Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 4

Don't get me wrong. I know that you genuinely take the genocide theory. I respect that. But as a historian, before making such a serious charge, there has to be evidence. 150 years have seen plenty of theories, claims, conspiracies, but nothing remotely indicating INTENT TO DESTROY, which are the three key words that must be fulfilled to justify a claim of genocide. If the intent was not there, then you can call it a hell of a lot of things, but not genocide. JTD 05:08 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC) _____

Are you trying to tar someone with a label? By power of what faculty do you 'know' that I genuinely take the genocide theory. (sic)( Ed. presumably '...seriously,'). Whatever on Earth that was ment to mean.

These are exerpts fom my posts:


 * I don't think the topic of genocide need nessessarily be broached in the   :article. Just the facts. I think that a npov article might be able to be written :without mentioning it at all. But I could be absolutely wrong about that.

and again:


 * I think this might might help us figure out if the shoe fits. And again let me :state my belief that it may be possible to write this article with out :mentioning the word genocide.

I then quote extensively from genocide. An article with plenty of cavets on its own. So that we all could be prepared to work on the article. I have been working hard to grasp what neutral point of view might write.

Unless I know what definition of genocide is used, why should i care what the numbers are. Get us the numbers and the definitions and we will have something to look at.

And again


 * Let me make it perfectly clear that we do not need to use the word :geocide only with a strictly International Law definition. We are not a court :of International Law.

You then go ahead write (and SHout) 'but nothing remotely indicating INTENT TO DESTROY, which are the three key words that must be fulfilled to justify a claim of genocide. "

Why on Earth are you selectively quoting three words when the text is only one button away  for every reader?Even if nobodyelse  was editing,  wouldn't you half  expect me to do the background reading that I went to the trouble of  editing  and  placing on the talk page.

In Article  2 of  the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide   genocide is defined as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:"
 * (a) Killing members of the group;
 * (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
 * (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
 * (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
 * (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Its meaning is very different from what your sentence would give the unprepared reader. We can apply this criteria to the famine article and see if the shoe fits. If anyone can proivide details on what definitions of genocide are used by various historians and also hard data. links any comments would be greatly appreciated. Two16 08:03 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * "Don't get me wrong. I know that you genuinely take the genocide theory. I respect that. But as a historian, before making such a serious charge, there has to be evidence."

The above quote is by JTD, the below is by Ronald Regan, The first artist to become president, though his science was somwhat lacking...


 * "I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." -- Ronald Reagan, 1980. (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)

If you dont see the point Im making, think first before reverting to retorting reactionarily, or to revisit revisionism. -Sv

If you look at the above article you've just quoted, it says it in explicit detail. The three key words in the definition (and you've quoted it twice in black and white without unstanding it) are 'intent to destroy'. As it says, "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy. That is the definitionary term in the opening clause, the central requirement through which the subsections must be analysed. If 'intent to destroy' applies in any one of the following, or all of the following, or a bit of one of the following, it is genocide. If 'intent' was not there, then it is irrelevant how many subclauses describe what happened, it is not genocide. Any lawyer will tell you what that article means, how it works and what is the central definitionary term. To use a relevant parallel, if you deliberately kill someone with the intent to kill them, that is murder. If you kill someone without the intent (ie, by accident, etc) that is manslaughter. Article 2 explicitly follows that rule. Intent, resulting in one of the following = genocide. Lack of that intent, even if they following subclauses describe the results is not genocide. The Article could not be more clearcut. It is defined as intent leading to one or all of the following.

Yes, Wiki doesn't have to apply legal standards, but if you are going to take one of the biggest events in Irish history, the Famine, and use to to make the most serious charge you can ever make, genocide, against a state and its leaders, you better have a damn good standard of proof. A couple of dodgy websites and politically motivated propaganda (which is the standard of proof a lot of people outside Ireland seem to apply) isn't good enough; not good enough for Ireland, for history, for the memory of those who died and certainly not good enough for Wiki's reputation as a good source of information. The above Article 2 is a perfect definition to apply, and is used by historians as their definition. And the overwhelming opinion of historians, archivists, researchers, etc is there was not the intent. Therefore, under Article 2, which is the logical standard to apply on such a serious issue, no genocide. Something different.

The only reason why I put it the genocide mention at all (and I never intended originally to put it in) is because I was asked to, by people who insist that genocide did take place. It doesn't matter how much historical research says to the contrary, what all the archives and primary documents say, they insist that genocide DID take place, and got highly abusive to me when in an earlier draft it wasn't there. (One threatened to keep reverting the article, dumping all changes, until it was mentioned.) I'd be quite happy to dump the genocide bit, but you'd then get some people bewailing its absence and accusing you and me in of being 'british apologists', 'covering up' for them. I thought it safer, rather than have a reverting war with some people (though I've been told some people on Wiki would ban certain individuals from Wiki if they kept trying to wreck the page) to put it in there and explain why the vast majority of historians dismiss the claim. (And believe me, I was toning down what the vast majority historians do say about the genocide theory and its proponents. Irish historians frequently compare 'genocidists' with 'holocaust deniers', ie, people who use history to push an agenda, not to establish genuine facts. Others compare them to the 'flat-earthers' and a lot worse.) That isn't to under-estimate the scale of the disaster that hit Ireland, only to point out that the necessary motivation that would be required to meet the basic standard of proof on genocide, namely intent, was not there. Incompetence, stupidity, ignorance, fundamental flaws in the economy and in the political system governing Ireland were there and cost the lives of vast numbers. JTD 11:14 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC) --

Sv please do not revert the text. I will be retreiving portions of post from the archieve because of issues never fully addressed.

My objection was to this paragraph:

Critics have observed how during this time, Irish and Anglo-Irish landowners exported corn (and other crops) which could have saved the lives of many Irish people. However such arguments mis-understand the nature of the famine economy, where many estates were only kept afloat and so were able to avoid mass evictions, provide local famine relief or were able to reduce rents, through the grain exports income. Economic historians have concluded that not to continue the export could have plunged the entire Irish economy into economic meltdown; without the income, estates would have gone bust, leading to mass evictions, the laying off of estate staff, the resultant closure of local shops, businesses and industry all of which were reliant on income from the estates, and the spreading of the economic hardship and devastation throughout all of Ireland, including those parts to that point not heavily hit by the early stages of the famine, notably in east and north of the island. It was the classic 'no win' situation faced by many economies hit by famine.

Am I misunderstanding the famine economy if I don't particularly think that an island with a food surplus should be exporting food in a time of famine? I don't think that if the estates went bust and exclusive fishing rights returned to the locals that people would have starved. The worst sentence  is:
 * Economic historians have concluded that not to continue the export could
 * have plunged the entire Irish economy into economic meltdown;

Which implies that someone had a choice to continue or not continue. That is sloppy work. If that is not the cases this sentence must be rewritten. The worst phrase is 'famine economy'. It sounds repugnant. It sure sounds like it could be twisted around by all those sort of fanatics you claim are lurking on the internet. Why not be helpful: respond to my request for links. Doing that would take as much time  as one of those 'overwhelming majority' sentences would take to write.

Raving about Americans who support   bombers, murderers, and alot worse is not helpful here: Take it to the meta-pedia. Stop the displaced ad hominin attacks. They don't really help dispell the darkness  that writing a NPOV article might do that.

I have raised objections to this one paragraph on the talk page. The response on this page has been dismissive and the detrimental in the article.
 * We should probably tread lightly where geocide is concerned and remove the ironic(?) quotation in the subheading 'removed'
 * those italicised someread as dirision. npov violation 'italics removed'
 * I think that every exclaimation mark in an enclclopedia article should have to work hard to defend itself. still in article

The tone in parts of the article needs work: most obviously the subsection currently entitled. 'The Genocide Claim'. That section could use a more sensitive title and table a table or two. Facts :Figures, that sort of thing. The sort thing found in an enclyclopedia. So much of what is there really belong in a sociological text in meta.

Do you think that if you heap enough scorn on an idea that it will go away? It won't. Or, do you think that an encyclopida should present the facts when there is a persistant  meme amongst radical Irish and amongst Irish Famine refugees decended Americans.

Any truth is better than make believe.

If you are going to archieve material from a discussion, it is best to summarise the arguement. or better yet wait until discussion is over.

Please retain a link if you are going to refer to it in a later post. That you were still refering to it meant  that it was still relevant. You also remove a careful culling of relevant paragraphs.I am reposting the ones that most need to be recognised

Also retreived from the archive from Genocide

Common usage also sometimes equates genocide with state-sponsored mass murder, but genocide as defined above does not imply mass murder (or any murder) nor is every instance of mass-murder necessarily genocide. Neither is the involvement of a government required.

The word genocide is also sometimes used in a much broader sense, as in "slavery was genocide", but this usage is clearly incorrect from a legal standpoint.

Acts of genocide are generally difficult to establish, since intent of destruction has to be proved. Cultural genocide refers to the deliberate destruction of a culture, without necessarily fulfilling the criteria of genocide. This term has been criticized as trying to benefit from the emotionally charged nature of "genocide".

Don't you think we need to look at the defintions and facts. I'd rather have one good link than 15,000 senteces like "overwhelming majority of academics, researchers, writers, people working with the primary documents" Lets deal with it bit by bit. Starting with that first paragraph I objected to. 216.129.198.41

If you mean the paragraph on the famine economy, it is the consensus view of respected historians. To give a personal example, a local landlord in my area provided soup kitchens, medical care and other help for his starving tenants, as well as reducing rents by 40%. The only way he could do that was through income from corn exports. Without that income, his estate would have gone bankrupt and 187 tenants would have been evicted. If the estate had gone broke, many of the local shops in two local towns, from whom the estate bought most of its supplies, would also have gone under. A local study published recently reckoned that, taking into account tenants, families, farm workers and labourers, shop shop staff, millers, confectioners and others, up to 2300 jobs would have gone, with the overwhelming majority left destitute. Without the impact of his rates, the local Poor Law Union would have had to cut back on its support for the starving, increasing deaths.

The conclusion of that report (and other similar ones carried out) is that by stopping exports, the results on that community would have been far more severe than in maintaining them, with the resulting destitution that would have occured trebling the local death rate. Furthermore, keeping the corn at home in the local area would had little benefit because there was only one local mill that could have processed it, but the amount of corn involved was way beyond its capacity. The estate did go broke in 1851; it was bought by property speculators who promptly evicted all the tenants and cut back severely on its dealings with the local towns, causing massive job losses. In 1851, however, no one starved as there was food available by then. Had those evictions and urban job losses occured in 1847 or 1848, many of those who lost their homes and jobs in 1851 would have lost their lives. The idea that you simply have kept the grain at home and hey presto the problems would have been solved and everyone would have food is ludicrous, ill-informed nonsense that shows no understanding of the complicated nature of the Irish rural economy in the late 1840s. Simplistic theories are simply that. Simplistic. The problem in Ireland was much more complicated than some people seem to grasp. It involved a delicate balancing act that tried unsuccessfully to feed the starving without causing an economic meltdown that would have increased the number of destitute people and the numbers of people dying. You may indeed object to the paragraph, but historians who have read it don't and have told me it conveys the complexity, as indeed does the article in the view of professional historians who are experts in studying the famine era, and who read it. JTD 22:49 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC) --

I made very specific comments about the language used in one paragraph. Would you please address my comments here. If you think that those sentences are fine as they are written:including tone and diction, please state that unequivically here. Or make comments here and we can talk about it. I do not want you to make another general statement about genocide and general concensus; I want your comments about a very small subset of this article. How many times do can you refuse my first request, before the history of this page shows you to be a uncooperative crank.?

Two16 23:29 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)~

I have no problem with the language. No-one else but you and one other person has made a complaint. One person wrote 'bravo' about the page, another wrote 'excellent page. I have a series of emails congratulating me on the page. So as of now, you are a small minority. If you have a problem with history hat is simply your problem, not mine. Wiki is built on a consensus, and that consensus disagrees with you. I've spent more than enough time dealing with your 'complaints'. And if all you can contribute apart from ignorance of historic facts is personal abuse, then this conversation is at an end. JTD 23:57 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)