Talk:Plastic Paddy

As for whether this link: 'Oirish' pub should stay in: I think it's relevant, and illustrates the concept, even if the pub isn't called, say, 'Plastic Paddy's' or such. Could others weigh in on this? I think it is relevant, but don't want to edit war. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

• That link in the Plastic Paddy See also section, 'Oirish' pub, goes to a paragraph in the Monkey Dust article about an episode of a cartoon show, and within that paragraph is the term Oirish pub, which links right back to this article, Plastic Paddy. The title of the link in the See also section is misleading, does not give any further relevant information, and just links back to this article. That doesn't seem to be the kind of link that belongs in an encyclopedic article, regardless of the topic.Spylab 11:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is the bit I think is relevant: 'On one occasion, he enters the pub to be told by a barman named Keith, in an absurd leprechaun outfit that it is now an "Oirish pub". When he asks what happened to the previous barman, who was Irish, he is told that he wasn't "Oirish" enough.' - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

If it must be linked, the name of the link should clearly point out what it's linking to; an episode of a cartoon. With the link named Oirish pub, people will think they are about to read an article defining and elaborating on what an Oirish pub is. That is clearly not the case. Link names should not mislead people like that. Spylab 22:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Oirish pub is a fundamental part of Paddywhackery. In Australia I saw one which offered a "Blarney Busting, Shillelagh Swinging, Leprechaun Loving good time". There are no pubs like that where I live in Ireland, though I suspect that there might be in Killarney and the more touristy parts of Dublin city. Millbanks (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the States, at least, Guiness offers a turnkey "Oirish Pub" that can be purchased and installed, lock, stock and smoky faux-celtic-lettered pub sign, by anybody with the money to pay for it. I can show you at least two here in greater Milwaukee alone! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article defines the term 'Paddy' as 'an ethnic slur against Irish people'. There is a supporting reference, but this is weak. I think the statement is excessively sweeping if it contains any truth at all. Irish people routinely refer to themselves as Paddies and English people don't use the term with the intention of causing offence, though they will sometimes avoid using it because they are afraid of causing offence. It's really equivalent to the Australian use of Pom to refer to the British, and I certainly wouldn't describe that as an 'ethnic slur'. How offensive these things are always depends on the context. --Ef80 (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Further, how one earth does a columnist's opinion:

I abhor the term Plastic Paddy, a reference to the emigrants born in England with English accents who strive to find a balance between their Englishness and Irishness

support the opening statement:

Plastic Paddy is a pejorative term to describe non-Irish people and those of the Irish diaspora who harbour a nostalgic claim of Irishness due to having some degree of Irish ? Rockpocket 19:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you had carried on citing the article you would have got to It's ironic that the second generation have to put up with discrimination in the way my Dad did back in the fifties when the Irish were banned from the lodging houses of Northampton. Yet even the most bigoted little Irelanders accept Irish Americans as Irish even though most are American citizens. What's the difference? The clear inference is that the term is discrimination and it is perpetrated by bigots.

In addition we could use the conviction in a law court of someone for using racist language, including "plastic paddy".

Furthermore, we could even add the dictionary definition from Ask Oxford. Or indeed the the Race Relations Act 1976. Or the definition of racist from The Oxford English Dictionary. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd change non-Irish people and those of the Irish diaspora who harbour a nostalgic claim of Irishness due to having some degree of Irish to those perceived to be less Irish than those perceived to be of pure Irish background. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do any of those actually describe "Plastic Paddy" as a pejorative term? Currently, there appears to be a lot of synthesis going on. Rockpocket 19:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Common sense indicates it's pejorative based on these citations. We certainly have to make up our mind what it means though. And I suspect some bizarrely think it's "just abit of fun"... Nedao.glasgow (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Those examples suggest can be pejorative, it does not state that it is pejorative. When we are defining meaning, making qualitative statements based on examples is not a good idea. Lets state what the meaning of the term is and them we can state the examples of how it has been used. Rockpocket 21:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, let's try to define what we mean. If you are saying something is plastic, then clearly you are saying this is deficient. If you are saying something is deficient, then it's pejorative. Can you give me an example when it is not a criticism of somethings or someones authenticity as Irish? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the word plastic implies fake or second rate, i.e. Plastic Paddy = fake Irish. It is almost always pejorative to call someone fake. In fact, I can't think of any example in which calling someone fake would be a good thing, unless possibly you mean someone is a good actor, because they convincingly portray something they're not. I doubt anyone would use the term in that way though. All of the examples in the article are obviously negative.Spylab (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Let me give you a perfect example of what is wrong with this article. The sentence: Some individuals of Irish heritage have charged that the use of the term 'Plastic Paddy', and the criticism of non-Irish born football players, is a form of bigotry. In these cases they are asserting that all people of any Irish ancestry are in effect 'Irish' and therefore can claim 'Irish' identity even if they are not Irish (or Northern Irish). This sourced to a column by Will Buckley [1], which happens to mention the term, quoting a fictional character in a novel. It has absolutely nothing to do with the sentence it is supposed to be supporting!

This entire article is essentially a personal essay reflecting a specific POV, with links to other articles that mention the term as spurious "support" for the fact it is always a racist, pejorative ethnic slur. Honestly. Our job is not to tease out the implications based on our own perspectives. Let the facts speak for themselves. Rockpocket 02:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Finally, the reason all the examples in the article are obviously negative is because the people who wrote is made sure that was the case to further a point of view. If you actually read the sources (at least the ones that actually have something to do with the term) you would note the following: They have all heard the ‘plastic’ Paddy taunts and by and large take it in the banter that it is intended as was shown by a Tricolour flag seen in Paris for the recent game with France that had a QPR badge in the middle and flanked by a message that simply said: “Plastic and Proud”. So, rather than rely on our personal feelings, how about we reflect what the sources actually say? Rockpocket 02:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think we should work towards consensus on this. Maybe sentence by sentence. But towards that we should work. It's a controversial area, so I appreciate some of your concerns rocketpocket.

1. Do we think it's pejorative? I'd suggest yes, since there is evidence it formed racist abuse and we have an article from the Irish Independent in which it suggests the author abhors the term, possibly viewing it as a form of discrimination. I'd also suggest that calling something plastic is pejorative. This may be a point of view, but Ask Oxford suggest calling something plastic, means artificial, which is not coomplementary. It is also based upon the word Paddy, which is chiefly offensive on it's own. Suffixing with plastic does not reduce the offense. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter what we think, it matters what multiple, independent, reliable sources say. Do the multiple, independent, reliable sources say its pejorative? Rockpocket 23:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Of course it is! that Paddy carrying racial conotations and Plastic Paddy being a pejorative. As a born a bred Irishman I find that I have often heard people say to me that "oh its not you guys that I have a problem with, its those Plastic Paddys that have never been to Ireland". Its a terms used by the most insecure, rancid cretinous or bitter and jealous cunts that will never understand the Irish diaspora.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, why didn't you say so earlier? Now we have your erudite opinion to refer to, we can definitely add it to the article. Jesus wept. Rockpocket 02:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Would you please deal with the substantive point RP? How does a term like Paddy, which is pejorative/offensive (I think we agree), become not pejorative/offensive by prefixing it with plastic? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The substantive point is that we need multiple reliable sources, not opinions, to support the material in our article. If what you say is so patently obvious, then you should have no problem providing them. Let me give you a comparative example. The article, Nigger does not even describe the term as a pejorative, ethnic slur. It starts: Nigger is a noun in the English language, most notable for its usage in a pejorative context to refer to black people, and also as an informal slang term, among other contexts. See the difference? Rather than label it as "pejorative" we describe how it is used (both pejoratively and otherwise). This is what we should do here. Rockpocket 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

• The difference is that in this case, there is no evidence of an otherwise. When is Plastic Paddy not used as a pejorative? Even in the example of Queen's Park Rangers fans mentioned above, it is pejorative because fans of other teams "taunted" the QPR fans with the term. The fact some QPR fans responded with the sarcastic "Plastic and Proud" banner doesn't make the term Plastic Paddy somehow not an insult.Spylab (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well clearly he wasn't using it to criticize himself, instead it is an example of appropriation of the term, the exact same linguistic concept as nigga. But you are right, the sources indiicate it is most notable for its use in a pejorative manner, so we state that. Rockpocket 21:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note that the banner said "Plastic and Proud", not "Plastic Paddy and Proud." There is no evidence provided to show there has been a significant reclamation of the term Plastic Paddy, along the lines of Nigga or Queer.Spylab (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nowhere in the article does it claim there is, so I'm not sure what you point is. I used it only as an example of how selective the article is on citing sources. There is no reliable sources provided to support that fact that it is a "pejorative term", only of it being used in a pejorative context. There is an important difference. If you wish to revert to the previous version, please provide sources supporting what you wish to state. Rockpocket 21:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Exactly Spylab, it was appropriation of a term used by jealous bigots.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have copy edited the entire article with reference to all the sources cited inline. There was a shocking amount of SYN and OR going on. Now, each inline source explicitly supports the sentence preceding it. There are a number of references that are not cited inline. These may be suitable to support some of the material I removed, however, I am not in a position to read these currently. If that is the case, please feel free to add them back with the source cited inline. If there is continued attempts to misrepresent sources to further a position, then I'll take this to AN. Rockpocket 22:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

"white nigger" is considered pejorative, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigger, so why not plastic paddy? Also <allwords.com> considers it pejorative <http://www.allwords.com/word-plastic+paddy.html>. Moreover, this book describes "plastic paddy" as "a jibe" [2]. Furthermore, this book describes the term as "derogatory" [3]. In addition, this book suggests the term is used to "denigrate" [4]. And finally, it is considered "a term of abuse", so therefore clearly pejorative, in "Fanatics!: power, identity, and fandom in football" By Adam Brown.[5]. Now one can dance on a pin head about how often the word "pejorative" is actually being used, but I think the sense is clear to all sensible people. Do you want to re-edit the article RP, or shall I? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not convinced Allwords.com is a reliable source, but everything else you cite appears compelling. Feel free to add any material that is reliably and accurately sourced, Nedao.glasgow. That is all I have been requesting, thoughout this entire section. Rockpocket 19:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, in addition to reliably sourcing it as a pejorative term, these sources appear to suggest documented usage of the term that is not made clear in the text. One that puts Vk's ("As a born a bred Irishman") eloquent point, that the term is "used by the most insecure, rancid cretinous or bitter and jealous cunts that will never understand the Irish diaspora" in some context. Cf:

• "The Irish born have frequently denied the authenticity of their [the second generation Irish] Irish identity, using the derogatory term Plastic Paddy [6]
• "Plastic Paddy... frequently articulated by the the new middle class Irish immigrants in Britain, for whom it was a means of distancing themselves from established Irish communities" [7]
• "Within the Irish community itself, the jibe Plastic Paddy colludes with this denial..." [8]
• "Plastic Paddy - a term of abuse used by Irish-born fans to indict the nominally 'second generation'" [9]

In all cases, these reliable sources articulate that it is specifically Irish-born people who use the derogatory term to jibe/insult/denigrate those they consider to be second generation. I was entirely unaware of this, as it is not even mentioned in the article. If Nedao.glasgow (or anyone else) doesn't update the article to include these references, I will later in the weekend. Rockpocket 20:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You sound rather gleeful that the term is used, although certainly not exclusively, by the Irish RP. Maybe I've picked up your last message wrongly. I've made reference to the distribution of people who use the term in the article. One gets the impression RP may like to suggest the "cretinous" Irish are particular exponents of this pejorative term. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

One gets the impression that our policy about commenting on the content, not the contributor, is something you are unaware of. I suggest you read it.

For the nth time, I "like to suggest" we include what the references tell us. The fact that all the references you provide tell us something that is entirely lacking in the article suggests to me it is something that needs to be rectified. I assume you too are interesting in reported what the references tell us, right? Rockpocket 21:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering whether you wanted to emphasize the "cretinous", as you point out, Irish in the article. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You were not my words (the clue is in the quotation marks), and I did not use those terms to justify the inclusion of any content. You would have to ask the editor who did. Rockpocket 22:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I never said they were your words. However, you provocatively put the two together. I thought you were wanting to emphasize usage by the "cretinous" Irish. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You thought wrong. Instead of speculating about what I want to include, why don't you just ask and save us both some time? But, just in case the message hasn't got though yet. Let me repeat it again. There is no need to emphasize anything. Simply let the refs speak for themselves, again. Rockpocket 22:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can we verify that I was wrong that you wanted to highlight the "cretinous" Irish? That's a retorical question... Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have a better idea. Why don't we verify that you are a single purpose account whose body of contributions to Wikipedia consists of selectively perpetuating a pathetic, parochial Rangers v. Celtic agenda across a range of articles? Lets also verify that that sort of editor has all the credibility of those fuckwits who spend their time "bantering" with each other on your aforementioned internet forums. So, now you have your anti-Rangers sentence inserted in this article, why don't you go back to arguing over which set of fans are more sectarian than the other and leave the serious article writing to those who know how to find a reference (rather than a google search) and use it. Good afternoon. Rockpocket 22:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean to upset you rocketpocket over your connection of the "cretinous" and the Irish thing. Although someone might suspect you were being a tad pejorative on the basis of national origin (i.e. racist) there. I'll let you get back to editing on paramilitaries... Nedao.glasgow (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Its incorrect to claim this is an "ethnic slur", its simply a phrase of ridicule. What about actual Irish people from Ireland who use this term in regards to British Celtic FC types or people in Boston who drink green beer and confusingly wear tartan kilts on Saint Patricks Day? I don't think use of this phrase is "anti-Irish culture", but rather a term to represent cringing embrassment of a diaspora republican parody of something which probably doesn't even exist (or if it does, not quite how they envisage). The absolute worst part of it all, is the collectivist assertion of being "offended", as if these people and their constructed concept of "culture" is representive of the average British, American, Australian or whatever else person of Irish descent. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if we have consensus on the use of the word pejorative? Previously I had written that "Now one can dance on a pin head about how often the word "pejorative" is actually being used, but I think the sense is clear to all sensible people. Do you want to re-edit the article RP, or shall I?" To which Rocketpocket wrote "everything else you cite appears compelling. Feel free to add any material that is reliably and accurately sourced, Nedao.glasgow. That is all I have been requesting, thoughout this entire section." Maybe people think that Plastic Paddy is not pejorative, so we should re-write the entire article and exclude the views of academics?

From before "Moreover, this book describes "plastic paddy" as "a jibe" [10]. Furthermore, this book describes the term as "derogatory" [11]. In addition, this book suggests the term is used to "denigrate" [12]. And finally, it is considered "a term of abuse", so therefore clearly pejorative, in "Fanatics!: power, identity, and fandom in football" By Adam Brown.[13]." Nedao.glasgow (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nobody is denying that it is usually pejorative, to varying degrees, and the Usage section reflects that clearly ("notable for its usage in a pejorative context"). However, with a bit of common sense, we can see that not every example of use is pejorative, and to use the blanket term in the lead is incorrect. --hippo43 (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Much like "nigger" not every example of use is pejorative - however, it is still a pejorative. Pretty much every example given when the use is not from an Irishman (be they born in Ireland or not) is used with pejorative intent. At its core it is a pejorative and that needs to be relectived in the opening sentance.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Funny you mention the word "Nigger", it might be worth reading that article and noting how its pejorative use is described in the lead. This is how we should describe Plastic Paddy, in my opinion. Wikipedia articles should is descriptive, not proscriptive. Therefore we should not be proscribing what terms mean, simply describing how they are used. My proposal then,

Plastic Paddy is a term used to describe members of the Irish diaspora on the basis of their perceived lack of authenticity as Irish; its most notable for its usage in a pejorative context.

Rockpocket 20:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me, perfectly sensible. --hippo43 (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It should mirror this "Nigger is a noun in the English language, most notable for its usage in a pejorative context to refer to black people, and also as an informal slang term, among other contexts. It is a common ethnic slur."--Vintagekits (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

If hippo is being intransigent on not wanting "pejorative term", I think we should revert to Rocketpocket's reasonable suggestion. We had all pretty much agreed to Rp's suggestion last week before we strengthened the usage. So Rp's suggestion is a slight watering down of including an explicit and early mention of "pejorative term", which I think was clearly justified by the multiple and conclusive academic opinions. But to keep hippo happy I think we should go with RP's reasonable suggestion. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why is this in the NI WikiProject? I don't think the term is used to refer to people actually born and bred on the island of Ireland. Even if they're not from the Irish state. It should just be in the USA, Scotland, England, Canada and Australia projects. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well add them - who is stopping you?--Vintagekits (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to see if there was a reason why NI was on before swapping it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Certainly online, the worst offenders for this are the "Irish" Americans, so why does this article hardly mention them? Im pretty sure it used too...--81.96.125.232 (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you're plastic, you're plastic; they come out of Oz, NZ, Canada and other places as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Including yourself, by the look of it.--78.146.93.167 (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've only ever heard the term as a joke in the UK, frequently self-deprecating. The article atm has a certain 'ideological' tone imo. For example: "According to Bronwen Walter, Professor of Irish Diaspora Studies at Anglia Ruskin University, "the adoption of a hyphenated identity has been much more problematic for the second generation Irish in Britain. The Irish-born have frequently denied the authenticity of their Irish identity, using the derogatory term plastic paddy, and the English regards them as "assimilated" and simply "English." Well, I'm not sure who says it's problematic, neither am I sure what is particularly 'authentic' about Irish identity if you've never lived in Ireland, nor what is so regrettable at treating everyone the same in the place where you do happen to live. I agree with an above comment, this hyphenated identity is an American preoccupation, it's got almost zero cultural purchase in the English-speaking end of Europe. Hakluyt bean (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It would apear that Bronwen Walter, Professor of Irish Diaspora Studies at Anglia Ruskin University says its problematic. Unfortuntely, on articles like this, everyone has an opinion - but but they are almost always difficult to reliably source. So we are left with rather academic analyses that don't always reflect the common understanding or usage of the term. Rockpocket 17:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

There's a quote from "Hickman" that is repeatedly (and slightly clumsily) paraphrased in the article. Needs fixing: perhaps by original writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.3.187 (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

If "Plastic Paddy" is a proper name then we should capitalize 'Plastic' but if it's not we should not capitalize it. IMO, it's not a proper name but the name for a type of person. The article already reflects the common noun phrase (uncapitalized) usage in several places and a quick sweep would correct the rest. Jojalozzo 19:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Mooretwin (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am an Irish citizen, born outside of the Republic to a mother from the North and a father born in the US of Irish immigrant parents. Both have had Irish citizenship from birth, as do I, and our ancestors have been Irish for millenia. But I've had the phrase "plastic paddy" thrown in my face repeatedly --- and almost exclusively by non-Irish citizens of the UK --- because I spent much of my life outside of Ireland and do not have a stereotypically "Oirish" accent. Most daminingly when I have failed to accept a UK-centric version of history --- distant or recent --- where Irish matters were discussed.

"Plastic Paddy" was used as an insult, it was intended as an insult, it was recognized an an insult, and it was responded to as an insult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.195.84 (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Born outside of the a Republic. So you aren't Irish. You answer the issue yourself. Kentish 2351 30 May 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.62.161 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Here's a perfect example proving the point about it being an English bigot's pejorative: an English-based IP-poster telling an actual Irish citizen --- recognized as such by the laws of both the Republic of Ireland and the UK --- that he is "not Irish." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.89.207 (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Dwanyewest: With all due respect and apologies, I'm going to remove the merge notice. "Plastic Paddies" is a redirect. Currently there is a brief section by that name in the Irish diaspora article, while the topic is covered more fully in this article here. As the term is pejorative, it could be seen as insulting to redirect that term to that entire article. The redirect used to redirect here, until a bot changed it. I think it can be covered briefly at the diaspora article, as it is, with the "main" link to this article, again, as it is now. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plastic Paddy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130528052926/http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/000000005523.htm to http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/000000005523.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Plastic Paddy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629121702/http://archives.tcm.ie/irishpost/2006/05/10/story4153.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/irishpost/2006/05/10/story4153.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605082238/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-17050544-are-you-a-plastic-paddy.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-17050544-are-you-a-plastic-paddy.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think this article could do with some expanding. There is a bizarre England-centric/anti-English tint to it. The term 'Paddy' was in use long before the 1980s in England as both a nickname (some Irishman actively adopted it) or in the pejorative sense (the language used in early episodes of the television soap opera 'Coronation Street' was quite representative of everyday usage and in a 1960 episode the character of Ena Sharples upbraided an Irish barmaid by calling her 'PADDY!). And what of the American angle? We really do need more sources and material here.

(86.146.100.207 (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC))Reply

Hi.

RE: "Paddy was in use long before the 1980s [..] as both a nickname [..] or in the pejorative sense". Indeed. But this article isn't about the use of Paddy generally. As a nickname (short for Patrick) or as a pejorative term. For those uses of that term, see the articles linked from Paddy#People.

RE: "what of the American angle? We really do need more sources". If you have any sources which confirm that the subject of this article (the term Plastic Paddy) is or has been used in North America, then please do add them. And update the text to reflect. Or add them here. And seek input on how to best reflect.

Otherwise, the current article text reflects the current article sources. (And the titlular topic/subject.) Guliolopez (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

A series of edits (from IPs based in Canada and likely associated with same contributor) have, in the body and edit summaries, sought to add text stating that the term Plastic Paddy was:

• "[initially] a slur targeting refugees",
• "[part of] cultural genocide", was
• "[used] in England for Irish Catholic refugees", and
• "associated with violence toward refugees".

Ignoring the fact that the word "plastic" wasn't first used by Baekeland (to mean synthetic) until the early 20th century, and wasn't popularised (to mean fake) until plastics became more pervasive in the mid-20th century (and it's therefore unclear what late-20th century "Catholic refugees" could be in question), I can find no sources to support these additions. There are no sources which connect the term "Plastic Paddy" with "Catholic refugees". And no sources which associate the term "Plastic Paddy" with "cultural genocide". Or which refer to "violence toward refugees". Or any of the other text added (or given in edit summaries). If there are sources which support these additions then please provide them. Otherwise these additions do not appear to be constructive, reflective of the sources or otherwise in keeping with WP:VER. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, if this keeps up the page may need protection. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bump. OK. It's now December 2024 (months after the above thread was opened) and the Canada-based anon editor(s) continue to add uncited text. Still hijacking the existing refs. And still asserting that the term under discussion has been applied to "Irish Catholics displaced by British colonialism", "[Irish] refugees displaced by British colonialism", "Irish Catholic refugees fleeing to the United Kingdom" and other similar people (when none of the sources refer to refugees or Irish people living in the UK as a form of displaced people). The editor also continues to state that the term is associated with "colonialism" and "cultural genocide" (again, where none of the sources use these terms). Leaving aside that all of the sources date the term to the late 20th century (and so it is unclear what Catholic refugees were displaced from Ireland by British colonialism in the 20th century), the simple fact is that - absent sources that support these assertions - they simply cannot be added to the article. It is a basic tenet of Wikipedia that the text of articles be supported by WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFIABLE and (ideally) WP:INDEPENDENT sources. These additions are not supported by any such sources. The editor who continues to make these changes is, yet again, invited to explain and support their proposed changes here. On this Talk page. Per WP:BRD and other editing norms. If they continue to edit-war (which is what is happening here), then page protection is the next option. Guliolopez (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

In a recent edit, the Canada-based anon has added a "reference" to a work titled "Britain’s Blueprint for Colonialism: Made in Ireland". It has to be noted (although it comes as no surprise to me) that this "reference" makes absolutely no mention of the term "Plastic Paddy"! And, instead, deals with the Plantation, Penal Laws, Great Famine, 1916 Rising, etc. All of which are covered under their own articles. And none of which are connected, by the source or indeed any rational logic, to the term under discussion in this article. Which is, per the lead and text, about a term used (mostly in the late 20th century) by Irish people/diaspora to refer to other Irish people/diaspora. And which therefore does not address any of the concerns raised in this thread or multiple EDSUMMs. It is clear to me that the editor involved (a) has not grasped that this article is about and/or (b) is just trolling at this stage. I have opened a WP:PP thread. And will address from there. Guliolopez (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

And? You demanded a source for the claim that Ireland had been colonized and people had been displaced. I provided a source for that, though it should be common knowledge, and is a well established fact. I never said the terms were used simultaneously, but that the term described their descendants, which is fact, and entirely relevant.

Also, your claim “used by members of the dispora for other members of the dispora” is disproven by the article itself and pretty well every source linked, which show it as a term of abuse from people in Ireland or the uk for Irish dispora. Once again, as demonstrated by the sourced provided, that “dispora” includes descents of large numbers of people displaced during colonial rule. Understanding this is integral to understanding a term like this and the motivations behind it.

Meanwhile, none of the links back up the claim it is used to describe “cultural appropriation.” No variation of that term I have ever seen ever include people celebrating aspects of a culture they passed on between generations since moving to another country.

Looking back at the discussion and editing of this page, it seems this sort of argument on the page goes back over a decade, with people quickly removing descriptions or sources that point out the problematic nature of the term, and how it’s used as a disparaging insult. This appears to be a political motivation rather than one based on accuracy or even descriptions.

Finally, id like to re-iterate: NONE of the links for either that sentence, or anywhere in the article, or the descriptions in the article itself, back up the claim it describes “cultural appropriation.” This seems to contradict the rest of the information there and appears to have been added in with no regard for what else is in the article 142.180.165.250 (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe the overall issue, as I think my other comment explains, is the motivation for a lot of the edits in this page trying to remove negative aspects of its use, claim it describes appropriation, or remove mentions of the reasons why there are people around the world who still celebrate aspects of Irish culture, are largely politically motivated and contradicted by the sources in the article. 142.180.165.250 (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. RE:

• "You demanded a source for the claim that Ireland had been colonized and people had been displaced". No. I didn't. I asked for a source which associated the use of the term "Plastic Paddy" with "descendants of refugees displaced during the British colonial period in Ireland". The linked article makes no mention of the term "Plastic Paddy" (nor does it even deal with emigration or displacement or diaspora in general). It therefore cannot be used to support your changes to the lead/intro.
• "none of the links back up the claim it is used to describe “cultural appropriation". What are you on about? Where have I argued for the inclusion of text about "cultural appropriation"? And where does the article use the term "cultural appropriation"? And what does that have to do with the text that you are insistent on adding? I'm not sure what kind of strawman you're building with that assertion. But it is entirely irrelevant and I'll be ignoring it.

None of your statements above (or the references you have added) support the text that you propose to include. Put flatly: if you can't find a reference that associates the term "Plastic Paddy" with "refugees displaced during the British colonial period in Ireland", then your change is unsupported and can only be read as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Guliolopez (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

“asked for a source which associated the use of the term "Plastic Paddy" with "descendants of refugees displaced during the British colonial period in Ireland".”

exactly. As shown by the sources, or just an understanding of Irish history, Irish dispora DOES often consist largely of people descended from either refugees or people displaced out of the country. This is backed by the source and Wikipedia’s own page on Irish dispora. To acknowledge these events, and acknowledge a term that targets the dispora, but pretend they aren’t connected would be ridiculous. It also comes up directly in its use- In the links provided, they mention it being used in the context of Irish Americans discussing the famine, which was part of their history and often the reason they left.

”Where have I argued for the inclusion of text about "cultural appropriation"- every edit you made put that term in. I repeatedly asked

For a source, you gave none. There are none in the article. The use here isn’t comparable to any other use of the term I’ve seen- never would someone of an ethnicity that left a country passing on elements of their culture or identity would fall under that category.

Again, the connection is clear and demonstrated by the links. The term is used for the Irish diaspora. The Irish diaspora, today, is descendants of people displaced out of Ireland. That fact is integral to both the reasons why people in the diaspora maintain elements of their culture and any insult targeted against them for doing so. 142.180.165.250 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Quick question- a check through the edit history shows you edited in the term “cultural apposition” at least four times. You never provided a source for this and ignored requests for one.

why are you now asking “where have I argued for the inclusion of text about "cultural appropriation"? And where does the article use the term "cultural appropriation"?”

it was right in the first sentence, because you kept putting it there. 142.180.165.250 (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am going to keep this simple. The term "appropriation" is clearly in the existing/linked source. Directly associated with the term "plastic paddy". ("'Plastic Paddy' is a pejorative term for members of the Irish diaspora who appropriate Irish customs and identity" a verbatim quote from source.) On the other hand, neither the terms "plastic Paddy" nor "refugee" appears anywhere in the newly added source. And so it requires WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to infer that, because some Irish diaspora (in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries) included "people descended from either refugees or people displaced out of the country", then we can flatly state that "Plastic Paddy" (a late 20th century term) represents a "slur used to target [..] descendants of refugees displaced during the British colonial period in Ireland". No sources make or support such a claim. Absent such a source, your arguments about other (possible) text has no relevance and is not an argument in support of the text you propose. Guliolopez (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

You’ve gone back and forth between claiming you never argued for or used the term “cultural appropriation” to adding it in. The use in the context linked was from a person accused of it criticizing its use. it does not justify the claim as a pure fact. If anything, the claim that it is would be an example of it being used as a pejorative with a false basis, as normally the term does not apply to descendants of immigrants from the country that originated the given culture.

also, as I mentioned, as the term is used for members of a diaspora, the reason why they are a diaspora is important and should not be ignored. Constnstly asking “how do we know the members of a diaspora of a given country ate descended from people who left that country” is ridiculous and feels like a deliberately loaded question.

The fact remains- term is an insult, and this page appears manipulated to change multiple connotations of the actual facts behind it. Going through the discussions and changes, with multiple posts over a decade discussing that and edits removing them or presenting the most positive possible take on what is, in many cases, a slur. This page appears to be hijacked to blame the targets of that slur for being the targets rather then acknowledge it is the term itself, and the reasons behind it, that is problematic, not the thing it is describing 142.180.165.250 (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply