Talk:Anti-Irish sentiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Ireland (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration
WikiProject icon Anti-Irish sentiment was created or significantly enhanced by WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration, a project to leverage research efforts on the Reference Desks into a more lasting contribution to the encyclopedia. If you would like to help, please consider joining us.
See original question.

The Famine[edit]

Surely it is worth a mention about the indifference in british parliment to a famine in ireland that was generally agreed to have been cause by irish stupidity regardless of the amount of food exported by ireland at the time?

There seems to be an evem more detailed article in german than in english87.232.42.93 10:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC) - This suggests that the "indifference" is a myth (like the "No Irish Need Apply" signs in America). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"In the middle of the 19th century when a great famine (caused by economic mismanagement and disrespect) struck, many saw it as God punishing the Irish for not converting to Protestantism.[9]"

Surely the Famine was the result of disease; the staple food of the native population, the 'lumper' potato was particularly susceptible to blight. Grain was certainly exported from the south-east to England; the natives didn't usually eat it. And the British government's response was based on the idea of laissez faire, don't interfere with the "market". And if "Indian corn" (maize) was imported, the locals hadn't any experience of it.

Korhomme (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


Does anyone know what's up with the numbers indicating footnotes, but no footnotes to be found? Was this copied from another article? A google search didn't turn up a copyvio, but that's the only reason I can think of for this oddity. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 04:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, but the article needs major work. Also the term "Anti-Irishism" is a neologism. Most such articles follow the form "Anti-X sentiment" unless there is another commonly accepted short form. Thus I would recommend renaming it to "Anti-Irish sentiment". -- 05:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, that's exactly what the article was originally called [1]. No explanation was given for the renaming [2]. I'm for returning the name to "Anti-Irish sentiment." As there's already a redirect at that name I think a simple consensus here on the talk page would be sufficient to move it back. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 07:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I was just wondering the very same thing, Kathryn. The footnotes are not in order, and they link to nothing---not very helpful. And, the anonymous user is correct, this article needs major intention, starting with the title. ---Charles 06:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Found the missing source(s): Irish American#Discrimination and prejudice. Which makes this article largely redundant at the moment. However, I think this article is worth salvaging and expanding, as there's no reason to limit it to the experiences of Irish-Americans. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 08:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Renaming this article[edit]

I think there's general agreement we need to rename this. The original title was Anti-Irish sentiment. I would be ok with that, but would prefer something a bit stronger, such as Anti-Irish prejudice or Anti-Irish racism. Thoughts? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am all for reverting to the original name, if only for reasons of consistenscy with similar articles such as anti-Romanian sentiment, anti-Polish sentiment, etc. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
However, one must keep in mind that it may have nothing to do with race, but rather their culture, religion (as the case seems many times to have been) language (the fact that they're native gaelic speakers) or other non-racial ethnic considerations. For these reasons I think the article should be named "Irish discrimination" (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, for a long time, it DID have to do with race. The Irish weren't considered white in America or Britain until the early 20th century, and I suspect some of that sentiment still exists in anti-Irish bigotry today. -- (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Dubious mythologising on a par with other myths like "No Irish Need Apply" lore, which certain people stateside regurgitate to put themselves in the category of "victim" (very trendy in Marxist circles). In the Victorian period some racial theorists claimed that Irish people were closer to Iberians, however there is no evidence that they weren't considered "white" by the general populance either in the US or the UK. In earlier centuries Irish people were discrimated against because they refused to fall into heretical schism. In later centuries, due almost exclusively to the republican movements horrific reputation for anarchy, murder and nihilism, Irish people were hated, heavily distrusted and actively discriminated against.
kdsjl;kasdsj — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Catholicism isn't a "non-caucasian race", its a religion. Republicanism isn't a "non-causcasian race", its an odious political stance. Just like there is a difference between the Russian people and Bolshevism, or the German people and National Socialism. This article should be named simple "Anti-Irish sentiment" to cover all that this may encapsulate. Actual biological considerations such as eccentric Victorian typcasting is not that significant overall. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein cartoon[edit]

The cartoon on the right hand side of the page is problematic. Although a brief glance makes it appear to be some pretty nasty stereotyping of the Irish, more detailed research shows that it may, in fact, be a reflection on British society.

First of all, we have to look at the events this cartoon was commenting on. We only know the month of publication, May 1882, which is the time of the Phoenix Park Murders, when British officials in Dublin were assassinated. It seems highly likely that the cartoon is a commentary on the brutality of those murders.

Next, we have to look at the depiction in the cartoon, (Frankenstein) and the quotation under it, (presumably from the book) reading: "The baneful and blood-stained Monster... yet was it not my Master to the very extent that it was my Creature? ... Had I not breathed into it my own sprit?..."

It seems to me that by depicting the Irishman as Frankenstein and explicitly quoting that Frankenstein's monstrosity reflected his creator, the cartoonist is saying that the behavior of the Irish republicans who committed the murders was a product of British involvement in Ireland. Because of the ambiguity in its meaning, I think the cartoon should be replaced by something more explicit. GabrielF 22:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the Frankenstein cartoon with something a little less ambiguous. GabrielF 23:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse cases[edit]

Has anyone ever written about why a disproportionate amount of clerical abusers were of Irish ethnicity or Irish ancestry ? It has already been said that many abusers were gay, but how about being gay and Irish at the same time ? Are Irish clerics more susceptible to deviant, pedophile sexual behaviour than clerics of other ethnicities ? Why have comparatiely few Italian-American, Hispanic-American, African-American, Asian-American (etc) clerics been caught engaging in illicit or illegal sexual behaviour ? The ethnic and cultural element in this is interesting because it tends to indicate that some cultures are more prone to being sexually deviant than others. ADM (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As an Irish-American I find this comment to be very offensive with its overt anti-Irish, anti-Catholic implications. I would be willing to bet that you would not dare accuse other ethnicities or religions of being prone to sexual deviation, but I suppose to you the Irish are seen as fair game.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Er, regardless, what is the point of mentioning this? You ask "Has anyone ever written about why a disproportionate amount of clerical abusers were of Irish ethnicity or Irish ancestry ?" Who knows? I doubt you're going to find someone to help you search for such a thing here; you'll get reactions like the one above. A Werewolf (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's anti-catholic, he/she mentions Italians afterall. (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
But I think it's understood that the comments are decidedly anti-Irish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources who discuss this topic, feel free to list them on the talk page for the sex abuse cases. But be aware of the guidelines on undue weight. I'm sceptical it would merit much more than a sentence or two, but again, sourced information is always welcome. Recognizance (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Instead of asking for reliable sources, why don't people ask ADM to stop trolling and then refuse to give him the time of day. Jack forbes (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Jack forbes (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Certainly a disproportionate amount appear to be Irish, but who can say how many other abusers were not caught? Best to leave it to the readers' judgements.Red Hurley (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Jack Forbes' suggestion is the best course of action to take.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Its an interesting theory, WP:OR aside however, we must keep in mind two things. The whole "sex scandal" thing is 1) partially due to modernist deviance, as Michael S Rose pointed out in the excellent Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic Church 2) exagerated by parts of the media (I think the actual percentage of offenders who have infiltrated is 0.01% of clergy), especially in countries where schism and naturalism are the most dominant force. Notice in such "reports" it never mentions comparisons with other professions. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Other professions usually have standards that allow for the expulsion of child sexual predators upon finding of guilt. to my knowledge (correct me if im wrong), only the catholic church has standards and practices for retaining sexual predators as valued members upon discovery of guilt. the .01% is irrelevant to this. the publisher, Regnery/gateway, is by no means an unbiased publisher. they have a strong conservative agenda, clear to anyone familiar with them. this doesnt negate the possibility of this being a reliable source, but it would leave burden of proof on any proposed additions based on this book to show neutrality, not on others to show its not. oh, this user has been banned as a sockpuppet of a banned user. that definitely doesnt help their case for including this material.mercurywoodrose not logged —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


I propose renaming the article. Irish are not a race, they are an ethnic group. Races are white, black, Mestizo, Asian, Indian, etc. Sbrianhicks (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What standard of racial categorization are you using? The United States census doesn't use the terms "mestizo" or "Indian" to describe races, for example. The United Kingdom doesn't use "race" as a term at all. Race and ethnicity are subjective terms of categorization that vary in use from one culture to the next. If you read the articles on those subjects, you'll learn that. "Irish" certainly can be and has been used with racial connotations in the past. -- (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This racism article is slightly Irish Catholic orientated[edit]

After reading this article I notice that it does not mention the anti-protestant feelings of the republic of Ireland. It certainly shows the sectarian problems against the republic in the north, Britain, America etc. But hardly any anti-protestantism or discrimination by the south. It must be there, after an investigation I found several books that stated their was an anti-protestant feeling in the south. So much so that by 1926 the protestant population of the free state had dropped by 34% a figure that declined well into the 20th century. This needs to be addressed as well and if sectarian feelings exist in the north of the island, they certainly existed in the south. Also what anti-Irish sentiment will their be towards Irish people who are gay or lesbian. Surly this should be added as well as this is a form of racism in a country where 72% of the population are devoute christians. If the article can comment on anti-catholic sentiment in the north then it should also state the antipode of the argument and anti-protestant sentiment in the republic and the rights of minority groups in ireland like the gay community.Uthican (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should be addressed, or referred it. But do bear in mind that drop in the protestant population has several factors. there was near economic collapse, if you were in business, it was wiser to relocate. During the great war there was a tradition in irish regiments that officers led from the front. these officers tended to be protestant. The loss of sons had a serious impact on the protestant population. Nonetheless factors which could be described as racism were also involved, such as the burning of 'big houses' by the anti-treaty forces.
You refer to the gay community. While their rights (or lack of them) were defined in inherited british laws, in practice everyone knew of Hilton and MacLiameoir and ignored it. I do not think a similar case can be made.
However, this is wikipedia, anyone can edit, so give it a try, - ClemMcGann (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
First, I'm glad that you "gave it a try", However ...
If there is a sentence supported by a reference, then think twice before deleting it.
When giving book references, please give the page number. Consider using the 'cite' templates.
You instance Ne Temere. This was not exclusively Irish. It was dropped by the Catholic Church in 1970. You then say that "Ireland has forbidden such practices". I am unaware of the state doing so. There are anti-discriminatory laws but they don't address such marriages and they could not address the falling populations.
The Jewish population has dropped dramatically in recent years - that does not mean that they were discriminated against.
Keep editing - and remember the page numbers - ClemMcGann (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips I'll continue to edit. Interestingly enough the church of Scotland did offer an appology in 2002 for its anti Irish and catholic paper in the early 20th century. I'll add it into the discussion. Also interestingly the paper warned against the influx of immigration taking jobs, livelyhoods etc from Scotland. Due to similar immigration trends in modern Ireland some Irish people have expressed the same in a modern context against Poles and eastern Europeans. I think that needs to be included. Also as a particular point their is a lot of anti-Irish traveller racism in Ireland. I think that needs to be included as well. Uthican (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
By all means - include everything, but be balanced - a reference to your "a modern context" needs also to relate how such attitudes fared in elections, trade union support (or not) for foreign workers, etc. keep editing (p.s. r u aware of the meet-up: Wikimedia Ireland ? - ClemMcGann (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree, where their is racism within a country their certainly will be a high degree of anti-racism. I will try to find references for a balanced indication of social inclusion in ireland for forigners including trade union support if I can find it. Also including traveller discrimination and those who are inclusive of an irish minority group. I looked on You Tube for traveller information and was shocked at some of the comments left by British and Irish people calling them filth, knackers (whatever that is?) and aggression towards them. You Tube although being a last bastion of free speech on the net, is filled with open racism against this native Irish minority. As a part of the Irish diasporia I wasnt aware irish people (not all) felt that way about their own. I'll have a look at the wikimedia Ireland. Thanks for the tips.Uthican (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I added some information and will include groups who genuinly want to help irish travellers both in Britan and Ireland at a later date for ballance to show not all settled people hate minority groups.Uthican (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Progress indeed. Some suggestions: for yourself consider a different type of article to improve. For this article: the "lede" (first paragraph) is getting far too long. It should be summary of the rest of the article. Perhaps you might consider moving the 'internal discrimination' to a paragraph of its own, and just have a sentence summarising it at the opening. After that I will recommend that you use the templaces for citations. Keep moving. - ClemMcGann (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the encouragement I decided to take in what you've said and while touching on the issues regarding anti-Irish racism, I decided to shorten the introduction and expand the article to the modern period as it just seemed to stop at the 19th century. Thanks again ;)Uthican (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved in line with other European groups. --rgpk (comment) 14:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that most groups in the template below are labeled as Anti-X sentiment including for nationals of other European countries such as Poland and Italy.

Template:Anti-cultural sentiment

Likeminas (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a redirect from Anti-Jewish racism to Racial antisemitism. So if it's changed Anti-Irish racism should redirect to Anti-Irish sentiment. SpeakFree (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Post Treaty Protestant population reduction[edit]

Neither source cited in the article sourced the sentence "Following the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922 that created the Irish Free State, the Protestant population fell by 34% in 1926". Both of them talk of a fall of 34% between 1911 and 1926, so it's incorrect to talk of a 34% fall between 1922 and 1926, or indeed a 34% fall in 1926 alone as the sentence actually says. Before rewording to to the source though, Northern Ireland: faith and faction by Maurice Irvine on page 143 notes that "Between 1861 and 1911 the total Church of Ireland and Presbyterians in the area which subsequently became the Irish Free State declined from 436,874 to 295,021 - a decrease of 143,853 or 32.8%" (and then details a 44% fall between 1926 and 1981. I'll just state a bit of obvious maths before carrying on, just so there's no confusion. Over the period 1861-1911, the Protestant population declined by approx 2,837 people per year. Taking the 34% fall from 295,021, that means a fall to 100307 to 194714, a decline of approximately 6,687 people per year. However, as Fanning points out the population reduction between 1911 and 1926 also includes deaths during the First World War. Obviously you'd expect there to be quite a few Protestants among those.

So obviously the current wording is hopelessly wrong, so I've removed it temporarily while this is discussed. I emphasise temporarily, since I'm not against something properly sourced and accurate going back in, but it does the reader no good to have totally incorrect information in the article does it? So what should that sentence say? Obviously the part about the Treaty has to come out and presumably be replaced by a 1911-1926 range, and I'd hope a bit about the 1861 to 1911 decline has to go in to demonstrate the decline isn't any "post-War of Independence trend" or anything similar.

Or since the whole point of the sentence is seemingly negated by the sources when cited accurately, does the sentence even need to be added back at all? Can someone tell me what that sentence is even doing in an article about "Anti-Irish sentiment" in the first place? Is the conflict between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants (I realise that the Protestants may well consider themselves British rather than Irish, but that makes it "Anti-British sentiment" if followed through to its logical conclusion) really "Anti-Irish sentiment"? To use a rather extreme analogy, is the conflict between fans of Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur "Anti-English sentiment" or "Anti-British sentiment"?

Lots to discuss there? 2 lines of K303

Not one mention of Cromwell?[edit]

And it is very inadequate overall in explaining historical British hatred and prejudice towards the Irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as there is no explaining the historical anti-British racism that is still exposed today by many Irish. Mabuska (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


BulbBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Racism infobox[edit]

I've reverted the last edit that removed the racism infobox. Racism isn't simply confined to the discriminated party belonging to a scientifically defined "race". Other points:

  • Racism is not just focused on "race" - it includes discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Article 21 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibits "discrimination on any ground such as race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, disability, age or sexual orientation and also discrimination on the grounds of nationality."
  • The article Anti-Irish racism redirects to this article
  • Other similar articles such as Anti-Slavic sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment and Anti-Pakistan sentiment include the infobox
  • One of the reverts suggested that the box does not belong on the basis that "Irish" is not a race. But it's reported in the article Racism in the United Kingdom that until well into the 20th century, the Irish were viewed by the British establishment as a separate and degenerate race. This argument that the Irish are not a race may be a true fact, but historically its evident that the Irish were considered a race.
  • The article also deals with racism against Irish travellers.

--HighKing (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've edited the template to reflect the title of the article, rather than the "Anti-Irish racism" redirect. Although, on your first point, does it explicitly call that discrimination racism? Jon C. 16:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Cool. You're correct in that the EU doc doesn't use the word "racism", but instead refers to "discrimination". But the United Nations use the definition of racial discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted in 1966: "… any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.(Part 1 of Article 1 of the U.N. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination)" --HighKing (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

History missing[edit]

There is a significant period of anti-Irish sentiment missing in Britain during The Troubles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


I'm thinking we could add something about Cromwell's effect on Ireland, the slavery in the Caribbean, etc. Yes, yes, be bold and all. Just don't have the time to do it right now, but wanted to toss it out there if anyone is feeling inspired before I get to it. - CorbieV 22:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Irish prejudice in American academia[edit]

The vast majority of universities in the US do not offer courses in the Irish language, yet many do offer courses in Scottish Gaelic and Welsh. I remember reading an article that said this was the cause of anti-Irish prejudice being present when many of these universities were established, and quite simply nothing has been done to correct it. Hence, I believe the article should include something about prejudice against the Irish within American academia. (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Section on Scientific Racism of the Irish[edit]

Should there not be a section on Scientific Racism of the Irish, such as:

with the prominent psychologist Hans Eysenck who wrote in his book Race, Intelligence, and Education (1971) that the Irish had a low intelligence similar to black people due to inferior genes and argued that "Only the most intelligent of the Irish migrated from Ireland"

Kinnell (1981) cited Eysenck´s assertion when he concluded in the British Medical Journal that the rise in mental and physical conditions in the British population was due to Irish genes from Irish migrants in relationships with `vulnerable` British citizens

Equal views of inferior genes within the Irish people was argued by Richard Lynn.

Additionally, views held by Francis Galton and W.R. Greg which Charles Darwin highlighted in his book Descent of Man (1871):

"A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly urged by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan, they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that are born by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts? and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal ‘struggle for existence,’ it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed? and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.“

Other Anti-Irish Sentiment in Scientific works include Language studies, such as Braj Kachru (1996) who excluded Irish English from his three concentric circles of Native English speaking countries by citing in his article World Englishes: Agony and Ecstasy " reliable English-using populations are available, particularly for those who use English as their first language" (P 137-!38). This resulted in the Teachers Council of Thailand refusing to recognise Irish people as native English speakers and insisting on them to take an English exam if they planned to be employed as a teacher.

While in legal articles such as that by Antoni Milian-Massana (2012) in his book Language Law and Legal Challenges in Medium-Sized Language Communities. A Comparative Perspective, whereby he argued that the Irish language should be removed as an official European Union language, since not many Irish people speak it and those that do don't understand it fluently and therefore it is not essential to protect, whereas Catalan is and should replace Irish since Catalan has more speakers (P153).

I really think there is more evidence of anti-Irish sentiment in scientific works and that these merit being mentioned here in a section of its own as these studies are often used to support Anti-Irish Sentiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2580:2480:955D:F5FC:7354:7013 (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"No Irish Need Apply"[edit]

Under the heading "Modern Period" / "19th century", the Wikipedia article describes Richard Jensen's article that the "No Irish Need Apply" (aka, "NINA") signs did not exist in the U.S., and that the widespread belief that they did was actually due to memory of discrimination in the U.K. and to "the political need to be bona-fide victims." He based his argument on the claim that "There are no contemporary or retrospective accounts of a specific sign at a specific location. No particular business enterprise is named as a culprit. No historian, archivist, or museum curator has ever located one; no photograph or drawing exists."

However, recent findings by Rebecca Fried (a high schooler!), published in the same academic journal as Jensen's original article, found numerous examples of such signs throughout the Northeast and Midwest United States, the largest number in the 1840s but continuing to occur as late as 1909. Considering that Fried so thoroughly disproved the evidence Jensen used for his thesis, should the Jensen argument still be even included in the Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC) The above comment was from me.AnneTG (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is awkward: the Richard Jensen in question appears to be long-time Wikipedia editor Rjensen (talk · contribs). --Calton | Talk 23:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The young lady is to be praised for her energy--she is precocious & has not yet entered high school. She knows very little history and vastly exaggerated her findings. She reports instances of people talking about NINA (it was a common phrase in Britain, Canada and USA) and ASSUMES there was an actual sign there. She fell for the myth I described at length. Her research turned up only N=1 actual sign from the entire 19th century. It is for a patronage job at the police department in a small town in Ohio in 1883. (She was unaware of 19th century patronage. When the GOP won an election they replaced all the Dems in city jobs with Republicans and in those days all the Irish were Dems so "no Irish need apply" was often said after the election. My article excluded patronage jobs which many scholars have studied.) The online data sets are vastly larger today than in 2001 when I did my research. I was the scholar who introduced the methodology of computer searching masses of historic data for NINA. She did find about 30 NINA job ads in the entire USA for the 19th century. She found 15 in one paper in 1842 (it looks like one company was repeating its ad every few days.) She found 3 ads in all the Chicago newspapers 1850-1900, and 8 in Boston. . All the daily newspapers combined in New York City published 6 NINA ads in 1844-1900--about one per decade. I estimate that nationwide there was one NINA job ad per 41,000 pages of newspapers. You could spend a lifetime reading the job ads and never see one. My article found the first NINA newspaper ads and said they were rare. historians I found no actual signs and said they were nonexistent or very rare--and she found one. Numerous real historians have replicated my article and confirmed it in their published work. Rjensen (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Rebecca Fried wrote the article as an 8th grade student. She is a "rising 9th grader" which means she starts 9th grade (high school freshman) this month, according to Washington Post. Rjensen (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Since i'm a party to this debate an administrator has suggested that the text I added recently be moved here to get a consensus on whether to return it to the article. It summarizes the opening part of Fried's article where she makes it clear that she is challenging the consensus view of scholars:
Fried found, “Jensen’s conclusions about these facts have coalesced into something like a ‘consensus’ view.” Historians who have endorsed Jensen's results include Donald MacRaild, <ref>Donald M. MacRaild, “‘No Irish Need Apply’: The Origins and Persistence of a Prejudice,” ''Labour History Review'' 78 (2013): 269-299)</ref> Tyler Anbinder,<ref>Tyler Anbinder, “Nativism and Prejudice Against Immigrants,” in ''A Companion to American Immigration,'' ed. Reed Ueda (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 188-89.</ref>, Cathy Stanton,<ref>Cathy Stanton, ''The Lowell Experiment: Public History in a Post-Industrial City'' (University of Massachusetts Press, 2006), pp 79 and 268 n.8. </ref> Augusto Ferraiuolo,<ref> Augusto Ferraiuolo, ''Religious Festive Practices in Boston's North End: Ephemeral Identities in an Italian American Community'' (State University of New York Press, 2009), pp 238-39 n.21)</ref> and David A. Wilson.<ref> David A. Wilson, “Introduction,” in Wilson, ed., ''Irish Nationalism in Canada, (McGill-Queens University Press, 2009), p 5.</ref> Rjensen (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. That "consensus view" is an attempt at an Argument from Authority that utterly ignores the new findings, since the endorsements all predate Fried's work. That's not "consensus" by any reasonable measure. --Calton | Talk 10:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"consensus" is Fried's statement. Standing against the consensus is called "fringe" at Wikipedia, no matter how young you are. Rjensen (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Having read the article, I find it odd/peculiar that Richard Jensen or Fried are being mentioned at all. One a "scholar" and the other a student going into 9th grade. No offence, but is it not better to include references from the works mentioned above? These works include published work from various reputable historians. -- HighKing++ 15:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The consensus view for the past 10+ years has been that Jensen's paper was accurate. Even though it wasn't. Kerby A. Miller is quoted in The Daily Beast: "From the first, my responses to Jensen’s claims had been strongly negative, as were those of a few other scholars, but, for various reasons, most historians, social scientists, journalists, et cetera accepted or even embraced Jensen’s arguments." YoPienso (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@ HighKing: Jensen's paper and the rebuttal got/are getting quite a bit of traction; they're germane to the article. YoPienso (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • RJ: since this directly concerns your work, I would encourage you to step back from the discussion and let the rest of the community determine how the passage should read. Although citing one own's work is permissible if it's an RS, getting into heated debates about how your work is used very often results in discussions that are unproductive at best, and violate (sometimes many) content and behavioral policies at worst. This is nothing at all against you, I've just never seen a discussion where someone is vigorously arguing for the inclusion of their own scholarly work end well. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
OK I stepped back...but there's one line that does not meet Wikipedia standards: " She discovered multiple instances of the restriction used in advertisements for many different types of positions, including ..." Her appendix lists all her finds and there are 70 of them between 1840 and 1932. The exact number is much better than "multiple." Rjensen (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Paddywhackery - a deletion of interest (and possible merge candidate)[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paddywhackery. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

19th century[edit]

Three lengthy paragraphs were added to this section on 14 January. Much of it, including nearly all of the first (longest) paragraph, is off-topic, being essentially an essay on 19th-century pseudoscientific theories of race in general. Some of it is quite unencyclopaedic in tone ("it was even hinted that the Irish might be the elusive missing link!") and most of it is normative rather than descriptive in tone. But my main problem is that the only "inline" citations appear at the end of the last paragraph. I put "inline" in quotes because it is unclear whether the refs are intended to support particular parts of the content, or all of it, or only the last sentence ("These were all arguments which conveniently supported British rule in Ireland"). The problem is made more acute by the fact that there are no page numbers in any of the four five citations, so that even if a reader were to have access to all four five books, they would not know where to look for the page or paragraph that supposedly supports whichever bit of the text it is supposed to be supporting. Also, while assuming good faith, we need to consider the possibility that some or all of this addition is a direct transcription from the books, and therefore copyvio. The writing style is surprisingly literary when compared with any of that editor's previous contributions. For all of these reasons I thought, and still think, that it is safer to revert that edit. Scolaire (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Scolaire. The added text is mostly off-topic and not enyclopedic. Large parts are copied verbatim --plagiarized--from Michael Dillon (2015). Biopolitics of Security: A Political Analytic of Finitude. Routledge. pp. 169–70.  -- published last year by a Routledge. Rjensen (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
In fact the entire text (including the refs at the end) seems to have been lifted wholesale from this page on Scolaire (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It is clearly on topic. The fact that the Irish were singled out as biologically and evolutionarily inferior by the 19th century theorists of scientific racism is clearly germane to the topic of this article. Per AGF lack of page numbers should not be a cause for removal, but for requesting them (or even finding them oneself). The Copyvio problem of course means that it cannot be included in its current form, but the information should definitely be included in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I would have no problem with the directly relevant parts of the page (those not going into detail about the science of phrenology itself) being summarised in the article, in a style consistent with the rest of the article and with Wikipedia generally, and citing the article that it's actually sourced from, rather than that article's author's sources. If you or somebody else were to be bold and do that, I would not revert you or them. Scolaire (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the first two (short) paragraphs of the 19th century section already do summarise, and cite, that article. Scolaire (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
It is important to add some background. Rather than delete all that I added I would much rather it be edited, where necessary. I was in the process of doing some editing myself on what I added before it was deleted. What I added appears to show is a transition in the 19th century from a predominantly religious descrimination of the people of Ireland to that of racism backed up by "science". It is important as this discrimination of the people of Ireland could have played a big part in the death of over one million people from lack of food during the famine of the 1840s. AlwynJPie (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Adding copyrights violations will get you blocked Alwyn. I agree that the material is relevant and important, but unless you take the time to write it up in a way that doesnt violate other peoples copyrights it is not acceptable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Manus. The trouble is when I try to alter text the meaning sometimes changes. I was hoping others could help edit it. AlwynJPie (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
You can suggest the text you would like to add here on the talkpage before inserting it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok I will do that. I will initially copy and past the whole 19th century section and hopefully we can edit it together. AlwynJPie (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I have already provided links in this section to both your initial edit and the page you presumably got it from, so the text is easily accessed if somebody wants to add content based on it. You seem to be saying that you're not good at summarising and paraphrasing copyrighted text, so I think you should let it go unless and until that somebody undertakes to do the job. Scolaire (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I must apologise. Until just now I was unaware that the text I added was already in a citation in the 19th century section to the very site that I copied and pasted to the same section. But I did make slight alterations. I changed some of the spellings and I added some links. If I had read all the citations I would have noticed that text and I wouldn't have added that same text. I think that what I added was important but I will now leave it to others to enhance this section. AlwynJPie (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Irish sentiment in the 1960 election?[edit]

The article doesn't mention it, but my recollection is that my own father opposed Kennedy on racist and religious grounds. The Catholic thing was probably more important to him, but I still think it should be included in the 20th century part of the article... Shanen (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

None of the Reliable Sources (RS) I have seen mention any anti-Irish factor--they all specify anti-Catholic factor. Rjensen (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anti-Irish sentiment. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)