achieved because Domer48 will not enter into discussions about obtaining a consensus) or an admin can unblock it. If it is unlocked, until Domer48 is willing to discuss changes properly and abide by the CEM, I am sure that it will be relocked as soon as Domer48 begins another mass-editing campaign against the article. I also find it puzzling Domer that only today you stated Sony-youth "to be grossly dishonest and apt to prevaricate and manipulative" and yet here you are asking him to arbitrate on the unlocking. How peculiar. MarkThomas 17:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that without waiting, Domer48 and just informed SirFozzie that Domer48 and Sony-youth have agreed to the page being unlocked, which is a deliberate and bare-faced lie and attempt to deceive by Domer48. MarkThomas 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

Unless there is agreement on how to continue without edit warring I don't see how unprotecting the article is useful. --sony-youthpléigh 18:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it may appear as bad faith on your part sony, I would suggest that edit warring with admin watching would not be very clever. Just to make it clear, you did agree to accept my offer, did you not? Why back tract now, because of treats from an editor? Let them blow all the steam they want! Thats if you wanted the article unlocked in the first place and are not using this as an excuse? --Domer48 18:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's two of you, Domer. The article was locked (twice) over edit warring. If that's going to continue, then there's no point in unlocking it, is there? (There was an admin watching last time, and, if you recall, you reported Mark for 3RR, the admin involved decided that Mark had done nothing wrong but that "if Domer48 reverts again, he will be blocked, and that will be that.") --sony-youthpléigh 19:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you accept my offer yes or no? --Domer48 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good gracious, Domer! Its Mark you were edit warring with, its him you need to agree not to edit war with again, not me. Ask him! --sony-youthpléigh 20:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Sony I know! Its just Mark accused me of lying and I did not want to let it go unanswered. I know you agreed with me!!! Listen don’t worry about mark, wiki policies will deal with them, and there will be no edit war. They have to back up every single objection they make with references and not opinion! Should improve the article no ends!! --Domer48 20:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer48 you constantly accuse anyone who disagrees with you of "bad faith". There is no such term in Wikipedia - it is abusive and it is incivil. Please stop doing it. People are allowed to disagree with you. If you took the time and effort to discuss your edits sensibly in advance, this article would not be locked. Stop insulting people and scheming and manouvering and start behaving reasonably and you might get somewhere. MarkThomas 19:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace quote as agreed with Sony

{{editprotected}} I would like to replace this edit:

Suggestions of Genocide (point 4)

Professor James Donnelly states that the amount of scholarly attention dedicated to the Great Famine has expanded enormously, since the official sesquicentennial commemoration of the famine in the years 1995—7. As a result of this impetus with numerous other scholars, he made contributions to the “extraordinary surge” of publications. The “flowering of famine scholarship” he maintains has given academic respectability to the view that the famine was genocide.

With this edit: (Note I have included the reference)

"England’s oppression of Ireland began with the Anglo-Norman invasion of 1169. There followed centuries of rebellion by the Irish and further genocidal campaigns by English rulers—none more savage than that launched by Oliver Cromwell. The Great Rebellion of 1798, the Fenian uprising after the famine in the 1840s, the Easter rebellion of 1916, and the courage of hunger strikers like Terence MacSwiney in 1920 and Bobby Sands in 1981 have shown the strength of Irish resistance." [1]


As was agreed with Sony, [123]. That is the issue between us resolved.

Should Sony Agree, I would like to add this one also. If they do not they can let me know why? But remove the agreed reference regardless.


"In the long catalogue of British crimes against Ireland, the deliberate starvation and virtual forced emigration of a large section of the Irish population in the middle years of the last century must stand out as one of the most abominable atrocities ever committed by one nation against another." [2]

--Domer48 20:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

☒N Protected edit declined, thoroughly fails WP:NPOV. Sandstein 20:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sandsein, couldn't have put it better myself. --sony-youthpléigh 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The agreement with sony

I asking Sony “…are you now going to accept this offer [124], a simple yes or no will suffice.”

Sony’s reply “That's all I was ever interested in…”

I’m a bit slow on the uptake so I said “Ye, Ye are you finished twisting; the question was yes or no!” (Sony gave a long winded answer)

Sony replied “You really do have problems. Yes. Take out the misquote of Donnell. How many different ways do I have to say that?”

And I said “My apologies Sony, I see by your opening line that you will accept that offer. It’s just when I seen the tome you’d written I viewed it through distracted eyes. Sorry about that.”

End of Conversation until Mark entered the fray. Sony did not intervene to point out the error of Marks ways, mark said it did not matter anyway!

Unlike most stories there was no happy ending. --Domer48 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below: And the truth shall set you free! --Domer48 22:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we not in agreement that it should go? Didn't we agree to "Take out the misquote of Donnell"? --sony-youthpléigh 22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit

{{editprotected}} Done. — Scientizzle 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the fourth bullet in the section Suggestions of Genocide ("Professor James Donnelly states ..."), as agreed with Domer48 (and reiterated by Domer in the section above). --sony-youthpléigh 22:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request unblock Sony

Now tell you buddy Mark to keep is babbling rants and fairy tales to himself. Ask for the page to be unblocked and let the referenced information do the talking! Do not use Mark as an excuse! There will be no edit war! Plenthy of discussion though!--Domer48 22:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do you want the Donnell reference removed as agreed or not? Yes or no will suffice. --sony-youthpléigh 22:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YES...--Domer48 22:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Then could you do us a favour and sign your name to the request above? Thanks. --sony-youthpléigh 23:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

This matter came to arbitration some time ago, but has stalled from seeming indifference. I say seeming because there's obvious interest in the matter, but perhaps not in that setting. I come here then with some questions and perhaps a way forward. What are the primary issues of contention, insofar as the content of the article is concerned--what is keeping this page protected? Would editors here be prepared to accept the mediation of an uninvolved third party group composed of content editors to arbitrate, as it were, on the content itself? Finally, are editors here ready, or at least willing, to try and cast aside past grievances to work on this article in a spirit of collaboration? Mackensen (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefare that the article be treated as it would under Article Probation. You and your group could arbitrate, as it were, on the content itself? The article is not the problem, its the editors. Myself included! Have a read of the discussion, and let me no what you think about Article Probation. On the arbitration though I don't think it has stalled, just because editors ignore it dose not make it go away. Regards --Domer48 08:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen, thanks for posting. I avoided the ArbCom because I never really understood what the issues were. Was it about this article? Was it about the contributor involved? Or was it just about MarkThomas, who I've had protracted disagreements with, but never so far as to require an ArbCom over? Was anyone contributing to the ArbCom really interested in resolving their greiviences? As the page got filled up with more and more junk, I get even more turned-off by it - the latest is that MarkThomas is guilty of "lying"? Oooooh, he's a bad bad man!
Anyhow, to answer your questions, the current state of affairs for me are as follows:
  1. My sole grevience with the article has been resolved - at last - above (see #Requested edit).
  2. As for the edit warring that caused the article to be locked, that has to be resolved between Domer and MarkThomas. As the article stands now, I'd lean towards starting off from "MarkThomas's version" solely because Domer48's changes that caused the edit warring this time around (see here) are so substantial ("MarkThomas's version" is the "pre-Domer substantial edit" verion). A merging of the two may be in order, if it is possible to know what Domer's greiviences are (apart from general accusations of anti-Irish POV, British Imperial sentiment, etc. etc.).
  3. "... are editors here ready, or at least willing, to try and cast aside past grievances to work on this article in a spirit of collaboration?" I don't know. I cannot imagine that Domer won't accuse me of bias, anti-Irishness, belonging to a cabal, persecuation, etc. if I disagree again. Let's remember that it only took one disagreement with him on the interpreation of a single quote - an interpretation explicitly contradicted by the same author, in the same book later on in the article - to invite this month-long attack, and to evidience to Domer my anti-Irishness and my intention to persecute him and all he hold's dear. I cannot see that approach to collaboration changing in the near future.
I wouldn't be opposed to article probation, although, looking at Domer48's talk page (and SirFozzie's talk page, where he likes to bring his accuasations of the inherint bias of others), I don't think the issue is with the article. These kind of issues seem to follow Domer around. --sony-youthpléigh 09:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen you and your group could arbitrate, as it would under Article Probation. Who could possibly have a problem with that? As to my edits, and which version will be used, it makes no difference to me, all my material will be sourced and referenced, and will be going into the article. I explained my position to other editors here [125]. I need add nothing more, as it is just a waste of time. I think Article Probation is the best approch and having to be answerable to a group such as yours can only help improve the article. The only ones who would have a problem are the ones putting up preconditions and telling stories. --Domer48 10:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. The check user was a flop, what will they use next? --Domer48 10:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I hesitate to ask this, but it is encyclopaedic...

I do some research in old London magazines and so on. In one, a humour magazine from ~1860 (I'll have to dig it out) there's the most shocking bit of supposed comedy about Irish and rotten potatoes.

Do you think this would make a good sidebar, to help illustrate the English callousness, or would that be unnecessarily controversial? Adam Cuerden talk 06:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They would be great! Ones from 1845-1850 would be great also (just as callous/plain ignorant of the facts). I've looked around on the internet, but the one's I found were of quite low quality so I left them be. It is a very important aspect of the whole thing. The tabloid news media was just as influential on English public opinion then as it is today. --sony-youthpléigh 08:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Adam Cuerden, the magazine you mention is Punch. I will post links to it later for you. Regards--Domer48 08:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fun, actually, though I have no doubt that Punch had similarly shocking articles. Discovered it when researching some of W. S. Gilbert's works for it - I'm glad to say this definitely was NOT one of his, but it's on the same page. I'll dig it out today and type it up. Adam Cuerden talk 08:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Problem on that Adam Cuerden, the most common one used is usually Punch, but your right about their shocking sence of humour. --Domer48 09:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Would editors here be prepared to accept the mediation of an uninvolved third party group composed of content editors to arbitrate, as it were, on the content itself?

Only with explicit (and immediately inforced) consequences for edit warring, refusal to engage in discussion, etc. plus powers to arbitrate on disagreements, etc. I think Mackensen's proposal on the ArbCom talk page, is a solid way forward for the time being. Keep the article locked, changes should be proposed to a comittee of supervising editors with the right to aribtrate the content. --sony-youthpléigh 10:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AGAIN! No preconditions! This editor (Sony) wants this page locked and has used excuse after excuse to keep it that way. I'm requesting that this page be unlocked! There is no reason to have it locked. There is a whole group of editors here prepared to mediate and to arbitrate, on the content. If there is any edit warring this group of editors will step in. I have a wealth of information on this subject, and I am being prevented from editing because this editor dose not like it. Lift the lock and lets see what happens. --Domer48 11:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was reiterating Mackensen's proposal on the ArbCom talk page. The reason it is locked originally was because you were edit warring with MarkThomas. A month after that it was unlocked, and you immediately began edit warring again. If it is unlocked once more, how do we know that you will not simply start edit warring again? I never asked for a lock, and neither do I want to prevent you from contributing your "wealth of information." What 'excuse' have I ever used to "keep it that way" (locked), except, in very recent days, that you were edit warring with MarkThomas and that that must stop? --sony-youthpléigh 11:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A necessary precondition of unlocking the page is a sense that edit-warring would not resume. My feeling is that we would start with it locked; the group could unlock once the spirit of collaborative editing was restored. Another necessary precondition is that everybody chills out and stops viewing this as a struggle. Mackensen (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree to that - start with it locked then open it up when the necessary 'spirit' is evidient. --sony-youthpléigh 12:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation 2

Mackensen has made the following suggestion "Would editors here be prepared to accept the mediation of an uninvolved third party group composed of content editors to arbitrate, as it were, on the content itself?" Could editors sign that they agree or disagree ONLY

Mediation 3

Mackensen has made the following suggestion "Would editors here be prepared to accept the mediation of an uninvolved third party group composed of content editors to arbitrate, as it were, on the content itself?" Could editors sign that they agree or disagree ONLY ONE WORD ANSWER: AGREE or DISAGREE

I despair! --sony-youthpléigh 11:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes!!! MarkThomas 13:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These sections appear to be multiplying. Mackensen (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sections are not multiplying

Just wanted to get in a section not started by Domer. MarkThomas 14:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request Edit

{{editprotected}} Done. — Scientizzle 21:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request the following in Reactions be changed 'charge with sedition, but this charged was dropped' to 'charged with sedition, but this charge was dropped' Journey Back To The Darkside 14:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no! The deletion of surplus "d"s in this important context would be pure POV and very possibly "bad faith"!!! MarkThomas 14:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go away. Journey Back To The Darkside 15:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So many new editors are spawning just to edit this article I am losing track; perhaps "they" should all fill in a survey before joining so we can find out which previous editor they support! However, I was of course, this time, just joking Accident Of Birth - if you want to fix typos I have no objection! Have fun, whoever you are. MarkThomas 15:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find you're wrong in this case, Mark. --sony-youthpléigh 15:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which bit was I wrong about Sony? MarkThomas 15:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"new editors ... spawning just to edit this article " - see. --sony-youthpléigh 16:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, my apologies to Accident of Birth, I was over-reacting - thanks for putting me straight Sony. MarkThomas 16:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Mark Thomas it was unnecessary of me to bite,I take it someone from the other side of the Atlantic will now decide if the change is necessary. Journey Back To The Darkside 15:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sadly the European bit of Wikipedia often gets "altered" overnight by the US end - you can have revenge by editing George W Bush, California and The Governator at 11.00am when they are all asleep! MarkThomas 15:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reading this page that MarkThomas is a bit on the paranoid side is the whole world against you Mark maybe this user is Domer too and we are all coming to get you and ruin your little page with "lies" it starting to feel like a scene from Spartacus I am Domer no I am Domer. Come on Mark think about the things your saying starting to sound very silly.--BigDunc 18:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was just joking in this section. But if you're adding this comment because you think that this is a POV battle between me and the Irish, and you need to defend Domer48 against some perceived threat, I would request that you think again. I am very pro-Irish, but I am also very anti-POV and anti-bad-editor. Domer48 does not contribute well to Wikipedia. Many other pro-Irish-nationalist viewpoint editors do and I would have interesting debates with them about particular facts without the sort of flak and nonsense that emanates from Domer. So it isn't paranoia, it's acting in defense of the NPOV cyclopedia. MarkThomas 18:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name change again

The last name change was somewhat rushed. Should the name be
Great Irish Famine
or
Great Famine (1845-1849)
It is normally known as the Great Famine, and Great Irish Famine is somewhat of a neologism. Please comment. GH 21:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With hindsight, I'd say the latter. It would be consistent with the other article, Great Irish Famine (1740-1741). If a move is proposed, complete with a proper debate and notice via the proposed move template, I'd support it. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Ireland the name given is An Gorta Mór, translated "The Great Hunger." This would defiantly satisfy the criteria on Irish names in wiki policy, that is, it should be the English version. Since re-directs will bring you to the same page, I was hoping that would be the preferred option. If you look at the translation, it is less POV than any of them. As to the Great Irish Famine (1740-1741), that in Ireland is called the "Forgotten Famine." Like I said, the utility of the re-directs, should be employed. --Domer48 23:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Irish, the name given is An Gorta Mór. In English, in Ireland, its 'The Famine' or 'The Great Famine'. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and noone calls it the Great Hunger in English. No problem with redirects from 'An Gorta Mór' or 'The Great Hunger' to this article, though, wherever it ends up. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gorta means famine, not just hunger, I've always found its translation as "hunger" grating in the context - it sounds so twee and leprechaunish. For "Great Irish Famine" being a neologism, see contemporary uses of the description, such as Trevelyan (of Fields of Athenry fame) or Whyte, both from 1848. I would leave it as it is, without any need for dates. Adding them would really be quite pointless as it really is the Great Irish Famine, earlier contenders for the description really pale in significance. 99 times out of 100, a reader entering the phrase in the search bar would be looking this article not anything else. --sony-youthpléigh 23:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BastunBaStun not BaTsun, I have pointed out that in Ireland, in English, it is known by the name The Great Hunger, or simply, The Great Famine. Are you intimating that no one calls it the Great Hunger in England, as opposed to English. --Domer48 12:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Sony-youth, Great Irish Famine has been used before, but not in the general. The name almost supposes that there was a Great English Famine, a Great Welsh Famine etc etc for all countries. Maybe after a couple of days, draw up a list of options that can be voted on. GH 18:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such as the Great Ukrainian Famine, Great Indian Famine, Great Chinese Famine, Great Highland Famine, Great Bengal Famine, Great North Korean Famine, Great Finnish Famine, Great Ethiopian Famine, etc. etc. ... ? Regarding the name not being used in general, please see the many scholarly articles and books. As I wrote before, however, the original article title (Irish Potato Famine) would appear to be the most widely used (see books and scholarly articles). But be warned that that name was exposed before as some kind of 'British imperialist plot by people who knew nothing about Irish history etc. etc.', hence the move, and as a neologism as well (on that count see it being used as far back as 1870, here). --sony-youthpléigh 19:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine Sony, but not part of a singular contemporaneous wide-scale famine. I don't see conspiracy theories, or plots here. Don't generally believe in them. GH 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "singular contemporaneous wide-scale famine" is known as the European Potato Famine (see books, scholarly articles, web), which includes the less-well-known Belgian Potato Famine, Dutch Potoato Famine, English Potato Famine, French Potato Famine, German Potato Famine, Polish Potato Famine and Scottish Potato Famine. --sony-youthpléigh 20:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Potato Famine, Belgian Potato Famine, Dutch Potoato Famine, English Potato Famine, French Potato Famine, German Potato Famine, Polish Potato Famine and Scottish Potato Famine. Sony-youth, maybe some articles have to be created, none of your titles linked. GH 21:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The European Potato Famine maybe, the other's can be treated under that. Of all, only the Irish famine resulted in a decrease in population. See here for a comparative analysis of the crisis: "Relative to Ireland, the death toll of the famine years 1845-1847 in the rest of Europe was small, some 100,000’s at the most." --sony-youthpléigh 21:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps (and it probably doesn't, since this is anecdotal) I've only ever really heard of it referred to as the Irish Potato Famine or the Great Irish Potato Famine. I'm not sure how the 'British imperialist plot by people who knew nothing about Irish history etc. etc.' that Sony-youth referred to is derived from the inclusion of the word "potato". Waggers 12:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I learned in school it was always called the Great Potato Famine or else the Irish potato famine and as Waggers says it is only anecdotal and have no ref. for it being called either so that is my two cents so to say.--BigDunc 12:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. You'll have to see the first proposal for a move from that title and try to figure that one out for yourself. :) --sony-youthpléigh 12:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Great Irish Famine" a case of academic terminology being used in Wikipedia? There's often competition in Wikipedia between the common name for something and the "scientific" term for it. I've not heard the phrase outside academic texts. MarkThomas 12:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the usual unscientific Google survey....
Exact phrase: Irish Potato Famine ... 159,000 hits [126]
Exact phrase: Great Irish Famine ... 56,000 hits [127]
Exact phrase: Potato Famine ... 364,000 hits [128] MarkThomas 13:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And "Great famine" = 285,000 [129]. Forget Google. You can prove anything with Google, that's if you really want to. GH 10:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Ireland the name given is An Gorta Mór, translated "The Great Hunger," now I know I'm not the only one who knows this [130]. An Gorta Mór, is also the official name given in Ireland. Irish is a descriptive language, to illustrate this I would use the following, “Níl aon tinteán mar do titeán féin. The English equivalent being “There is no place like home.” Yet if we translate the Irish version, directly it becomes “There is no fire like your home fire.” The title also I consider to be more neutral “The Great Hunger.” After all, how can you have a famine in a country with an abundance of food? Like I have said before, the Article can be called The Great Hunger, and the re-directs, regardless of your search, will bring you to the article you want. --Domer48 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peel

"During the 1846–49 Irish Famine, Tory government head Sir Robert Peel bought some foreign maize for delivery to Ireland, and repealed the Corn Laws, which prohibited imports of cheaper foreign grain to Ireland. The Irish called the maize imported by the government 'Peel's brimstone' — partly because of maize's yellow colour, partly that it had to be ground twice, partly that maize does not have--as potatoes do have--Vitamin C. Repeal of the Corn Laws during 1846 to 1849, came too late to help the starving Irish, and was politically unpopular, ending Sir Robert's ministry."

This isn't quite correct. First of all, the formal name of Peel's party after the Reform Bill was Conservative, not Tory. Second, the Corn Laws didn't prohibit the importation of cheaper foreign grain to Ireland, they simply maintained an artifically high price of domestic grain, like most tariffs. The sentence as worded implies a specifically anti-Irish intent of the law. Third, repeal had the support of the Whigs, the Liberals, the Radicals, the Irish, and about one-third of the Conservative Party. Peel carried repeal against the wishes of his own followers, yes, but the measure was broadly popular. The Crown also supported the measure, in a rare show of partisanship. In so doing Peel broke the party in half, with the protectionists following Lord George Bentinck and Benjamin Disraeli. The protectionists were mostly country gentlemen and did not command wide support either in the House of Commons or outside of it, and that faction did not command a majority until 1874 (at which point it looked a good deal different). While the split occurred over the Corn Laws; Peel's government actually fell over the second reading of separate Coercion Bill on June 25, 1846 (the same day the Corn Laws passed the Lords). I'd suggest this wording:

"In 1845 Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel took steps to alleviate the growing famine in Ireland: he purchased American maize, which was then re-sold for a penny a pound, and in 1846 moved to repeal the Corn Laws, tariffs on grain which kept the price of bread artificially high. The Irish called the maize imported by the government 'Peel's brimstone' — partly because of maize's yellow colour, partly that it had to be ground twice, partly that maize does not have--as potatoes do have--Vitamin C. Repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 did little to help the starving Irish; the measure split the Conservative Party, leading to the fall of Peel's ministry."<ref>Blake, 221-241.</ref>

The reference in question is Robert Blake's biography of Benjamin Disraeli. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the concept of Vitamin wasn't even invented until 1912, I seriously doubt that the Irish of 1846 had any worries about the lack of Vitamin C in their diet. TharkunColl 21:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the repeal of the Corn Laws, resulting in Irish farmers getting less for their crops, which payed their rents (not actually reciving money), with the result that the Landlords did not get their rent. This then increased the number of evictions. --Domer48 08:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Ireland Unfree, edited by Martin Mulligan, Chapter 1, by Sean Flood, Pathfinder Press, Sydney, 1981, ISBN 0 909196 13 3
  2. ^ Ireland Unfree, edited by Martin Mulligan, Chapter 2, Graham Milner, Pathfinder Press, Sydney, 1981, ISBN 0 909196 13 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Famine_(Ireland)&oldid=150368756"