Talk:Matthew McConaughey

Irish or Scots-Irish ancestry

Unfortunately, the person who insists that Matthew McConaughey is Irish and not "Scotch-Irish" doesn't understand the subject of Irish surnames, British settlement in Ireland (especially the "planting" of Ulster), and emigration patterns to the American South. The province of Ulster was heavily settled by Scottish and English settlers who displaced the native Irish. These settlers brought with them their surnames, one of which was McConaughey. The McConaugheys are originally found in Scotland and are a branch of the Robertsons, descending from "Fat Duncan" Robertson, who lived at the time of Robert the Bruce. McConaughey is derived from the Gaelic MacDhonnchaidh, meaning "son of Duncan". Some McConaugheys settled in Ulster and established the name there, and some of these McConaugheys later settled in America, as part of the influx of settlers known as the "Scotch-Irish". Scotch-Irish settlers differed from native Irish settlers in that the former were usually Protestant and often settled in rural (especially southern) locales, while the latter were mainly Roman Catholic and tended to settle in larger cities of the north (e.g. Boston & New York). Matthew McConaughey is from a southern, Protestant family. (Indeed, Catholics were very rare in the U.S. South until rather recently.) There is no indication that Matthew McConaughey or any immediate ancestors have been Roman Catholic, as one would expect in a purely Irish family. McConaughey's mother is a McCabe, also a name that originated in Scotland, but was taken to Ireland at a very early period and became more hibernicized than McConaughey. Sources: Edward MacLysaght's "The Surnames of Ireland", and George Black's "The Surnames of Scotland".

He's not Irish, or Scotch-Irish, he is AMERICAN. Was he born in Ireland? THEN HE IS NOT IRISH!! It is highly offensive, especially to the Irish, to state you are of a certain nationality when you, nor any family, were born in another country. An ancestor from 300 years ago does NOT count! Americans need to realise this and quit making such ludricous claims.Paul75 12:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The proper term is "Irish-American," and that only for those whose Irish-born ancestors are no more than three or four generations back. An exception would be someone who still notably identifies with the country of his ancestors even after more than four (or so) generations of American nationality. The children of Caroline Kennedy or Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. would probably not be considered Irish-American unless they expressed a felt identification with their Irish great-grandparents' culture. 66.108.4.183 20:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I changed it from "Scotch-Irish" to "Irish" because the source cited says Irish, not Scotch-Irish. I agree with the first poster that he almost certainly is of Scotch-Irish descent (i.e. his name, being Protestant, etc.) but we would need a source that says so specifically on Matthew McCounaghey, not on his surname. I also removed the Roman Catholic category, because he was raised a Protestant and as far as I know never converted to Catholicism, and the Irish-American category, because the source cited only says that he has some Irish ancestry, not that he is Irish-American (and as you've said above, it's not the exact same thing) Mad Jack 08:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

However, "Scotch-Irish" as a term has been around for many years in the United States and describes particular waves of ethnic migration, probably from the early 1800's on. The response above decrying the ethnocentrism of the term is in itself ethnocentric since apparently it would deny a term that has been in existence for over a century. I agree it is inaccurate as a modern term, however. Perhaps a "Scotch-Irish" article could be worked on from a historical perspective. 69.109.163.218 08:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, what I was saying was really that the source cited said that McConaughey has "Irish" ancestry without specifying "Scotch-Irish", so we can't put Scotch-Irish unless we have a source.... Mad Jack 09:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Half the time I'm talking I haven't bothered to read the text I'm pontificating on. I was about to say that classically the "Scotch-Irish' settled the Apalachians and similar places and were "hill" or "backwoods" types, were ethnically identifiable and separate for a while. They're probably a big part of the reason our fighting forces were so effective in so many wars. Don't know if they ever spoke Celtic over here in the US. Their legacy is still with us. [edit:] Of course, I'm speaking from a western US perspective where alot of people have come to from the South. A website claims the Scotch-Irish went to Pennsylvania in large numbers. Not unlike the spirit world, they're all around us. ;-)

Phthalobrew 09:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to chime in here, even if it is two years after this last post. The Scotch-Irish didn't speak "Celtic", and culturally they were/are not Celtic at all. Certainly there are elements of Celtic DNA floating around in the Scotch-Irish, but the ancestors of the Scotch-Irish were English speaking folks of arguably Anglo-Saxon culture, mainly from the borderlands between England and Scotland. After leaving Scotland/England, these folks settled in northern Ireland for a little over a century before many headed to America. In the 1700s they populated Appalachia from Pennsylvania down to Georgia and Alabama. Many headed west from there in the 1800s, and settled in Arkansas and Texas. I wouldn't doubt that Matthew McConaughey's people were among them. Eastcote (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because you're North of England and on the Scottish border, does not make you Anglo Saxon. Saxon settlement in England is largely a Southern phenomena. Many English are Celts, the majority of them being in the North. All Scots are Irish. The Irish moved there, hence the term 'Scot' being Roman for 'Irish'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.241.182 (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace

Matthew was not born in Uvalde, TX. He says he was, but he wasn't. He moved there at a fairly young age, and didn't even live there that long.

Fair use rationale for Image:Matthew3355.jpg

Image:Matthew3355.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

People magazine mention -- why so prominent?

I added a URL reference for the “Sexiest Man Alive” mention, and that brings up some questions.

I question the appropriateness of (a) including the mini-table mentioning People's Sexiest Man Alive and (b) listing the Preceded by and Succeded by columns.

First: It's very unlikely that somebody reading about Matthew McConaughey has any more interest in Jude Law or George Clooney compared to any two random well-known movie personalities. So the pointers to those two simply waste space and distract from the content of the Article.

Second: Why a separate mini-table at all? The Article has plenty of other interesting things mentioned only once in the text. Why should this particular item be included twice, first in the main text, and then again as a table?

Rahul (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference 15

It says that he is an avid WWE Monday Night Raw fan but the renference to it is a website with his bio copied WORD FOR WORD from this same Wikipedia page. So how could that be used as a reference? Can anyone clear this up I have never done an edit for Wikipedia and don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.113.24 (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, good point. Looking at the whois record, http://www.mcconaughey.org doesn't appear to be an official website (I doubt Matthew McConaughey's representatives live in Kidderminster), so I assume that website's article is a copy of Wikipedia. In which case, it is not a reliable source. I'll delete the dodgy ref. DWaterson (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Baby's birthdate

There are two birth date for the couple's son.I don't know what day is true but it needs to be fixed.(MgTurtle (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)).

B Class

Honestly, this could not be a B class article. It's start class. It's does not have an image or a filmography. It can't even be a C class. Needs loads of work before it could be B class. SholeemGriffin (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It simply doesn't have enough content and needs to be updated, his father died recently and the issue isn't even covered. UniversalBread (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Sorry, I don't really understand proper protocol here, but I thought the people editing this page should know there seems to be some vandalism on the biography. According to the writing his mother was a nickel prostitute? And there's a section created (with no text though) entitled sexual preference. I don't know enough to fix it so I'm hoping someone else can go back and take out the rude parts. 71.221.205.151 09:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There is waaaaay too much vandalism on this page. I think this page should be applied to have an edit block on non-established users, but I don't know how to do that so I need your help. Djbj16 (talk) 12:17 ET, 5 August 2008

This article is a bit of a vandalism magnet, but at the moment it seems to get reverted fairly quickly so I'm not convinced the page needs protecting at the moment. Maybe if it gets much worse. DWaterson (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked for it to be semi-protected, maybe a week ago, but it was rejected because the vandalism wasn't heavy enough. Personally, I think if the edit history for the last several days is nothing but unestablished users adding vandalism and established users reverting it, it's not going to stifle the Wikipedia mission to prevent unestablished users from editing the page, at least for awhile. ("Oh my God, what if there are huge new developments in regard to Matthew McConaughey and the only people who have referenced sources to add are people who have never edited Wikipedia before?!?!?") Yeah, if someone vandalizes the page, it'll be reverted, but it's annoying to do nothing but baby-sit the page. That's why I unwatched the Amazing disambiguation page months ago, because I was tired of reverting every time some twelve-year-old added their girlfriend's name to the page and I left it to someone else to deal with.

Still, the powers that be don't seem to agree with me. Maybe if this were an article that nobody paid attention to, so vandalism didn't get reverted, it could receive protection. Except nobody would bother to ask for protection, because the people who bother to do that are the people who will keep fixing the page while it's unprotected. What a great system. Propaniac (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We Are Marshall (2007)

I corrected it to 2006 Kvsh5 (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

End of "Career" section

"...and can most recently be seen in the football drama We Are Marshall. He is supposedly in line to star as Thomas Magnum in the 2009 movie Magnum, P.I.[8] McConaughey appeared in Ben Stiller's Tropic Thunder, replacing Owen Wilson for the role."
First of all, "We Are Marshall" was not recently - it's from 2006. Second, the latest film (Magnum) should be last, and not "Tropic Thunder". What do you think? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He lived for a year in Gorokan, New South Wales

He didn't live in Gorokan, he lived in the nearby town of Warnervale, he did, however, attend Gorokan High School while living in Warnervale. (Gorokan is on the Eastern side of the Pacific Highway, Warnervale is on the Western side). The citation for this even says he lived in Warnervale, not Gorokan. Swampy 121.217.107.88 (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Good ref

[1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

shouldn't be some "people seixiest man alive" pattern at the end?

like George Colony has.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.73.174 (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

His hair

Hi,

I would like to know what name of pills to re-grew his hairs back back in 2000 that he took it for a year and half? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.45.199.107 (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Charities/ sports

He's probably one of the most active celebrities alive, shouldn't there be a mention of his lifestyle? Paul McCartney has almost a whole essay on football, but I never remember him as an athlete. Just saying. He also runs marathons for charity. Wikiguy09 (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal Hygiene

Why has any mention of his persona hygiene been removed? It's well know that he refuses to wear deodorant, and people complain. That was once listed on here with references, but has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.58.82.136 (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Big UPS

to this man for refusing to wear deodorant, and bringing humanity the awesome film Surfer, Dude.

Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.60.226 (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)