Talk:Irish people/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


Soledad O'Brien and Jeremy Renner are listed as famous Irish people. While they may have Irish ancestry, they are American. The rest of the celebrities are all from Ireland. So I think they should either be deleted or have their American ancestry mentioned. Including them among actual people from Ireland suggests that they too are from Ireland. Furthermore, I think the 'celebrities' section ought to only include Irish people from Ireland. If we were to list celebrities with Irish heritage from America, Canada, or Australia, the list would be endless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheyCallMeTheEditor (talkcontribs) 03:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

NI and Free State

Irish or Irish descents ( 90 Million????). Wikipedia are you really sure about this. Irish descent being 90 million. Numbers need careful analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth1World (talkcontribs) 08:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

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

I'm guessing by Free State you are referring to the country of Ireland, or are you referring to something else? I also don't know what you mean by genetics. Absolutely everyone has different genes. Are you suggesting there's a racial difference between Unionists and Nationalists?; because that is completely wrong. Sure Gerry Adams is descended from some of the planters and there aer many orange order members with names Murphy and O'Something. So yes, the only difference between the people on this island is political. (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm referring to the section in the article called "Northern Ireland and Free State".
I may be using the wrong language, and I know everyone has different genes, but I am assuming that there are genetic similarities between individuals within population groups (e.g., to give an extreme example, presumably there are genetic similarities among Australian Aborigines). Otherwise, phrases such as "expanding the gene pool" would make no sense.
Anyway, the point is that the Protestants are largely descended from immigrants from England and Scotland and the RCs from the Gaelic Irish and, over the past four centuries, there has been minimal intermarriage between the two. The political difference of which you speak is, in large part, a consequence of this. Mooretwin (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Aren't the Scots largely descended from, or at least intermixed with, the Irish? Hohenloh + 13:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a generalisation. As I understand it, the Highland and Lowland Scots were quite distinct for many centuries. I think the Scots came from Ulster, and eventually gave their name to what is now Scotland, but there were Picts and other tribes already there. I also think there was considerable immigration of Angles to Lowland Scotland. Mooretwin (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes you're right there. The Irish and the Scottish have a common Gaelic ancestry. (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Again, that is simplistic. The Highland Scots and Gaelic Irish presumably have common ancestry, but the Lowland Scots were not Gaelic. It was largely Lowland Scots who emigrated to Ulster. Mooretwin (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Gaelic is a language, one, like English or Scots, which was not the original language of anyone in the archipelago (most of the genes on these islands were present before ANY Indo-European language existed anywhere in the world, and Gaelic or it's predecessor(s) obviously came from continental Europe after that). It is perfectly feasible that Catholics in NI are genetically closer to Protestants in NI than to Gaelic speakers in Kerry, indeed I think it might even be likely. The problem with your argument in general is that it appears to assume that there is a genetic entity of "Gaelic Irish" (a language and nationality or ethnicity combination that does not reference genes) to which Ulster Protestants do not belong, but there is no evidence that this entity exists. It is perfectly possible that Catholics in NI even before the plantations had more genetic similarity with people in the (non Gaelic speaking) areas from which the Scottish planters came than they did with some peoples elsewhere on the island of Ireland. I don't consider it even unlikely, but if you posit the existence of a genetic category of Irish whereby everyone in it is genetically closer to every other in that category than they are to anyone on the island of Great Britain then I have serious doubts that such a category exists at the genetic level, or that it ever even existed at some point in the past. I could make similar comments about European / Asian Turks and the Bosporus. If you believe that this genetic categorisation exists then I'm afraid that it is up to you to demonstrate it's existence. Without that I'm going to have to say that your genetic category does not exist. It is a presumption, and one which has a fair likelihood to be wrong (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The operative phrase is "predominantly". Yes, nationalists and unionists correspond broadly to Gaelic and Anglic-Scots descent groups respectively, but the defining division is political (tied up chiefly in cultural and religious differences). After all, there is ethnic overlap between the two political groups - there are some unionists descended from Gaelic-Scots planters, just as across Ireland there are many "Old English" families such as the Burkes and Fitzgeralds who consider themselves Irish despite being of Anglo-Norman descent. So while there may not have been much intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants, there certainly was much intermarriage when both the Irish and Anglo-Irish were still Catholic, so race is not so much of an issue in terms of self-identity. -- (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Your argument doesn't work, because the Ulster settlers were not the same as the Anglo-Irish. Mooretwin (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not, but it does indicate a portion of both groups (unionist/nationalist) as having a descent from a common Anglic genepool. (The first of the Old English may having been more Anglo-Norman than Anglo-Saxon, but they continued to intermarry with "New English" families born in England as well as the native Gaelic clans. If we are assuming that the lowland Scots settlers of Ulster were also descended from "Anglo-Saxon", then both groups will have some Anglic ancestry.)
But getting to the heart of the issue, if you were (for example) in a residential area in Belfast, you would work out which group claimed it not by looking for the "ethnic features" of the locals, but by looking at the murals on the sides of houses. Your point is accepted that the two groups have broadly different ethnic origins, but the defining difference is history rather than ethnicity. The messages conveyed by the murals make use of religious, historical and political references, rather than racial terminology. -- (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Terryfying to see this genetic debate.

Pre-Roman, most of inhabitants of the British Isels were of Celtic stock, descended ultimately from tribes in North Africa, and related to certain pockets in Anatolia, Brittany, Basque Country.

Post Roman if get more complictated as there is a massive Scandinavian influence (Normans, Vikings) and Germanic (Angles, Saxons, Jutes).

Today there are NO 'genetically pure' (I use that phrase lightly and do not mean to offend or create eugenics overtones) populations of orignal Celts.

What many seem to forget is vast swathes of Ireland and Scotland were also populated by Vikings and that even many areas of England are as Celtic as Ireland and Scotland (Cumberland, West Riding of Yorkshire).

Ignorance is rife in the world.

RF 04-03-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

de Valera

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

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

It's even funnier that you would discriminate against a man who was of half-Irish blood and risked his life for Irish freedom, just because he was also half-Cuban. (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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

Why isn't JFK represented in the image infobox? Considering he was Irish as well as being the most powerful man on earth at the time of his presidncey. You can't really beat that can you for importance and recognition?Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Number of Irish people in the United Kingdom

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

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

Recent edits

Flag of the Kingdom of Ireland
The red hand in the Flag of Ulster of the Uí Néill (O'Neill)
Brian Boru is considered as the national hero of Ireland.
Chucrch of St Nicholas

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

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

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

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

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

Exaggeration of population numbers? (Quite the contrary)

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

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

Quite the contrary, the figure in the USA for Irish descendants is 75 million (America alone). I studied this in college (I Majored in Social Sciences) and the statistics are well known. Therefore the worldwide Irish diaspora is probably far higher than stated in the article, especially once Australia, Canada and the Caribbean are taken into account. (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the source of your figures is, but 36.3 million Americans reported Irish ancestry in the 2008 American Community Survey (not counting 3.5 million Scotch-Irish). [1] So your 75 million seems a little excessive to me.--Pondle (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The American community survey, I never heard of that before. I'd like see some evidence about it's accuracy. (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's conducted by the US Census Bureau, and as the name suggests is based upon a sample from all US counties and Puerto Rico. See here--Pondle (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I added new images on infobox

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

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

Robert Boyle

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

Robert Boyle

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

And on your thinking Arthur Conan Doyle is not Scottish at all, because his parents were Irish. And Sean Connery is not really Scottish because he's half Irish. Same goes for Billy Connelly, and even Susan Boyle. If you revert this again I'll report you for edit warring. purple (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Your own thinking is not relevant. "Boyle on Atheism" by J.J. MacIntosh (University of Toronto Press ISBN 978-0802090188) says "Notwithstanding his birthplace, Boyle was English, or perhaps Anglo-Irish, not Irish, and at the time he would have been made clearly aware of the difference". If you change it back to just "Irish" again I'll report you for edit warring, and more. O Fenian (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Apparently neither of you understand the meaning of being Irish. Notwithstanding the the surname O'Boyle is Irish, and that he was born in Ireland, that makes him Irish as far as the article is concerned. I'm afraid you are both playing into pov editing from two diverse perspectives. purple (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
So being born in Ireland makes you part of the Irish ethnic group? Hilarious. I have provided an indisputable reliable source, you have provided nothing. O Fenian (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Then put him in the English People article, by your reckoning. Being Irish is everything that has gone before, including Gaels, Planter, and Refugee. purple (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Read the first line of the article which says "The Irish people (Irish: Muintir na hÉireann, na hÉireannaigh, na Gaeil) are a Western European ethnic group who originate in Ireland". As Irish people as defined by this article are an ethnic group, someone cannot become part of this group simply by being born in Ireland. O Fenian (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Irish is a mix of all that has come before, whether Gael, England, Wales, Germany, where ever? I see Anglo-Scot, or Anglo-Welsh are not listed in Wikipedia, because "they" wouldn't accept the POV that that would imply. Think about it, and it's not my opinion. purple (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
If it is not your opinion you should be able to provide sources, which you have not. I have provided an indisputable source that says he should not be described as Irish. O Fenian (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
(Born + Raised + Ireland = Irish). That's not rocket science, born, and his formative years were Irish, and Ireland should claim him as their own, which he is. purple (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
So someone born to English parents in Ireland is part of the Irish ethnic group? How about those sources, not got any or something? O Fenian (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I would say so. Boyle is claimed by the Anglosphere because of his importance to science, but fundamentally he was an Irish person who emmigrated, a bit like Terry Wogan perhaps. purple (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
So if someone is born to English parents in Pakistan what ethnic group would they belong to? And still no sources? O Fenian (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The article is not about etnicicity, it's about people born in Ireland, whatever their circumstance. Being "Irish" is to be inclusive, and that's the true nature of Ireland since the Middle Ages. Some went against that, which we know from history. purple (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I assume you have not read the article then, or what I said above? Will you be providing sources this Ice Age, or are you not going to bother? O Fenian (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
He was born in Ireland, that's the source. What more is needed? Anglo-Irish is a pov term, many so-called Anglo-Irish would demur to being labeled as such. It's like telling people that they are not really Irish. To me, that's playing into the hands of narrow-minded bigots, and that's not called for. Anyway, I'm loggin off for the day. purple (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Not POV, just fact. You don't have a source. He's Anglo-Irish. LevenBoy (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
So it would be a bit like labeling someone "Irish" when they are described by a reliable source as "Boyle was English, or perhaps Anglo-Irish, not Irish"? O Fenian (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
According to the BBC[2], he was British. Apparently he grew up and was educated in Ireland, then spent 2 years at Eaton, and thereafter spent many years in Europe, where he was influenced by some of the great European scientists. He eventually settled in England. purple (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Em... as you may know, that is not the BBC, but an independently run microsite on the BBK's own site. That source is admissable. He was Irish. In those days, I'd say we all agree that birth country was the main basis of nationality.

I haven't studied the Boyles closely but, if the article is accurate, Boyle lived in Ireland in a close bubble and left at 7 years old to return little if at all. Those who are of powerful English descent and leave in their formative years for England, never to return... well I lived in England for a year myself and aside from the sight-seeing and adventures, the most remarkable thing is not getting to know English people very closely. Why? If you don't immerse in local community (and I mean local school and housing) or local education, work closely with some local people, unless falling in closely with local art culture or local thugs or just spending a good decade there, you were just sightseeing, nothing bad in that alone, but that alone. Boyles father would appear to have babysat the ownership of Ireland. Past experience tells us that ownership or stand-in appointment for Ireland does not often indicate an Irish person, the opposite in fact most often. If someone couldn't come up with some strong Irish ties to Boyle beyond Ireland being a gift of sorts to his fathers management, you should have a strong point that the son was not Irish at all and merely affiliated in an abstract way. There should be planty more information about those earlier years including who his mother was and why she would be dead before he was 8 years old. For anyone who thinks that the moment of birth alone will be the basis of true nationality, or that a mock up of Scottish, Welsh and English makes a person Irish, in any book, wise up? ~ R.T.G 16:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Boyle may have been born here but he didnt view himself as irish,nor was he fond of the country. He did all of his best work in England because of the difficulty acquiring scientific equipment and the general lack of academic groups in Ireland at the time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggilicious (talkcontribs) 00:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Added pic

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

Irish people outside of Ireland

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

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

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

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

It should also be noted that being born in Ireland doesn't make you any better than someone who is not born in Ireland.

Nor does it make you more Irish.

There are now just many different kinds of Irish-- Boston Irish, New York Irish, Australian-Irish, Irish-Canadian, Jamaican-Irish, British-Irish....

Some are also Irish from Ireland, but that doesn't make them any more Irish than anyone else.

It's just another type of Irish-- among the many types of Irish. A small percentage of the whole, actually.

According to this article:

869,093 Irish-born[1] (1.4% of the British population) 6,000,000 with at least 25% Irish ancestry[2] (10% of the British population) 14,000,000 with less than 25% Irish ancestry[2] (25% of the British population)

But ommited from the short table. I smell a rat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC) (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

MacManus's book

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You left something out here, -- "2 - Traditional histories assert that the Romans never attempted to conquer Ireland, although it may have been considered.[20]" Because they were afraid of the Irish. (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The Columbus-crew bit is still in the lead. Should it be chucked out?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The book cite appears to be removed, although there appears to be a disproportionate reliance on a single source for such an article. What specific book is under discussion, is this it The Story of the Irish Race - 1944 and can it be considered a WP:RS? - adding link to some contemporary reviews from students at Notre Dame.RashersTierney (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Many populations figures changed

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

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


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

The list goes on. They are sometimes called the Cambro-Normans. The FitzGerald dynasty were more or less Welsh people when they arrived in Ireland.
Less well known is that there were Irish colonists in Wales some centuries before. DinDraithou (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The article needs to state this close connection between Wales and Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. See Uí Liatháin, Déisi, and Llŷn Peninsula. The connection is principally with southern Ireland and dates from Antiquity. Alliances are also known from the Irish sagas. Lugaid mac Con supposedly gained his throne thanks to one, while one was made against Conaire Mór. In fact there are whole speculated Irish population groups which some scholars believe originated in Britain, speaking languages closely akin to the Brittonic ancestor of Welsh. DinDraithou (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
And let's not forget the Breton connection, where my surname of Griffin allegedly originates.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Bretons were the most prominent of the non-Norman forces in the invasion of England, but have been largely forgotten in popular history. You might enjoy this article. Of course the House of Stuart have distant origins in Brittany, although they later claimed to be entirely Scottish in origin.
Back to the Welsh in Ireland. For the moment I've added a line mentioning Joyce and Griffin/Griffith. But a lot of the article needs to be resectioned and rewritten before we can go on about what we've been talking about. DinDraithou (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Your addition looks good.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the Stuarts were originally FitzAlan and they were indeed Breton. Anne Boleyn's direct maternal DNA was Breton. Many of the Anglo-Norman noble families were descended in the direct female line from the Irish Aoife of Leinster which shows how much Celtic blood there is amongst the nobility of the two islands.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


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

Clearly you don't know anything and need others to post what you hope exists.
I have asked you before to stop mentioning me by name. Keep following me around like this, and supporting in one way or another outdated and unscholarly conclusions as if they should be treated on an equal basis with new peer reviewed studies in a fast moving scienfitic field, and you might get in some real trouble here. As I recall you got nowhere a few days ago trying to get me blocked, and have yet to post a single informed line anywhere on the matter of European genetics. I doubt you've ever read a study or even intend to. DinDraithou (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The reason why I have put the "Genetic history of the British Isles#Ireland" thing at the top is because currently it is effectively saying "see also: ..." within the article itself. Such a line is not supposed to be contained within the article itself, but referred to at the top (as I have done).
I also agree that critical opinions of other's work should not be included in the article. Differing evidence, sure. Opinions, no.
DinDraithou, rather than moving the link into the article, include your citations in that linked article. That is a relevant place to make such additions too.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
First, pointing out that a work is popular, not peer-reviewed, and not cited by people in the field is not giving an opinion. It is responsible editing. I'm sorry if pointing these things out hurts feelings but it has to be done.
Second, the other article is not really worth updating in my opinion, because I think it needs to be replaced or split into the proper articles then updated. If you would like to update it go right ahead. But have a look at my talk page first for discussions on the subject there. DinDraithou (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for the compromise Din. I can agree to it as it is right now.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem, and excellent work if I might say so. I really do appreciate you being interested and informed enough to make contributions. This sets a great example. The article is looking better and better, and soon enough other articles will too. It's important Wikipedia reflect the field and be kept up to date. DinDraithou (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The first part of the first para needs refs - I've added them for Oppenheimer and Sykes. Good work! Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
RE: The first citations: that part was taken from another article (I did mention this before). I therefore added it as a main reference article at the top of the section (such is the protocol).--Jonesy1289 (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that, but one of the problems is that the Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) article is highly technical and impenetrable to non-specialist readers, and it would be useful to readers of this article if an accessible ref or two could be extracted from that article and inserted here, so that non-specialists could improve their understanding. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Just found the citations needed.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I'll try and find more on this too Din. As you say, it's a fast growing field, and one we need to keep on top of.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I have added two more studies, but will leave it up to you to integrate them into the main text. DinDraithou (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Well if you look at other articles like Basque people the genetics section is pretty large. But there is a comprehensive article on the Genetic history of Ireland in development that should appear in a month or two. It will incorporate surname studies and autosomal DNA as well as what is briefly discussed here. So please be patient. DinDraithou (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The question was (inter alia) why is so much of this material being put here. Telling me another article is 'under construction' and to "be patient" is not an relevant answer. RashersTierney (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It's being put here because it should be put here and there is still space for it. The section was once even bigger I believe. Did you object then? And have a look at the size of the Surnames section. If you have a problem with the new material then say so and say exactly what that problem is, but don't try to get rid of it another way (if that's your game... I'm not saying it is). DinDraithou (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It might be no harm to tone down the ad hominem a notch. Accusing eds. of playing games is not assuming good faith. The fact that we have bandwidth to spare is not the point. What does in 2007 scientists began looking at a Neolithic entrance for R1b into Europe actually mean, in non-technical jargon? And why is it not expressed in a non-technical way in the article? If you feel this material should be included here, you should be prepared to say why.RashersTierney (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to assume good faith. But you haven't been following the discussion and seem to be focusing only on the size of one section, and haven't said why. Other editors will integrate these two studies and the section will eventually make more sense, but you also can't expect to find an explanation of population genetics in a section like this. That's what all the links are for. The section is for people who are interested, just like the Surnames section is for people who are interested in those. DinDraithou (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Just because an ed. has not previously contributed to a discussion, it should not be assumed they have not been following it, or are not interested. You have not addressed any of my questions. This sub-section reads like an academic paper, intended for a specialist audience. I am still not convinced it isn't disproportionately long and 'technical' in tone. RashersTierney (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I don't know how you expect us to de-technify genetics. All I can promise is that I will personally not try to make the section much bigger. I do not think there is a need for a third paragraph. Sorry if I'm a little snappy. DinDraithou (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Just because a subject is scientific, does not mean it shouldn't be made accessible to a general audience, particularly if it is dropped into an article as broad in scope as this one. I don't know the purpose of this addition. What specifically is it intended to tell us about Irish people as defined in the article? RashersTierney (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this discussion highlights the problem. Genetics is clearly a highly technical subject, as shown even in "summary" articles here like Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA). It also seems to have at least the usual set of ongoing academic arguments, researchers and institutions competing with each other, changing paradigms and what have you. But, more than many other subjects, the outcomes of these academic arguments are of great interest to many many lay people, who have a personal and often political interest in understanding where their ancestors came from and how they relate to other "national" or so-called "ethnic" groups. What people like Oppenheimer (and presumably Sykes, who I haven't read) have done is to simplify research findings, as they existed at a point in time, and to popularise them so that they impact on those interested lay people. If there has been further more recent research which undermines the case of, for example, Oppenheimer, that will only gain traction here if it is presented in a way which is understandable to the groups of people who read Oppenheimer. So, yes, someone does need to "de-technify genetics", if it is to be presented in a general article like this one. This is not a criticism of anyone involved in this discussion, I'm just trying to highlight the issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
agree. Whatever larger debate is taking place on the issue of 'Genetic History', this article should not become a testing ground. The case for inclusion of any of this material here has not been made as far as I can see. RashersTierney (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The case has been made. Let's avoid an edit war and the noticeboard and try to work this out.
Ghmyrtle, I'm positively horrible at de-technifying and all I can think of is adding an introductory paragraph, probably best done by Jonesy1289 or someone else, explaining Genetic genealogy, Y-DNA, mtDNA, Patrilineality, etc. Is that something you'd like to see? DinDraithou (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes I would. One possibility that occurs to me is to try and rein back on trying to do too much too quickly on articles like this one, in favour of trying to generate a wider discussion at, perhaps, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History - to try to bring together the academic geneticist and the politically-interested lay editors (both "nationalist" and other), to explore how best to explain the current state of academic research in a more accessible but still accurate way. As we know from previous discussions, it's all too easy for people coming from different perspectives to get wound up about issues such as this, and I think that the way we seem to be moving forward now shows that it is possible, as well as desirable, to develop articles with some degree of harmony, if we can find a suitable forum to bring all sides together. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

New discussion: July 2013 This page has many dubious or biased details throughout. Can it be rewritten by someone from the Republic of Ireland? Just saying, it sounds like "British History" to this American. There are just odd, random, esoteric references, additions, and things left out that the rest of the world knows about the history, escapades and celebrity of the Irish. New genetics discoveries have been made in the last 4 years since these discussions. Also, "Black Irish" has more connotations and more political overtones than discussed. It may not refer to color at all, and if or when it does it is within other references to non-viking/non-anglo dark hair. "Dark" in the Irish language often references intentions and danger. My family, with the darker hair (from the middle east through Iberia, not Basque as was thought recently) were from Limerick, and their (all of Munster) Catholicism and hair "branded" them "black Irish"-- a little more "native" a little more Catholic, less interbred with Anglos than with darker Normans, a little more Republican, and therefore very "dangerous" in the past many centuries. Even the city motto for Limerick refers to the ancient and fierce city. In any case a researcher can find proper citations for new information on genetics. I know it is a big section because there are so many fascinating theories. Irishstones (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ross Daly

Created a page for Ross Daly which is an Irish musician. Anyone likes to help. Kasaalan (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation in infobox

There is citation in the infobox that reads:

"The 2006 UK census reports 1,685,267 citizen and immigrant residents of Northern Ireland, of whom about 43.8% or 755,000 are ethnic Irish (about 54% are ethnic Scots, and the rest are ethnic English, Pakistani, Jewish, etc.). The combined total for ethnic Irish in the whole of Ireland is thus 4,655,660."
  • First, there was no census in the UK in 2006 (the last one was in 2001).
  • Second, neither "Irish", "Scottish", "English" or "Jewish" were options for the question pertaining to ethnic group in the 2001 UK census in Northern Ireland. (The question had never been asked before in Northern Ireland.)

Where did this citation come from? I suggest it be removed. -- RA (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been bold and removed it. Do you think the 80,000,000 global total needs a qualifier too? A majority of Americans in particular have multiple ethnic ancestries.--Pondle (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Irish people/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

"Related ethnic groups" needs confirmation. Unsourced statements tagged from December 2008, September 2009 and February 2010. Needs additional references, tagged from February 2010. To be expanded, tagged from February 2010 and March 2010. Tom B (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think that many sections of this article are not good - I particularly refer to the section titled "Celebrities". The contents could be likened to content in "OK" or "Hello" magazines or other similar shallow junk. I would contend that most of these people are not worthy of celebrity status - most are already forgotten (if they were ever "known" in the first place) or will be forgotten shortly. I am no fan of Gay Byrne but he may be worthy of a mention here as he has made various useful contributions to society over the years. "Celebrity" should apply to those with much more depth to their contribution than most of those listed. Comhar (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing happening, delisting Tom B (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde anyone?

As one of the greatest in the history of English theatre and literature, Oscar Wilde fails to make it into the infobox whereas Bono sits front row? Smells "biased" to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If this article is supposed to be about the Irish ethnicity then Oscar Wilde shouldn't be included. He wasn't ethnically Irish. Neither was Arthur Guinness though as his descent noted on a genealogy documentary. This article needs to make up it's mind about what it is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dies Mercurii (talkcontribs) 17:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed Wilde's image because the first line of the article describes the Irish people as "an ethnic group who originate in Ireland" and as Dies Mercurii said, Wilde was not ethnically Irish. For some reason, the article talks about several people who were clearly not Irish, such as Robert Boyle, even though it claims to be about the Irish as an ethnic group. We might as well rename this article "People who were born in Ireland" because it seems to deal with nothing more than that. --John of Lancaster (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The Irish 'translations' at the lead give a much broader indication of what the article seems intended to be about. Muintir na hÉireann, na hÉireannaigh, na Gaedhil roughly equate to Folk of Ireland, the Irish and the Gaels respectively. Perhaps this should be stated more explicitly. These phrases, which are certainly not synonymous, are open to a much broader interpretation than might be implied from the current English-only wording. RashersTierney (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Old coat of arms on the left. New version on the right.

I share Scolaire's concern over this new coat of arms, which is allegedly "same arms in image you used, though new iamge is more detailed and correctly labeled". The arms are clearly not the same, and I too would request a source for this image to prove the depiction of it is not some creative invention. O Fenian (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

First, there is no such thing as a "clan crest" or "clan coat of arms" [3] [4] [5]. Secondly, the arms of the O'Neills use a left hand, not right, so your old image is incorrect anyways [6] [7]. Third, besides the old showing wrongly a right hand, they both depict a red hand cut off at the wrist on a white shield, so are the same thing. Yes, the new is more ornate, but that does not change or effect anything, and I will let someone else discuss this with WikiProject Heraldry for verification.
I am taking the liberty of doubling up the images and resizing them to use less space. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
As you have declined to produce a reliable source matching your image which bears little resemblance to any that are in reliable sources, I have once again removed it. Wikipedia is not the place for you to show off your "skill" in artwork by adding images which bear little resemblance to what they are supposed to be. O Fenian (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Alright, let us go slow. Those sources you linked and I linked, look at them. See them? A red left hand cut at the wrist on a white shield? See how mine has a shield that is white and has a red left hand cut at the wrist on it? Okay. See the SVG image? 'Aight, see how it is a red right hand? That image does not match, does it? Okay, so your image is out, mine is in. How are you arguing against this? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Your image is not an accurate depiction of the coat of arms, it is a jazzed up version that seemingly serves for you to show off your "skill". O Fenian (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
See [[8]], which shows it is to be a left hand, and which also shows a "jazzed-up shield". [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Left hand and right hand are irrelevant. Your image is a work of fiction, it bears little resemblance to the coat of arms. O Fenian (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You are being unreasonable. How can you argue mine does not match exactly and thus must be wrong, but when the SVG image does not match exactly it is irrelevant? You clearly know nothing about heraldry, but are only wishing to argue for the sake of arguing. Remove the images and take it to the WikiProject Heraldry, there you will see you are incorrect on the issue. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I am being perfectly reasonable it is just you objecting to your self-promotion being stymied. Your image bears no resemblance to any known coat of arms used by the O'Neill clan, it is a fictional image. O Fenian (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Self-promotion? Yes, because the job-market for elaborate heraldists that visit the English Wikipedia article about Irish people is so massive I am seeking to corner the market. :-D But seriously, you are being unreasonable. The sources clearly show a left hand. That is not a coincidence. If you read the sources, the baronet article, it states specifically a left hand. You can not say my image is unsourced, because I sourced them; you are ignoring the sources out of some imagined malice. The SVG is unsourced, however, so you are being hypocritical and unreasonable. Since it also does not match the sources exactly, which was another argument against mine, you are only doubly hypocritical. You not seeing these flaws means that, yes, you are unreasonable. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You have provided no sources that even look anything like the fictional image you are trying to introduce into this article. O Fenian (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
This is well outside my bailiwick, but I agree that a good source is needed to show this is valid. If this is somebody's original artwork, WP is not the place for it. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The original less ornate image shows the correct rendering of the red hand of O'Neill. The blazon is, "a dexter hand couped at the wrist gules" (ref), meaning a right hand cut of in a straight line at the wrist painted in red. The new ornate image shows a left hand, not a right (the palm is facing you). For the purposes of heraldry, the fancy decorations don't make a different.
However, since it is a Gaelic/ancient Irish symbol that is being described, I don't think a heraldric rendering is appropriate. The symbol should be shown alone, as a badge, (i.e. without a shield) as in this image (see the Red Hand of Ulster article). --RA (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I have raised the question on the WikiProject Heraldry talk page. I think we should wait and see whether project members offer an opinion before taking this any further. I am asking Xanderlitpak not to replace his image on any article pending discussion. Scolaire (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Typically, you would be the one asked to refrain from editing, being that my images have been in place for nearly a year now and you are the one seeking changes. The usually way of things is to form a consensus before changing something, not change something and see if a consensus forms to retain what was. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This, and about ten similar edits to other articles, are the only ones I reverted. They were all done on 21 June this year, without prior discussion to test for consensus. I have not reverted anything from nearly a year ago. Scolaire (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
So this wasn't you? You reverted my edit after I replaced the more detailed image over an older image I made. You seemed to have no issue with the last image, so what is the issue with this new one? Source? You did not scream source for the old image. Nor did you provide sources for your PNG version, which was found to be incorrect. The name in the file? The old image that was up had my name in its file name, and it is not against Wikipedia nor WikiMedia Commons conventions to put the name of the artist (especially since attribution is required for all copies) in the name of a file. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
You are confused and confusing. The edit you link to was an undo of your edit of 21 June 2010, not a revert of an edit "from nearly a year ago". I don't have a "PNG version". I did not "scream" anything. I said nothing about "the name in the file". I merely asked you not to re-add the disputed image until you can demonstrate some of that "consensus" that you like to talk about. Scolaire (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Considering the image that Scolaire removed was not even uploaded until 3 days ago, it would be a minor miracle if it had been in the article for a year. O Fenian (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I have raised the content policy issue at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Original heraldry images since it is separate from the conflict of interest. O Fenian (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No one said you screamed, read it again. I know you don't personally have an Internet file, because how can anyone really physically have an Internet file in his possession. Tt is the file you were thrusting upon the article that I am referring to; it is your choice of file so it is your file. What is it, a PNG or SVG or whatever. Well, whatever it is, or whatever you want to call it-that. No one said the present image was up a year. This image replaced a file I also made that had been up for a year, this one is merely a better executed version. If there was such an issue about what is or isn't the coat of arms of the O'Neills, then I am sure that it would have been brought up at some point in the past year by people more knowledgeable about heraldry or the O'Neills than you two, who show no knowledge nor concern for the articles or subjects at hand. As you are finding out at the Heraldry WikiProject, the shape of a shield does not matter, just what is charged upon it. So this extended exercise, as you are discovering, was a waste of time and energy for all of us. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
You're still confused. All I have ever done is undo. Undoing is not choosing an image or thrusting an image, it's what it says - undoing. Scolaire (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexander, I'm sorry to see you coming under such critical fire lately and I would agree that there's no need for this discussion to get smeared over so many talk pages. My biggest concern, however, is that you have displayed a complete and utter lack of understanding of our core policies on the topic of reliable sources. When I asked you to provide a good source for your work, you acted surprised and assumed that I did so “because you [=me] personally don't know much about the subject?” (that’s priceless though!). If and when you do source your images, guess where we leave the appropriate references. Clue: it’s not on some talk page. And did you really think coming up with a handful of self-published websites would settle things. Clue: the answer is to be found at WP:RS. Also, I don't know what age you are, but please stop the kindergarten attitude ("You did not scream source for the old image").

As for the extent to which a bit of poetic (or graphic) licence is allowed for Wikipedian purposes, I’ll leave that for you ‘ll to discuss. You seem to be fond of the embellishments because (a) you like the look of them and (b) “do not like to leave noble or royal arms simpler than a commoners arms”, but other editors here have pointed out to you that the style is inappropriate in the context and one might add, the general reader may not interpret things the way you intend them. In any event, some sort of disclaimer would be appreciated.

Apologies if I sound like your nanny, but it’s necessary to get back to basics sometimes. Cavila (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, my apologies. My frustration comes from repeating the same information and sources on six different pages, often two or more times as each of the two editors demands anew that I repeat the information for their personal benefit.
Here is a 19th century coat fo arms of the O'Neills showing the left hand. There is so much confusion with the O'Neill arms because the arms of the City of Ulster are so similar, and often the two are mistaken for the other. Not helping the situation was that the O'Neills were titled Kings of Ulster, so sometimes the kings arms would be listed as Ulster per his title but mistaken as Ulster the city.
The image was not called inappropriate. Tamfang, said "if anything it makes me think of Albrecht Dürer rather than Legendary Ireland". However, it was not me that implied it was supposed to represent some legendary or ancient Irish style, but this context was applied to the image inaccurately by editors unfamiliar with heraldry. Tamfang also noted that "It's true that any two renditions of argent a sinister hand gules are legally equivalent", just that he expressed his opinion a contemporary and regional style would be preferred by himself. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Xander, Tamfang said your image was ugly! Did that not register with you at all? The only person who bothered to give an opinion at the WikiProject Heraldry talk page said the image is ugly. You've made your point about the left hand and nobody is disputing it any more. We just don't like the image. Nobody involved with these articles likes your image. Our knowledge of heraldry or lack of it is irrelevant. This is not a heraldry office, it's an encyclopedia. And we, the editors, are concerned with improving the article. If that involves hurting people's feelings by telling them their hard work is not appreciated, then so be it. Get over it! Scolaire (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
And talking of being knowledgeable, can you tell me where the city of Ulster is? Because I've never heard of it before. You appear to have absolutely no knowledge of Ireland, which would definitely be an asset if you're going to edit these articles. Scolaire (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Your points of contention were the shield shape violated some heraldic rule and it mattered not whether it was a right or left hand. Now, since you are accepting that my image violates no ruels and accurately shows the arms of the O’Neills, your argument is over. My images have been used on the O’Neill page for a year, so apparently they are not hated by everyone like you claim. Actually only you and Tamffang so far. At least three other editors, and myself being a fourth, have expressed their approval of the images. Seems enough to readd them. There seems nothing more to this. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Show me a diff where I contended the shield shape violated some heraldic rule and it mattered not whether it was a right or left hand. Show me the diffs for the editors on these articles (as opposed to random people saying "cool pic!" on your talk page) have expressed their approval. You said that if we went to the WikiProject we would see that your pic had approval; the only editor there who expressed a view said that "this is an ugly example of the style", and the the mere fact of its legality "doesn't oblige me to blind myself to the image's inappropriateness on other grounds." Six people - myself, Cavila, O Fenian, RA, RepublicanJacobite and Tamfang - have objected to the image on grounds of style, not on the basis of any perceived heraldic flaw. Re-adding the images in those circumstances would be disruptive. I advise very strongly against it. Scolaire (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Just you and Tamfang said it was ugly, Tamfang saying it is still an accurate depiction nonetheless. RA said that the O'Neills were Gaelic and didn't ahve arms, which sources show the O'Neills having arms. RepublicanJacobite said it was outside his scope. Cavilia said on my talk page my new image was "arguably better looking, to boot", but woudl like a disclaimer noting this was not period. O Fenian objected due to conflict of interest and lack of sourcing, never taking aesthetics into it. And since everyone has a vote and equal say (after all, you are not familiar with heraldry but exercised this Wikipedia right to speak of heraldic matters), those that wrote in support of my image on my talk page do count. So you have yourself and Tamfang. There are three who did not discuss aesthetics. And then there is myself,, Malke_2010, Cavila to an extent on the aesthetics at least and both Surtsicna and Seven Letters are supportive of any work I do. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"RA said that the O'Neills were Gaelic and didn't ahve arms, which sources show the O'Neills having arms." Whoah there. Slow down a second. There is a coat of arms for the O'Neill (different to what is shown here) but is that what we are supposed to be depicting? The caption of the image read: "The Red Hand of the Uí Néill dynasty (Anglicized as O'Neill), which claimed descent from Niall of the Nine Hostages." If we are to depict merely the red hand then we should do so without it being on a shield IMHO.
Additionally, I gave a reference to the blazon for the red hand of O'Neill. That blazon is, "a dexter hand couped at the wrist gules" (ref) (a right hand cut of in a straight line at the wrist painted in red). The elaborate image does not depict that accurately (a left hand is shown). Now, since then, I have with some digging I see that there is a question over what is correct: left hand or right hand. By tradition, it seems, a left hand is drawn (and the story is that O'Neill cut off his left hand) ... but the blazon is for a right hand. The confusion, it seems has led to the red hand being a left hand in some cases, a right hand in other cases and in other cases again it was originally a left hand has since been "corrected" to be a right hand. This may require some more research :-)
Until then, what I support, if we are to show the red hand, is to merely show the red hand. Otherwise, to say that we are showing something else within which the red hand is depicted. --RA (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm very familiar with the red hand and I've seen many depictions of it and Xanderliptak's rendering fits right in with ones I've seen on medallions and buildings, etc., especially of ones on buildings. So I searched it out and I sent some results I came up with over to him, so I'm posting those here now for everyone to see. And also there was a post about the left versus the right hand, so I included an amusing lyric I found on it:
"The Red Hand of Ulster's a paradox quite,
To Baronets 'tis said to belong;
If they use the left hand, they're sure to be right,
And to use the right hand would be wrong.
For the Province, a different custom applies,
And just the reverse is the rule;
If you use the right hand you'll be right, safe and wise,
If you use the left hand you're a fool."
Here's some images I found. This first one is a bit like his: [9][10][11][12][13][14]
I don't think this requires such a fuss to be made. And his rendering is beautiful, so I support including it.Malke2010 21:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll search out the ornate ones on buildings which almost always feature the crown on top.Malke2010 21:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hand like his: [15]
With crown: On this site, Adams, put in 'red hand of ulster' in search box and the big image will come up. [[16]
Google search:[17]Malke2010 21:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Point is, not unusual at all for it to be depicted within scrolls with a crown at top.Malke2010 21:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
And the left hand is correct in this instance.Malke2010 22:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to seek out so many images. I had a member from the International Association of Amateur Heralds and the American Heraldry Society look up the O'Neill arms, which he found in Burke's Peerage. It states, "...a Northern Ui Neill clan, descending from Niall Glan-Dubh , High King of Ireland, slain by the Danes of Dublin, A.D. 946, from whom the surname is derived; Donel O... See More’Neill, surnamed Ardmacha, 46th High King of Ireland, d. at Armagh, A.D. 987, his descendent Hugh MacCaoneh O’Neill, King of Aileach and Prince of Tyrone, had two sons: 1, Niall Roe O’Neill, ancestor of the O’Neill Mor, Princes of Tyrone; and 2, Hugh Dubh O’Neill, d. A.D. 1230, ancestor of the O’Neill Buidhes, Princes of Clannaboy. Arms: Argent, a sinister hand couped at the wrist and affronty Gules." Also, of the heir to the arms, "...created 1542, attained; Conn-Baccoch O... See More’Neill, eldest son of Con O’Neill, Prince of Tyrone, renounced his title and accepted in its place a re-grant of his lands by patent, dated 1 October, 34 of Henry VIII, and was created the same day Earl of Tyrone for life with remainder to his illegitimate son, the Protestant, Matthew O’Neill, Baron Dungannon, called Fear-doragh, despite having two legitimate sons (Shame a-Diamus O’Neill and Phelim Caoch O’Neill, both of whom left descendents); he d. 1559, when the earldom passed according to limitation. Arms: Quartered: 1 and 4, Argent, a sinister hand couped at the wrist Gules; 2 and 3, the arms of Ulster, viz. Or, a cross Gules. Supporters: Two lions Gules, langued Azure. Motto: LAMBH DEARG EIRIN." [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Cool motto. I've seen the red hand so many times it's like background you don't think about anymore. And your rendering of it is beautiful.Malke2010 16:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"Argent, a sinister hand couped at the wrist and affronty Gules." Sounds good. That is what is depicted in the ornate image. --RA (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
So therefore the ornate image is a faithful representation of what the O'Neill's would have carried into battle? Or maybe this image - a sinister hand - would serve the purpose as well or better. But why do we need an O'Neill coat of arms in an article about Irish people generally? Scolaire (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
"Why do we need an O'Neill coat of arms in an article about Irish people generally?"
A sensible question - lets just delete it - ClemMcGann (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "So therefore the ornate image is a faithful representation of what the O'Neill's would have carried into battle?" LOL! Definately not. Like Xanderliptak wrote on your talk the elaborate design is similar to what was fashionable 17th-19th century. If the point your making is that it is ahistorical for the ancient period in Ireland then I agree with you. But as a heraldric image, it follows the blazon above (the swirls don't matter a fig as far as heraldry is concerned).
A point I made above was to ask, what are we showing here? If it is the ancient arms of the O'Neills, without care to a specific period of history, then I think the elaborate image is fine. It appears from the above that they were replace following surrender and re-grant, like the O'Briens and others, so a 17th-19th century design would be historically ridiculous ... but if we don't care about history then that doesn't matter. If it is the Red Hand of Ulster, as an symbols of itself, then I think it should be shown without the shield merely as symbol by itself.
But we need to be clear about what we want to show an image of before we argue over whether the image we have is correct or not IMHO. (And the question about why we would show it in the article at all is also a good one.) --RA (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── All good points, RA (talk). Another point I'm noticing, is this about putting the image on Irish People or is this really more about Xanderliptak putting his works on Leo VIII? Because I'm seeing posts about Leo below.Malke2010 00:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí, only Xander is arguing over whether the image is a correct one. That issue was put to bed long ago. Any articles that had the "right hand" image as the O'Neill arms now have the "left hand" image - but a simple one, as has been the convention on WP for years. This article currently has no mention of arms, which, as Malke says, makes it ironic that this is the page where the discussion in continuing. As to what we want to show on any given article: if it is the Arms of the O'Neill family article, which doesn't exist - then the elaborate image is fine (with a disclaimer about attribution), but if it is a history article, or an article on a historic family, then it needs to be historically accurate, which, as you rightly say, Xander's image is not.
Malke, the Leo XIII (not VIII) arms issue arose after the O'Neill arms issue - Xander is doing the same thing with another image on another series of articles. I've lost count of how many pages are discussing him now. If attention-seeking was his aim, he has been spectcularly successful. He's a minor celebrity! Scolaire (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I didn't understand that. (The mention of Leo, that is to say.)Malke2010 23:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Curled pinky = Deception

Why is the little finger curled? ClemMcGann (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's another [18]. [19] Don't think the little finger means anything. Sometimes you see the thumb pressed against the index finger, sometimes you see the thumb sticking out, sometimes you see all the fingers spread wide. Variations are common. Also, common to see the palm of the hand with a gash.Malke2010 01:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
But the little finger is not curled in that mural. A curled little finger /pinky/mercury/ indicates deception. Other than this new depiction, I have yet to see the red hand with a bent little finger. You say "sometimes you see all the fingers spread wide" - where? ClemMcGann (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
It is curled because that is the natural position of a hand at rest, and being legend tells of the hand being cut off, this would be the position the hand would have come to be in. Simply a choice to depict the hand more naturally, which occurs in a minority of images, but still occurs from time to time. The position of the fingers, curled or straight, thumb in or our, changes nothing of the arms. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
You say "which occurs in a minority of images, but still occurs" - where? - ClemMcGann (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
In various depictions of hands throughout heraldry. Some artist make the hand rigid, others more lax and natural. I do not know where you get the idea that a curved pinky means deception, but in heraldry there is no connotation to it. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 10:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
If you are not familiar with the association of a curled mercury finger and deception, references can be provided - or you could use your favourite search engine. To return to your claims:
You say (of the curved finger) "which occurs in a minority of images, but still occurs" - where? -
You say "sometimes you see all the fingers spread wide" - where? - ClemMcGann (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
No, never heard of it, and Google provides me seemingly with nothing. Does it have to do anything with heraldry, anyways? So what if there is an association in one region for something, it will not be the first nor the last. In China, for example, a green hat means a cuckold husband. In the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a green hat means the man is an archbishop. One can hardly cease using green ahts in the Catholic Church because of the association of a cuckold in China, they are not related to one another and developed independently from one another. If you want to see different renditions of coats of arms displaying hands over the centuries, there are many a good book you could purchase. There is no need to reference such a thing, because it does not make a difference in an emblazon-see the Herladry Wikiroject. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
there is a perception that a curved mercury finger indicates deception: [20] : "Remember to think twice before making an important deal with a person who has a crooked little finger!". [21] : "These types of people are very shrewd in their behavior. They get a lot of black money in there life through business and cheating. These people are never reliable." [22] : "can indicate shrewdness in business as well as the other challenge indicators mentioned above: control issues, exaggeration, or outright chicanery."
To return to your statements:
You say (of the curved finger) "which occurs in a minority of images, but still occurs" - where? -
You say "sometimes you see all the fingers spread wide" - where? - ClemMcGann (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Heraldry and palm reading are not in any way related, so you can not apply the standards of one to the other. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you support your statements?
You say (of the curved finger) "which occurs in a minority of images, but still occurs" - where? -
You say "sometimes you see all the fingers spread wide" - where? - ClemMcGann (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


FYI, somewhat systematic WP:Canvassing, e.g. as in User_talk:DinDraithou#Hello, User_talk:7_Letters#Hello from the user. History2007 (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he seems to have forgotten to follow his own trail and posted a second time to DinDraithou's page starting with "hello, you may not recall me". I worry about the guy ;-) Scolaire (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it calls for Admin action - it is a clear violation of Wiki-policy. The coat of arms he added for Leo XIII also seems to be "his own invention". Anyway, the Canvassing needs to be addressed. History2007 (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read up on heraldry, because your link proves the arms of Leo XIII are accurate. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, you did not answer the direct question I posed on your user page. I repeated the question there again. History2007 (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I did, you did not understand it. Why ask about something if you can't understand the answer? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I asked for an independent 3rd opinion. History2007 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
How about going to the actual WikiProject designed for this. They would know. Encyclopedias are not supposed to be comprised of opinion but fact. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no rush. The 3rd opinion feature is within Wikipedia for this very purpose. I will not respond further and will wait. History2007 (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"How about going to the actual WikiProject designed for this?" That would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, and I'm not at all sure we want to open up this discussion on yet another front. WikiProject Heraldry deals with articles on heraldry. None of the complaints about your edits relate to heraldry articles, and I'm sure none of us would question your knowledge and expertise on heraldry articles (even if we cared!). However, articles on people are not supposed to be comprised of individuals showing off their artistic skills but fact. Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
How is a coat of arms image not under the Heraldry WikiProject? Or is that because the WikiProject agreed it is a legitimate coat f arms image and you are hoping that those at the Ireland WikiProject would not know this and override the Heraldry WikiProect? But go ahead and take the Pope Leo XIII coat of arms image to the Ireland WikiProect if you wish? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
(1) You can do what you like with the image itself. It's your edits to articles that we are objecting to, and those articles do not come under the Heraldry WikiProject. (2) One person on that talk page said that although he was not familiar with the particular arms in question he thought it would be acceptable; the only editor that actually looked at the image said three times in three different ways that it was unacceptable. Scolaire (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
He went ahead and reverted both of us again on Leo XIII anyway. He is getting on the 3RR line and has been warned. He can not revert again without being eventually blocked. Now that there are 2 editors opposing his ideas there, he must stop. This is not a dictatorship where 2 other editors can be given orders. And his statement that the "Wikiproject agreed" just means that he agreed with himself. That is all. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

British Isles template

A editor has raised the question of removing the ability to pipe link the title of the British Isles template. Currently, on this page, it pipe links as [[British Isles|Great Britain & Ireland]]. The editor would like this ability to be removed.

Discussion is taking place here. --RA (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

why speak english?

Why did irish people begin to speak english and why did english become the dominant language in ireland? What were the benefits of speaking english in ireland in the past? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Irish was outlawed, to work you had to speak english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talkcontribs) 12:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The major reason English became so widespread as far as I know is because of the famine. During the famine people brought in English teachers and tried speaking it at home so they or their children could emigrate and get a job easily. I notice the section on the famine is empty here, there should really be a bit about it and its long term effect on the culture with the way people wanted to learn English so Irish nearly died out in the following fifty years. Dmcq (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Irish Armenians?

Apparently there are 5000 - 10000 Irish people in Armenia. Sadly, this fact is uncited so we can't check. It was deleted today but has been re-instated. Obviously, we could add a "citation needed" tag, but ... the original edit was made here, part of a series of spurious amendments by IPs, most of which were reverted. Looks like this one was overlooked. I have deleted the infobox entry for Irish people in Armenia, as it seems unlikely. If it turns out there is a significant population of Irish people in Armenia it can be reinstated. If it is cited, of course. Daicaregos (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Irish Americans

Figures from the US Census Bureau here (under Ancestry, the last section analysis) show US citizens of Irish ancestry to be 36,495,800. They also show US citizens of Scotch-Irish [sic] ancestry to be 5,313,956. A total of 41,809,756 US citizens seem to have Irish ancestry. Have these been double-counted, or should this figure be quoted in the infobox? Apoligies if this has been discussed previously. Daicaregos (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Irish and Scotch-Irish are two separate ancestries in the ACS, people are allowed to tick multiple ancestries but only the first two are coded. I would be wary of mixing up the Irish and Scotch Irish on this page without explanation, you could plausibly argue the latter also belong over at Scottish people or even English people given their ancestry. I wouldn't attach too much weight to the American census and ACS numbers, they are highly unstable - English was the biggest ancestry group in 1980 US census, German in 1990, and there were wild swings in the numbers. Some authors have said that the changing order in which the options are listed affects the results!--Pondle (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


The photo of Carrowmore states it is from 6000BC. This is incorrect as dates from the earlist monument is, albeit controversially, put at an earliest of the mid 4th centurty BC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensibleken (talkcontribs) 16:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

George Best

Since when was George Best Irish? He was one of the unionist protestant community thats apparently an entirely different race from the Irish. You might as well include Ian Paisley in that list if Best is there. Hachimanchu (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Being of the unionist and/or protestant community doesn't exclude someone from being Irish. To quote, Ian Paisley:

"I would never repudiate the fact that I am an Irishman." - Ian Paisley, Sunday Life, June 1991

With respect to George Best, this should suffice:

"Since a split in Irish soccer in the 1920s, the Football Association of Ireland runs internatioinal and domestic soccer in the Republic. In Northern Ireland, the Irish Football League organises domestic football, while the international aspect is handled by the Irish Football Association. ... Ireland has produced great players like Johnny Carey, George Best, Pat Jennings, Liam Brady, Niall Quinn, Johnny Giles, Roy Keane and Damien Duff, all of whom have emigrated to English clubs. It is they - along with British players with some Irish ancestry - who dominate the national teams." - Ruth Dudley Edwards, Bridget Hourican, An atlas of Irish history, 3rd Edition, Routledge: London, 2005, page 239

(As an aside, Best was an advocate of re-uniting both Irish FAs and fielding a single Irish national team as per rugby, cricket, etc., IIRC.) --RA (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
How does being Protestant in Ireland make a person a "different race" from the Irish? The Irish are an ethnicity not a race.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jeanne boleyn. Irish Protestants are as Irish as it gets. The idea that there is some sort of any "genetic" difference is a myth. "Irishness" is a mindset; in taking part in modern gaelic culture they are by definition ethnically Irish. I live an area with a fair few Church of Ireland churches, and all protestants I know speak some level of Irish and go mad for their county in the All Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acamdc88 (talkcontribs) 16:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Noel & Liam Gallagher

...why? I was nearly flabbergasted spotting them here, under "Celebrities". The thing really isn't that I objected! They are of Irish descent, all right, no argument intended. But so is John Lennon?! Where's he? Why then mention the Gallaghers, yet not Lennon? Or, indeed, why not only Lennon instead of Liam & Noel, as he's arguably still a bit more popular than both of the Gallaghers? Neither John Lennon, nor the Gallagher brothers have been born in Ireland, and neither John Lennon, nor the Gallagher brothers, at any time, held Irish citizenship. So this can hardly be the crux. The sole difference I can think of is one of "hereditary distance", since it's of course the parents in the Gallagher's case, whereas it's "only" the grandfather in Lennon's case, who were Irish. Is this the whole story? If so, is it fair? Is it reasonable? Because, at the same time and even within the English Wikipedia, Lennon is very much included in the category termed "English people of Irish descent", which, for some odd reason I cannot directly link right now. Thus here's the raw form, for comfort's sake: You'll easily find him, just as the Gallagher brothers, and it certainly wasn't me who put him in. ;-) But I am somewhat missing him here. At least before turning USian, he's hardly ever been (let alone been perceived as, especially not overseas/internationally) or behaved "less English", or "less British", than are the Gallaghers. Alternatively, in what sense could the latter be supposed to be "more Irish" than Lennon? Don't get me wrong please: I'm all okay with Liam and Noel. But I'm also pro Lennon. The one or other opinion on that would be very kind.

Just after typing the above and out of mere curiosity, I did a just as brief as lackadaisical search and, among other things, happened across this one:

It isn't intended as a 'reference' and much less in order to 'prove' anything. I'm not even sure whether this is serious stuff, or rather some kind of satire or something. But it is quite about what I had in mind and I'm referring to it just to make that clearer. Zero Thrust (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but you're a bit bias in favor of Lennon ;). But I'm going to agree, er, that Lennon's sense of Irishness is notable. Be bold and include him if you want ;) --Nutthida (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
It would be a great idea to clean out the section of celebrities. If we do not stop it, the list will soon contain every singer, actor and politician etc. with links to Ireland. Unfortunately, there is no option to protect a single section in an article (would be handy!). Splitting it in paragraphs for Irish celebrities, Irish-born celebrities and celebrities of Irish descent could be an option. That would make room for largely unknow guys as pres. Kennedy, mr. N. Gallagher, mr. L. Gallagher and mr. J. Lennon (sr.) Face-smile.svg Night of the Big Wind talk 16:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

My good faith edit was removed. Does it not warrant addition?

Under the Religion heading the discussion quickly moves onto the question of Irish Identity. Therefore in response to the last sentence under the religion heading I added the section below. However my addition was removed, the reason being 'religion' is not the best heading to add this to. I ask, why then does most of that under the heading of Religion, deal with identity? and since it does primarily deal with identity, why then shouldn't this addition be included?

The question of Irish identity, and what defines an Irishman, was elucidated by the Prominent Irish nationalist Thomas Davis:

It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish Nation[1].

.The question of 'Irishness' is also examined in the Irish language film Yu Ming Is Ainm Dom where a Chinese man learns the Irish language before visiting Ireland, only to find no one understands him upon his arrival in Dublin. This would also be a classic case of being More Irish than the Irish themselves.

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edit

I removed the "(themselves of Irish origin)" from the statement "The main groups the Irish interacted with were the Picts, Scots (themselves of Irish origin) and the Vikings" or something along those lines that isn't an exact quote. There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to suggest the Dalriadans (aka Scots) invaded or colonised Western Scotland from Ireland. None whatsoever other than the spread of Goidelic languages to that particular area. However by that reasoning a native African who natively spoke English or French would be of English or French descent. It was no more than cultural conversion. It's incredibly common throughout history. Ancient Irish annals even stated that the Dalriadans had NO kin in Ireland. Which would be impossible surely if they had actually originated there. On a final note it was tribes from Scotland who first began to inhabit Ireland. So technically by that reasoning the Dalriadans would originally be of Scottish ancestry even if they had invaded from Ireland, which evidence would suggest they didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it is obvious you are just another anti-Irish, pro-British, Glasgow Rangers loyalist with a chip on their shoulders when it comes to Scotland's Celtic heritage, which is reinforced by the fact you raise the same issues on other relevant article talk pages on your contributions relating to Scotland yet you come to an article about Irish people NOT SCOTTISH people.
People like you belong on Stormfront, Loyalist and Rangers forums, not here, this is an encyclopedia not a soapbox for pathetic morons to rave and rant about "historical inaccuracies" that support their prejudices. (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm so glad you jumped to that conclusion. I'm actually a Scottish nationalist. I'm not anti-Irish in the slightest. I also don't support Rangers. I support Partick Thistle but I'm not really hugely interested in football at all..

"yet you come to an article about Irish people NOT SCOTTISH people."

Can't I read articles about other peoples ? I merely noticed that inaccurate statement referring to my own people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Are YOU a Celtic fan ? Born in Scotland to Scottish parents yet singing Irish songs and waving Irish flags at games ? And claiming Irish descent through the bizarre logic of ancestry ? Which is really no more than a modern day gimmick to promote Irish tourism around the world.. You do know that by the logic of ancestry we (human beings in any part of the world) would all be of African descent ? And that every Irish person would be of Scottish, English and/or Welsh ancestry ? Irritating when it's the other way around isn't it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyway this isn't the place for agendas and such. It's a place of fact. The Dalriadans did not invade or colonise Western Scotland from Ireland. There's simply NO evidence to suggest they did. That is the reason I removed it. Because it's not fact. Do you think the Dalriadans were the only celtic peoples in Scotland or something ? The Picts and the Strathclydemen were both classified as celtic. As were the Dalriadans. I have no problem with that classification. Why would I ? I do have a problem with people stating the Dalriadans originated in Ireland when in fact evidence would strongly suggest they didn't.. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. Do you know much about celtic history ? I don't think you do otherwise you'd be aware that celtic culture actually originated in what is now Germany, Austria and several other Central European countries. It did not originate in Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Chop the lists of celebrities

I'd have thought the various lists of people should be drastically cut. What is there is pure original research in that it is whatever the first person who came long stuck in, and now more are disallowed because they are too long. The lists should all refer to List of Irish people with just a few mentioned in secondary source as being outstanding over others as such, not just anybody who actually is a comedian and Irish for instance. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think all blue-wall lists of named individuals should be removed , otherwise we will continue to get meaningless replacements to personal preferences ad nauseam. There should be a 'main article' link to the list(s), just not sure how exactly to frame the section without names. RashersTierney (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
To my idea people started adding every musical one-day fly in the article and pushing individual band members without own articles (see the pushing of Nial Horan). Adding them all makes the list unreadable long. Adding a short list is useless, because it will be filled quite soon, plus that you have to make choices. Perhaps it is possible to refer to categories? Night of the Big Wind talk 15:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)