Talk:Irish people/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Airish fowk

I have removed the references to Airish fowk and the ulster-scots name, for the following reasons:

• 1) The BBC-website is not a reliable source as it is not a scholarly source and it is not sourced.
• 2) The link to Tourism Ireland is a dead link (what has no further influence) that is its heydays would have led you to a plan of action: Tourism Airlan – Corporate Plen 2008–2010. A corporate plan is not a reliable source for a name.
• 3) Why should we add a dialect in the language section?

The Banner talk 14:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• 1) There isn't an Ulster-Scots dictionary or any "scholarly" source for its syntax or vocabulary, so I'd be interested to hear as to what source you think would be reliable;
• 2) Correct. But there's plenty more, and I'll find them should you so desire;
• 3) What most scholars consider to be the Ulster dialect of the Scots language (although there is also a school of thought that holds Ulster-Scots as a language in its own right, separate from Lowland Scots) is one of three languages – alongside English and Irish Gaelic – natively spoken by the Irish, and as such belongs in the lead.

Per WP:BRD, you shouldn't've re-reverted, Mr Banner, and I intend to restore the stable version of this article until a consensus emerges from the removal of the Scots. — Jon C.^ॐ 18:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the removal unless and until a reliable source can be found. I'm not convinced that adding unsourced translations to articles has any merit whatsoever. --HighKing (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not unsourced. Airish fowk means "Irish people" – i.e. Muintir na hÉireann – and is sourced to the BBC article and the Tourism Ireland doc (which actually isn't dead, it's still live here), and [tha] Airish means simply [the] Irish – na hÉireannaigh – and is sourced all over the shop if anyone bothered to google for it rather than blanking the content. — Jon C.^ॐ 18:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not say it was unsourced, I said that the sources were unreliable. The Banner talk 20:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The sources are not unreliable. They are very reliable examples of Airish as one of the invented features from the "amalgam of traditional, surviving, revived, changed, and invented features" that Scots in Ulster has unfortunately become. What would be interesting is instances of the spelling Airish for Irish in Ulster Scots literature produced before the 1990's. 79.236.218.235 (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

They're not unreliable. So far you haven't produced anything to back up that assertion, other than that they're not scholarly sources. How about you go through en.Wiki changing every cited BBC or media reference to one from a journal or academic work? Scholarly sources are great, sure, but when they're not available you need something else. See WP:NOTRS – neither source falls into that category. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you come up with other sources when you want this in? By now, the only thing you have said was that you did not agree and nothing more. Be wild, offer alternative sourcing! The Banner talk 13:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

As a traditionally oral language, written Ulster-Scots is a new and somewhat niche phenonemon, so sources are thin on the ground. However, they do exist, and – seeing as you clearly haven't quite mastered the art of the google yet – here's what happens when you type in the Airish. As you can see, it means "the Irish". Here's the online Scots dictionary's entry for fowk. As you will also notice, it means "people". Put the two together and what do you get... IRISH PEOPLE! Yay!— Jon C.^ॐ 13:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is just such a pity that your own The Online Scots Dictionary is just pointing at "chilly" at not to Irish. Not even the entry for Ireland point remotely to "Airish" (it does point to "Erse"). So sorry, but I am not convinced. The Banner talk 00:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Scots has been written in Ulster for a good few hundred years.

"James Orr (1770-1816) of Ballycarry, Co Antrim was one of a group of eighteenth-century Ulster poets who looked to Scotland for their literary models. They wrote in the tradition of Ramsay, Fergusson and Burns employing the Scots language which their ancestors had brought to Ulster during the Plantations era and earlier."

Carol Baraniuk

However, you are correct in that written 'Ulster-Scots' is a new and somewhat niche phenonemon. 79.236.197.79 (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I am still waiting for some reliable sources about "Airish fowk".

• 1) The BBC-website is not a reliable source as it is not a scholarly source and it is not sourced.
• 2) The link to Tourism Ireland is leads you to a plan of action: Tourism Airlan – Corporate Plen 2008–2010. A corporate plan is not a reliable source for a name.

The two sources mentioned above are just not reliable for what they are supposed to prove. Or the mentioning of "Airish fowk" can be removed or alternative reliable sourcing should be supplied. The Banner talk 13:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The BBC and a government agency are as reliable as you're going to get. There's no Ulster-Scots dictionary. Where do you propose we source an alternative from? — Jon C.^ॐ 14:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Then you have a problem. If it was a something real, you should have been able to come up with alternative reliable sources, instead you prefer to editwar over it. So, I guess there are no reliable sources. The Banner talk 19:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

"If it was something real"? That's such a bizarre statement I don't even know where to begin. Are you suggesting the existence of Ulster-Scots, a language/dialect enshrined in law, is all in my head? — Jon C.^ॐ 11:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Also – I'm edit-warring? Take a look in the mirror. You want the changes, you seek consensus for them. You've been here long enough to know how it works, so don't plead ignorance. — Jon C.^ॐ 11:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to let it go your way, as soon as you come up with sources that are really reliable (thus not the ones you provided). And that is all what I have asked up until now: really reliable sources. The Banner talk 17:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

quoting

A Latin writer is quoted as having written that the Irish were divided into sixteen groupings. THe source for this quotation is a secondary writer whose work then has to be consulted to see who the Latin writer was and what he actually wrote. An entire sentence is quoted from the same secondary writer that makes a claim that is so general that it seems to me almost impossible to substantiate. (Pamour (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)).

Yes, that whole section is a bad paraprase of a not great history of Ireland by the early 20th-century writer Seumas MacManus. The propblem was compounded by the fact that somebody deleted the References section, apparently oblivious of the fact that it provided the references to the Notes section. I've restored the section and linked the book (here), so if you want to re-phrase it (or substitute a more meaningful ancient history from a better source) you can. Scolaire (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Including Northern Ireland in regions with significant populations.

Should we include Northern Ireland? I'm aware many there don't see themselves as Irish but we should at least include it as a lot of people there still do. It may be in the UK but there is still a large Native Irish population there, not just Ulster Scots. Should we add it in and possibly state in brackets (people who hold Irish nationality). Anyone agree? 79.97.222.9 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That part of the infobox needs a radical re-think and re-write. Is Northern Ireland supposed to be included in the UK "(25% of the British population of partial Irish ancestry)" or not? Is every native of NI "Irish" or only those who put "Irish" on the most recent census form? Does Scots ancestry automatically make you non-Irish? How can some countries quote exact figures and others only percentages of "partial Irish ancestry"? Is there any point in stating figures at all if there is no consistency? And most of all, what on earth is Iceland doing there in second place? Scolaire (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I also wonder why Iceland is there. It doesn't even give a specific number of people with Irish ancestry. I always thought Iceland was strictly Scandinavian in ancestry. The infobox does need to be cleaned up a bit. I say we should do it the way the Scottish people article does it. Stevenbfg (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There is one American claiming that 40% of the original Icelanders is of Irish or Scots decent. Far too vague to be of value and it says more about the Icelanders than about the Irish. Proposal: cut it out. The Banner talk 18:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent research focuses on Y-chromosomes (males) and mDNA (females). In 2001, research from Agnar Helgason published in the American Journal of Human Genetics showed that 80% of men were of Norwegian origin, with 20% having Irish or Scottish origins. Oddly though, only 37% of women were of Norwegian origin, and the remaining 63% were of Irish/Scottish origin. --HighKing (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok someone here seriously needs to make a compilation png of maybe 28 Irish people. I don't know how Stevenbfg (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo gallery infobox

There is discussion about two types of presentation of the photogallery in the infobox. Before we end up in a rather silly editwar, I like to here the opinion of the community which one is best:

• Option one: the pictures tight together
• Option two: the pictures widely spaced

The Banner talk 22:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I was the one who original created the photo gallery of the images tight together after the "21 Irish people.png" got deleted but I changed it because of the white line which makes it look untidy. If you could fix that, I would happily go back to the way it was. Stevenbfg (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think option 2 is better. In option 1, the images are completely different shapes and also that line after the third set of pictures is annoying. I think option 1 only ever works if you create a png like the one here. 109.76.35.194 (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Option one keeps the infobox the smallest. One white line is not a reason to add 4 white columns and 10 white lines while in the mean reducing the number of pictures from 28 (4x7) to 25 (5x5). The Banner talk 23:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This won't be the first article on ethnic groups which uses option 2. African Americans, Samoans and others use it too. Like the person said above, option one only works if you use a created png. Stevenbfg (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hardly an argument: Dutch people, Germans, Russians The Banner talk 23:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Those are all compilation png's. As I said, these are all individual images of different sizes and it has an untidy line. Did you even read what I said? Stevenbfg (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

And btw it was originally 21 images. It was you who made it 28. Stevenbfg (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the second's the best. You can quickly identify the people with the names beneath each individual picture; you don't have to hunt through lines of small text like the first.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok then, since we are currently leading 3-1 for option 2, I will revert it to option 2 for now. Stevenbfg (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

We are not in a hurry. Wait a bit with pushing your choice till others have given their opinion. The Banner talk 23:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

When you have more votes, you can have it your way. Currently it is at option 2 because more people want option 2. 109.76.35.194 (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I see only two people in favor of option 2: Brianann MacAmhlaidh and Stevenbfg a.k.a 109.76.35.194. Nice try to use two identities. Stop cheating. The Banner talk 23:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

If you'd stop editing your comments I wouldn't have gotten 3 edit conflicts in a row here where I am throwing my weight behind option 2, so there you go 3 in favour. Also why was the Duke of Wellington removed? He's more famous than most of those people. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Banner, this is me logged out. Not 109.76.35.194. Its still 3-1 if you like it or not. 93.107.20.48 (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stevenbfg The Banner talk 23:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

4-1 actually. I suppose I out him in place of Enya, suppose ir should have been Andrea Corr she's less famous than Enya and Wellington. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL i'm not Stevenbfg. I just don't have an account. 109.76.35.194 (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

HOI! Please be a bit more damn careful with your edits 93.107.20.48. You removed my comment entirely for your own. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Though curiously the two IPs are both traced to exact same location and ISP: [1] and [2] so we may have to call WP:SOCK and count the two IPs as one vote. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The WHOIS/IP tracers provided by Wikipedia give pretty good evidence circumstantially at least the two IPs belong to the same person. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Because we are roomates who both occasionally edit wikipedia. I'm Steven and my IP is 93.107.20.48. The other guy is Dennis and his is 109.76.35.194. We both have laptops. Stevenbfg (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

What the hell. I left one comment here and The Banner marks me as a sockpuppet. Get a grip man.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. First: it was me who filed the sockpuppet investigation against you, not Steven. Second: I suspect you of being a sockpuppet, I did not mark you as such. When the investigation tells me that you are a genuine editor, I will apologize to you. The Banner talk 00:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Me and Steven are mates. We are living together in Cavan town. Obviously we will share the same opinions but we are not the same person 109.76.35.194 (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In the midst of all this confusion, it is currently as 3-1. Me, Dennis and MacAmhlaidh are for 2 and Banner is for 1. Stevenbfg (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never much liked option 2 on other articles and don't really see any great benefit here. It results in a reduction in the number of portraits for more 'real estate' take. If iVotes go the other way, I'll be surprised, but won't loose sleep. RashersTierney (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

3-2. Don't get me wrong. I would normally go with option 1 but only if its a compilation png and if its actually tidy. Stevenbfg (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

When the SPI goes wrong for you it is suddenly 1-1, as all you votes will be scratched. When MacAmhlaidh is cleared, it still we be only 2-1. And we have time enough to wait for others. The Banner talk 00:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see that both sides are ignoring the fact I voted in favour of option 2, however I renounce that decision and have to admit that option 1 is better visually and spacially. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I have seen that you support option 2. I just missed RashersTierney "vote" due to some editconflicts. The Banner talk 00:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

How about we just axe the bottom 7 pictures? Now I see where this white line came from. Someone added 7 more pictures when it was at 21. 109.76.35.194 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Five of those people in the bottom row are highly notable Irish people - more so than Andrea Corr, Una Healy, Cillian Vallely, and Jonathan Rhys Meyers. We have four rows, we could maybe ditch those four. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Also TheBanner you removed my comment. Twice in the same conversation by two editors. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, did not see that. I was trying to reply on you and had a few editconflicts. The Banner talk 00:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

But the problem is, the ones at the bottom are too big and the 3 lines would be out of shape if we remove Una Healy, but I agree with you. 109.76.35.194 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Your mistaken in regards to it being due to the amount of images: [3] and [4] both have less pictures and rows but still have the same problem. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok someone here seriously needs to make a compilation png of maybe 28 Irish people. I don't know how Stevenbfg (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Its been fixed. Is everyone satisfied now? Stevenbfg (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it by simply swapping the 3rd and 4th lines around. Simple. All that is needed now is for an experienced editor (I don't have the time right now) to fiddle Mr. Guinness' image width to fit in nicely and bingo. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get all of the images the same size. Stevenbfg (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope to see the techhies fixcing the width-issue but why was an modern Irish musician, playing a typical Irish instrument, replaced by an actress mostly working abroad? The Banner talk 14:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for one day to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure this was really necessary. Seems the central issue at dispute has been resolved. Just some cosmetic tidying remains. RashersTierney (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. A simple run over the talk discussion would of seen that the layout issue seems to be sorted. Mabuska ^(talk) 06:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I think they protected this page about 3 to 4 hours after the original request... The Banner talk 14:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo galley infobox.... again

User:Lfdder has changed the images layout to the spaced out one that there was no consensus for (albeit it with less rows), and for some reason at the same time removing the breakline seperating Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland and the Union Flag from Northern Ireland. I reverted telling them to raise the issue here, they restored, so I have asked them at their talk page to self revert and discuss the issue here.

Oppose Lfdder's preferred layout. Personally the layout they prefer is not better looking, makes the infobox far too wide squashing the text too much. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose That spaced out layout makes the infobox as wide as half of my screen. The Banner talk 16:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Then let's see if we can fix it. Stop with the !votes will you. — Lfdder (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It is far easier to stop messing around with that gallery. The Banner talk 21:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't broke to need fixing. It's not really voting, just making our stances clear for the purpose of seeing if there is a consensus for your proposal. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Having their names right underneath the picture is a huge usability improvement. — Lfdder (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Discuss and consider things before rushing to take a stance. — Lfdder (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It was discussed before and no argument has been presented here to alter our view to agree to a layout that is virtually the same as the one that was discussed above. You may think it is a huge improvement in usability, but in regards to the rest of the article it detracts from it. And no-one is rushing, TheBanner and I opposed this kind of layout previously quite recently, so no rushing is being done. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Waste of time. Let's all go our merry way....s. — Lfdder (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)