Talk:Irish people

Archives

October 2005 – October 2006 October 2006 – October 2007 October 2007 – October 2008

NI and Free State

The opening sentence says: It is predominately religion, historical, and political differences that divide the two communities of (Irish nationalism and British unionism). Surely there are genetic differences, given that the Protestant community is (largely) descended from English and Scots, and the RC community is (largely) descended from Gaelic Irish? Mooretwin (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing by Free State you are referring to the country of Ireland, or are you referring to something else? I also don't know what you mean by genetics. Absolutely everyone has different genes. Are you suggesting there's a racial difference between Unionists and Nationalists?; because that is completely wrong. Sure Gerry Adams is descended from some of the planters and there aer many orange order members with names Murphy and O'Something. So yes, the only difference between the people on this island is political.78.16.237.211 (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to the section in the article called "Northern Ireland and Free State".

I may be using the wrong language, and I know everyone has different genes, but I am assuming that there are genetic similarities between individuals within population groups (e.g., to give an extreme example, presumably there are genetic similarities among Australian Aborigines). Otherwise, phrases such as "expanding the gene pool" would make no sense.

Anyway, the point is that the Protestants are largely descended from immigrants from England and Scotland and the RCs from the Gaelic Irish and, over the past four centuries, there has been minimal intermarriage between the two. The political difference of which you speak is, in large part, a consequence of this. Mooretwin (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There would have been genetic differences within Ireland long before the emergence of any political divisions. Languages tend not to be good indicators of dna and some irish mythology (such as the Fir Bolg) hints at the presence in ancient Ireland, of more than one ethnic group. Gaelic became the predominant language by the time anything was being written down (according to some historians there seems to have been something known as "Iron language" or Ivernic still spoken in the Munster region until the start of the medieval period.) 92.235.178.44 (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't the Scots largely descended from, or at least intermixed with, the Irish? Hohenloh ⁺ 13:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a generalisation. As I understand it, the Highland and Lowland Scots were quite distinct for many centuries. I think the Scots came from Ulster, and eventually gave their name to what is now Scotland, but there were Picts and other tribes already there. I also think there was considerable immigration of Angles to Lowland Scotland. Mooretwin (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes you're right there. The Irish and the Scottish have a common Gaelic ancestry.78.16.178.176 (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, that is simplistic. The Highland Scots and Gaelic Irish presumably have common ancestry, but the Lowland Scots were not Gaelic. It was largely Lowland Scots who emigrated to Ulster. Mooretwin (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats a misconception shared by many Scots. There are as many ancient genetic differences within Lowland Scotland, Ireland and elsewhere in both Ireland and Britain according to Stephen Oppenheimer, as there are between the "Lowlands" and "Highlands" (concepts which were non existant until the late Middle Ages at the earliest. There are no specific genetic divisions between the Lowland Scots and the Highland Scots, and even culturally, Lowlanders share a Gaelic past with Ulster Irish (evidence from the East Ulster dialects of Irish indicate that they were nearer to Lowland Scottish Gaelic than they would have been to Munster Irish for instance, and nearer than to Highland modern Scottish Gaelic as well). Modern divisions dont reflect ancient realities. AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Gaelic is a language, one, like English or Scots, which was not the original language of anyone in the archipelago (most of the genes on these islands were present before ANY Indo-European language existed anywhere in the world, and Gaelic or it's predecessor(s) obviously came from continental Europe after that). It is perfectly feasible that Catholics in NI are genetically closer to Protestants in NI than to Gaelic speakers in Kerry, indeed I think it might even be likely. The problem with your argument in general is that it appears to assume that there is a genetic entity of "Gaelic Irish" (a language and nationality or ethnicity combination that does not reference genes) to which Ulster Protestants do not belong, but there is no evidence that this entity exists. It is perfectly possible that Catholics in NI even before the plantations had more genetic similarity with people in the (non Gaelic speaking) areas from which the Scottish planters came than they did with some peoples elsewhere on the island of Ireland. I don't consider it even unlikely, but if you posit the existence of a genetic category of Irish whereby everyone in it is genetically closer to every other in that category than they are to anyone on the island of Great Britain then I have serious doubts that such a category exists at the genetic level, or that it ever even existed at some point in the past. I could make similar comments about European / Asian Turks and the Bosporus. If you believe that this genetic categorisation exists then I'm afraid that it is up to you to demonstrate it's existence. Without that I'm going to have to say that your genetic category does not exist. It is a presumption, and one which has a fair likelihood to be wrong 93.97.247.10 (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The operative phrase is "predominantly". Yes, nationalists and unionists correspond broadly to Gaelic and Anglic-Scots descent groups respectively, but the defining division is political (tied up chiefly in cultural and religious differences). After all, there is ethnic overlap between the two political groups - there are some unionists descended from Gaelic-Scots planters, just as across Ireland there are many "Old English" families such as the Burkes and Fitzgeralds who consider themselves Irish despite being of Anglo-Norman descent. So while there may not have been much intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants, there certainly was much intermarriage when both the Irish and Anglo-Irish were still Catholic, so race is not so much of an issue in terms of self-identity. --78.16.101.148 (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't work, because the Ulster settlers were not the same as the Anglo-Irish. Mooretwin (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it does indicate a portion of both groups (unionist/nationalist) as having a descent from a common Anglic genepool. (The first of the Old English may having been more Anglo-Norman than Anglo-Saxon, but they continued to intermarry with "New English" families born in England as well as the native Gaelic clans. If we are assuming that the lowland Scots settlers of Ulster were also descended from "Anglo-Saxon", then both groups will have some Anglic ancestry.)

But getting to the heart of the issue, if you were (for example) in a residential area in Belfast, you would work out which group claimed it not by looking for the "ethnic features" of the locals, but by looking at the murals on the sides of houses. Your point is accepted that the two groups have broadly different ethnic origins, but the defining difference is history rather than ethnicity. The messages conveyed by the murals make use of religious, historical and political references, rather than racial terminology. --194.125.126.178 (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

de Valera

Funny that the American born Eamon de Valera, born to a latin father, is included in the pictures of Irish people when so many actual Irish people are not.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Are Irish really best known for their writers? Shoddy. Dev was da biggest spud in da ooniverse. Trust me I'm his great-grandson.

DO NOT REMOVE PICTURES ON INFOBOX

Many remarks that De Valera are not Irish at all, now I should revised all those errors and perfectly replaced correct images, so to any user, do not remove those.

What are you on about? Anyone can edit a Wikipedia article if they want to...Hohenloh ⁺ 10:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

maybe, but not to erase a good one. 41.249.58.236 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.17.46 (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of Irish people in the United Kingdom

It says in the info box there are 14 million people with Irish roots, and the source is a single BBC article about a report. On that article it says "But although many hold passionately to their Irish roots, more than half are probably exaggerating or even lying, say the authors of the report." Can a more accurate figure be found than a report whos own author says its 50% incorrect? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The 2001 census has something over 91,000 people identifying as "White Irish" (rather than "White British" or "White Other") - I have an Irish great-grandmother, so I might tick a box asking whether I have any "Irish roots", but this goes nowhere near claiming any sort of Irish background, ethnicity or identity. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Flag of the Kingdom of Ireland

The red hand in the Flag of Ulster of the Uí Néill (O'Neill)

Brian Boru is considered as the national hero of Ireland.

File:Ulster Bank Daytime.jpg

Ulster Bank, a Northern Irish bank

Chucrch of St Nicholas

A number of recent edits, although in good faith, have led to the article becoming less accessible. The article has become cluttered with images that do not add to the article's context, and paragraphs have been unnecessarily split apart and in some cases lumped together en masse, making them less readable. A short list of things I have removed, reverted or fixed:

• Many of the images, which would be arguably suited to the article on Ireland, are not relevant to an article on Irish people:
  • The Flag of the President does not add to the article, especially as the coat of arms bearing the exact same image appears further up the article under the second "Irish people" infobox. It is also misplaced as the "Flag of the Kingdom of Ireland" under the Middle Ages; the Kingdom of Ireland was a Tudor invention.
  • The Flag of Ulster does not add anything. The Red Hand of Ulster does illustrate a prominent Gaelic family from Irish history, but a clearer depiction of that crest already appears further down.
  • The image of Brian Boru is misplaced, inaccurate and actually replaced a more suitable image. First of all, Boru was early medieval; the image has been added to the "Late Medieval / Tudor" section. Second, the picture itself is a romanticised Victorian portrait of Boru - hardly an accurate representation - which had previously been discussed and removed from this article. Thirdly, what it replaced was a drawing of gallowglasses by Albrecht Durer - a more accurate image of the Irish fighting classes, in the Tudor period, by a well-known contemporary artist!
  • Similar to the flags, a photograph of Ulster bank hardly depicts Irish people. (Bizarrely, it was inserted between a full stop and a footnote.) Surely there is a better picture to represent Northern Irish people.
  • Again, a photograph of a church is not directly relevant to Irish people (although from a cultural perspective, it might be relevant to mention that it was a Catholic church that is now Church of Ireland).
  • The picture of Cillian Murphy (removed, but not shown here) is a good attempt at showing an Irish celebrity/actor, but can we not get a picture that comes from a copyrighted film?

I have left the EU flag because it is free licence and I feel it adds something to the section on Europe. The Carrowmore tomb also stays because, aside from the fact that I like the picture, it is recognisably difficult to illustrate the Irish people 8000 years ago.

• Irish diaspora
  • Again, many paragraphs unnecessarily lumped together here, reducing the readability of the section. For example, It makes no sense to group Irish-Americans/Mexicans/South Americans together in a single unwieldy paragraph.
  • Why was the referenced statement that all US presidents since John F. Kennedy had some Irish descent removed? If it is disputed, it is up to the editor to provide references contradicting it. Wikipedia comes down to what the sources say, "not truth". The only reason provided was "the majoity of american presidents have [Ulster-] scottish blood", which does not seem to contradict the statement. I would also add that:
    • The Scots and Irish had close cultural and ancestral ties going back to the early Middle Ages, and
    • The children of any Scots who had settled in Ulster were born in Ireland, and and would qualify as Irish by the definitions used in this article.
      (Accordingly, their descendants would also qualify as part of the Irish diaspora.)
  • Lastly, why was the referenced section on Irish-Canadians removed entirely from this section?

• Summary: How my edits affect the recent edits, and the overall change to the article since this began.

On a side note, there have been so many anon edits and counter-edits to the People Infobox that I am genuinely confused as to the correct figures and how we are to present them. Can an established user come up with something definitive? --Grimhelm (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Exageration of population numbers?

Surely there is a bit of an exageration of the population numbers here? The numbers given in the info box add up to about 55 million, yet it says there are roughly 80 million Irish worldwide. Where did this figure come from? Isn't it a slight exageration? 84.67.5.68 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction, they add up to approximately 60 million. However, it still seems ambitious to place the total population at 20 million more. For comparison, the English population worldwide is said to be 90 million, and the figures listed in their infobox add up to 85 million, so 5 million more seems fairly appropriate guess. However, adding 20 million extra seems a little dubious. 84.67.5.68 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I added new images on infobox

I add some notable Irish people images on The infobox, any suggest ? Ecuadorian Stalker (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

How about you stop editing as you are banned, Historian19? O Fenian (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Boyle

Is Boyle Anglo_irish? We have a reference that says he is. It is good to clarify the point that he is not wholly Irish, so why is an editor continuously removing this pertinent fact? LevenBoy (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Boyle

Robert Boyle is Anglo-Irish. Of that there is no doubt. This fact can be referenced at the online Encyclopaedia Britannica. So if there is a consensus here, it's a consensus to have erroneous information. It is a downright falsehood to describe Boyle as an "Irish scientist", so please don't revert the current edit and re-introduce this error. Maybe we can get another consensus, perhaps around no mention of his nationality, but we need to be careful, because this article is about Irish people and it is no good at all labelling Boyle simply as Irish. Maybe we should remove him from the article, but I don't see what the problem is when we clarify that he is Anglo-Irish; it is certainly not POV to do so. LevenBoy (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And on your thinking Arthur Conan Doyle is not Scottish at all, because his parents were Irish. And Sean Connery is not really Scottish because he's half Irish. Same goes for Billy Connelly, and even Susan Boyle. If you revert this again I'll report you for edit warring. purple (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your own thinking is not relevant. "Boyle on Atheism" by J.J. MacIntosh (University of Toronto Press ISBN 978-0802090188) says "Notwithstanding his birthplace, Boyle was English, or perhaps Anglo-Irish, not Irish, and at the time he would have been made clearly aware of the difference". If you change it back to just "Irish" again I'll report you for edit warring, and more. O Fenian (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently neither of you understand the meaning of being Irish. Notwithstanding the the surname O'Boyle is Irish, and that he was born in Ireland, that makes him Irish as far as the article is concerned. I'm afraid you are both playing into pov editing from two diverse perspectives. purple (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So being born in Ireland makes you part of the Irish ethnic group? Hilarious. I have provided an indisputable reliable source, you have provided nothing. O Fenian (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Then put him in the English People article, by your reckoning. Being Irish is everything that has gone before, including Gaels, Planter, and Refugee. purple (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the first line of the article which says "The Irish people (Irish: Muintir na hÉireann, na hÉireannaigh, na Gaeil) are a Western European ethnic group who originate in Ireland". As Irish people as defined by this article are an ethnic group, someone cannot become part of this group simply by being born in Ireland. O Fenian (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Irish is a mix of all that has come before, whether Gael, England, Wales, Germany, where ever? I see Anglo-Scot, or Anglo-Welsh are not listed in Wikipedia, because "they" wouldn't accept the POV that that would imply. Think about it, and it's not my opinion. purple (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is not your opinion you should be able to provide sources, which you have not. I have provided an indisputable source that says he should not be described as Irish. O Fenian (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(Born + Raised + Ireland = Irish). That's not rocket science, born, and his formative years were Irish, and Ireland should claim him as their own, which he is. purple (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So someone born to English parents in Ireland is part of the Irish ethnic group? How about those sources, not got any or something? O Fenian (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say so. Boyle is claimed by the Anglosphere because of his importance to science, but fundamentally he was an Irish person who emmigrated, a bit like Terry Wogan perhaps. purple (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So if someone is born to English parents in Pakistan what ethnic group would they belong to? And still no sources? O Fenian (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is not about etnicicity, it's about people born in Ireland, whatever their circumstance. Being "Irish" is to be inclusive, and that's the true nature of Ireland since the Middle Ages. Some went against that, which we know from history. purple (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you have not read the article then, or what I said above? Will you be providing sources this Ice Age, or are you not going to bother? O Fenian (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

He was born in Ireland, that's the source. What more is needed? Anglo-Irish is a pov term, many so-called Anglo-Irish would demur to being labeled as such. It's like telling people that they are not really Irish. To me, that's playing into the hands of narrow-minded bigots, and that's not called for. Anyway, I'm loggin off for the day. purple (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not POV, just fact. You don't have a source. He's Anglo-Irish. LevenBoy (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So it would be a bit like labeling someone "Irish" when they are described by a reliable source as "Boyle was English, or perhaps Anglo-Irish, not Irish"? O Fenian (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the BBC[1], he was British. Apparently he grew up and was educated in Ireland, then spent 2 years at Eaton, and thereafter spent many years in Europe, where he was influenced by some of the great European scientists. He eventually settled in England. purple (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Em... as you may know, that is not the BBC, but an independently run microsite on the BBK's own site. That source is admissable. He was Irish. In those days, I'd say we all agree that birth country was the main basis of nationality.

Added pic

I replaced the image of Pat Cox with the image of Gerry Adams. I done so, because the infobox represents poorly people from Northern Ireland. However, I must stress that I have no political motive behind this move, in fact, I'm quite impartial. --MaxPride (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Irish people outside of Ireland

In the info box there is a huge amount of people in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, Argentina etc who have Irish ancestry, not of pure Irish ethnicity. I think we need to clarify this, otherwise we are misleading our audiences and that is wrong. Ijanderson (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, one Irish greatgrandparent wouldn't make you Irish. And if you look on the UK source it says the number 14m is highly doubtful. I suggest the nr of Irish in Britain is for those who live in Northern Ireland only. Drogo (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Daniel Day Lewis be included? 84.203.76.144 (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The unconversational comment alluding to the "Irish Mafia" on Wikipedia is unconstructive and has been removed. ~ R.T.G 15:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

MacManus's book

This book was written as a popular history over several decades ago, and many of its assertations have little or no foundation in fact. Some include the following:

1 - "One Roman historian records that the Irish people were divided into "sixteen different nations" or tribes.[20]"

2 - "Traditional histories assert that the Romans never attempted to conquer Ireland, although it may have been considered.[20]"

3 - "Irish regiments, referred to as the "Primi Scotti", are recorded in Roman service along the Rhine front.[20]"

4 - "Carausius, appointed Commander in Gaul by Emperor Diocletian, may also have been an Irishman.[22]"

5 - "A number of Irish names are recorded on Columbus' crew roster, preserved in the archives of Madrid, and it was an Irishman named Patrick Maguire who was the first to set foot on American soil in 1492."

I plan to remove these references within two weeks. If anyone objects please give your reasons here. Cheers! Fergananim

Many populations figures changed

Can someone look over that this edit to see if is OK. Thanks. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a persistent IP hopping vandal on this article. O Fenian (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Surnames

Why aren't Welsh surnames included such as Walsh, Powers, Griffin/Griffith, etc. The Welsh left a large genetic imprint when they arrived with Strongbow, mainly as mercenaries, in the 12th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The list goes on. They are sometimes called the Cambro-Normans. The FitzGerald dynasty were more or less Welsh people when they arrived in Ireland.

Less well known is that there were Irish colonists in Wales some centuries before. DinDraithou (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to state this close connection between Wales and Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. See Uí Liatháin, Déisi, and Llŷn Peninsula. The connection is principally with southern Ireland and dates from Antiquity. Alliances are also known from the Irish sagas. Lugaid mac Con supposedly gained his throne thanks to one, while one was made against Conaire Mór. In fact there are whole speculated Irish population groups which some scholars believe originated in Britain, speaking languages closely akin to the Brittonic ancestor of Welsh. DinDraithou (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And let's not forget the Breton connection, where my surname of Griffin allegedly originates.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bretons were the most prominent of the non-Norman forces in the invasion of England, but have been largely forgotten in popular history. You might enjoy this article. Of course the House of Stuart have distant origins in Brittany, although they later claimed to be entirely Scottish in origin.

Back to the Welsh in Ireland. For the moment I've added a line mentioning Joyce and Griffin/Griffith. But a lot of the article needs to be resectioned and rewritten before we can go on about what we've been talking about. DinDraithou (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your addition looks good.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Stuarts were originally FitzAlan and they were indeed Breton. Anne Boleyn's direct maternal DNA was Breton. Many of the Anglo-Norman noble families were descended in the direct female line from the Irish Aoife of Leinster which shows how much Celtic blood there is amongst the nobility of the two islands.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Genetics

Within the last week, this section has been almost completely rewritten. The previous version set out lengthy quotes, summarising research published by Stephen Oppenheimer and Brian Sykes, and expressed no dissenting position from their conclusions. The current version has removed those lengthy quotes (while retaining an apparently barely relevant reference to a view expressed in Wales), and has replaced it with a reference to (allegedly) more recent research which is highly critical of Oppenheimer and Sykes and comes to different conclusions. The editor responsible for these changes - User:DinDraithou - has sought to make similar changes on other articles - for example, see Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles#Problems with sources (possible deletion or merge candidate). It seems to me that what is needed in this article is a more balanced and neutral overview, which for the benefit of the general reader clearly summarises all sides in what is clearly a contentious and unresolved area of current debate - which, as an editor who has been (falsely) described as an "Oppenheimer supporter", it would not be appropriate for me to do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you don't know anything and need others to post what you hope exists.

I have asked you before to stop mentioning me by name. Keep following me around like this, and supporting in one way or another outdated and unscholarly conclusions as if they should be treated on an equal basis with new peer reviewed studies in a fast moving scienfitic field, and you might get in some real trouble here. As I recall you got nowhere a few days ago trying to get me blocked, and have yet to post a single informed line anywhere on the matter of European genetics. I doubt you've ever read a study or even intend to. DinDraithou (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I have put the "Genetic history of the British Isles#Ireland" thing at the top is because currently it is effectively saying "see also: ..." within the article itself. Such a line is not supposed to be contained within the article itself, but referred to at the top (as I have done).

I also agree that critical opinions of other's work should not be included in the article. Differing evidence, sure. Opinions, no.

DinDraithou, rather than moving the link into the article, include your citations in that linked article. That is a relevant place to make such additions too.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

First, pointing out that a work is popular, not peer-reviewed, and not cited by people in the field is not giving an opinion. It is responsible editing. I'm sorry if pointing these things out hurts feelings but it has to be done.

Second, the other article is not really worth updating in my opinion, because I think it needs to be replaced or split into the proper articles then updated. If you would like to update it go right ahead. But have a look at my talk page first for discussions on the subject there. DinDraithou (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for the compromise Din. I can agree to it as it is right now.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and excellent work if I might say so. I really do appreciate you being interested and informed enough to make contributions. This sets a great example. The article is looking better and better, and soon enough other articles will too. It's important Wikipedia reflect the field and be kept up to date. DinDraithou (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The first part of the first para needs refs - I've added them for Oppenheimer and Sykes. Good work! Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: The first citations: that part was taken from another article (I did mention this before). I therefore added it as a main reference article at the top of the section (such is the protocol).--Jonesy1289 (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but one of the problems is that the Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) article is highly technical and impenetrable to non-specialist readers, and it would be useful to readers of this article if an accessible ref or two could be extracted from that article and inserted here, so that non-specialists could improve their understanding. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just found the citations needed.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I confess to leaving my original paragraph with the new studies a little impenetrable and that Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) doesn't help at all. I write as someone with a background in Indo-European studies who has followed population genetics on and off for years and have forgotten this is Wikipedia, not some special little thread somewhere. When I've gotten a few more new and helpful studies together I'll add them. People must be wondering precisely how on Earth are the Irish not genetic outliers in Europe given alleged substantial differences in language and culture. But looking at the entire genetic picture they appear quite similar not only to the Brits but to the French and even to the geographically distant Czechs a bit (Autosomal), many of whom are R1a. All of this is very difficult to explain and I will need help since I'm not good at explaining. DinDraithou (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and find more on this too Din. As you say, it's a fast growing field, and one we need to keep on top of.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added two more studies, but will leave it up to you to integrate them into the main text. DinDraithou (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is this sub-section titled 'Genetics'. Is this some all encompassing thesis on the genetic make-up of all Irish people, or what exactly is its purpose? It also appears to be growing out of any reasonable proportion to the rest of the article. RashersTierney (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well if you look at other articles like Basque people the genetics section is pretty large. But there is a comprehensive article on the Genetic history of Ireland in development that should appear in a month or two. It will incorporate surname studies and autosomal DNA as well as what is briefly discussed here. So please be patient. DinDraithou (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The question was (inter alia) why is so much of this material being put here. Telling me another article is 'under construction' and to "be patient" is not an relevant answer. RashersTierney (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's being put here because it should be put here and there is still space for it. The section was once even bigger I believe. Did you object then? And have a look at the size of the Surnames section. If you have a problem with the new material then say so and say exactly what that problem is, but don't try to get rid of it another way (if that's your game... I'm not saying it is). DinDraithou (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be no harm to tone down the ad hominem a notch. Accusing eds. of playing games is not assuming good faith. The fact that we have bandwidth to spare is not the point. What does in 2007 scientists began looking at a Neolithic entrance for R1b into Europe actually mean, in non-technical jargon? And why is it not expressed in a non-technical way in the article? If you feel this material should be included here, you should be prepared to say why.RashersTierney (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to assume good faith. But you haven't been following the discussion and seem to be focusing only on the size of one section, and haven't said why. Other editors will integrate these two studies and the section will eventually make more sense, but you also can't expect to find an explanation of population genetics in a section like this. That's what all the links are for. The section is for people who are interested, just like the Surnames section is for people who are interested in those. DinDraithou (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because an ed. has not previously contributed to a discussion, it should not be assumed they have not been following it, or are not interested. You have not addressed any of my questions. This sub-section reads like an academic paper, intended for a specialist audience. I am still not convinced it isn't disproportionately long and 'technical' in tone. RashersTierney (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't know how you expect us to de-technify genetics. All I can promise is that I will personally not try to make the section much bigger. I do not think there is a need for a third paragraph. Sorry if I'm a little snappy. DinDraithou (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because a subject is scientific, does not mean it shouldn't be made accessible to a general audience, particularly if it is dropped into an article as broad in scope as this one. I don't know the purpose of this addition. What specifically is it intended to tell us about Irish people as defined in the article? RashersTierney (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion highlights the problem. Genetics is clearly a highly technical subject, as shown even in "summary" articles here like Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA). It also seems to have at least the usual set of ongoing academic arguments, researchers and institutions competing with each other, changing paradigms and what have you. But, more than many other subjects, the outcomes of these academic arguments are of great interest to many many lay people, who have a personal and often political interest in understanding where their ancestors came from and how they relate to other "national" or so-called "ethnic" groups. What people like Oppenheimer (and presumably Sykes, who I haven't read) have done is to simplify research findings, as they existed at a point in time, and to popularise them so that they impact on those interested lay people. If there has been further more recent research which undermines the case of, for example, Oppenheimer, that will only gain traction here if it is presented in a way which is understandable to the groups of people who read Oppenheimer. So, yes, someone does need to "de-technify genetics", if it is to be presented in a general article like this one. This is not a criticism of anyone involved in this discussion, I'm just trying to highlight the issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

agree. Whatever larger debate is taking place on the issue of 'Genetic History', this article should not become a testing ground. The case for inclusion of any of this material here has not been made as far as I can see. RashersTierney (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The case has been made. Let's avoid an edit war and the noticeboard and try to work this out.

Ghmyrtle, I'm positively horrible at de-technifying and all I can think of is adding an introductory paragraph, probably best done by Jonesy1289 or someone else, explaining Genetic genealogy, Y-DNA, mtDNA, Patrilineality, etc. Is that something you'd like to see? DinDraithou (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I would. One possibility that occurs to me is to try and rein back on trying to do too much too quickly on articles like this one, in favour of trying to generate a wider discussion at, perhaps, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History - to try to bring together the academic geneticist and the politically-interested lay editors (both "nationalist" and other), to explore how best to explain the current state of academic research in a more accessible but still accurate way. As we know from previous discussions, it's all too easy for people coming from different perspectives to get wound up about issues such as this, and I think that the way we seem to be moving forward now shows that it is possible, as well as desirable, to develop articles with some degree of harmony, if we can find a suitable forum to bring all sides together. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)