Talk:Ulster Scots people

((Neil Armstrong))

You guys are just making ut up as you go along now, aren't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobashiloveme (talk • contribs) 16:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Protestant Ulster Scots

'Majority adheres mainly to the Protestant denominations of Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, and Methodism, There is a Tiny Roman Catholic Minority.'

This seems a bit over the top to me - Ulster Scots are not censused, and therefore religious denominations are not really that well known.

The majority, certainly the self-identified majority (Catholics define themselves as Irish, regardless of ancestry and are often unaware of ancestry) are doubtlessly Protestant, but to state that there is 'only a tiny Catholic minority' is to turn this article from a scholarly page on the Ulster Scots ethnic group (found across Ulster, mixed in with Catholics as well) into a page on the genetics of Irish Unionists.

I'd favour changing it to 'majority probably Protestant, Roman Catholic, Others'.

ConorOhare (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as though most Ulster-Scots would be Protestant or rather accepted as their heritage by Protestants, mostly due to the Plantation of Ulster and the migration of many Protestant Scots before and after the Plantation, there are many Roman Catholics who would share Ulster-Scot ancestry through intermarriage between denominations amongst other things, just as many Protestants have Gaelic ancestry. Mabuska (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Protestant Scottish traditional music

What exactly is Protestant Scottish traditional music? As someone who has played Gaelic Traditional Music (Scottish/Irish/Manx/Cape Breton) for 10 years, I have never heard of this genre and am interested to learn more. I suggest deleting this. I also know many Prodestants from Ulster who play Irish/Scottish trad music and doubt that you can desect Ulster Scots, Irish, Scottish, Scottish Protestants, Scottish hythens, and Scottish Catholics along music lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimmer79 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The definition is quite elementary... Irish/Scottish traditional music plus a lambeg drum = Scottish Protestant traditional music! 92.235.178.44 (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not Ulster-Scots that's Irish and Scottish music respectively, you're trying to invent a genre that doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.254.47 (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Samuel Neilson

I have edited Samuel Neilson, a Scots-Irish contemporary of Thompson and a founding father of the United Irishmen, remarked just prior to the Act of Union, "I see a union is determined on between Great Britain and Ireland. I am glad of it." Neilson accepted the Act of Union without shedding his sense of Irishness. He, like many other members of the Society of United Irishmen, became Irish Unionists because they saw in the Union an end to the corrupt Ascendancy-based Dublin Government and a chance for their Catholic brothers to achieve Catholic Emancipation, which the Anglican Parliament in Dublin had resisted for decades

for the following reasons;

--- Neilson was a prisoner of the British from 1798-1802 when he was released. He emigrated to the US upon release and died there in 1803 so he can by no stretch of the imagination be said to have become an "Irish Unionist".

---What proof is there that many United Irishmen became Unionists, some perhaps but "many"? To survive an accomodation was made such as at the Treaty of Kilmainham but this could hardly be regarded as an embrace of Union with the British Crown. Don't forget Protestant rebels such as Robert Emment, Thomas Russell, James Hope, all United Irishmen, all republicans until the day they died like many of theit co-religionists.

Some of the information in this article needs to be moved to Scots-Irish Americans. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 23:20, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Aughavey 7 July 2005 16:12 (UTC) Well for starters the United Irishmen were largely founded by Presbyterians. Look at the demographic of Irish / Ulster Presbyterians today and they are nearly all Unionists. They rebelled in 1798 because the penal laws were very hard on Presbyterians banning them from preaching, holding official office, conducting marriages etc. Perhaps I should have said many Presbyterian United Irishmen became Unionists. Francis Joy founded the Belfast Newsletter in 1737, a relative of United Irishman Henry Joy McCracken. The Belfast Newsletter is now a staunchly Unionist newspaper. The United Irishmen had some difficulties because whilst it was founded on the principles of true Republicanism it eventually merged with the Catholic "Defenders" group whose oath swore to "quell the nation of heresy", ie Protestantism.

--Damnbutter 15:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC) I think that the real difficulties the United Irish had were to do with the brutal campaign of suppression directed against it's supporters of all faiths rather than any internal religous strain beteen the members, there is little or no proof of this despite what Government propoganda of the time would have people believe. There is no shortage of examples of Protestants who fought on as republicans post 1801. Can you give more than the one contested example of United Irish of any religion who became genuine loyalists?

I make the point as, you are using one unsubstantiated quote to argue that most Presbyterian republicans became loyalist because of union with the British crown-this makes no sense. There examples of some Presbyterian republican influences surviving until at least the early 20th century. Presbyterians were no longer excluded from the corridors of power following Act of union, as Catholics were and it was this deliberatly sectarian "divide and rule" policy which successfully reconciled Presbyterians to British rule - not any sudden mass conversion of identity from Irish to British - this came gradually.

Ulster-Scots same as Anglo-Irish?

I somehow to go the Ulster-Scots in Canada listings off of a link from a British Columbia politician (can't remember who - A.C. Elliott maybe - 4th Premier of British Columbia?). There are a number of distinguished gentlemen in the history of the province who are of what was called "Anglo-Irish"; one was Chartres Brew, who was the first Chief Constable of the Colony and the founder of the British Columbia Provincial Police; he was in the Royal Irish Constabulary prior to being assigned to BC; I gather that's not very likely a Catholic sort of Irish position; but it could be he was CoE rather than Presbyterian? I don't know at this point and will have to read up some before writing his biography for wikipedia. But when I do, does he qualify as Ulster-Scots or is there an Anglo-Irish designation that's different?Skookum1 05:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

These hyphenated definitions can be confusing, but I believe that they are not the same thing. It is my understanding that Anglo-Irish would be the (mainly protestant) community in The Pale, and in Ireland in general, who emigrated from England, from around the reign of Henry VIII of England (who made himself also King of Ireland) until Irish independence. Many descendants of these people would have subsequently become notable people in the colonies and US.

Compare with the term Anglo-Scot, which confusingly denotes a person of Scottish origin who has settled in England (should it not logically be something like Scoto-Anglo?). I do not know what a person originating in England and settled in Scotland would be: nowadays they are sometimes simply referred to as New Scots, but that includes all new Scots, not just ones from england, eg: Italian-Scots, Polish-Scots, Asian-Scots, Chinese-Scots; all are New Scots.

Ulster-Scots are (mainly protestant) people of Scottish origin who settled in the northern bit of Ireland over hundreds of years.

These hyphenations are often illogical.--Mais oui! 09:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well how come both the culture and "language" are well documented in the 18th and 19th centuries? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.135.254.39 (talk • contribs) .

The Anglo-Irish were an eighteenth and nineteenth century phenomenon. The community in the Pale was entirely different being as it was from the original Norman invasion of Ireland. The nearest this latter community got to an "Anglo" definition was from the 1580s, when it began to describe itself as the Old English community. I hope this clarifies things somewhat. 193.1.172.138 23:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Skookum1:"he was in the Royal Irish Constabulary prior to being assigned to BC; I gather that's not very likely a Catholic sort of Irish position;" On the contrary, the Royal Irish Constabulary had, I believe, a substantial number of Roman Catholics in it. I remember looking at the records in the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland for the RIC police station in Carrickfergus circa early 1900s, and noting that seemingly a majority of RIC members there were marked as being Catholic.. in a town which has a huge Protestant majority.

The Anglo-Irish were an eighteenth and nineteenth century phenomenon As where the scots-Irish or ulster scots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.254.47 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Ulster Scots

A lot of people seem to think that Ulster Scots is a made up culture to make up for unionists lack of history. Is this true?

I think that these people that you speak of, who think that we Ulster Scots don't really exist are ignorant and verging on bigotry. I'm sure that when people say that my culture doesn't exist they are pushing some Irish Nationalist agenda.

- Batratcathat

Well a lot of people see Ulster-Scots culture being overly emphasized by the unionist community, in recent years, in an attempt to create an alternative nationality to being Irish. That's the perception anyways.

-- Dumme kopf

Some mention should be made of the revivalist nature of the Ulster Scots movement. The fact that the movement has only existed for around ten-15 years does lead credence to nationalist claims of the language being made up.

• The Ulster-Scots language/dialect (call it what you will) is certainly not an artificial creation. It is used daily by both communities in Ulster. However since the 1980's increasing numbers of Unionists/Loyalists have attempted to promote the dialect perhaps to stress Ulster's separateness from the rest of Ireland. Prior to this in the 20th Century written Ulster-Scots had almost dissappeared or existed only in humourous guides to "Norn Iron"(Northern Ireland) dialect.

• There is a rich Ulster-Scots literature dating back to the 18th and 19th Centuries that includes poetry and novels. However, there is a significant break for most of the 20th Century. (doopa nov 2007)

• Regarding culture the marching bands are a feature of Ulster life and both communities have (often rival) bands. Many Orange tunes played by the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist bands are derived from old Scots tunes, as well as Irish tunes.

• The Lambeg drum is an instrument unique to Ulster. It is now played almost exclusively by the Protestant community and so would have a genuine claim to being an example of Ulster-Scots culture, and a very loud one at that!

The Protestant community isn't entirely Ulster-Scots so you can't say its an Ulster-Scots invention Mabuska (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• The tradition of drawing political/cultural murals on the gable walls of Belfast houses was also started by the Protestant community in the early 20th Century, nowadays however the Protestant murals are mostly concerned with para-militaries.

How is that Ulster-Scots culture? Its more like pro-British sentiments that could easily be shared by none Ulster-Scots. And what proof that Protestants started it, especially so early on?? Mabuska (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Association Football is also a very important part of Ulster-Scots culture. Early forms of football were first introduced to Ireland in the Hamilton/Montgomery Scots settlement of Ulster in 1606. Most Ulster Protestants support the Scottish team Glasgow Rangers while Ulster Catholics support Glasgow Celtic.(Stephen, May 2007)

Last i looked soccer was invented by the English and most people in Ireland only supported either Rangers or Celtic on religious grounds or because that was how they where brought up. Mabuska (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem you are exasberating for Ulster-Scots is trying to identify it with anything Protestant in Ulster. Ulster-Scots is not a culture defined by any and everything Protestant. It is a culture that contains Protestants and Catholics and not everything that has evolved in Protestant culture in Northern Ireland is related or due to Ulster-Scots. The Protestants of Ulster have just as much Gaelic and English blood as they do Scottish blood and Protestant culture can't and should not be just referred to as 'Ulster-Scots' culture as that delutes the meaning of both.

Its views like this that along with Irish republicans has created a polarised cultural divide in Ireland. A large section of the Protestant population is of Gaelic ancestry, just like a large section of the Roman Catholic population is not of Gaelic ancestry. Trying to pinpoint culture on a specific religion and political perspective destroys it.

I am from the Protestant community however i have no Presbyterian blood in my family going back many generations with names in my family being of either English or Irish in origin. Am i thus an Ulster-Scot because i play in a loyalist flute band and play football? I don't think so. Don't stereotype us. Mabuska (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The English invented Soccer? what you mean is they were the first to invent a set of rules for an ancient game which spanned Scotland and England. No concise evidence to show which country it originated in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.35.93 (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A Nation?

Might it be more apt and helpful to describe groups like the Copts and the Ulster-Scots as national, ethnic, sub-cultural, communal or sectarian groups within their respective societies? Which is more precise and neutral? //Big Adamsky 19:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It depends if there are any reliable sources that show that many Ulster Scots see themself as a nation, or if there are many academics who've advanced this view. If these reliable sources could be found, then I'd say keep it there. Maybe not in the lead if it's a controversial notion, but it should be mentioned in the article if this "national" sentiment is there. At the moment, I'd be inclined to describe them as an "ethnic group". saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 06:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Culture? Language?

Ulster Scots is not a true culture or language. It was invented by politicians during anglo-irish agreements. Ulster-Scots is a dialect, or ignorance of the English language in it's pure form. This should not be encouraged in schools as children need to be literate! Many of the N.Ireland population are marginalised by its use.

• This makes me angry at the ignorance and intollerance of the nationalist movement in Ireland who want to see everything visably British or Scottish removed and Ireland somehow become a homogenous nation of gaelic speaking celts. Ulster Scots as a language decends from Scots which was used as the official language of Scotland before the act of union with England so to say Scots is not a language is factually incorrect and to have such hatrid of a culture which may or may not be perceived as Protestant is akin to racism.

Did this guy say anything about being a Nationalist? No he didn't. Secondly he does have somewhat of a point. Ullans is not a language. At it's most it is a dialect of the Scottish way of speaking English, transplanted into Ireland and combined with the Irish way of speaking English and a little bit of Irish thrown in. At it's most it is a different dialect. Language, I think not.

-- Dumme kopf

• Quote from above- "a dialect or ignorance of the English language in it's pure form.". Are you some sort of language rascist or just an oul gaunch? I am perfectly happy with Ulster-Scots being classified as a dialect but it is NOT an artificial creation and it is spoken daily by both communities in Ulster. Do you not feel that our distinctive local words and expressions should be preserved, or should we all speak like the Queen? (Stephen, May 2007)

I'm siding with the view that Ulster-Scots simply doesn't exist. The creation of Ulster-Scots in the past 30 years was a recognizing of the lack of identity for a large part of Northern Ireland as other then that as English/ Scottish settlers living in Ireland, and the attempt at forging a separate identity from the Irish culture/ identity (something to do with potatoes and priests I understand?!?!.) There is a strong argument that all these Ulster-Scots articles should be moved to some fictional section on wikipedia. Itsmjlynch 11:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ullans is the Ulster dialect of the Scots language, and both are recognised by the European Union as minority languages. Only ignorants state that Ulster-Scots or Scots is simply Scottish way of speaking English. It clearly isn't and is in no way have similar spelling. Scots and modern English sound similar because both have a common ancestor language - Anglo-Saxon. However whereas in England Anglo-Saxon and Norman French merged to form modern English, in Scotland, the Anglo-Saxons of Lothian and the Lowlands language merged with elements of native Scots and Scots Gaelic to form Scots itself. Largely its Irish nationalists/republicans that really object to anything to do with Ulster-Scots and deny it exists as they can't accept another culture other than Gaelic is embedded on the shores of Ireland. And Ulster-Scots has been around for longer than 30 years, just ignorance by Anglocentric education over the centuries tried to eradicate it just like they tried to do to Gaelic. Mabuska (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't be the same European Union that did a survey in 1999 and found NO native speakers of "Ulster Scots" in Northern Ireland. Futhermore, you don't have to be an Irish nationalist/Republican to see that passing off a Ballymena accent as a language is stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.90.183 (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Passing off a Trondheim accent as "Norwegian" is equally silly, as is the existance of Luxembourgish, Afrikaans and arguibly Irish (Gaelic would be the original name for the shared written language of Scotland, Ireland and Man), However, silliness and linguistics often go together. language recognition coming from policy is not a new invention. its the normal state of language maintenenace in europe and has been for many centuries (hence why the ending of Gaelic Monastic literacy in Medieval Eastern Scotland effected Gaelic culture so badly.

Afrikaans and Irish are neologiasms for languages just as much as Ulster Scots or Luxembourgish. It doesnt take away from their existance. Seamusalba (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the implicit rationale of this section heading is that there can be no real culture" in the United States or Australia, or anywhere that shares a language with another original homeland of that language. If that were the case, then presumably nobody has any real culture as all languages derive from someone/somewhere else. Seamusalba (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Ulster Scots" is phonetically written English spoken in a Ballymena accent. The EU did a survey in 1999 and found NO native speakers of this so called language. Atemmpting to compare it of Afrikaans and Gaelic is hilarious.

If it is a seperate language then so are Dublin,Cockney, Geordie, Scouse and Cork accents. Kobashiloveme —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC).

"the semi-official flag for Northern Ireland"

Paragraph one notes "Ulster-Scots generally eschew being labeled "Celtic" but often identify themselves with England instead, and this is reflected in the design of the semi-official flag for Northern Ireland, which is based on the Cross of Saint George. " - can somebody provide a link to this "semi-official flag for Northern Ireland" ?

The Ulster flag based on St. Georges Cross WAS the official flag for Northern Ireland until the early 1970's. And it sounds like your implying the Ulster-Scots designed the Ulster flag based on the English flag to identify themselves as English. Just to state there is no proof on the matter. Rather would they not have designed on based on the saints flag of their homeland - Scotland?? Mabuska (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The phrasing used in the text seems rather vague and useless, can somebody clarify this section? I am assuming it's disguising some sensitive politics?(MarkG)

• I think that this needs to be changed in favour of more explanation, or being dropped. Lowland Scots are of the same non-Celtic linguistic heritage as Northumbrians, another group listed as providing heritage to Ulster-Scots. Enzedbrit 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone order a flag! There is a different flag for the 9-county province of Ulster but that is rarely recognised by Ulster-Scots.Afn 17:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose your talking about the Flag of Ulster. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

no idea! I have no idea what a "semi-official flag" is... I am guessing there is an "official flag", many "unofficial flags" and the original author of Paragraph 1 knows of a "semi-official flag" as well :-) (MarkG)

Enzedbrit: Many Lowlanders, like from Galloway, spoke Gaelic at this time.

• The (since 1972) unofficial flag of Northern Ireland is the Ulster Banner. It could be described as semi-official as it is still used to represent sports teams from the six-counties.(Stephen, May 2007)

american presidents part belongs on Scots-Irish Americans page

how do you cut and paste on wikipedia? Mayumashu 03:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

actually, i see its already there. will edit it out of this page then Mayumashu 03:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think some mention of it belongs in this article. If there is no information about this here, I will re-add something about it. --Mal 16:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the point of the flags?

What is the point of the flags?

• It is mentioned in the article that thousands of Scots fled Scotland during a famine in the 1690's. Can someone please provide more information on this. It is the first time I have heard about this and it seams if it is true it has been somewhat airbrushed from my knowledge of the History of Ireland.

Re the famine, the Scottish borders were hit by a terrible famine in th 1690s, I'm not sure ofthe causes, buti t was certainly a big killer and caused the biggest single migration of Scots to Ulster, bigger in fact than the organised plantations. It was only after this influx that Presbyterians became the majority in Ulster. The interesting thing is that a lot of Scots saw Ulster as temporary staging post and many ofthem continued on to America in the early 18th century. I believe this phenomenon is now called "chain migration". I'll post some sources if you're interested.

Jdorney 10:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-Catholic?

I notice that this article now contains a lot of references to, and highlights specifically the relgious make-up of this group of peoples. Specifically it suggests that the Ulster-Scots are "non-Catholic". This could be considered incorrect, as many of them were actually catholic from a particular definition of the word (ie: 'universal'; 'Christian'): "Non-Roman Catholic" would be more correct/precise.

However, many Ulster-Scots were indeed Roman Catholic, though they were small in number comparitively speaking.

True, there is proof of Scottish Roman Catholics and Priests being settled during the Plantation of Ulster. Ulster-Scots is not a Protestant only culture - just predominantly. Mabuska (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections, I will copyedit this article to reflect that fact. --Mal 16:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the logic in saying that "some" ulster-scots were "roman" catholic. Most if not all were militantly protestant, holding all allegiance to the Church of Scotland (Prespteriyan) or The Church of England (Anglican). The American Scots-Irish are an example of this, and VERY suspicious of "Green" or Catholic Irish. They have been fighting on the border over this for centuries in Ireland over the "Orange" Ulsters and the southern "Green" catholic Irish. So yeah I would say I have an objection, Ulster scots were sent to work the plantation, militantly protestant, so much so that they went from Ulster after suffering religious persecution from the Catholic Irish to the United States (then the colonies). If you have any questions about the American Ulster Scots I suggest you read the book "Born Fighting" it should give you a better perspective on actual Ulster-Scots/American Scots Irish history and culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.66.16.116 (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

They suffered more persecution from the British penal laws than catholic Irish you clown. The fact that you use that historically inaccurate piece of crap "Born Fighting" as a reference tells us all we need to know about you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misawaloveme (talk • contribs) 02:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Although population movement to and from the north-east of Ireland and the west of Scotland had been on-going since pre-historic times, a concentrated migration of Scots to Ulster occurred mainly during the 17th and 18th centuries. Prior to that the major Scottish immigration in the northern part of Ireland was composed of Gallowglass mercenary clans from the Scottish Highlands. The most notable of these were the MacDonnells, origimally, from the clan Donnell of Ireland and who managed to establish themselves in the north of what is now county Antrim over the course of the 16th century."

Read the Gallowglass were predominatly Catholic if not all of them were catholic and intermarriage was common with the Scots and the native Irish, Scottish surnames are common within the Catholic community as with Irish surnames in the Protestant community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.30.155 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Intermarriage

Shouldn't there be a section or at least somewhat of a discussion on the cultural intermingling and ethnic intermarriage that went on between the Scottish, Irish and English populations in Ulster?

And shouldn't there be at least some discussion of the degree of intermingling of the two populations both prior to and after the plantations. The argument for ethnicity surely rests upon the claim that the plantations created a separate and distinct population within ulster.

• This should be discussed. The Plantations DID NOT immediately create a separate segregated Scots community in Ulster. The settlers and the natives lived alongside and in close proximity to eachother. This makes the colonisation of Ulster unique and goes someway to explaining why "the troubles" between the two communities lasted so long as the communities became segregated.

• There was a lot of inter-breeding between Irish, Scots and English after the plantations which explains why people from the Catholic/nationalist/Irish tradition sometimes have settler surnames and people from the Prot./Unionist/British sometimes have Irish Gaelic surnames. The fact that there is no difference in accent or dialect between the two Ulster communities (but a difference between Ulster and the rest of Ireland) also shows that they have been living in close proximity and inter-mingling for many years.

• I would say there is no longer any separate Ulster-Scots ethnic group, but there is certainly an Ulster-Scots dialect and culture which both communities in Ulster have a rightful claim to. Are Scousers and Geordies separate ethnic groups- I don't think so!(Stephen, May 2007)

External Links

It seems that someone decieded to quote ScotchIrish.net, a site that is rampant with historical and grammatical errors.

Culture

I've made a start on a separate culture heading - hopefully a place to put stuff about music and writing distinct to Ulster Scots. Though its difficult to see how some of this will be separate to Protestant/Loyalist culture but we'll see how it goes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doopa (talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Scotch-Irish Redirect

Isn't the term "Scotch-Irish" used to refer to all intermixes between Scot and Irish ethnic groups, not only those of Ulster or those in the American federation?--Whytecypress 22:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an American term. For centuries the Scots (and other countries) refereed to themselves as Scotch. The term fell out of favour in Scotland as Scots became more popular. However, many other countries continued using the 'Scotch' term. So, Americans referred to the Scotch people coming from Ireland as Scotch Irish to differentiate them from the Irish who started arriving during the famine. Before that the vast majority of people arriving from Ireland were Ulster Scots but were simply labelled in the US as Irish. That's why there is so much confusion over there about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.35.93 (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Intermingling and Intermarriage in Ulster

This is absolute rubbish. As a respectable academic, I can say that most of us agree that intermarriage between the Irish Catholics and the Protestant Community (Planters and Native Irish converts to Protestantism) just didn't happen. Whoever wrote that piece of rubbish he or she calls an informative piece should be ashamed. It sounds like bloody Irish Republican propaganda.

No pleased.

Really? If no intermarrying occured then perhaps you can explain why people from "nationalist" background ended up with Anglo surnames (like Gerry Adams) and why people from the "Ulster-Scots" background have Irish Gaelic surnames (Like Lenny Murphy).

If you honestly believe that there was no intermarriage between the planters and natives then you are brain washed and deluded than the average Loyalist, and thats saying something. It did happen. They intermixed for over two hundred years and when the "Ulster Scots" went to America they identified themselves as Irish.

Respectable accademic...ahahhaha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.91.180 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Lack of History

Respected academic? Give me a break.

That section cited several respected historians and authors. Merely because you disagree with it has no affect on it. It will remain.

Sign your postings

It is hard to take anything written here seriously if the posts are not at least "signed" with Wiki user-names for at least *some* accountability. Shoreranger 14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Music

There's a contradiction between these two lines that I cannot figure out so don't want to change: "Protestant Scottish traditional music is usually informal and close-knit. The most obvious example of this type of cultural event is the marching bands. Here a formal and organised structure is more obvious."

Also, is the distinction beween venues for "Irish" and "Scotch-Irish" trad really that genuine? --sony-youth^pléigh 07:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This section as it stands seems to be both Original Research and wrong. I think it should be removed or rewritten including sources. Cooke (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag

Is really the best flag to use? It's a flag design proposed by the small handfull of Ulster nationalists for an independent Northern Ireland and dates from the 1980s.

Wouldn't the Flag of Ulster: be a more appropriate flag for this article and others such as Scots-Irish American and individual articles detailing ancestry (e.g. Racial demographics of the United States#Majority group, Mississippi#Racial makeup and ancestry, North Carolina#Ancestry)? Timrollpickering 19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't just make up flags like this. What makes you think these articles need to have a flag anyway? --John 21:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree flags get overused on Wikipedia but it may be more complicated to unflag those articles and numerous others to get the flags out. But Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags does specifically say:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/symbols/flags.htm those created by one political group or another in Northern Ireland]) must never be used more generally or broadly in Wikipedia.

What is the Flag of the Ulster Nation if not a specific creation, and one that's less than twenty years old, of one political group (the Ulster Independence Movement) and not a flag generally used for people of Ulster-Scots descent? And confusingly it's a flag for six county Ulster not nine county Ulster. Timrollpickering 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That flag has nothing to do with Ulster-Scots, it was a flag used by a small extremist group wanting an Independent Northern Ireland, I don't think the group is even still active. I am going to remove it from the article.--padraig 09:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through other articles listing Ulster-Scots/Scots-Irish Americans with tables and changed the flag to the Flag of Ulster as the best default. From what I can see the Ulster Nation flag now only appears on articles in the context of six county Ulster nationalism/independence. Timrollpickering 11:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Scots-Irish

I am proposing that this article be merged with Scots-Irish as they both deal with the same group of people, but under different names and from slightly different perspectives. However, I'd like to test the water first before putting any tamplates up. To keep discussion all in one place - but not meaning to propose which name to keep as the article title - I'd suggest it be discussed on Talk:Scots-Irish. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I myself would be more inclined to keep these seperate. They are, of course, clearly closely related folk, but the term does imply a certain distinction in the published realm. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think of the Scotch-Irish as the descendents of Ulster Scots people who have emigrated to the USA. Therefore I'd vote to keep them separate. Cooke (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The two are not an identical ethnic group. Both Ireland and North America were primary areas of resettlement for "inconvenient" people removed from the land by force. In America one has to consider immigrants of mixed Irish and Catholic Irish origin. Add mixed Scottish-Amerinds such as William Weatherford and the Afro-Celtic influence until the picture becomes even more complex. In middle America boundaries blurred and overlapped so that religious heritage became less relevant than ethnicity. By no means did all "Scotch-Irish" dwell in Ireland prior to arrival in America, nor were all the Irish who settled America of the Ulster Irish group. My 2 cents.Trilobitealive (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that it might not be a bad idea to do a partial merge of some information from both articles. For example, the History section of the Scotch-Irish article covers a much greater timespan that the Ulster Scots article - the latter only seems to start in the 17th century!! 80.219.51.173 (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we're all forgetting that although the group this article relates to is known as the Ulster Scots, this grop also contains significant descent from England see Ulster History - "The "British tenants",[3] a term applied to the colonists,[4] were mostly from Scotland and England. They were required to be English-speaking and Protestant.[5] The Scottish colonists were mostly Presbyterian[6] and the English mostly ‘persecuted’ Dissenters.[7] The Plantation of Ulster was the biggest and most successful of the Plantations of Ireland. Ulster was colonised so as to prevent further rebellion, as over the preceding century, it had proven to be the region most resistant to English control." So - a descendent of an Ulster Scot could be genetically more aligned to English stock, culturally Scottish, but classed (at least in the US) as Irish. 216.107.194.166 (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely 'Ulster Scots' are people of Scots descent in Ulster, whereas Scots-Irish are people of Irish decent in Scotland. --Red King (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No. "Scots-Irish"/"Scotch-Irish" are descendants of Ulster Scots who settled in 18th century America. Same people, different continents, different terms. Over the last 3 centuries the Scotch-Irish and the Ulster Scots have developed separately with different historical and environmental influences, but they originate with the same people. Eastcote (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

Hello page,

I'm looking at producing an image for the infobox akin to that in Scottish people, English people and French people amongst others, for which we need 6 - 8 notable Ulster-Scots to be nominated.

I'm thinking of James Nesbitt, Ian Paisley and James Craig, 1st Viscount Craigavon, but can anybody else suggest any others? Does any body object to these?... If people are going to suggest other names, can they please be mindful that there needs to be a free-to-use image of them already to work with. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

For notable Ulster-Scots where do i start (all sourced from the Ulster-Scot newspaper)...

- Major General Robert Ross - led the British army in an invasion of the United States. He ordered the burning down of what is now the White House, in fact it was painted white to cover the scorch marks he caused

- Field Marhsall Sir George White

- Field Marshall Sir Gerald Templar

- Field Marhsall Sir John Greer Dill

- Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery - led the British army in North Africa during WWII, and accepted the final German surrender

- Viscount Alan Francis Brooke - Chief of the Imperial General Staff - he dictated the course of WWII

- Harry Ferguson - one of the world's greatest inventors. He innovated what you could call the modern tractor

- General Francis Rawdon-Hastings

- General Francis Rawdon Chesney (no relation to above guy i think)

- Rev Dr Henry Cooke - helped reconcille the Church of Ireland and Presbyterian faiths

Now i think these guys would be more deserving than Ian Paisley and James Craig both of which whose contributions to history where nothing but bigotry and misery and put the Ulster-Scots in a bad light. So notable Ulster-Scots with good backgrounds would help highlight Ulster-Scots in a far more positive light.

Mabuska (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense

The Ulster-Scot newspaper is reknown for historical revisionist twaddle and attempting to pass off a Ballymena accent as a legitimate language. You'd need a bit of unbiased and reliable source if you honestly want us to believe that Field Marshall Montgomery, Robert Ross and Gerald Templar were "Alster-skats". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.91.139 (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Intermarriage

Both sides of my family are described as "Scotch-Irish" in some lines and it seems the single predominant ethnic group in my ancestry. There is an ongoing Y chromosome DNA study of my father's family name. I took part in this and the genetic markers matched family tradition and written documents: Scottish, English, and Irish. So someone at some point picked up native Irish genes. --Calypsoparakeet (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no difference between English, Irish and Scottish genes. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

All this talk of Ulster-Scots and Scots-Irish make my head spin.I was born and bred in Scotland with two Irish grandparents,If I decided to emigrate to the USA I certainly would not refer myself as Irish-Scots.Those "Ulster-scots" who emigrated to the US are surely just Irish,no matter their genes!--Jack forbes (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is arguably a genetic difference, in Scotland and Ireland Haplogene R1b is dominant, wheras in England there is Anglo-Saxon, Roman, Norse and even Jewish influence to a greater extent. I think many Irish people would disagree with the notion that Ulster Scots are Irish, they are seen as immigrants or invaders, and were even described as legitimiate targets as supporters of the 'occupation' by some irish nationalist goups. Hachimanchu (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

History

I am going to edit the following comment in the "History" section:

"During the Irish Rebellion of 1641, the native Irish gentry attempted to expel the English and Scottish settlers, resulting in severe inter-communal violence, massacres and ultimately leading to the death of around 4,000 settlers over the winter of 1641-42.[1] The memory of these traumatic episode poisoned the relationship between the Scottish and English settlers and native Irish almost irreparably."

The totality of the history of the plantation of Ulster must be kept in order to assess the claim that the events of 1641-42 were the defining moment in an inter ethnic conflict which then continued for centuries afterwards. The events which proceeded the plantation included widespread atrocity carried out by the English against the native Ulster population during the conflict in the 1590's. The official plantation began in 1609, a mere 32 years before the events of 1641. The plantation itself was a process that spanned almost a century and must have involved a continuous process of clearing areas of the native population to make way for the the newcomers. To claim that 1641, when the natives launched larger scale organised attacks on the newcomers, was the turning point in the relationship between the two would seem to be entirely disingenuous.

The writer refers to the "memory of these traumatic events", and it should indeed be noted that Orangemen in Northern Ireland today still carry banners depicting the atrocities of 1641. However that does not mean that the relationship between the two populations was fine before 1641 and the attack by natives against newcomers in 1641 can be identified as the moment the relationship became poisoned. It stands to reason that the relationship between the two populations was problematic from beginning and the religious and political controversies of the following centuries kept the pot boiling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owenreagh (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth?? That says it all on certain articles on wiki.

On the 1641 rebellion - its roots lie in the Papists inability to accept Protestantism. In fact the rebels of the 1641 rebellion upheld that their uprising was not against English rule, but in an attempt to maintain Roman Catholic hegemony in Ireland. A few years later in the English Civil War the Irish backed the Royalist side and Ireland became a Royalist base as many of the Irish allied with the Roman Catholic sympathetic Charles Stuart I rather than the Puritan's of Cromwell - for obvious reasons of course, like if i was a Papist i'd support a Papist friendly ruler over a mad fanatic Puritan.

Also the Plantation of Ulster was a FAILURE - it is pure myth that it was a success. If the Plantation was carried out as it was intended to be then yes there'd have been no Gaelic-Irish in the north at all, and quite possibly the Roman Catholic population of Northern Ireland might be as large as the Muslim population here, and Northern Ireland might include a few extra counties. The 'native' (the Gaelic are no more native than the English) where suppossed to be expelled from their land and 'loyal' Protestant tenants moved in. Problem was that many landlords couldn't get enough new tenants and decided to keep the 'native' people and make them tenants. There where other parts of the Plantation that weren't enacted to the letter of the law - all counties of that Plantation retained significant Roman Catholic populations for reasons such as this. The counties of Antrim and Down had very few Roman Catholics left as they where planted seperately and privately before the Plantation of Ulster. Those two where the success and are still the most Protestant counties in Ireland (also two of the most densely populated counties in Ireland).

And 4'000 deaths in the rebellion? Theres no real proof for that. The only historians who like to keep the amount of Protestants slaughtered by the Roman Catholics in the low are nationalist Roman Catholics. Claims that upto 30'000 people might have been slaughtered are only dismissed by those same nationalist historians. Any look at the religious 30 Years War in continental Europe during the same century would see that such a high number of civilian fatalities was nothing unusual as Protestants and Roman Catholics massacred each other in the name of pathetic religion.

The plantation of Protestant settlers into Ireland also spanned into the late 1600's and early 1700's, not just the early 1600's.

Mabuska (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Lambeg Section

I removed the following from the article:

One of the real icons of Protestant marching bands in Ireland is the Lambeg drum. While most of the other musical instruments are shared between the Ulster-Scots and the native Irish, the Lambeg offers the chance of distinguishing the Protestant marching bands.

The drum has a distinctive sound, with the 'tunes' played on it based on Irish hornpipes style.

Although its precise origins are unknown one popular myth is that it is named after the town of Lambeg in County Antrim.

Now why this whole section is faulty:

- The Lambeg drum is not solely a Protestant instrument, the Ancient Order of Hibernians also make use of Lambeg drums.

- What the lambeg has to do with Ulster-Scots culture is virtually not made clear, superceded by declaring the Protestantness of the Lambeg and it use by Protestant marching bands - despite the fact the Roman Catholic AoH also use them and most Lambeg skins come from goat hides from African Roman Catholic priests.

- The origins and evolution of the Lambeg drum are known, in fact if you follow the link that is supplied in the section i removed you get a got background on the lambeg drum which was ignored for what was put into this article.

I am from a Protestant background, and we had 4 lambeg drummers out at our band parade last Friday night which was good to see, so anyone trying to call me up on republican agenda can forget it. Pure and simple this whole section is bullshit, non-sourced bullshit at that. Mabuska (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

From the English border

It seems like the article underplays the importance of planters that came from the English border region, now, i understand that the accent of this area contains much more dialect and has a much stronger accent than people in Scotland and Ireland even today in modern times - and just because those folks from the English borders were harder grafters than the Jocks and Paddies is no reason to down play their importance and majority gene input into the Scotch-Irish. Ginnan afore ah dee yiz in man ye geet spenks yiz, ginnan an sel yiz true heritage oot and consider yesels summat yiz ah not. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a question that I am very interested in. My own people apparently originated in Northumberland, but were resettled in Ulster in the 1600s, before making their way to America as part of the "Scotch-Irish" wave of immigration. One always hears of the Ulster "Scots", but what proportion of northern (or southern for that matter) English blood is in them? Are there specific areas of Ulster that are more "English" or "Scottish" in background? (What language are you a-speakin? Hit sounds strange to me. I ain't never heared no talk like that nowhere.) Eastcote (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's probably easier if you describe your ancestors as simply British. People from the isles have more in common than separate them. 80.219.51.173 (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it would be easier, but it won't get me where I want to go. My ancestors might have been "British", but they weren't from Cornwall or John O'Groats. They were from a specific place, Northumberland, and passed through another specific place, Ulster, on their way to another specific place, Tennessee. I'm interested in where they might have lived in Ulster: i.e., whether there were/are specific areas of Ulster identified with settlement from specific areas of Scotland and England. Eastcote (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Gaelic Presence

I dont even want to begin clearing the majority of this page. Especially with the fact of whether the actual Ulster Scot heritage still exists is up for debate. (See not even I can avoid being cynical on this page....) And what really defines being an Ulster Scot, and the roles Ulster Scots played in Republicanism, Irish Nationalism and how many modern Republicans could be considered Ulster Scots but dont because they feel it clashed with being Irish. There are a rake of sources developing these issues but I dont have the time to argue with the Nationalists and Loyalists that have hijacked this page and the identity itself...

However, I will ask a moderater to help me on this one. There is a paragraph I edited at the start of the History of Ulster Scots, where previously someone had made references to the interaction between pre plantation Irish in Ulster and the Gaels of the Western Islands and Highlands of Scotland, (of course) as pedigree for ancient Ulster Scottish heritage, is it not central to the history, that these same "ancient Ulster Scots" were the Irish Catholic/Gaels that were displaced? The Gaelic inhabitants were a different stock again to the majority of Lowland settlers. YES I have read Ó Snódaighs work, as has a section, that validates the fact that some settlers were of a (well maybe distant) Scottish Gaelic/Highland heritage when they planted Ulster (very few mind you) BUT this again dosent mean the original inhabitants are evidence of Ulster Scottish identity.

Ulster Scot deals only with the people of the plantation. Previous interaction is dealt with under Gaels. Alas, of a much different stock.

comment added by CelticSeimi (talk • contribs) 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Troubles

Shouldn't this article have a section on the troubles. It is something that people coming to this article would like to know since Ulster Scots could conceivably be either unionist or seperatists as being settelers may side with the union but being of Scottish heritage may have more sympathy with Irish republicans especially given the similarities of Scottish and Irish history. The page literally stops at the Irish-British union of 1800 and the period between then and now are arguably the most important part of modern Irish history.212.183.140.2 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes - you will notice the article currntly has a section titled "1800 - Presnet" with a tag that says "This section requires expansion." The Troubles fall sqarely within the timeframe of this section, which the tag acknowledges is in need of expansion. Take a crack at it! Shoreranger (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent move to Ulster-Scottish people

Why was the article renamed from Ulster Scots people to Ulster-Scottish people? I have never heard the term, and the only mentions of it I find in the first 20 Google hits are this interesting article and this pipe band, where it is un-hyphenated. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Where was the discussion and rationale? (Hroðulf, being unhyphenated in a URL does not signify.) -- Evertype·✆ 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. This smacks ofWikipedia:POV, and is not borne out by any reference material or citations. Shoreranger (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And another agreement. This should have been discussed prior to the change. A similar misguided change (though probably well-intentioned) has been made to the Scotch Irish American article. I don't have the Wiki-technical savvy to undue retitling/redirects, so how do we go about changing things back to the status quo ante, and then engage in discussion if required? Eastcote (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I moved it back to Ulster Scots people. (Eastcote, you simply click the link marked "Move" near the top right of the page). Yesterday, I notified the person who made the move of this discussion. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ulster Scots, Ulster-Scots people

The name of this article contains a compound adjective modifier, describing 'people', and needs to be changed by adding a hyphen. This use is substantianted by the University of Ulster and its Institute of Ulster-Scots Studies, the BBC's Welcome to Ulster-Scots Voices, the Ulster-Scots Agency, etc. Mayumashu (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is fine with me. (Many users do not hyphenate the term. One example: Ian Adamson[1] ). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don t see in the text you ve linked where Adamson uses a compound adjective. He says near the start "There is where I, as an Ulster Scot, am happiest to be," but this here isn t a compound adjective (as in 'Ulster-Scot people', 'Ulster-Scot culture', etc.). 'Ulster Scot' is (simply) a case of the adjective 'Ulster' modifying the noun 'Scot'. Mayumashu (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the problem comes from Wikipedia's artificial constraint that "Ulster Scots" is a language/dialect, and so there can't also be an article called "Ulster Scots" that describes the people who speak the language. I don;t think anyone says "I am an Ulster Scottish Person", or "I am a hyphenated 'Ulster-Scot'". They say "I am an Ulster Scot". The same artificial constraint is placed on the "Scotch-Irish American" article, where it has to be titled that way to fit into some Wikipedia style guide. No one calls themselves a "Scotch-Irish American". They would say "I'm Scotch-Irish". Because of this, I'd vote to stick with "Ulster Scots People" and just live with the artificial "people" tacked onto the end. Eastcote (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Near the end, Adamson says "the Folk Poets of Ulster series to bring before the public some of the finest pieces of literature in the Ulster Scots language. I further initiated the development of an Ullans or Ulster Scots Academy". But as I say, I support Mayumashu's proposal to add a hyphen. It just makes things clearer to new readers (we don't mean Ulster people born in Scotland, for example.)

By the way, when someone says "I am an Ulster Scot" it is unambiguous (unless the speaker is not a person). When a web search says: "here are two articles about Ulster Scots " the reader deserves a little more help, and the word people is a natural way to save some surfers an extra page download.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that constraint for reserving 'Ulster Scots' for the language is part of a problem here. I d favour having Ulster-Scots language and Ulster-Scots people as the two page names and Ulster Scots as a disambiguation page Mayumashu (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, (though I think that Ulster Scots should redirect to one article or the other, to save the user round trips to the server.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus for move billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Ulster Scots people → Ulster-Scots people — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Mayumashu (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose No evidence is presented that the hyphenated form is the one commonly used in English prose. Both versions are encountered, but evidence seems to suggest that the unhyphenated form is the more common. Examples include:-
  • The goal of the Institute is to explore the history, heritage and legacy of the Ulster Scots people from University of Ulster
  • During the wars the Ulster Scots had played a full part, assisting, amongst other things, in the famous siege of Londonderry from Ulster Ancestry
  • In July 2005, twelve musicians made the decision to expand and further develop the repertoire of Ulster Scots music being presented at a professional level. And so the Ulster Scots Experience was formed. Experienced musicians, they all have the common aim of proving to the sceptics that Ulster Scots music can be musically correct as well as entertaining and easy on the ear from The Ulster Scots Experience
  • The Ulster Scots inhabitants of Ballymena witnessed the changing regime at first hand, as royalist troopers charged through the streets and their Presbyterian ministers were forced to flee from The Covenanters in Ulster
  • Before the first sizable emigration of Ulster Scots to America began in 1717, Scots had been living for a century close at hand with the Irish, thousands of whom were subtenants on the same farms from The Scotch-Irish: A Social History by James G Leyburn, University of North Carolina Press, 1962
  • Emigration from County Derry began in 1718 when the so-called Ulster Scots emigrated to New England and later to Pennsylvania from Travel in Ireland
  • This oath was later called the Black Oath. Scots who did not sign were punished. Native Irishmen considered the Ulster Scots as intruders and usurpers and, because of this, in an uprising in 1641, approximately 5,000 Scots were slaughtered from Clan MacLachlan Society
  • These people were of Scots-Irish descent, often referred to as Ulster Scots from Town of Truro
  • The second Foyle Ulster Scots festival is a week-long event offering visitors a programme that includes living history tours and actors in period costume recreating scenes from Derry's past - like the siege - on the city walls from British Broadcasting Corporation
• Skinsmoke (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Language might be ever-changing to meet new conditions, but I think Wikipedia should be driven by language and not the other way round. Although there can be found instances where Ulster Scot is written with a hyphen, the term is generally unhyphenated. The purpose is to inform the reader. Artificially promoting the hyphenated form as the preferred form would be misinforming readers. Eastcote (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Rationale by the nominee is given above in the previous section (which s/he should have probably included here). The rationale is not based on overall common usage but on correct English grammar. As a noun, the term is indeed "Ulster Scots" but, as an compound adjective as in the case of this title, it should be "Ulster-Scots". See Hyphen: Compound modifiers for more info. — AjaxSmack 03:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I think the problem here lies in the vagueness of the section you have linked to. It states "the compound modifier is often hyphenated to prevent misunderstanding" (my emphasis), and goes on to state "However, if the compound is a familiar one, it is usually unhyphenated". In other words, neither form is grammatically correct, and both can be used, in which case we should follow common use. I do wonder also, in this particular case and in the general rules on hyphens, whether usage is in the process of diverging between the British Isles and North America. The following section discusses the use of hyphens in numbers, such as twenty-three, which appears to be becoming increasingly rare in British English, where twenty three seems to be gaining ground. Ultimately, of course, language changes according to usage, and grammatical rules (particularly the more obscure or less understood rules) change to match usage. People strongly resist some changes (the greengrocers' apostrophe for example), but I have never come across anyone strongly resisting the absence (or presence) of a hyphen. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support repeating my earlier explanation: A hyphen just makes things clearer to new readers (we don't mean Ulster people born in Scotland, for example.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• 'Support as per others (Anglo-Irish, Anglo-Saxons ....) Bjmullan (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Ulster Scots People is already an artificial form designed to fit into Wikipedia "norms" for titling articles. The usual term is simply "Ulster Scots". In the examples given above it is common usage to hyphenate the terms "Anglo-Saxon" and "Anglo-Irish", with a contracted form of the noun "Angle". It is not common usage to hyphenate the term "Ulster Scot", and "Ulster" is not a contracted form. To make a change contrary to common usage would be allowing the medium (Wikipedia) to dictate form, when Wikipedia is supposed to reflect definition and not determine it. It is not "helpful" to new readers, as it misinforms them by giving them an artificial label for the people under discussion. Their understanding of the term is clarified by the content of the article, and not by changing an accepted English language term itself to provide a better definition. I can see all manner of convoluted hyphenations as the end result. The American descendants of the Ulster Scots have an article already called "Scotch-Irish American". To extend this hyphenation to its logical end would see that article retitled "Scotch-Irish-American People", when no such term exists in either spoken or written English. I really don't think this is that big an issue. The article has been laboring along under its current title for many a year, and can do so happily for many more. Eastcote (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dalriada

Why is there no reference to the Kingdom of Dalriada, surely that deserves a mention in the history of Ulster Scots? Secondly is it fair to add British/ Briton/ 'Brythonic' to related groups, as previously mentioned most of the settlers were lowland Scots, who were essentially Brythonic, the remainder being anglo-saxon/ norse descent etc as well as Scottish Gaelic. Hachimanchu (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Population of Ulster Scots by region

The infobox section "regions with significant populations" is ambiguous and mostly unsourced. Ulster is part of the UK and ROI, yet all three are listed! Furthermore, the only figure with a source is that for the United States. This needs to be dealt with ASAP. ~Asarlaí 21:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions? RashersTierney (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest it be removed until reliable sources are added. Census info would be the best souce, but where could we find it? ~Asarlaí 22:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't the Ulster Scots have any history?

In looking at this article, one would think the Ulster Scots have no history of their own to speak of. There is talk of where they originated, and a bit about who the ones who left for America became, but the section on "1800 to Present" is only two lines long. I guess this is a challenge to any self-professed Ulster Scots out there: who are you and what have you done lately? Forget about your origins, and forget about America. Who are you and what makes you a distinct group? Eastcote (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by Odinsburgh14

These were correctly reverted, if only because Odinsburgh14 is a blocked sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moutray2010 Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Plantation Highlanders

There were some Scots in Ulster before the Plantation not mentioned here. Sorley Boy MacDonnell and the MacDonnell of Antrim inherited the Glens from the Norman Mac Eoin Bissett family before the 17th century. Should this be dealt with in the article or would they be categorised as a different ethnic group still? They married closely with the Gaelic O'Neills and the Dublin Castle administration tried to wipe them out in the Rathlin Island Massacre. It almost seems counter-factual to begin the history with that. Claíomh Solais (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested rewrite

I see many comments here but no revisions. I believe that is because this is one of the more controversial topics on Wikipedia. This article is clearly highly partisan, but in being so it miscasts the Scots and Scotland as well as the Scots in all other parts of the world. But first, the controversy. Partisans of incorporating North Ireland into the Republic of Ireland, with possibly an intermediate step of independence (like the acquisition of Texas by the US), take the point of view that the population of North Ireland is entirely immigrant, except for the Irish Catholics. Opponents argue that a considerable left-over population was there from earlier times. This article, in addition to its highly unbalanced and unsupported view about the population of North Ireland, projects (excuse me) into the world of fantasy. Now the highlands and Scotland in general are not to be considered the source of the Scotch in Scotch-Irish, but somehow the Ulster Scots (if that term is being used correctly)!

Well, excuse me, but this is a major travesty based on partisan politics. The ethnic elements of Scotch-Irish are mainly Irish Catholics from the country currently organized into the Republic of Ireland. They left pretty much for the same reasons they are now a republic. The Scotch side are mainly highlanders forced out during the numerous Jacobite rebellions, but the original colonials of America and Canada included lowlanders as well. Not only is that well-documented, but everyone knows it, as a large number of Americans have Scotch, Irish, or Scotch-Irish ancestors! The main thesis of this article is patently absurd, and it is unsupported. Clan names such as Buchanan and Grant are certainly NOT Ulster Scots! The picture of Andrew Jackson in this article is 100% misplaced.

I cannot understand how this article continues on WP except by the partisanship of the editors. I do not think partisan politics should have a place on WP. We just have to conquer this problem! Restrain yourselves, please. Try to recapture some sense of objectivity. In America we don't have the conflict in any major way, and we should not be interested in acquiring it. The article had been tagged for lack of references; naturally, there aren't any. I don't think that goes far enough. It needs a complete re-write to remove the false concepts of the the Ulster Scots and of Scotch-Irish. These same editors have gotten into other parts of WP with it. You may find me active there.

For the Ulster Scots themselves, the name originated as the name of a dialect. For whatever reason dialects similar to the Scots are spoken in North Ireland. Are we forgetting that the Scots came from North Ireland to begin with, and that they spoke Old Irish? What we need here is serious scholarship, not rash trumpeting by half-baked provos. The Irish of any brand do not need your help. You're convincing the hearts and mind of no one, only drawing ridicule on yourselves. There is not and never has been any state, tribe, authority or organization termed the "Ulster Scots" and we are not going to allow you to introduce one. The Ulster Scots are speakers of a set of dialects similar to the Scots, and excuse me, but I do not believe they imported it. Prove it!

I hope that this rewrite tag will stimulate some effective action. Please do not remove it until the current imbalances have been addressed. I chose the softer option, but it is not too late to recommend it for deletion, forcing a wider vote.Botteville (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It is apparent you are not happy in some way but your point is far from clear, or how it applies directly to the text in the article. This questionable edit may form sort of a clue but it is still unclear. Please focus on what is written in the article rather than general forum posting or unfounded attribution of views, extreme or otherwise, to those who have edited it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Problems with the artcle were already detailed by the tags, but I will summarize. There are a number of gross inaccuracies. First of all, Scotch-Irish does not mean Ulster Scots. Second, the Ulster Scots are not an ethnic group. The word originally meant merely a group of dialects. The origin is somewhat uncertain. One would expect the article to give the extant definitions and theories but it assumes a priori that the Ulster Scots are an ethnic group, which arrived from Britain late in Irish and Scottish history. Third, it treats all mention of Scotch-Irish as Ulster Scotch-Irish. It gives a picture of Andrew Jackson as an example. The specific relation to the text is, no references are given for these views. The references that are given may apply to the usage of Scotch-Irish, but not as Ulstermen per se. This is how it relates to the text. Further, these are not obscure objections. Many have tried to point out the problems. No progress is made correcting the article; that is, all three articles. Why is that? Usually the persistence of manifest error on WP is due to editors that have a fixed viewpoint and the personal power to suppress change. But, the article's viewpoint about the population of North Ireland is well-known and long-standing, a fact which leads me to mention it. As for my unhappiness, I'm not unhappy. I'm happy with Wikipedia, which manages despite the opposition of persons with fixed a priori viewpoints and the intent to suppress the truth to produce a lot of good articles. My motivation is my desire to see the truth published here within the limits of Wikipedia activity. Now, for the text I see as unsubstantiated and manifestly not true, you ask me which text. The definitions and the synthesis are not true, although some fragments may be. Frankly I do not see your brief notation as auspicious. It suggests that the problem is not the article, but me. I think you see my critique as vague because the flaw is the whole article. That is why I have recommended it be rewritten. Well, sometimes suggestions that other people work on the article are just not effective. I may have to work on the detail myself, concept by concept, until the errors are out it; for example, it does not state or imply that the Scotch-Irish of the American south are mainly Ulstermen. Well I have answered you as best I can. I'm putting this series in the queue. Thank you for bringing to my attention that we need to address specific text. I may not always see your comments right away, but I'm around. I also have to finish the thing I am on.Botteville (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Trying to sift out salient points in your second lengthy post, "The word originally meant merely a group of dialects.": what word (words?) and says who? Regarding being a ethinc group, what you say implies you disagree with the opening paragraph of ethnic group. Half of this new post is continued discussion and speculation regarding motives of those involved in writing the article and what you think I may think about your motives. This is superfluous and unhelpful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you know, Lunker, you've had nothing but negative things to say about me here and I think that is not only unhelpful but is not what Wikipedia is for. Your function is not that of a bully. So, I am not going to participate in further discussion with you. The post is not lengthy, it is fine. Some things need to be discussed. "Group of dialects" is perfectly clear. As for ethnic group, no, I doubt that there is one. That would depend on what you mean by ethnic group. I think it needs clarification. We don't generally consider the British and Irish different ethnic groups, which is why we have "Celtic", even though Irish and Welsh are different languages. The North Irish have no problem understanding each other, but that is neither here nor there. I don't expect you will agree with anything I say, so let us just end it. I will not reply further to you. Paradoxically enough I now agree with your last reversion, but that has nothing to do with it. I may not always agree with further reversions. It depends on the situation. Be sure and read my next section here and the one under American Scotch-Irish. But, if you can't conduct a positive discussion you will not be allowed to discuss with me at all.Botteville (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No, you are missing my point entirely. I have not only said not a thing about you but specifically cautioned against such fixation on the attribution of speculated motives of other editors. I disagree with your edits but I have no opinion about you: "This (would be) superfluous and unhelpful". Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite revisited

I'm not sure now a rewrite of material will be necessary in this article. However, by the time all the requests for references are answered, the article will have been in effect rewritten. So, it seems to me the request for a rewrite may as well stand. A lot of concepts seemed unclear to me, such as ethnic and Scotch-Irish. See also my comment under American Scotch-Irish. The main unclarity is with "Ulster Scot." Does that include Ulster English? Are we to think the Scotch-Irish in the American sense are all from Ulster? Why are the Ulster Scots not all in Ulster? The impression I had earlier of a politically sensitive direction of thought now seems to me to be accidental. If I got your motives wrong I do apologize. But, it seems to me, the issue of where these Scots speakers came from needs more substantiation. That would be the most helpful thing. Well, I think I've said everything I can say without further work. You will probably find me working on references at a slow pace.Botteville (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Other languages

We can’t list every language’s term for a given ethnic group. It seems relevant, and simpler, to use the English language term for the group (since this is English language Wikipedia), and the group’s own name for themselves. In English, the people who are the subject of this particular article are called "Ulster Scots", and they call themselves "Ulstèr-Scotch". I see no need to also list the Gaelic term for them, or any other language's term. This seems to be the convention for other pages on national groups. For example, in the article on "Germans", the term "Deutsche" is listed, but there is no need to also list the French, Polish, Italian, Russian, Chinese, and Zulu terms for people that we in English call “Germans”. Similarly, the article on "French people" also lists the French language term that these people use to refer to themselves. Again, no German, Polish, Spanish, etc. And "English people" shows that they are listed only by that term. There is no Scots Gaelic, Welsh, or other term for them. Eastcote (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your German comparison is irrelevant to this instance and in regards to names in other languages, if it is relevant to the region then it is permissible and perfectly acceptable. Check Old English (Ireland) and Anglo-Irish people for Irish Gaelic forms being provided. In this instance it is highly relevant to state the Irish Gaelic term for the Ulster-Scots if one exists, especially as many of them did speak Gaelic when they came over to Ireland (at a time when Irish and Scots Gaelic were still the same) and that the land they settled was populated largely by Gaelic speakers. Also whilst I thought it OR initially it isn't and have come across the term in Gaelic articles, though it was hard to sift from the scores of Wiki clones: [http%3A%2F%2Fguthgafa.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F10%2Fgg_programme_2010.pdf], [2], [3]. This one uses the reverse Uladh-Albanaigh which is simply the same thing, and Google translate translates both terms to "Ulster-Scots". The first link provided is the best as it gives an English translation of the Irish and makes reference to the official body for the Ulster-Scots, the Ulster-Scots Agency:

“ Ultaigh Albanach i Scannán: Is ceiliúradh é seo ar chláracha scannán agus teilifíse Albanaigh Uladh agus deis chun an pobal a bhfuil suim acu i dteanga agus i gcultúr Ultaise agus lucht an tionscail scannán atá ag obair ar nó a bhfuil suim acu i gcláracha Albanach Uladh a thabhairt le cheile. ”

“ Ulster Scots on Film, is a celebration of Ulster Scots film and television programming and an opportunity to bring together the general public who have an interest in Ulster Scots language and attendant culture, with professionals from the industry who work in, or have an interest in, Ulster Scots programmes. ”

Mabuska ^(talk) 13:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Other examples of ethnic articles detailing relevant languages: Walloons, Catalans, Basques, and Ainu people. As already stated Irish Gaelic is highly relevant. It's not like we're adding the Russian or Japanese for Ulster-Scots.

Indeed here is the Ulster Scots Agency itself using the term "Ultach-Albanacha" [4], a variant spelling meaning the same. So it is clearly relevant but I will need to ask some of my colleagues at the Ireland Wikiproject, which is the proper spelling for the people or whether (like the term "Ultaise", which seems to appear quite a bit) actually refers to a component of the Ulster-Scots for example the language (which has its own article) or culture as opposed to a name for the actual people. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Related groups, again

The "related groups" in the ethnic group infobox is particularly difficult to define or justify and ought to be kept to a minimum. If User:Brough87 can seriously convince us that, other than being geographically reasonably proximal, Welsh and English people are comparably "related" to Ulster Scots as Scots, from whom they (overwhelmingly) descend, Scots-Irish Americans, who (overwhelmingly) descend from them, Ulster Protestants, with which there is a significant overlap, etc., it may be worth considering widening the list. I'm unconvinced and if you start including all groups with any notional "relation", the category becomes more dubious and less meaningful or worth having. If the inclusions are widened to include Welsh and English, then are French, Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch etc. going to be added because of their participation in Ulster or wider Irish history and comparative geographical proximity? No, if the category is to be meaningful, and that may be debatable, it ought not to be overly inclusive. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Brough87 has promised to discuss the matter. I'll thus revert their bold changes, pending this discussion and any consensus reached. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure where the idea of geographic "proximity" argument comes from exactly; I have not made, nor suggested that I am linking Ulster Scots to the English and Welsh simply because of proximity. I'm linking them for cultural, historical and arguably genetic reasons. The difference between Ulster Scots and French is far more pronounced than the (supposed) difference between Ulster Scots, English and Welsh people. The people of the British Isles (English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish) have a long-lasting interlinked history and culture. Every part of these islands have been populated by the same people for thousands of years, the cultures and genetics of the people are largely the same. The people of these islands have been under the same government for hundreds and hundreds of years (starting with the Normans and continuing). In the case of Ireland, and specifically Ulster, they received thousands of colonists in the form of the plantations. Were many of these people Scots? Certainly, but a great many were also English (as the wiki article on the subject as well as other sources point out); after all Londonderry was populated by the Livery Companies of the City of London in the form of the The Honourable The Irish Society. In light of this information (and more that I can provide if requested), I question why the English and Welsh would not be included? Brough87 (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This is all very vague and general and you are throwing the net sufficiently wide that you make the category meaningless and arbitrarily exclude numerous other groups that are no less closely, or distantly, related. Everyone is genetically closely related, across the entire planet, some groups very slightly more than others but it would require impressive reliable sources to indicate significantly greater genetic relatedness of the English and Welsh than numerous other groups, particularly in western Europe, including e.g. people from the seaboard of Iberia as well as those I have listed. Genetic relatedness is spurious. Why don't we just list all peoples of the world? Culturally, you could argue that those of Reformed faith from e.g. the Netherlands, Germany and French Huguenots who ended up in Ulster were culturally closer than the bulk of English or Welsh migrants to Ulster, though some of the latter two groups may have been Calvinist, but again it's vaguer and much less significant than the current inclusions. Without specific guidance as to what a "related group" is, the categorisation is tricky as it is and if it is thrown so wide as to include everyone, it's probably better not to have it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm equally unimpressed by the calibre of the qualifications being deployed. One of the great debates taking place across Wikipedia on all ethnic group articles is DNA versus self-identification and culture, and distracting the reader with a conflation of physical proximity with a cultural heritage is contrary to WP:COMMONSENSE. Simply put, the purpose of an infobox is to provide the reader with an 'at a glance' summary of salient points. Per the template, the related groups parameter comes with a simple directive, being "List of other ethnic groups related to the group". Related does not mean next door, having an haplogroup in common from two thousand years ago, or any other such vagaries. Spurious relationships are not conducive to informative content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

So to clarify, you believe that the link between the Welsh and the English in relation to Ulster Scots is so vague as to be compared to a 'relatedness' between all other social/ethnic groups on the planet? You seem to be taking a small portion of the case that I have made and extrapolated it to such an extent as to suggest that that one portion is the entirety of the argument. Did I mention genetics? Yes. Did I mention geographic proximity? Neither are the entirety of the discussion. Do you disagree with the cultural similarities? Do you disagree with familial links brought about by over 500 years of being in the same country/state? Do you disagree with a relatedness brought about by the plantations of Ulster? If the purpose of the infobox is to provide "'at a glance' summary of salient points", why would you not include 'English' in the infobox? The article itself mentions English population of Ulster in the development of the Ulster Scots identity multiple times! Brough87 (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Any response? Brough87 (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please understand that no response does not mean that you get to form your own consensus by virtue of WP:BLUDGEONing tactics. Read over what has been said on this talk page and your own talk page on the subject. Your arguments have been considered; have been understood, and have convinced no one. This means that consensus remains at keeping the infobox at the stable version, and does not give you the right to persist with unilateral decision as you've just done. You are engaging in a slow edit war, and it's really time for you to drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You have not established a consensus, you have not responded to the points raised, you have not justified the position of the wikipedia article as it stands. If the arguments "have been considered" and "have been understood", why did your previous post demonstrate the complete opposite? Furthermore, why does the issue of "'at a glance' summary of salient points" not feature "English" as a related group when they are repeatedly mentioned in the article and the flag of England appears as well; is it because they irrelevant and not "salient"? Brough87 (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Where on earth does it even suggest that the English were a 'related' group anywhere within the content? Which point about being Gaelic, and being persecuted by the English eludes you? This is not an exercise in examining DNA. We're not discussing similarities in ancient DNA, or haplogroups: we're talking about 'ethnicity' as culture, self-identification, and having a language that cannot be confused with English in any shape or form as being part of the ethnicity. There has been no scientific benchmark set for when an ethnic group becomes an ethnic group, or when it is not an ethnic group.There are no scientific benchmarks for physical proximity as defining 'related group' status (the fact that Latvia is surrounded by Eastern Slavic ethnic groups and Scandinavian groups does not automatically make them a relative of either, hence no Slavic or clear-cut Scandinavian ethnic groups appear as being related to Latvians in that ethnic group article). Once we've gotten past 'Out of Africa', things get far more complex, and neighbouring groups are often unrelated, and the greatest enemies of an ethnic group. Please explain to a Crimean Tartar or a Georgian that Russians are a related ethnic groups as a matter of cultural and historical connections... I'm not convinced by your arguments, just as Mutt Lunker was entirely unconvinced. The WP:BURDEN is, then, on you to find reliable sources determining that Ulster Scots and the English are more closely related to each other than the ethnic groups currently being depicted, and that adding English people is genuinely useful (not misleading) for the reader. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Er, I entirely agree that User:Brough87 is entirely out of order in attempting to reimpose their view with no consensus to do so but I ought to point out that the vast majority of Ulster Scots were not Scottish Gaelic speakers and that the Scots language shares a common origin with Standard English and there is a diversity in academic opinion as to how exactly they relate. Presbyterians were not afforded the same rights as Anglicans so that probably accounts for oppression but it wasn't for being Gaels. Most importantly though, Brough87 should not slow war; they have no consensus for their changes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: Apologies for my unsubtle comparisons and tactics, but the brunt of my arguments are intended to represent what constitutes ethnicity, therefore some of my arguments are going to be (a tad) exaggerated. Such tactics would not be part of my usual 'lexicology of interaction' with other editors, but this particular edit to Breton Americans raised my eyebrows to the nature of the WP:SYNTH on Brough87's behalf. It is not appropriate for the infobox simply because it's a conflation suggesting that the British isles are made up of a single, homogeneous ethnic group. Broad based articles (umbrella articles) such as British people carry such information because they address a significant spectrum. Ethic groups and subclades are treated in a far more circumspect manner simply because similarities (and differences) are more subtle. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not mention genetics or geographic proximity as the soul baseline for establishing similarities between various groups. To repeatedly make that statement and/or approaching the discussion as if that is my argument is a misrepresentation and demonstrates that you do not understand the argument being proposed to you. The fact that you have failed to respond to the statements: 'being in the same Nation-state for 500 years' or 'the fact that Ulster was populated by English people during the plantations' or 'the numerous inter-familial links between English and Ulster-Scots', is a further demonstration of your failure to understand the case made against your position. I will boil the argument down to this: Do you or do you not accept that the plantation of English people in Ulster occurred? If you do, why would that not make them a "related group" that is warranted in the infobox? A similar principle can be applied to the intermarriage and interlinkage of the two groups as a result of well over 500 years of being in the same Nation-State and ruled by the same government. Brough87 (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not agree that being ruled by the same nation-state for 500 years determines ethnicity... not even a thousand years. If that were the case, much of Europe would qualify as being Turkic. I don't know any Greeks who would call themselves Turks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, you're responding to one small section of the argument and extrapolating it as if it was the entirety of the argument. Does 500+years of intermarriage, cross emmigration, the plantation of Ulster etc not make it a shared ethnicity? The origin of the Turks are not in any way similar to the Greeks, nor do they share religion or cultural practices; are you seriously suggesting its comparable? Brough87 (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that the 'related' group you're invoking is so broadly construed that it's WP:SYNTH and WP:OFFTOPIC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why 500 years of intermarriage, population movements and plantation does not create a "related ethnicity"? Brough87 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Your revertion Hi Mutt, you seem to have reverted my recent amendment. Could you perhaps explain the reason why? Brough87 (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As you've added your question to this section, discussing the very same change by you, at length and not resulting in a consensus in favour of it, you know very well. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The nature of the 'related group' section of the infobox it has been discussed on previous occasions in various different pages. The consensus generally has been along the lines of "linguistic, cultural, political and genetic descent", are you denying the link between Ulster Scots, English and Welsh people? When the first line of the Ulster Scots body of text says: "The first major influx of border English and Lowland Scots into Ulster came in the first two decades of the 17th century." Does that not show a link in your eyes? Oh and FYI, you disappearing away from a discussion does not lead to a consensus against my position. Brough87 (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I, and others, have already answered yoour question about the links or otherwise between these groups. Reread them if you have forgotten. Nobody is denying that there were English settlers as well as Scottish settlers. This is not a game of ping pong unto the end of time whereby each party has to denote their presence by posting the same stuff again and again or they "lose". Positions have been laid out; nobody shares yours. You have repeated your position, I still do not share it. There is no consensus to make your proposed change, so don't sneak back to make the change some weeks later and hope nobody will notice. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You and one other person has a point of view in disagreement with the position put across by me. Not only have you failed to respond to what is said, or give voice to the justification of your position (respond to: "Can you explain why 500 years of intermarriage, population movements and plantation does not create a "related ethnicity"?"); but your position puts you in direct contradiction with 'related ethnic group' user box principles set out in the previously mentioned search on the topic. The principal set out is this: related ethnicity is determined by "linguistic, cultural, political and genetic descent". Please justify your position. If you continue with this obstinate attitude where you believe you're not required to justify your position, I'm quite happy to take this to arbitration. Brough87 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Me and one other person thinking broadly one way; you and apparently nobody else thinking another. Whatever it is - this is no vote - it clearly is neither a consensus for your material to be added. You are the one that is proposing the addition so the onus is on you to "justify your position". You can keep posing your questions in a reformulated way in an effort to bludgeon the doubters, the answers are still laid out above. You are at liberty to take what action you feel pertinent. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Whilst WP:SKYISBLUE can apply if we all agree, we need sources otherwise. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: I'm still unsure as to your opposition to the change. Brough87 (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you serious? Read the above and the earlier discussion again, where you have no consensus for your changes. Stop sneaking back to the article after some time has elapsed, in the hope you can force your will without being rumbled. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

In the earlier discussion you didn't engage nor respond to the point being made, so I must ask again what the basis of your opposition is. I listed a series of reasons which believed was a basis to include in the "related groups" section and you neither falsified those claims nor responded to the point made. You take no issue with including Scots as a related group, what is the basis of their inclusion yet the dismissal of the English? Brough87 (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Whilst a source would be great, it is silly to argue that English doesn't form a component of Ulster Scots, at least in the present population compared to that of the plantation period. There is a very small French connection too but whether such small scale intermarriage into Ulster-Scots families makes it a proper related "ethnic" group is a bit hard to chew or substantiate. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

My position has always been the same; it seems incredible to me that two groups that have had such a great level of interaction of the centuries; share a common state, common language, common history, arguably common origin and has had long-standing levels of intermarriage and cross immigration are not included in the 'related groups' section. These points (taken together) along with the WP consistency of other pages would surely demand this change in line with WP:SKYISBLUE. I ask those who oppose my amendment to explain their understanding of what a 'related ethnic group' is and how we go about classifying groups as 'related'? Brough87 (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, see above: I've manifestly engaged and responded in abundance and to the point of tedium to your repetition of the same view, again and again. I'm not prepared to rerun this every few months to counter your WP:BLUDGEONing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

If you had "manifestly engaged and responded in abundance", I wouldn't have declared that you hadn't. You take issue with the inclusion of English as a related group, yet you take no issue with Scots being a related group; from where does your issue stem from? If 'relatedness' is such an arbitrary and meaningless categorisation, let us remove the 'related ethnic group' section entirely. Brough87 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine with that, certainly in considerable preference to your other proposals.Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually I would object to that as an extreme option simply because one editor is adament on having it their way or no way. Whilst as I did say English should be included I'd not say the same for Welsh. Their settlement and influence as far as I'm aware is as significant to the Ulster-Scots as the French or German Palatinates, in otherwords not that much. At least with the Huguenots you could argue that as they founded the linen trade in Ulster they had a better link to the Ullans. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

And the English founded the city of Londonderry/Derry; but that's besides the point... I would take no issue in the inclusion of any group that had a significant immigration and intermarriage with the people of Northern Ireland, I believe that such an amendment would meet the convention for 'related ethnic group' as practiced on other WP articles. If that doesn't suffice, I would ask again for that those who disagree with my amendment explain how they categorise what a 'related ethnic group' is. If we cannot come to consensus as to what makes a 'related ethnic group' I don't see how we can justify the existence of such a categorisation on the page. Brough87 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Well just because you can't get your way doesn't mean we should just get rid of it. If we are to get rid of it we need proper reasons. Looking at all the currently linked to ethnic groups:

• Scottish people doesn't have a related ethnic group section
• Irish people does, though there is enough sources out there that link Irish to all the groups listed in it
• Ulster Protestants mentions Ulster Scots, Irish people, Scottish people, English people, Scotch-Irish Americans, Scotch-Irish Canadians, which are all pretty uncontroversial and sourceable. It also helps that it is a geographical religious name. Indeed is it really an ethnic group? Sources at the article state ethnoreligious. Indeed Irish Catholics, another ethnoreligious group, isn't listed in the Irish people one or any other religious one in any other "ethnic group" article.
• Scotch-Irish Americans has a related groups section and mentions Ulster Scots, English/Irish/Scottish Americans but no Welsh.
• Scottish Americans has a related gtoups section which mentions all including the Welsh-Americans
• Irish Americans has it as well however weirdly only mentions fellow hypehernated Americans rather than anything from the old country.

On that basis no we should not remove it because you can't get your way. Also I have not seen a single source to back up any of your assertions either whether they are correct or not and sources are a major thing on Wikipedia. I don't know what the linked too articles have either to back up the links however what they have is pretty much uncontroversial and obvious. In regards to this article Scottish, Irish, Scots-Irish American and Irish-American are obvious. Scottish-American's not so much. Ulster Protestants should be removed as not actually being an ethnic group in comparison to the rest, and like Irish Catholics already is should be excluded. English should be an obvious inclusion. Welsh however I can't see how, especially considering for most of the time since the plantation Wales was de facto part of England, and highly Anglicised, and more easily included under English. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the supposedly obvious reason for the inclusion of "English" Mabuska? Possible but unsourced speculation that by sheer force of numbers Ulster Scots are significantly also of English ancestry. Even were that verified, are they not Ulster English, or something, rather than English? Your statements about Wales seem dubious, at the least if we're talking ethnicity rather than statehood. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Ulster-Scots is a branch of Scots, which like modern English descends from Old English, so linguistically they are linked. The Scots descend from the Anglo-Saxons of what is now southeastern Scotland, formerly part of the kingdom of Northumbria, making them and their Ulster-Scots descendants ethnicially linked to the English. If the Irish, Welsh, Breton, Manx and Scots Gaels are all considered related ethnic groups despite branching off far earlier than the Scots did from the English then surely it is permittable to state English considering they are kindred ethnic groups? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a supposedly ethnically related, rather than linguistically related, category. If you are flinging the net this wide you're as well including, say, Jamaicans and Gibraltarians on the basis of language adoption but you'd then have tens of other groups as closely, or distantly, related. Everybody on the planet is ethnically related so if the category is to be meaningful - and arguments like those above make me doubt it increasingly - flinging the net so wide diminishes its worth to negligibility. "The Scots descend from the Anglo-Saxons of what is now southeastern Scotland". Well partially for sure, and it was their language which came to dominate as it spread from the south-east but it's a wildly sweeping statement. Are you advancing that they exterminated the vast majority of individuals of pre-existing and contemporaneously migrant peoples in the south-east of what is now Scotland, then proceeded, after they were conquered/absorbed by the latter to carry on the extermination throughout the population of the conquering realm? "the Irish, Welsh, Breton, Manx and Scots Gaels are all considered related ethnic groups": as this is apparently intended be a continuation of your response to my query, why quote a list that I have not advocated? And they all "(branched) off... from the English"? If this debate is going to keep returning with tedious regularity maybe it is better to do without the category than to have an endless debate about such increasingly wide and arbitrary propositions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary it appears that it is you who is providing the increasingly wide and arbitrary in your objections to something obvious using whatever excuses you can find. Is it because you don't want to see the word English associated with Scots? For I can see no other reason for the erratic counter-arguments you're providing to me and looking deeper into the discussion to Brough. Indeed you don't seem to care that what is in the article contains an geographical-religous group (Ulster Protestants) rather than an actual ethnic group of the same kind as the rest makes your opposition weaker and less coherent. For by the same logic you're going by we should remove all related ethnic groups from all other articles due to your argument above, for example the Breton and Welsh are far enough apart from the Irish nowadays to may as well not be related anymore, lets go remove them from Irish people, no? Mabuska ^(talk) 20:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Quite agree, Ulster Protestants is a dubious inclusion and agree, the list at Irish people is arbitrary, overly wide and poor and if this is typical of "all other articles" "(removal of) all related ethnic groups" may be desirable. But this is the talk page for this article, so let's deal with that here. And it would be more constructive to deal in the substantial put to you rather than countering with the ad hominem. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'll go ahead and chime in here. The English are "obviously" related to the Ulster Scots through history, language and ethnicity. The arguments for language and ethnicity were made by Mabuska above (same Anglo-Saxon stock and same Anglos-Saxon language). Perhaps the historical argument was made by someone above, too, but this is a particularly long thread and my eyes are swimming from trying to read it. There were two primary groups who settled in Ulster during the years of the Plantation: the Scots and the English. They formed neighboring villages and farms, and some communities were intermixed. The English experience in Ulster parallels the Scots experience in Ulster. If the Ulster Scots are not related to their English neighbors and partners in the Plantation, then they are not related to anyone. These "English" in Ireland perhaps could be better described as "Anglo-Irish", so why not include Anglo-Irish in the "related" category if "English" is objectionable. I would also agree that "Ulster Protestants" is a descriptor and not an ethnicity so that should be removed. Eastcote (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A great deal of the planters were English (particularly northern English). The Ulster Scots are descended from planters. Case closed. (Indeed, if any of the people arguing over this had actually set foot in Northern Ireland, you'd know that most Ulster Scots would claim to have more in common with English people than Irish Catholics) ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I resisted suggesting “Anglo-Irish” earlier because of its strong ruling-class Protestant Ascendancy associations, from which the bulk of Ulster Scots, particularly the main Presbyterian body thereof, were actively excluded. On reflection, if we’re satisfied that the term covers the community in Ireland of English descent as a whole it is satisfactory for inclusion. I am worried though about where the line be drawn, with the advocacy of some increasingly tenuous inclusions in the historical threads above.

Please do not make baseless assumptions about where contributors have or have not set foot. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I, too, have some misgivings about using the term "Anglo-Irish", and for the same reason that it suggests the Ascendancy. I suggested it only as a possible compromise. Personally, I prefer to include "English people" as a related group. The Ulster Scots have more in common with the English than they do with the Irish, so if "Irish people" are a related group, then "English people" are a related group. The Ulster Scots share certain things with the Irish: geography, the last 400 years of history, currently language, cross-border economics. But they have far more in common with the English: Anglo-Saxon language and lineage going back 1400 years, shared experience as settlers in Ulster, Protestant religion, economics, government and policy (Ulster Scots have seats in Westminster and not in Dublin, and when the English leave the EU, the Ulster Scots go with them), etc. I consider the English to be closely related to the Ulster Scots. Groups that are related, but perhaps too distantly and too few in influence to be included as "related", would be the French Huguenots and the Palatine Germans. A few from these groups settled in Ulster alongside the Ulster Scots and assimilated, but I name them as examples of groups I would NOT include as related. Eastcote (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Anglo-Irish is a term usually referring to the Ascendancy. More Scots settled in Ulster than English, and throughout the whole province they intermarried with English and Irish, but more the English. Considering the ancestral links of the Scots to the Anglo-Saxons and the heavy intermarrying between Scots and English settlers over the past 4 centuries in Ulster it is hard to argue against them being related "ethnic" groups. The Scots of Ulster are more related to the English than the Irish yet Irish is listed with no qualms. I don't disagree with the Irish inclusion as many Scots did intermarry with Irish as too did English.

At ZinedineZidane98, please await for this discussion to come to a close with an agreed consensus before altering the article. Whilst I agree with the addition of English, it is not agreed here yet and is edit-warring so I reverted it to the stable version.

At the very least I think we may possibly all agree to exclude "Ulster Protestants" as it is not an ethnic group per se but an ethnoreligious group like "Irish Catholics". Mabuska ^(talk) 23:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

From the above you appear to take it for granted that the Ulster Scots are not themselves Irish. It may or may not be a view held by all his fellows but per Ian Paisley "you cannot be an Ulsterman without being an Irishman". Many Ulster Scots have participated in Irish sports teams, for instance and notably in rugby, and would you then tell them they are not Irish? Ulster Scots featured prominently in the Society of United Irishmen, happy with that designation. The term Scots Irish is used as a synonym and in America, descending from the Ulster Scots, you have the Scotch Irish; no qualms about linking the terms. The Ulster Scots are more than related to the Irish people.

Thanks for reverting the impatient warrior. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

You appear to have misread what I said. I did state that the Irish are a related ethnic group to Ulster-Scots just like English and Scots are. No-one is saying that they are not Irish in the sense that they come from the island of Ireland. Only a complete fool would argue that. Scots-Irish and Scotch-Irish are the proper terms for Ulster-Scots and simply means Scots in Ireland. Ulster-Scots as far as I am concerned, whilst a synonym, is a politically created term to denote simply the Scots in Ulster as opposed to stating Scots in Ireland. Yet why are we arguing over a moot point? The issue here is the inclusion of English which you have avoided responding to the latest couple editors backing its inclusion. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No, what you have written is clear. My point is that Ulster Scots are not "Irish in the sense that" anything, or "related" or whatever circling round the matter you care to employ. Whether they are a (sufficiently) related group to English for inclusion in the infobox or not, they aren't actually English but they are Irish, or specifically Irish people per the link in that infobox under discussion. Whether or not both groups should be included, it clearly puts one significantly ahead in level of pertinence. Think about applying those kinds of qualifications or exclusions to someone Jewish in Cork or of Chinese descent in Dublin. I don't imagine you would be comfortable about designating them as only "Irish in the sense that...".

Leaving the Ulster Protestants category aside per the discussion above, the people who are the subject of this article are, overwhelmingly if not entirely, descended from the Scottish people, are Irish people, progenitors of Scotch-Irish Americans which forms the intersect of Scottish Americans and Irish Americans. That's a pretty tight and relevant list and, should it be widened, any additions would clearly be at further remove than the existing very direct links. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Are we approaching anything like a consensus on this? Rationale has been given for the inclusion of the English people as "related". Due to the shared Plantation experience and the intermarriage of English and Scottish Protestant settlers in Ulster over the last couple of centuries, the Ulster Scots are as related to the English people as they are to the Scottish people. Based on this relationship, if Scottish people are included, English people should be, too. What are the specific reasons that one would say the English people are NOT related? Eastcote (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The people of English descent in Ireland are covered already under Irish people. No people is "NOT related". Some are less "NOT related" than others though, that is to say those in the infobox already, with the exception noted above. Have we at least consensus to remove the latter: Ulster Protestants? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe there is consensus to remove Ulster Protestants. However, saying "people of English descent in Ireland are covered already under Irish people", does not answer the question. We are not talking about "people of English descent in Ireland". That's the same as saying "people of Scottish descent in Ireland are covered already under Irish people" as justification to not list "Scottish people" as related. We are talking about whether the English are related to the Ulster Scots. The majority opinion in this thread seems to be that they are. The people who are today called "Ulster Scots" are descended from the Plantation settlers, who were both Scots and English. Again, what argument do you have that the English people are NOT related to the Ulster Scots? Eastcote (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No we are not "talking about whether the English are related to the Ulster Scots". Again, there is no such thing as an ethnic group, any ethnic group, that is "NOT related to the Ulster Scots". That is a spurious question to pose. Do you have an argument that (insert name of any people on the planet) is not related to the Ulster Scots? Unless we are to ditch the listing altogether or to list every ethnic group of mankind, a decision has to be made as to where we limit inclusions. It's not a simple yes-no question; the answer to the consideration of any ethnic group as "related" would be "yes". The question is instead one of degree and that is inevitably going to be to some extent arbitrary. I am arguing for the tightest possible limit as any further inclusion is clearly to some level more distant than those currently listed. Can that at least be agreed? To expand the list with further, clearly somewhat more distantly related inclusions makes that list less meaningful and would be the thin end of the wedge to advocacy of further additional inclusions, per the history of this article. Yes, amongst other peoples, the English are related to the Ulster Scots but to argue that the culture and ancestry of the Ulster Scots was not significantly more influenced by the Scots people seems an extraordinary claim, if that is what you are advancing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Only you are advancing such notions. You have been provided strong reasons yet insist on continually moving the goalposts in your desire to avoid English being stated. Your argument is increasingly more incoherent and luckily consensus does not have to be universal especially if the sole objector is simply disagreeing on what looks like personal reasons. Everyone but you has agreed to it.

Ironically new research has emerged (full report here) which points to the people in Northern Ireland as having a mixture of Irish, Scottish and wait for it... English (particularly Northern English) DNA. Whilst it does not focus on those who would call themselves of Ulster-Scots "ethnicity" it does point that the people of NI where the U-S are concentrated are a mixture of Irish, Scottish and English - not simply a mixture of Irish and Scottish or Irish and English but of all three. I see no mention of Jamaicans or whoever else you've thrown in in your opposition to the obvious. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Infact here is direct quote from the BBC report: Of the 10 clusters, seven were found to be of "Gaelic" Irish origin and three of mixed Irish and British ancestry. All of the mixed clusters were located in Northern Ireland. The geographical location of these three groupings, along with estimates of when the population mixing occurred - the 17th to 18th Centuries - led the researchers to surmise that this was related to the Ulster Plantation, when English and Scottish Protestants settled in Ireland.. Note the terms "population mixing" and "British ancestry" (as opposed to simply English or Scottish). Mabuska ^(talk) 10:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I think Mr. Lunker is arguing against points that no one is making. No one is arguing to include "all" ethnic groups in the related category. No one is arguing that the Ulster Scots are not more significantly influenced by the Scots. Mr. Lunker, I believe the question here is one of where to draw the line on "related" groups. You wish to draw the line to exclude the English. The majority here wish to draw the line to include the English. So, once again, what are your arguments for excluding the English - not Zulus, not Jamaicans, not Uzbeks. Simply put, why are the English not a related group, considering they were part of the history of the province, along with the Scots? Eastcote (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That, and the recent DNA study showing Irish, English and Scottish all mixed together. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

In fact looking at the Border Reivers who are strongly considered part of the fabric of the Ulster-Scots, they spanned both sides of the Anglo-Scottish border and consisted of both Scottish and English families, with classic Ulster-Scots names such as Graham, Armstrong, Heron, Bell and Dodds also found on the English side of the border or in the Debatable Land. Just another obvious aspect of the relatedness of the Ulster-Scots to English. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Considering it has been over a week since Mutt Lunker has responded and that there is no serious or actually sound arguments given to stating the obvious, I'm going ahead to insert "English people". Mabuska ^(talk) 15:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Eastcote (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

How breathtakingly arrogant Mabuska. If someone points out potential flaws in your line of argument, dismiss them rather than address them and impugn the person’s motivation on the basis that anyone who questions your astute line must in truth be fully convinced by it and fibbing to cover their nefarious intent?! If anyone’s bringing a personal element here it’s you. That's a pretty low piece of baseless speculation and innuendo about some imagined "personal reasons" for making the rationale I do. Either spell out your specific allegation in full on my supposed evil motivation, with its sound basis, or retract it forthwith.

My point is very simple and consistent; no shifting of anything. In completing this "related ethnic group" category, in any "people" article, the limit set as to where inclusions and exclusions are made is inevitably somewhat arbitrary. There isn’t any right or wrong limit to the line’s extent but there are arguments for a better or worse point to place it. Would you at least agree with that? I'm arguing that there is a good basis for keeping it tighter in this article than you evidently would. Related as they are, the addition of the English is plainly a more distant addition. Widen the list and you could keep going indefinitely, or does the inclusion of English, and no further, somehow take it to an incontrovertible hard limit?

The inclusion of the Welsh people has previously been mooted and, as a more distant inclusion, if it even is, is it any more distant a step from the previous group to the English people than from that expanded group to the inclusion of the Welsh people? As someone pointed out, the English plantation was from the Kingdom of England, which as a state included Wales. Oh it was you Mabuska, but you reckon they should just be counted as English because they're supposedly all anglicised? The Welsh are not a people in their own right? Maybe all the other currently included groups should be classed as English as they are surely just as anglicised, under this definition. And case you've not got it again, I'm making a point about where to fix the limit, no more arguing for the inclusion of the Welsh people than I was than with my plainly more reductio ad absurdum examples earlier.

The DNA study simply correlates with what we already know: that there was significantly higher English and Scottish immigration in Ulster. This is neither news nor controversial. There is next to no overall difference in the DNA of the population in Ireland as a whole, per the sources its basis largely set in the Bronze Age, but there are trends in some very very small but indicative differences. Apologies if I misrepresent you, because such an argument would plainly be unwarranted, but I think you appear to be extrapolating from the study that it indicates that the mix in Ulster, and possibly in each other part of Ireland discussed in the study, is entirely homogeneous within each of these areas (which of course it is essentially, but the study regards those tiny differences which make it not quite, in the population as a whole) and that this is somehow significant whereas, as far as I can tell it does not state or imply any such thing, whether this is the case or not. It certainly doesn't discuss the DNA makeup in isolation of any contemporary ethnic or cultural subgroup within each population. Neither does it classify DNA as English, Scottish or Irish. And aside from any of that, ethnicity and culture are not based on one’s DNA. As you say, the study says nothing about the Ulster Scots and what it does say is not in disagreement by anyone here. Interesting as it is, it just isn’t pertinent to this discussion.

Per above though, there is no actively "right" place to fix the limit, though there may be better ones. The current list is not wrong, though I believe the previous one was better. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

tl;dr, though what I could make out scanning past there is a good bit of convoluting of I've said. To simplify this: You are the only objector with objections based on a none existent issue about the net being cast too far. It is a red herring argument. Other than that you have provided no reasonable argument against the inclusion of English and have failed to provide one to convince the few other contributors otherwise.

Though I don't know how the previous list is better than the current one, which you admit is not wrong. Especially considering the last one contained a group that we all agreed didn't belong there. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Again you dismiss rather than address, and red herring! From the fishmonger-in-chief; your spurious DNA tangent only the latest excursion. You seem to make a habit of "didn't reading" too, if I'm the only "objector" and you are still characterising the debate in the way you do. I suppose the lack of provision of any justification for your personal attack is the closest I'm going to get to an apology. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t edit much anymore. I find it tiresome, and this discussion reminds me why. Mutt, I do not think you have pointed out any “potential flaws” in anyone’s argument, because you have not directly addressed anyone’s argument. Multiple relationships between the Ulster Scots and the English have been provided: historical, cultural, linguistic, DNA, political, religious, etc. You have not addressed any of these directly, but have set up strawmen to argue against such as: “every ethnic group is related to the Ulster Scots but we can’t list them all” when no one is saying we should, “the English didn’t influence the Ulster Scots more than the Scots” when no one is saying they did, “If we include the English we might have to include the Welsh” when no one is saying this, etc. As you said, “There isn’t any right or wrong limit to the line’s extent but there are arguments for a better or worse point to place it.” All you’ve done so far is say you don’t think we should include the English because it’s a line too far for your taste. We have given arguments for including the English. Please address those specific arguments or I will assume you are just being obstructive. Eastcote (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, I think cooling down is appropriate. I haven't seen any egregious "personal attacks", but telling someone they are "arrogant", and calling them "fishmonger-in-chief", rather than addressing their arguments, is getting close. Eastcote (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree with Eastcote's two statements above. And as Mutt has admitted what is in the article is not wrong, unless they provide a compelling reason/argument otherwise rather than strawmen, I'd consider the issue concluded. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Gaelic-speakers

Various IPs (presumably the same editor) have been making edits minimising or negating the Highland Scottish element and the Gaelic-speaking, Scottish and Irish varieties, among Ulster Scots. They have been requested to engage here but so far have refused. Yes, this may be a minority (actively highlighted in my comments above re "Related groups"), which should be noted, but was significant and pertinent to note, particulary regarding the earliest of incomers. An element of the later Galwegian incomers were probably Gaelic speakers too. Scots and English and Gaelic would have been used for communication between communities. This is also a historical article, not just about the present. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

A number of Ulster Scots are identified as Irish speakers as recently as the 1901 & 1911 censuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.76.241.90 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Any Gaelic Highland Scots which came prior to the Plantation of Ulster were undoubtedly Catholic in religion and Gaelic in language and ethnic origin. They merged with their kin, the native Gaelic Ulster Irish, of which Hebridean Scottish Gaelic culture and language is extremely similar to, and had kinship bonds with across the sea for centuries. The Gaelic-speaking Highlands were predominantly Catholic until well after the Ulster plantations of Lowland Anglo-Scots in the 17th century. The Scottish Highlands weren't predominantly Protestant until the late 18th century to early 19th century, and even then they formed their own branches in many cases separate from the Kirk/Presbyterian Church of Scotland, like the Free Church, with some areas like Barra and the Uists remaining Catholic (and Gaelic speaking) to this day. Any few Gaels from the Scottish Highlands who settled in Ulster did not become associated with the later Anglo, Lowland Scots community in eastern Ulster of which 'Ulster Scots' refers to, but rather with their Gaelic and Catholic Irish kin.

As for Galwegians from Galloway, you have a point in that Scottish Gaelic was still a minority spoken language there by the time of the Ulster plantations in the 17th century, and thus some may have taken part in the migration but were at best a small element. They likely merged with the native Gaelic Irish, if they were Catholic, or assimilated with the Anglic Lowland Scots if they were Protestant (of which became the Ulster Scots community). Protestants from eastern and southern Galloway were Anglic (Scots) speakers as that was the language of the Kirk. They were ethnically of Anglo-Saxon descent in part, as is the case for Lowland Scots in general, but also in part of Gaelic origin as Galloway was a Gaelic kingdom (Kingdom of Galloway, settled by Gaels in the 9th century) and heavily Gaelic (and also Brythonic) in language for several centuries in the Middle Ages. This is unlike the Scottish Borders which had never been a Gaelic area, but continually Anglo-Saxon going back to the 6th century and the Kingdom of Northumbria. The largest bulk of settlers were Anglo-Scots, in part of Anglo-Saxon heritage and descent (going back to the Kingdom of Northumbria), from the Scottish Borders and parts of Galloway.

In any case, there is very little that is Gaelic or Goidelic about the Ulster Scots people, in terms of language, culture and ancestry/genetics, as is the case for many Lowland Scots in Scotland for that matter (especially from the far south and southeast), whose cultural language is "Scots", an Anglian (English) dialect. In fact, Lowland Scots in Ulster were close kin with Anglic Northumbrians, whom they are ethnically and culturally the closest with (see Border Reivers) and who also settled in Ulster in large numbers to contribute to both the Ulster 'Scots' or Ulster Protestants community. Ulster Scots refers to the Protestant, Anglo (in culture and descent), traditionally 'Scots' or English speaking Lowland Scots community mostly settled in eastern Ulster. Mid-Ulster English itself has been significantly influenced by Lowland Scots, hence its different accent from the Hiberno-English of Ireland or southern and western parts of Northern Ireland. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

To editors 174.119.80.219 and 31.76.241.90: You post interesting details—what sources did you refer to to find them?

On a talk page, you can make your position much more solid by adding inline citations of your sources & creating a section-level reference list using Template:Reflist-talk unless one already exists within the bounds of that section. That template's always useful in a discussion that needs references to truly proceed to consensus.

Just don't indent {{Reflist-talk}}; it's unneeded and the leading colons mess it up! This template creates its own title & a very light box around the title & refs to distinguish its rendered result from that of {{Reflist-talk}}.

Thanks in advance for your sources! Geekdiva (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Randal MacDonnell who planted County Down with many of the Scottish Protestants from the lowlands also planted quite a few Hebridean Catholics who were of Gaelic culture in the north-east Antrim coastline, corresponding unsurprisingly the former Moyle district, the most Catholics and Gaelic part of County Antrim today. Also prominent Ulster-Scots supporters such as Nelson McCausland and Gregory Campbell both have Scottish surnames that derive from Gaelic as do many Ulster-Scot settlers - Gaelic is part of the Ulster-Scots makeup. Indeed it is thought that anywhere up to 50% of those Scots who settled during the main plantation years (1600-1700) spoke Gaelic (many having come from the then still largely Gaelic speaking Galloway area) and I can provide an academic source for that statement. Can the IP provide one that discounts it? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously that is a no then? Mabuska ^(talk) 00:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

To be another observer of this discussion, Galwegian Gaelic was moribund at the time of the heaviest Plantations and migrations of Anglo-Scots from the Lowlands in the mid 17th century to early 18th century. It was confined by that time to a minority at the very extremes of the Rhinns of Galloway. There is no source I have come across, anywhere, claiming 'half' of the Lowland Scottish planters were Gaelic speakers. Nearly all were specifically English or Anglo-Scots speaking Protestants from Galloway, Ayrshire, the Borders and Northumberland in the far north of Northern England. The Plantation was intentionally enacted to disrupt and replace the highly rebellious, Gaelic-speaking, Catholic region of Ulster which was linked to and supporting the rebellious, Gaelic-speaking, Catholic Scottish Highlands of the time. The planters and their sponsors deliberately avoided Gaelic and Catholic Scots. They specifically chose Protestant and English or Scots speaking Lowlanders. This is what has always characterized the Ulster Scots community. Gaelic Scots were seen by Scots-speaking Lowlanders at the time, in Scotland itself, as being 'Erse' (Irish) and insulted as 'Teuchters'. What tiny minority of Gaelic Scots that did come to Ulster from Galloway either merged with the native Gaelic Irish, or with the Anglo-Scots (who became the Ulster Scots), and disappeared. It is the Protestant, Lowland Scottish and English and Scots linguistic and cultural heritage that defines the Ulster Scots people and identity that is distinct from both the Gaelic Ulster Irish and Gaelic Highland Scots. Even in genetics, it has been shown that the Ulster Irish are almost identical to the Gaelic Highland Scots. The Ulster Scots and Ulster Protestants are however distinct, and cluster either with the Lowland Anglo-Scots of Galloway or those of the Borders and Northumbrian English. Please see The fine-scale genetic structure of the British population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:664:BBA7:30B8:8CAC:FBDB:4093 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ulster Scots people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216090343/http://www.nitakeacloserlook.gov.uk/index/american-connections/scots-irish.htm to http://www.nitakeacloserlook.gov.uk/index/american-connections/scots-irish.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050905204224/http://www.psa.ac.uk/cps/1996/payt.pdf to http://www.psa.ac.uk/cps/1996/payt.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You can't have your cake and eat it too

The Irish Presbyterian population in the Republic of Ireland was removed here, stating "Irish Presbyterians =/= Ulster Scots". Yet the same principle applies to Northern Irish Presbyterians, so either both figures need to be in the infobox or neither. Irish or Northern Irish Presbyterian =/= Ulster Scots, simple as that. 2A02:C7D:3C72:D200:9C15:FB52:BF63:C631 (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I still have absolutely no understanding of what you're trying to argue. The data being referenced (that I removed) deals with adherents of Presbyterianism, not whether they identify as Ulster-Scots. I think it has been previously established that being a Presbyterian on the island of Ireland does not necessarily make one an Ulster-Scot, so why are we taking data collected about adherents to Presbyterianism and are then asserting that adherents of Presbyterianism are all Ulster-Scots? Alssa1 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In your version you left in the infobox data relating to adherents of Presbyterianism in Northern Ireland. So as you quite happily agree being a Presbyterian in Northern Ireland does not make someone an Ulster-Scot, you have no problem with the removal of the figure relating to Northern Ireland? 2A02:C7D:3C72:D200:9C15:FB52:BF63:C631 (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

For further information on the census data see Demography of Northern Ireland#Ethnicity and Demography of Northern Ireland#Religion. There is no data for the Ulster Scots ethnic group, the figure in the infbox was relating to religion only. 2A02:C7D:3C72:D200:9C15:FB52:BF63:C631 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Why the flags?

I know there was an earlier discussion of a misused flag image, but I'm wondering why all the flags are currently even in this article. They don't seem to illustrate the article in any way, but just fill space. I think they should be removed. There is no official flag for Ulster Scots identity as much as some people would wish there were. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 16:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm also curious - removing them outright messes with the formatting a bit but I am strongly tempted to do so given it's been brought up a couple times on the talk page and as far as I can tell no one has defended them. LookOnMyEditsYeMighty^(talk) 05:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed them, since they don't improve the article in any way and seem to have been added as decoration. We'll see if that sticks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Someone reverted me, but has not provided any kind of rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Alssa1, what is your reasoning, in the face of objections from three other editors?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the objections to the inclusion of flags are incredibly recent (we've had them on the page since 2009). They don't harm the article, and their long-standing presence suggests implies a long-standing consensus of them being on the page. They take nothing away from the article, and their presence is not in breach of any wiki rules - therefore I don't agree that it is legitimate to remove them. Alssa1 (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

They are in breach of wiki rules. You appear not to have read MOS:FLAGS.

• Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams. ... Terms such as "country" and "nation" as used [here] should be understood to also apply to other uses of flags, such as national subdivisions. Ulster Scots are not the repesenatives of any jurisdiction.
• Use a historical flag and associated country name when they have at least a semi-officially applicable rationale to use them. For example, in lists of Olympic medalists, the USSR flag and country name should be used for reporting before 1992, not those of the Russian Federation or the CIS. Nothing like that applies here, to create a big vertical gallery of flags, as Ulster Scots are not formal representatives, like a sports team, of anywhere or "anywhen" to which those flags pertain.
• It may in some narrow military history circumstances be appropriate to use flags, as they were used at the time being written about, including naval ensigns.... An example might be an in-depth exploration of a famous battle involving numerous forces with known flags; such flags might be used in summary tables to make it clearer which force was being referred to for a particular detail. Ulster Scots are not a military unit, and this is nothing like use of small identifying flags in a table.
• Entities without flags until after a certain point in time: Some subnational entities have not had flags until recently (e.g. the Welsh flag has only been official since 1959). While this flag can still represent Wales generally, it should not be used to represent the country when the context is specifically about a time period predating the flag. Ulster Scots have no flag that pertains to them in particular at all, and do not form a jurisdiction of any kind, much less a sub-national political entity to which a flag applies, now or ever.
• Political issues: Beware of political pitfalls, and listen to concerns raised by other editors. Some flags are (sometimes or always) political statements. Everything about the flag [mis]usage you're trying to insist on is politically laden, from applying a traditional flag of Ireland to people mostly in Northern Ireland, to using an unofficial Ulster flag that is a Unionist symbol, to applying a Scottish flag to people only descended multi-generationally from Scots, to adding the flag of England which really has nothing to do with Ulster Scots or Ulster at all (the English flag is not the Union Jack). And you are certainly not "listen[ing] to concerns raised by other editors" so far.
• Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations: ... In general, if a flag is felt to be necessary, it should be that of the sovereign state, but Ulster Scots are not a sovereign state, and they cross multiple sovereign states even in their home area. That section of MOS:FLAGS even addresses the UK in particular, suggesting that sometimes (usually not) flags for NI, Scotland, Wales, and England are separably useful in an article, but it does not do so for ethno-sociological groups like Ulster Scots. Back to one of these flags in particular:
• Some flags are politically contentious – take care to avoid using them in inappropriate contexts. Some examples are: ... Use of the Ulster Banner to represent Northern Ireland in inappropriate contexts. This is actually worse, using it to represent people who are not even limited to Northern Ireland but also found in the RoI, especially Donegal. See also Avoid flag usage, especially to present a point of view, that is likely to raise editorial controversy over political or other factual matters about a biography subject. This is clearly politicised and has raised editorial controversy; there's no reason to think this MoS principle doesn't apply to mass-biographical articles and only to individual bios.
• Inappropriate use: Do not emphasize nationality without good reason. Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Clear FAIL on that count.
• Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things. ... Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view" policy. This clearly pertains even more to applying flags to entire groups of people.
• Do not use a flag when a picture of the subject is not available: A flag (or other symbolic image) should not be used as an image placeholder. That's basically what's going on here. Because of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, you are trying to just "decorate" the article by jamming images into it, and have inappropriately selected flags, which are subject to a lot of "regulation" on Wikipedia that you've not bothered to read.
• Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance: Subnational flags (regions, cities, etc.) should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article. Such flags are rarely recognizable by the general public, detracting from any shorthand utility they might have, and are rarely closely related to the subject of the article. We've already covered this above, but in short it is not possible for these flags to be directly relative to a group of people scattered over the entire north of the island of Ireland, of mixed political loyalties and citizenship, and of completely different family-historical backgrounds; the only thing they have in common is some ancestry from Scotland since the Early Modern period (and not from culturally/ethnically homogenous parts of Scotland; Highlanders are largely of Gaelic and Norse extraction, and Lowlanders largely Anglo-Saxon and Norman, but both supplied large numbers of immigrants to north Ireland).
• Do not use supranational flags without direct relevance. This doesn't pertain in a literal sense, but it does in an in-spirit on, since you are attempting to use these flags as catch-all symbols for diverse people who cross national boundaries; essentially making up a supranational use for these flags.
• Do not rewrite history: Flags should not be used to misrepresent the nationality of a historical figure, event, object, etc. Political boundaries change, often over the span of a biographical article subject's lifetime. Where ambiguity or confusion could result, it is better not to use a flag at all. These flags do misrepresent nationality, and the actual nationalities to which any given historical Ulster Scot, or the Ulster Scots as a group, has obviously changed over time (plus some of the flags you're defending the use of are not official symbols at all). Flags make simple, blunt statements about nationality, while words can express the facts with more complexity. That's the nutshell summary of the overall issue here.

This discussion suggests to me that some of the MOS:FLAGS principles with regard to "biographies" and "sub-national entities" in particular need to be edited to be a little clearer that they apply to ethnic groups, just to forestall anything like this coming up again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is correct. Its name notwithstanding, MOS:FLAGS applies specifically to flag icons, and these images aren't icons. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Nothing in the wording of it suggests that at all, everything it says about the problems of using flags having nothing to do with their size, it's in that particular guideline for lack of better place to put it (though it arguably could be moved {{lang|fr|en masse)) to MOS:IMAGES instead, and the purpose these are serving in this article is basically that of icons, just large ones.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Does this really exist?

This page appears problematic. Is there actual evidence that this identity exists historically? The reason I ask is because I cannot imagine that historically people referred to themselves as /Ulster Scots/. The idea of Ulster Scots appears to be a modern term applied to the group of people who came from Scotland to Ireland in the plantations or time period after. I suspect that when these people arrived in Ireland that they referred to themselves as Scottish and had a Scottish culture then eventually as Irish as they assimilated - I imagine this is difficult to comprehend nowadays as the communities for which /Ulster Scots/ are associated is generally Unionist/Loyalist and British. However, only after the partitioning of Ireland and the creation of N.Ireland do you tend to see individuals call themselves British or Ulster Scots. In the 19th century, you will see Protestant organisations referenced as Irish or Ireland. The largest unionist party in Ireland pre-partition was called the 'IRISH Unionists'. If you read any of the Ordnance Survey Memoirs for Ireland, for areas of historical Scottish settlement, you will see the people referred to in relation to their Scottish manner or habits. Their cultural habits may have been different but the people were Irish by nationality and regarded themselves as so. There are countless examples of this. This page appears to try to almost paint Ulster Scots as a polar opposite to Irish, like it's a nationality. It isn't. The people were culturally separate. However, given Scottish traditions (including the Lowlands) there is likely some overlap with Irish traditions. In the rebellion of 1641, the Scottish were said to be spared by the Irish rebels due to the similar affinities - the wikipedia article for the 1641 rebellion even states this.

It appears to me that the Ulster Scots which is outlined by the Ulster Scots society is that these people spoke a variant of Scots from Scotland and had some of their own specific traditions. What these are, I don't know. The genetics for this is complicated because there is historical migration from Scotland to Ireland and vice versa, INCLUDING PRE-PLANTATION. There is genetic evidence of links between Down and Galloway. The haplogroups for Irish clans like McGuinness are also found in southwest Scotland. Similarly Dal Riada and the migrations between the Glens of Antrim -Ballycastle/Cushendall and Argyll. The religious affiliations doesn't really matter. You can see Scottish Gaelic Catholics in the Glens of Antrim, like those settled in the MacDonnell estate. You can also see Scottish Gaelic Presbyterians in Ireland. I point to McKinley, the American President.

Just some thoughts. 2A02:C7F:864B:CC00:448:3A75:4733:353 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I once heard someone try to argue that there were no Germans before 1870, when the various kingdoms and principalities were united as the German Empire, which is of course nonsense. Similarly, to say that there were no Ulster Scots before the Partition of Ireland in 1921, is equally strange. Actually, they were the reason for the Partition. Eastcote (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources

• Harrison, John (2018) [2015]. The Scot in Ulster: Sketch of the History of the Scottish Population of Ulster. Forgotten Books. ISBN 9781330652862.
• More about out-migration of Ulster Scots to the Americas, etc.:
  • Leyburn, James Graham (1989) [1962]. The Scotch-Irish: A Social History. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0807842591. – Covers the Plantation of Ulster through American emigration and early US history.
  • Chepesiuk, Ron (2005). The Scotch-Irish: From the North of Ireland to the Making of America. McFarland. ISBN 9780786422739.
  • Hofstra, Warren R. (2021) [2011]. Ulster to America: The Scots-Irish Migration Experience, 1680–1830. University of Tennessee Press. ISBN 9781621902638.
  • Dickson, R. J. (2010). Ulster Emigration to Colonial America, 1718–1785. Ulster Historical Foundation. ISBN 9780901905178.
• Dobson, David (2009). Scotland During the Plantation of Ulster: The People of Ayrshire, 1600-1699. Genealogical Publishing. ISBN 9780806353913. – Something about the "back end" of the disaporic process. Part of a series that also includes volumes on Renfrewshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Lanarkshire.
• Bardon, Jonathan (2013) [2011]. The Plantation of Ulster: The British Colonization of the North of Ireland in the 17th Century. Gill & MacMillan. ISBN 9780717154470.
• Harrison, John (2018) [2015]. The Scot in Ulster: Sketch of the History of the Scottish Population of Ulster. Forgotten Books. ISBN 9781330652862.

See also: Talk:Plantation of Ulster#Additional sources, Talk:Scotch-Irish Americans#Additional sources, Talk:Scotch-Irish Canadians#Additional sources, Talk:Scottish diaspora#Additional sources.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 01:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)