Talk:Black Irish (folklore)/Archive 1

A conflict
Why are you so hellbent on black irish just meaning african american heritage? I included the part of americans lying about their heritage and saying they were simply black irish to avoid racism, but that's simply a minority. Celts have always had dark hair. Not sure how to link my user, but I'm pretty sure you can put two and two together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FightinMisnformation1982 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm once again trying to use the talk page to talk about this... why can't you speak with me about it so we can reach a consensus? User:FightinMisnformation1982


 * Thus far,, you've made no effort to reach a consensus. Rather, you've ignored explanations re: the problems with your sources and reverted to a problematic version a half dozen times, continuing to edit war after receiving a warning. It's already been noted in edit summaries that a link to Amazon is not acceptable, nor can an opening paragraph sourced to a blog comments page be taken seriously. The best thing you can do now is to show good faith by restoring the previous version, and use this talk page to discuss changes (Of concern is editing behavior and misunderstanding of what constitutes WP:RELIABLE sources. I will leave discussion of the content to others). To continue in this vein will lead to a noticeboard report and possibly administrative intervention. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I did edit sources that were referred to as unreliable and replaced them with the book itself. I'm quite new to Wikipedia editing, how exactly would be the best way for me to source a book instead of linking its Amazon link? I would truly like to reach a consensus, I just don't want the entire multiple-century-spanning history of Irishmen with dark hair or brown eyes as simply the result of interracial unions. The fact is the evidence toward it not being from African ancestry outweighs the opposite. Obviously there were some cases where people lied about their ancestry to avoid racism, but to cast all other history and make it a monolith is silly. I've included mention of those who lied about it in my version, wouldn't the best way be to have both and not just one? It would be silly to cast away true things, whether it be on my version or the other. Thank you for taking your time to read, I hope we can teach a consensus. :) FightinMisnformation1982 (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I also forgot to mention: I simply had the blog post to source the many different definitions one might have for "black Irish". I have a better source for that, I'll add that instead. FightinMisnformation1982 (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not listening, . And the source you added is a blog from a jewelry company. Being a new user can be daunting, but it does not exempt you from following guidelines when they've been clearly explained. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , you are now blocked from editing the article directly; you reverted, against consensus, six times, and since this is the only thing you're doing here I could have blocked you indefinitely from editing anything. You should listen to the IP editor, and for starters you should NOT try to use blogs/forums/whatever. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it a consensus when only one person is disagreeing, and that person spreading misinformation and making a monolith where there shouldn't be? For example, one famous example of a black Irish actor is Colin Farrell, who took a DNA test and got 98.7 percent Irish and 1.3 percent central european. If it was simply from interracial unions, wouldn't he have some sub saharan DNA? This is misinformation, and borderline racist to imply that anybody with darker hair or eyes is partially african-american. FightinMisnformation1982 (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You were reverted by three different editors. "Making a monolith" means nothing. No one is implying what you claim they are implying, and you need to engage in this discussion without personal attacks and with reliable sources. If you can't do that, this website is not for you. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This is very odd
The main usage of this, in the 20th century and I'm pretty sure the 19th, has just been to describe Irish or Irish diasporan people with dark complexions - or just with dark hair and eyes. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that is correct, but the article describes a popular myth about their origins. In this folklore, they were thought to be of Spanish descent. Jarble (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a straight out lie.. how can this article be published...
 * This is why there is the term dumb Americans .. 120.17.35.46 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Black Irish" is apparently an ambiguous term, referring either to Irish people of African descent, or to Irish people with dark hair and olive skin tones, who were once believed to be of Spanish or "Mediterranean" descent. Jarble (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I too am baffled by this page. "Black Irish" simply refers to a common Irish phenotype with black hair and often darker skin. Aidan Turner is a good example of black Irish. The fact that people tried to explain this phenomenon with folk theories about Spanish descent does not mean that these Irish people do not exist, nor does the completely unattested claim that people used the term to hide their mixed race make the existence of the black Irish phenotype a myth. It is very, very odd that this article simply ignores the facts and jumps straight into race baiting instead. 09:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC) Dantai Amakiir (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Origin Myths
I'm largely making notes here for myself, but please do build on this. I think the article is poorly organised, and the origin myths of the "Black Irish" should be listed under an "Origins" subheading. The Spanish Armada myth belongs here, as does perhaps the Milesians myth (with proper citations), which is much, much older but also implies a mythological link between the Irish and the Spanish. I would love to find an academic source which evaluates to what extent the Milesian myth contributed to the conception of the Black Irish. Searching the Google American English corpus, I have found a number of early references to the Black Irish term, which references their resemblance to Iberians. I have not yet found reference to the Spanish Armada myth in these sources, and it seems apparent to me that the term Black Irish definitely predates this later myth. Early occurrences of the term "Black Irish": 1896 - John M Dickson, Notes on Irish Ethnology, in the Ulster Journal of Archaeology: "Travellers from these countries who have spent some time in Portugal have frequently been struck by the resemblance, both in appearance and disposition, between the Portuguese working classes and the "black Irish" of old stock at home". This is the earliest quote I can find. 1885 - The Races of Britain: A strange text mapping the "Nigrescence" (differing from the modern usage) of "Irish named persons", among other things. Does not appear to use the term, but gives interesting context to the previous source. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The first attested mention of the Spanish Armada myth appears to be the following:
 * 1885: The Races of Britain A Contribution to the Anthropology of Western Europe By John Beddoe
 * "The people of Coningburgh, near Lerwick, are said to be darker than the Lerwick and Scalloway men, and less mild and peaceable; some say that descendants remain there of the crew of one of the Spanish Armada ; but quien sabe?”
 * Notably, this is in Scotland, but it nevertheless appears to be the seed of the story. The first allusion we have to the Irish myth appears much later:
 * 1910: "Galway" entry, in The Encyclopædia Britannica Volumes 11-12
 * "The wreck of part of the Spanish Armada on this coast in 1588 left survivors whose influence is still to be traced."
 * That is the entire extent of the reference.
 * There are a few more scattered references, but the idea only seems to gain true popularity after it was published by Malcolm X. I think we can all agree that this is not quality history, but it is nevertheless relevant:
 * 1965, January 24: Malcolm X on Afro-American History
 * “Even the Irish got a dose of your and my blood when the Spanish Armada was defeated off the coast of Ireland, I think around about the seventeenth or eighteenth century; I forget exactly, you can check it out. The Spanish in those days were dark. They were the remnants of the Moors, and they went ashore and settled down in Ireland and right to this very day you’ve got what’s known as the Black Irish. And it’s not an accident that they call them Black Irish. If you look at them, they’ve got dark hair, dark features, and they’ve got Spanish names—like Eamon De Valera, the president, and there used to be another one called Costello. These names came from the Iberian Peninsula, which is the Spanish-Portuguese peninsula, and they came there through these seamen, who were dark in those days. Don’t let any Irishman jump up in your face and start telling you about you—why, he’s got some of your blood too. You’ve spread your blood everywhere. If you start to talk to any one of them, I don’t care where he is, if you know history, you can put him right in his place. In fact, he’ll stay in his place, if he knows that you know your history.”
 * So what about Black Irish itself? Well, this term considerably predates the Spanish Armada myth. It is safe to say that the "black Irish" idea and the Spanish Armada myth arose separately and should certainly not be conflated. The first example we have of usage for "black Irish" is as follows:
 * 1872: Amos Stevens Billingsley - Christianity in the War
 * “the black Irish manager”
 * This is not very informative, but the brevity of the quote and its lack of elaboration clearly indicate that the term was well understood. The first time anyone bothers to explain the term to us is in the following:
 * 1875: Joseph Crosby, "Othello not a Negro", in The American Bibliopolist, Volume 7
 * "In Shakespeare's time a dark, or brunette complexion was indicated by calling a person "black." [...] Indeed, the same usage still prevails among the vulgar as in the phrases, "black Irish," "black Dutch," describing certain well known types of Celts and Teutons (Hollanders, probably), differing from the prevailing type of either race in respect of their black eyes and hair, and gypsy-like, tawny complexions."
 * This last quote may be particularly useful as a citation for CeltBrowne. However, it is also very clear evidence for a belief in "differing from the prevailing type of either race in respect of their black eyes and hair", which is a point which CeltBrowne asked me to prove. I reproduce CeltBrowne's words here:
 * "None of the sources I have added state anything to the effect "There *are* more Irish people with dark hair and/or dark skin than other nationalities, but their origin is unknown". There are no sources suggesting Irish people have a special strain of people with "dark features" that's 5% or 10% more frequent than English, or Scottish, or French, or German people."
 * The Races of Britain also contains some very useful charts which seem to contradict this, at the very least at the time when the term "black Irish" was being coined, although I wouldn't put too much weight on it. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

NPOV, Misrepresented Sources etc
This article is clearly the pet project of one editor, CeltBrowne, who has written the entire article singlehandedly and now actively and aggressively reverts the contributions of other users. There is no interest in improvements or consensus building. Wikipedia is not your personal blog.

In its current state, the article contributes nothing to the encyclopedia and is a good candidate for deletion. The article lacks neutral PoV, and either intentionally or ignorantly conflates terms, failing to distinguish between the various uses of the term "black Irish". If it is not to be deleted, then the article requires a very thorough rewrite, beginning with a neutral introduction to the history of the term, before only then discussing the various claims around it. As it currently stands, the history and usage of the term is not addressed at all, so that the reader has no context for understanding what is being discussed. Instead, the article jumps straight into presenting claims as facts, when these claims should instead be discussed later in the article alongside other similar theories, namely. The claim that the term black Irish is simply an attempt by Americans to conceal African heritage is merely that, and should not be the leading sentence, asserted as fact, which introduced the article.

I have attempted to begin such improvement by first writing a neutral introduction. The sources already cited in the article are sufficient to support the neutral statement of facts given in this introduction. Rather than reverting the edit as "unsourced", CeltBrowne should have copied these citations into the introduction, but it is clear that improving the article is not CeltBrowne's intent. Following a neutral introduction which summarises the topic -- namely, that the term "black Irish" exists and various theories have been coined to attempt to explain its origin -- those explanations of origins should be examined.

The three main claims appear to be: 1. there exists an Irish phenotype who have darker hair than other Irish people, and this is significant enough that people have named them "black Irish"; 2. the black Irish phenotype has its origin in Spanish settlers in Ireland; 3. the black Irish have never existed and it is a myth invented by Americans to conceal African heritage. There is no reason why the third claim should be taken for granted in this article while the first claim is ignored. It must be assumed that CeltBrowne has some sort of agenda which requires them to push a biased PoV and suppress a neutral discussion of the topic.

What is strangest of all is that the very sources which CeltBrowne cites in support of the myth idea also all very clearly allude to the fact that the myths merely attempt to explain the attested factual existence of darker skinned Irish people. It is very telling that CeltBrowne completely ignores this part of their sources, and very clearly demonstrates their bias. These sources do not actually support CeltBrowne's claim that the black Irish never existed, and it is very clear that CeltBrowne is not trying to contribute to human knowledge, but is trying to push their beliefs through Wikipedia. Whether CeltBrowne intentionally ignored this aspect of their sources or genuinely failed at reading comprehension remains to be seen.

What this means is that this article fundamentally fails because it is based on own research, which is explicitly banned on Wikipedia. The cited sources do not support the claims made by CeltBrowne. This article should probably just be deleted in its entirety at this point.Dantai Amakiir (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Dantai,
 * Your concerns are noted. If you feel the article should be deleted, please nominate it for deletion, and I will defend it's merits through the formal process.
 * If you wish to rewrite the article, please use and cite reliable secondary sources, per WP:RELIABLE.
 * This article is not a pet project nor a solo idea; it was the result of extensive discussion on Talk:Black Irish and Talk:Black people in Ireland and substantial research. Quotes were included in the citations to make absolutely clear and explicit what the sources have stated, which is that the historical concept of "Black Irish" is no more than myth. You should support your own claims in the same manner.
 * Reverts are a normal part of the consensus building process, per WP:EDITCON. Please do not take them personally and please assume good faith when interacting with other editors, as per WP:GOODFAITH. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not asserting the existence of the black Irish. I am merely insisting that the topic be neutrally examined and that the very sources you have provided be honestly represented, which is not what this article does. As I have already noted, the very quotes which you have cited explicitly do not make the claims which you assert they do. They do not fundamentally reject the existence of the black Irish. The only thing they reject is the myth about Spanish sailors. The rest is your misrepresentation or, if I assume good faith, poor reading skills. Let us examine:
 * O'Toole, who in any case is not an academic source but an opinion columnist, writes, "The idea, for which there is little historical evidence, is still used in Ireland and in Irish America, to explain the fact that some Irish people have a dark, swarthy appearance." Only a fool could misunderstand this sentence. He is saying that the Spanish sailor myth ("the idea", mentioned in the previous sentence) cannot be evidenced, but still asserts that the myth exists to explain the existence of dark, swarthy Irish people, and this latter claim he does not contest. To say otherwise is to misrepresent his words, which, anyway, have little weight.
 * There is also no basis for the claim that "Dan Bradley of Trinity College Dublin [rejects] any notion of the "Black Irish" existing or having any genetic basis." This is not what the article says, and this statement is a complete lie. The actual quote also very clearly only addresses the Spanish sailors story. It rejects this story on a genetic basis, but nowhere does it question the actual existence of such a phenotype. On good faith grounds, I must again assume that you have merely misunderstood the quote and are not intentionally misrepresenting them.
 * As should be clear, the sources which you cite do not support your apparently self-invented notion that the black Irish phenotype does not exist. Your pure, unsupported opinion should not be anywhere near this article. Own research is not allowed on Wikipedia and neutral PoV must be maintained.
 * I make absolutely no claim that the black Irish phenotype exists. But simply from examining your citations, I have yet to find anyone else asserting that it did not. No one, except you. Therefore this article should accurately represent its sources and not simply represent the unfounded opinion of one editor who either misunderstood several articles or intentional misquoted them.
 * Your edits are an improvement on your previous article, but they still contain dishonest representations of the cited articles and genuine falsehoods. If these comments genuinely inspire you to re-examine the citations and come to a correct understanding of what is written there, I will be glag. I unfortunately don't have time right now to do the work myself, but I should have some time next week.
 * Although I personally find the term "black Irish" a little odd myself, I have encountered countless primary sources which use it, and I have read a number of academic papers on Irishness which address it. The term certainly exists and the primary sources I have read who claim the identity absolutely were not doing so to hide a mixed race identity. The idea is proposterous, and such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would like to assume you are making this claim out of pure ignorance and that you are not actually asserting such, but if you are genuinely asserting that every American who identified as black Irish was actually mixed race and lying about it, then that is some conspiracy-level Afrocentrism and has no place in Wikipedia. Unless, of course, that claim is well evidenced, and you can provide specific examples.
 * I will be quite happy to cite these authors when I have more time, but I very much hope that if you are genuinely interested in improving this article then you can already do that yourself. Off the top of my head, the following article is both in itself good with regards to Robert E. Howard's black Irish identity claims and provides a good number of citations for further reading: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44807183
 * I also suggest that you do some reading on the "North Atlantid" AKA "Irish" phenotype. A lot of the research around this topic is old, racist and colonialist, but it nevertheless attests to the existence of a black Irish phenotype. This article would be incomplete without mention of the North Atlantid phenotype concept. 19:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC) Dantai Amakiir (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's clear from both your editing of the article and this above comment that you seem to believe that there is a "Black Irish phenotype" in existence, but no-one can explain how it came about. You haven't any reliable sources which state that there are more cases of Irish people with "dark features" that any other nationality/ethnicity or otherwise support the idea of a unique "Black Irish phenotype".
 * "North Atlantid" is the Atlantid race is junk "Scientific racism", a concept that the Aryan race article is completely at pains to demonstrate is totally discredited in modern Academics. 1900s ideas about "North Atlantid" do not "attests to the existence of a black Irish phenotype". Citing "North Atlantids" as "proof" of anything is very worry and concerning because it takes the article into pseudo-science and pseudo-history, not fact.
 * It is also clear from the above comment that you misunderstand what the article is stating. It is not stating that every Irish-American with "dark features" is biracial. It is stating that one theory suggests that the origin myth was popularised/propagated to explain biracial Americans in an era when they would have been discriminated against.
 * My sources are very clear in what they're stating, which is why I included quotations. The addition of "citation needed" maintenance tags is completely unneeded. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * YOUR sources contradict your statements. The reason I do not need to add more sources is because your sources already support my edits. Reading the sources correctly, they do not make the claim that the Black Irish are a myth. All of your sources explicitly only claim that the Spanish Armada myth is a myth. I do not know to better explain this to you. You either have serious trouble parsing sentences, or you are intentionally misrepresenting what you have read. Good faith forbids me from speculating as to which it is.
 * If "one theory suggests that the origin myth was popularised/propagated to explain biracial Americans in an era when they would have been discriminated against", then NPoV requires that this be made explicit. The lead paragraph should accurately describe the context. It should not, as you insist, lead with one possible explanation.
 * This article is about the historical term Black Irish. To maintain NPoV, the article must neutrally state how this term is used: by Americans, to, for whatever reason, subcategorise Irish people with dark hair. The term "Black Irish" is well attested and the entire point of the article should be to explain what it actually means. That some explain the term as describing mythical descendents of Spanish sailors, while modern academics speculate that it was also used to hide biracial identity, is secondary information, and it does not, as you seem to think, debunk the term.
 * My only concerns are with neutral PoV and your persistent misrepresentation of the sources. I could hardly care less whether or not the Black Irish exist. But the existence of the term (and, yes, categories such as "North Atlantid") demonstrate that those who used the term believe that they existed. This article should explain what those people think they mean when using this term and why they used it, and only after defining this, should it provide these other irrelevant background details about the Spanish myth or about one modern theorist's unsubstantiated belief that it was used to hide biracial identity. As it stands, your only goal here is to dishonestly champion this bizarre biracial identity theory, which is poorly sourced and largely does not say the things you claim in the article anyway.
 * You should absolutely not be misrepresenting sources, but you continue to do so. Read your sources again. If you are still convinced that they say the things you claim, then either your reading comprehension skills are lacking or you are doing this on purpose.
 * Regarding the citation needed tags, these should stay unless you can provide reliable citations for this usage. You are exercising supreme bad faith in assuming that these tags are there to imply that these things are untrue. I only care that, if these things are true, this be clearly and reliably demonstrated. That's how you build a better wiki. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason I do not need to add more sources is because your sources already support my edits.
 * None of the sources I have added state anything to the effect "There *are* more Irish people with dark hair and/or dark skin than other nationalities, but their origin is unknown". There are no sources suggesting Irish people have a special strain of people with "dark features" that's 5% or 10% more frequent than English, or Scottish, or French, or German people.
 * All of your sources explicitly only claim that the Spanish Armada myth is a myth.
 * The idea that there's a "unique strain" of Irish and that they're descended from "Spanish Sailors" is all one-in-the-same. Attempting to split this into two separate myths is attempting to defend one aspect of the myth because the other part has been conclusively disproven. It's all one myth. If I'm wrong, point to the source which shows I'm wrong.
 * I could hardly care less whether or not the Black Irish exist.
 * That sentiment is undercut by comments you've made such as
 * Aidan Turner is just an Irish guy that happens to have black hair and can tan. He's not an example of anything. There is no special "phenomenon" at work. If there is, per WP:Reliability, you must references reliable secondary sources demonstrating that.
 * As it stands, your only goal here is to dishonestly champion this bizarre biracial identity theory, which is poorly sourced and largely does not say the things you claim in the article anyway.
 * The theory, advanced by the academic David Roediger, was added to the article because that's what came up in my research. It's cited by several other reliable secondary sources, many of them also included in the article's references. On Wikipedia, per WP:Reliability, that what we go with. You, nor I, cannot handwave away what Academic consensus is just because we don't like it. It's not that I'm "championing" a theory, it's that I'm reflecting the research/academic consensus.
 * But the existence of the term (and, yes, categories such as "North Atlantid") demonstrate that those who used the term believe that they existed. This article should explain what those people think they mean when using this term and why they used it, and only after defining this, should it provide these other irrelevant background details about the Spanish myth or about one modern theorist's unsubstantiated belief that it was used to hide biracial identity.
 * Just like the Aryan race article, this article does explain what they thought (that they thought there were Irish people who were dark haired descendents of Spanish sailors), but like the Aryan race article also firmly states that this is cannot be accurate.
 * What you're suggesting would leave readers concluding that there really are "Black Irish" people, we just don't know where they came from (which is not what any source supports). CeltBrowne (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. You are constantly strawmanning and inventing claims which I have never made, and moving the goalposts whenever you are proven wrong. It is irrelevant whether or not there are more Irish people with black hair than elsewhere. Why you think this is relevant or why you keep bringing it up is beyond me.
 * Why you think what I believe is relevant is also beyond me. My opinion, just like yours, does not matter. Only facts matter. Your repeated claim that I believe Black Irish people exist is nothing more than ad hominem, just as your attempt to associate me with scientific racism is ad hominem, in addition to being bad faith, unethical, and frankly disgusting behaviour.
 * Your most absurd statement, though, is that I claim that "there really are 'Black Irish' people, we just don't know where they came from". The answer is in the name: they're Irish (but I am learning not to put much faith in your reading comprehension). Thinking that they have to be "from" somewhere is a very, very racist framing. You are again being very dishonest in trying to assert that we must identify where the Black Irish are "from" in order to mention that the term exists. These are two completely unrelated topics. Just as whether the term exists and whether the Spanish origin story is true are two seperate topics. That you insist on conflating them is your issue. You stating that they are one and the same does not, in fact, make it so.
 * I have stated very clearly that it is irrelevant whether or not the Black Irish exist, and it is frankly embarrassing that you are struggling so hard with this sentence. How can I make these point clear enough that you will finally understand it? Lots of things which we have words for do not or may not actually exist. What we do, when writing such articles, is clearly explain what the word means. Theories which explain the origins of those beliefs come later in the article. They do not belong in the first sentence of the article. What you are doing is dishonest, unethical and bizarre.
 * When people come to this article, they want to see an explanation of why people use the term "Black Irish" in this sense. Your article with its strange theories which you seem to have made up largely by yourself do not answer that question. And no, the sources do not in any way support this figment of your imagination. I repeat, you have either fundamentally misunderstood these sources or you are being intentionally dishonest about their content. The "theory, advanced by the academic David Roediger" does not exist and is nowhere to be found in his cited book. You have made it up yourself and then you have lied and attributed it to an academic who makes no such claim. Your constant misrepresentation of sources is absolutely disgraceful and has no place here or, indeed, anywhere. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, what now? You know what all readers are looking for? How? I've never heard the term in relation to anything other than a) Irish-born people of African ethnicity; and b) people allegedly descended from survivors of the Spanish Armada. I've never really heard of the use to describe "dark haired white Irish people" - which isn't to say that use doesn't exist. Your wall of text above contains a lot of personal attacks on a long-standing editor in good standing. I'd suggest you drop your ad hominem attacks and WP:AGF.


 * Further, I'm not seeing anything wrong with the references. They back up what they cite. If you have an issue with any, please list them here, and describe what's wrong with them. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have already listed the issues here. Roediger's book nowhere states "the myth of the Black Irish as the descendants of Spanish sailors was created and popularised in the 19th and 20th centuries by Irish Americans in the United States seeking to conceal interracial children produced with African Americans". This is not just a misrepresentation, it is a completely made up quote or paraphrase. Meanwhile, CeltBrowne continues to revert edits which correct the misreprentation of Dan Bradley's words. None of the quotes stating that the Spanish sailor story is a myth make the claim that the "Black Irish" generally are also a myth. This is either a misreading of the quotes or, more likely, deliberate misrepresentation. I can assume good faith all I want, but that doesn't actually make the bad faith any less evident. It is very obvious that CeltBrowne is doing this intentionally. CeltBrowne has done their own research and is passing it off as the work of academics by falsely citing them with statements they did not make. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Roediger
 * If there's an issue with the Roediger citations I'll be happy to fix them, or remove them. You've only just now specifically raised an issue with Roediger, going back and re-editing comments.
 * CeltBrowne continues to revert edits which correct the misreprentation of Dan Bradley's words.
 * I have not reverted your edit to the quote attributed to Dan Bradley. It's in the article right now. There was no representation of Bradley. Your edit altered the tone, not the substance, of what was said.
 * None of the quotes stating that the Spanish sailor story is a myth make the claim that the "Black Irish" generally are also a myth
 * This is a game of semantics; almost the entire basis of the myth revolves around the Spanish aspect. What is the myth supposed to be without the Spanish aspect? "Uh, some Irish people have black hair, the end". ????? CeltBrowne (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not semantics, it is basic reading comprehension. You have simply misunderstood these sources and are inserting your own ideas into them. That's original research. Unless you can cite reliable sources stating that "almost the entire basis of the myth revolves around the Spanish aspect", then this is just your opinion and it constitutes own research. The sources you cite do not say this, and your use of the word "myth" here again demonstrates that you are not approaching the sources neutrally: you are begging the question by already assuming the "myth" classification proven. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Black Irish essentially meaning "some Irish people have black hair". It is irrelevant that you think this is stupid. The topic is one of identity -- some Irish people or Americans identified themselves and others as Black Irish -- and when it comes to identity, your personal opinion does not matter. This article should outline the nature of that identity, and it may indeed explore the mythology behind it, but the myth is not the core aspect. It's about identity. Your obsession with undermining that identity by declaring those who claim it to be mythological creatures is, quite frankly, racist. I too think this term is largely meaningless, but the difference is that I'm tolerant enough to understand that it still has meaning to those who claim it as part of their identity. Your intolerance of other people's identities is not valid criticism. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , you are accusing another long-standing editor, in good standing, of fabricating references, and of lying. You need to either back that up with explicit diffs and evidence ("CeltBrowne in [this edit] said X, and cited reference Y, but that reference actually says Z"); or, you need to apologise. CeltBrowne has been extremely patient with you so far. If it were me, I'd already have opened an AN/I report and you'd be blocked, or banned. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's just a Gish gallop. Every single citation has been misrepresented. It is the wrong approach to respond to such a style of argument by individually pointing out every single instance of misrepresentation. I have given enough individual examples to demonstrate a pattern of misrepresentation. This should suffice. Now, please stop deleting the tags, as this issue has not been resolved. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it absolutely is not the wrong approach. You're accusing another editor of misrepresenting sources. Prove it. With evidence. E.g., I can read above what you're claiming CeltBrowne wrote about Bradley, and I can read the current article that cites Gibbons, writing about Bradley - and CeltBrowne's use is absolutely correct. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No, that's my correction, which better reflects the citation. CeltBrowne's original text reads "with population geneticist Dan Bradley of Trinity College Dublin, rejecting any notion of the 'Black Irish' existing or having any genetic basis." This wording is nowhere found in the article and is CeltBrowne's own invention. Meanwhile, the exact same source makes clear that Spanish Armada myth is not the main myth but simply one of many: it mentions how "the Irish Book of Invasions, written by an anonymous author in the 11th century, recounts that the 'Sons of Míl Espáine … after many wanderings in Scythia and Egypt' eventually reached Spain and Ireland, creating a modern Irish people distinct from the British—and linked to the Spanish. That telling resonates with a later yarn about ships from the Spanish Armada". CeltBrowne has cherrypicked the second story and left out the first because, for reasons I cannot explain, they want to advance the notion that the Spanish Armada myth is the only thing which is intrinsic to the Black Irish identity, which is not supported by the sources. The same pattern occurs with every source cited: the text of the article distorts what is written in the sources to serve this narrative. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

A look at the reference used, and their potential misrepresentation Reference 1 - Van Vossole, Jonas (2016). "Framing PIGS: patterns of racism and neocolonialism in the Euro crisis" The source is used as a citation for the following lines in the article, -"The term Black Irish was a myth used in the 19th and 20th centuries by Irish-Americans to suggest there was a section of Irish people with a unique combination of dark features, such as dark hair, dark eyes or dark skin". -"The myth proposed that these dark featured Irish were the descendants of Spanish sailors shipwrecked during the Spanish Armada of 1588.". This source contains a single reference to the "Black Irish". The quote is as follows, "according to a widespread popular myth, the ‘Black Irish’ are descendants of Spanish sailors."

Given the source makes no mention of 19th/20th century America, physical traits of the "black Irish", or the Spanish Armada, I'd say this source is misrepresented

Reference 2 - Tate, Claudia (1998). Psychoanalysis and Black Novels: Desire and the Protocols of Race, p.24.

The source is used as a citation for the following lines in the article,

-"The term Black Irish was a myth used in the 19th and 20th centuries by Irish-Americans to suggest there was a section of Irish people with a unique combination of dark features, such as dark hair, dark eyes or dark skin". -"In the earlier parts of the 19th century, the same phrase was used to describe biracial people of African and Irish descent.".

Quote from source, "During the last half of the nineteenth century, Irish Americans laboured to repress the midcentury appellation commonly associated with them "Black Irish". While this label now designates Irish with black hair..."

This source also says that in the 19th century the term "Black Irish" signified partial black heritage, citing David Roediger.

In my opinion this source does not fully support the assertion made in the first line above. I'd say the source is partially misrepresented

Reference 3 - Fintan O'Toole (30 July 1999). "Alluring myth of 'Black Irish' may be a sign of hope". Irish Times.

The source is used as a citation for the following lines in the article,

-"The myth proposed that these dark featured Irish were the descendants of Spanish sailors shipwrecked during the Spanish Armada of 1588."

-"The Black Irish myth proposed that a strain of Irish people with black hair and dark complexions, referred to as "Black Irish", were the descendants of Spanish sailors shipwrecked during the Spanish Armada of 1588."

Quote from source, "One sign of it might be the persistence, largely in oral tradition, of the myth of the "Black Irish", the supposed offspring of Spanish sailors thrown by the wreck of the Armada onto the Irish coast. The idea, for which there is little historical evidence, is still used in Ireland and in Irish America, to explain the fact that some Irish people have a dark, swarthy appearance." In my opinion this source is not misrepresented

Reference 4 - Pramaggiore, Maria (2015). "Review: The Black Irish Onscreen: Representing Black and Mixed Race Identities on Irish Film and Television By Zélie Asava".

The source is used as a citation for the following lines in the article,

-"The myth proposed that these dark featured Irish were the descendants of Spanish sailors shipwrecked during the Spanish Armada of 1588."

-"The Black Irish myth proposed that a strain of Irish people with black hair and dark complexions, referred to as "Black Irish", were the descendants of Spanish sailors shipwrecked during the Spanish Armada of 1588."

Quote from source, "Fairly late in the book's introduction the author mentions the traditional understanding of the term "black Irish" as the descendants of the survivors of the wreck of the Spanish Armada in 1588"

The source supports the Spanish Armada claim, but makes no mention of the supposed dark complexion of the "Black Irish". In my opinion the source is partially misrepresented

Reference 5 - Vande Brake, Katherine (August 2009). Through the Back Door: Melungeon Literacies and Twenty-first-century Technologies.

The source is used as a citation for the following lines in the article,

-"paralleling the phrase "Black Dutch" which was also used in the United States to hide racial identity."

-"Academics researching the multi-racial Melungeon ethnic identity and other Native American groups in the southern United States found that "Black Irish" was amongst a dozen myths about Spanish sailors and other European women used to disguise the African heritage of interracial children."

Quote from source, (P. 37-38) "Calling someone "Black Dutch" or "Black Irish" was a way to acknowledge the person's dark skin without insinuating a Negro ancestor"

I think this source is fine for the first line above, but it makes no mention of Spanish sailors as asserted above. In my opinion the source is partially misrepresented

Reference 6 - Estes, Roberta (2010). "Revealing American Indian and Minority Heritage Using Y-line, Mitochondrial, Autosomal and X Chromosomal Testing Data Combined with Pedigree Analysis"

The source is used as a citation for the following lines in the article,

-"Some theorists assert that the myth was likely created and popularised Irish-Americans to conceal interracial unions with African-Americans, paralleling the phrase "Black Dutch" which was also used in the United States to hide racial identity."

-"Academics researching the multi-racial Melungeon ethnic identity and other Native American groups in the southern United States found that "Black Irish" was amongst a dozen myths about Spanish sailors and other European women used to disguise the African heritage of interracial children."

Quotes from source, (P. 2) "Therefore, Native American or African heritage that was not visually obvious was hidden and sometimes renamed to much less emotionally and socially charged monikers, such as "Black Dutch", "Black Irish" and possibly also Portuguese", "the Melungeons were also prevalent and have proven to be a genetically tri-racially admixed group, although the term Melungeon tended to be a social epithet, a label one may have used to refer to darker neighbors, but never to describe one's own family"

I think this source is fine for the first line above, but it makes no mention of the Melungeon use of the term "Black Irish". In my opinion the source is partially misrepresented

Reference 7 - Estes, Roberta (2010). "Podber, Jacob J. (September 2008). "Creating Real and Virtual Communities Among the Melungeons of Appalachia""

The source is used as a citation for the following lines in the article,

-", paralleling the phrase "Black Dutch" which was also used in the United States to hide racial identity."

-"''A primary source told researchers "They would say they were "Black Dutch" or "Black Irish" or "Black French", or Native American. They’d say they were anything but Melungeon because anything else would be better ... because to be Melungeon was to be discriminated against."''"

The second line is a quote from the source so no issues there, I feel it does support the first line as well. In my opinion this source is not misrepresented

Reference 8 - Burke, Mary M. (1 March 2023). Race, Politics, and Irish America: A Gothic History.

The source is used as a citation for the following lines in the article,

-"In Ireland itself, the Black Irish myth was never popularised,"

Quotes from source, (P. 91) "(To reiterate: the white Irish in Ireland do not use this self-ascription)".

I don't think a single comment from the author can be used to assert that the "Black Irish" myth never took hold in Ireland. In my opinion this source is misrepresented

Reference 9 - Census of Population 2016 – Profile 8 Irish Travellers, Ethnicity and Religion

The source is used as a citation for the following lines in the article, -"in 21st century Ireland, "Black Irish" refers to Irish people of African descent."

-"As of 2016, 10,100 Irish nationals of African descent living in the Republic of Ireland referred to themselves as "Black Irish" in the national census."

Census data not misrepresented

Reference 10 - Alsop, Stewart (2016-06-07). Nixon & Rockefeller: A Double Portrait

I could not access a copy of this book.

Reference 11 - Mattingly, Garrett (2005). The Armada.

I could not access a copy of this book but I believe it was first published in 1959, not 2005.

Reference 12 - Burnett, Bruce I. (July 1988). "The Great Enterprise". Naval History Magazine.

The source is used as a citation for the following lines in the article,

-"'In reality, of the roughly 5,000 Spanish sailors who were recorded as being wrecked off the coast of Ireland and Scotland, the very few that survived the wrecks were either hunted down and killed by English troops or immediately returned to Spain,''"

Quotes from source, "Some Spaniards, no doubt, found refuge amongst fellow Catholics, albeit nowhere near enough to justify the myth of the “Black Irish” being descended from them. Most were simply murdered as they lay exhausted on the beaches, or were handed over to English soldiers for almost certain execution."

In my opinion this source is not misrepresented

Reference 13 - Ruiz-Mas, José (2023). "Joyce, Galway and the Spanish Armada"

The source is used as a citation for the following lines in the article, -"'In 1912, Irish author James Joyce asserted a different version of the myth, suggesting in an article that the residents of Galway were of "the true Spanish type" owing to their interaction and trade with the Spanish in the medieval era.''"

Source supports the above content. In my opinion this source is not misrepresented

Reference 14 - Gibbons, Ann (19 May 2017). "Busting myths of origin". Science.org. Vol. 356, no. 6339

The source is used as a citation for the following lines in the article

-"'Two separate genetic studies carried out in the 2010s found little if any Spanish traces in Irish DNA, with population geneticist Dan Bradley of Trinity College Dublin, rejecting the Spanish origin myth.''"

Quote from source, "Bradley says, it “just didn't happen.” In two studies, researchers have found only “a very small ancient Spanish contribution” to British and Irish DNA". Daniel Bradley is a professor of genetics in Trinity.

In my opinion this source is not misrepresented

Reference 15 - Karen, Hughes (2017). "Mobilising across colour lines: Intimate encounters between Aboriginal women and African American and other allied servicemen on the World War II Australian home front"

The source is used as a citation for the following lines in the article,

-"'In the early to mid-20th century, the myth of the Black Irish was used occasionally by Aboriginal Australians in order to racially pass themselves into white Australian society.''"

Quote from source, " Paul Beetham, pers. comm., April 2017. ‘Black Irish’ is a popularly used term to account for people in Ireland with dark hair or complexions, thought to be descended from the Spanish Armada. Occasionally in Australia, Aboriginal people seeking to escape widespread discrimination borrowed the moniker ‘black Irish’ to conceal their identity, particularly in the early to mid-twentieth century when state-sanctioned child removal was especially rampant. See Grieves 2014b: 31–32 for an example of this."

In my opinion this source is not misrepresented

Reference 16 - "Malcolm X and United States Policies towards Africa: A Qualitative Analysis of His Black Nationalism and Peace through Power and Coercion Paradigms"

The source is used as a citation for the following lines in the article,

-"'In the 1950s, Malcolm X of the Nation of Islam would occasionally assert, alongside claiming Italians were descended from Carthaginian Africans and the Spanish were descended from the Moors, that the Irish were also of Black descent by invoking the Black Irish myth.''"

Not super clear but I do think the source supports the above content. In my opinion this source is not misrepresented

Reference 17 - Hann, Michael (2 November 2020). "Thin Lizzy members on the band's rise and fall: 'Heroin was the worst mistake we made'". The Irish Times.

The source is used as a citation for the following lines in the article,

-"'Figures such as Phil Lynott are described by Irish national media sources as "Black Irish".''"

Quote from source, "And in Lynott, the black Irish cowboy..."

In my opinion this source is not misrepresented

Reference 18 - Stokes, Niall (8 June 2020). "Niall Stokes on Philip Lynott, Music and Racism in Ireland". Hot Press.

The source is used as a citation for the following lines in the article,

-"'Figures such as Phil Lynott are described by Irish national media sources as "Black Irish".''"

Quote from source, "...what would have been the 70th birthday of the great, black Irish rock star, Philip Lynott."

In my opinion this source is not misrepresented The above is simply my analysis of the sources. I do think the article has been written in good faith, and in my opinion NPOV isn't a big issue here. I think some of the sources are misrepresented, but I don't think there's been an attempt to deceive or anything like that, if anything the references might just be in the wrong places. @Dantai Amakiir, @CeltBrowne, @Bastun, please give your thoughts on the above. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time and effort to look at these sources, and thank you for offering the view that the article was written in good faith, and that NPOV is not a big issue.
 * if anything the references might just be in the wrong places
 * Yes, that is an issue, particularly as much of the article has been reconfigured in the last 48 hours. I can/will move references around again to better sync with the information presented, per your notes.
 * In relation to Reference 8 (Burke)/"The myth was never popularised in Ireland", yes I based that off the passage:
 * I take that passage to mean "the white Irish in Ireland do not use the term "Black Irish""
 * If you agree my understanding of that passage is correct, could you suggest an alternative phrasing that communicates that the folkloric concept of "Black Irish" did not take root amongst white people in Ireland? CeltBrowne (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @CeltBrowne thanks your reply and feedback.
 * Regarding Burke's passage :
 * I read that as saying the phrase "Black Irish" is not currently in use in Ireland. I think another source would be needed to show that the phrase/myth was never used in Ireland.
 * As an aside I have heard, albeit infrequently, the phrase "Black Irish" used in Ireland when describing white Irish with darker complexions. I've no idea when the phrase came to Ireland, but I wouldn't feel confident asserting that the myth was never popularised in Ireland without a strong citation supporting such.
 * Also Joyce's writings in 1912 (as described in the article) might suggest the myth was present in Ireland at the time. It's hard to say without further research. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts. Whether "never" or "not" is used, the claim is simply untrue. I would suggest that better wording would be "The term Black Irish has not enjoyed the same popularity in Ireland as in the United States", with the caveat that this too needs to be evidenced. Personally, I don't think the claim stands up without citation and should be deleted until it can be properly cited.
 * I agree that the Joyce reference does imply use of the term in Ireland, but I have not found a copy of the original letter to verify, which is why I have not addressed it yet. I hate to repeat myself, but it looks like another instance of the citations contradicting the body text. I have found the following quote in the Ulster Journal of Archaeology (1896) showing that the term very definitely appeared in Ireland, and the implication appears to be that it was in common usage:
 * "Travellers from these countries who have spent some time in Portugal have frequently been struck by the resemblance, both in appearance and disposition, between the Portuguese working classes and the "black Irish" of old stock at home".
 * Clearly, the word "never" is inappropriate here. I think you're correct that a short aside in one author's writing is not enough evidence for such a bold claim regardless. I personally don't doubt that this term is most popular in the United States, but that says nothing about how popular it is in Ireland. I don't consider the claim evidenced and this it should be removed. At the very least, it should not imply that the term was never used in Ireland, and whatever formulation the sentence appears in should correspond to what the citations actually say.
 * CeltBrowne, it seems you make a habit of overgeneralising and overexaggerating the claims of your sources. Please try to use more neutral language and not insert your own interpretations when paraphrasing or summarising these sources. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dantai Amakiir enough with the personal attacks and snide comments. Your comments directed at CeltBrowne have been rude and unnecessary. Per WP:PA, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.".
 * That being said I'm inclined to agree that content relating to the historic use of the phrase "Black Irish" in Ireland should be removed pending better citations. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've issued a warning on their talk page. Next personal attack, it's AN/I time. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well, I will be civil. But I don't think this last comment was a personal attack. It was a reminder of the "no original research policy". I am very concerned that the article as I found it did not accurately reflect its citations, but instead significantly expanded upon and reinterpreted them, and thus meets the definition of original research. However, it looks as though this is now gradually improving. I would appreciate some comment on the wording of "The myth was never/not popularised in Ireland". Dantai Amakiir (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Never popularised" and "never existed" are words which have two entirely differently meanings. It is possible to find one or instances of something occurring in an area, but that doesn't mean it's in widespread use. I never inferred that the term was completely unknown in Ireland, I stated (based on a source) that the term was not widespread in Ireland itself.
 * For someone who has several, several times referenced No original research, you're engaging in it yourself. All the sources you're posting are examples of primary sources, not reliable secondary sources. Per WP:RSPRIMARY, You should be citing historians and academics speaking in hindsight on this topic, not pulling up instances from the 1800s you can find online and from there coming to your own conclusions about when the "first instances" of the myth occurred. That's literally original research.
 * CeltBrowne, it seems you make a habit of overgeneralising and overexaggerating the claims of your sources
 * This is explicitly a personal attack, the latest of a litany of them. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologise for my tone. Truly. I usually write two or three drafts when commenting in order to express myself more politely, but I've been very pressed for time recently.
 * However, I would like to note your comments on "Fringe theories noticeboard", and I hope I can address these comments without it appearing as a personal attack, discussing only the ideas expressed there and in this article. I will therefore withhold comment on "editors who do not seem to have much in actual experience in editing Wikipedia".
 * I agree that the page should receieve as much attention as possible and that fringe theories are a concern here, but not the one you have identified. To quote:
 * "Black Irish (folklore) is (based on reliable secondary sources) a myth/obsolete historical race concept in the same manner as Aryan Race or other Category:Historical definitions of race articles. However, because it never received the widespread examination and denouncement that Aryan Race has, it is still a popular folk concept particularly amongst Irish-Americans."
 * If a topic has "never received widespread examination and denouncement" then literature which does examine and denounce it is, by definition, fringe theory. This paragraph, which I believe accurately summarises the context in which you have written the content of this article, indicates to me that the article is largely original research. The idea that "Black Irish ... is ... a myth/obsolete historical race concept in the same manner as Aryan Race" is not in any way representative of the sources cited, and consists entirely of original research. Original research should not form the basis of a Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia is not the place to advance your own theories, however interesting they may be (and I mean this honestly: this is certainly an interpretation worth academic investigation, but not here on Wikipedia). Meanwhile, academic examinations of the Black Irish identity are extensive, although they usually form a small part of larger works on the Irish American identity in general. This is the academic consensus: that the Black Irish identity exists, completely separate from whatever various folk theories may subsequently have evolved to explain it. I certainly agree that this academic consensus should be sourced, but my focus so far has been on verifying the sources you cite and identifying which of the article's claims, in my opinion, do not fully reflect those sources.
 * I note that you have again reverted the article to the "myth" format in the lead sentence, against the forming consensus that this is not accurate. The previous lead sentence was well sourced and better summarised the topic, whereas your lead is, again, original research, which your "Fringe Theories" makes quite apparent, at least in my interpretation. The characterisation of Black Irish as a myth does not reflect the sources, as has been discussed.
 * Only O'Toole, an opinion columnist rather than an academic, explicitly mentions the Black Irish myth and the Spanish Armada myth as being one and the same. Every single academic source which you cite, as per Boardwalk.Koi's evaluation, does not explicitly state that the two are inseparable. Many of them make an explicit distinction between the Black Irish label and the Spanish Armada origin myth, debunking the latter while not in any way questioning the former. I do not think that one opinion columnist should be given more weight than several academics. This is what I mean when I say that the currently cited sources are sufficient for rejecting the use of the word "myth" in the lead sentence. I do not consider it necessary to provide further citations for excluding "myth" from the lead.
 * Although I am uncomfortable with the value judgment intrinsic in the "folklore" title you have given this article upon creation, I think it is largely accurate, although this too should likely be given citations. This certainly resembles folklore, but I consider the lead sentence containing the word "myth" to be based more on your original research (as per your Fringe Theories post) than on an accurate paraphrasing of the sources cited.
 * I would also like to point out that I have explicitly written that my list of usage occurrences are simply my notes, and my conclusions are original research and should not be included in the article. This is why I explicitly have not done so. Some of these sources are, however, very certainly secondary sources, and there is no reason preventing me from citing them when I get around to writing up a section on the historical usage of the term. I will check Dowd for further citations, as I would like to avoid relying solely on one author, as good as his work is.
 * Nevertheless, your reference to my notes and to my earlier comment (which I'm happy to retract: it was only an example) about Aiden Turner very definitely fall within Wikipedia's definition of personal attacks. These are clearly, to me, accusations of hypocrisy. This kind of discourse is distracting and unconstructive. Please stop. We are, as has been pointed out to me, here to discuss ideas and not personal qualities.
 * I will repeat this one more time, and request that you afterwards drop the topic: I do not personally believe that Black Irish is a real or meaningful category. My personal beliefs should not matter, but you have made numerous comments demonstrating that you think they are important. If it helps you to cooperate with me in improving this article, then I just want you to know that I have no interest in proving the existence of the Black Irish. All I care about is accurately reflecting the sources and neutrally displaying information I find about the topic. This includes, very importantly, information on the Black Irish identity as assumed by various writers and individuals, regardless of their reasons for doing so and the (often dubious) factual basis for their identity claims. I consider this equally, indeed more important and certainly more topical, than pointing out that these people were factually wrong and that many of the things they believed about this identity were folk theories and myths. This, in my opinion, is analysis, and analysis is secondary and should not find its way into the lead sentence of an article.
 * I would like to invite the other editors here to discuss the inclusion of "myth" in the lead sentence in the way that CeltBrowne proposes, as this is my main concern with this article at this stage and the current source of the most conflict. I consider CeltBrowne's revert to this construction to be against what appears, to me, to be the building consensus. Let us please therefore form a solid consensus on this matter, whatever that may be. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My referring to your example of Aidan Turner was simply pointing out a contradiction in what you were arguing. I didn't accuse you once of being in bad faith, or having an agenda, or any other personal malice. In fact I haven't commented once on your behaviour, only your arguments.
 * Several times, and right away from the start of this interaction, both in the edit history and here on the talk page you've accused me of everything under the sun including having an agenda, of behaving like an WP:OWNER, of LYING about references (an incredibly seriously accusation which two other editors found not to be case), and a million other accusations I don't care to recap. You immediately began things by going DEFCON1 and keep going from there.
 * It's only now that you've received a formal warning for your behaviour that you're interested in being civil, so please don't state that it's me who needs to be mindful of their conduit.
 * I'm not going to rehash the entirety of the argument about the content of the page again. 5 sources (O'Toole, Van Vossole, Tate, Pramaggiore, and Burke) indicate the main understanding of the 19th/20th century term was a myth tied to the idea of "Black featured" Irish people descended from Spain. I myself have noted other variants, like when I noted Joyce's Spanish traders idea. There are 0 sources in the article that indicate the predominant understanding of "Black Irish" was something wholly independent of that. The article should reflect the predominant understanding, and it should not lead readers into believing pseudohistory by being written in any way that suggests "Black Irish" "exists" as a "real" identity. I understand that some Irish-Americans themselves came to take on the myth (which I have not reverted), but the article should make clear that believing the myth =/= the myth being "real", any more than a German believing they are an "Aryan" should be presented as meaning the Aryan race "exists" in reality.
 * I have more sources tying the concept to the 19th century and running parallel to historical race concepts, but I am not ready to add those to the article yet because I need more time to research them.
 * Now, I have spent an inordinate yet largely unproductive amount of time engaging with you here on the talk page. Going forward, I would prefer we engage through edits, unless you want to discuss very specific issues or very specific sources. No more walls of text. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been warned and have apologised. That's how warnings are supposed to work. It is not a criticism.
 * I had not commented on your behaviour during our discussions but wanted to bring it up before moving on, which we should. These criticisms are not content based but are ad hominem. They are not relevant to the discussion.
 * With regards to my accusation of an agenda, although I regret having said this, your post on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard as well as this most recent comment clearly declares one. Correct me if I have misunderstood you, but to me it appears that it is your declared wish to ensure that readers come to the understanding that Black Irish is an invalid concept. You explicitly state that you are worried by the lack of academic interest in equating Black Irish with theories such as the Aryan Race. This is, quite frankly, original research. We are not here to moralise and we are not here to be researchers. If the topic has not been addressed by academia in this way, then that's the way it is. We do not simply fill in the gaps ourselves, at least not here.
 * Nevertheless, I would be very interested in exploring the Black Irish identity in the context of turn of the century race concepts, with which they are very definitely linked, but from which I cannot definitively find an origin, although I consider it likely. I have encountered the Black Irish term predominantly in Depression Era writers, particularly Robert E. Howard (see Dowd), who was very explicit about the influence of contemporary race theories in his private letters and published works. I will have to check my sources to cite this properly, but he and many of his contemporaries were very aware of an Iberian connection, but considered this to be much older and to be related to Iberian Gauls. I have never seen him cited mentioning the Spanish Armada myth, but he does appear to have been aware of the Milesian myth. In his conception of the Black Irish identity which he assumed, there was nothing of the Spanish Armada myth as far as I am aware. Nevertheless, his racial identity was undeniably influenced by the race theories of his day: his identity and Nazism very certainly sprung from the same contemporary academic environment. I would certainly be interested in seeing Black Irish labelled an obsolete historical race theory if this can be cited, which I very much hope it can. But being an obsolete concept is not the same as it being a myth. The myth is clearly separate.
 * You keep repeating that these sources back your myth claim, but this does not make it so. Nor is there consensus on this point, as you claim. As has already been demonstrated by Boardwalk.Koi, with regards to the myth claim, all of these sources are/were misrepresented, with the exception of O'Toole, who is not an academic but a columnist and cannot possibly be the sole source for this claim. Many of the sources do not even mention the Spanish Armada at all. I am failing to understand what point you are trying to make by relying on sources which have been demonstrated to not even mention the things you are claiming. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * With regards to my accusation of an agenda, although I regret having said this, your post on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard as well as this most recent comment clearly declares one. Correct me if I have misunderstood you, but to me it appears that it is your declared wish to ensure that readers come to the understanding that Black Irish is an invalid concept. You explicitly state that you are worried by the lack of academic interest in equating Black Irish with theories such as the Aryan Race. This is, quite frankly, original research. We are not here to moralise and we are not here to be researchers. If the topic has not been addressed by academia in this way, then that's the way it is. We do not simply fill in the gaps ourselves, at least not here.
 * Nevertheless, I would be very interested in exploring the Black Irish identity in the context of turn of the century race concepts, with which they are very definitely linked, but from which I cannot definitively find an origin, although I consider it likely. I have encountered the Black Irish term predominantly in Depression Era writers, particularly Robert E. Howard (see Dowd), who was very explicit about the influence of contemporary race theories in his private letters and published works. I will have to check my sources to cite this properly, but he and many of his contemporaries were very aware of an Iberian connection, but considered this to be much older and to be related to Iberian Gauls. I have never seen him cited mentioning the Spanish Armada myth, but he does appear to have been aware of the Milesian myth. In his conception of the Black Irish identity which he assumed, there was nothing of the Spanish Armada myth as far as I am aware. Nevertheless, his racial identity was undeniably influenced by the race theories of his day: his identity and Nazism very certainly sprung from the same contemporary academic environment. I would certainly be interested in seeing Black Irish labelled an obsolete historical race theory if this can be cited, which I very much hope it can. But being an obsolete concept is not the same as it being a myth. The myth is clearly separate.
 * You keep repeating that these sources back your myth claim, but this does not make it so. Nor is there consensus on this point, as you claim. As has already been demonstrated by Boardwalk.Koi, with regards to the myth claim, all of these sources are/were misrepresented, with the exception of O'Toole, who is not an academic but a columnist and cannot possibly be the sole source for this claim. Many of the sources do not even mention the Spanish Armada at all. I am failing to understand what point you are trying to make by relying on sources which have been demonstrated to not even mention the things you are claiming. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that,, very much appreciated. I've very limited editing time left today, but will come back to this tomorrow. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This sentence
Is this sentence missing a word, or am I just lining up the words in the wrong groups?

Academics researching the multi-racial Melungeon ethnic identity and other Native American groups in the southern United States found that "Black Irish" was amongst a dozen myths about Spanish sailors and other European women used to disguise the African heritage of interracial children.

If we omit a few phrases, it comes out to:

"Academics...found that "Black Irish" was amongst a dozen myths about Spanish sailors and other European women used to disguise the African heritage."

I'm not sure whether it is meant to say:


 * "Academics...found that "Black Irish" was amongst a dozen myths about {Spanish sailors and other European women} {that were} used to disguise the African heritage" or
 * "Academics...found that "Black Irish" was amongst a dozen myths about Spanish sailors and other {that} European women used to disguise the African heritage."

Also: What is meant by "other European women"? Spaniards are Europeans, and sailors weren't usually women. Is this trying to indicate that non-Irish white women sometimes claimed to have Spanish lovers and husbands? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It is a clumsy construction, all right. I think it's mainly drawing on reference 7: I've changed the sentence in question to, which is hopefully clearer? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"The Black Irish myth"
I'm confused as to how the concept of the black Irish is supposed to be a "myth". The term denotes a subset of the Irish population that exhibits relatively dark colouring; this subset is certainly real. The popular notion that these individuals descend from Spaniards does seem to be a myth, but it is conflation to say that the black Irish are themselves mythical. Zacwill (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * And all of that is explained in the article? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The article includes statements like "The myth of the Black Irish was used occasionally by Aboriginal Australians to racially pass themselves into white Australian society." This seems to imply that there is in fact no such thing as black Irish people. It would be better to say that "Australian Aboriginals sometimes passed themselves off as black Irish", without introducing the word "myth". Zacwill (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You may be inferring that, but there isn't any such implication in the article. Read the full article. It's pretty clear to me. 1. There are dark-haired and dark-complexioned people of Irish ethnicity. They are described by some (mostly Americans) as 'black Irish'. 2. There is a myth that - and it's only a myth - that these so-called 'black Irish' are descended from survivors of the Spanish Armada. 3. In Ireland, Black Irish refers to Irish people of African descent. Per the reference, the indigenous Australian Aboriginals were using the myth to claim they were black Irish. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the main actionable problem here is to remove the word myth. The word is misunderstood by many readers (myths are something about ancient Greeks, right?  What do the Greeks have to do with the Irish?), and it's often considered derogatory to anyone who believes it.  The emotional impact of "That's just a myth" is very different from "That's the story some people believed, but DNA research disproved it".  This misunderstanding and emotional reaction is why Genesis creation narrative is described as a "narrative" instead of as a "myth", even though it is arguably the most famous Creation myth – using the word in its technical sense, of a story that tells people something important about what it means to be human – in the world.  I suggest finding a way to re-word it so that it avoids the word myth.  Consider words like story, speculation, belief, or claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your citation of Creation Myth is a bit contradictory, as both that article's title and the category it is in (Category:Myths), demonstrate that the term "myth" is not generally not considered an inherently problematic term on Wikipedia.
 * Category:Myths also specifically has Template:Mythology note attached to explain it's usage.
 * MOS:MYTH directly discusses how to use the term "myth" on Wikipedia. It's not a word to be totally avoided, but simply used in the correct context. As this article relates to a piece of "folklore", I believe it is being used in the correct context.
 * Additionally, several sources specifically use the term "myth" when describing the contents of this article, and I was asked several times to provided sources directly calling the contents of this article a myth. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The term is not inherently problematic, but if you read the comments on this page, it is specifically problematic here. If you don't like arguing about that word, then choose a word like folklore instead.
 * (If you do like arguing about it, then I guess you'll get what you want.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I really do think something should be done. This has been going on for months, and countless people have disagreed whereas CeltBrowne seems inable to budge. Additionally, "Black Irish" wasn't just invoked due to the Spanish stuff or whatever, it was also a term for Irishmen with darker hair or eyes. Additionally, there's just as much proof that the "myth" was invented to conceal relations with interracial counterparts as there is proof that the Spanish origin is real as well (which is to say, little to none). I seriously think this needs a touch-up, and I don't know how to call upon a higher authority, but they should be called. 67.254.242.193 (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, since we haven't been able to settle whether we're going to call the Black Irish "people" or "a myth", the next normal step in Dispute resolution is to start an RFC. It seems odd to me that any editor would try to defend the present wording, but perhaps I'll be proven wrong, and the community will decide that we're writing an article about a mythical term instead of about a group of people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What "group of people", exactly, would that be? When I sit down with my partner's family, there's the those that have black hair and sallow skin (only some of whom actually tan well, though, one just burns), the ones with red hair, pale skin and freckles, and those with fair/light brown hair and 'medium' compexion. They're all full siblings... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In other words, some of your relatives fit the "black Irish" description and some of them don't. How exactly does that invalidate the concept? Zacwill (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * They're literally siblings, but the editor I was replying to seems to want to promote the idea that some of them are a separate "people" to their other siblings? /shrug Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)