Talk:Manx people

Isle of Man Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Isle of Man, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Isle of Man on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Isle of ManWikipedia:WikiProject Isle of ManTemplate:WikiProject Isle of ManIsle of Man articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Europe Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Celts High‑importance

	Manx people is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edits

29th December 2008 - I have made some significant edits to the page as it appeared a little outdated. It'll probably take a few edits to get it better revised.

Updated history section - Manx history predates the "earliest inhabitants" cited by several thousand years. Added sections based on Manx National Heritage commentary on the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age evidence.

Politics stuff seemed a bit POV-based & some of the information on parties and nationalism seemed a bit out of date.

Interest in Manx culture seems overstated in the article. Much of it remains a minority interest on the island (as census statistics will verify) despite the revivalist campaigns.

References to "tax havens" are outdated too - the IOM is going to some pains to promote itself as a well-regulated finance centre these days.

History/Politics section

I've removed the History and Politics section as it's not relevant to the Manx people, more to the Isle of Man article. The version that's on this page is considerably out of date and out of step with the information on the main "Isle of Man" page, and the information should be held in one place (the Isle of Man page) rather than spread across a number of sub-pages related to the Isle of Man. An amendment to articles on Manx history and politics should not require an update of multiple pages, so the removal of this section is justified.

The history and politics section is about Manx people so it should not be exactly the same anyway. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16th June - Then why is it exactly the same as the older revisions of the "Isle of Man" page ? This sounds like an excuse to justify an edit war - is it ?

I've removed the section content (again) and replaced the history and politics sections (which are both out of date and taken directly from older revisions of the "Isle of Man" page) with links to the relevant articles on Manx history and Manx Politics, both of which cover the "Manx People" aspects in detail. There is no justification for the continual restoration of the obselete content on this page - it is covered much more comprehensively in the proper article pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.72.71 (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's about Manx people, not the island._--MacRusgail (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal - The two can't be easily separated, and as mentioned the content does seem to be based on older revisions of the "Isle of Man" page. The "Politics" section does not appear to contribute more than what already exists on "Politics of the Isle of Man", so I don't see the differentiation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.10.102.252 (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, using non-ID addresses to agree with yourself is somewhat obvious... It's not based on older revisions, I wrote some of it myself. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not me, I'm afraid - presumably there are more than just you and me reading this page & remember, the page is not your personal property & can be edited by anyone,not just you and me - Can I suggest that you make your own website if you want to have exclusive control of the content ?

I've removed the usual edit & added links to the appropriate pages related to IOM content. The reasoning behind this is simply that the information on this page is out of date & repeats information that belongs on the main pages for 'Politics' and 'History' under the Isle of Man.

As per guidelines, the information should appear in one place, rather than requiring separate edits for each page every time the information is changed. With a separate page mirroring the content, an update to the History/Politics page will not be reflected on this page, and the content will be increasingly out of date as time goes on.

Since the history of 'Manx People' is basically the history of the Isle of Man, and the Politics article gives a comprehensive run-down of Manx politics, I feel that your efforts would be better used to update these pages with relevant content, rather than engaging in a squabble over your perceived ownership of the sub-article.

Looking back over your history I note that you have engaged in a number of similar disputes over 'Isle of Man' content before, and suggest that rather than viewing (permitted) edits to your content as a personal challenge, that you engage with the changes & direct your efforts to improving the content - in this case you are achieving nothing by continually reverting the edits other than fragmenting the information across a number of pages, which will rapidly become out of step with each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.70.36 (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the other articles on etrhnic groups. This conforms to this pretty well. Stop vandalising it please.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

Why are the English shown as connected Ethnic group?

Probably because many Manx have moved to England, and many English moved to Mann. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The displaying of nine Russians to describe the Manx is somewhat interesting. I would remove it, but I don't have pictures of actual Manx people to replace them with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.72.1 (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion request

No text at all, just a table and three internal links? Surely there is something to be said about the fascinating Manx people who are a unique mixture of the Celtic and Nordic. David | Talk 08:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I've redirected this page to the Isle of Man. It's been a year, and nothing much has happened with this article, besides petty relatedness disputes. Feel free to recreate if this page can be made remotely informative.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedness

Let's say that someone comes along and starts insisting that Swedish people are 'related' to the Manx. What sources exist to refute them?--Nydas^(Talk) 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish might be stretching it, but certainly the Manx have ancient ties to the surrounding countries, and Scandinavia/Nordic countries, esp. Iceland and Norway. --MacRusgail 15:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of academic foundation does 'ancient ties' have? There was a large debate about the ethnic group infobox six months ago: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 6#Scrap the infobox, started by me. I'll probably raise it again at some point.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a big bone of contention, but amongst other things, there are connections on the basis of language, native political structures, surnames, place names etc --MacRusgail (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how is it pronounced?

is manx pronounced how it's spelt, or manz? 195.188.23.230 (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Manks" - a short "a". --MacRusgail (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetic IPA pronunciation would be /'manks/ or as the person above said, pronounced with a short 'a' as in 'bat' and with the 'x' pronounced as in 'thanx'.--Xania

^talk 22:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK Census

The article claims "Manx people living in the UK were commonly grouped by the 2001 census under "White British". As well as major immigration from England, the Isle of Man has had many Irish residents, and to a lesser degree, Scottish and Welsh people."... however people were able to categorize themselves as whatever ethnic group they wished and these aren't altered by the census collators. I certainly didn't put myself in the 'White British' box but checked the box labelled 'Other White' instead. People are allowed to choice their ethnic group for censuses (although it is against the law to blatantly lie by claiming that you're South East Asian when it isn't at all true of course). Manx people's passports might say 'British Citizen' but that doesn't mean we have to be put in the box that says so.--Xania ^talk 22:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Caine

Why is Hall Caine on here if he was British? As of the Hall Caine article, he was born o May 14, 1853 in Runcorn, Cheshire, England. 82.12.1.173 (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read some more about Hall Caine. He was actually extremely proud of his Manx connections and considered himself Manx.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

West Derby, Liverpool?

Were births in the Isle of Man registered in West Derby, Liverpool during the 1800s? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. (Sorry this is brief, but I have replied to this elsewhere)--MacRusgail (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased wording

This whole article needs a proofread to fix emotive, biased and misleading statements like "The extremely high proportion of foreigners to natives has removed or corrupted any remaining local culture and vernacular speech." (this one in particular implies that the Manx language and even Manx English don't exist, for example). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manx English is in pretty heavy decline. Although a lot of dialect words remain in use, I'd say the actual accent is more or less extinct. However, it is very true to say that the IOM has high % of residents who are not Manx born or have previous Manx connections.

The Manx language is in a more curious situation, but not an entirely negative one either.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Manx culture is alive and kicking regardless of the number of English immigrants" - Not really, the indigenous Manx accent is extinct, the language is spoken entirely by learners and some young children, the media is dominated completely by English interests, as is the housing market.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DNA?

Do DNA studies on the Manx exist? СЛУЖБА (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been since 2008 an ongoing dna survey of the Isle of Man Celtic - Scandinavian ancestry with more recent results in 2016. To incorporate this into the article may need discussion as the current article has no citation for independent variability WP:N. This dna survey may also change the context of the current article in respect to the use of the term 'Manx people' as a demonym (?). agljones(talk)21:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related ethnic groups

It has just come to my attention that there seems to be some editing underway in the "related groups" section of the infobox. Currently, it suggests that the Irish are a British people. While some may be considered British under a broad understanding of what "Irish" means (i.e. Ulster-Scots, Ulster loyalists, Ulster Unionists, etc.), the majority of Irish people can not be considered British, either politically or culturally. This should be changed and, in my opinion, should more closely resemble the "related groups" section of the article on the Welsh people (where British is not mentioned) or it should resemble the infobox in the article on the Scottish people where no related groups are mentioned. I am reluctant to change it without discussion as there seems to be a bit of back-and-forth going on. Opinions? ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 12:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also consider that adding a list of related ethnic groups is probably confusing or misleading. Previous attempts had put English as British which is not completely accurate. Some Celts are British, some are not. British could be taken to include all of what is called the British Isles, although some Irish would object even if they actually have English or Norman ancestry. Dublin was a Norse town yet we don't include Irish under Scandinavians. Personally, I would prefer to drop the whole section too. Dabbler (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, Dabbler. It's all well and good saying some historic tribe was closely related to another, but in this modern age such affinities are far less important and/or obvious. I shall be bold and remove the section entirely. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 15:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manx population

So the major max diasporic populations are included in the infobox now, with the exception of in Britain. Does anyone have a figure for the number of people of Manx descent in Britain? Unfortunately they are usually not listed in demographic surveys so it might not exist. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Manx people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]