Talk:Ulster Scots people/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Related groups, again

The "related groups" in the ethnic group infobox is particularly difficult to define or justify and ought to be kept to a minimum. If User:Brough87 can seriously convince us that, other than being geographically reasonably proximal, Welsh and English people are comparably "related" to Ulster Scots as Scots, from whom they (overwhelmingly) descend, Scots-Irish Americans, who (overwhelmingly) descend from them, Ulster Protestants, with which there is a significant overlap, etc., it may be worth considering widening the list. I'm unconvinced and if you start including all groups with any notional "relation", the category becomes more dubious and less meaningful or worth having. If the inclusions are widened to include Welsh and English, then are French, Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch etc. going to be added because of their participation in Ulster or wider Irish history and comparative geographical proximity? No, if the category is to be meaningful, and that may be debatable, it ought not to be overly inclusive. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Brough87 has promised to discuss the matter. I'll thus revert their bold changes, pending this discussion and any consensus reached. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure where the idea of geographic "proximity" argument comes from exactly; I have not made, nor suggested that I am linking Ulster Scots to the English and Welsh simply because of proximity. I'm linking them for cultural, historical and arguably genetic reasons. The difference between Ulster Scots and French is far more pronounced than the (supposed) difference between Ulster Scots, English and Welsh people. The people of the British Isles (English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish) have a long-lasting interlinked history and culture. Every part of these islands have been populated by the same people for thousands of years, the cultures and genetics of the people are largely the same. The people of these islands have been under the same government for hundreds and hundreds of years (starting with the Normans and continuing). In the case of Ireland, and specifically Ulster, they received thousands of colonists in the form of the plantations. Were many of these people Scots? Certainly, but a great many were also English (as the wiki article on the subject as well as other sources point out); after all Londonderry was populated by the Livery Companies of the City of London in the form of the The Honourable The Irish Society. In light of this information (and more that I can provide if requested), I question why the English and Welsh would not be included? Brough87 (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This is all very vague and general and you are throwing the net sufficiently wide that you make the category meaningless and arbitrarily exclude numerous other groups that are no less closely, or distantly, related. Everyone is genetically closely related, across the entire planet, some groups very slightly more than others but it would require impressive reliable sources to indicate significantly greater genetic relatedness of the English and Welsh than numerous other groups, particularly in western Europe, including e.g. people from the seaboard of Iberia as well as those I have listed. Genetic relatedness is spurious. Why don't we just list all peoples of the world? Culturally, you could argue that those of Reformed faith from e.g. the Netherlands, Germany and French Huguenots who ended up in Ulster were culturally closer than the bulk of English or Welsh migrants to Ulster, though some of the latter two groups may have been Calvinist, but again it's vaguer and much less significant than the current inclusions. Without specific guidance as to what a "related group" is, the categorisation is tricky as it is and if it is thrown so wide as to include everyone, it's probably better not to have it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm equally unimpressed by the calibre of the qualifications being deployed. One of the great debates taking place across Wikipedia on all ethnic group articles is DNA versus self-identification and culture, and distracting the reader with a conflation of physical proximity with a cultural heritage is contrary to WP:COMMONSENSE. Simply put, the purpose of an infobox is to provide the reader with an 'at a glance' summary of salient points. Per the template, the related groups parameter comes with a simple directive, being "List of other ethnic groups related to the group". Related does not mean next door, having an haplogroup in common from two thousand years ago, or any other such vagaries. Spurious relationships are not conducive to informative content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

So to clarify, you believe that the link between the Welsh and the English in relation to Ulster Scots is so vague as to be compared to a 'relatedness' between all other social/ethnic groups on the planet? You seem to be taking a small portion of the case that I have made and extrapolated it to such an extent as to suggest that that one portion is the entirety of the argument. Did I mention genetics? Yes. Did I mention geographic proximity? Neither are the entirety of the discussion. Do you disagree with the cultural similarities? Do you disagree with familial links brought about by over 500 years of being in the same country/state? Do you disagree with a relatedness brought about by the plantations of Ulster? If the purpose of the infobox is to provide "'at a glance' summary of salient points", why would you not include 'English' in the infobox? The article itself mentions English population of Ulster in the development of the Ulster Scots identity multiple times! Brough87 (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Any response? Brough87 (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please understand that no response does not mean that you get to form your own consensus by virtue of WP:BLUDGEONing tactics. Read over what has been said on this talk page and your own talk page on the subject. Your arguments have been considered; have been understood, and have convinced no one. This means that consensus remains at keeping the infobox at the stable version, and does not give you the right to persist with unilateral decision as you've just done. You are engaging in a slow edit war, and it's really time for you to drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You have not established a consensus, you have not responded to the points raised, you have not justified the position of the wikipedia article as it stands. If the arguments "have been considered" and "have been understood", why did your previous post demonstrate the complete opposite? Furthermore, why does the issue of "'at a glance' summary of salient points" not feature "English" as a related group when they are repeatedly mentioned in the article and the flag of England appears as well; is it because they irrelevant and not "salient"? Brough87 (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Where on earth does it even suggest that the English were a 'related' group anywhere within the content? Which point about being Gaelic, and being persecuted by the English eludes you? This is not an exercise in examining DNA. We're not discussing similarities in ancient DNA, or haplogroups: we're talking about 'ethnicity' as culture, self-identification, and having a language that cannot be confused with English in any shape or form as being part of the ethnicity. There has been no scientific benchmark set for when an ethnic group becomes an ethnic group, or when it is not an ethnic group.There are no scientific benchmarks for physical proximity as defining 'related group' status (the fact that Latvia is surrounded by Eastern Slavic ethnic groups and Scandinavian groups does not automatically make them a relative of either, hence no Slavic or clear-cut Scandinavian ethnic groups appear as being related to Latvians in that ethnic group article). Once we've gotten past 'Out of Africa', things get far more complex, and neighbouring groups are often unrelated, and the greatest enemies of an ethnic group. Please explain to a Crimean Tartar or a Georgian that Russians are a related ethnic groups as a matter of cultural and historical connections... I'm not convinced by your arguments, just as Mutt Lunker was entirely unconvinced. The WP:BURDEN is, then, on you to find reliable sources determining that Ulster Scots and the English are more closely related to each other than the ethnic groups currently being depicted, and that adding English people is genuinely useful (not misleading) for the reader. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Er, I entirely agree that User:Brough87 is entirely out of order in attempting to reimpose their view with no consensus to do so but I ought to point out that the vast majority of Ulster Scots were not Scottish Gaelic speakers and that the Scots language shares a common origin with Standard English and there is a diversity in academic opinion as to how exactly they relate. Presbyterians were not afforded the same rights as Anglicans so that probably accounts for oppression but it wasn't for being Gaels. Most importantly though, Brough87 should not slow war; they have no consensus for their changes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: Apologies for my unsubtle comparisons and tactics, but the brunt of my arguments are intended to represent what constitutes ethnicity, therefore some of my arguments are going to be (a tad) exaggerated. Such tactics would not be part of my usual 'lexicology of interaction' with other editors, but this particular edit to Breton Americans raised my eyebrows to the nature of the WP:SYNTH on Brough87's behalf. It is not appropriate for the infobox simply because it's a conflation suggesting that the British isles are made up of a single, homogeneous ethnic group. Broad based articles (umbrella articles) such as British people carry such information because they address a significant spectrum. Ethic groups and subclades are treated in a far more circumspect manner simply because similarities (and differences) are more subtle. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not mention genetics or geographic proximity as the soul baseline for establishing similarities between various groups. To repeatedly make that statement and/or approaching the discussion as if that is my argument is a misrepresentation and demonstrates that you do not understand the argument being proposed to you. The fact that you have failed to respond to the statements: 'being in the same Nation-state for 500 years' or 'the fact that Ulster was populated by English people during the plantations' or 'the numerous inter-familial links between English and Ulster-Scots', is a further demonstration of your failure to understand the case made against your position. I will boil the argument down to this: Do you or do you not accept that the plantation of English people in Ulster occurred? If you do, why would that not make them a "related group" that is warranted in the infobox? A similar principle can be applied to the intermarriage and interlinkage of the two groups as a result of well over 500 years of being in the same Nation-State and ruled by the same government. Brough87 (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not agree that being ruled by the same nation-state for 500 years determines ethnicity... not even a thousand years. If that were the case, much of Europe would qualify as being Turkic. I don't know any Greeks who would call themselves Turks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, you're responding to one small section of the argument and extrapolating it as if it was the entirety of the argument. Does 500+years of intermarriage, cross emmigration, the plantation of Ulster etc not make it a shared ethnicity? The origin of the Turks are not in any way similar to the Greeks, nor do they share religion or cultural practices; are you seriously suggesting its comparable? Brough87 (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that the 'related' group you're invoking is so broadly construed that it's WP:SYNTH and WP:OFFTOPIC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why 500 years of intermarriage, population movements and plantation does not create a "related ethnicity"? Brough87 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Your revertion Hi Mutt, you seem to have reverted my recent amendment. Could you perhaps explain the reason why? Brough87 (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As you've added your question to this section, discussing the very same change by you, at length and not resulting in a consensus in favour of it, you know very well. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The nature of the 'related group' section of the infobox it has been discussed on previous occasions in various different pages. The consensus generally has been along the lines of "linguistic, cultural, political and genetic descent", are you denying the link between Ulster Scots, English and Welsh people? When the first line of the Ulster Scots body of text says: "The first major influx of border English and Lowland Scots into Ulster came in the first two decades of the 17th century." Does that not show a link in your eyes? Oh and FYI, you disappearing away from a discussion does not lead to a consensus against my position. Brough87 (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I, and others, have already answered yoour question about the links or otherwise between these groups. Reread them if you have forgotten. Nobody is denying that there were English settlers as well as Scottish settlers. This is not a game of ping pong unto the end of time whereby each party has to denote their presence by posting the same stuff again and again or they "lose". Positions have been laid out; nobody shares yours. You have repeated your position, I still do not share it. There is no consensus to make your proposed change, so don't sneak back to make the change some weeks later and hope nobody will notice. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You and one other person has a point of view in disagreement with the position put across by me. Not only have you failed to respond to what is said, or give voice to the justification of your position (respond to: "Can you explain why 500 years of intermarriage, population movements and plantation does not create a "related ethnicity"?"); but your position puts you in direct contradiction with 'related ethnic group' user box principles set out in the previously mentioned search on the topic. The principal set out is this: related ethnicity is determined by "linguistic, cultural, political and genetic descent". Please justify your position. If you continue with this obstinate attitude where you believe you're not required to justify your position, I'm quite happy to take this to arbitration. Brough87 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Me and one other person thinking broadly one way; you and apparently nobody else thinking another. Whatever it is - this is no vote - it clearly is neither a consensus for your material to be added. You are the one that is proposing the addition so the onus is on you to "justify your position". You can keep posing your questions in a reformulated way in an effort to bludgeon the doubters, the answers are still laid out above. You are at liberty to take what action you feel pertinent. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Whilst WP:SKYISBLUE can apply if we all agree, we need sources otherwise. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: I'm still unsure as to your opposition to the change. Brough87 (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you serious? Read the above and the earlier discussion again, where you have no consensus for your changes. Stop sneaking back to the article after some time has elapsed, in the hope you can force your will without being rumbled. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

In the earlier discussion you didn't engage nor respond to the point being made, so I must ask again what the basis of your opposition is. I listed a series of reasons which believed was a basis to include in the "related groups" section and you neither falsified those claims nor responded to the point made. You take no issue with including Scots as a related group, what is the basis of their inclusion yet the dismissal of the English? Brough87 (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Whilst a source would be great, it is silly to argue that English doesn't form a component of Ulster Scots, at least in the present population compared to that of the plantation period. There is a very small French connection too but whether such small scale intermarriage into Ulster-Scots families makes it a proper related "ethnic" group is a bit hard to chew or substantiate. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

My position has always been the same; it seems incredible to me that two groups that have had such a great level of interaction of the centuries; share a common state, common language, common history, arguably common origin and has had long-standing levels of intermarriage and cross immigration are not included in the 'related groups' section. These points (taken together) along with the WP consistency of other pages would surely demand this change in line with WP:SKYISBLUE. I ask those who oppose my amendment to explain their understanding of what a 'related ethnic group' is and how we go about classifying groups as 'related'? Brough87 (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, see above: I've manifestly engaged and responded in abundance and to the point of tedium to your repetition of the same view, again and again. I'm not prepared to rerun this every few months to counter your WP:BLUDGEONing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

If you had "manifestly engaged and responded in abundance", I wouldn't have declared that you hadn't. You take issue with the inclusion of English as a related group, yet you take no issue with Scots being a related group; from where does your issue stem from? If 'relatedness' is such an arbitrary and meaningless categorisation, let us remove the 'related ethnic group' section entirely. Brough87 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine with that, certainly in considerable preference to your other proposals.Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually I would object to that as an extreme option simply because one editor is adament on having it their way or no way. Whilst as I did say English should be included I'd not say the same for Welsh. Their settlement and influence as far as I'm aware is as significant to the Ulster-Scots as the French or German Palatinates, in otherwords not that much. At least with the Huguenots you could argue that as they founded the linen trade in Ulster they had a better link to the Ullans. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

And the English founded the city of Londonderry/Derry; but that's besides the point... I would take no issue in the inclusion of any group that had a significant immigration and intermarriage with the people of Northern Ireland, I believe that such an amendment would meet the convention for 'related ethnic group' as practiced on other WP articles. If that doesn't suffice, I would ask again for that those who disagree with my amendment explain how they categorise what a 'related ethnic group' is. If we cannot come to consensus as to what makes a 'related ethnic group' I don't see how we can justify the existence of such a categorisation on the page. Brough87 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Well just because you can't get your way doesn't mean we should just get rid of it. If we are to get rid of it we need proper reasons. Looking at all the currently linked to ethnic groups:

• Scottish people doesn't have a related ethnic group section
• Irish people does, though there is enough sources out there that link Irish to all the groups listed in it
• Ulster Protestants mentions Ulster Scots, Irish people, Scottish people, English people, Scotch-Irish Americans, Scotch-Irish Canadians, which are all pretty uncontroversial and sourceable. It also helps that it is a geographical religious name. Indeed is it really an ethnic group? Sources at the article state ethnoreligious. Indeed Irish Catholics, another ethnoreligious group, isn't listed in the Irish people one or any other religious one in any other "ethnic group" article.
• Scotch-Irish Americans has a related groups section and mentions Ulster Scots, English/Irish/Scottish Americans but no Welsh.
• Scottish Americans has a related gtoups section which mentions all including the Welsh-Americans
• Irish Americans has it as well however weirdly only mentions fellow hypehernated Americans rather than anything from the old country.

On that basis no we should not remove it because you can't get your way. Also I have not seen a single source to back up any of your assertions either whether they are correct or not and sources are a major thing on Wikipedia. I don't know what the linked too articles have either to back up the links however what they have is pretty much uncontroversial and obvious. In regards to this article Scottish, Irish, Scots-Irish American and Irish-American are obvious. Scottish-American's not so much. Ulster Protestants should be removed as not actually being an ethnic group in comparison to the rest, and like Irish Catholics already is should be excluded. English should be an obvious inclusion. Welsh however I can't see how, especially considering for most of the time since the plantation Wales was de facto part of England, and highly Anglicised, and more easily included under English. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the supposedly obvious reason for the inclusion of "English" Mabuska? Possible but unsourced speculation that by sheer force of numbers Ulster Scots are significantly also of English ancestry. Even were that verified, are they not Ulster English, or something, rather than English? Your statements about Wales seem dubious, at the least if we're talking ethnicity rather than statehood. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Ulster-Scots is a branch of Scots, which like modern English descends from Old English, so linguistically they are linked. The Scots descend from the Anglo-Saxons of what is now southeastern Scotland, formerly part of the kingdom of Northumbria, making them and their Ulster-Scots descendants ethnicially linked to the English. If the Irish, Welsh, Breton, Manx and Scots Gaels are all considered related ethnic groups despite branching off far earlier than the Scots did from the English then surely it is permittable to state English considering they are kindred ethnic groups? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a supposedly ethnically related, rather than linguistically related, category. If you are flinging the net this wide you're as well including, say, Jamaicans and Gibraltarians on the basis of language adoption but you'd then have tens of other groups as closely, or distantly, related. Everybody on the planet is ethnically related so if the category is to be meaningful - and arguments like those above make me doubt it increasingly - flinging the net so wide diminishes its worth to negligibility. "The Scots descend from the Anglo-Saxons of what is now southeastern Scotland". Well partially for sure, and it was their language which came to dominate as it spread from the south-east but it's a wildly sweeping statement. Are you advancing that they exterminated the vast majority of individuals of pre-existing and contemporaneously migrant peoples in the south-east of what is now Scotland, then proceeded, after they were conquered/absorbed by the latter to carry on the extermination throughout the population of the conquering realm? "the Irish, Welsh, Breton, Manx and Scots Gaels are all considered related ethnic groups": as this is apparently intended be a continuation of your response to my query, why quote a list that I have not advocated? And they all "(branched) off... from the English"? If this debate is going to keep returning with tedious regularity maybe it is better to do without the category than to have an endless debate about such increasingly wide and arbitrary propositions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary it appears that it is you who is providing the increasingly wide and arbitrary in your objections to something obvious using whatever excuses you can find. Is it because you don't want to see the word English associated with Scots? For I can see no other reason for the erratic counter-arguments you're providing to me and looking deeper into the discussion to Brough. Indeed you don't seem to care that what is in the article contains an geographical-religous group (Ulster Protestants) rather than an actual ethnic group of the same kind as the rest makes your opposition weaker and less coherent. For by the same logic you're going by we should remove all related ethnic groups from all other articles due to your argument above, for example the Breton and Welsh are far enough apart from the Irish nowadays to may as well not be related anymore, lets go remove them from Irish people, no? Mabuska ^(talk) 20:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Quite agree, Ulster Protestants is a dubious inclusion and agree, the list at Irish people is arbitrary, overly wide and poor and if this is typical of "all other articles" "(removal of) all related ethnic groups" may be desirable. But this is the talk page for this article, so let's deal with that here. And it would be more constructive to deal in the substantial put to you rather than countering with the ad hominem. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'll go ahead and chime in here. The English are "obviously" related to the Ulster Scots through history, language and ethnicity. The arguments for language and ethnicity were made by Mabuska above (same Anglo-Saxon stock and same Anglos-Saxon language). Perhaps the historical argument was made by someone above, too, but this is a particularly long thread and my eyes are swimming from trying to read it. There were two primary groups who settled in Ulster during the years of the Plantation: the Scots and the English. They formed neighboring villages and farms, and some communities were intermixed. The English experience in Ulster parallels the Scots experience in Ulster. If the Ulster Scots are not related to their English neighbors and partners in the Plantation, then they are not related to anyone. These "English" in Ireland perhaps could be better described as "Anglo-Irish", so why not include Anglo-Irish in the "related" category if "English" is objectionable. I would also agree that "Ulster Protestants" is a descriptor and not an ethnicity so that should be removed. Eastcote (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A great deal of the planters were English (particularly northern English). The Ulster Scots are descended from planters. Case closed. (Indeed, if any of the people arguing over this had actually set foot in Northern Ireland, you'd know that most Ulster Scots would claim to have more in common with English people than Irish Catholics) ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I resisted suggesting “Anglo-Irish” earlier because of its strong ruling-class Protestant Ascendancy associations, from which the bulk of Ulster Scots, particularly the main Presbyterian body thereof, were actively excluded. On reflection, if we’re satisfied that the term covers the community in Ireland of English descent as a whole it is satisfactory for inclusion. I am worried though about where the line be drawn, with the advocacy of some increasingly tenuous inclusions in the historical threads above.

Please do not make baseless assumptions about where contributors have or have not set foot. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I, too, have some misgivings about using the term "Anglo-Irish", and for the same reason that it suggests the Ascendancy. I suggested it only as a possible compromise. Personally, I prefer to include "English people" as a related group. The Ulster Scots have more in common with the English than they do with the Irish, so if "Irish people" are a related group, then "English people" are a related group. The Ulster Scots share certain things with the Irish: geography, the last 400 years of history, currently language, cross-border economics. But they have far more in common with the English: Anglo-Saxon language and lineage going back 1400 years, shared experience as settlers in Ulster, Protestant religion, economics, government and policy (Ulster Scots have seats in Westminster and not in Dublin, and when the English leave the EU, the Ulster Scots go with them), etc. I consider the English to be closely related to the Ulster Scots. Groups that are related, but perhaps too distantly and too few in influence to be included as "related", would be the French Huguenots and the Palatine Germans. A few from these groups settled in Ulster alongside the Ulster Scots and assimilated, but I name them as examples of groups I would NOT include as related. Eastcote (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Anglo-Irish is a term usually referring to the Ascendancy. More Scots settled in Ulster than English, and throughout the whole province they intermarried with English and Irish, but more the English. Considering the ancestral links of the Scots to the Anglo-Saxons and the heavy intermarrying between Scots and English settlers over the past 4 centuries in Ulster it is hard to argue against them being related "ethnic" groups. The Scots of Ulster are more related to the English than the Irish yet Irish is listed with no qualms. I don't disagree with the Irish inclusion as many Scots did intermarry with Irish as too did English.

At ZinedineZidane98, please await for this discussion to come to a close with an agreed consensus before altering the article. Whilst I agree with the addition of English, it is not agreed here yet and is edit-warring so I reverted it to the stable version.

At the very least I think we may possibly all agree to exclude "Ulster Protestants" as it is not an ethnic group per se but an ethnoreligious group like "Irish Catholics". Mabuska ^(talk) 23:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

From the above you appear to take it for granted that the Ulster Scots are not themselves Irish. It may or may not be a view held by all his fellows but per Ian Paisley "you cannot be an Ulsterman without being an Irishman". Many Ulster Scots have participated in Irish sports teams, for instance and notably in rugby, and would you then tell them they are not Irish? Ulster Scots featured prominently in the Society of United Irishmen, happy with that designation. The term Scots Irish is used as a synonym and in America, descending from the Ulster Scots, you have the Scotch Irish; no qualms about linking the terms. The Ulster Scots are more than related to the Irish people.

Thanks for reverting the impatient warrior. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

You appear to have misread what I said. I did state that the Irish are a related ethnic group to Ulster-Scots just like English and Scots are. No-one is saying that they are not Irish in the sense that they come from the island of Ireland. Only a complete fool would argue that. Scots-Irish and Scotch-Irish are the proper terms for Ulster-Scots and simply means Scots in Ireland. Ulster-Scots as far as I am concerned, whilst a synonym, is a politically created term to denote simply the Scots in Ulster as opposed to stating Scots in Ireland. Yet why are we arguing over a moot point? The issue here is the inclusion of English which you have avoided responding to the latest couple editors backing its inclusion. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No, what you have written is clear. My point is that Ulster Scots are not "Irish in the sense that" anything, or "related" or whatever circling round the matter you care to employ. Whether they are a (sufficiently) related group to English for inclusion in the infobox or not, they aren't actually English but they are Irish, or specifically Irish people per the link in that infobox under discussion. Whether or not both groups should be included, it clearly puts one significantly ahead in level of pertinence. Think about applying those kinds of qualifications or exclusions to someone Jewish in Cork or of Chinese descent in Dublin. I don't imagine you would be comfortable about designating them as only "Irish in the sense that...".

Leaving the Ulster Protestants category aside per the discussion above, the people who are the subject of this article are, overwhelmingly if not entirely, descended from the Scottish people, are Irish people, progenitors of Scotch-Irish Americans which forms the intersect of Scottish Americans and Irish Americans. That's a pretty tight and relevant list and, should it be widened, any additions would clearly be at further remove than the existing very direct links. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Are we approaching anything like a consensus on this? Rationale has been given for the inclusion of the English people as "related". Due to the shared Plantation experience and the intermarriage of English and Scottish Protestant settlers in Ulster over the last couple of centuries, the Ulster Scots are as related to the English people as they are to the Scottish people. Based on this relationship, if Scottish people are included, English people should be, too. What are the specific reasons that one would say the English people are NOT related? Eastcote (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The people of English descent in Ireland are covered already under Irish people. No people is "NOT related". Some are less "NOT related" than others though, that is to say those in the infobox already, with the exception noted above. Have we at least consensus to remove the latter: Ulster Protestants? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe there is consensus to remove Ulster Protestants. However, saying "people of English descent in Ireland are covered already under Irish people", does not answer the question. We are not talking about "people of English descent in Ireland". That's the same as saying "people of Scottish descent in Ireland are covered already under Irish people" as justification to not list "Scottish people" as related. We are talking about whether the English are related to the Ulster Scots. The majority opinion in this thread seems to be that they are. The people who are today called "Ulster Scots" are descended from the Plantation settlers, who were both Scots and English. Again, what argument do you have that the English people are NOT related to the Ulster Scots? Eastcote (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No we are not "talking about whether the English are related to the Ulster Scots". Again, there is no such thing as an ethnic group, any ethnic group, that is "NOT related to the Ulster Scots". That is a spurious question to pose. Do you have an argument that (insert name of any people on the planet) is not related to the Ulster Scots? Unless we are to ditch the listing altogether or to list every ethnic group of mankind, a decision has to be made as to where we limit inclusions. It's not a simple yes-no question; the answer to the consideration of any ethnic group as "related" would be "yes". The question is instead one of degree and that is inevitably going to be to some extent arbitrary. I am arguing for the tightest possible limit as any further inclusion is clearly to some level more distant than those currently listed. Can that at least be agreed? To expand the list with further, clearly somewhat more distantly related inclusions makes that list less meaningful and would be the thin end of the wedge to advocacy of further additional inclusions, per the history of this article. Yes, amongst other peoples, the English are related to the Ulster Scots but to argue that the culture and ancestry of the Ulster Scots was not significantly more influenced by the Scots people seems an extraordinary claim, if that is what you are advancing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Only you are advancing such notions. You have been provided strong reasons yet insist on continually moving the goalposts in your desire to avoid English being stated. Your argument is increasingly more incoherent and luckily consensus does not have to be universal especially if the sole objector is simply disagreeing on what looks like personal reasons. Everyone but you has agreed to it.

Ironically new research has emerged (full report here) which points to the people in Northern Ireland as having a mixture of Irish, Scottish and wait for it... English (particularly Northern English) DNA. Whilst it does not focus on those who would call themselves of Ulster-Scots "ethnicity" it does point that the people of NI where the U-S are concentrated are a mixture of Irish, Scottish and English - not simply a mixture of Irish and Scottish or Irish and English but of all three. I see no mention of Jamaicans or whoever else you've thrown in in your opposition to the obvious. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Infact here is direct quote from the BBC report: Of the 10 clusters, seven were found to be of "Gaelic" Irish origin and three of mixed Irish and British ancestry. All of the mixed clusters were located in Northern Ireland. The geographical location of these three groupings, along with estimates of when the population mixing occurred - the 17th to 18th Centuries - led the researchers to surmise that this was related to the Ulster Plantation, when English and Scottish Protestants settled in Ireland.. Note the terms "population mixing" and "British ancestry" (as opposed to simply English or Scottish). Mabuska ^(talk) 10:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I think Mr. Lunker is arguing against points that no one is making. No one is arguing to include "all" ethnic groups in the related category. No one is arguing that the Ulster Scots are not more significantly influenced by the Scots. Mr. Lunker, I believe the question here is one of where to draw the line on "related" groups. You wish to draw the line to exclude the English. The majority here wish to draw the line to include the English. So, once again, what are your arguments for excluding the English - not Zulus, not Jamaicans, not Uzbeks. Simply put, why are the English not a related group, considering they were part of the history of the province, along with the Scots? Eastcote (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That, and the recent DNA study showing Irish, English and Scottish all mixed together. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

In fact looking at the Border Reivers who are strongly considered part of the fabric of the Ulster-Scots, they spanned both sides of the Anglo-Scottish border and consisted of both Scottish and English families, with classic Ulster-Scots names such as Graham, Armstrong, Heron, Bell and Dodds also found on the English side of the border or in the Debatable Land. Just another obvious aspect of the relatedness of the Ulster-Scots to English. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Considering it has been over a week since Mutt Lunker has responded and that there is no serious or actually sound arguments given to stating the obvious, I'm going ahead to insert "English people". Mabuska ^(talk) 15:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Eastcote (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

How breathtakingly arrogant Mabuska. If someone points out potential flaws in your line of argument, dismiss them rather than address them and impugn the person’s motivation on the basis that anyone who questions your astute line must in truth be fully convinced by it and fibbing to cover their nefarious intent?! If anyone’s bringing a personal element here it’s you. That's a pretty low piece of baseless speculation and innuendo about some imagined "personal reasons" for making the rationale I do. Either spell out your specific allegation in full on my supposed evil motivation, with its sound basis, or retract it forthwith.

My point is very simple and consistent; no shifting of anything. In completing this "related ethnic group" category, in any "people" article, the limit set as to where inclusions and exclusions are made is inevitably somewhat arbitrary. There isn’t any right or wrong limit to the line’s extent but there are arguments for a better or worse point to place it. Would you at least agree with that? I'm arguing that there is a good basis for keeping it tighter in this article than you evidently would. Related as they are, the addition of the English is plainly a more distant addition. Widen the list and you could keep going indefinitely, or does the inclusion of English, and no further, somehow take it to an incontrovertible hard limit?

The inclusion of the Welsh people has previously been mooted and, as a more distant inclusion, if it even is, is it any more distant a step from the previous group to the English people than from that expanded group to the inclusion of the Welsh people? As someone pointed out, the English plantation was from the Kingdom of England, which as a state included Wales. Oh it was you Mabuska, but you reckon they should just be counted as English because they're supposedly all anglicised? The Welsh are not a people in their own right? Maybe all the other currently included groups should be classed as English as they are surely just as anglicised, under this definition. And case you've not got it again, I'm making a point about where to fix the limit, no more arguing for the inclusion of the Welsh people than I was than with my plainly more reductio ad absurdum examples earlier.

The DNA study simply correlates with what we already know: that there was significantly higher English and Scottish immigration in Ulster. This is neither news nor controversial. There is next to no overall difference in the DNA of the population in Ireland as a whole, per the sources its basis largely set in the Bronze Age, but there are trends in some very very small but indicative differences. Apologies if I misrepresent you, because such an argument would plainly be unwarranted, but I think you appear to be extrapolating from the study that it indicates that the mix in Ulster, and possibly in each other part of Ireland discussed in the study, is entirely homogeneous within each of these areas (which of course it is essentially, but the study regards those tiny differences which make it not quite, in the population as a whole) and that this is somehow significant whereas, as far as I can tell it does not state or imply any such thing, whether this is the case or not. It certainly doesn't discuss the DNA makeup in isolation of any contemporary ethnic or cultural subgroup within each population. Neither does it classify DNA as English, Scottish or Irish. And aside from any of that, ethnicity and culture are not based on one’s DNA. As you say, the study says nothing about the Ulster Scots and what it does say is not in disagreement by anyone here. Interesting as it is, it just isn’t pertinent to this discussion.

Per above though, there is no actively "right" place to fix the limit, though there may be better ones. The current list is not wrong, though I believe the previous one was better. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

tl;dr, though what I could make out scanning past there is a good bit of convoluting of I've said. To simplify this: You are the only objector with objections based on a none existent issue about the net being cast too far. It is a red herring argument. Other than that you have provided no reasonable argument against the inclusion of English and have failed to provide one to convince the few other contributors otherwise.

Though I don't know how the previous list is better than the current one, which you admit is not wrong. Especially considering the last one contained a group that we all agreed didn't belong there. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Again you dismiss rather than address, and red herring! From the fishmonger-in-chief; your spurious DNA tangent only the latest excursion. You seem to make a habit of "didn't reading" too, if I'm the only "objector" and you are still characterising the debate in the way you do. I suppose the lack of provision of any justification for your personal attack is the closest I'm going to get to an apology. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t edit much anymore. I find it tiresome, and this discussion reminds me why. Mutt, I do not think you have pointed out any “potential flaws” in anyone’s argument, because you have not directly addressed anyone’s argument. Multiple relationships between the Ulster Scots and the English have been provided: historical, cultural, linguistic, DNA, political, religious, etc. You have not addressed any of these directly, but have set up strawmen to argue against such as: “every ethnic group is related to the Ulster Scots but we can’t list them all” when no one is saying we should, “the English didn’t influence the Ulster Scots more than the Scots” when no one is saying they did, “If we include the English we might have to include the Welsh” when no one is saying this, etc. As you said, “There isn’t any right or wrong limit to the line’s extent but there are arguments for a better or worse point to place it.” All you’ve done so far is say you don’t think we should include the English because it’s a line too far for your taste. We have given arguments for including the English. Please address those specific arguments or I will assume you are just being obstructive. Eastcote (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, I think cooling down is appropriate. I haven't seen any egregious "personal attacks", but telling someone they are "arrogant", and calling them "fishmonger-in-chief", rather than addressing their arguments, is getting close. Eastcote (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree with Eastcote's two statements above. And as Mutt has admitted what is in the article is not wrong, unless they provide a compelling reason/argument otherwise rather than strawmen, I'd consider the issue concluded. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You can't have your cake and eat it too

The Irish Presbyterian population in the Republic of Ireland was removed here, stating "Irish Presbyterians =/= Ulster Scots". Yet the same principle applies to Northern Irish Presbyterians, so either both figures need to be in the infobox or neither. Irish or Northern Irish Presbyterian =/= Ulster Scots, simple as that. 2A02:C7D:3C72:D200:9C15:FB52:BF63:C631 (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I still have absolutely no understanding of what you're trying to argue. The data being referenced (that I removed) deals with adherents of Presbyterianism, not whether they identify as Ulster-Scots. I think it has been previously established that being a Presbyterian on the island of Ireland does not necessarily make one an Ulster-Scot, so why are we taking data collected about adherents to Presbyterianism and are then asserting that adherents of Presbyterianism are all Ulster-Scots? Alssa1 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In your version you left in the infobox data relating to adherents of Presbyterianism in Northern Ireland. So as you quite happily agree being a Presbyterian in Northern Ireland does not make someone an Ulster-Scot, you have no problem with the removal of the figure relating to Northern Ireland? 2A02:C7D:3C72:D200:9C15:FB52:BF63:C631 (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

For further information on the census data see Demography of Northern Ireland#Ethnicity and Demography of Northern Ireland#Religion. There is no data for the Ulster Scots ethnic group, the figure in the infbox was relating to religion only. 2A02:C7D:3C72:D200:9C15:FB52:BF63:C631 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Gaelic-speakers

Various IPs (presumably the same editor) have been making edits minimising or negating the Highland Scottish element and the Gaelic-speaking, Scottish and Irish varieties, among Ulster Scots. They have been requested to engage here but so far have refused. Yes, this may be a minority (actively highlighted in my comments above re "Related groups"), which should be noted, but was significant and pertinent to note, particulary regarding the earliest of incomers. An element of the later Galwegian incomers were probably Gaelic speakers too. Scots and English and Gaelic would have been used for communication between communities. This is also a historical article, not just about the present. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

A number of Ulster Scots are identified as Irish speakers as recently as the 1901 & 1911 censuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.76.241.90 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Any Gaelic Highland Scots which came prior to the Plantation of Ulster were undoubtedly Catholic in religion and Gaelic in language and ethnic origin. They merged with their kin, the native Gaelic Ulster Irish, of which Hebridean Scottish Gaelic culture and language is extremely similar to, and had kinship bonds with across the sea for centuries. The Gaelic-speaking Highlands were predominantly Catholic until well after the Ulster plantations of Lowland Anglo-Scots in the 17th century. The Scottish Highlands weren't predominantly Protestant until the late 18th century to early 19th century, and even then they formed their own branches in many cases separate from the Kirk/Presbyterian Church of Scotland, like the Free Church, with some areas like Barra and the Uists remaining Catholic (and Gaelic speaking) to this day. Any few Gaels from the Scottish Highlands who settled in Ulster did not become associated with the later Anglo, Lowland Scots community in eastern Ulster of which 'Ulster Scots' refers to, but rather with their Gaelic and Catholic Irish kin.

As for Galwegians from Galloway, you have a point in that Scottish Gaelic was still a minority spoken language there by the time of the Ulster plantations in the 17th century, and thus some may have taken part in the migration but were at best a small element. They likely merged with the native Gaelic Irish, if they were Catholic, or assimilated with the Anglic Lowland Scots if they were Protestant (of which became the Ulster Scots community). Protestants from eastern and southern Galloway were Anglic (Scots) speakers as that was the language of the Kirk. They were ethnically of Anglo-Saxon descent in part, as is the case for Lowland Scots in general, but also in part of Gaelic origin as Galloway was a Gaelic kingdom (Kingdom of Galloway, settled by Gaels in the 9th century) and heavily Gaelic (and also Brythonic) in language for several centuries in the Middle Ages. This is unlike the Scottish Borders which had never been a Gaelic area, but continually Anglo-Saxon going back to the 6th century and the Kingdom of Northumbria. The largest bulk of settlers were Anglo-Scots, in part of Anglo-Saxon heritage and descent (going back to the Kingdom of Northumbria), from the Scottish Borders and parts of Galloway.

In any case, there is very little that is Gaelic or Goidelic about the Ulster Scots people, in terms of language, culture and ancestry/genetics, as is the case for many Lowland Scots in Scotland for that matter (especially from the far south and southeast), whose cultural language is "Scots", an Anglian (English) dialect. In fact, Lowland Scots in Ulster were close kin with Anglic Northumbrians, whom they are ethnically and culturally the closest with (see Border Reivers) and who also settled in Ulster in large numbers to contribute to both the Ulster 'Scots' or Ulster Protestants community. Ulster Scots refers to the Protestant, Anglo (in culture and descent), traditionally 'Scots' or English speaking Lowland Scots community mostly settled in eastern Ulster. Mid-Ulster English itself has been significantly influenced by Lowland Scots, hence its different accent from the Hiberno-English of Ireland or southern and western parts of Northern Ireland. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

To editors 174.119.80.219 and 31.76.241.90: You post interesting details—what sources did you refer to to find them?

On a talk page, you can make your position much more solid by adding inline citations of your sources & creating a section-level reference list using Template:Reflist-talk unless one already exists within the bounds of that section. That template's always useful in a discussion that needs references to truly proceed to consensus.

Just don't indent {{Reflist-talk}}; it's unneeded and the leading colons mess it up! This template creates its own title & a very light box around the title & refs to distinguish its rendered result from that of {{Reflist-talk}}.

Thanks in advance for your sources! Geekdiva (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Randal MacDonnell who planted County Down with many of the Scottish Protestants from the lowlands also planted quite a few Hebridean Catholics who were of Gaelic culture in the north-east Antrim coastline, corresponding unsurprisingly the former Moyle district, the most Catholics and Gaelic part of County Antrim today. Also prominent Ulster-Scots supporters such as Nelson McCausland and Gregory Campbell both have Scottish surnames that derive from Gaelic as do many Ulster-Scot settlers - Gaelic is part of the Ulster-Scots makeup. Indeed it is thought that anywhere up to 50% of those Scots who settled during the main plantation years (1600-1700) spoke Gaelic (many having come from the then still largely Gaelic speaking Galloway area) and I can provide an academic source for that statement. Can the IP provide one that discounts it? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously that is a no then? Mabuska ^(talk) 00:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

To be another observer of this discussion, Galwegian Gaelic was moribund at the time of the heaviest Plantations and migrations of Anglo-Scots from the Lowlands in the mid 17th century to early 18th century. It was confined by that time to a minority at the very extremes of the Rhinns of Galloway. There is no source I have come across, anywhere, claiming 'half' of the Lowland Scottish planters were Gaelic speakers. Nearly all were specifically English or Anglo-Scots speaking Protestants from Galloway, Ayrshire, the Borders and Northumberland in the far north of Northern England. The Plantation was intentionally enacted to disrupt and replace the highly rebellious, Gaelic-speaking, Catholic region of Ulster which was linked to and supporting the rebellious, Gaelic-speaking, Catholic Scottish Highlands of the time. The planters and their sponsors deliberately avoided Gaelic and Catholic Scots. They specifically chose Protestant and English or Scots speaking Lowlanders. This is what has always characterized the Ulster Scots community. Gaelic Scots were seen by Scots-speaking Lowlanders at the time, in Scotland itself, as being 'Erse' (Irish) and insulted as 'Teuchters'. What tiny minority of Gaelic Scots that did come to Ulster from Galloway either merged with the native Gaelic Irish, or with the Anglo-Scots (who became the Ulster Scots), and disappeared. It is the Protestant, Lowland Scottish and English and Scots linguistic and cultural heritage that defines the Ulster Scots people and identity that is distinct from both the Gaelic Ulster Irish and Gaelic Highland Scots. Even in genetics, it has been shown that the Ulster Irish are almost identical to the Gaelic Highland Scots. The Ulster Scots and Ulster Protestants are however distinct, and cluster either with the Lowland Anglo-Scots of Galloway or those of the Borders and Northumbrian English. Please see The fine-scale genetic structure of the British population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:664:BBA7:30B8:8CAC:FBDB:4093 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)