Talk:Black Irish (folklore)

• Irish people with "white" skin and dark hair (as contrasted with the red-headed stereotype of Celtic people), such as Richard Nixon and Joan Jett. The description was also sometimes used for people with a similar appearance, e.g., Elizabeth Taylor [1][2] (who was not Irish).
• Irish people with "black" skin (e.g., immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa and their descendants), such as Ifrah Ahmed, Kwaku Fortune, and Adam Idah.

The first group (e.g., black hair, blue eyes, pale skin) is the subject of this article. At some times and in some places, this first group's appearance has been (incorrectly) explained with a story about Spanish sailors being shipwrecked in Ireland. This story is not true, and is fairly described as a myth.

An editor would like to have this article begin with the words "The historic term Black Irish was a myth..." Other editors would like the article to begin with words like "The Black Irish were people of Irish ancestry, having dark hair..." or "Black Irish is a common description of the appearance of white Irish people with dark hair...", and introduce the origin myth after the group of people has been identified.

Question: Should the first sentence of this article describe the Black Irish as a myth, or as people?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• People. The term is not a myth, so it's silly to write "The historical term Black Irish is a myth...". The people are also not a myth, so it would be factually incorrect to write "The Black Irish people are a myth". The 'origin story' is a myth, but the primary subject of this article is IMO the people first. It is not appropriate to define an ethnic group itself as a myth just because their origin story is a myth. We should write first that the Black Irish are people with a particular appearance, and then say that there is a story told about that appearance. (I'm fine with calling that story a myth. I object only to calling the Black Irish a myth.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad RFC - OP has loaded the RFC/Question:
  • There are multiple sources in the article that explicitly use the term "myth" in the article. There are no sources in the article that suggest the folkloric Black Irish ever existed outside of folklore, nor has OP listed any here on the talkpage. One source already in the article explicitly states there is no existence of any historical evidence that points to the folkloric Black Irish "being real". An RFC should not be used to blunt force unsourced material/opinions into an article over sourced/cited statements which contradict them.
  • The RFC states that "An editor" (singular) wants X, but "other editors" (multiple) want Y. OP has subtly suggested to voters that their position is the more popular one.
  • OP gives only one option for what the opposing editor wants, but multiple options for what OP wants
  • OP has added (unreliable as it happens) sources to support their option while leaving the opposing option unsourced.
• OP has stated The people are also not a myth, headlined the subsection with the term "the real people" and has based their vote around that, but they do not have any sources supporting that statement. In my view, an RFC should not have been started before OP gathered sources supporting that claim, as voting "people" would endorse that unsourced claim. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really think that Richard Nixon didn't exist? Or that the source cited in this article, which says "You have only to look at the man, moreover, to see that he falls into the special category of the "Black Irish"—the Irish whose Iberian bloodlines show through in black hair and dark coloring. The fact that he is Irish—and Black Irish to boot—tells a lot about Nixon", didn't say he's Black Irish (and repeat the myth about Iberian ancestry to boot)? Is it just a myth that Joan Jett was described with this label in an Irish newspaper? "Did you know that Joan is Irish?" he asks. I didn't, but then remember St Vincent educating me on the American concept of "black Irish" (pale skin, dark hair) and figure this applies to Joan. I think that we need to say that the Black Irish are a real group of people, and that this group has sometimes been associated with the mythical Iberian origin story (and with other things at other times, e.g., with sub-Saharan African ancestry). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't put words in people's mouths, please. The article can absolutely say that people like Richard Nixon and Joan Jett have been described as "black Irish". We don't need an RfC for that. You're going to need much better sourcing if you're actually claiming that "black Irish" are "a group of people" like an ethnicity, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      The quoted source doesn't say that Nixon "has been described as" Black Irish. It says that he is Black Irish (now was, I suppose, since he died after the book's publication).

      I don't think I'd describe them as an ethnicity; I think I'd describe them as people who are ethnically Irish and also have a particular appearance – more similar to blonde people (e.g., of the blonde joke) or saying that an Englishman was John Bull. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      The quoted source literally says the Irish whose Iberian bloodlines show through. What Iberian bloodline?! The mythical one that's passed down in folklore. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, the story of Iberian ancestry is a myth. The statement that Nixon is Black Irish is independent of that. The ancestry story doesn't have to be correct for Nixon to be Black Irish. An Irishman with black hair doesn't stop being Black Irish just because a DNA test says the made-up story about Spanish ancestry is just a story. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your use of the Nixon citation is actual a rather alarming case of

    WP:Weight

    over an academic journal sources by author specialising in anthropology, such as the C.S. Everett source which states firmly there is no basis to believe a "Black Irish" "phenotype" exists outside of folklore.

    Secondly, a journalist with no background in anthropology calling Nixon "Black Irish" does not mean "Black Irish" are therefore "real", anymore than, say, a journalist with no background in anthropology calling Donald Trump an "Aryan" means that the "Aryan race" is "real".

    Thirdly, and ironically, the Alsop source once again demonstrates that there is only one primary myth: that the supposed Black Irish are dark because they're descended from the Spanish. Not two myth - that there are Irish people known as the Black Irish and a "separate" myth that they're descended from the Spanish. Bastun has also made this exact point, so currently the consensus is against you. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So, we need an anthropologist to decide whether a stereotype is real? Or an appearance?

    I agree that there aren't two myths. There is one reality (people of Irish descent and black hair get called "Black Irish", just like people of Irish descent and red hair get called "Red Irish") and one myth (that the black hair is genetically linked to Spanish ancestry). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The author Niamh O'Brien, born to a white Irish family that immigrated to Jamaica, writes of herself:  "I was often called both a black Irish (my Celtic coloring of black hair and blue eyes and fair skin) and a white Jamaican (for obvious reasons)." [3]

    Do we need an anthropologist to agree that she was called black Irish due to her hair, eye, and skin coloring? Would C.S. Everett agree that this phenotype doesn't exist outside of folklore? (What would it even mean for the phenotype not to exist outside of folklore? That this real woman doesn't have that phenotype in the first place, or that her real phenotype really wasn't given a name, so she's just lying about it?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So, we need an anthropologist to decide whether a stereotype is real? Or an appearance?

    Yes

    Please familiarise yourself with

    WP:RSPRIMARY

    .

    Respectfully, this is not a topic you know how to correctly source. You should be citing reliable, secondary sources discussing the term on a macro level instead of endless citing primarily sources of people saying "I was told I was Black Irish". These sources do not mean "The Black Irish are real" anymore than German people being told they were "Aryans" in the 1930s meant that the Aryan race was "real", something that the Aryan race article is at pains to make clear. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think maybe you just need to step away from the

    WP:DEADHORSE. Unless you want to start talking about X-Men characters again? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    We don't have any sources (reliable or otherwise; by the way, there is nothing in WP:RS that says that anthropologists have a monopoly on deciding what groups people subdivide themselves and others into) that state that Black Irish aren't real. We only have sources that state that the alleged source of the dark hair is wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad RFC - per CeltBrowne, this is a bad RFC. Classic case of poisoning the well. Bottom line, WhatamIdoing - this article is about the myth/folkloric tradition that some Irish people have darker complexions and hair because they're descended from survivors of the Spanish Armada, presumably including some of Moorish ethcnicity, too. If you want an article about the "black Irish", meaning (mainly Irish-American) dark-complexioned white people like Richard Nixon, go create that article. This one isn't it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This article came out of the long discussion at Talk:Black people in Ireland#I propose redirecting "Black Irish" to this article, between not only the three of us, but also, The Banner, Spideog, Dantai Amakiir, and Rklawton, when CeltBrowne originally proposed that Black Irish be redirected to that subject, and when we found sources, e.g., the Oxford English Dictionary, that define "Black Irish" with words like “Irish of Mediterranean appearance" or say things like "One popular speculation suggests the Black Irish are descendants of survivors of the Spanish Armada, despite research discrediting such claims" [4] but never found any that actually said "Black Irish is a myth". Echo and Narcissus is a myth; Black Irish are non-mythical people about whom a myth is told.

  If you want this article to be entirely about the origin myth (material that would have to be repeated in the article about the people, because it's intrinsically connected to them...), then perhaps you'd like to propose a

  WP:MOVE to an unambiguous name, like Myth of Spanish ancestry among Irish people. That would save you the current embarrassment of writing that "The historical term...is a myth" when the term isn't a myth at all, as well as being perfectly clear to everyone how limited the subject is. If you wanted to use the words Black Irish in the opening sentence, then you could try something like "The myth of Spanish ancestry among Irish people has been given to explain the appearance of Irish people with pale skin and dark hair, who have sometimes been called 'Black Irish'". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'd like to acknowledge that this could be emotionally complicated for some editors. If you are an actually Black Irish person (i.e., of African or or Aboriginal ancestry) and dealing with everyday racism and thoughtless anti-Black behavior in Ireland, then I can imagine that having a group of white Irish people claim your group's own name must feel absurd at best. I hope that it will be possible to get this settled. We haven't managed that yet, but I think it is possible to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  People: This page is the target of the redirect for

  Black Irish (ethnic group), and as far as I can tell that was its original name. The edit summary describes it as "Per Talk:Black Irish and [[Talk:Talk:Black people in Ireland#I propose redirecting "Black Irish" to this article]],"[5] but I only see one mention of the current title and no discussion.[6]

  From previous discussions, my understanding is that this page was created to replace a section on the Irish people page that described white people of Irish ancestry with dark hair[7] after a proposal to redirect 'Black Irish' to Black people in Ireland instead favored a disambiguation page.[8] That section was created by merging the previous content of Black Irish, which described white-skin-dark-hair Irish.

  As such, it seems it was meant to have information on both the people and the myths that purport to explain them. It should begin by describing the people that the folk history seeks to explain.

  Alternatively, it may be better to develop

  Black Irish (ethnic group) into a page for discussing the people rather than a redirect to this page, and leave this page to discussing the myth. Both @WhatamIdoing @Bastun

  appears to support his approach.

  Carleas (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not. There is no "Black Irish (ethnic group)" to write an article about, if you mean "white people of Irish ancestry with dark hair." If you want a stub article, then Black Irish (term) might work, where a line or two might outline that some Americans use the term "Black Irish" to describe a ridiculously large chunk of people of Irish ancestry with dark hair, such as Richard Nixon and Black Tom Cassidy out of the X-Men comic. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I'll strike it out in my reply. I assumed you would support that alternative based on your suggestion that, "If you want an article about the "black Irish", meaning (mainly Irish-American) dark-complexioned white people like Richard Nixon, go create that article."

  Carleas (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It sounds like he might support a third article but not under the exact title "ethnic group". (This book describes it as a "phenotype".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That book looks

  WP:Circular, the text is identical to Black Irish (old) from 2013 and the book was published in 2018. Carleas (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Hello Carleas

  I am the creator of this article (Black Irish (folklore)) and I can speak to what the intent of the article was when it was created. Part of the whole purpose of creating the article was A) So that

  Irish People

  , and B) To address what was actually meant by the term the folkloric term "Black Irish", using reliable secondary sources.

  As such, it seems it was meant to have information on both the people and the myths that purport to explain them.

  It was never the intent of the page to endorse the idea of folkloric Black Irish existing in reality. As has been exhaustively discussed on this talkpage, It is the firm position of myself and Bastun (but more importantly, reliable secondary sources) that there is no separation between "the people" and the myth. We believe there is no more separation between them than "Atlanteans" and the myth of Atlantis.

  Per what Bastun has just said, there no reliable secondary sources which support the creation of separate article and thus I am against that idea. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So when Niamh O'Brien self-reports just ten years ago that she has personally been called "Black Irish" all her life, do you think that's inseparable from the myth, and that this experience and her appearance is just as mythical as if people called her an Altantean?

  My goal is that when people run across an unexplained use of the words "Black Irish" (as I did a couple of years ago), that they can come to Wikipedia and find out what the words mean. Telling them that "The historical term is a myth" does not achieve that goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that if Niamh O'Brien was German with blonde hair, and had been been called "Aryan" growing up, that doesn't mean "Aryans" are "real".

  Do you disagree? Would Aryans be real if German woman "Nadja Obermann" heard growing up she was obviously Aryan given her blonde hair? Could I rewrite Aryan race to state Aryans are a real, lived experience and fill with it primary sources of people being told they're Aryans as proof?

  I'm being rhetorical, the answer is obviously and definitely no, just as it's obviously no when it comes to the folkloric Black Irish.

  that they can come to Wikipedia and find out what the words mean

  That is also my goal, and I have achieved that goal by telling them the truth, as best I can gleam from reliable, secondary sources, instead of retelling them fairy tales in order to protect their childhood memories.

  Now WhatamIdoing, I think we've both exhaustively covered this topic and clearly established our positions on the matter, so I think it would be to both our benefits if took a break from replying to each other and just let this RFC play out for a while. I was replying to Carleas simply to clarify something, not start yet another debate with you. At this point we've discussed this topic to death and Bastun is right to suggest it's becoming a deadhorse. I think we both need a pause from the merry-go-round, at least I know I do. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the word Aryan had regularly been used as a description of someone's appearance (and not, e.g., as a way of placing the individual in a supposed racial hierarchy), then I don't think it would be unreasonable for the article to provide a description of that appearance, without saying that the whole thing is a myth. I notice that particular article contains the word blond five times and the word myth zero times. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You may have created this page in its current form, but the discussion leading up to it on other pages, and the role it now plays on the subject, do not appear to establish your position as the consensus. And the page and sections of pages that this page replaces described a group of people.

  But following your comparison to Aryan race, would you be in favor of renaming this article "Black Irish (race)" and beginning with something like, "Black Irish refers to an obsolete historical race concept used to describe people of Irish ancestry with fair skin and dark features"? That mirrors the way the Aryan race is handled, it seems to capture your position, and I think would also satisfy @WhatamIdoing's concern. Thoughts?

  Carleas (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that will work. There was a historical racial concept that used this term, but it's not obsolete. It was about biracial people (most commonly, people in the New World who had one white ethnically Irish parent [free or indentured] and one Black African parent [usually enslaved]).

  The other isn't racial at all. When TV Tropes writes (today, so again, it's not obsolete) that "there are two main stereotypical depictions of Irish people, the 'black' Irish, like Colin Farrell, and the 'red' Irish, like Colm Meaney", they're not saying anything about their racial background. It's just about their appearance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This might be a confusing comparison, but it seems a bit like

  social construction

  , but that's different from not being real. Does that sound right?

  @Bastun @CeltBrowne: is a social construction framing in line with your reading of reliable sources?

  Carleas (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The modern version (dividing and stereotyping white Irish people into "Black" and "Red" based on the color of their hair, etc.) is an appearance-based grouping, but I'm not sure that there are folk assumptions about origins, and they do have a common origin and genetic basis (i.e., they're all descended from the traditional inhabitants of Ireland). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I could live with

  The historic term Black Irish refers to an obsolete historical race concept used primarily used in the 19th and 20th centuries by Irish-Americans to describe "an Irish person, or one of Irish ancestry, having dark hair and a dark complexion or eyes" who were supposedly the descendants of Spanish sailors shipwrecked during the Spanish Armada of 1588, however, genetic, historical, and anthropological research does not support this.

  or

  The historic term Black Irish refers to an obsolete social construction used primarily used in the 19th and 20th centuries by Irish-Americans to describe "an Irish person, or one of Irish ancestry, having dark hair and a dark complexion or eyes" who were supposedly the descendants of Spanish sailors shipwrecked during the Spanish Armada of 1588, however, genetic, historical, and anthropological research does not support this. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This looks promising. A few questions:

  1. Is the Spanish sailors explanation the most common explanation? I don't have a sense of how common that explanation is relative to others. The old page mentions a few other explanations: a different mythic explanation, the
     Fir bolg; a theory of Mesolithic and Neolithic settlement after the last ice age described by "Blood of the Isles by Bryan Sykes and The Origins of the British - A Genetic Detective Story by Stephen Oppenheimer" (possibly @WhatamIdoing's "traditional inhabitants of Ireland"); and a more general "Iberian connection" through a longer history of trade along the Atlantic coast of Europe (the old page cites [9]
     in support of a (Basque, rather than Spanish) genetic connection). The Spanish Armada story has its own subsection, but it is not given more space in the article than other explanations.
  2. This seems to suggest that there was no concept of the people until the Spanish Armada hypothesis was put forward, but the Spanish Armada was shipwrecked in the 1500s, and suggestions of an Iberian connection date to the 11th century at latest (in The Book of Invasions).
  3. This still leaves us with the issue with the page title: Either this article is about a phenotypically related and/or socially constructed subset of the white Irish (or Irish-American) population, or it's about one or more discredited stories of how that population came to be.

  • In the former case "(folklore)" seems like the wrong qualifier. @
    WP:CRITERIA
    .
  • In the latter case, I'd argue there should be a separate page, as I am not convinced in this case that the explanation is
    notable
    but the thing it explains isn't.

  I still favor the former, it seems better in line with

  WP:NOPAGE

  : the phenomenon is the necessary context for the explanation, so the folklore should live on the people/group/phenotype page rather than have separate pages.

  Carleas (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Or - and hear me out - we just leave things as they are (though I could happily see either of Celtbrowne's suggestions above incorporaeted here)? WhatamIdoing seems to be the only one with a real problem with the current article, and is now talking again about using fictional examples (if we're going to do that (no! we shouldn't!) then obviously we'll need to reference Red from the film adaptation of The Shawshank Redemption!) As for dividing Irish people into "Black" and "Red" - I'm not even going to dignify that with a response, apart from an entirely rhetorical "what about those of us who have blonde, brown or fair hair"? Which would be a sizeable chunk of the population. I feel a good dose of

  trouting may well be in order... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Carleas, https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/black-irish-truths-myths lists nine different stories that have been told to explain why some (white) Irish people have black hair. Some of them involve actual myths (e.g., Milesians) and most involve real humans (e.g., Romans), but probably none of them are true. They probably have black hair because black and brown are normal hair colors for humans.

  Bastun, stereotypes like this exist both in the real world and in literature. The reason they're called stereotypes is because they do not fully describe reality. If a Wikipedia reader runs across this description of either a real person or a fictional one, I believe that they should be able to find out what that description means at Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article as it currently stands is both poorly written (see the nonsensical first sentence) and reflective of a very specific POV that, for reasons best known to himself, CeltBrowne seems to be determined to push. So no, WhatamIdoing is not the only person who has a problem with it. Zacwill (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The first sentence is perfectly literate and understandable. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bastun, the (original – it has since been improved) first sentence literally said that the term was a myth. It didn't say that the story that Irish people are descended from Spaniards is a myth; that sentence said that the actual words are the myth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bastun, I think I understand where you're coming from and I think the page should treat the concept being described with skepticism. As with any racial/ethnic classification, its use is fraught and it would be wrong to suggest that the division being described is more 'real' than it is.

  But the concept exists, the phrase is still in regular use to refer to it (in the US, if not in Ireland), and someone trying to find out about it would be mislead by this page. I agree with your reluctance to legitimatize a black/red division, but the best way to undermine it is not to mis-describe it in this article, but to describe it accurately, both what it means and what's wrong with it. If we don't describe it accurately and in sufficient detail for people who want to know what the phrase refers to, we can't explain why it's considered outdated and unsupported.

  Carleas (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you literally just trolling at this point? Per

  WP:RSPTVTROPES, TVTropes is banned on Wikipedia for being a completely unreliable source of information for anything. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I don't think

  WP:AGF. Zacwill (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, it's just an example of how the term is getting used today. The term also appears in fiction, as a quick trip to Google Books will prove. People who read a website or a novel that uses this term should IMO be able to find out what it means at Wikipedia – namely, not obsolete, not just historical, not really a racial concept (except to the extent that they're descendants of white Irish people), and not necessarily having anything to do with Spanish people, shipwrecked or otherwise: just ordinary Irish people who don't fit the stereotypical appearance assigned to cartoon leprechauns because they have dark hair. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please familiarise yourself with

  WP:OWN. You being the creator of this article means nothing, and in no way entitles you to enforce your original intent for this article. The consensus is that your original intent was mistaken. You have no right to keep reverting this article against consensus and your opinions as the article creator bear absolutely no special weight. It is also very obvious that your original intent for creating this article does not reflect the consensus which led to its creation. It looks very much like you lost the debate, then ignored consensus and did your own thing anyway. This is unacceptable behaviour. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• 

  Q: what's black and Irish? A Guinness. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  

  Coincidently, this is literally a variation of an old Phil Lynott joke:

  Interviewer: What's it like being Black Irish

  Lynott: It's a bit like being a pint of Guinness [10] CeltBrowne (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Guinness was Anglo-Irish at best. Now it's just another multinational. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• People. The term is not a myth, and the people are not a myth either, regardless of the veracity of the popular ancestral origin story. I'm puzzled by the use of past tense in some of the options – there are still Americans who identify as Black Irish. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think some of the confusion there is that the same words are currently used by Black people in Ireland to describe themselves.

  Almost nobody in the US would use Black Irish to describe a Black person; almost nobody in Ireland would use Black Irish to describe a white person.

  If your experience is limited to Ireland, where it isn't used for white people, then it might be very easy to assume that it hasn't ever been used to describe white people, or at least that if it did during the mid-20th century, it doesn't refer to white people any longer. Because, after all, in your own experience of life in Ireland, those two words are never used to describe white Irish people, and surely Ireland gets to decide who is Irish, so it's easy to assume that they aren't used outside of Ireland, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I can see how this terminology would be confusing to people in Ireland, and really to anyone unfamiliar with it. I think it's confusing to some Americans too. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking back over all of this discussion, I think what stands out to me is that it doesn't follow
  MOS:LEADSENTENCE. The article rushes into declaring the subject to be a myth, without saying what the subject is. It reminds me of the editors who would prefer that Homeopathy began with "Pseudoscientific homeopathy is an ineffective pseudoscience that doesn't work". There's nothing wrong with calling it pseudoscientific, but you have to let the reader get right to the part about it being altmed (because there are lots of kinds of pseudoscience). In this case, we open with a 62-word-long sentence whose main focus is to disagree with one of the incorrect explanations. It neither simply tells the reader what the word means nor adequately summarizes the article. I think it would be better to start the article with a simple, direct sentence like "Black Irish are people of Irish descent with dark hair" and in the immediately following sentences say that various stories have been given to explain this appearance, including partial African ancestry a la Black Dutch and a myth about Spanish sailors and multiple myths about various invasions (e.g., the Milesians (Irish), which are even more mythical than Spanish sailors). And having done that, the body of the article needs to mention all of those in more detail than in the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Black Irish are Irish people of African descent. You seem to be the only person with a bee in your bonnet about this article. If it's not broke - and you're the only person who seems to be saying it is - then don't fix it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Cancer is a disease. Cancer is a constellation. Cancer is an astrological sign. Cancer is a mythological crab. Cancer is not just one thing.

  Black Irish are

  Black Irish is a type of tree. Black Irish is not just one thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You're nearly there! Black Irish is not just one thing.

  Black Irish Elm is an article about a species of tree. Aaaand... Black Irish (folklore) is an article about the myth that Irish people with dark hair and a dark complexion are the descendants of Spanish sailors shipwrecked during the Spanish Armada. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  If the subject of this article is Myth of Spanish ancestry among Irish people, why is the title "Black Irish"?

  When I read the sources, the claim is not "There was a myth called 'Black Irish'; in this mythical story, Spanish sailors got shipwrecked..." Instead, the sources say "There are people called 'Black Irish', and they have black hair. Some people say they got their black hair from shipwrecked Spanish sailors, and some say they got their black hair from Roman invaders, and some say..."

  First you tell me that Black Irish are Black people in Ireland. Now you tell me that Black Irish is a story about ancestry. Are you ever going to reach the point at which Black Irish is what the (cited) Oxford English Dictionary definition says it is? P.S. The definition doesn't include any mention of Spaniards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the subject of this article is Myth of Spanish ancestry among Irish people, why is the title "Black Irish"?. It isn't? It's "Black Irish (folklore)". I refer you to my comments from 1st and 2nd February, above. They still stand. You seem determined to keep arguing this, but it's clear at this stage you're not going to get consensus. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The lead sentence should normally use the article title to describe the thing, e.g., "The Black Irish are _____". How would you complete that sentence? Even you don't believe that the Black Irish are a myth. Your comments indicate that you believe the Black Irish actually are people – about whom the most important thing (in your opinion, as far as I can tell) is one (of about nine) myths told to justify their appearance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (As for consensus, I'm not sure we've reached that point yet, but I see eight editors in this discussion so far, and only two have expressed support for saying that the Black Irish are a myth.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be grateful if you could kindly stop putting words in my mouth. To be absolutely clear, there are Black Irish people, such as Phil Lynott, Denise Chaila, Simon Zebo and Ruth Negga; and there is a myth that Irish people with black hair are descended from Spanish sailors (rather than being, y'know, just western-European people that happen to have black hair, which isn't exactly uncommon). This article is about the latter. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But: Is this article – in your view of the article – about the latter people, or about the latter story? If it's about the latter people, then we need to re-write the first sentence. If it's about the latter story, we need remove a sizeable fraction of the article's content, including the entire ==Modern use of the term== section and everything in the lead after the first sentence, because that content has nothing to do with Spanish sailors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, we absolutely wouldn't need to do that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Content about enslaved African women getting impregnanted by Irish men in the Americas has nothing to do with Spanish sailors getting shipwrecked on the coast of Ireland, though. Why should it be included in an article about Spanish sailors getting shipwrecked? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, what the actual fuck?! I've already had to ask you twice to stop putting words in my mouth, now you're just making stuff up about what's in the actual article, too. That's it, I'm done. Can you please also

  WP:DROPTHESTICK and go edit somewhere else? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • I'm not putting words in your mouth. I didn't say anything at all about what you said in that comment.
  • What exactly do you think the existing sentence "in the actual article" that says "the term was adopted in some cases by Irish-Americans seeking to conceal interracial unions with
    African-Americans
    ", means, if it doesn't mean "enslaved African women were impregnanted by Irish men in the Americas"? I've copied and pasted that from the second full sentence of the lead. I'm sorry if you hadn't noticed "what's in the actual article", but it's right there in the lead. So I ask: Do you think that has anything to do with Spanish sailors? Do you think that's relevant for an article that's supposedly about Spanish sailors getting shipwrecked? I don't. Consequently, I say that if the article is actually about Spanish sailors getting shipwrecked, this content is off topic and should be removed. Alternatively, it's possible that this article isn't about Spanish sailors, in which case: what is it about? I say it's about the people who get called this term, instead of the mythical shipwrecked sailors (though in such a case, both the mythical Spanish ancestry and the African story – and several others – would all deserve a mention in the body of the article). What I don't think is logical is to insist on the one hand that it's *all* about the Spanish sailors, and then have the second sentence be about enslaved African women being impregnanted by Irish men in the Americas.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, partial apology - I thought you were still talking about the "Modern use of the term" section. Only a partial apology, though, because the second sentence also does not talk about "enslaved African women being impregnated by Irish men in the Americas." There is a world of difference between that, and what's actually written there. No mention of slaves or slavery, and nor does it talk solely about African women being impregnated by Irish men. So yes, you're making stuff up. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also think that the modern use section should be removed, but that's separate from the considerations about African people in the Americas. On the specific point of interracial unions in the Americas, I don't think that the modern use of the term for describing people of African ancestry who are living in Ireland during the 21st century has anything to do with stories about 16th-century shipwrecked Spanish sailors. Do you? (Note that asking a question, even when the answer seems tolerably obvious, is the exact opposite of "putting words in your mouth".) If this article is supposed to be all about how shipwrecked Spanish sailors didn't actually change the genetics of white Irish people, then what connection is there between Black people in Ireland such as Phil Lynott and this myth about Spanish sailors? If the answer is "none", then the content doesn't belong in this article – assuming, of course, that this article is actually about the mythical Spanish sailors, and not about people like Richard Nixon.
  • My sentence is a less euphemistic description of what was called
    Nat Turner's slave rebellion (=193 years ago), as a key moment for the use of Black Irish to describe children of interracial unions who were light-skinned enough to pass
    for white. As every American teenager knows from history class, nearly all interracial unions before the US Civil War involved a white man and an enslaved Black woman. (Also, as a practical matter, this was usually the second or third generation of such interracial children.)

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (de-lurk) - Have to say, as an Irish-born immigrant to the US, I'm totally weirded out by this debacle. "Black Irish" are Irish people who are also Black, and this is what it means in Ireland. I've never actually heard the term "Black Irish" being used in the US to refer to the Nixon type of people, with white complexion and black hair. I'm aware it exists, but is it in common parlance? Because the former - as used in Ireland - certainly is - Alison ^talk 16:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it used to be more common than it is now. The specific question here, though, is whether the term "Black Irish"

  MOS:REFERS "to the Nixon type of people, with white complexion and black hair" or "to the myth that Spanish sailors were shipwrecked". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It would be more accurate to say that WhatamIdoing is the only person with enough energy to push back on the stupidity on display in this article (which remains as poorly written as ever). I've given it up as a lost cause. Zacwill (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Bastun keeps implying that there is only one person who disagrees with him. In reality, everyone coming to this article is baffled by the nonsense on display by two editors, and the comments here reflect that. Consensus is that this nonsense should stop. I am very busy, but I'm going to be keeping an eye on this. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are new to Wikipedia, so I'll

  no personal attacks policy for now. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  (Dantai's first edit was in 2006, almost a year after your first edit. They've made many fewer edits than either of us, but "new" doesn't seem to capture it.)

  Bastun, there are now 9 people in this discussion. It's my impression that, of those nine, only you and CeltBrowne support the idea that this article's main subject is the myth of Spanish ancestry. Do you see any more editors who agree with you and CeltBrowne? I'd be happy if you can point out to me supporters of your view that I've accidentally overlooked.

  If you can't, however, then I suggest that you might want to give this up as a lost cause, because it is unlikely that two editors out of nine will be accepted as evidence of consensus for your viewpoint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My previous lede was NPoV and balanced the two perspectives on this well, and I will restore it when I find the time, or feel free to do it yourself. CeltBrowne has, against consensus, against NPoV and in quite poor faith, deleted this lede and restored their previous version, having waited long enough that I might not notice. There is absolutely no effort on CeltBrowne's part to work collaboratively, and the current lede is almost identical to their original lede, which as has previously been discussed, corresponds neither to consensus nor even to the cited sources, which it significantly misrepresents. It constitutes pure original research and is a fringe, personal ideology without academic backing or any attempt at neutrality. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion:First person

@CeltBrowne, the opening of that passage says "You have only to look at the man, moreover, to see that he falls into the special category of the "Black Irish"..."

Among grammatical person, the first person is characterized by the words "I" and "we", which do not appear in this paragraph. Ergo, it is not written in the first person.

But let's look at some other sources, because that's a better way to decide whether something is really just this one author's personal opinion. Here are a few:

• "People who go into hysterics over Richard Nixon ought to have their heads examined.  I can understand why many people might not be attracted to this Black Irish type..." — Parker, Charles K. "Richard Nixon is a Greater Man Than His Critics" (15 November 1962) The Berkshire Eagle.
• "What has happened to and for this loner, this man of Black Irish face and temperament, who came to New York in 1963..." — Thimmesch, Nick (16 July 1967) The Los Angeles Times.
• Richard Milhous Nixon, he of the blue jowls, Quaker faith, Black Irish temperament and near-Presidency, has been with us a generation." — Thimmesch, Nick (27 May 1968) "Noticeable Changes are Detected in Mannerisms of Richard Nixon" The Tribune.
• "Richard Nixon, his big Black Irish face bowed, posed pensively behind his Secret Service shield." Baxter, Mike. (16 October 1968) The Miami Herald.
• Richard Nixon's foreign policy has often been a struggle between his Quaker peace hopes and his black Irish belligerence. — Phillips, Kevin P. (16 May 1972) "Nixon Reacts to Rough Pushing" The Columbia Record.
• "It is difficult to imagine American politics without Richard Milhous Nixon.  Whatever his flaws, whatever his virtues, Nixon has been a politician constant longer than most people can remember... If you're 30 years old, you've been reading about this strange and unusual man, with his blue jowls, ski-slope nose, and Black Irish temper, since you first picked up a newspaper at the age of 8." — Neal, Steve (9 August 1974) "The Winding Journey to the Top..." The Philadelphia Inquirer.
• "Richard Nixon, dour, black and grim-visaged.... Richard Nixon was black Irish."  — Phillips, Kevin (8 February 1980) "Another View of George Bush Candidacy" The Naples Daily News.
• "Nixon was so upset by the picket that he was overcome with his black Irish anger." – Klein, Herbert (19 October 1980) "'The New Nixon,' a man who never was". Arizona Daily Star.

That's a sample of descriptions of Nixon published in newspapers across three decades. Given this information, do you really think that we should present this information as "just" one author's personal opinion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources were previously cited. I can't telepathically guess what you might cite in the future. I based my edit on what you cited at the time.

You should include some of these sources when making the claim instead of solely resting on the Alsop source. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that you know what can be found by spending a little while looking for sources, maybe you'd like to self-revert and add whichever of these seem most suitable to you. I typed out the citations for you, so all you'd need to do is copy and paste them. I suggest not adding all of them. If you do that, another editor will doubtless appear to complain about Wikipedia:Citation overkill, because this type of claim is normally cited to a single source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion 2: Cultural use of the myth

I find this section heading confusing. I think the bit confusing me is "the myth". If we take it as a series of logical propositions:

• There is a myth that some Irish people have Spanish ancestry.
• There is a fact that some Irish people have dark hair and eyes.
• There is a fact that some Irish(-American) people with dark coloring are called "Black Irish".

The contents of the section, if you boil it down, amount to "Some Irish-Americans were Black Irish". How does that fact "use" "the myth"? It doesn't mention this mythical Spanish ancestry or appear to depend on it at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]