Talk:Black Irish

Untitled

To view the history of the original Black Irish article, to which this talk page applies, see Black Irish (old)

Proposal to prune article

After reading some of the criticisms of the article on this page and on the article page, relating to lack of citations, original research, primary sources, and what appears be coat-racking, I suggest that the article should be reduced to its lede, and that this be properly referenced. As more than one editor has noted above, in its present state it is a mess. Hohenloh ⁺ 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless anyone disagrees, I shall go ahead and prune this article. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Go for it! RashersTierney (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Objection! I acknowledge the references need a lot of work; this is something I have been working on these last few days, adding new references, and links to previously unsupported statements. Also working at reformatting the 'notes' so it confirms to Wikipedia's style guide (though I am yet to find one; indeed the I need a lesson in general wiki formatting). There isn't a lot of original academic research on the topic but enough I believe to warrant an article, covered in references I have now added. Most importantly, I believe the section following the introduction is important for providing information regarding not on the etymology of the term, but various theories exploring the subject and the question of who the so called Black Irish are, if such a group exists. It is apparently a contentious subject what is more. One only needs to look at the Talk Page history to see how the label sometimes raises people's hackles, possibly prompting emotional thinking leading to misjudgements like mistake discussion regarding a myths for the perpetuation of myths. In other words this page needs to be protected against people who seek to remove it as a form of censorship.

Have your thesis peer-reviewed and published. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. RashersTierney (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Granted the Black Irish page was written much like an unpublished research paper. (And thanks for your introduction and helpful advise on how to contribute to Wikipedia as a relative neophyte.) I would have thought, however, that Bob Quinn's book (expanding his thesis first proposed in The Altanteans documentaries), which I recently added to the reference section, provide a strong enough link between the etymology of the term and the subject the Black Irish label most commonly refers to - i.e. this supposed cohort of people - to warrant a description of this work. Arguments developed in Quinn's book also tie in with other people's theories, which formerly featured under the subheading 'Common attributions'. Granted Quinn never uses the term Black Irish, but this seems to be question of nomenclature as his published works are very much about this supposed people. In other words, I don't believe making that connection is enough to suggests my contribution (to other editors' text) turns this into an original thesis. Perhaps it read that way, but with reworking, I still believe the former page could be edited in accordance with Wikipedia's standards.Ajwitney 14:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I proposed pruning on 19 March and waited six weeks. Not a single person objected! On 7 May I wrote here that, if no-one objected, I would carry out the pruning. No-one objected! So I pruned. It's a bit late in the day now to attempt to resurrect the old discredited article with its Fir Bolg, Tuatha Dé Danann, Spanish armada, Basques, genetic markers, and anything else that could be used to show why some Irish people had black hair and blue eyes and not red hair and freckles. Hohenloh ⁺ 01:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Noted. I should have prefaced my objection, acknowledging I am a late comer to this discussion, and inquiring whether editors might consider restoring the article if areas of concern such as the lack of references, messy formatting, and unsupported claims, were addressed. That question still stands. I am prepared to work on the article (and learn how to use Wikipedia more effectively by previewing my edits and signing) and then re-post for people's reconsideration. Is it ever "too late" to do such a thing on Wikipedia?Ajwitney 14:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

What I wonder is, if you're keen to do the research and work on the article, why not start afresh instead of restoring a version that nobody liked and just wedging in citations? I don't remember hearing hearing of these "Black Irish" before. The questions I would like answered are things like, who uses the term and for what purpose? Why does it matter? Who or what is the article going to be about, given that "opinions vary in regard to what is perceived as [their] usual physical characteristics?" What's the difference between the theory of the Iberian origin of the "Black Irish" and the theory of the Iberian origin of the Irish generally? If you have ideas on how to write a decent article, instead of just sourcing a poor one, then it certainly wouldn't be "too late" to do such a thing. Otherwise, I recommend not just leaving the current version as it is, but merging it into Irish people. --Scolaire (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I take your point Scolaire. The page has always read like more like a forum, cobbling together various ideas in a rather disjointed, poorly reference format. Part of this, I believe, is rooted in the ambiguity of the term itself, not to mention the speculative nature of claims associated with the term's most common usage. There are no academic papers I know of which that address the etymology of the term. And when evidence does emerge that support claims associated with the subject of the Black Irish, other nomenclature is preferred - and for good reason, given "black" is too often associated with pejorative or discriminatory labeling (e.g. I prefer Quinn's "Atlantean"). I was of the opinion that, in the absence of other articles, the Wikipedia page did the best job of summarizing all things Black Irish. I acknowledge certain standards need to be met however, lest common criticisms of Wikipedia be reinforced, so accept the pruning. That said, I think the current version is too brief, and should at least include a line describing common attributions associated with the Myth of the Spanish Armada and subsequent repudiations of this myth - content for which there are references explicitly linking term and subject. Ajwitney 18:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the whole problem with the article, in your own words, "is rooted in the ambiguity of the term itself". Unless an encyclopaedia article can say unambiguously what it is about, it cannot serve a useful purpose. I suggest that we merge the current content into Irish people for the moment. The page will remain as a redirect, and when you, or somebody else, are ready to write an article on a concrete and easily understood topic, it can be converted back into an article. Scolaire (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge

I have merged the article to Irish people#Black Irish as discussed above. I don't propose to merge this talk page. It should still be here if the article is re-written in the future. I added the one sentence that unambiguously and verifiably referred to Y chromosome haplotypes and the "Iberian connection". I didn't add anything about the "Myth of the Spanish Armada" (a) because the myth itself had never been explained or even properly stated in the article and (b) because the only citation was an image (viz. a map) which made no reference to Ireland. The "Myth of the Spanish Armada" could still be added to the Irish People article if it was considered important enough, and if it could be properly explained and sourced. Scolaire (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

IMAO, the myth of the Spanish Armada should be consigned to where the rest of the Armada went - Davy Jones' Locker. Hohenloh ⁺ 10:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

SOL (snigger out load). Scolaire (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Previous versions of the article did provide a reference - to P. Kunesh's The myth of the Black Irish: Spanish syntagonism and prethetical salvation, published online at: www.darkfiber.com/blackirish/ which provides a detailed, well referenced explanation and repudiation of the myth. Granted the story itself may belong on the bottom of the sea. I don't see any merit, however, in arguments suggesting discussion of the myth should meet the same fate. I do however agree the topic is better served in its new location though I have added of a line regarding the myth and linked said article. Ajwitney 15:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajwitney (talk contribs)

The term "Black Irish" is a social term invented in America. It is quite stereotypical, made to tag an Irish person who was darker hair and eyed than the average Irish person. Since the majority of Irish people have brown/blonde/red hair (97%) and blue/green eyes (80-85%) and have a fair skin complexion (90%). Less than 3% of the Irish have pure black hair, usually the darkest hair tones is very dark brown. However a "Black Irish" is not less Irish/Celtic than the average Irish person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.38.81 (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Irish are lightest-skinned Europeans. Over 77% have a skin type I and II, this is evidently twice the Northern European average, but they are not the blondest Europeans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.38.81 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Most prominent definition belongs up top

Per WP:DISAMBIG and MOS:DAB - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY; By what metric have you determined that "Black Irish (ethnic group)" is the primary one?

As the Archives here and on Talk:Irish people will show, it is highly contentious whether "Black Irish (ethnic group)" or "Black people in Ireland" is the primary topic for "Black Irish". Your placing it as the primary topic of the disambiguation page seems like a rehashing of that debate.

Having neither as the primary topic sidesteps having to rehash that debate yet again. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Because this issue has come up so many times in the past, per the discussion in Talk:Black people in Ireland#I propose redirecting "Black Irish" to this article, I've expanded Black Irish (ethnic group) from a redirect into a full fledged article. I am also planning to rename Black Irish (ethnic group) to Black Irish (genealogy), so that it matches up with Black Dutch (genealogy), which is essentially a twin concept.

Secondly, I should have elaborated when bringing up WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY and metrics, that if we look at Google Books Ngram [1], we see that the term "Black Irish" is in MUCH more usage now than in any previous point in history, and this perfectly aligns to the growing Black population on the Island of Ireland. This to me is on of the many metrics pointing to Black people in Ireland being the "primary" usage of "Black Irish". CeltBrowne (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, we could have those as co-primaries, in alphabetical order, with the others below as other uses. I don't think Black Irish (genealogy) is a good title, as it's not about genealogy, but physical appearance. Where is this move discussion taking place? (I'll go look). Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I have not begun any move proposal yet, as I anticipated I would need to discuss it here first. The other name I considered was Black Irish (folklore); would you be more or less in favour of that name?

I see that you've mentioned this discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Black Irish (ethnic group), which is fine and I welcome the views of other editors. Some editors active on Wikiproject Ireland who already familiar with this issue are @Bastun: and @BrownHairedGirl: who previously discussed it on Talk:Black people in Ireland#I propose redirecting "Black Irish" to this article.

Just in response to your concern about WP:Fringe; I would ask you that firstly consider the sources I have provided in the article, which all decisively refer to the Black Irish as an unsubstantiated myth, and secondly, if you have (academic) sources contradicting what I have added to Black Irish (ethnic group), I'm more than happy to read them.

I would be willing to engage with the idea of "co-primaries", but given that Ngram supports the modern usage of "Black Irish" over the "historical" usage, [2] I would prefer Black people in Ireland being the first. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY specifics notes Ngram as a means to determine what the "primary" article should be. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of the meaning you've focused on in the article. It's just not the only one. I think it may depend on age and region, as to which one we're more accustomed to. I don't think I'll have time today to look for sources on the "dark-complected (white) Irish / Irish descended person" usage. My knowledge of it is complete OR, having grown up among Irish Americans and Irish immigrants to America. But I'm assuming there are sources and it should also be included. I don't know about "ethnicity" being the best title, either. Or "folklore"... I'd like to hear what others think. And yes, if "Black people in Ireland" is now the primary meaning, we can swap 1 and 2. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Black Irish has never refered to Africans...

It refers to the tribe of Irish people with dark hair and blue eyes and very white freckled skin.

There are many Irish actors to refer to for this discription.

(Refer)-Cillian Murphy

-Gabriel Byrne

-Katie McGrath

-Pierce Brosnan

-Daniel Day Lewis

-Jennifer Connelly 120.17.35.46 (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @CeltBrowne. Having grown up occasionally hearing sallow people described as "Black Irish", I almost never hear it in that context anymore, and if said to me I would definitely first jump to dark-skinned Irish people over the older definition. Xx78900 (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

You talk about the term black Irish from an American standpoint...

Irish are not American,

Irish are Gaelic,

Black Irish are Gaelic,

Not African,

White is a colour,-not a race

Black is a colour,-not a race

I find it offensive and racist how you discribe races of people... 120.17.35.46 (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

black Irish -

This term of black Irish, has only ever refered to the Irish tribe of people with dark hair and mainly blue eyes and very white freckled skin. There are many black Irish actors to refer to for this point.

Black Irish has never and will never refer to Africans in Ireland. This is just American culture trying to rewrite historical facts. There are 0.001% of Africans in Ireland and they have only arrived to Ireland in the late 20th century. They are called African/Irish... Not black Irish.

You can't change history to suit American racism issues and then force it onto other races of people. 120.17.35.46 (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I second this statement. My father was born in Ireland with black hair and tan skin. He has always referred to himself, and others have as well, as Black Irish. For those of you who say this is a myth, please explain why my father and his family were discriminated against with this name. They were treated with less respect than their pale skinned, red-haired counterparts. 2600:1700:E21:5570:6D2B:A31:220C:BA37 (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

There are black Irish and red Irish, referring to hair color, but not related to Africa at all. This article needs correction. 2603:6080:6905:2DF4:BCE2:A7C0:CD8D:F73E (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Celtic Ibérian « Spanish » contribution in Irish and english DNA

Have you refered Back to articles like this one: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17124-4/figures/3 142.115.222.231 (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)