Talk:Ulster Scots people/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Samuel Neilson

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)

What, exactly, is the point of the flags?

What is the point of the flags? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvlm.123 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• It is mentioned in the article that thousands of Scots fled Scotland during a famine in the 1690's. Can someone please provide more information on this. It is the first time I have heard about this and it seams if it is true it has been somewhat airbrushed from my knowledge of the History of Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.163.17 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Re the famine, the Scottish borders were hit by a terrible famine in th 1690s, I'm not sure ofthe causes, buti t was certainly a big killer and caused the biggest single migration of Scots to Ulster, bigger in fact than the organised plantations. It was only after this influx that Presbyterians became the majority in Ulster. The interesting thing is that a lot of Scots saw Ulster as temporary staging post and many ofthem continued on to America in the early 18th century. I believe this phenomenon is now called "chain migration". I'll post some sources if you're interested.

Jdorney 10:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

american presidents part belongs on Scots-Irish Americans page

how do you cut and paste on wikipedia? Mayumashu 03:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

actually, i see its already there. will edit it out of this page then Mayumashu 03:03, 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)

External Links

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)

Culture

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).

Intermarriage

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)

• This should be discussed. The Plantations DID NOT immediately create a separate segregated Scots community in Ulster. The settlers and the natives lived alongside and in close proximity to eachother. This makes the colonisation of Ulster unique and goes someway to explaining why "the troubles" between the two communities lasted so long as the communities became segregated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.102.232 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• There was a lot of inter-breeding between Irish, Scots and English after the plantations which explains why people from the Catholic/nationalist/Irish tradition sometimes have settler surnames and people from the Prot./Unionist/British sometimes have Irish Gaelic surnames. The fact that there is no difference in accent or dialect between the two Ulster communities (but a difference between Ulster and the rest of Ireland) also shows that they have been living in close proximity and inter-mingling for many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.102.232 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I would say there is no longer any separate Ulster-Scots ethnic group, but there is certainly an Ulster-Scots dialect and culture which both communities in Ulster have a rightful claim to. Are Scousers and Geordies separate ethnic groups- I don't think so!(Stephen, May 2007) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.102.232 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

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)

Lack of History

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)

Sign your postings

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)

Flag

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)

You can't just make up flags like this. What makes you think these articles need to have a flag anyway? --John 21:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree flags get overused on Wikipedia but it may be more complicated to unflag those articles and numerous others to get the flags out. But Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags does specifically say:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/symbols/flags.htm those created by one political group or another in Northern Ireland]) must never be used more generally or broadly in Wikipedia.

What is the Flag of the Ulster Nation if not a specific creation, and one that's less than twenty years old, of one political group (the Ulster Independence Movement) and not a flag generally used for people of Ulster-Scots descent? And confusingly it's a flag for six county Ulster not nine county Ulster. Timrollpickering 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That flag has nothing to do with Ulster-Scots, it was a flag used by a small extremist group wanting an Independent Northern Ireland, I don't think the group is even still active. I am going to remove it from the article.--padraig 09:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through other articles listing Ulster-Scots/Scots-Irish Americans with tables and changed the flag to the Flag of Ulster as the best default. From what I can see the Ulster Nation flag now only appears on articles in the context of six county Ulster nationalism/independence. Timrollpickering 11:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Music

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-youth^pléigh 07:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This section as it stands seems to be both Original Research and wrong. I think it should be removed or rewritten including sources. Cooke (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"the semi-official flag for Northern Ireland"

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 Ulster flag based on St. Georges Cross WAS the official flag for Northern Ireland until the early 1970's. And it sounds like your implying the Ulster-Scots designed the Ulster flag based on the English flag to identify themselves as English. Just to state there is no proof on the matter. Rather would they not have designed on based on the saints flag of their homeland - Scotland?? Mabuska (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2008 (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)

• I think that this needs to be changed in favour of more explanation, or being dropped. Lowland Scots are of the same non-Celtic linguistic heritage as Northumbrians, another group listed as providing heritage to Ulster-Scots. Enzedbrit 20:50, 25 July 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)

I suppose your talking about the Flag of Ulster. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

no idea! I have no idea what a "semi-official flag" is... I am guessing there is an "official flag", many "unofficial flags" and the original author of Paragraph 1 knows of a "semi-official flag" as well :-) (MarkG) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.79.7 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 19 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)

• The (since 1972) unofficial flag of Northern Ireland is the Ulster Banner. It could be described as semi-official as it is still used to represent sports teams from the six-counties.(Stephen, May 2007) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.102.232 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-Catholic?

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.

True, there is proof of Scottish Roman Catholics and Priests being settled during the Plantation of Ulster. Ulster-Scots is not a Protestant only culture - just predominantly. Mabuska (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Protestant Ulster Scots

'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 agree, as though most Ulster-Scots would be Protestant or rather accepted as their heritage by Protestants, mostly due to the Plantation of Ulster and the migration of many Protestant Scots before and after the Plantation, there are many Roman Catholics who would share Ulster-Scot ancestry through intermarriage between denominations amongst other things, just as many Protestants have Gaelic ancestry. Mabuska (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Lambeg Section

I removed the following from the article:

One of the real icons of Protestant marching bands in Ireland is the Lambeg drum. While most of the other musical instruments are shared between the Ulster-Scots and the native Irish, the Lambeg offers the chance of distinguishing the Protestant marching bands.

The drum has a distinctive sound, with the 'tunes' played on it based on Irish hornpipes style.

Although its precise origins are unknown one popular myth is that it is named after the town of Lambeg in County Antrim.

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)

Infobox image

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)

For notable Ulster-Scots where do i start (all sourced from the Ulster-Scot newspaper)...

- Major General Robert Ross - led the British army in an invasion of the United States. He ordered the burning down of what is now the White House, in fact it was painted white to cover the scorch marks he caused

- Field Marhsall Sir George White

- Field Marshall Sir Gerald Templar

- Field Marhsall Sir John Greer Dill

- Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery - led the British army in North Africa during WWII, and accepted the final German surrender

- Viscount Alan Francis Brooke - Chief of the Imperial General Staff - he dictated the course of WWII

- Harry Ferguson - one of the world's greatest inventors. He innovated what you could call the modern tractor

- General Francis Rawdon-Hastings

- General Francis Rawdon Chesney (no relation to above guy i think)

- Rev Dr Henry Cooke - helped reconcille the Church of Ireland and Presbyterian faiths

Now i think these guys would be more deserving than Ian Paisley and James Craig both of which whose contributions to history where nothing but bigotry and misery and put the Ulster-Scots in a bad light. So notable Ulster-Scots with good backgrounds would help highlight Ulster-Scots in a far more positive light.

Mabuska (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Intermingling and Intermarriage in Ulster

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)

Nonsense

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)

History

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)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth?? That says it all on certain articles on wiki.

On the 1641 rebellion - its roots lie in the Papists inability to accept Protestantism. In fact the rebels of the 1641 rebellion upheld that their uprising was not against English rule, but in an attempt to maintain Roman Catholic hegemony in Ireland. A few years later in the English Civil War the Irish backed the Royalist side and Ireland became a Royalist base as many of the Irish allied with the Roman Catholic sympathetic Charles Stuart I rather than the Puritan's of Cromwell - for obvious reasons of course, like if i was a Papist i'd support a Papist friendly ruler over a mad fanatic Puritan.

Also the Plantation of Ulster was a FAILURE - it is pure myth that it was a success. If the Plantation was carried out as it was intended to be then yes there'd have been no Gaelic-Irish in the north at all, and quite possibly the Roman Catholic population of Northern Ireland might be as large as the Muslim population here, and Northern Ireland might include a few extra counties. The 'native' (the Gaelic are no more native than the English) where suppossed to be expelled from their land and 'loyal' Protestant tenants moved in. Problem was that many landlords couldn't get enough new tenants and decided to keep the 'native' people and make them tenants. There where other parts of the Plantation that weren't enacted to the letter of the law - all counties of that Plantation retained significant Roman Catholic populations for reasons such as this. The counties of Antrim and Down had very few Roman Catholics left as they where planted seperately and privately before the Plantation of Ulster. Those two where the success and are still the most Protestant counties in Ireland (also two of the most densely populated counties in Ireland).

And 4'000 deaths in the rebellion? Theres no real proof for that. The only historians who like to keep the amount of Protestants slaughtered by the Roman Catholics in the low are nationalist Roman Catholics. Claims that upto 30'000 people might have been slaughtered are only dismissed by those same nationalist historians. Any look at the religious 30 Years War in continental Europe during the same century would see that such a high number of civilian fatalities was nothing unusual as Protestants and Roman Catholics massacred each other in the name of pathetic religion.

The plantation of Protestant settlers into Ireland also spanned into the late 1600's and early 1700's, not just the early 1600's.

Mabuska (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

From the English border

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)

This is a question that I am very interested in. My own people apparently originated in Northumberland, but were resettled in Ulster in the 1600s, before making their way to America as part of the "Scotch-Irish" wave of immigration. One always hears of the Ulster "Scots", but what proportion of northern (or southern for that matter) English blood is in them? Are there specific areas of Ulster that are more "English" or "Scottish" in background? (What language are you a-speakin? Hit sounds strange to me. I ain't never heared no talk like that nowhere.) Eastcote (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's probably easier if you describe your ancestors as simply British. People from the isles have more in common than separate them. 80.219.51.173 (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it would be easier, but it won't get me where I want to go. My ancestors might have been "British", but they weren't from Cornwall or John O'Groats. They were from a specific place, Northumberland, and passed through another specific place, Ulster, on their way to another specific place, Tennessee. I'm interested in where they might have lived in Ulster: i.e., whether there were/are specific areas of Ulster identified with settlement from specific areas of Scotland and England. Eastcote (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Gaelic Presence

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)

Merge with Scots-Irish

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-youth^pléigh 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I myself would be more inclined to keep these seperate. They are, of course, clearly closely related folk, but the term does imply a certain distinction in the published realm. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think of the Scotch-Irish as the descendents of Ulster Scots people who have emigrated to the USA. Therefore I'd vote to keep them separate. Cooke (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The two are not an identical ethnic group. Both Ireland and North America were primary areas of resettlement for "inconvenient" people removed from the land by force. In America one has to consider immigrants of mixed Irish and Catholic Irish origin. Add mixed Scottish-Amerinds such as William Weatherford and the Afro-Celtic influence until the picture becomes even more complex. In middle America boundaries blurred and overlapped so that religious heritage became less relevant than ethnicity. By no means did all "Scotch-Irish" dwell in Ireland prior to arrival in America, nor were all the Irish who settled America of the Ulster Irish group. My 2 cents.Trilobitealive (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2008 (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)

Surely 'Ulster Scots' are people of Scots descent in Ulster, whereas Scots-Irish are people of Irish decent in Scotland. --Red King (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No. "Scots-Irish"/"Scotch-Irish" are descendants of Ulster Scots who settled in 18th century America. Same people, different continents, different terms. Over the last 3 centuries the Scotch-Irish and the Ulster Scots have developed separately with different historical and environmental influences, but they originate with the same people. Eastcote (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Troubles

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)

Yes - you will notice the article currntly has a section titled "1800 - Presnet" with a tag that says "This section requires expansion." The Troubles fall sqarely within the timeframe of this section, which the tag acknowledges is in need of expansion. Take a crack at it! Shoreranger (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Culture? Language?

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)

• This makes me angry at the ignorance and intollerance of the nationalist movement in Ireland who want to see everything visably British or Scottish removed and Ireland somehow become a homogenous nation of gaelic speaking celts. Ulster Scots as a language decends from Scots which was used as the official language of Scotland before the act of union with England so to say Scots is not a language is factually incorrect and to have such hatrid of a culture which may or may not be perceived as Protestant is akin to racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.163.17 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 26 April 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

• Quote from above- "a dialect or ignorance of the English language in it's pure form.". Are you some sort of language rascist or just an oul gaunch? I am perfectly happy with Ulster-Scots being classified as a dialect but it is NOT an artificial creation and it is spoken daily by both communities in Ulster. Do you not feel that our distinctive local words and expressions should be preserved, or should we all speak like the Queen? (Stephen, May 2007) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.102.232 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Ullans is the Ulster dialect of the Scots language, and both are recognised by the European Union as minority languages. Only ignorants state that Ulster-Scots or Scots is simply Scottish way of speaking English. It clearly isn't and is in no way have similar spelling. Scots and modern English sound similar because both have a common ancestor language - Anglo-Saxon. However whereas in England Anglo-Saxon and Norman French merged to form modern English, in Scotland, the Anglo-Saxons of Lothian and the Lowlands language merged with elements of native Scots and Scots Gaelic to form Scots itself. Largely its Irish nationalists/republicans that really object to anything to do with Ulster-Scots and deny it exists as they can't accept another culture other than Gaelic is embedded on the shores of Ireland. And Ulster-Scots has been around for longer than 30 years, just ignorance by Anglocentric education over the centuries tried to eradicate it just like they tried to do to Gaelic. Mabuska (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2008 (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).

Recent move to Ulster-Scottish people

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)

I agree. Where was the discussion and rationale? (Hroðulf, being unhyphenated in a URL does not signify.) -- Evertype·✆ 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. This smacks ofWikipedia:POV, and is not borne out by any reference material or citations. Shoreranger (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And another agreement. This should have been discussed prior to the change. A similar misguided change (though probably well-intentioned) has been made to the Scotch Irish American article. I don't have the Wiki-technical savvy to undue retitling/redirects, so how do we go about changing things back to the status quo ante, and then engage in discussion if required? Eastcote (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I moved it back to Ulster Scots people. (Eastcote, you simply click the link marked "Move" near the top right of the page). Yesterday, I notified the person who made the move of this discussion. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong

Resolved

 – Article long since had Armstrong removed along with other people of "Ulster Scots descent" who are not Ulster Scots.

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)

Ulster Scots, Ulster-Scots people

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)

This is fine with me. (Many users do not hyphenate the term. One example: Ian Adamson[1] ). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don t see in the text you ve linked where Adamson uses a compound adjective. He says near the start "There is where I, as an Ulster Scot, am happiest to be," but this here isn t a compound adjective (as in 'Ulster-Scot people', 'Ulster-Scot culture', etc.). 'Ulster Scot' is (simply) a case of the adjective 'Ulster' modifying the noun 'Scot'. Mayumashu (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the problem comes from Wikipedia's artificial constraint that "Ulster Scots" is a language/dialect, and so there can't also be an article called "Ulster Scots" that describes the people who speak the language. I don;t think anyone says "I am an Ulster Scottish Person", or "I am a hyphenated 'Ulster-Scot'". They say "I am an Ulster Scot". The same artificial constraint is placed on the "Scotch-Irish American" article, where it has to be titled that way to fit into some Wikipedia style guide. No one calls themselves a "Scotch-Irish American". They would say "I'm Scotch-Irish". Because of this, I'd vote to stick with "Ulster Scots People" and just live with the artificial "people" tacked onto the end. Eastcote (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Near the end, Adamson says "the Folk Poets of Ulster series to bring before the public some of the finest pieces of literature in the Ulster Scots language. I further initiated the development of an Ullans or Ulster Scots Academy". But as I say, I support Mayumashu's proposal to add a hyphen. It just makes things clearer to new readers (we don't mean Ulster people born in Scotland, for example.)

By the way, when someone says "I am an Ulster Scot" it is unambiguous (unless the speaker is not a person). When a web search says: "here are two articles about Ulster Scots " the reader deserves a little more help, and the word people is a natural way to save some surfers an extra page download.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that constraint for reserving 'Ulster Scots' for the language is part of a problem here. I d favour having Ulster-Scots language and Ulster-Scots people as the two page names and Ulster Scots as a disambiguation page Mayumashu (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, (though I think that Ulster Scots should redirect to one article or the other, to save the user round trips to the server.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• Oppose No evidence is presented that the hyphenated form is the one commonly used in English prose. Both versions are encountered, but evidence seems to suggest that the unhyphenated form is the more common. Examples include:-
  • The goal of the Institute is to explore the history, heritage and legacy of the Ulster Scots people from University of Ulster
  • During the wars the Ulster Scots had played a full part, assisting, amongst other things, in the famous siege of Londonderry from Ulster Ancestry
  • In July 2005, twelve musicians made the decision to expand and further develop the repertoire of Ulster Scots music being presented at a professional level. And so the Ulster Scots Experience was formed. Experienced musicians, they all have the common aim of proving to the sceptics that Ulster Scots music can be musically correct as well as entertaining and easy on the ear from The Ulster Scots Experience
  • The Ulster Scots inhabitants of Ballymena witnessed the changing regime at first hand, as royalist troopers charged through the streets and their Presbyterian ministers were forced to flee from The Covenanters in Ulster
  • Before the first sizable emigration of Ulster Scots to America began in 1717, Scots had been living for a century close at hand with the Irish, thousands of whom were subtenants on the same farms from The Scotch-Irish: A Social History by James G Leyburn, University of North Carolina Press, 1962
  • Emigration from County Derry began in 1718 when the so-called Ulster Scots emigrated to New England and later to Pennsylvania from Travel in Ireland
  • This oath was later called the Black Oath. Scots who did not sign were punished. Native Irishmen considered the Ulster Scots as intruders and usurpers and, because of this, in an uprising in 1641, approximately 5,000 Scots were slaughtered from Clan MacLachlan Society
  • These people were of Scots-Irish descent, often referred to as Ulster Scots from Town of Truro
  • The second Foyle Ulster Scots festival is a week-long event offering visitors a programme that includes living history tours and actors in period costume recreating scenes from Derry's past - like the siege - on the city walls from British Broadcasting Corporation
• Skinsmoke (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Language might be ever-changing to meet new conditions, but I think Wikipedia should be driven by language and not the other way round. Although there can be found instances where Ulster Scot is written with a hyphen, the term is generally unhyphenated. The purpose is to inform the reader. Artificially promoting the hyphenated form as the preferred form would be misinforming readers. Eastcote (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Rationale by the nominee is given above in the previous section (which s/he should have probably included here). The rationale is not based on overall common usage but on correct English grammar. As a noun, the term is indeed "Ulster Scots" but, as an compound adjective as in the case of this title, it should be "Ulster-Scots". See Hyphen: Compound modifiers for more info. — AjaxSmack 03:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I think the problem here lies in the vagueness of the section you have linked to. It states "the compound modifier is often hyphenated to prevent misunderstanding" (my emphasis), and goes on to state "However, if the compound is a familiar one, it is usually unhyphenated". In other words, neither form is grammatically correct, and both can be used, in which case we should follow common use. I do wonder also, in this particular case and in the general rules on hyphens, whether usage is in the process of diverging between the British Isles and North America. The following section discusses the use of hyphens in numbers, such as twenty-three, which appears to be becoming increasingly rare in British English, where twenty three seems to be gaining ground. Ultimately, of course, language changes according to usage, and grammatical rules (particularly the more obscure or less understood rules) change to match usage. People strongly resist some changes (the greengrocers' apostrophe for example), but I have never come across anyone strongly resisting the absence (or presence) of a hyphen. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support repeating my earlier explanation: A hyphen just makes things clearer to new readers (we don't mean Ulster people born in Scotland, for example.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support as per others (Anglo-Irish, Anglo-Saxons ....) Bjmullan (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Ulster Scots People is already an artificial form designed to fit into Wikipedia "norms" for titling articles. The usual term is simply "Ulster Scots". In the examples given above it is common usage to hyphenate the terms "Anglo-Saxon" and "Anglo-Irish", with a contracted form of the noun "Angle". It is not common usage to hyphenate the term "Ulster Scot", and "Ulster" is not a contracted form. To make a change contrary to common usage would be allowing the medium (Wikipedia) to dictate form, when Wikipedia is supposed to reflect definition and not determine it. It is not "helpful" to new readers, as it misinforms them by giving them an artificial label for the people under discussion. Their understanding of the term is clarified by the content of the article, and not by changing an accepted English language term itself to provide a better definition. I can see all manner of convoluted hyphenations as the end result. The American descendants of the Ulster Scots have an article already called "Scotch-Irish American". To extend this hyphenation to its logical end would see that article retitled "Scotch-Irish-American People", when no such term exists in either spoken or written English. I really don't think this is that big an issue. The article has been laboring along under its current title for many a year, and can do so happily for many more. Eastcote (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ulster Scots

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 Ulster-Scots language/dialect (call it what you will) is certainly not an artificial creation. It is used daily by both communities in Ulster. However since the 1980's increasing numbers of Unionists/Loyalists have attempted to promote the dialect perhaps to stress Ulster's separateness from the rest of Ireland. Prior to this in the 20th Century written Ulster-Scots had almost dissappeared or existed only in humourous guides to "Norn Iron"(Northern Ireland) dialect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.102.232 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• There is a rich Ulster-Scots literature dating back to the 18th and 19th Centuries that includes poetry and novels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.102.232 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  However, there is a significant break for most of the 20th Century. (doopa nov 2007) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doopa (talk • contribs) 16:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding culture the marching bands are a feature of Ulster life and both communities have (often rival) bands. Many Orange tunes played by the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist bands are derived from old Scots tunes, as well as Irish tunes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.102.232 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Lambeg drum is an instrument unique to Ulster. It is now played almost exclusively by the Protestant community and so would have a genuine claim to being an example of Ulster-Scots culture, and a very loud one at that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.102.232 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  The Protestant community isn't entirely Ulster-Scots so you can't say its an Ulster-Scots invention Mabuska (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• The tradition of drawing political/cultural murals on the gable walls of Belfast houses was also started by the Protestant community in the early 20th Century, nowadays however the Protestant murals are mostly concerned with para-militaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.102.232 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  How is that Ulster-Scots culture? Its more like pro-British sentiments that could easily be shared by none Ulster-Scots. And what proof that Protestants started it, especially so early on?? Mabuska (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Association Football is also a very important part of Ulster-Scots culture. Early forms of football were first introduced to Ireland in the Hamilton/Montgomery Scots settlement of Ulster in 1606. Most Ulster Protestants support the Scottish team Glasgow Rangers while Ulster Catholics support Glasgow Celtic.(Stephen, May 2007) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.102.232 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  Last i looked soccer was invented by the English and most people in Ireland only supported either Rangers or Celtic on religious grounds or because that was how they where brought up. Mabuska (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem you are exasberating for Ulster-Scots is trying to identify it with anything Protestant in Ulster. Ulster-Scots is not a culture defined by any and everything Protestant. It is a culture that contains Protestants and Catholics and not everything that has evolved in Protestant culture in Northern Ireland is related or due to Ulster-Scots. The Protestants of Ulster have just as much Gaelic and English blood as they do Scottish blood and Protestant culture can't and should not be just referred to as 'Ulster-Scots' culture as that delutes the meaning of both.

Its views like this that along with Irish republicans has created a polarised cultural divide in Ireland. A large section of the Protestant population is of Gaelic ancestry, just like a large section of the Roman Catholic population is not of Gaelic ancestry. Trying to pinpoint culture on a specific religion and political perspective destroys it.

I am from the Protestant community however i have no Presbyterian blood in my family going back many generations with names in my family being of either English or Irish in origin. Am i thus an Ulster-Scot because i play in a loyalist flute band and play football? I don't think so. Don't stereotype us. Mabuska (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2009 (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)

Scotch-Irish Redirect

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)

Intermarriage

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)

There is no difference between English, Irish and Scottish genes. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2009 (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)

Dalriada

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)

Population of Ulster Scots by region

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)

Any suggestions? RashersTierney (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest it be removed until reliable sources are added. Census info would be the best souce, but where could we find it? ~Asarlaí 22:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A Nation?

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)

It depends if there are any reliable sources that show that many Ulster Scots see themself as a nation, or if there are many academics who've advanced this view. If these reliable sources could be found, then I'd say keep it there. Maybe not in the lead if it's a controversial notion, but it should be mentioned in the article if this "national" sentiment is there. At the moment, I'd be inclined to describe them as an "ethnic group". saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 06:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't the Ulster Scots have any history?

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)

Recent edits by Odinsburgh14

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)

Pre-Plantation Highlanders

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)

Rewrite revisited

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)

Requested rewrite

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)

It is apparent you are not happy in some way but your point is far from clear, or how it applies directly to the text in the article. This questionable edit may form sort of a clue but it is still unclear. Please focus on what is written in the article rather than general forum posting or unfounded attribution of views, extreme or otherwise, to those who have edited it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Problems with the artcle were already detailed by the tags, but I will summarize. There are a number of gross inaccuracies. First of all, Scotch-Irish does not mean Ulster Scots. Second, the Ulster Scots are not an ethnic group. The word originally meant merely a group of dialects. The origin is somewhat uncertain. One would expect the article to give the extant definitions and theories but it assumes a priori that the Ulster Scots are an ethnic group, which arrived from Britain late in Irish and Scottish history. Third, it treats all mention of Scotch-Irish as Ulster Scotch-Irish. It gives a picture of Andrew Jackson as an example. The specific relation to the text is, no references are given for these views. The references that are given may apply to the usage of Scotch-Irish, but not as Ulstermen per se. This is how it relates to the text. Further, these are not obscure objections. Many have tried to point out the problems. No progress is made correcting the article; that is, all three articles. Why is that? Usually the persistence of manifest error on WP is due to editors that have a fixed viewpoint and the personal power to suppress change. But, the article's viewpoint about the population of North Ireland is well-known and long-standing, a fact which leads me to mention it. As for my unhappiness, I'm not unhappy. I'm happy with Wikipedia, which manages despite the opposition of persons with fixed a priori viewpoints and the intent to suppress the truth to produce a lot of good articles. My motivation is my desire to see the truth published here within the limits of Wikipedia activity. Now, for the text I see as unsubstantiated and manifestly not true, you ask me which text. The definitions and the synthesis are not true, although some fragments may be. Frankly I do not see your brief notation as auspicious. It suggests that the problem is not the article, but me. I think you see my critique as vague because the flaw is the whole article. That is why I have recommended it be rewritten. Well, sometimes suggestions that other people work on the article are just not effective. I may have to work on the detail myself, concept by concept, until the errors are out it; for example, it does not state or imply that the Scotch-Irish of the American south are mainly Ulstermen. Well I have answered you as best I can. I'm putting this series in the queue. Thank you for bringing to my attention that we need to address specific text. I may not always see your comments right away, but I'm around. I also have to finish the thing I am on.Botteville (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Trying to sift out salient points in your second lengthy post, "The word originally meant merely a group of dialects.": what word (words?) and says who? Regarding being a ethinc group, what you say implies you disagree with the opening paragraph of ethnic group. Half of this new post is continued discussion and speculation regarding motives of those involved in writing the article and what you think I may think about your motives. This is superfluous and unhelpful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you know, Lunker, you've had nothing but negative things to say about me here and I think that is not only unhelpful but is not what Wikipedia is for. Your function is not that of a bully. So, I am not going to participate in further discussion with you. The post is not lengthy, it is fine. Some things need to be discussed. "Group of dialects" is perfectly clear. As for ethnic group, no, I doubt that there is one. That would depend on what you mean by ethnic group. I think it needs clarification. We don't generally consider the British and Irish different ethnic groups, which is why we have "Celtic", even though Irish and Welsh are different languages. The North Irish have no problem understanding each other, but that is neither here nor there. I don't expect you will agree with anything I say, so let us just end it. I will not reply further to you. Paradoxically enough I now agree with your last reversion, but that has nothing to do with it. I may not always agree with further reversions. It depends on the situation. Be sure and read my next section here and the one under American Scotch-Irish. But, if you can't conduct a positive discussion you will not be allowed to discuss with me at all.Botteville (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No, you are missing my point entirely. I have not only said not a thing about you but specifically cautioned against such fixation on the attribution of speculated motives of other editors. I disagree with your edits but I have no opinion about you: "This (would be) superfluous and unhelpful". Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Other languages

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)

Your German comparison is irrelevant to this instance and in regards to names in other languages, if it is relevant to the region then it is permissible and perfectly acceptable. Check Old English (Ireland) and Anglo-Irish people for Irish Gaelic forms being provided. In this instance it is highly relevant to state the Irish Gaelic term for the Ulster-Scots if one exists, especially as many of them did speak Gaelic when they came over to Ireland (at a time when Irish and Scots Gaelic were still the same) and that the land they settled was populated largely by Gaelic speakers. Also whilst I thought it OR initially it isn't and have come across the term in Gaelic articles, though it was hard to sift from the scores of Wiki clones: [http%3A%2F%2Fguthgafa.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F10%2Fgg_programme_2010.pdf], [2], [3]. This one uses the reverse Uladh-Albanaigh which is simply the same thing, and Google translate translates both terms to "Ulster-Scots". The first link provided is the best as it gives an English translation of the Irish and makes reference to the official body for the Ulster-Scots, the Ulster-Scots Agency:

“ 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. ”

Mabuska ^(talk) 13:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Other examples of ethnic articles detailing relevant languages: Walloons, Catalans, Basques, and Ainu people. As already stated Irish Gaelic is highly relevant. It's not like we're adding the Russian or Japanese for Ulster-Scots.

Indeed here is the Ulster Scots Agency itself using the term "Ultach-Albanacha" [4], a variant spelling meaning the same. So it is clearly relevant but I will need to ask some of my colleagues at the Ireland Wikiproject, which is the proper spelling for the people or whether (like the term "Ultaise", which seems to appear quite a bit) actually refers to a component of the Ulster-Scots for example the language (which has its own article) or culture as opposed to a name for the actual people. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216090343/http://www.nitakeacloserlook.gov.uk/index/american-connections/scots-irish.htm to http://www.nitakeacloserlook.gov.uk/index/american-connections/scots-irish.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050905204224/http://www.psa.ac.uk/cps/1996/payt.pdf to http://www.psa.ac.uk/cps/1996/payt.pdf

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)