Talk:Fitzpatrick (surname)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names 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.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This should be split into a disambig and Fitzpatrick (surname). Paul 07:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great name[edit]

this name has a coat of arms that should be displayed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.129.20 (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what it means[edit]

The name "Fitzpatrick" is the Normanized version of the Gaelic name "Mac Giolla Phádraig". In Gaelic, the meaning is "son of the follower of (St.) Patrick". The meaning should not be a combined rendering of "Fitz-(meaning "son of") and the name "Patrick", producing the incorrect translation, "son of Patrick". It is important to emphasize that name itself, and the clan bearing it are Gaelic, not Norman.

Silly capital P[edit]

Whats with the title being FitzPatrick instead of Fitzpatrick?! It looks stupid and I don't know anyone who spells it that way, I certainly don't but I can't find how to edit it :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzinho (talk • contribs) 10:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No other comments in 6 months. Fixed. Nfitz (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FitzPatrick with a capital P is a way of distinguishing Fitz as meaning "son of" and it is not stupid - it is similar to the O' of many Irish names such as O'Reilly which uses two capital letters or the Mac of Scottish names such as MacArthur. It is also similar to the old Viking custom of using the father's first name as the last name of the child with a son or daughter after it - for example Vera Olafsdottir and Arni Olafsson would be sister and brother with the same father - a custom still in usage in Iceland today. valkyree 23:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs)

When the name was originally normanized in 1541, it was originally spelled as Fitz-Patrick, as per extant documents between Dublin and Upper Ossory show. There was no difference or distinguishing between variations; some documents actually show different spellings of the name at different points on the same charter. As time progressed, the hyphen was dropped, rendering it simply FitzPatrick, and later still, the capital P was dropped. Today, I know some who use the "big P" while most use the small p. It really makes no difference. But historically, the big P and even hyphen were present at the start.Ri Osraige (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Different Clans[edit]

Like the surname McMahon the surname Fitzpatrick is tricky because not all Fitzpatricks descend from the sames clan. The name also appeared briefly in England with an unrelated family line which went extinct. The name Fitzpatrick is most famously and most closely associated with the Mac Giolla Phadraigs of Upper Ossory (present day wester County Laois), who, through the political arrangements of their chief Brian Og Mac Giolla Phádraig, had the name normanized to "Fitz-Patrick" by agreement with Henry VIII in 1541 upon the creation of the Tudor Lordship of Upper Ossory. However, another unrelated clan around Counties Cavan and Down, called O Maol Phádraig (a very close meaning to Mac Giolla Phádraig) also appears to have changed their name to Fitzpatrick at some unknown later date. So not all Fitzpatricks might share the same history or coat of arms, or even the same name in Irish. Currently, there is a DNA study being conducted by the Mac Giolla Phádraig-Fitzpatrick Clan Society in Dublin to help figure things out. Ri Osraige (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Fitzpatrick here, co-admin at the FItzpatrick DNA project at FTDNA. I would like to include the latest Y-DNA summary on the FItzpatrick surname page because it does add value to the understanding of our name and verify some of the connections stated (e.g., the Maguire link). Agricolae you are objecting to something, perhaps it's just the lack of referencing - this is easily fixed. The summary findings are:

1. DNA evidence indicates significant genetic diversity in men bearing the surname FItzpatrick. (ref will be included) 2. The clear majority of Fitzpatricks are haplotype R-L21 (92%), which formed approximately 4400BC. (refs. will be included) 3. Under R-L21 there are four major genetic groups, which account for 65% of Fitzpatricks on the study: (refs for this and (a)-(d ) below will be included) (a) The FGC5494 group, who identify with Co. Laois-Kilkenny; (b) The L513 group, which has two branches. One branch identify with Co. Cavan and may be associated with the historic O'Mulpatricks. The other branch identifies with Co. Meath and there are genetic matches with the surname Maguire suggestive of an association in the past 600 years. (c) The FGC11134 group. This also has two branches. One branch are CTS4466 (Irish Type II), which are associated with Munster Irish. The other branch identify with Co. Cavan. (d) The Z255 group (Irish/Sea Leinster) who identify with Co. Down from in the mid-1600s. These are unlikely to be associated with the historic O'Mulpatricks since they had the name McIlepatrick until the early 1700s. 4. The remaining 28% of R-L21 men are not closely related to more than one other study member and are not grouped. Other R-L21 haplotypes represented are R-M222 (NW Irish) and R-CTS9881 (Irish Type IV) 5. There is a group that identify with Co. Clare and they are haplotype I-M223.

Agricolae, let's discuss this rather than you just hitting the delete key next time I post it. Also, I do find it unusual that any reference to Colleen has been removed. Those active clan members (based on the clan mailing list) admire and respect Colleen's pioneering work; she has done very much to help us understand the incredible diversity of our surname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeFitz (talk • contribs) 23:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's discuss it rather than there being a next time you post it. There is so much wrong with it I don't know where to start. As co-admin of the FTDNA site, you have an inherent WP:COI in putting it in. Wikipedia is not a place for WP:PLUGging your own research findings. The results of your project are self-published, and though there are a circumstances in which self-published sources are considered to be WP:RELIABLE, this is not one of them. WP:No Original Research is one of the core pillars of Wikipedia, and all of this DNA material is Original Research. It is nothing but raw scientific data, collected by self-reporting, and thus the percentages may not be representative - there is no way to even estimate the seletion bias. They were probably tabulated by eye, without stated criteria, and they have not undergone independent review, so while I have no reason to think the conclusions are wrong, I don't really have any reason to think they are right (other than reaching my own personal conclusion from looking at them, which is likewise Original Research). As a general rule, Wikipedia does not present scientific results that have not undergone the peer review involved in the publication process. (This doesn't just apply to this specific case. In a recent discussion, a paper by a pioneer in his field that was deposited on a filesharing site prior to being accepted for publication was deemed inappropriate for inclusion in the relevant article because of this lack of peer review.) The web site is certainly a primary source, and while a primary source is sometimes used to provide supplmentary specifics to support the mention in a secondary source, it is rarely appropriate to have a primary source be the only source used. The entire project does not appear to be noteworthy - you can't cite the FTDNA project site to prove that the FTDNA project is noteworthy, any more than I could cite my own web page to prove I am noteworthy - it needs to have been mentioned elsewhere (in a significant way, not just in a list of all of the thousands of such projects), in some independent source. Mention on Wikipedia is not an award for meritorious service. Dr. Fitzpatrick may be a wonderful person and I am sure you all are appreciative of her, but to be noteworthy, her work on the family would have to have been noticed outside of your mailing list - in a published secondary source. You may think this information is really important and will contribute to the knowledge of the readers, but that is not how Wikipedia works, with editors pushing what they think people should know, rather than reflecting what published secondary sources have said about the subject. Agricolae (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Agricolae that's all understandable. I got involved trying to update the page because there are broken links and incorrect/dated info. Re. the DNA results, there are publications that I can cite and I will make sure I do so and discuss it here with you before I post again. And Colleen is actually very well known outside of the clan amongst genetic genealogists; she has even been called 'the founder of the field of forensic genealogy' (https://www.forensicmag.com/article/2016/12/forensic-genealogy-real-story). She is the author of a few books of the subject as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeFitz (talk • contribs) 01:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood my comments. Are there publications on the Fitzpatrick project? Not just on genetic genealogy or haplogroups, but on this specific family project and its findings? The same with Dr. Fitzpatrick - notability in the larger field, in general, does not translate into across-the-board noteworthiness, nor does writing books on the general subject. It is specifically her role in the Fitzpatrick group project that needs to have been highlighted in independent writings on the Fitzpatrick family for this connection to be noteworthy, and they need to be independent of her - writing it in her own books doesn't count. Agricolae (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't misunderstood you about the need for publications to support our DNA data and, as I already stated, I will not post DNA data in future without appropriate citations. But perhaps you've misunderstood me; nowhere did I intimate Colleen's books were about the Fitzpatrick DNA study. I was simply stating Colleen is a noteworthy Fitzpatrick for her pioneering and ongoing work in genetic genealogy and she has published books on the subject; and they aren't just some self-published works - rather they are from academic publishing houses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeFitz (talk • contribs) 20:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing books does not make one noteworthy, even when the books are published by established publishing houses. Being noteworthy has everything to do with the amount of coverage one gets in secondary literature independent of the subject. (I say this generically, not specifically addressing Dr. Fitzpatrick.) P.S. Please sign your talk posts by putting four tildes after them, like so ~~~~. WP:SIGN explains the policy, and failure to do it has the unintended effect of hiding from me the fact that you have responded. Agricolae (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll make sure I sign this one; I'm still new at this. And I think you are citing Wikpedia's definition on general notability, which I think quite correctly requires coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. But this has nothing to do with what makes an academic notable, at least according to Wikipedia's definition. And I consider Colleen fits the bill of a notable academic. In addition, Wikipedia states a notable book is one that, 'is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country'. This is certainly the case for one of Colleen's books. So Colleen's notable and so are her books.MikeFitz (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking past each other. I am talking about what makes someone noteworthy with regard to a subject, worth mentioning in a discussion of that subject, and you are talking about what makes a person or book notable (meriting their own Wikipedia page). The involvement of a notable person still may not be noteworthy on a particular page if no independent secondary sources make specific reference to them when talking about the subject of the page. Agricolae (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we are talking past each other maybe we should stop there. For the record I think Colleen is notable and so is her published material. Her subject area these days is forensic and genetic genealogy, and she is also an expert on Fitzpatrick DNA. There are plenty of secondary, independent sources to go with those statements about her subjects, and I will dig them out in due course. Thanks for educating me on Wikipedia, I will do a better job in future. I can understand the frustration you must feel at times. Thanks also for your interest in the Fitzpatrick surname page and for taking your precious time out to tidy the page up.MikeFitz (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ó Maol Phádraig[edit]

While it is very likely that the name Ó Maol Phádraig has also been anglicized to Fitzpatrick, it is also important to remember that different historians see different origins for the Fitzpatricks outside of Laois and Kilkenny (Osraige). Shearman certainly regarded the Cavan and Leitrim Fitzpatricks as belonging to Ossorian stock; whether he was right or not is no reason not to include Shearman's authoritative opinions. Please stop edit warring, Matthew. Create an account, and let's talk out any difficulties here. Maguire of Fermanagh also is another origin.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fitzpatrick (surname). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Ref. 11 provides no evidence of a FItzpatrick-Maguire link. Ref. 16 is broken. Ref 17. is no longer relevant.

Is there a consensus to delete these references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeFitz (talk • contribs) 23:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous Origin Claims[edit]

There seems to be a deliberate effort on the part of the Irish to claim Gaelic origins for certain names and surnames that patently have no such origin. This article claims the FitzPatrick surname is of Gaelic origin, and bases the claim on the Anglicization of a certain Gaelic name belonging to a certain family who submitted themselves to Henry viii during the Tudor period. This is not the origin of this surname. The name appeared in Norman England nearly 5 centuries before the Anglicization in question; there are genealogical records of this name that date back further. In one massive project on English nobility, numerous FitzPatrick's were listed as earls in the Salisbury section.

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm

Chapter 11, Salisbury, is the section cited. Click on it at the top.

Wikipedia even has a short page on William FitzPatrick, 2nd Earl of Salisbury, which includes an almost comical parenthetical note.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Salisbury,_2nd_Earl_of_Salisbury

"No relation to the Irish medieval dynasts.."

Who would think there is any relation here to the 'Irish medieval dynasts'? Probably anyone who's made the mistake of trying to learn genealogy off Wikipedia. The surname page for FitzPatrick lists a 16th Century origin, while William of Salisbury's page contradicts this claim by listing the name as having appeared 4 centuries prior.

There have also been attempts on here to change the names of some Norman nobles from FitzPatrick to names that have been listed, on a limited number of sites, in error. Take, as an example, the name of Nigel de Mowbray's spouse listed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Mowbray

"Nigel married Mabel de Braose." This wasn't her name. The best genealogical evidence (like marriage records) shows she was Mable Fitz Patrick de Clare.

And what about the FitzPatrick's coming out of the House of Patrick, La Lande-Patry, Normandy? If you've read this far it shouldn't surprise you that the Wikipedia entry for La Lande-Patry is one sentence and contains zero history. The House of Patrick, noted by chroniclers for centuries, as one of the most ancient and esteemed Norman houses, has no page and no mention on Wikipedia -- not even on their page for the name Patrick. The page for the surname Patrick lists the name as having several origins, and then goes on to claim an Irish origin!! This surname isn't Irish!!

The House of Names site is one that actually got it right:

https://www.houseofnames.com/patrick-family-crest

The surname FitzPatrick is Anglo-Norman in origin, and did not appear for the first time in the 16th Century as the result of an Anglicization. And while it is true that the dynasts in question Anglicized their name to FitzPatrick, it is equally true that Anglicization was so rampant during this period that Ireland's now crawling with FitzGerald's and FitzHugh's who have no ancestral link whatsoever to the original Norman houses. In other words, you can't claim a Gaelic origin for this name any more than you can change your name from O'Riordan to Smith and claim Smith's no longer English. It doesn't work that way.

This name was used as a true Anglo-Norman patronymic (son of a man named Patrick, not follower of the saint).

Major edits need to be made to this page or an administrator needs to be contacted. I understand that the Irish are trying to raise their profile, but hijacking names and surnames isn't the way to go about it. People read this, believe it, and propagate it all over the net. At the very least Wikipedia needs to post a warning which informs readers that the site isn't in the business of genealogy and shouldn't be trusted as an authority on such matters.

Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot here to respond to. The primary problem with this article is that it treats a patronymic-form surname as if it represents a monolithic group. Patronymic surnames are never just one family. It is quite possible that some FitzPatricks did, in fact, derive their name By Anglicizing MulPatrick, but it is unlikely they would have done this if there wasn't already FitzPatricks of Anglo-Norman descent to whom they were conforming. FitzPatrick is an Anglo-Norman surname form, but that doesn't mean that you can point to the Earl of Salisbury and his brothers as indicating the history of 'the FitzPatricks' because they were not using it as a patronymic surname at all, just as a patronym, and if any of them had any sons, they would have been FitzWilliam, FitzWalter or whatever. In their case it simply meant 'son of Patrick'. As to the FitzPatricks coming out of the House of Patrick from la Lande Patry, that looks to me like a just-so story that does not reflect history - this is not the way that Fitz- surnames originated, from places. The House of Names site is not reliable at all - it is basically doing the same thing you complain of the Irish, playing connect-the-dots where there is no real basis for a connection. There is zero chance that the Patrick surname traces from an 11th century Patrick de la Lande: the Normans and Anglo-Normans weren't using this type of surname that early, and the conclusion is no more sound than suggesting everyone named Williams or FitzWilliam descended from William the Conqueror.

If major edits need to be made to this page, feel free to do so, but only if you have reliable sources you can site in support of your edits. It is one of the quirks of Wikipedia. Editorial decisions are to be made based on verifiability, whether the information appears in reliable (as defined by Wikipedia policy) sources, and not based on 'truth'. I was uncomfortable with the MulPatrick story too, but that is what the cited source says and we can't just make it go away because we think it is wrong. We need a reliable source for an alternative, and then both can be presented. Also, you really need to back off making cultural judgments about the motivations of entire nations. Expressions of what 'the Irish' are up to have got sod all to do with improving this page.

(Oh, and the House of Mowbray page was indeed in need of cleaning up, but the fact that it gave Nigel's wife as Maud de Braose was the least of its problems - someone went and turned it into a massive WP:NOTGENEALOGY violation.) Agricolae (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim the 'history of the FitzPatricks' (whatever this means) began with the Earl of Salisbury. I used this as an example of the name appearing in Norman England long before the now illustrious Anglicization of the Upper Ossory branch. To qualify for an Anglo-Norman origin, this surname is being held to absurd standards that other Fitz surnames are not, and it's starting to appear suspicious. Most Fitz 'surnames' didn't originate as, what you call, a 'patronymic'; most were mere 'patronyms' (which is essentially the same thing, but as I understand it you're making reference to continuity) where the Fitz prefix was typically spaced from the father's name and used in Normandy and England in much the same liberal manner as von was used in Germany and Austria (I am saying it was not an integral part of the surname. I am not confusing places with parents, as you have already wrongfully accused me of doing.). Examples of the same 'Fitz-Whatever' patronym becoming, what you call, a 'true patronymic' in the Middle Ages are limited to a few infamous Norman dynasties -- which would've been the case with the FitzPatricks of Salisbury, were it not for the fact that the line ended with Countess Ela (the name was carried to William, Patrick, Philip, Walter, and William's daughter Ela). This was merely one example of the name appearing and being carried down. As you seem to agree, there are numerous origins for this name, and likely many more still undiscovered (The Ossory Anglicization is the least interesting one.). How many people need to be found as having held this name in Norman England before a white flag is raised? The standards are unreasonably high and unjustifiably so.

"that looks to me like a just-so story that does not reflect history"

This looks to me like you haven't dedicated much of your time to researching this name. I get that Wikipedia's high citation standards are a credit to the site and provide for its image as a trusted source, and for most well-established fields of inquiry I happen to agree with this general view. But one of the quirks of genealogy and surname nomenclature is that they haven't yet established themselves as serious academic fields. Both require a dedication most do not have, and taking the shortcuts, like citing other disinterested sources, or one-sided sources, can result in the rapid spread of misinformation, a great consequence to many who, like these uncommitted sources, have little chance of knowing any better. Much like local history, these matters are often best left to the narrow focus of the antiquary, not the broad sweep of the professional historian.

With respect, there is "zero" chance you've spent the necessary time researching the Patrick surname. I agree that House of Names isn't to be trusted, but when it comes to the Patrick name they got it correct. The Kent Archaeological Society has a piece on the Patrixbourne Church:

http://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Pub/ArchCant/122-2002/06/115.htm

And Mary Berg is not simply an 'enthusiastic amateur'. She is an expert on Norman Churches in Kent and a member of the British Archaeological Association.

But there is no mention of this family on Wiki's Patrixbourne page, either, because according to them, and apparently you, they never even existed. Yet every other source agrees that: one, they existed; two, the ruins of their La Lande-Patry castle exist; and three, their name appears on charters both in Normandy and England. One such charter reads, "Carta Mabiliae filiae Willielmi Patrio, uxoris Nigelli de Moubray."

Mabel was the daughter of William Patrick, and the wife of Nigel de Mowbray. There is no disputing this. If you want to dispute the claim that this particular William Patrick was of La Lande-Patry, go right ahead. But I assure you that a dedicated look at the evidence will lead you in another direction. This is nothing like a FitzWilliam's claims to The Conqueror. It is more like an origin claim to real people -- not as notable as the Conqueror, but not entirely off the radar of chroniclers -- who really existed.

Let's assume you are unconvinced by any source that isn't graced with Wikipedia's approval. Ask yourself a simple question: What are the odds that a name which is derived from Latin and translated to 'nobleman' had no occurrence in medieval Normandy and France? Do you really want to take that bet? It is a claim so outrageous that immediate skepticism should be required. I have already applied that skepticism, and the result was the claim is patently bogus.

Wikipedia claims Irish origins for this name based on the patron saint of Ireland, while ignoring the fact that the saint changed this to his name when he was studying to be a priest in France, and that the native Irish considered him so holy a figure that they avoided naming themselves or their children after him for most of their history. Maybe I am being harsh on the Irish, but I don't know what else to call it. Cultural thievery does occur, and the guilty verdicts can't be parceled out equally among countries. An unfortunate reality is that, cultures with few notable successes are all too keen to claim the names, works, and stories which are more accurately the property of others.

As far as the FitzPatrick surname page is concerned, the information getting published here, and being casually passed about elsewhere, is all coming from Colleen's Ireland-centered project and other Ireland-centered 'societies'.

Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, if you came here to beat your chest over who knows the most about the Patrick family you are in the wrong place. Try the Patrick message board at Ancestry.com, the Patrick mailing list at Rootsweb, geni.com, or make your own web page. Indeed, if your goal is to discuss the Patrick family at all, or Nigel de Mowbray's wife, you are in the wrong place. The sole purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the FitzPatrick (surname) Wikipedia page. For that, you need a reliable source that says something different than is currently in the article. If you've got one of those (and a houseofnames.com - pretty much anything.com - web page doesn't cut it) then go right ahead and incorporate that information, with the citation. You are going to have to come up with something more than simply complaining about those fabulist Hibernians or pointing to any number of early Anglo-Normans whose fathers were named Patrick. You need a source. Agricolae (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've allowed this page to get taken over by a well-organized parade of clan members who are on a terrific lark, peddling their promotional material all over the place. It's like nothing I've ever seen in the past 5 years I've been occupied with the research of Anglo-Norman surnames. Why don't you at least insert a note indicating that this is a clan page and not a surname entry? They are expecting the readers to believe that the same clan multiplied with an almost squid-like fecundity and then spread from the sands of Australia to the snows of Alaska. They are even claiming the property rights of various other surnames here with the scantest of evidence, and won't rest until we're all convinced that every Mac, Mul, Kil, and Kirk were spawned from the same Osraige nest. Everywhere a Fitz surname page or forum can be found so too can they, leaving their usual traces of clan-signaling; tongue-twisting Gaelic everywhere in sight; not to mention a citation section dedicated to their chief authority, Colleen.

Just imagine, if you can, what this page would look like had the Ossory clan chosen a different name. Do you think it would look something like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FitzRobert

?

Now imagine, if you can again, what the FitzRobert page would look like if once there was a tight-knit Irish clan who had taken the name and then organized a surname force to be reckoned with. Do you think it would open with this:

"FitzRobert is an English surname of Norman origin."

?

Or do you think it'd be more along the lines of:

"FitzRobert is an Anglicization of the Irish name Mac-Gilla Gorilla Rory. The Mac-Gilla Gorilla Rorys were war chiefs of the ancient Kingdom of Beatha-Bua-Boo-Boo until the Norman invasion of the 12th Century, when they lost considerable territory to the invading FitzJolys. The FitzRoberts (Mac-Gilla Gorilla Rorys) were in no way dispossessed of all their territory, however; and by the 16th Century no less than two acres of the finest land in County Furlorg were owned by the family."

?

The FitzRobert page is succinct and sweet, containing only a sentence which indicates the rightful origin of the surname along with eight examples of Anglo-Normans who had once held the name. Out of eight, notta' one of 'em passed down the name to their offspring, nor did any one bear any relation to any other. I offered a simple taste of about the same number of Anglo-Normans bearing the FitzPatrick surname, only to have them readily dismissed as mere 'patronyms'. Let me explain to you, Agricolae, how surname evolution tends to function in conquered societies.

Inferiors indulge themselves in the alien ways of their new superiors, most especially as it relates to law, language, and naming practices. Mixing and marrying occurs almost immediately, creating hybrid cultures such as the Anglo-French, Anglo-Norman, Anglo-Dutch, Franco-Hibernian [French Huguenots], and Savoyard cultures. These hybrid cultures produce hybrid religious practices, hybrid law practices, hybrid languages, and hybrid names which ultimately become fixed (in this case, true 'patronymics'). This is precisely what happened with the Vikings after they had acquired Normandy: They adopted Old French while retaining Old Norse naming practices (They were using the Norse custom of patronyms in Old French while the West Franks were selecting place names.). By 1066 the Normans were using 'Fitz' surnames -- or what we like to refer to as surnames -- more so in the manner of cognomens that were fluid with respect to spelling and usage; sometimes the name was used in full prefixed form, while at others it was "just" a patronym, and sometimes still it was disregarded entirely. At no point in the Middle Ages were the spellings fixed. The 'true patronymics' evolved after a considerable period of time was allowed for assimilation to occur, making it close to impossible for us, as it is with most things that evolve, to ascribe the point at which a surname became fixed to any one particular person or family, excepting the most obvious examples of notable Norman dynasties.

Your quest for the 'beginnings of the FitzPatricks' is a ghost hunt. It is possible that the origin of the "real" patronymic was the work of a Norman family, but it is equally probable it's attributed to a gap-toothed serf at Wiltshire who was under the spell of the Salisbury earls. We can not say for certain, and the search itself is as clever a use of time as the search for the first word of Middle English ever spoken. It's okay, though. We can still say a great deal about the origin of this patronymic, no matter to whom it's attributed.

We know that the name appeared in Norman England after the post-Conquest acquisition of Salisbury no later than the turn of the 12th Century. We also have genealogical records of the name being carried down by various English families throughout the subsequent centuries. There's a gap of about a century or two between the time of the Salisbury earls to its recorded reemergence, but this isn't much of a concern. The name didn't disappear and then suddenly reemerge out of thin air; the simplest explanation is that it had existed the entire time and was held by various families who didn't make the chroniclers' cut. Fine. Damn near all humans throughout history haven't made the cut, leaving most surname origins similar in mystery. This isn't any particular problem for the genealogist; I can find FitzRoberts in the phone book to this day, and assure they weren't descended from the Earl of Gloucester.

You seem to be waiting patiently for The Oxford Journal of Genealogy to publish peer-reviewed evidence that contests the information on this page so we can then all get together like true gentlemen with our true-blue studies and have a duel. It's not going to happen. This isn't how genealogy is done. It isn't even how local history is done. Instead of trying to exile me to Ancestry.com, you ought to head over there yourself and have a look at what the records show. The alternative is to hurl jokes at the places actually doing the genealogy while administering a site whose very pretension is being engaged in precisely that. If you're uncertain about the origins of patronymics, and wary over the way a page has been constructed, you can simply leave the page blank for the time being. The contents on this site are mimicked everywhere, despite that this page, along with many of your other surname pages, is decidedly wrong. The evidence here is terrifically clear that Wikipedia should not be engaged in genealogy, as its standards are inapplicable and its administrators incompetent.

We have enough information in the records to cite and assign to this surname a rightful origin with a sleep-at-night level of confidence. There is no need to turn this page into a clan advertisement for enthusiasts who would have everyone believe this uniquely Norman surname was no more than the artful 16th Century Anglicization of the far-famed Ossory clan. The name's Anglo-Norman in origin.

If anyone else is interested in the serious business of genealogy, I am in the process of getting a site up. Stay in contact. Also, I welcome collaboration from other genealogists with a focus on the Anglo-Norman culture.

Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to understand how Wikipedia works. Perhaps reading some of its rules and policies would help. Agricolae (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     I almost forgot I commented on this page some time ago. And then I was reading some of the latest research off the Fitzpatrick clan society  brecently,

http://www.fitzpatrickclan.org/Ossory.html

"The Fitzpatrick Barons of Ossory, starting with Barnaby Fitzpatrick, claimed descent from the Mac Giolla Phádraig dynasts, but the Frankish roots of his descendants makes direct paternity from the ancient chieftains untenable. This should not shock or surprise because it is well understood that genealogies cannot always be relied on."

This is your own source for this page. The genetic evidence written of in your own source claims 'Frankish' roots for the clan and states that the claims to ancient Irish descent are unsupported.

So here we have a name that can be traced etymologically to Norman England, and genetic evidence, from your own source, that says the progenitor of the clan has Frankish roots and didn't arrive in Ireland until the late 12th Century.

This entire page needs to be rewritten. Or what's the new excuse this time, farmer? Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except it is not 'my own source', and to suggest otherwise is less than honest. The page does need rewritten, but only with a reliable source, not personal opinion and original research, whether it be your own or that found on the self-published fitzpatrickclan.org site. It is not an improvement to trade one unreliable account for another. More importantly, as already pointed out (and ignored) this is not a page about a family or clan, it is about a surname. As with all patronymics, this surname may pertain to any number of families with distinct origins, and the fact that one particular FitzPatrick had Frankish roots need not imply that every FitzPatrick does. Agricolae (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By your Latin username I presume you fancy yourself a classical scholar. And that suggests you value reasonable argumentation. So help me sort this mess out.

How do you want this page written? As it exists right now, there is no mention of the actual origin of this surname. As a name it first appeared in Anglo-Norman England, and whether or not the name survived in England is irrelevant to the fact that it made its debut there. Is this not important information to mention on a Wikipedia article? I can't imagine someone voting against the inclusion of this info, especially someone who believes this page shouldn't be about any one particular family.

That's number one. Second, this page is not treating this surname as a 'patronymic'. It's treating it as an anglicization of the name of an ancient Irish sept whose Irish-language 'surname' translates to 'devotee of St. Patrick'. It then advances the claim that the English form of the name emerged in the Tudor period when one of the descendants of this sept submitted to Henry viii.

The problem is, one of the sources cited in this section (and by 'your source' I was referring to the author of this page, whoever it may have been) contradicts this information. Either the clan society is a reliable source or it isn't. It's currently cited a source for this article, so it is only natural for a reader to assume it's reliable. If it's not a RS, then the information obtained from it should be removed, and that's practically the whole page. If it is a reliable source, then it's in opposition to most of the content on this page, particularly the part about the Ossory FitzPatricks descending from ancient Irish dynasts.

Why not remove all the information and simply write, "Fitzpatrick is a surname of Norman language origin (linguistically) and is found in most English-speaking countries." --? And then provide a list of prominent people with the surname (the list on this page was good). There is no need to maintain the Irish pseudo-genealogy that currently exists here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again and then consider other options. Agricolae, why don't we delete the information on this page and simply write, "Fitzpatrick is a surname of Norman language origin. Notable Fitzpatricks include: (list)"? The phrase 'Norman language origin' speaks to linguistic form and avoids entering the dicey territory of making genetic claims. If the clan society isn't a trusted source, then why is it cited here? And why are the other sources cited here of a lesser quality than the clan society? This isn't really a matter of replacing unreliable material with unreliable material; it's now more of a question of why you're protecting the unreliable content that's already published? What purpose does it serve to leave questionable material on a page until something better comes along? Tear it down, I say.Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a lot to respond to here (and posting the same question again after only 12 hours without a response will not cause me to respond faster, just the opposite since you thereby caused me an edit conflict, all the more annoying because it was entirely unnecessary - chill, man! or were you just taking another opportunity to attack my motives, in which case, . . . chill man!).

How do I want the page written? in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policy, i.e. based on reliable sources.

It is anachronistic to suggest that the surname Fitzpatrick 'made its debut' in Anglo-Norman England based on instances like the Salisbury Earls. That line included a person named Patrick, whose son William was thus 'son of Patrick'. Because the Norman-French version of a paternal relationship, filz (son of) would later evolve into the Fitz found in Anglo-Norman patronymic surnames, a convention developed among historians to give the patronym in lieu of a yet-to-be-developed surname, representing the relationship by mimicking the later surname form, in this case as Fitz Patrick. This was not a surname in this family, which requires passage from one generation to another; it wasn't even a byname, a one-off additional name. It is simply following a modern convention to indicate who this Anglo-Norman's father was. The only thing it is an early instance of is a person having a father named Patrick.

I agree that the page is not treating it correctly, but to fix it means we need information that is more reliable - information based on reliable sources, not just personal opinion or deduction.

The clan society web page isn't a reliable source, full stop. Looking at the existing citations: 1 not WP:RS; 2 dead link, but reliable, though one could question the propriety of pulling a single row out of a 100-row appendix data table about which the author makes no specific mention; 3 reliable (as defined by Wikipedia, though my own look at the source finds it of rather inconsistent quality, and I find a scholarly review that says his other Irish surname work is superior to this one, but that source says the same thing about FitzPatrick); 4 not WP:RS; 5 primary, but documenting a section the relevance of which is subject to challenge; 6 sort of falls into a nexus of primary, WP:NOR, and non-WP:RS; 7 dubious value - appears to be self-published tourist-marketing site, plus we need not list every place in the world where a given surname appears on a monument; 8 reliable source, but unclear this one obituary subject merits special textual mention as opposed to just being in the list; 9 again, WP:RS, and while this is enough to make the subjects notable, it is unclear it imbues them with special significance; 10 as a blog post by a 'non-expert', it technically represents non-WP:RS, but I have seen it argued that as an interview with an expert, it might be an appropriate representation of her conclusions, but it is being used to document that she noteworthy and distinct from another person of the same name that isn't named in the source, so it is not a WP:RS as it's being used - I don't find this whole paragraph useful, the noteworthiness of individual Fitzpatricks in the text (as opposed to the list) is seemingly driven by editor whim; and the last reference, 11 not WP:RS. Finally every single one of the references is incorrectly formatted, either missing critical information or being bare URLs. And there is a whole lot in the article without any citation at all, or that seemingly extrapolates from one specific FitzPatrick family to the general of all Fitzpatricks. Taken together, not the reliable sourcing that is supposed to underlie Wikipedia pages.

Why not remove most of the information and replace it with your preferred sentence? Indeed, an argument could be made that this would be an approach consistent with Wikipedia verifiability policy, were it not for the fact that, at least by Wikipedia standards, ref #3 (MacLysaght) is a reliable source that gives the Gaelic origin you contest. That can't simply be swept away because you disagree with it, particularly when your statement is making specific claims for which no source is provided. So, cutting it back severely would indeed be legitimate considering the lack of verifiability; removing entirely the version found in MacLysaght would not be justifiable, even if you are sure it is wrong; adding your desired content, not without a reliable source, no. Be aware that you are here proposing a bold dramatic change to the page, one almost certain to be challenged if anyone else has the page watchlisted, so you had better have your ducks in a row, with sources for any material you add and legitimate justification for what you remove.

So, in the end, the same situation as when the concern was first raised: you need to find a reliable source for what you want to say. Have you looked, for example, at the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names, or whatever it's called? Agricolae (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I first entered this talk page I had a lot of unnecessary attitude and no editing experience, and for the former I apologize to you. It's been a year or so since and I haven't obtained much editing experience, but I have been learning a great deal about Wikipedia's source requirements from you, and for that I offer my thanks. Here is my concern.

My initial interest in editing Wiki was inspired by my genealogy research, which centers mostly around the American Irish, but also exposes me to some Irish family history. I'm concerned with what I feel is blatant sectarian-nationalism on the part of editors who edit Irish pages on here, including pages pertaining to the American Irish. As one example, there is this tendency to make a distinction between the "native" Irish and other settlers/conquerors on Wikipedia articles, when there really was no such thing as a "native" population in Ireland during its modern history (post-antiquity), and so it is done in a highly selective manner. The term "native" implies that there existed a population that was in unique isolation from the rest of Europe or the rest of the world for a significant period of time (like the Native American groups) but Ireland was never isolated any more than England. Ireland, like England, had been invaded and settled by a variety of different groups who all contributed to the genetic profile of the country, the culture of the country, and the national identity. Very rarely - if ever - do I see articles on Englishmen using language such as, "Robert X descended from an ancient Anglo-Saxon family," but this is the norm on Irish articles, and the intent seems to be to set a tone of us vs them - 'real' Irish vs imposters. As it relates to the Normans, they ultimately assimilated into English culture and mixed with the English people, so that such distinctions are meaningless in any but a Medieval sense. The same is true with the "Irish" and Norman-Irish.

On to the surname in question.

The Fitzpatrick name is interesting to genealogists because its origins are obscure. Patrick is actually a derivative of Latin and was used in Romance cultures long before it ever reached Ireland; even Saint Patrick acquired the name when he was studying to be a priest in France (or one of the many duchies the 'French' would ultimately consolidate). The Irish, after Christianization, revered the name but avoided it for many cent because it was considered too sacred for mortals (or at least Irish mortals).

What further tempts us to assign an Anglo-French origin to the name is the plain fact that it appeared in Norman England shortly after the conquest; but like you have been mentioning, there is no evidence that it was used in any other way but as a nickname. Still, the name was written by scribes in Anglo-Norman scrolls and there are individuals who used the name and who briefly appear in the records throughout the centuries proceeding the 1066 conquest of England.

I agree with you that this page is focusing on the Ossorians and then implying that modern holders of the name inherited it from them. What was interesting about the clan society research is that, if correct, it proves that the Ossorians weren't even the progeny of ancient Irish kings (at least on the paternal side) and that their claims to this descent are no more serious than those old claims to origins from King Midas of Spain, who never even existed. But I do understand why clan society research is not a suitable source for an article here.

As a result of all this confusion, the Oxford Dictionary of Names plays it safe; they claim the name is Norman, Irish (same as FitzGerald and many other Fitz names) and that it can be a 'genuine Anglo-Norman French patronymic", but then claims that it is often an anglicization (or perhaps Normanization) of the Irish language name of the Ossorians (Mac Giolla Phadraig -- spelling?). It's practically verbatim what's written on Ancestry dot com.

Another thing sectarian editors like to do on Irish pages is link Catholicism to Irish identity, even when it's not necessary. I see some subtle hints of this on this page, such as,

"In the 17th century, the Fitzpatricks lost considerable territory through their staunch support of James II. Nevertheless, the head of the sept received a peerage in 1714 as Baron Gowran which was elevated to Earl of Upper Ossory in 1751."

And just who were these 'staunch supporters' of the Catholic King James? I have no idea, and I also don't know why they're entitled to a unique mention on this page, and not Edward Fitz, who fought for William of Orange in the Williamite Wars,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fitzpatrick_(died_1696)

The editor(s) then imply that the 'head of the sept' was raised to the title of baron despite supporting James. The 'head of the sept' to whom they refer was Richard Fitz, the brother of Edward,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_FitzPatrick,_1st_Baron_Gowran

He was neither Catholic nor a supporter of James ii. He was an Anglican who was credited by the King of England for his role in establishing the Protestant succession in the British Isles. He had numerous descendants, who were all Anglican members of the Ascendancy Class in Ireland, and many had lands in England. In Arthur Collins' Peerage of England, he writes of him,

"So acceptable was the report of his services to his country, his fidelity to the crown, in promoting the Protestant succession in his Majesty's illustrious family, his integrity, humanity, and other amiable qualities, that King George I thought him worthy of a place among the peers of Ireland."

What I am arguing for is not inclusion of this information. Instead I argue that the editor of this page has presented a one-sided, non-neutral account that may, perhaps, speak to his own individual descent, but nonetheless fails to incorporate the diversity of religions, lineages, and historical experiences of the ancestors of all those who currently bear this name. And if the editor is trying to claim Ossorian descent, he is mistaken on the religious identity and political allegiance of his ancestors during the Ascendancy period.

And it is on the following grounds that I propose a consensus,

i) The origins of this surname are obscure.

ii) The history of this surname as written is one-sided and in conflict with the variety of ways in which surnames emerge.

iii) The history section is exclusive to an Irish-Nationalist-Catholic telling of history and ignores the countless Protestants who held this name as well as those who had strong ties to England and English culture.

I move that we delete the information and simply write, "Fitzpatrick is a surname of Norman language origin. Notable Fitz's include (list)"

The best approach for Wikipedia here is to stick to the linguistic form of the name and not venture into any genetic genealogy claims; this is highly problematic for a variety of reasons. And when compiling a list of notable people, make sure that it isn't one-sided. In other words, if a Catholic clergyman is to be mentioned in the list, make sure it's balanced with non-Catholics who play or played significant roles in other denominations, such as,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fitzpatrick_(bishop)Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, some side notes. What you attribute to rampant Hibernianism has a second root as well that is also seen on non-Irish surname pages. There is a general tendency to treat surnames as if they were all single families, and hence to describe the most important people who had a surname as if they were representative of the surname as a whole. Such thinking pervades the surname pages, such as showing coats of arms (which legitimately only apply to the immediate descendants of the person to whom the coat was granted, not the surname as a whole) and to give extensive histories of noble families that happened to have had the surname in question, even if they adopted the surname. It is not just the Irish who do this.

As to genetic genealogy, there are cases where it is appropriate - those involve noteworthy studies that have been formally published, such as the Jefferson study, not those that are simply found on a DNA project website that are all self-published and hence not reliable sources (WP:RS - this criterion is there for two reasons: having independent editorial control, at least theoretically, provides not only a second level of fact-checking but also ensures that someone other than the compiler and the Wikipedia editor thinks it is noteworthy).

For the list, no attempt should be made to balance it whatsoever. The general understanding for these surname page lists is that they list all notable people with the surname, where notability is determined by a single criterion - Do they have a Wikipedia page? This, among other things, shifts discussion of whether an individual name should be listed or not to a question Wikipedia has procedures to handle, whether a person is notable enough to have their own page. Among other things, this provides an easy response to someone who wants to add their own name to the list, or the guitar player for their favorite local band, or whatever. Any attempt to bias such a the list (even with the intention of what you perceive as balance) is subjective, and hence indefensible by Wikipedia policy, and subjective criteria invariably lead to no end of arguments over who is and who is not noteworthy. (Or to put it another way, the way to balance what you perceive as a bias is to write more Wikipedia pages on underrepresented groups, not arbitrarily select some existing pages not to list because there are 'too many Catholics'.)

The Oxford source is indeed verbatim, because that is how Ancestry.com generated their surname entries, by copying them from the Oxford source.

Now for the meat. In your proposal for consensus, each point is problematic. Your first point may be historically accurate, but is not 'verifiable', one of the pillars of Wikipedia - to state this as 'fact', we need a source that says 'the origin of the surname is obscure' or something similar. We don't have this. Indeed, the one source in the article right now says just the opposite, having no question about the origin of the surname. We can't just conclude it is obscure because we believe it to be the case, we think the source is wrong. For the second point, the origin provided is one sided, but that is because we have just one 'reliable source' and it only gives this one side. If the sources are one-sided, we are stuck with it. Whether or not it is in conflict with the way you think surnames emerge is beside the point. "What the reliable source says is wrong" is not a persuasive argument in the absence of another source that says different. As to the third, you will get nowhere with sectarianism. If you want to argue that the extensive historical section lacks sufficient reliable sourcing to be included, that is a legitimate argument, but saying that it is too pro-Catholic, or that it represents a typical Irish bias is an invalid argument unless you have a source that presents a more balanced account to serve as contrast. That is the only way you will be able to argue that it is the source, and not you as an editor, that is biased.

That brings us to your proposal, to remove the text and replace it with a simple sentence. As I already said, given the near-complete lack of reliable sourcing, a reasoned argument can be made for removing the bulk of the text. However, as I have repeatedly said in this and previous responses, we can't make the Irish origin disappear completely just because we don't like it. We have a reliable source, and it says what is says. This can be balanced with another source that says something different or provides a more comprehensive or nuanced version, but it can't be thrown out altogether just because we disagree with it. If we are going to replace the extensive material with a simple sentence, that simple sentence has to at least in part reflect MacLysaght, not ignore it. Agricolae (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was King Milesius I meant to write. Back to business.

If I haven't articulated myself properly, let me say this plainly - I have no doubt that the Fitzpatrick surname has a Gaelic origin. No doubt whatsoever. The name Harrington has a Gaelic origin (O hOireachtaigh), as does Smith (Mac a' Ghobhainn). But they also have other origins, and that brings us to my point. The Oxford Dictionary of Names says that Fitzpatrick is occasionally an Anglo-Norman French patronymic. I don't want to remove the properly sourced information (though my linguistic proposal was a middle-ground approach), but at the very least this page should include the Norman reference. This isn't trivial -- the whole understanding of the Fitzpatrick surname is that it's the 'only Fitz-prefixed surname without any Norman origin', and this is what I' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.182.203.144 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now we seem to have a source that would support the surname also having a Norman origin, particularly with its reference to the other similar names, which could be suggested to open the door for a brief mention of the general origin of Anglo-Norman Fitz surnames as patronymics. That could then be followed by mention of the Irish mimic origin, then the list of pages. I think all that would be justifiable given the very small number of truly reliable sources we have in hand (and my personal opinion would be that such a page would be far preferable to the longer page we now have spinning a grand Irish legend based on non-reliable sources, followed by description of one particular prominent Fitzpatrick family and a paragraph of arbitrarily-selected people with the surname). Agricolae (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't finished with my writing and just lost the rest of it! How do I get it back!?Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what happened to you - what is here is all there is. You could try using your browser's 'back' arrow and see if the lost text is still in the buffer, but it is probably gone. Agricolae (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone. I was just saying that I agree with you about the surname biases (that it's not just the Irish). As a genealogist I experience the residue of nausea whenever a colleague publishes another self-published book (which constitutes a phenomenon in its own right) titled to the effect of, "American Families with Royal and Noble Lineages." And that essentially means that some family historian has tracked down American families who have 15th, 16th, 26th great-grandfathers who were royals or nobles on some European territory -- positively preposterous and makes a mockery of the field of family history.

The Irish sectarian edits I referred to take place very rarely on surname pages and more often on pages relating to Irish or American-Irish history. Study the technique. In the colonial section on Wiki's Irish-American page, the entire thing is a sectarian screed whose only purpose is to peddle the propaganda that early Irish settlers in British America weren't 'really' Irish (because they were Protestant). On the talk page you'll notice I've published a consensus proposal to rewrite the entire section, which has received support from a retired historian. On the Wikipedia Irish Big House page, another sectarian editor was at it. On the Anglo-Irish page, it reads,

"Not all Anglo-Irish people could trace their origins to the Protestant English settlers of the Cromwellian period; some were of Welsh stock, and others descended from Old English or even native Gaelic converts to Anglicanism."

As if a serious distinction could even be made between 'Irish' and 'Norman-Irish' in the year 1790. The fact is, the Normans had been intermixing with the 'native' Irish for many centuries by that time, so that their Norman blood was running real thin by the 18th Century. And most of the Anglo-Irish social class were intermarried with English aristocracies; the Ossorian Fitzpatricks were no exception.

This page currently reads,

"In the 17th century, the Fitzpatricks lost considerable territory through their staunch support of James II. Nevertheless, the head of the sept received a peerage in 1714 as Baron Gowran which was elevated to Earl of Upper Ossory in 1751."

You and I can easily agree that English words should at most explain precisely and at least imply something. The adverb 'nevertheless' means 'in spite of that', and the implication here is that, in spite of the Ossorian support for the Catholic King James, the head of the sept was raised to the title of Baron. But this is pseudo-historical and in conflict with reliable sources, such as,

https://books.google.com/books?id=74QNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=So+acceptable+was+the+report+of+his+services+to+his+country,+his+fidelity+to+the+crown,+in+promoting+the+Protestant+succession+in+his+Majesty's+illustrious+family,+his+integrity,+humanity,+and+other+amiable+qualities,+that+King+George+I+thought+him+worthy+of+a+place+among+the+peers+of+Ireland.&source=bl&ots=0NhZx9pmq0&sig=ACfU3U1ZPP5Kq0PQkcespyLF_4j9itHcqQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwja9auL04_hAhXSVN8KHYHdBkEQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=So%20acceptable%20was%20the%20report%20of%20his%20services%20to%20his%20country%2C%20his%20fidelity%20to%20the%20crown%2C%20in%20promoting%20the%20Protestant%20succession%20in%20his%20Majesty's%20illustrious%20family%2C%20his%20integrity%2C%20humanity%2C%20and%20other%20amiable%20qualities%2C%20that%20King%20George%20I%20thought%20him%20worthy%20of%20a%20place%20among%20the%20peers%20of%20Ireland.&f=false

The head of the sept was Richard Fitz-P,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_FitzPatrick,_1st_Baron_Gowran

and his brother was Edward (linked above). Edward fought for William of Orange in the Williamite Wars (against James ii), and Richard was also a supporter. So Richard was raised to a baron not 'in spite' of his support for James, but 'because' of his staunch support for William and for promoting the Protestant succession in the British Isles, and more specifically Ireland. And if you check Richard's genealogy, he produced a long line of heirs who were of the Anglican faith and were intermarried with the ruling classes of Great Britain. The information on the page currently is inaccurate, and because it makes reference to the last Catholic King of England, it seems obvious to me that this was intended to be a subtle tribe signal.Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And here is where we differ. I don't care whether it is a tribe signal, subtle or not, and I don't think it is worth parsing all that closely. From my perspective, it shouldn't be in the article at all because 1) it is not supported by reliable sources, and 2) by referring to what happened to 'the Fitzpatricks' losing land, it suggests that what happened to one single specific group of people named Fitzpatrick is of any particular relevance to everyone who ever had that surname in general, the same implication that everyone with the surname shares the history of this one family to which they may well share no blood relationship whatsoever (you see this on the English surname pages as well, the Spencer page being a good example of a generic multi-origin surname, in this case occupational, in which completely unrelated lines were treated as if they consisted of one grandiose descent of Lords, Earls, Dukes and princesses that somehow reflected on everyone with the surname, regardless of their origin). The motivations of the person who put the material there is not really relevant, simply whether it belongs there or not based on policy and pertinence. There may well be a page on THE Fitzpatricks, Barons Gowran. If so, that is where material on this specific group of Fitzpatricks goes, not on a page about the surname. Agricolae (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite. I don't think the section should be amended; I agree that it should be entirely removed from the article. I was only pointing out an irony -- that even the inappropriate information is inaccurate -- and answering your source challenge. Reliable sources say the Baron was an ardent Anglican. He even built a Fitzpatrick Mausoleum, for his wife and daughters, on the parish grounds of St. Marylebone's in London, which can be found there to this day.

Here's what I am proposing as a rough draft for the edit,

Fitzpatrick is a surname of Norman language origin [cite Oxford Dictionary of Names]. In addition to its use as an Anglo-Norman French patronymic, certain Irish septs have been documented as having anglicized their names to Fitzpatrick, such as the Mac Giolla Phadraigs and the O Maol Phadraigs [cite MacLysaght]. Notable FitzPatricks include: [list].

And I say we leave it at that. We also don't need to list people with the name as a middle name (this is a surname page).

This may even serve as an example of good surname editing for other editors, who do tend to think that every FitzGerald was descended from the Dukes of Leinster, and every Fitzroy from the Dukes of Grafton (or Kings of England), and every Spencer from Robert the Dispensor, or Robert FitzThurstin, or Hugh le Despenser, or whoever the Lord of choice is, as you've been mentioning.Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae, did you fail to receive my last proposal? Or have you just been busy? I foolishly posted without signing in, initially, but then properly signed my post.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Busy, but also talked out - at some point when there is general agreement it is time to just go make the edit. The start of your second sentence isn't great, as FitzPatrick wasn't really an Anglo-Norman French patronymic, it is just used to represent the Anglo-Norman 'filz Patric' by the convention of modern-English antiquarians. I would suggest something like:

"Fitzpatrick is a surname of Anglo-Norman origin.[cite Oxford Dictionary of Names] Originating from a patronymic identifying a man as 'son of Patrick', it subsequently became an inherited surname. In Ireland, certain septs such as the Mac Giolla Phadraigs and O Maol Phadraigs anglicized their surnames to Fitzpatrick.[cite MacLysaght] Notable FitzPatricks include: [list]"

Agricolae (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found some more to add to the list[edit]

Robert Fitzpatrick (bishop), bishop of the US Episcopal Church.

and,

Thomas B. Fitzpatrick, an American dermatologist and known in the Academy as "the father of academic dermatology".

I am not suggesting this list stretch to unreasonable proportions, but some diversity would surely improve the page. There are too many athletes mentioned, and not enough scholars.

Unfortunately I'm incapable of making these edits myself at the moment (long story), but if someone would take care of this for me I'd appreciate it.Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too long[edit]

The editor Agricolae and I reached an agreement some time ago that this page should be reduced to a couple of lines:

""Fitzpatrick is a surname of Anglo-Norman origin.[cite Oxford Dictionary of Names] Originating from a patronymic identifying a man as 'son of Patrick', it subsequently became an inherited surname. In Ireland, certain septs such as the Mac Giolla Phadraigs and O Maol Phadraigs anglicized their surnames to Fitzpatrick.[cite MacLysaght] Notable FitzPatricks include: [list]"

Somehow this got turned into several paragraphs and growing. The last paragraph includes several lines of incomprehensible Gaelic that most English-speaking Wikipedians and readers can't read or pronounce. There is also minor edit warring going on. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]