Talk:Ulster Scots people

message: What exactly is Protestant Scottish traditional music? As someone who has played Gaelic Traditional Music (Scottish/Irish/Manx/Cape Breton) for 10 years, I have never heard of this genre and am interested to learn more. I suggest deleting this. I also know many Prodestants from Ulster who play Irish/Scottish trad music and doubt that you can desect Ulster Scots, Irish, Scottish, Scottish Protestants, Scottish hythens, and Scottish Catholics along music lines.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimmer79 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Protestant Scottish traditional music]]

message: Should this article include the Royal Standard of Ireland, the traditional provincial flag of Ulster, the Scottish Saltire flag, and the flag of England (as shown in this version of the article) to illustrate and provide a visual representation of the ancestral countries/provinces of the Ulster Scots?  This has been extensively discussed above, but there seem to be too few editors involved yet to put the matter to rest with a clear enough consensus,  or , to move on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *WP:NOHARM, classic argument to avoid.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

text: *:And as WP:NOHARM states: "...if there has not been any verifiable information published in reliable sources about the subject, then there is no way to check whether the information in the article is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it is true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in." - it's a little bit more nuanced than you're making out. Alssa1 (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

text: *::The quote seems to work against your Yes suggestion. By inserting the symbols without sources that support their use by the subject group, we risk, if not assure, that "false information will seep in." -The Gnome (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

text: *:::But they do have sources... Alssa1 (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

text: *::::You have sources that Ulster Scots have some ancestry from places represented by such flags, not that they use these flags as group self-identifiers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

text: *:::::Nobody is claiming that Ulster Scots use these flags as self-identifiers, so please stop repeating this.. Eastcote (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

text: *::::::Please stop ignoring that applying flags to people who don't use them is an obvious WP:NOR and WP:NPOV problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

text: *:::::::As for whether Ulster Scots actually "use" the crosses of St. George or St Andrew, please see "Flags of the World" (FOTW) regarding "political flags" in Northern Ireland.  FOTW is a long-established wiki-type repository for, as the name suggests, flags.  Here you will find multiple uses of the Cross of St George by organizations which draw their primary membership from Ulster Scots, and some lesser use of the Cross of St Andrew (although in my own experience in Northern Ireland I've seen more St. Andrew's Crosses than those of St George).    Also see Ulster University's CAIN Archive concerning "Flags Used in Northern Ireland" which shows use of the flags of St George, St Andrew, Province of Ulster, and various other flags.  And don't say, "But these flags aren't being used to represent Ulster Scots".  Who else would be flying these flags in Ulster?  Puerto Ricans? Eastcote (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *Flags of the World has long been declared a completely unusable non-reliable site at WP:RS/P. Canterbury Tail talk 13:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually rather funny.  "...written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight..."  That description could apply to Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia editors, after all, aren't really editors.  They are just self-publishers.   Eastcote (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely correct as we know. Which is exactly the reason WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source and can't be used as such. Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  That's my point.  So Wikipedia "consensus" is itself not a reliable source about what is or isn't a reliable source. Eastcote (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *, if I were you, I would drop this stick as your comments are starting to get into Wikipedia:Tendentious editing territory. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is truly astonishing, Eastcote. And shows that, at the very least, you have not understood why Wikipedia proclaims itself as unreliable. As to consensus, good luck tearing down that. (What is this? Some kind of inclusionist manifesto? We have enough or them already.) -The Gnome (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *:OK.  I'll give way to the gate-keepers of Wikipedia rule integrity.  You folks are right.  It's all about officious bureaucracy.  I should have known.   Eastcote (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *::Cf. sour grapes. Just because you are failing to understand how Wikipedia works and what its policies actually mean doesn't mean anyone is doing you a wrong or making any other kind of mistake. In particular, 'So Wikipedia "consensus" is itself not a reliable source about what is or isn't a reliable source' is just confused in the extreme.  WP's own internal determinations as to what are reliable sources are quite binding (see WP:RSN for the formal process). That doesn't make it a "source" that itself can be determined reliable or not. A source is a published work. A Wikipedia consensus is a decision-making process.  Not meaningfully comparable in any way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

text: *The content of the website Flags of the World, Eastcote, is user generated, well described by you as a "wiki-type" site. Note the extremely significant difference between Wikipedia and this type of "wiki-type" sites: Wikipedia is all about reliable sources and verifiability. The "wiki-types" well, they are not; and this makes them unusable here. It's actually very surprising that you are ready to pull down the Wikipedia project's foundational policies in order to open the way for any and all. But, explicitly, Wikipedia is not a repository of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

text: *:Or in short form: see WP:SPS and WP:UGC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

text: *Of course, it "harms" the article. More precisely, the inclusion of symbols not expressly used to denote the ethnic group's identity is confusing to the user and unnecessarily muddles the already complex history of the subject. Many Ulster Scots support the Glascow Rangers. Should we put up a Rangers flag? -The Gnome (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

text: *:That's a red herring, we're not discussing voluntary political or sporting affiliations. The flags are non-controversial symbols of the groups that were responsible for the ethnogenesis of the Ulster Scots - and the selection of those groups are supported by reliable sources. Alssa1 (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No herring in this table, I'm afraid; only symiaki garida cooked with cheese, as it happens. (Don't be jealous, now.) These flags are not being used to represent the Ulster Scots people. None of those flags represent them. And that's per sources. Ethnic groups might have -they usually have- a complex and varied ethnic history but we do not put up symbols of every one of their ancestral tribes. Why? Because it's essentially an exercise in irrelevance and  Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

text: — ★Parsa ☞ talk 02:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on inclusion of ancestral national flags

message: This page appears problematic. Is there actual evidence that this identity exists historically? The reason I ask is because I cannot imagine that historically people referred to themselves as /Ulster Scots/. The idea of Ulster Scots appears to be a modern term applied to the group of people who came from Scotland to Ireland in the plantations or time period after. I suspect that when these people arrived in Ireland that they referred to themselves as Scottish and had a Scottish culture then eventually as Irish as they assimilated - I imagine this is difficult to comprehend nowadays as the communities for which /Ulster Scots/ are associated is generally Unionist/Loyalist and British. However, only after the partitioning of Ireland and the creation of N.Ireland do you tend to see individuals call themselves British or Ulster Scots. In the 19th century, you will see Protestant organisations referenced as Irish or Ireland. The largest unionist party in Ireland pre-partition was called the 'IRISH Unionists'. If you read any of the Ordnance Survey Memoirs for Ireland, for areas of historical Scottish settlement, you will see the people referred to in relation to their Scottish manner or habits. Their cultural habits may have been different but the people were Irish by nationality and regarded themselves as so. There are countless examples of this. This page appears to try to almost paint Ulster Scots as a polar opposite to Irish, like it's a nationality. It isn't. The people were culturally separate. However, given Scottish traditions (including the Lowlands) there is likely some overlap with Irish traditions. In the rebellion of 1641, the Scottish were said to be spared by the Irish rebels due to the similar affinities - the wikipedia article for the 1641 rebellion even states this.
It appears to me that the Ulster Scots which is outlined by the Ulster Scots society is that these people spoke a variant of Scots from Scotland and had some of their own specific traditions. What these are, I don't know. The genetics for this is complicated because there is historical migration from Scotland to Ireland and vice versa, INCLUDING PRE-PLANTATION. There is genetic evidence of links between Down and Galloway. The haplogroups for Irish clans like McGuinness are also found in southwest Scotland. Similarly Dal Riada and the migrations between the Glens of Antrim -Ballycastle/Cushendall and Argyll. The religious affiliations doesn't really matter. You can see Scottish Gaelic Catholics in the Glens of Antrim, like those settled in the MacDonnell estate. You can also see Scottish Gaelic Presbyterians in Ireland. I point to McKinley, the American President.
Just some thoughts. 2A02:C7F:864B:CC00:448:3A75:4733:353 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I once heard someone try to argue that there were no Germans before 1870, when the various kingdoms and principalities were united as the German Empire, which is of course nonsense.  Similarly, to say that there were no Ulster Scots before the Partition of Ireland in 1921, is equally strange.  Actually, they were the reason for the Partition. Eastcote (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps more the point, the anon's notion that the article can't exist unless the term was historically used by the first of the people today called Ulster Scots is nonsense to begin with. Our articles are written around the facts and terminology used in reliable modern sources. The anon's position is rather like arguing that we have to delete Ancient Egypt because the ancient Egyptians didn't call it that, or that Slavs is an invalid article because all the peoples classified as Slavic by anthropologists today did not historically call themselves by that name or consider themselves to belong to such a grouping.  Also, the genetic argument introduced by the anon is meaningless. DNA heritage (which no one knew anything about until the last generation or so) has nothing to do with socio-cultural group identity (either intrinsic to the group or used historically/anthropologically/sociologically as a categoriser). The most that needs to be done here is some clarity about when the term arose, but that will require further reliable sourcing, if there is even a source that identifies the coining of the term at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. Eastcote (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Yeah, but this article promotes a blood fantasy that this group remained "culturally" and "ethnically" distinct from the local Irish population (and misuses the word "ethnic"), which is clearly nonsense and not consistent with some of the latest research. You also list "English" and "Scottish" as related ethnic groups but leave out "Irish", even though the English and Scottish view these people as Irish. In fact, much of this article promotes what Kerby Miller calls the "two traditions" thesis, which I do not believe is a mainstream view. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, our articles don't research and write themselves. Maybe get some books and work their relevant gist into the article. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this really exist? 

message: * 
* More about out-migration of Ulster Scots to the Americas, etc.:
**  – Covers the Plantation of Ulster through American emigration and early US history.
** 
** 
** 
*  – Something about the "back end" of the disaporic process. Part of a series that also includes volumes on Renfrewshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Lanarkshire.
* 
* 
*  – Has at least some material on the Ulster Scots.
*  – Has at least some material on the Ulster Scots.
See also: Talk:Plantation of Ulster#Additional sources, Talk:Scotch-Irish Americans#Additional sources, Talk:Scotch-Irish Canadians#Additional sources, Talk:Scottish diaspora#Additional sources.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional sources