This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I have edited Samuel Neilson, a Scots-Irish contemporary of Thompson and a founding father of the United Irishmen, remarked just prior to the Act of Union, "I see a union is determined on between Great Britain and Ireland. I am glad of it." Neilson accepted the Act of Union without shedding his sense of Irishness. He, like many other members of the Society of United Irishmen, became Irish Unionists because they saw in the Union an end to the corrupt Ascendancy-based Dublin Government and a chance for their Catholic brothers to achieve Catholic Emancipation, which the Anglican Parliament in Dublin had resisted for decades
for the following reasons;
--- Neilson was a prisoner of the British from 1798-1802 when he was released. He emigrated to the US upon release and died there in 1803 so he can by no stretch of the imagination be said to have become an "Irish Unionist".
---What proof is there that many United Irishmen became Unionists, some perhaps but "many"? To survive an accomodation was made such as at the Treaty of Kilmainham but this could hardly be regarded as an embrace of Union with the British Crown. Don't forget Protestant rebels such as Robert Emment, Thomas Russell, James Hope, all United Irishmen, all republicans until the day they died like many of theit co-religionists.
Some of the information in this article needs to be moved to Scots-Irish Americans. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 23:20, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Well for starters the United Irishmen were largely founded by Presbyterians. Look at the demographic of Irish / Ulster Presbyterians today and they are nearly all Unionists. They rebelled in 1798 because the penal laws were very hard on Presbyterians banning them from preaching, holding official office, conducting marriages etc. Perhaps I should have said many Presbyterian United Irishmen became Unionists. Francis Joy founded the Belfast Newsletter in 1737, a relative of United Irishman Henry Joy McCracken. The Belfast Newsletter is now a staunchly Unionist newspaper. The United Irishmen had some difficulties because whilst it was founded on the principles of true Republicanism it eventually merged with the Catholic "Defenders" group whose oath swore to "quell the nation of heresy", ie Protestantism. Aughavey 7 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)
I think that the real difficulties the United Irish had were to do with the brutal campaign of suppression directed against it's supporters of all faiths rather than any internal religous strain beteen the members, there is little or no proof of this despite what Government propoganda of the time would have people believe. There is no shortage of examples of Protestants who fought on as republicans post 1801. Can you give more than the one contested example of United Irish of any religion who became genuine loyalists?
I make the point as, you are using one unsubstantiated quote to argue that most Presbyterian republicans became loyalist because of union with the British crown-this makes no sense. There examples of some Presbyterian republican influences surviving until at least the early 20th century. Presbyterians were no longer excluded from the corridors of power following Act of union, as Catholics were and it was this deliberatly sectarian "divide and rule" policy which successfully reconciled Presbyterians to British rule - not any sudden mass conversion of identity from Irish to British - this came gradually. --Damnbutter 15:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Jdorney 10:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
how do you cut and paste on wikipedia? Mayumashu 03:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I think some mention of it belongs in this article. If there is no information about this here, I will re-add something about it. --Mal 16:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems that someone decieded to quote ScotchIrish.net, a site that is rampant with historical and grammatical errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.241.2 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I've made a start on a separate culture heading - hopefully a place to put stuff about music and writing distinct to Ulster Scots. Though its difficult to see how some of this will be separate to Protestant/Loyalist culture but we'll see how it goes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doopa (talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
Shouldn't there be a section or at least somewhat of a discussion on the cultural intermingling and ethnic intermarriage that went on between the Scottish, Irish and English populations in Ulster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumme kopf (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
And shouldn't there be at least some discussion of the degree of intermingling of the two populations both prior to and after the plantations. The argument for ethnicity surely rests upon the claim that the plantations created a separate and distinct population within ulster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.44.4 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all ((Infobox Ethnic group)) infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Respected academic? Give me a break.
That section cited several respected historians and authors. Merely because you disagree with it has no affect on it. It will remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.175.22 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to take anything written here seriously if the posts are not at least "signed" with Wiki user-names for at least *some* accountability. Shoreranger 14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Is really the best flag to use? It's a flag design proposed by the small handfull of Ulster nationalists for an independent Northern Ireland and dates from the 1980s.
Wouldn't the Flag of Ulster: be a more appropriate flag for this article and others such as Scots-Irish American and individual articles detailing ancestry (e.g. Racial demographics of the United States#Majority group, Mississippi#Racial makeup and ancestry, North Carolina#Ancestry)? Timrollpickering 19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a contradiction between these two lines that I cannot figure out so don't want to change: "Protestant Scottish traditional music is usually informal and close-knit. The most obvious example of this type of cultural event is the marching bands. Here a formal and organised structure is more obvious."
Also, is the distinction beween venues for "Irish" and "Scotch-Irish" trad really that genuine? --sony-youthpléigh 07:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Paragraph one notes "Ulster-Scots generally eschew being labeled "Celtic" but often identify themselves with England instead, and this is reflected in the design of the semi-official flag for Northern Ireland, which is based on the Cross of Saint George. " - can somebody provide a link to this "semi-official flag for Northern Ireland" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.79.7 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The phrasing used in the text seems rather vague and useless, can somebody clarify this section? I am assuming it's disguising some sensitive politics?(MarkG) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.79.7 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.79.7 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone order a flag! There is a different flag for the 9-county province of Ulster but that is rarely recognised by Ulster-Scots.Afn 17:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Enzedbrit: Many Lowlanders, like from Galloway, spoke Gaelic at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.241.2 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I notice that this article now contains a lot of references to, and highlights specifically the relgious make-up of this group of peoples. Specifically it suggests that the Ulster-Scots are "non-Catholic". This could be considered incorrect, as many of them were actually catholic from a particular definition of the word (ie: 'universal'; 'Christian'): "Non-Roman Catholic" would be more correct/precise.
However, many Ulster-Scots were indeed Roman Catholic, though they were small in number comparitively speaking.
If nobody has any objections, I will copyedit this article to reflect that fact. --Mal 16:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see the logic in saying that "some" ulster-scots were "roman" catholic. Most if not all were militantly protestant, holding all allegiance to the Church of Scotland (Prespteriyan) or The Church of England (Anglican). The American Scots-Irish are an example of this, and VERY suspicious of "Green" or Catholic Irish. They have been fighting on the border over this for centuries in Ireland over the "Orange" Ulsters and the southern "Green" catholic Irish. So yeah I would say I have an objection, Ulster scots were sent to work the plantation, militantly protestant, so much so that they went from Ulster after suffering religious persecution from the Catholic Irish to the United States (then the colonies). If you have any questions about the American Ulster Scots I suggest you read the book "Born Fighting" it should give you a better perspective on actual Ulster-Scots/American Scots Irish history and culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.66.16.116 (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
They suffered more persecution from the British penal laws than catholic Irish you clown. The fact that you use that historically inaccurate piece of crap "Born Fighting" as a reference tells us all we need to know about you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misawaloveme (talk • contribs) 02:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
"Although population movement to and from the north-east of Ireland and the west of Scotland had been on-going since pre-historic times, a concentrated migration of Scots to Ulster occurred mainly during the 17th and 18th centuries. Prior to that the major Scottish immigration in the northern part of Ireland was composed of Gallowglass mercenary clans from the Scottish Highlands. The most notable of these were the MacDonnells, origimally, from the clan Donnell of Ireland and who managed to establish themselves in the north of what is now county Antrim over the course of the 16th century." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.30.155 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Read the Gallowglass were predominatly Catholic if not all of them were catholic and intermarriage was common with the Scots and the native Irish, Scottish surnames are common within the Catholic community as with Irish surnames in the Protestant community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.30.155 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
'Majority adheres mainly to the Protestant denominations of Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, and Methodism, There is a Tiny Roman Catholic Minority.'
This seems a bit over the top to me - Ulster Scots are not censused, and therefore religious denominations are not really that well known.
The majority, certainly the self-identified majority (Catholics define themselves as Irish, regardless of ancestry and are often unaware of ancestry) are doubtlessly Protestant, but to state that there is 'only a tiny Catholic minority' is to turn this article from a scholarly page on the Ulster Scots ethnic group (found across Ulster, mixed in with Catholics as well) into a page on the genetics of Irish Unionists.
I'd favour changing it to 'majority probably Protestant, Roman Catholic, Others'.
ConorOhare (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article:
Now why this whole section is faulty:
- The Lambeg drum is not solely a Protestant instrument, the Ancient Order of Hibernians also make use of Lambeg drums.
- What the lambeg has to do with Ulster-Scots culture is virtually not made clear, superceded by declaring the Protestantness of the Lambeg and it use by Protestant marching bands - despite the fact the Roman Catholic AoH also use them and most Lambeg skins come from goat hides from African Roman Catholic priests.
- The origins and evolution of the Lambeg drum are known, in fact if you follow the link that is supplied in the section i removed you get a got background on the lambeg drum which was ignored for what was put into this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabuska (talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I am from a Protestant background, and we had 4 lambeg drummers out at our band parade last Friday night which was good to see, so anyone trying to call me up on republican agenda can forget it. Pure and simple this whole section is bullshit, non-sourced bullshit at that. Mabuska (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello page,
I'm looking at producing an image for the infobox akin to that in Scottish people, English people and French people amongst others, for which we need 6 - 8 notable Ulster-Scots to be nominated.
I'm thinking of James Nesbitt, Ian Paisley and James Craig, 1st Viscount Craigavon, but can anybody else suggest any others? Does any body object to these?... If people are going to suggest other names, can they please be mindful that there needs to be a free-to-use image of them already to work with. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This is absolute rubbish. As a respectable academic, I can say that most of us agree that intermarriage between the Irish Catholics and the Protestant Community (Planters and Native Irish converts to Protestantism) just didn't happen. Whoever wrote that piece of rubbish he or she calls an informative piece should be ashamed. It sounds like bloody Irish Republican propaganda.
No pleased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgemcat (talk • contribs) 14:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Really? If no intermarrying occured then perhaps you can explain why people from "nationalist" background ended up with Anglo surnames (like Gerry Adams) and why people from the "Ulster-Scots" background have Irish Gaelic surnames (Like Lenny Murphy).
If you honestly believe that there was no intermarriage between the planters and natives then you are brain washed and deluded than the average Loyalist, and thats saying something. It did happen. They intermixed for over two hundred years and when the "Ulster Scots" went to America they identified themselves as Irish.
Respectable accademic...ahahhaha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.91.180 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The Ulster-Scot newspaper is reknown for historical revisionist twaddle and attempting to pass off a Ballymena accent as a legitimate language. You'd need a bit of unbiased and reliable source if you honestly want us to believe that Field Marshall Montgomery, Robert Ross and Gerald Templar were "Alster-skats". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.91.139 (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I am going to edit the following comment in the "History" section:
"During the Irish Rebellion of 1641, the native Irish gentry attempted to expel the English and Scottish settlers, resulting in severe inter-communal violence, massacres and ultimately leading to the death of around 4,000 settlers over the winter of 1641-42.[1] The memory of these traumatic episode poisoned the relationship between the Scottish and English settlers and native Irish almost irreparably."
The totality of the history of the plantation of Ulster must be kept in order to assess the claim that the events of 1641-42 were the defining moment in an inter ethnic conflict which then continued for centuries afterwards. The events which proceeded the plantation included widespread atrocity carried out by the English against the native Ulster population during the conflict in the 1590's. The official plantation began in 1609, a mere 32 years before the events of 1641. The plantation itself was a process that spanned almost a century and must have involved a continuous process of clearing areas of the native population to make way for the the newcomers. To claim that 1641, when the natives launched larger scale organised attacks on the newcomers, was the turning point in the relationship between the two would seem to be entirely disingenuous.
The writer refers to the "memory of these traumatic events", and it should indeed be noted that Orangemen in Northern Ireland today still carry banners depicting the atrocities of 1641. However that does not mean that the relationship between the two populations was fine before 1641 and the attack by natives against newcomers in 1641 can be identified as the moment the relationship became poisoned. It stands to reason that the relationship between the two populations was problematic from beginning and the religious and political controversies of the following centuries kept the pot boiling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owenreagh (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems like the article underplays the importance of planters that came from the English border region, now, i understand that the accent of this area contains much more dialect and has a much stronger accent than people in Scotland and Ireland even today in modern times - and just because those folks from the English borders were harder grafters than the Jocks and Paddies is no reason to down play their importance and majority gene input into the Scotch-Irish. Ginnan afore ah dee yiz in man ye geet spenks yiz, ginnan an sel yiz true heritage oot and consider yesels summat yiz ah not. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I dont even want to begin clearing the majority of this page. Especially with the fact of whether the actual Ulster Scot heritage still exists is up for debate. (See not even I can avoid being cynical on this page....) And what really defines being an Ulster Scot, and the roles Ulster Scots played in Republicanism, Irish Nationalism and how many modern Republicans could be considered Ulster Scots but dont because they feel it clashed with being Irish. There are a rake of sources developing these issues but I dont have the time to argue with the Nationalists and Loyalists that have hijacked this page and the identity itself...
However, I will ask a moderater to help me on this one. There is a paragraph I edited at the start of the History of Ulster Scots, where previously someone had made references to the interaction between pre plantation Irish in Ulster and the Gaels of the Western Islands and Highlands of Scotland, (of course) as pedigree for ancient Ulster Scottish heritage, is it not central to the history, that these same "ancient Ulster Scots" were the Irish Catholic/Gaels that were displaced? The Gaelic inhabitants were a different stock again to the majority of Lowland settlers. YES I have read Ó Snódaighs work, as has a section, that validates the fact that some settlers were of a (well maybe distant) Scottish Gaelic/Highland heritage when they planted Ulster (very few mind you) BUT this again dosent mean the original inhabitants are evidence of Ulster Scottish identity.
Ulster Scot deals only with the people of the plantation. Previous interaction is dealt with under Gaels. Alas, of a much different stock.
comment added by CelticSeimi (talk • contribs) 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I am proposing that this article be merged with Scots-Irish as they both deal with the same group of people, but under different names and from slightly different perspectives. However, I'd like to test the water first before putting any tamplates up. To keep discussion all in one place - but not meaning to propose which name to keep as the article title - I'd suggest it be discussed on Talk:Scots-Irish. --sony-youthpléigh 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that it might not be a bad idea to do a partial merge of some information from both articles. For example, the History section of the Scotch-Irish article covers a much greater timespan that the Ulster Scots article - the latter only seems to start in the 17th century!! 80.219.51.173 (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we're all forgetting that although the group this article relates to is known as the Ulster Scots, this grop also contains significant descent from England see Ulster History - "The "British tenants",[3] a term applied to the colonists,[4] were mostly from Scotland and England. They were required to be English-speaking and Protestant.[5] The Scottish colonists were mostly Presbyterian[6] and the English mostly ‘persecuted’ Dissenters.[7] The Plantation of Ulster was the biggest and most successful of the Plantations of Ireland. Ulster was colonised so as to prevent further rebellion, as over the preceding century, it had proven to be the region most resistant to English control." So - a descendent of an Ulster Scot could be genetically more aligned to English stock, culturally Scottish, but classed (at least in the US) as Irish. 216.107.194.166 (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article have a section on the troubles. It is something that people coming to this article would like to know since Ulster Scots could conceivably be either unionist or seperatists as being settelers may side with the union but being of Scottish heritage may have more sympathy with Irish republicans especially given the similarities of Scottish and Irish history. The page literally stops at the Irish-British union of 1800 and the period between then and now are arguably the most important part of modern Irish history.212.183.140.2 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Ulster Scots is not a true culture or language. It was invented by politicians during anglo-irish agreements. Ulster-Scots is a dialect, or ignorance of the English language in it's pure form. This should not be encouraged in schools as children need to be literate! Many of the N.Ireland population are marginalised by its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.125.238 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Did this guy say anything about being a Nationalist? No he didn't. Secondly he does have somewhat of a point. Ullans is not a language. At it's most it is a dialect of the Scottish way of speaking English, transplanted into Ireland and combined with the Irish way of speaking English and a little bit of Irish thrown in. At it's most it is a different dialect. Language, I think not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.241.2 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-- Dumme kopf
I'm siding with the view that Ulster-Scots simply doesn't exist. The creation of Ulster-Scots in the past 30 years was a recognizing of the lack of identity for a large part of Northern Ireland as other then that as English/ Scottish settlers living in Ireland, and the attempt at forging a separate identity from the Irish culture/ identity (something to do with potatoes and priests I understand?!?!.) There is a strong argument that all these Ulster-Scots articles should be moved to some fictional section on wikipedia. Itsmjlynch 11:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
That wouldn't be the same European Union that did a survey in 1999 and found NO native speakers of "Ulster Scots" in Northern Ireland. Futhermore, you don't have to be an Irish nationalist/Republican to see that passing off a Ballymena accent as a language is stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.90.183 (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Passing off a Trondheim accent as "Norwegian" is equally silly, as is the existance of Luxembourgish, Afrikaans and arguibly Irish (Gaelic would be the original name for the shared written language of Scotland, Ireland and Man), However, silliness and linguistics often go together. language recognition coming from policy is not a new invention. its the normal state of language maintenenace in europe and has been for many centuries (hence why the ending of Gaelic Monastic literacy in Medieval Eastern Scotland effected Gaelic culture so badly.
Afrikaans and Irish are neologiasms for languages just as much as Ulster Scots or Luxembourgish. It doesnt take away from their existance. Seamusalba (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, the implicit rationale of this section heading is that there can be no real culture" in the United States or Australia, or anywhere that shares a language with another original homeland of that language. If that were the case, then presumably nobody has any real culture as all languages derive from someone/somewhere else. Seamusalba (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
"Ulster Scots" is phonetically written English spoken in a Ballymena accent. The EU did a survey in 1999 and found NO native speakers of this so called language. Atemmpting to compare it of Afrikaans and Gaelic is hilarious.
If it is a seperate language then so are Dublin,Cockney, Geordie, Scouse and Cork accents. Kobashiloveme —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC).
Why was the article renamed from Ulster Scots people to Ulster-Scottish people? I have never heard the term, and the only mentions of it I find in the first 20 Google hits are this interesting article and this pipe band, where it is un-hyphenated. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
You guys are just making ut up as you go along now, aren't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobashiloveme (talk • contribs) 16:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The name of this article contains a compound adjective modifier, describing 'people', and needs to be changed by adding a hyphen. This use is substantianted by the University of Ulster and its Institute of Ulster-Scots Studies, the BBC's Welcome to Ulster-Scots Voices, the Ulster-Scots Agency, etc. Mayumashu (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus for move billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Ulster Scots people → Ulster-Scots people — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Mayumashu (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
A lot of people seem to think that Ulster Scots is a made up culture to make up for unionists lack of history. Is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwbooth (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that these people that you speak of, who think that we Ulster Scots don't really exist are ignorant and verging on bigotry. I'm sure that when people say that my culture doesn't exist they are pushing some Irish Nationalist agenda.
- Batratcathat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batratcathat (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Well a lot of people see Ulster-Scots culture being overly emphasized by the unionist community, in recent years, in an attempt to create an alternative nationality to being Irish. That's the perception anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.241.2 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-- Dumme kopf
Some mention should be made of the revivalist nature of the Ulster Scots movement. The fact that the movement has only existed for around ten-15 years does lead credence to nationalist claims of the language being made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.44.4 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The English invented Soccer? what you mean is they were the first to invent a set of rules for an ancient game which spanned Scotland and England. No concise evidence to show which country it originated in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.35.93 (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Isn't the term "Scotch-Irish" used to refer to all intermixes between Scot and Irish ethnic groups, not only those of Ulster or those in the American federation?--Whytecypress 22:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This is an American term. For centuries the Scots (and other countries) refereed to themselves as Scotch. The term fell out of favour in Scotland as Scots became more popular. However, many other countries continued using the 'Scotch' term. So, Americans referred to the Scotch people coming from Ireland as Scotch Irish to differentiate them from the Irish who started arriving during the famine. Before that the vast majority of people arriving from Ireland were Ulster Scots but were simply labelled in the US as Irish. That's why there is so much confusion over there about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.35.93 (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Both sides of my family are described as "Scotch-Irish" in some lines and it seems the single predominant ethnic group in my ancestry. There is an ongoing Y chromosome DNA study of my father's family name. I took part in this and the genetic markers matched family tradition and written documents: Scottish, English, and Irish. So someone at some point picked up native Irish genes. --Calypsoparakeet (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
All this talk of Ulster-Scots and Scots-Irish make my head spin.I was born and bred in Scotland with two Irish grandparents,If I decided to emigrate to the USA I certainly would not refer myself as Irish-Scots.Those "Ulster-scots" who emigrated to the US are surely just Irish,no matter their genes!--Jack forbes (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There is arguably a genetic difference, in Scotland and Ireland Haplogene R1b is dominant, wheras in England there is Anglo-Saxon, Roman, Norse and even Jewish influence to a greater extent. I think many Irish people would disagree with the notion that Ulster Scots are Irish, they are seen as immigrants or invaders, and were even described as legitimiate targets as supporters of the 'occupation' by some irish nationalist goups. Hachimanchu (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no reference to the Kingdom of Dalriada, surely that deserves a mention in the history of Ulster Scots? Secondly is it fair to add British/ Briton/ 'Brythonic' to related groups, as previously mentioned most of the settlers were lowland Scots, who were essentially Brythonic, the remainder being anglo-saxon/ norse descent etc as well as Scottish Gaelic. Hachimanchu (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The infobox section "regions with significant populations" is ambiguous and mostly unsourced. Ulster is part of the UK and ROI, yet all three are listed! Furthermore, the only figure with a source is that for the United States. This needs to be dealt with ASAP. ~Asarlaí 21:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Might it be more apt and helpful to describe groups like the Copts and the Ulster-Scots as national, ethnic, sub-cultural, communal or sectarian groups within their respective societies? Which is more precise and neutral? //Big Adamsky 19:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
In looking at this article, one would think the Ulster Scots have no history of their own to speak of. There is talk of where they originated, and a bit about who the ones who left for America became, but the section on "1800 to Present" is only two lines long. I guess this is a challenge to any self-professed Ulster Scots out there: who are you and what have you done lately? Forget about your origins, and forget about America. Who are you and what makes you a distinct group? Eastcote (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
These were correctly reverted, if only because Odinsburgh14 is a blocked sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moutray2010 Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
There were some Scots in Ulster before the Plantation not mentioned here. Sorley Boy MacDonnell and the MacDonnell of Antrim inherited the Glens from the Norman Mac Eoin Bissett family before the 17th century. Should this be dealt with in the article or would they be categorised as a different ethnic group still? They married closely with the Gaelic O'Neills and the Dublin Castle administration tried to wipe them out in the Rathlin Island Massacre. It almost seems counter-factual to begin the history with that. Claíomh Solais (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure now a rewrite of material will be necessary in this article. However, by the time all the requests for references are answered, the article will have been in effect rewritten. So, it seems to me the request for a rewrite may as well stand. A lot of concepts seemed unclear to me, such as ethnic and Scotch-Irish. See also my comment under American Scotch-Irish. The main unclarity is with "Ulster Scot." Does that include Ulster English? Are we to think the Scotch-Irish in the American sense are all from Ulster? Why are the Ulster Scots not all in Ulster? The impression I had earlier of a politically sensitive direction of thought now seems to me to be accidental. If I got your motives wrong I do apologize. But, it seems to me, the issue of where these Scots speakers came from needs more substantiation. That would be the most helpful thing. Well, I think I've said everything I can say without further work. You will probably find me working on references at a slow pace.Botteville (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I see many comments here but no revisions. I believe that is because this is one of the more controversial topics on Wikipedia. This article is clearly highly partisan, but in being so it miscasts the Scots and Scotland as well as the Scots in all other parts of the world. But first, the controversy. Partisans of incorporating North Ireland into the Republic of Ireland, with possibly an intermediate step of independence (like the acquisition of Texas by the US), take the point of view that the population of North Ireland is entirely immigrant, except for the Irish Catholics. Opponents argue that a considerable left-over population was there from earlier times. This article, in addition to its highly unbalanced and unsupported view about the population of North Ireland, projects (excuse me) into the world of fantasy. Now the highlands and Scotland in general are not to be considered the source of the Scotch in Scotch-Irish, but somehow the Ulster Scots (if that term is being used correctly)!
Well, excuse me, but this is a major travesty based on partisan politics. The ethnic elements of Scotch-Irish are mainly Irish Catholics from the country currently organized into the Republic of Ireland. They left pretty much for the same reasons they are now a republic. The Scotch side are mainly highlanders forced out during the numerous Jacobite rebellions, but the original colonials of America and Canada included lowlanders as well. Not only is that well-documented, but everyone knows it, as a large number of Americans have Scotch, Irish, or Scotch-Irish ancestors! The main thesis of this article is patently absurd, and it is unsupported. Clan names such as Buchanan and Grant are certainly NOT Ulster Scots! The picture of Andrew Jackson in this article is 100% misplaced.
I cannot understand how this article continues on WP except by the partisanship of the editors. I do not think partisan politics should have a place on WP. We just have to conquer this problem! Restrain yourselves, please. Try to recapture some sense of objectivity. In America we don't have the conflict in any major way, and we should not be interested in acquiring it. The article had been tagged for lack of references; naturally, there aren't any. I don't think that goes far enough. It needs a complete re-write to remove the false concepts of the the Ulster Scots and of Scotch-Irish. These same editors have gotten into other parts of WP with it. You may find me active there.
For the Ulster Scots themselves, the name originated as the name of a dialect. For whatever reason dialects similar to the Scots are spoken in North Ireland. Are we forgetting that the Scots came from North Ireland to begin with, and that they spoke Old Irish? What we need here is serious scholarship, not rash trumpeting by half-baked provos. The Irish of any brand do not need your help. You're convincing the hearts and mind of no one, only drawing ridicule on yourselves. There is not and never has been any state, tribe, authority or organization termed the "Ulster Scots" and we are not going to allow you to introduce one. The Ulster Scots are speakers of a set of dialects similar to the Scots, and excuse me, but I do not believe they imported it. Prove it!
I hope that this rewrite tag will stimulate some effective action. Please do not remove it until the current imbalances have been addressed. I chose the softer option, but it is not too late to recommend it for deletion, forcing a wider vote.Botteville (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
We can’t list every language’s term for a given ethnic group. It seems relevant, and simpler, to use the English language term for the group (since this is English language Wikipedia), and the group’s own name for themselves. In English, the people who are the subject of this particular article are called "Ulster Scots", and they call themselves "Ulstèr-Scotch". I see no need to also list the Gaelic term for them, or any other language's term. This seems to be the convention for other pages on national groups. For example, in the article on "Germans", the term "Deutsche" is listed, but there is no need to also list the French, Polish, Italian, Russian, Chinese, and Zulu terms for people that we in English call “Germans”. Similarly, the article on "French people" also lists the French language term that these people use to refer to themselves. Again, no German, Polish, Spanish, etc. And "English people" shows that they are listed only by that term. There is no Scots Gaelic, Welsh, or other term for them. Eastcote (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
“ | Ultaigh Albanach i Scannán: Is ceiliúradh é seo ar chláracha scannán agus teilifíse Albanaigh Uladh agus deis chun an pobal a bhfuil suim acu i dteanga agus i gcultúr Ultaise agus lucht an tionscail scannán atá ag obair ar nó a bhfuil suim acu i gcláracha Albanach Uladh a thabhairt le cheile. | ” |
“ | Ulster Scots on Film, is a celebration of Ulster Scots film and television programming and an opportunity to bring together the general public who have an interest in Ulster Scots language and attendant culture, with professionals from the industry who work in, or have an interest in, Ulster Scots programmes. | ” |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ulster Scots people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)