Talk:Irish people/Archive 1

message: Who, and why, were the photos of Ali, Jeff and Jimi removed? What was so objectionable about featuring them?Fergananim 17:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the images on this page were listed as "fair use" or were outright copyright infringements.  Fair use images need a rationale for inclusion in an article, and cannot merely decorate a list.  Please see Wikipedia:Fair use for more details.  Jkelly 16:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Photos

message: Gee I leave this alone for two days (after weeks of work) and look at what the kids have got up to! Seriously though, what's the problem with having Ali and Jimi included? Jimi's grandmother, Nora Rose Moore, was very proud of her Irish/Cherokee heritage - her Mum was black, her father, Robert Moore, was the son of an Irishman and a Cherokee indian lady. I included them, and others, because they are of Irish descent, at one remove or another, and in the case of Ali and Jimi, they were most certainly aware of it. Ali's great-grandad was an O'Grady from Ennis, Co. Clare. We can't turn our backs on our kin just because they have a more funky skin colour than us palefaces! Sure I have cousions in the Caribann as black as coal, but I'd never deny who they were! Fergananim 12:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone above it all comments

message: Hi guys, Fergananim here again. As I was the person who first included both Ali (not Clay!) and Jimi, and thus inadvertantly caused the resulting dispute, I figured I better put in my two cents worth in more depth. 
:Ali and Jimi
The first person - who, I don't know as it was not signed though subsequent posts would indicate it was Finbar - asked "Why are "Jimi" Hendrix and Cassius Clay (sic) included as people of Irish descent?" ... well, because they are. Ali's great-grandfather was from Ennis, Co. Clare, and while Ali had some issues with these roots, it was because Abe Grady was White, not because he was Irish. He thought that his great-grandfather had a rich white man/poor black servant with his great-grandmother. This was not the case. Abe fell in love with, and married her, and to the best of my recollection Ali's attitude was one that angered other members of the family. 
This puts his Irish descent on an exact par with both Presidents John F. Kennedy and Regan, who also had Irish great-grandfathers. Thus, I included Ali in the list. 
Jimi's paternal grandmother, Nora Rose Moore (1879-1984) was the daughter of Robert Moore, an Irish-Cherokee from Georgia. His father, Jimi's great-great grandfather, was an Irishman named Moore who married a Cherokee woman. 
As is the case with Albert II, Prince of Monaco, Jimi's Irish descent was via a great-great grandparent. 
Both of these men have in fact closer blood ties to Ireland than Che Guvara, who's kinship was more distant, going back to his great-great-great-great grandfather, Patrick Lynch of Oranmore. 
Any person with a good knowledge of modern music will acknowledge the profound effect and influences that Jimi has had from late 1966 right up to the present day. Anon's clearly has other musical tastes, or at least criteria, when it comes to this, but that seems to be from both ignorance of the person concerned and an unwillingness, for whatever reason, to acknowledge that. Jimi was one of the most accomplished musicians of any age, a fact acknowleged and expressed by people in just about every genre of music, be it blues, rock, jazz or classical. I must even state for the record that he was an early fan of The Chieftains, who's early work he was introduced to via Brian Jones of The Rolling Stones. 
Anon cites their joint inclusion as '"foolish, juvenile and unrealiable." Not in the least; they qualify because of their noteworthiness and their proven descent. 
The anon user seems not to have read the heading under which the people are listed. It reads (and I quote) Notable people of Irish descent. All those I listed were notable people, and of Irish descent. Nobody said where to draw the generational line, nor what qualifications they had to be other than the above. I do think my additions fit those terms. This is why "many important Irish people are not shown." They were not Irish, but they were of Irish descent, as indicated by the heading. Thus I did not include them under the heading Notable Irish people (selection); that is reserved for people born or raised here. 
As to other cases of dispute: Queen Elizabeth II is descended from good Irish stock several times over. Her ancestors include Brian Boru, Fergus I of Dalriada, and Niall of the Nine Hostages, to name some of the most well-known. Should also have included both Prince William of Wales and his brother Prince Harry of Wales; via their late mother, they are descendants of a sister of Patrick Sarsfield. 
A question from myself, for a change. Why did'nt anyone object to my addition of the likes of Jeff Buckley, Kenneth I of Scotland, Douglas Hogg, 3rd Viscount Hailsham? What made anon angry enough to remove just Ali and Jimi, and not say the three above? 
Thank you all for your time. It's being stimulating. Fergananim 19:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Note from the original reviser

message: === Number of Irish people in Ireland ===
Where are the numbers of Irish in the infobox from please? Why is the population of Irish in Ireland almost 50% more than the actual population?  The US figures appear over-estimated by a similar amount  -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ireland = Republic of Ireland + Northern Ireland Djegan 19:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That still leaves a few hundred thousand people overcounted in the number here, and that's even if you include every single person in Ireland. Are there any references? zzuuzz (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Irish people

message: Where are the numbers of Irish in the infobox from please? Why is the population of Irish in Ireland almost 50% more than the actual population?  The US figures appear over-estimated by a similar amount  -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ireland = Republic of Ireland + Northern Ireland Djegan 19:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That still leaves a few hundred thousand people overcounted in the number here, and that's even if you include every single person in Ireland. Are there any references? zzuuzz (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Irish people in Ireland 

message: These are the numbers of Irish people reported in the censuses of other countries.
*Britain 2001  = 691,232 (ethnic group)
**England 624,115
**Scotland 49,428
**Wales 17,689
*The number of people living in Britain who were born in Ireland is 750,657 (RoI 494,154, NI 256,503) (Source UK 2001 Census:  Scotland Table 8  Persons by age and country of birth, 2001 and 1991 ; England and Wales Table KS05 Country of birth). See also NI Table KS05: Country of Birth (Numbers).
*US ('race')
**2000 : 30,528,492
**1990 : 38,769,200
**There is a 2002 community survey which suggests that there are 34,262,120 of Irish ancestry in the US, but this is not as comprehensive as the US census.
*Canada(2001)  (ethnic origin): 
**Total: 3,822,660 (of which...)
***Single response: 496,865
***Multiple response: 3,325,800
*Australia(2001): 1.9 million (ancestry)
*New Zealand (ethnic group) (explained a bit on the Talk:English people page) (ref - Table 2a)
**1991 7,395
**1996 73,047
**2001 11,199
There is a question of whether to show the numbers for those who identify their ancestry as Irish, or those whose primary ethnic group is Irish. The latter figures are mostly unavailable. The figures currently in the article are unreferenced and over-inflated in either case.
zzuuzz (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Irish people in other countries 

message: I believe that Throckmorton P. Gildersleeve (The Great Gildersleeve) and Annie Rooney (Little Annie Rooney are fictional characters.  Aloysius Duffy may also be fictional (Duffy's Tavern, a radio show).  When I ran a Google search on these names I did not find any hits for real people. CuinnDubh 23:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about certain people on the lists 

message: I have removed a dozen redlinked "notables", on the theory that, if they were notable, they'd already have an article.  That, plus it kinda looks like there's an ongoing effort to flood the list (WP:Point, perhaps?) -- Mwanner | Talk 23:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinked Notables 

message: I have removed the Disputed tag, as the arguments seem to have been settled. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed tag 

message: 007, a Jedi Knight, a Roman emperor, and Roisin Dubh ... y'know, its pretty cool to be Irish!Fergananim 23:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictorial revisions

message: You might be interested to know that very similar arguments are being played out at Talk:List of Irish-Americans.  I think it's evidence of the difficulty of making a list like this, as the criteria are impossible to define.  "Notable people of Irish descent" sounds like a good statement of eligibility, but if you go far enough back "Irish descent" becomes so widespread as to be commonplace. --Ryano 12:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that "Irish descent" does become very widespread the further you go back, however the list could be that of people with notable or "significant" amounts of Irish descent (say at least 1/8 or 12.5%). Those with Irish descent could also be those who have indigenous Irish descent only and not include those descended or partly-descended from Scotch-Irish/Ulster Scots (Irish people with significant amounts of Lowland Scots/English ancestry). Epf 01:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: Just echoing what was written above, but I find the article is cluttered by the lists.  I copied both people lists over to List of Irish people.  In addition, I completely excised the notable people of Irish descent list.  I also feel the current list of notable Irish is long and could be trimmed but I am in no position to make a call on who should be left out on this page.  Shawn M. O'Hare 18:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved one List, Proposal to Shorten Other 

message: Just spruced up the photos - the one of Enya is fantastic - and removed two or three names from the list, such as Loreena McKennitt, as they were not Irish. Fergananim 16:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: edit

message: Mainly on personal names this time, as some of those cited as being Gaelic names most certainly were not. Also removed the annoying reference to the Celts at top of the page. Fergananim 14:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another edit

message: I have modified the references so that they now point to the appropriate footnotes. This article is sadly lacking in properly referenced  verifiable sources, this is very important, see here. Alun 05:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The recent years have seen a major decline in most Irish names for babies being born in the Republic. While in the past names such as Patrick, John, Michael, Seamus and others were almost ubiquitous in any family, today they are among the rarer names for children and the same goes for most other Irish names, although there are a few notable exceptions. Jack and Sean, both Irish derivatives of the English name John.
I'd like to see some referenced source for the contention that Jack is an Irish derivative of John. I don't think this is true, but I'm no expert. Jack is used all over the British Isles and if it is claimed as Irish I think a supporting reference is required. Likewise with the name John. This paragraph appears to contradict itself. The first two sentences imply that John is an Irish name ..recent years have seen a major decline in most Irish names..in the past names such as Patrick, John..., later in the paragraph Jack is given as an Irish derivative of the English name John. John cannot be both Irish and English. Surely John and Michael are Biblical names anyway, John the Baptist for example and Michael. Alun 07:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Starting with the assumption that John is an English name, it may well be - but it doesn't necessarily follow that the derivative is. Jock is a Scottish derivative of John and Jack is a mostly Irish derivitive.. as far as I can tell. My grandfather was Christened John, but nobody called him anything other than Jack. Jack became a popular name throughout the British Isles. Despite what I have perhaps appeared to assert, I haven't researched the matter. But I would suggest to you that if a name becomes popular outside of its region of origin, that doesn't imply that it originated elsewhere. --Mal 09:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jack, John and Dylan?

message: revert - just b/c someone labelled themselves protestant and irish does not show that they are scotch...your rationale is pityful...the website is an opinion...did they interview each irish person?
I really think you need to read the wikipedia policies on neutral point of view and verifiability. You claim that this information should not be included because it is a point of view (or opinion). Firstly this is a direct contradiction of wikipedia policy, wikipedia should try to present all points of view, these should, of course be presented in as neutral a way as possible 
Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. --Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder (from WP:NPOV).
Your previous reason for deleting this edit was that ..scotchnet.com is not a primary source.., but if you read the no original research policy you will find that it is perfectly acceptable to use secondary sources, in fact this edit was also properly verified (verification is sadly lacking on page), which IMHO, means that you had no right to delete it. You should have instead edited it to make it as neutral as possible, including your point about the census. Finally you should be aware that: As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (from Wikipedia:Verifiability policy). Normally I would have written this to your user page, but you do not have one. Please do not just revert other peoples edits just because you disagree with them, it is better to try to achieve consensus on the talk page by discussing an acceptable form of wording. Alun 07:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User 70.30.71.252 and scotchnet info

message: I was looking at the images on the list of famous Irish people and I noticed that although there are three musicians (Phil, Bono and Enya), a president (Mary Robinson), a painter (Francis Bacon) and a brewer (Guinness) there are no writers with the exception of the minute and unlabeled images of Wilde and Joyce nestled between two other photos at the top of the page. Given the astounding role that we have played in the last century of world literature I thought it might be helpful for non-irish readers if we were to highlight a well known Irish writer. I added a photograph of Seamus Heaney to the list because he is the most current of our four Nobel Prize laureates for literature and because his inclusion would give a northern voice to a medley of otherwise southern images (although Eithne of course is from Gweedore!). By the way, the images of Francis Bacon and Enya are fantastic! I think it was Fergananim that posted them. If so, great job! Fergus mac Róich 08:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: The Saint Brigid of Ireland link listed her as a "Goddess/Saint". I have corrected this - although the Saint Brigid article says she shared the name with that of the Irish godesses, this does not mean that members of the pagan Irish pantheon should be worthy of mention as "Irish people". Grimhelm 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Brigid 

message: I have removed the mitochondrial DNA material as it is not referenced. I did a quick google but came up with nothing to support the statement. I'll do a bit more digging and add a bit more info when/if I find anything. Alun 03:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mitochondrial DNA

message: Where did the figures for Protestants in Northern Ireland come from? The most recent census puts the figure at less that 50% for the first time, although still more than the figure for Catholics.
: The figure, though I have not looked at it yet, probably comes from the 2001 Census. The census asked the question about religious background, and the results indicated that just under 53.2% of the population of Northern Ireland was from a Protestant background. By the way - please sign your comments. --Mal 09:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protestantism

message: I think there is a mistake in total population of Irish people in the infobox. Please check it. . Diyako Talk + 20:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The total population figure is a guesstimate by one or more Wikipedia editors. It has no source, is unverifiable, is probably inaccurate, and cannot be checked. zzuuzz (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is really nonsense, because I don't think there is any limit on how far back or minute one's irish ancestry has to be to put it on a census form (often it is just that the paternal line of one of your parents was a notably Irish name) and presumably many people would have Irish ancestry but not know about it. Also, there doesn't seem to be any figure for Irish descent in the U.K. which would obviously run into the millions. Maybe we should have different numbers for Irish descent and people born on the island of Ireland? Arniep 01:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: Given the modern research suggesting that the whole celtic hypothesis was probably wrong, should we not change the opening paragraph to reflect that (i.e. there was no migration of celtic peoples from central europe between 600BC and 150BC)? Arniep 17:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article update

message: The part of the main box called Significant Populations In: should be in descending order from the largest to smallest should it not?  Now I realise that this is difficult because some people dispute the "Irishness" of those born in the diaspora, and that different countries have different criteria in their censuses for decent or ethnicity.  So I will not make the controversial proposal that the USA or Britain be ranked above Ireland, although I'm sure everyone would agree that taking the widest possible interpretation of Irishness, there are many times more Irish in these countries than on the Emerald Isle.  However, I have a more modest complaint that Canada should be ranked about Australia, based on the numbers given in that list.  Is there any good reason why I should not change it? Kevlar67 00:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should list Ireland first because that's where the people are from.213.202.160.43 17:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe (they are originaly from cont. Europe, after all [way back in time]).  But what about my other point? Kevlar67 11:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, go ahead and change the second part, I don't think it makes a helluva difference (Stpaul 14:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of nations on chart 

message: While you were all having a long digressing conversation impossible to follow and completely unrelated to the Icelanders, User 86.9.100.83 vandalised your article, about four days ago, just below the link to Bob Geldof. He also nominated himself for the "List of virtuosi performers" article. The idea of reverting vandalism is not to let these slip by. 213.202.176.15 16:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To whom it may concern

message: The English are predominantly Germanic. Studies have shown this. That is not to say that in the current population called "the English" there isn't a significant proportion of genes from the indigenous Britons. It even states so in the English people article. Let's not let political opinions get in the way of facts.
By the way, the fact that the English are largely Germanic does not mean that the English have no right to be in the British Isles; which is the only reason why people oppose the English being identified as Germanic. As already stated, the English are indeed also descended of native Britons, even if in a smaller degree, and thus entitled to be in the British Isles. And this is not about "racially" classyfing Europeans, it's about presenting facts. The English are essentially a Germanic people, although with significant indigenous British admixture, and that is not a point of view. Al-Andalus 05:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No the studies show the opposite that genetic input of anglo saxons/Danish was a lot less than was thought and only concentrated in certain areas such as Norfolk and York. It is just inaccurate to say English people are mostly germanic. I note that you like to inaccurately separate people into exact ethnic groups as you did with Mizrahi. Arniep 12:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe you are wrong here:  the English are primarily made up of Saxon blood.  The confusion over Danish and Angles is that they share so much in common with the Saxons,genetically speaking.  On the other hand, areas with a stronger Norwegian influence can be shown.  It should be said, however, that some studies show the English as having strong relations to the pre-Celtic peoples of the island, even more than with the Britannic Celts.  (Stpaul 12:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was an old assumption which has been disproven by genetic evidence. While the Viking Danes did drive native Britons out from certain areas the anglo saxon invasion replaced the leadership but affected the native populations less. Arniep 15:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, the English are not mostly Saxon at all.  I'm more than surprised that there are some still using this Victorian assumption Enzedbrit 21:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, look at this article  Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles. The English are not primarily either Saxon or Germanic, but are a varying combination of native Celts and invading Germanic tribes whose languages and cultures supplanted the natives in England, while the Celts fled to Wales and Scotland etc. Stpaul and Arniep are correct. Tombseye 17:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that the Celts fled to Scotland, straight to the arms of the invading Scots!  They held out as the majority culture in Yorkshire, Cumbria and the north west for centuries. Enzedbrit 21:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You are quite right. 05:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English as Germanic

message: Genetic research is evolving so fast that new discoveries are tantalizing, in many cases shattering in relation to views held until now. I have noticed that this article misses important information that is being published now as a result of the revolution in genetic research, here you have some interesting links: 
1. haplogroup R1b
2. https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my050
3. http://www.worldfamilies.net/Tools/r1b_ydna_in_europe.htm
HCC
There is no revolution, haha. What are you talking about here ? Its an early science with only limited information being presented with infromation that is also being interpreted in many diffrent ways. Take these studies with a pinch of salt if you have any rationality. 69.157.100.164 23:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting links about the origins of the Irish, English and the British in general. 

message: I have removed a large section from the article about slang terms associated with the Irish, which was added by an anonymous user (please feel free to register if you are going to make major changes to articles). It was copied verbatim from The Racial Slur Database. Aside from it being the work of another, many definitions were factually dubious, it was way too long, and it was generally of very poor quality. I hardly need to remind regular contributors as to Wikipedia's copyright policy, but new editors might want to have a wee read....:) Martin 22:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish In slang 

message: Is this whole article a piss-take?  Shaquile O'Neal?  Joan Collins?  What about Daniel Kennedy (Portugese footballer) then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stpaul (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 May 2006.
:No, it's not a piss-take; it's just that not everyone who visits this page is always constructive. I just reverted an edit removing Shaquile O'Neal, as I was under the impression that people of Irish extraction should be on the list. However, on closer inspection (amazing what happens when I actually read the article...lol), it seems that this might not be the case, although there are a few on there. Can someone please clarify: should the list on this page only feature people born in Ireland? If so, I'll go ahead and remove the extraneous names. Martin 02:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wellmy take on it would be, no Shaq would not belong on the list in the article, but would be better situated with the List of Irish people. My thought on the in page list is that it should be restricted to people who born in Ireland, or people who were born of at least one Irish parent. My reasoning is that at least for thouse have moved away form Ireland, the more removed generation wise from the country of your ancestors the more blury your ethnic extraction becomes. As for ones that dont  meet the cretiera, i would have no problem with moving to the other list, as it would me mor apprprate. but i could see special cases being made, though i would say these cases would be extremely limited. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely only people born in or brought up in Ireland (or the very few who don't fit that requirement who are known as Irish i.e. Spike Milligan, Daniel Day-Lewis). Irish Americans, Australians, Canadians have their own lists. Arniep 08:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the list and divided it up in sections; it doesn't look quite so intimidating now, IMHO. Martin 23:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello? 

message: Can we get a photo without Henry Ford in it? I've nothing against him but he isn't actually Irish, he's an Irish American. GusF 01:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good point, I didn't actually notice him! I don't think he is a very good example so I'll attempt a new image. Arniep 00:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another northerner would be nice; how about Seamus Heaney? Or even better perhaps, seeing as there are four photos and four provinces...;) Martin 03:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is any image we use on a collage has to be released under a free license such as GFDL or Creative Commons. We could try and find one on a site that might agree to this using Google Images. I don't think we need to limit it to 4- it could be double height so we can fit in 8 or maybe 10. Arniep 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The thing is Irish-Americans have their own article, and having Irish Americans in the top collage means we can include less people who were actually Irish. Arniep 12:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Epf 22:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That was my point exactly. Personally, I agree with Martin about Seamus Heaney or maybe W.B. Yeats. GusF 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the copyright on many old photos has lapsed by now? Maybe Yeats would be a good idea for this reason? Martin 14:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It say it has, alright. GusF 18:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What are you both on about? Seamus Heaney's Picture IS on the list! Fergus mac Róich 02:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about the collage at the top which has to be made up of public domain images or images under a free license. Arniep 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Henry Ford

message: Take your time and read well.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm
http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm
http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Y-MAP.GIF
World Haplogroups Maps (As recent as 2005)
Origins of haplogroup R1b. (Very interesting too)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29
http://www.worldfamilies.net/Tools/r1b_ydna_in_europe.htm
http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Maps.htm
HCC
*These studies do not imply or conclude any notion that British peoples are of "Iberian origins". See discourse on Talk:English people for more information. Epf 22:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Irish, Britons and Western Europeans are of Iberian Origin. 

message: OK, I had a go at making one, Jonathan Swift, Oliver Goldsmith, Henry Grattan, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Arthur Guinness, Daniel O'Connell, Charles Stewart Parnell, George Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde, W B Yeats. It's not perfect but I'll maybe have another go at it some time, maybe with another row of more modern people if we can find images under a free license or in the public domain(maybe with some women!). Arniep 01:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the effort you have put into this (although, I see that Fergus mac Róich has reverted the page to the old image). One thing though; now there aren't any northerners on there! It's nice to feel wanted....lol Some women would be nice too; I remember meeting one once, so I know we've got them. Maybe Maud Gonne for starters? Martin 13:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored it as consensus here seems to be that we wanted more people in the image. There is a Dublin bias as it just happened that the cultural centre was Dublin in the past so they are over represented in the image. I was going to include a new row of more modern people, perhaps including Éamon de Valera, Seamus Heaney, and Countess Markiewicz (note: any images we use need to be in the public domain in the U.S. or released under a free license).  Arniep 15:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, the two rows basically represent the 18th and 19th centuries. The dominance of protestants is because before emancipation the most well known and successful people were protestants, as to be protestant was the only way you could really get anywhere in society, something that was only really corrected in the 20th century.  For the 20th century row we need some images that are under a free license or in the public domain, unfortunately they're aren't too many free images that I can find (although there is one of Michael Collins, I would prefer Countess Markiewicz as a representative of those times as we need more women). Arniep 19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately we can't use the photo that was on the Roy Keane page as it is a copyrighted press association image. If we can get a free image or illustration we could use that. I'm not sure it would really be worth including Boru- although he is obviously a very important figure the image of him is just a fantasy. Arniep 10:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True but six of the ten pictures in the collage are paintings. But that said, they were most likely painted when they were alive GusF 12:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice collage but would be more suited (minus O'Connell) for the article on the Anglo-Irish or for an article on Irish people in the 18th and 19th century. As it stands, it is totally unrepresentative in chronological and religious/demographic terms. Admittedly, many of those used by Irish tourism to market Ireland are there but there are others who could be included and who are no less important than the present line-up. Who am I thinking of: Theobald Wolfe Tone for example, or Thomas Wyse (one of the first Catholics to "make it" after Emancipation), or Michael Davitt. Someone has already mentioned Michael Collins. Women must also be represented - Maud Gonne, Countess Markiewicz, or Mary Robinson spring to mind. There's also Medb, Johannes Scotus Eriugena, and Turlough O'Carolan of Series B Banknotes (Ireland) fame. --Damac 21:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I don't think people are any less Irish just because they were protestant. I chose people who I felt were some of the most well known and admired Irish people across the communities; whether they were protestant or catholic was not not on my mind at all. I am slightly wary of including people who advocated violence/are heroes of either the republican or unionist movements as I think we should probably avoid anything too divisive right as the page starts off. Arniep 23:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course they are no less Irish - I never said that. My point (shared by others) is that the present line-up is slightly unrepresentative from a number of perspectives. If the article purports to be representative of the Irish people, then the icons chosen should represent the broad spectrum that is the Irish people. As it currently stands, the line-up represents a minority. It's not sectarian to state that - it's a fact.--Damac 07:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know people have said it didn't have enough Catholics- I propose adding the two mentioned below. Arniep 12:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we could just about get away with adding another person on each row- I would be in favour of adding two Catholics, Thomas Wyse in the 18th century row, and Michael Davitt in the 19th. Arniep 23:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Daniel O'Connell should be moved to the top row as he was called to the bar in 1798, and Wyse should be the first in the second row. Arniep 23:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am going to do another row for the 20th century- the problem is finding images that are public domain or under a free license (we do have some free ones of Bono). Arniep 16:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New collage

message: This article does not belong to the category 'Ethnic groups in the United States' and I will remove it.  This category has its purpose clearly stated.  It is for  United States persons who immigrated to the United States from other countries.  This category includes the 'Irish Americans' article as it should since this category contains articles named 'xxxx Amwericans'  Thanks Hmains 03:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still contend that Irish American is not inclusive of the 150,000+ Irish-born people who are living in the US; they are not Irish-American, they are simply Irish; "Irish Americans are residents or citizens of the United States who claim Irish ancestry." Martin 02:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. They're not Irish-American, they're Irish. GusF 10:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethnic groups in the United States 

message: Hi folks, just tightened up the language of the "Descent" paragraph, which I found rather loose and misleading. Hope it meets with approval, but if not, say so. I know that I ought to provide some citations for some of these statements and I will - bad health's a bugger.Fergananim 17:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No probs. Hope you're feeling better soon. Martin 00:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Descent paragraph

message: So I had to remove the very nice picture of him that user:86.42.139.77 inserted. Fergananim 13:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was confusing him with John the Scot. Grimhelm 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Duns Scotus is not Irish

message: In the infobox at the top of this page there are only pictures of men.  Not a single Irish women is to be seen.  Shame. Kevlar67 22:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Mary Robinson's picture to the body of the article as I figured it was a safe choice.  I'd also like to include some other pictures of women in the body of the article, and I would hope there could be some in the infobox as well, however I don't know how to go about doing that. This website contains a list of potential famous Irish women, however it highly nationalist and republican, and I was wondering if you think any of the other women included would be suitable?  Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated.  Kevlar67 04:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major bias 

message: Well, well, well. I knew there was something fundamentally amiss when I read the following claim in this article: 'The government of the Republic of Ireland notes that prejudice against the Irish is still found in some parts of the United Kingdom:The post-1945 Irish population has therefore been caught between these two images. On the one hand their migrant experience and cultural difference has been denied because they are a ‘white’, ‘British Isles’...."
Hold it right there.
A quick Google reveals that, as expected, the Irish government never used the term "British Isles".  The above sentence is from this academic paper, The Irish in Britain: Injustices of Recognition? : http://www.paradigme.com/sources/SOURCES-PDF/Sources15-1-04.pdf El Gringo 19:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More "[[Talk: British Isles|British Isles]]" propaganda

message: No the Irish are not half proto germanic, unless you would call the basques half proto germanic as the Irish are closely related to the basques. The Irish are more closely related to peoples of western europe and Spain and Portugal. Are the germanic germans? What does germanic mean in terms of genetics? Do we need such racial lables anymore? Are they appropriate? No, and genetics is the only way to describe populations ethnicity accurately.'
Haplotype R1b makes up 90% of the haplotypes of Irish Y chromosomes on average, in parts of western Ireland R1b is as high as 98.5%. In the Basque Country of Northern Spain and South Western France R1b averages at 90% in Y chromosomes. In Germany R1b is only at about 40% of Y chromosomes. In conclusion the Irish are genetically more closely related to the Basques than to Germans.
Evidence: 
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm
         
http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm
         
http://www.ethnoancestry.com/Prod09.html
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
:I'm not sure where you get the info to back up your assertions up but I think you'll find that DNA studies show that the maternal Irish mitochondrial lines are Germanic. Arniep 23:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I'm no expert on the specific genetic studies done on Irish people, however one thing I do know is that there is no such thing as "Germanic DNA". Think about that term for a second, we know from Genetic studies done all over Europe that the vast majority of European's DNA comes from the people who lived there in the Stone Age (and in the cast of western Europe the first settlers some 50,000 to 30,000 years ago). Now you are attempting to say that there is such a thing as "Germanic DNA", this is of-course complete and utter drivel, as the Germanic Culture (along with the rest of the Indo-Europeans) didn't arrive in Europe until the Bronze and Iron ages, these newcomers have obviously had a vast influence on Culture and Language, but they have had very little influence on the Genetics. So no, Irish people (and even German people) don't have "Germanic Genetics", they both have Stone Age genetics (though different types). Put quite simply, you cannot tie together Cultures (like Germanic or Celtic) with Genetics. If you want to find out about this there is and interesting site here https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html (specifically check out Haplogroup R1B (M343)). --Hibernian 00:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Germanic 

message: In addition to the many studies that have been previously done pointing in the same direction, like the following one published by Oxford University Press, in which surprising genetic similarities can be seen between Britons and Spaniards (Spain is IberiaS) , in a genetic piece of research that takes into account up to 8 genetic loci, including mitocondrial, autosomal and Y-Chromosome DNA. See: 
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03
Now we have another Oxford study whose reference has been just published two days ago in which the origins of most Britons seem to be getting clearer and clearer and astonishingly very different from what it was previously thought (really, who would have thought that they come from the Spanish!.
It is also interesting in relation to the similarities between the Celtic areas of Britain and England.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1621766.ece
I cannot open the entire article from here, but it continues like this:
A team from Oxford University has discovered that the Celts, Britain's indigenous people, are descended from a tribe of Iberian fishermen who crossed the Bay of Biscay 6,000 years ago. DNA analysis reveals they have an almost identical genetic "fingerprint" to the inhabitants of coastal regions of Spain, whose own ancestors migrated north between 4,000 and 5,000BC.
The discovery, by Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, will herald a change in scientific understanding of Britishness.
People of Celtic ancestry were thought to have descended from tribes of central Europe. Professor Sykes, who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the British Isles, said: "About 6,000 years ago Iberians developed ocean-going boats that enabled them to push up the Channel. Before they arrived, there were some human inhabitants of Britain but only a few thousand in number. These people were later subsumed into a larger Celtic tribe... The majority of people in the British Isles are actually descended from the Spanish."
Professor Sykes spent five years taking DNA samples from 10,000 volunteers in Britain and Ireland, in an effort to produce a map of our genetic roots.
Research on their "Y" chromosome, which subjects inherit from their fathers, revealed that all but a tiny percentage of the volunteers were originally descended from one of six clans who arrived in the UK in several waves of immigration prior to the Norman conquest.
The most common genetic fingerprint belongs to the Celtic clan, which Professor Sykes has called "Oisin". After that, the next most widespread originally belonged to tribes of Danish and Norse Vikings. Small numbers of today's Britons are also descended from north African, Middle Eastern and Roman clans.
These DNA "fingerprints" have enabled Professor Sykes to create the first genetic maps of the British Isles, which are analysed in Blood of the Isles, a book published this week. The maps show that Celts are most dominant in areas of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. But, contrary to popular myth, the Celtic clan is also strongly represented elsewhere in the British Isles.
"Although Celtic countries have previously thought of themselves as being genetically different from the English, this is emphatically not the case," Professor Sykes said.
It seems that here we have very interesting new information for the article.
Veritas et Severitas 02:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a free article here . Arniep 23:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nothing particularly new about most of that. --Mal 05:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking news about the Origins of the Irish and the British.  

message: User:Opie changed a couple of phrases in the genetic section, altering totally the meaning of it. Basically he/she changed all references to Atlantic background for Northern Europe (see history), against all what's been discussed here, and without any comment. Therefore I have reverted. 
Should this user be denounced for vandalism? --Sugaar 08:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was your fellow Iberian Globe01/HCC who, without explanation, replaced every mention of northern Europe with something else (as did 86.138.89.124 before him), thereby making a couple of phrases inconsistent with the references that followed. What I then did, in effect, was to revert (in two steps) to the previous version, explaining my edits in the process. Don't worry, your Basques are still mentioned, and the article is clear that they and the Western Irish share the highest proportion of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b. But please don't remove substantiated information -- for example, if reference #6 shows that the Irish genetically belong to a northern European cluster of populations when the full genome is sampled, then don't replace "northern" with "western" or "Iberian" or some such thing. --Opie 11:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: I have removed from the related ethnic groups Norweigens simply because norwiegens are genetically quite different from the Irish, it is true that the vikings who landed in Ireland were norwiegen but they didnt leave a very large genetic footprint. Icelanders should be included though as they are much more genetically similar to the irish than norwiegens due to the scottish and irish female and male slaves that were taken by norwiegen vikings to iceland. I am not aware of any cultural impacts from Norwiegen vikings in Ireland either.
globe01
=== Norwegians ===
somones has readded norwiegens to related ethnic groups, i am not going to remove it again but this is ridiculous. On the Y-chromosome analysis Norwiegens are less closely related to the Irish than the French and the Spanish and they are not included in the related ethnic groups, so unless they are included norwiegens shouldnt be included either.
evidence
http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm
this map y chromosome analysis shows that the irish are far more closely related to the basques than to the norwiegens, it also shows that the irish are more closely related to germans and danes than to norwiegens.
germans and danes are not included in related ethnic groups and therefore norwiegens shouldnt be either.
Even if some vikings did come from norway, plenty of french hugenots came from france to ireland and the irish are genetically more similar to the french to the norwiegesn anyway( not due to the settling of french huegenots though) so i cant see any logical reason to have norwiegens in related ethnic groups unless we include just about every other european nation while were at it which would be ridiculous.
globe01
:That one was User:Arniep and he reverted. The link that pretendedly doccuments that is a CIA World Factbook one on Iceland that claims that this island was settled by Irish and Norwegians. As far as I know it was settled by Norwegians only (maybe some Danes too), though there are claims that they encountered Irish monks there at their arrival. Whatever the case the CIA World Factbook is no good for ethnography (it has loads of errors), so I'm erasing it the reference to both Norwegians and Icelanders.
:By the way, globe01, you can sign using the button hat looks like a signature on top of the writing  box. That way not just your name but a direct link to your User Page and the date and time will appear. --Sugaar 19:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored Icelanders as most of the female settlers were Irish women with some Irish men taken as slaves- see Demographics of Iceland. Arniep 22:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwegians removed from related ethnic groups 

message: somones has readded norwiegens to related ethnic groups, i am not going to remove it again but this is ridiculous. On the Y-chromosome analysis Norwiegens are less closely related to the Irish than the French and the Spanish and they are not included in the related ethnic groups, so unless they are included norwiegens shouldnt be included either.
evidence
http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm
this map y chromosome analysis shows that the irish are far more closely related to the basques than to the norwiegens, it also shows that the irish are more closely related to germans and danes than to norwiegens.
germans and danes are not included in related ethnic groups and therefore norwiegens shouldnt be either.
Even if some vikings did come from norway, plenty of french hugenots came from france to ireland and the irish are genetically more similar to the french to the norwiegesn anyway( not due to the settling of french huegenots though) so i cant see any logical reason to have norwiegens in related ethnic groups unless we include just about every other european nation while were at it which would be ridiculous.
globe01
:That one was User:Arniep and he reverted. The link that pretendedly doccuments that is a CIA World Factbook one on Iceland that claims that this island was settled by Irish and Norwegians. As far as I know it was settled by Norwegians only (maybe some Danes too), though there are claims that they encountered Irish monks there at their arrival. Whatever the case the CIA World Factbook is no good for ethnography (it has loads of errors), so I'm erasing it the reference to both Norwegians and Icelanders.
:By the way, globe01, you can sign using the button hat looks like a signature on top of the writing  box. That way not just your name but a direct link to your User Page and the date and time will appear. --Sugaar 19:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored Icelanders as most of the female settlers were Irish women with some Irish men taken as slaves- see Demographics of Iceland. Arniep 22:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwegians 

message: "This page is 224 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size"
This Discussion Page is ridiculously long; perhaps it's time for archiving its older topics? --Grimhelm 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  224 kilobytes long