Talk:Great Famine of 1315–1317

Source for catastrophic dip phrase
Hmmm... so where does ''However there was one catastrophic dip in the weather during the Medieval Warm Period that coincided with the onset of the Great Famine. Between 1310 and 1330 northern Europe saw some of the worst and most substained periods of bad weather in the entire Middle Ages, characterized by severe winters and rainy and cold summers.'' come from? William M. Connolley 20:26:34, 2005-09-05 (UTC).


 * William C Jordan (1996), The Great Famine: Northern Europe in the Early Fourteenth Century, pp16-17
 * He cites with numerous footnotes (if you need it) work done by Pierre Alexandre "..the most thourough of modern researchers.." specifically Le Climat en Europe au moyen age (1987). His information is "..culled from hundreds of narrative sources..", focuses only on Northern Europe, and is independently verified by dendrochronology (of which I could go deeper into the sources if needed). --Stbalbach 20:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

"However there was one catastrophic dip in the weather during the Medieval Warm Period..." I do not understand the meaning of this part of the sentence. The Medieval Warm Period is usually (wikipedia elsewhere) considered to end 1250, so this Great Famine would not be included into the Warm Period? Jan Kunnas (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Cannibalism
''The evidence for cannibalism during the Great Famine is ambiguous and controversial for historians. There are reports from Livonia and Estonia, as well as Ireland and most other parts of Europe. Many historians discount it as being impossible, that in a time when the Renaissance was just starting, while Dante was creating one of the greatest works of literature in history, at the same time people in Europe were eating one another. However, perhaps it says more about modern values, which attribute cannibalism to "the other", than about the realities of people doing whatever it took to survive.''

Which historians? When? Is this still disputed today? And the Renaissance did not "start" until a century later. Bastie 20:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Petrarch and Dante were alive during the GF and are considered some of the founding fathers of the renaissance, indeed it was Petrarch who first called the previous period the Dark Age. It all depends in what context and geography your speaking. In this quote its relevant -- Italy was spared the Great Famine (perhaps one reason it moved ahead faster than the north.. but purely speculatory) --Stbalbach 04:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Irish famine
Also, the picture is of the Irish famine of six centuries later. Could we not find a more appropriate image? Bastie 20:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Information added on the Little Ice Age. With links. Note to Bastie above: the Renaissance is considered by many scholars to have started as early as the 1300s and some the 1200s. It was certainly in full swing by the 3rd quarter of the 14th century 70.26.11.45 04:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The GF saw bad weather, but there were other periods of bad weather throughout the middle ages -- it was more than just bad weather that caused the calamity. To attribute it to climate is an answer in search of a solution, its not the simple. --Stbalbach 04:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

removed tags
No reason given for the contradict tag. It is just a controversial topic, doesnt mean its contradictory. Removed the "citation needed" -- it is the first book on the subject. Dont know what else to say. Read the book if you dont believe it, its self-citational and has an extensive bibliography. --Stbalbach 02:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

removed speculation
I've removed this
 * Many historians discount it as being impossible that, in a time when the Renaissance was just starting and Dante was creating one of the greatest works of literature in history, people in Europe were eating one another. However, perhaps it says more about modern values, which attribute cannibalism to "the other," than about the realities of one's ancestors doing whatever it took to survive.

I get the idea, maybe it can go in the article but not in this form, you can't say that it's a disputed view and then present your own view as "reality". I tried rephrasing but I didn't find a satisfying result. Try something like "Some historians this, while others that" And find a source, when the topic is controversial. Piet 14:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, there's a source now, but apparently it is a quote, and should be presented as such. I might do it but not right now. Note also that it is probably not the predominant view. Piet 17:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a direct quote, why would you quote something you've never read before? I'm also not sure why your taking this to such an extreme level of citation. Your asking for hyper-accurate citations, then you just casually say "it is probably not the predominant view" with no support. --Stbalbach 00:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In the same paragraph you call the evidence of cannibalism ambiguous and controversial, and then you talk about the reality of it. If it is not a quote then you are introducing your own a point of view. Also read No original research. Moreover the tone is inappropriate. If it is not a quote it has to be rewritten. I will not make any further changes to the article but I can assure you that in the future someone else will take it out or rephrase it. Until someone does it will annoy many readers. Please also read Avoid weasel words. No offense intended, but it is not acceptable. Piet 07:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't say that correctly. You're not introducing your own point of view. But you're presenting the view of Teofilo Ruiz as reality. You have to make clear that it is just one point of view. Piet 07:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a direct quote, where you put quotation marks, but it is a paraphrase of what he said, and is (now) cited directly in line. The issue is somewhat ambiguous and people have different opinions about it; the text does currently favor the view that cannibalism did happen and frankly, those who study this event seriously agree; it's some historians who characterize the period as one of "light" and "rebirth" - a renaissance - that have trouble with integrating this into their narratives. Essentially this is a historiography and periodization issue, and rather than getting involved with a lot of muddy details of that nature which distracts from the main point, it mentions there is some debate, but presents the current prevailing view.

--Stbalbach 15:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's going to be stated that there are reports of cannibalism then the sources should be listed and should be clear. Otherwise it would be better to not to state that it has been reported at all. Ronank 02:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Any source listed in References section. -- Stbalbach 03:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Irish Famine Picture
Could someone remove that picture. That has nothing to do with the Great Famine. That would be like using a picture of Normandy to describe a civil war in Africa.

-Tony

Delisted GA
This article did not go through the current GAN nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 10:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dante's work
OK, so please tell me how "while Dante was creating one of the greatest works of literature in history" is not a) a POV, b) Euro-centric, c) too dramatic to be encyclopaedic. Ambarish 05:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, no one would argue that Dante's Divine Comedy is not one of the greatest works in World Literature, must less European or Western literature - your taking POV too far, this is common knowledge and widely accepted. But that is not even the point of the sentence, paragraph or article, you're taking it out its context - it is making a stylistic point to emphasis the dichotomy between cannibalism and the writing of the Divine Comedy to show the reader how, on the one hand, what we think of as primitive and backward could be happening at the same time as one of the greatest works in world literature. By changing the sentence to dilute the importance of the Divine Comedy your not only going against accepted common knowledge, your altering the meaning of the main point of the sentence and paragraph. -- Stbalbach 13:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So cite some references in support of "common knowledge and widely accepted ", and stop using weasel words. Secondly, while the dichotomy you mention might add a touch of poetry and style to the article, I maintain that it's dramatic and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedic article. Ambarish 06:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, anyone who knows anything about Literature or European history would not contest that The Divine Comedy is widely considered to be among the greatest works of literature. Your request for sources and cites is a fair one, but it's pretty stupid to add a cite to the article on that point unless there is some reason to think otherwise. Here is [a start. Is there reason to believe the Divine Comedy is not among the greatest works in world literature? The historiography is long and stellar - this is not just casual opinions but the views of academic scholars who study these things as a profession, which are the views we are supposed to be reflecting. Sure, you can take it out of context as a single sentence and say Bob Smith at the Piggly Wiggly down the street doesn't agree, but who cares? -- [[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 14:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I was not in favour of adding the citation to the article, merely of verifying that it was true, so thanks for the reference. That said, I think you're misunderstanding NPOV. Wikipedia doesn't have to care equally about scholars and Bob down the street, but Wikipedia should *not* take a stance either way. Instead, Wikipedia should cite respected (or otherwise) sources and be done with it. In any case, that's not even my argument. When I read that paragraph, I had no idea which of Dante's works it was talking about (notice the article does not mention it). I'd heard of Dante but not of The Divine Comedy, so sue me. While I'm reading an article on the Great Famine I don't care for a lecture on European pre-Renaissance literature. Ambarish 06:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * HOW can an article about EUROPEAN history NOT be centered around Europe? Your total lack of logic amases me Ambarish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Makidonu (talk • contribs).


 * I see how "Dante was creating one of the greatest works of literature in history" is used here to illustrate contrast but the problem is that the claim "Dante was creating the greatest work of literature in history" is impossible to assert, so the qualifier "ONE of the greatest" is added to make it reasonable. But if historians actually make the claim as written in the article, ("many historians discount...") then it is verifiable and substantive.  Not exactly the most professionally written, but admittedly colorful.  Good article!  Inflation rose higher in England during this time than any other time recorded in history (http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/inflation/#) 67.185.99.246 09:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes the inflation is interesting. Having no real experience with inflation, most at the time thought it was a good thing, unlike today, where it is seen as a terrible thing to be avoided at all cost. -- Stbalbach 15:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Old age
Using the average life expectancy to prove that "old age" in this period was considered 30 years of age is misleading, as the average life expectancy figure is simply a mathematical average that is affected by infant and childhood mortality. If someone was able to live into young adulthood or able to withstand the Black Death, through genetic immunity or other factors, they had as good a chance of living into their 60s or even later as any other human living in any other time frame (except of course the 20th century for developed Western nations which DID increase life expectancy significantly). This claim that people only "lived to the age of 30" in "X" time period is widespread but wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.216.99 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 26 February 2007

Also, the sentence structure referring to the English royal family records leaves the claim of life expectancy ambiguous - Is the life expectancy for the royal family or for commoners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.60.189 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Map?
Is there a map of affected area of Europe available? The description "from Russia to Ireland and from Scandinavia to Alps" is not very descriptive. The famine did not hurt Poland or Hungary for example. So, it should be more detailed. Merewyn (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Limited to Europe or a worldwide event?
In the current revision, the last paragraph of the section "Great Famine" offers speculation that this crop failure might have been due to natural events; however, no evidence is offered for conditions elsewhere in the world where we have historical records, for example China, Japan -- or the lands of the Middle East. (For the record, there is no indication of crop failures in Ethiopia at this time, although the historical record in that country at the time is so fragmentary that this is hardly conclusive by itself.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeild ratios
Problem with accuracy of farming ratios or grain yeilds. In this article I read "By comparison, modern farming has ratios of 200:1 or more". but in the Medieval demogrophy article there is a statistic of 30:1 as being modern grain yeilds... I had a quick check arround but could not find a conclusive answer to the problem.. help appreciated.

Delete 'Consequences' section
This section is unsourced and reads like original research. I have deleted it; if someone can find a source, they can re-insert the section.Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A recent reversion
I edited this page today, changing "Stores of grain for long-term emergencies were limited to the lords and nobles." to "Stores of grain for long-term emergencies were hoarded by the many of the rich." I did so as the earlier version excluded rich merchants, clergy, black marketeers, etc, from the class of people who could buy grain, and the verb for this is indeed hoarding. The user Dia, reverted this and admonished me on my talkpage not to remove other people's stuff.

I'm quite inexperienced with this and not familiar with the culture here, does my edit not read the way I meant it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtdriver (talk • contribs) 03:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Four consequences don't make sense
There are several problems with this section. First, one expects that the headlines reflects the number of consequences. Second, it is said: "Third was the failure of the Medieval governments to deal with the crisis. Just as God seemed unable or unwilling to answer prayers, the earthly powers were equally ineffective, eroding and undermining their power and authority." Besides the fictional tone of the phrase "Just as God seemed...", it is not clear why the failure of the Medieval goverments is a consequence. It seems to be either a cause or a conciedence (in the sense of something co-ocurring), but in no case a consequence. I suggest to completly remove this from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.202.149 (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Diction of Paragraph is Strange
Article says, "At first the Irish/Scottish alliance seemed unstoppable, winning battle after battle and gaining control of most of Ireland in less than a year, seemingly on the verge of driving the Anglo-Norman settlers out of Ireland altogether." After that one expects to read something like, "But the Anglo-Normans took heart & whipped the Irish/Scottish next year." But instead of that the article seems to say that the I/S went on to victory. Thus the "seemed unstoppable" needs revision. Should it read, "The I/S began and continued an unstoppable and irresistible attack leading the total expulsion of the A-N" ??? (EnochBethany (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC))
 * It goes on to say that Edward Bruce was defeated, so I am not quite sure of your point here.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 16:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This needs re-wording
Apparently: For most people there was often not enough to eat, and life was a relatively short and brutal struggle to survive to old age.

If the struggle was "to reach old age", then "relatively short" is untrue. On the other hand if the struggle is relatively short (relative to what?) then the rest of the person's life is free of struggle, which is probably not what's intended. I'd just go ahead and remove "relatively short and" but I'm not sure whether the whole thing is POV/editorialising anyway. Tonywalton Talk 20:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

In 1315 the was a great famine of Dearth ???
What the hell is Dearth? 2601:18F:E82:A10:3568:48C0:A95A:28AC (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Causes?
The article mentioned extreme rain, but what caused the rain? Were there any volcanic events in the northern hemisphere? 78.1.161.168 (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Third paragraph of the "Background" section. -- Green  C  23:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)