Talk:Ulster Protestants

NPOV article

This is a pov branch and should be merged into Unionism in Ireland. Snappy (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Your conflation of a whole people and one political position is stupid at best and downright sectarian at worst. Exactly what point of view would you contend the article asserts? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a blatantly pov article, why not have a Leinster Protestants article? This should be deleted or merged in Protestantism in Ireland. Snappy (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Why did you backdate your NPOV tag by a year? What are you playing at? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Copy and paste error from other tags. Snappy (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Once again, what point of view? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Protestantism in Ulster. The original author doesn't appear to know the difference between an ethnic group and a religious group. Snappy (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Following your original sectarian attempt to conflate every Ulster Protestant with British unionism, and then your risible effort at denying the unique history and politics of Ulster's Protestants compared to the rest of Ireland, this is what you attempt now. It's quite frankly laughable Snappy, and well beneath what you're capable of. The Protestants of Ulster are not of one religious group but many. The article does not describe the different versions of Protestantism they follow but the people themselves. If you have any success in redirecting Irish Catholic to Catholicism in Ireland I'll have another look. Good luck. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This reticence of yours is unusual, but I will take this opportunity to expand. I believe Wikipedia would benefit from a Protestantism in Ulster article, and I would gladly collaborate with you on one. But this is not it, as even a quick scan should tell you. It bears no resemblance to Roman Catholicism in Ireland or Protestantism in Ireland, both of which describe the history of those sects on that island. This article is, plainly, about the Protestants of Ulster. Over at Talk:Billy Fox (politician) you seem happy to describe them as an ethnic group, a happiness that seems to desert you here. Can you explain this? I really don't understand where you're coming from and you're doing a poor job of explaining yourself. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I never once described so-called "Ulster Protestants" as an ethnic group, in fact since February 2014, I been tried to get you to provide refs for this Pov and OR group. Still yet to see them. Either you are deliberately misrepresenting my words or you can't even understand the basics of a discussion on another page. Snappy (talk)

Don't split hairs. The word you used was 'ethnicity', is there a difference? Your assertion about seeking references for this page is blatantly false, as you never commented here before last month and the page is heavily referenced. Will you tell us why you originally wanted to redirect this page to Unionism in Ireland? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, categorisation is a minor issue compared to your moving of the page. Right now we have an article about Ulster Protestants misleadingly entitled 'Protestantism in Ulster'. There's no reason we can't have both articles. Will you move it back and join me in working on PIU? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be far better for you to engage here rather than making edits like your most recent. Removing one category does not transform an article about Ulster Protestants into one about Protestantism in Ulster, no matter its title. Will you have a look at the proposal I made to you in my last comment above? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Protestism in Ireland

This should be done, its a POV piece with, " About 2% of Ulster Protestants reside in the rump of Ulster in the Republic of Ireland", the only ref I can see that uses Ulster Protestants is a blog, and that in itself is not a reliable source. However As Gob Lofa started the article, we should let him explain first. Murry1975 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you then propose for Irish Catholic? It seems a bit saucy that two editors who I have had problems with in the past suddenly descend on an article I've written and take a strong position on it, but not on the similar article [Irish Catholic], which has existed for ten years and is somewhat less referenced. What gives? Ought that article be redirected to Catholicism in Ireland, or perhaps Snappy would prefer Irish nationalism, given his first preference for this article? Murry, what point of view are you referring to? What percentage would you use to describe the 20,000 Ulster Protestants (out of a million) that live in ROI Ulster? As for the references, once it's made clear the context is Ulster there's not a lot of people would keep insisting on the adjective. If you really believe the article ought to be redirected, why are you tinkering around the edges with categorisation? I'm a little shocked that anyone could contend with a serious face that the Protestants of Ulster are not distinct enough from the majority of Irish people (and from other Irish Protestants) to warrant their own article. As I proposed to Snappy above, why on earth can't we have both articles? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Murry1975. Also, since this article is disputed, please stop linking its former title (Ulster Protestant) in various articles. Snappy (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You've already been asked what point of view, Snappy, and as regards linking it's becoming increasingly difficult to understand exactly what the dispute is about. Could you please address the point of view question and others put to you above? That could, conceivably, allow us to make progress. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm really confused by this removal of categories coming from someone whose expressed wish is to make this a redirect page, even if they're not sure where. Can you explain? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm really confused by the all the questions. What exactly is unclear? It's pov and so should be redirected. Just removing the incorrect categories for now while it is still an article,Snappy (talk)

You can take them one at a time Snappy, I don't want to overwhelm you. There is much that is unclear, but we could start with why someone who professes to want to redirect this page is editing its content instead. Saying something is point of view does not even begin to explain what point of view you believe it is, which is the question you were asked. If you have any compromises to offer in future, I'd rather you introduced them here rather than in the edit summaries. Can we take it that you are happy to describe Ulster Protestants as an ethnoreligious group, as your edit implies? Have you thought this through? That article begins: "An ethnoreligious group (or ethno-religious group) is an ethnic group". I see you have finally got around to editing Irish Catholic, but why no redirect there? By the way, you're in breach of the 1RR policy introduced by Murry for Troubles-related articles. Seeing as you accused me of being an edit warrior as you made it, I believe you win irony today. I invite you to revert yourself. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

While this debate drags on I've moved the page to give it a title that more accurately reflects its content, although I'm not sure it's an improvement on [Ulster Protestants] which I seem unable to move the page back to. I stood off from doing this while I thought that we could thrash out a formula for how to move on from here but given the current level of engagement I'm no longer optimistic about that happening any time soon. Snappy made a good point about corrections above and that's the spirit in which I've made the recent move and edits, it's not an attempt to pre-empt any decision made here. Quite frankly, the obfuscation on display here is dispiriting. When I make edits or move pages I'm perfectly happy to answer questions about them. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"and many of them retain a British identity."

"Aligned with McAdam's Protestant faith is a sense of Britishness. "I may have been born in Ireland, but I feel British," he says. "I'm speaking on a personal level, not on behalf of other Protestants in the area, many of whom obviously feel Irish. I feel I have a number of identities. I'm a Cavan man, I'm an Ulster man and I'm also a British man. I just happened to be born in Ireland. Despite this sense of Britishness, McAdam is not eligible for a UK passport. He has considered moving with his wife and young children to Scotland, but has contented himself with the quiet life of rural Cavan."(from 2008)

And

"Yet 26pc of respondents did not believe they had equal access to jobs in the State sector (some said they would feel more comfortable joining the PSNI than the Garda Siochana) and 57pc felt the Protestant community was not fairly or adequately represented by the political system. The latter sentiment suggests there was some truth in David Trimble's controversial criticism of the Republic as a mono-ethnic and mono-cultural entity....One of the strongest impressions conveyed by the report is of a people loathe to rock the boat with overt displays of a different identity but who fear nonetheless that their identity is being eroded. For instance, 32pc said they would have reservations about their son or daughter marrying a Roman Catholic and 22pc said they would not approve of such a marriage; and while 21pc said they were members of organisations such as the Orange Order, the Royal Black Preceptory, the Masonic Lodge and the Apprentice Boys, 41pc disagreed that Protestant cultural activities had been "demonised". However, 46pc agreed."(2005 on a report by Border Protestant Perspectives)

Neither show support for this statement. I may have missed British identity in the second one, but I dont think so. Murry1975 (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Murry, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. The first article you refer to quotes McAdam: "...I feel British...a British man..." and the body of the article twice refers to his sense of Britishness. I don't understand why you feel this is not referring to a British identity, is it specifically the word 'identity' you object to? The second article says '"a small number" said their pro-British views made it difficult to identify with the Irish State'. I feel this bolsters the point made by McAdam. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes thats my point, one individual; "on a personal level, not on behalf of other Protestants" and "a small number" yet its peacocked into "many of them". It should be rephrased "some still retain a sense of Britishness/British identity". Murry1975 (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Majority are Ulster-Scots?

This would need sourced with something carrying good weight such as along academic lines or what not. I agree that the majority of Protestants, and indeed people in Ulster, are descended from Scots and thus are technically "Ulster-Scots", but in the meaning of the term Ulster-Scots as it is used today and on its article, this would not be a good term to use. It would be better to state "of Scottish origin".

Ulster-Scots according to modern-day myth are Scots speakers from the Scottish Lowlands. In reality, up to 50% of the Scots who came to Ulster in the early and mid 17th century spoke Scotch-Gaelic. Add in the fact that the Protestant Scots that Randal McDonnell planted onto his lands throughout County Antrim before the Plantation of Ulster itself largely came from the Scotch-Gaelic Western Isles.

Mabuska ^(talk) 21:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think "a number of which consider themselves" would be better for stating many implies a majority of them consider themselves so and that would need sourced. A "number of" doesn't really need sourced as it is not disputable.

A couple of other problems with additions to this article:

"Most Ulster Protestants are descendants of the Protestant settlers involved in the early 17th century Ulster Plantation" - this is a falsehood. The Plantation of Ulster itself was a failure and largely destroyed in the 1641 rising. The majority of Ulster Protestants descend from later migrations from the mid 17th-century onwards right up to and even after the Williamite Wars, not including the Irish converts.

"and possibly as many as 80,000 in the 1630s." - would need sourced as the claims of around 30,000 Protestant settlers being killed in the 1641 rebellion is often discounted as there may not have been that many settlers in Ulster at that time.

Mabuska ^(talk) 10:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel your phrasing takes it too far the other way, 'many' doesn't imply a majority for me. I take your point about the ancestry of most UPs. The 80,000 figure was lifted from the Plantation article, it wasn't sourced there either but was extrapolated from a census of 20,000 British adult males. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Some" which you added does good enough. "which introduced the first significant numbers of Protestants into the province.", needs sourced as well because I have it sourced that "In the sixteenth century, well before the Plantation, many of the MacGuinnesses accepted the Reformation and indeed there were Protestant MacGuinness bishops of Down and Dromore at that time". Those bishops also need flocks who would be Protestant. The sentence is also flawed seeing as McDonnell and several others privately planted Counties Down Antrim, and Monaghan, with significant numbers of Protestants before the Plantation of Ulster which affected the other counties of Ulster. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Merger

I'm not calling for a formal merge request at this time however I feel that this article would be better suited being merged and made a section within Protestantism in Ireland. As they are both heavily interrelated, it would help beef the article up. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You're confusing Protestants and Protestantism again, and why haven't you posted this on the PiI talk page too? Far from being a suitable section, this article is already two-thirds of the size of PiI and growing twice as fast; you'd end up swamping PiI, would soon face calls to have the new article split, and we'd be back to the status quo. Far better to beef up the honest way, I reckon. Get a couple of books from the library. Gob Lofa (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not a formal merge request so no need to post this on the PiL page at the minute and was more to get your views on it.

There is no confusion in the terms. Ulster Protestants or Protestants of Ulster is directly related to Protestantism in Ireland. The two articles are heavily inter-related. The PiI article does need to delve more into Protestantism in Ulster (which Protestants of Ulster are a part of disregarding hair splitting on terminology) seeing as that is where the bulwark of them lie. There is no risk of the article being swamped when you compare it to many other articles that are twice as long or more than this and that article combined, and considering how much of this article really needs to be mentioned in the PiI article anyways, not as much may need to be transferred over as you think. If it is properly laid out, scripted, and structured a merged article could be easily hit an B or GA rating. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

But fair enough, continue to work away on it. Though get a couple of books from the library? Why? I've got my own archives. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ethnoreligious group

I realise ethnoreligious group is not in the source Mabuska, but as it was a compromise proposed by Snappy, don't you think you're being a little aggressive in getting rid of it? After all, it's not such a leap of faith to consider Protestants as a religious group. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't always have to follow the source religiously; after all, that's a point on which we agreed at Talk:RUC Special Branch. What do you think? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What was half-agreed was to find a suitable synonym for "perceived", which is well within acceptable standards of paraphrasing and using sources. That is not the situation here where a debatable term was being used in the article with an attached source that did not back it up, a term that is not a synonym either. Something that is debatable and likely to be challenged needs reliably sourced, and not by using a source where the end-result is a juxtaposition. Whilst we don't have to follow the source religiously, what we put in the article must be backed up by the source and the source does not back it up.

I would suggest finding a source that explicitly states the term "ethnoreligious" or opening a RfC to see what other editors think. More input than just two editors is always a good thing. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Simply stating "a religious grouping in Ulster" is less contentious and debatable. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about 'contaminated'. You're happy to say 'religious grouping' and 'ethnic group' but not 'ethno-religious group'? Seems odd. Gob Lofa (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Those terms whilst related are not the same as each other and ethnonational is not the same as ethnoreligious. I didn't say I was happy with ethnic group, I simply said a religious grouping. The ethnic part I find debatable considering regional differences and the fact not all Protestants in Ulster share the same cultural traits. As I said, source it or open a RfC. The source in the article as it is isn't even that academic for such a claim and is not very reliable going by its content on the issue. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• The conflicting ethnic identities and loyalties of Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland emerge out of what both see as very different and opposing nationalities.
• ...the relatively homogeneous Protestant/unionist ethnic identity that later appeared may have been made possible...
• In Ulster, however, the political and social context, determined by the entrenched ethnic conflict between Scot- and English-derived Protestants and Irish Catholics, has dictated strikingly different patterns of mobilization and organization.
• To the civic strain of argument against any change to their British citizenship was added the decidedly ethnic one of an Ulster Protestant distinctiveness with its own right of self-determination, albeit to be held in reserve.

There are any number of reliable sources describing Ulster Protestants as an ethnic group. Since the word "Protestant" doesn't have a meaning distinct from the Protestant religion, it follows that they fit the definition of ethnoreligious group. Seeing as the whole thrust of the article is the ethnic identification of Ulster Protestants, it makes no sense not to state that in the first sentence. Scolaire (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What I see is sources stating "ethnic" as well as "ethnonationalist/ethnonationalism", which is what we already have in the article so I won't argue with either of those terms. The third source you provide is unreliable seeing as it is over-simplisation that ignores the fact there is quite a number of Protestants in Ulster of Irish origin, yet it simply states of English and Scottish. For me to accept that I'll just have to disregard half my ancestry ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 11:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic nationalism is an esoteric term that belongs in discussions of the concept of nationalism, not in articles like this. In particular, "ethnic or ethnonational group", which is in the first sentence at present, is jargon for its own sake and has no real meaning. To repeat myself, Protestant and Catholic are religious descriptors, and it makes no sense to say that Protestants or Catholics in any part of the world are purely an ethnic group. By their very name they are religious groups, and if they can also be described as ethnic groups then ipso facto they are ethnoreligious groups.

An editor cannot decide that a source is unreliable simply because he or she disagrees with it. It may well be that "there is quite a number of Protestants in Ulster of Irish origin", but the scholarly consensus is that Ulster Protestants are primarily descended from Scots/English settlers and Catholics from the native Irish, making them both ethnically and religiously distinct. Scolaire (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever, the source is factually flawed by its oversimplification, but regardless of that you say it is ipso facto, so let's continue without sources and go with blue. I disagree however by all means alter the statement, I will not revert or tag it. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. For the record, my support for the word does not equal support for the article. I don't find it particularly useful, and if there was a formal merge proposal I would vote to merge. Scolaire (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Once I get more work done on Protestantism in Ireland, which will no doubt need to see Protestantism in Northern Ireland turned into an article instead of being a redirect, most of this article would be redundant. Until then it does have a place at present even if I myself don't agree fully with it. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that, especially once I get time for Irish Protestants. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, why? It would be an article that is essentially the exact same thing as Protestantism in Ireland. Irish Protestants by default fall under Protestantism in Ireland as they are to do with it. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand how you're conflating the two just because they're related, or as you put it, "to do with it". Much of Protestantism in Ireland as it currently stands has little to do with the history of the religion in Ireland itself and in fact describes the history of Irish Protestants instead. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Irish

Instances of use

• http://www.gaois.ie/g3m/en/?txt=dh%C3%ADbir
• http://www.oocities.org/faolchu.geo/tuaisc2.html
• https://db0nus869y26v.cloudfront.net/ga/%25C3%2589ir%25C3%25AD_Amach_na_C%25C3%25A1sca?rev=1462778465424
• http://www.lexvo.org/uwn/entity/e/Irish%20American;jsessionid=ke17hwzgj1q3

Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not good enough sources to prove widespread usage, no where near academic or reliable even. Also your lack of respect for other editors and for due process is starting to wear quite thin. You have been reverted on this at least twice and will be soon enough three times, yet you did not once respect WP:BRD or WP:CONSENSUS. Your behaviour is borderline uncivil and close to edit warring. Acting as if your edit trumps all other opinion and that you opening this discussion gives you right to impose your edit despite no consensus for it from your peers only creates bad faith and as such I oppose your edit thus you have no consensus for it. If you are sure your "sources" are good enough then prove it at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed your 3rd link is a wikipedia mirror, hardly a reliable source... Mabuska ^(talk) 11:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesnt have to be. It just has to be used which it is so it cannot be a "neologism". There is a clear consensus to have it included. Me and Jon C and Cantebury trails all support its inclusion if it is shown to be in use.Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You are the one opposing this.There is a clear con. Follow WP:CON Apollo The Logician (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually yes it does need to reliably sourced and your sources are nowhere near it. The only editor who tried to find something usable was Jon C. who disregarded Wikipedia procedure as well before adding the source. Your definition of consensus is confusing... how does Canterbury Tail reverting you citing "request citation. We don't just translate stuff on English Wikipedia, we need a reference to prove it's used. Just translating it into Irish isn't valid." count as agreement especially when your sources are habberdash literal translations? Also do you know what a neologism is? Whilst I am not objecting to Jon C.'s source as it does appear reliable unlike yours, the term can still be a neologism especially if you can't prove that its been used for quite a long time. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the Scots form "Ulstèr Prodysans" is unsupported. The source used does not make use of the term, only using Prodysans, with Ulstèr being used solely in the Scots form of Mid-Ulster District. Thus it is WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR and not suitable for inclusion. I have asked Jon C. to detail whether the source they found the Irish form is likewise being used to do the same. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Per this discussion on my talk page, I won't contend the removal of the Scots form. I have better things to do. — Jon C.^ॐ 11:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

What about the Irish form you cite? is it similarily syntehsis or directly taken from the book? Mabuska ^(talk) 13:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Direct lift, no synthesis. — Jon C.^ॐ 13:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Relevant passage is dhíbir an Tiarna Clanricarde Caitlicigh áitiúla óna eastát agus thug sé Protastúnaigh Ultacha isteach ina n-áit — Jon C.^ॐ 13:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Good job, though putting it into Google Translate it would appear that it may not actually what is meant in the statement. Obviously not perfect grammer or making total sense but it roughly translates as Lord banished from his estate Clanricarde local Catholics and Protestants gave Ulster into their place. I would say that the first half of that statement should be The lord banished from his Clanricarde estate, the second half is debatable, which leads us to the important question... is "Protastúnaigh Ultacha" being used to refer specifically to a group of people called Ulster Protestants or is it part of a statement about Catholics and Protestants and one of those groups heading to Ulster after being banished from Clanricarde's estate? If the latter then the source is not valid for use as it does refer to a group of people. I will ping a couple of editors who I believe can provide a better translation: @Scolaire: @Fergananim: Mabuska ^(talk) 15:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to take a stab at a better translation myself: Lord Clanricarde banished local Catholics from his estate and in their place settled Protestants from Ulster.. Hows that? Mabuska ^(talk) 15:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Being more than reasonably familiar with the history of the Clanricard family and estate, at no point in its history did such an event take place. Certainly several Clanricard's imported Protestants, but they were mainly English and fairly few in number. The above implies a mass expulsion - which would be deeply odd given that they were the very people upon which generations of Clanricard's built their power base. The only time Ulster people came to the estate in any numbers was the 1790s, but they were Catholic. There was a rush of Protestants into it - it was a neutral zone - in 1642, but they were Scots Protestants from elsewhere in Connacht, not Ulster. So I really need to know what source is being used, or misused. For a start, which Earl (not Lord) Clanricard? Fergananim (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The source is the one being used in the lede to support inclusion of "Protastunagh Ultacha" as the Irish form of a so called ethnoreligious group. I would copy and paste the link used however copy and pasting does not work well on my tab, so I will write the title and author out: Cormac O Comhrai, Sa Bhearna Bhaoil: Gaillimh 1913-1923, page 320. It would really help this discussion if we could find out in what context is Protastunagh Ultacha being used in Jon C.s quote above. On another note have you ever come across an Irish form of "Ulster Protestants" as a people in Irish language works? Mabuska ^(talk) 17:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I assume @Jon C.: that you simply lifted the source from Apollo's first link above, which provides the exact same amount of information you provided for it.

Depending on what information Fergananim can help provide us with, this article at the end of the day I believe would seem better off being merged with Protestantism in Ireland where it would make a nice condensed section, especially considering this article was created largely as a POV tool by the indef-blocked sock-puppet Gob Lofa. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep. I wouldn't have a problem with ditching Irish too, as clearly neither are in common use. I strongly oppose deleting this article though, as numerous reliable sources consider Ulster Protestants an ethnic group in their own right. Protestantism in Ireland is a different topic, being purely about religion across the island.— Jon C.^ॐ 12:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I do tend to agree to a point though the majority of Protestant history in Ireland is ultimately focused on Ulster, so the rest of the island would really be a footnote compared if the main article was as complete as we could make it. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I assume you're not saying there's a separate discipline called "Protestant history in Ireland". The history of Ireland that I learned focused on the Protestant Ascendancy, landlordism and the penal laws, all of which were country-wide. It only begins to focus on Ulster in the 1880s with Protestant opposition to Home Rule. I think the Protestantism in Ireland article would suffer badly if it was expanded so as to reduce the current content to a footnote. I also think that a lot of southern Protestants would feel justly aggrieved at your suggestion. Scolaire (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm finding Protastúnaigh Uladh more frequently than Protastúnaigh Ultacha. So far I've found:

• Ó Lúing, Seán (1953). Art Ó Griofa. Dublin: Sairséal agus Dill. p. 217.: "Bhí formhór Protastúnaigh Uladh go coinsiasach agus go láidir i gcoinne Home Rule" ("Most Ulster Protestants were thoroughly and strongly against Home Rule") – Seán Ó Lúing bio.
• Robert McMillen, Irish Language Editor of The Irish News, in Beo! (an Irish language magazine), October 2005: "Tá sé in am ag Protastúnaigh Uladh ról níos dearfaí bheith acu sa tsochaí ó thuaidh" ("It is time for Ulster Protestants to have a more positive role in society in the north").
• St Mary's University College, Belfast, Na Trioblóidí, p. 8: "Ceiliúrann Protastúnaigh Uladh an bua seo go fóill inniu" ("Ulster Protestants still celebrate this victory [at the Boyne] today").
• NI Curriculum, Teachers' Notes, p. 54: "Ba Ollannach é Liam III ar ghlac Protastúnaigh Uladh chucu féin é mar shiombail" ("William III was a Dutchman whom Ulster Protestants took to themselves as a symbol").

Hope this helps. Scolaire (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Prodysan(s) (sans Ulstèr) is also cited the DCAL's Strategy to Enhance and Develop the Ulster-Scots Language, Heritage and Culture 2015–2035, for what it's worth. — Jon C.^ॐ 12:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately without Ulster being part of the term Jon C. it would equate to synthesis. Thank you @Scolaire: for those references and translations, they seem to be far better than what was provided at the start of the discussion and I'll accept them and amend the article. It would be great to likewise find an actual usage of the term in Scots. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the spelling Scolaire. From working medieval Ulaid articles I tend to accidentally use that spelling. I find it odd how the editor who kicked up a stink about getting their version in has been so quiet since. Reminds me of somebody else... Mabuska ^(talk) 10:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ulster-Scots

Is there any reason why this and Ulster-Scots people need to be separate articles? Especially now that belief in Bloke-on-a-Stick-stianity in general is in rapid decline and many of the 1,000,000 cited here will be agnostic/atheist/non-religious? Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Two reasons come immediately to mind:

1. As stated in this article, "Ulster Protestants descend from a variety of lineages, including Scots, English, Irish, and Huguenots."
2. There is practically no overlap between the two articles.

Also, the fact that you are not a believer is not an excuse for using offensive and provocative language towards Christians. Scolaire (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Also quite a lot of Ulster-Scots are Catholic either through mixed marriages or whatever. Eamon Holmes and John Hume for instance. Both are Ulster Scots names. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"Scotch-Irish" dispute

@Snowded: Historian Jay Dolan on usage of "Scotch-Irish": "The term [Scotch-Irish] had been in use during the eighteenth century to designate Ulster Presbyterians who had emigrated to the United States. From the mid-1700s through the early 1800s, however, the term Irish was more widely used to identify both Catholic and Protestant Irish. As long as the Protestants comprised the majority of the emigrants, as they did until the 1830s, they were happy to be known simply as Irish. But as political and religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants both in Ireland and the United States became more frequent, and as Catholic emigrants began to outnumber Protestants, the term Irish became synonymous with Irish Catholics. As a result, Scotch-Irish became the customary term to describe Protestants of Irish descent. By adopting this new identity, Irish Protestants in America dissociated themselves from Irish Catholics... The famine migration of the 1840s and '50s that sent waves of poor Irish Catholics to the United States together with the rise in anti-Catholicism intensified this attitude. In no way did Irish Protestants want to be identified with these ragged newcomers." (Dolan 2008 p. x)

Former U.S. Senator and author Jim Webb on U.S. Census Bureau Irish and Scotch-Irish ancestry self-identification estimates: "...there is a tendency in many academic and literary quarters to lump the Scots-Irish in with the Irish themselves. More than 40 million Americans claim Irish descent, exclusive of those Scots-Irish who have self-identified themselves on census reports under other categories such as Scottish or 'native American.' Interestingly, more than half of these are of Scots-Irish ancestry." (Webb p. 15)

Historian James G. Leyburn on usage of "Scotch-Irish": "From the time of the Revolutionary War onward for a good part of a century the appellation 'Scotch-Irish' simply disappears from the record. It is one of the principal contentions of the American Irish that the term was revived and then enthusiastically adopted after 1850 solely because of prejudice. The point seems well taken... The fact remains, however, that it is a useful term. Despite its hybrid nature, with one term biological and cultural and the other geographical, it expresses a historical reality: the Scots who lived in Ulster before they came to America simply were not, in background, religion, and many other aspects of culture, identical with the Irish of the southern provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught; neither were they, after many decades, any longer identical with the people of Scotland. A century of use has established the double name, and no substitute is accurate." (Leyburn pp. 331–333)

Historians H. Tyler Blethen and Curtis W. Wood on demographics indicating not all Irish Protestant migrants to the United States during the 18th century were Ulster Scots: "...250,000 people left for America between 1717 and 1800...20,000 were Anglo-Irish, 20,000 were Gaelic Irish, and the remainder Ulster-Scots..." (Blethen & Wood p. 22)

Historian Philip S. Robinson on intermarriage between Ulster Scots and Anglo-Irish as well as Welsh and Manx migration to Ulster: "...many English did not conform to the Established Church, and there has been relatively less social resistance to intermarriage between Protestants of differing denominations than between Protestants and Roman Catholics... Areas of English settlement in County Londonderry, north Armagh, south-west Antrim and Fermanagh support the assumption that most non-Presbyterian British were of English stock. In places these 'English' settlers included Welsh and Manx men." (Robinson pp. 111–113)

Leyburn on intermarriage between Ulster Scots and Huguenots: "In 1685 France revoked the Edict of Nantes, which for many years had assured religious liberty to the Huguenots. Historians estimate that some half-million of these Protestants left France as a result of the revocation of the Edict... Many of them... came to Ulster, and since they, too, were Calvinists, for the most part they joined the Presbyterian Church and soon became a part of the Scottish communities." (Leyburn p. 128)

Historian David Hackett Fischer on intermarriage in Ulster: "In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it was observed that 'the Ulster settlers mingled freely with the English Puritans and Huguenots,' but married very rarely with the Gaelic-speaking people of Ireland and Scotland." (Fischer p. 620)

Historian Sean Duffy on conversion by Irish Catholics during the Reformation: "...the Irish saw the Protestant Reformation as just an instrument of military conquest and forced Anglicisation... [because of this] the numbers of Roman Catholics remained high [during Queen Elizabeth's reign] and they were zealously ministered to by a plentiful supply of Continentally-trained priests, among whom the Jesuits were predominant: the latter were so successful in performing their task that by the end of Elizabeth's reign they had won the hearts-and-minds battle among the populace, as regards the choice between Catholicism and Protestantism... [By] 1603... it was too late and the Protestant Reformation had failed in Ireland." (Duffy p. 100–107)

Dolan also noted in 1987 that intermarriage between Protestants and Catholics in the United States was also historically uncommon. (Dolan 1987 p. 228) In 2015, three Irish historians studied intermarriage using Irish census records from 1911 and found that intermarriage between Protestants and Catholics was less than one percent of all marriages. (Fernihough, O'Grada & Walsh 2015) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Dolan, Jay P. (2008). The Irish Americans: A History. Bloomsbury Press. p. x. ISBN 978-1596914193.
• Webb, Jim (2004). Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America. Broadway Books. p. 15. ISBN 978-0767916899.
• Leyburn, James G. (1989) [1962]. The Scotch-Irish: A Social History (Reprint ed.). University of North Carolina Press. p. 331. ISBN 978-0807842591.
• Blethen, H. Tyler; Wood, Curtis W. (1998). From Ulster to Carolina: The Migration of the Scotch-Irish to Southwestern North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Division of Archives and History. p. 22. ISBN 978-0865262799.
• Robinson, Philip S. (2000) [1984]. The Plantation of Ulster: British Settlement in an Irish Landscape, 1600-1670 (2nd ed.). Ulster Historical Foundation. pp. 111–113. ISBN 978-1903688007.
• Leyburn, James G. (1989) [1962]. The Scotch-Irish: A Social History (Reprint ed.). University of North Carolina Press. p. 128. ISBN 978-0807842591.
• Fischer, David Hackett (1989). Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 620. ISBN 978-0195069051.
• Duffy, Sean (2005). The Concise History of Ireland. Gill & MacMillan. pp. 100–107. ISBN 978-0717138104.
• Dolan, Jay P. (1987). The American Catholic Experience: A History from Colonial Times to the Present. Galilee Trade. p. 228. ISBN 978-0385152075.
• Fernihough, Alan; O'Grada, Cormac; Walsh, Brendan M. (April 2015). "Intermarriage in a Divided Society: Ireland a Century Ago" (PDF). Explorations in Economic History. Vol. 56. Elsevier. pp. 1–14.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

@Snowded: Now that I have provided most of the content that indicates that my edits were neither inaccurate nor a synthesis, I would like to know what your objections are to not self-reverting. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you can go from an ethnic designation on a census to a religious affiliation. To do so you rely in assertions that there was not much intermarriage etc. To my mind that is synthesis but lets see what other editors think-----Snowded ^TALK 07:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Snowded: That's irrelevant. Your claim to removing the content is that the term "Scotch-Irish" is not used as a proxy for Ulster Protestants in the United States. You are factually incorrect to say that it is not, as per the first quotation that I cited. Second, the designation of "Ulster Protestant" is not a religious affiliation, but an ethnoreligious one (which the article itself already states). The additional content is simply to explain why the designation exists, and that is why you are wrong to say that the content was a synthesis. Also, my "assertions" are citations of multiple books or studies written by historians or published in academic journals, all of which are listed above. In addition, I summarized a section of a Wikipedia article specifically devoted to discussing intermarriage in contemporary Northern Ireland, which is not unrelated to the previous topics or the article at large. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Snowded: Do you know other editors who have an opinion about this or should I seek a third opinion? - CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to read up on synthesis. Protestant is a religious designation with, in this case ethnic implications but I repeat - you can't go from self-identification on a US census to assume a religious position. But as I say see if other editors have an opinion. Many have this page on watch just leave it for a bit and see if they respond. There is also a Irish working group page you could post it on. -----Snowded ^TALK 22:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Snowded: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I have done nothing of the kind. Each citation states explicitly what I have written. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to keep pinging I have the page under watch. Sorry you are combining citations to form a conclusion. Other editors needed on this -----Snowded ^TALK 23:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm not very familiar with how the communications on this site work, but no I am not combining citations to form a conclusion. The authors Leyburn and Dunaway come to that conclusion with the same reasoning, and Dolan states explicitly "the term Irish became synonymous with Irish Catholics. As a result, Scotch-Irish became the customary term to describe Protestants of Irish descent." It remains a U.S. Census Bureau category. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You can find sources that will say in general that Irish generally means of Catholic descent and Scotch-Irish generally means Protestant. But you can't go from that to say those categories were specified as such on the US census or that the link with religion is absolute. You are drawing conclusions which is why I've said it is synthesis -----Snowded ^TALK 01:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I never said the religious link was absolute. It is simply a difference between what is logically but trivially true and what the historic norms were based upon the direct quotations from the reliable sources that I've cited. I am drawing no conclusions. The conclusions were arrived at by the historians cited, with the same reasons as summarized in the text. Also, most of the references cited were already included in either the Irish Americans, Scotch-Irish Americans, Protestantism in Ireland, and History of the Catholic Church in the United States articles with direct quotations included. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree so we need other editors involved. You are not answering the point on synthesis. Also PLEASE indent your comments properly. I've had to do it for you on all the above -----Snowded ^TALK 15:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree that we need other editors but I answered your point on synthesis. It's hard for something to be synthesis or original research if the citations included were already in the encyclopedia in other articles, much less for something to be synthesis if the citations include direct quotations explicitly stating what is summarized in the text. (And I apologize for the formatting issues.) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you did - per my statement above you are moving from common use in the literature to describe ethnic groups to an assumption about use in a census (and in a different country)to cover religious affiliation. I don't think that works but let's see what others think. Thanks for getting the indents sorted out -----Snowded ^TALK 10:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Irish Gaelic is not a native or ethnic language of Ulster Protestants, either now or historically

A user keeps reverting my edits without a source supporting their inclusion of Irish language as a native or ethnic language associated with Ulster Protestants (it's not, and never was). Ulster Protestants have always been mostly confined to the region of Ulster, not the rest of Ireland (hence the name). And they were never native IRISH Gaelic speakers. A very small minority historically spoke Galwegian Gaelic due to some Scots Gaelic speakers who settled from Galloway in SW Scotland, but NOT Ulster Irish Gaelic. As for Ulster Protestants, the Irish language movement - whatever you mean by that term - was never started by Protestants. Protestantism in Ireland only existed because of Lowland Scots speaking and English speaking foreign settlers, and Protestantism and English language went hand in hand in Ireland. The upper social landowning class was English speaking and Protestant since the arrival of English control after the Tudor conquest in the 16th century.

Protestantism and Anglicization in Ireland went hand in hand as part of English/British/Lowland Scot colonialism, and asserting anything to the contrary is simply post-modernist, "politically correct", Orwellian historical revisionism. The native Irish Gaelic speaking population were completely Catholic (with Celtic pagan remnants), and remained almost entirely so even after English and Scots speaking Protestant settlers arrived in Ulster. 65.95.157.102 (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have independent, reliable sources for that statement? Because nor here nor in the article you back things up with sources. The Banner talk 16:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)