Talk:Plastic Paddy

Narrow Article

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))

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)

"refugees" / "genocide"

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

“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)

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)

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)

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)

And, yet again, you write 200+ words. And none of them support or address your assertion that "Plastic Paddy" is a term applied to "refugees" or "descendants of refugees". No sources make such a claim. Several sources state that the term is used in a derogatory or pejorative sense. And the lead and body already reflect these sources. Continuing to argue that there is an issue in this regard (while ignoring the comments on the text that you actually added) is just noise. As you're arguing for inclusion of text that is already included. Unless you have a specific change to propose (and sources to back up that proposal), then I'm done with this noise. Guliolopez (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Even the slightest knowledge of Irish history, or the multiple sources I gave and others in the article, will show that Ireland saw long periods of displacement and colonialism, and that the ethnically Irish people in USA, uk, Canada, etc, are often, if not primarily, descendants of those displaced by it. Look up the term “coffin ship” if you want to know how they came over. Those are the people being targeted. in no sense of the term, anywhere you’ll see applied elsewhere, are people who left a country keeping part of that culture accused of “cultural appropriation.” also, To know this is why people left but then pretend the descendants of people who left aren’t descendants of people who experienced those events seems like Willfull denialism.

You also tried multiple times to remove both “pejorative” and “slur” from the text, even though those are both obviously accurate, and both sources and repeat discussions on this board all agreed with it.

the issue is this: go back years when this page was first written, and multiple discussions repeatedly agreed with what I said, and the text emphasized that far more. It was you, starting from what I can tell at least in 2016, coming in and constantly changing text, deleting sections, and removing sources to change it and make it seem like the people being targeted were the issue, not the people using the term. You also lied about it- claiming you never said it was cultural appropriation while repeatedly forcing it into the text. (Again, it’s not, by any sense of the term). From the looks of how quickly you respond, you seem to have a a trigger telling you of changes so you can quickly edit out negative connotations.

You’ve now dedicated close to a decade to trying to make your favourite slur seem passable. You’ve had it locked so people can add in text or sources that disagree with your personal take. Is this personal to you? Maybe lay off and breath a bit? 142.180.165.250 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Claiming that this term for ethnically Irish people around the world doesn’t apply to the descendants of people who left Ireland during British colonial rule would be like claiming the “n word” for African Americans doesn’t apply to the descendants of slaves. It’s denying a clear historic fact 142.180.165.250 (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What term for ethnically Irish people? "Plastic Paddy"? This term isn't universally applied to all ethnically Irish people (either in Ireland or its diaspora). Not per the sources. Which state that it has been used (in limited contexts and mostly in the UK), where the speaker (often themselves an ethnically Irish person) has sought to disparage or diminish the target's manner or means of displaying "Irishness". If you have sources which support its use as a derogatory term to (all) ethnically Irish people, then please provide it. Otherwise your comparison to the "N word", to my ear at least, is misplaced and laughable. Guliolopez (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@142.180.165.250. I recognise that we've fallen "off track" here a little. Can you reconfirm what specific text changes you feel are required/warranted in the article text? (And what sources you're relying upon for those changes?) Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Revisited

Following on from the above (and seemingly from the same anon/contributor), a series of edits to the lead sought to remove mention of "appropriation". Even though this is, verbatim, what the linked source states. And is placed in quotes to clarify that it represents an attributed definition. Happy to have the discussion about where and how this quoted/attributed definition might be placed, but removing it entirely (seemingly based entirely on OR/opinion that it doesn't meet 'Most current definitions of "cultural appropriation"') doesn't seem like an appropriate course.

(BTW - While I'd like to ignore the suggestion that my edits or comments are 'troll[ing]' (as objectively bogus) I will simply state that I know full well that I added that quote. In this edit. As part of a previous attempt at compromise to address prior warring nonsense. All of my edits, including that one, are made entirely in good faith. Good faith, I might note, offered in the face of edits/comments that were not reciprocal/reciprocated. My own good faith has its limits. And accusations of bad faith is one of those limits....) Guliolopez (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Revisiting again. As the Canada-based anon editor has, again, decided to remove mention of "appropriation" from the lead, I am revisiting this again. In particular, in this edit, the editor:

• Re-added a number of redundant/duplicate/raw URLs
• Removed all mention of "appropriation" from the description of the subject term (despite that being in the source)
• Replaced it with text that, rather than describing the term, appeared to present editorial on how those who use the term should be described.

I have restored the previous text. For all the reasons previously noted (and the issues with referencing; and that, to my mind, the lead should describe the term - rather than introduce editorial opinion on those that hypothetically use the term). Guliolopez (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Notes

Because it’s wrong. You’ve in the past discussion acknowledged this. The vast majority of sources and history on this don’t don’t support the description as “cultural appropriation.” Even The source you are “directly quoting” goes on to argue against its description as as such, saying that the stereotype is dated, and suggesting that it falsely denies or downplays historic atrocities such as the famine. The fact that you read that article and used it solely to back a claim that the people being accused were the problem and “cultural appropriation” is bizzare. Furthermore, even if you did argue that backed you up, it is the only source that even mentions the phrase among dozens of others that refer to “plastic paddy”, accurately, as a slur targeted against a diaspora.

you’ve ackneolged this. Taking directly from you in past talks, when you were challenged on the reason for forcing it:

"none of the links back up the claim it is used to describe “cultural appropriation". (You): 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.”

When challenged on this take; you openly denied writing it and called it a strawman until it was pointed out we could see you doing it and you were the only one who thought That. It was then you used the quotation marks to defend it.

Whats being described in the article, backed by the sources and history, is not a term that condemns cultural apportion. It’s a term that condemns an ethnic group, no matter which culture they follow. It is also inaccurate to say that a group of people forced out of their homeland attempting to maintain their culture is approbation, and doing so seems to be ignoring history.

Simmialiy, on that last note, you have saved changes where you repeatedly removed facts, links and sources concerning the displacement of the Irish in relation to this term. In my opinion, this is strange, you can’t discuss a term like this without mentioning the history behind it. This should be front and center, and if anything that should be the first line, not what you’re writing.

either way, to say it is cultural appropriation is a dubious personal take not backed by the majority of citations at best, outright wrong at worst. It does not belong in the first line of an articulate about a slur. 67.71.50.173 (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

A well balanced first line for this article, with the sources and history described, could be:

”plastic paddy is a derogatory term or a slur initially used in the united kingdom to describe second generation Irish immigrants and later expanded to other members of the diaspora, often tied to stereotypes .”

thete is no reason at all for this to mention “cultural appropriation”, which is not accurate 67.71.50.173 (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

As discussed previously, multiple sources associate the term "Plastic Paddy" with the concept of "[cultural] appropriation". Including the:

• IrishCentral source, which overtly defines the term as such, stating that "'Plastic Paddy' is a pejorative term for members of the Irish diaspora who appropriate Irish customs and identity". Ignoring this defining introductory quote, in favour of other random words plucked from the same source, is not an accurate reflection of this source or its key point(s).
• Irish Post source, which states that "'Plastic Paddy' is a somewhat derogatory expression alluding to 'the cultural appropriation evidenced by unconvincing non-native Irishness'.

It is therefore, in my view, not at all inaccurate or misrepresentative to this meaning/use. In the lead or the body. And your attempted (failed) "gotchas", referring to previous discussions, are not constructive. Or representative. Or useful. As are your (now WP:3RR-breaching) warring edits (Which continue to re-introduce syntax and referencing errors). Guliolopez (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You’re describing these as “gotchas”- they are your own quotes. The information you have backing it are:

-one article that openly argues the take behind the phrase is itself an offensive stereotype that denies important historical points

- one that says it “alludes to”- again, not definitive, but an accusation.

the fact, as referenced by multiple sources, that the term was applied as a slur to people whether they tried to Maintain Irish identity or conform to British, shows the issue: it’s not about behaviour, but ethnic descent. It can’t be said to “describe cultural appropriation of Irish identity” if it usd against people doing the exact opposite and trying to hide it.

It’s also, at any rate, an odd thing to focus on. This was, in its first case, used as a slur against a displaced ethnic group who were oppressed by the people using it. To try to write the beginning as if the people behind described are the issue, not the people using the term, is false and bizzare, and not backed by the information in the article. It may be your personal take, but it’s not a factual one. Even when it is used as the descriptor, it seems to be more of an accusation treated as fact against a group of people, rather then a fact. You could find examples with any simmialr slur of people trying to present use of the slur as fine or saying the people being accused are the problem- it rarely is the case.

EveN if you’re using it more broadly, as you seem to want, for people in the Irish diaspora who maintain aspects of Irish culture, it still doesn’t fall under most descriptors of appropriation. Normally, family that leave a country and pass on cultural aspects are not described as appropriation at all, only if they have no connection at all. Add in the specific context, ie the opppression of culture and displacement out Ireland, and the fact that people left specifically because there were targeted for this culture (as was previously in multiple sources you removed) it feels like denialism of history. They aren’t appropriating anything, they are maintaining their own, and are still targeted for it.

also, you keep trying to remove or downplay references to it being a slur. Why? This is in multiple sources and was the first and arguably most common use.

i also don’t see why you have tried to remove sources describing the displacement out of Ireland, and its initial use specifically within the United Kingdom to refer to second generation Irish immigrants. Again, why? This is the history of the relation between the two groups, ie the people using the term and the people being labeled, and is necessary to understand it.

overall, I don’t agree that the description of it as “cultural approbation” needs to be at the front, if at all, and certainly shouldn’t be presented as a fact. It is at best a dubious accusation, at worst, an insult and misrepresentation of history of colonialsm and displacement. You are the one warring edits here, and from the looks of it, have been doing so in this page for almost a decade, always forcing the same inaccurate and unsupported takes 67.71.50.173 (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It appears after mentioning we:3rr violations, you once again edited, seem to have removed a citation describing the term as a slur, then removed the term “slur” claiming it wasn’t cited. I will have to report this for WP:3RR, which you previously mentioned, if it continues 67.71.50.173 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi. In terms of:

• "3RR". Editing of that type is not 3RR. However, these four edits of yours clearly were. Which is why I highlighted the related policy to you. As you appeared to be unaware. Feel free to raise a concern at WP:AN/3RR. But beware of WP:BOOMERANGS.
• "Slur". Following the additions arising from your recent edits, the word "slur" was added to the lead. Twice. Added once by you here. And then again by you here. While I have not touched or removed the first addition, I have since tempered the second duplication (which included duplication of references). Not to "downplay" the term. But because it is redundant and overdone. (The negative connotations of the term are already covered, including through the description as a "slur" and "pejorative term" and "derogatory term". Which are sufficient. Especially given that the lead goes on to clarify that the term is also used with other intents/tones.)
• "broader ethnic insult for whose who don't [place importance on Irishness]". In the same edit noted above, I also removed this editorial. As not supported by the linked reference. Which don't describe it as an "ethnic insult". Nor do any of the other sources. Whether those used in the article. Or anywhere else that I can find.
• "cultural appropriation". I am happy with the compromise which has resulted the IrishCentral "definition" being replaced with the Collins Dictionary "definition". Not least as the lead already states that the term "has sometimes been applied to people who may misappropriate [..] stereotypical aspects of Irish customs". And so, for the same reason that "slur" doesn't need repeating multiple times, the concept of "appropriation" is also sufficiently covered.

Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

-the description of it as a slur is is taken strictly from multiple sources, and is the first and most consistent use. There is no reason for it not to be mentioned at the front. It should be the first thing people see when looking up the term

-that isn’t an editorial. It is directly from the source, which specifies the term was also used for Irish immigrants who tried to assimilate to other cultures. This is because, again, it is a slur for an ethnic group built around stereotypes, not, as you presented it, defining a negative behaviour and absolutely not condemning cultural appropriation

-again, you keep trying to pretend it jd appropriation and source people using it as an insult as factual evidence. A group of people being displaced out of their homeland and still existing isn’t appropriation. The fact that this term labelled people no matter what they choose to do, as proven by multiple sources you keep trying to delete, makes this clear.

-you are basically taking a insulting presentation of an ethnic group that deliberately erases multiple dark periods of history and pretending it’s a fact.

You’ve been edit warring this page for the last decade. Maybe give it a rest? 67.71.50.173 (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Also made some edits later in the article which can now be seen. The text on the Wikipedia page claimed that “plastic paddies show negative and dated sterotypes of Ireland”- the article cited said the reverse, that the people using the term had negative and dated sterotypes of the Irish diaspora outside Ireland.

i hope this was an ironic mistake and not deliberate source spoofing 2605:8D80:5A2:5B:8D06:6A82:CFB6:E044 (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

In terms of the claims that:

• "the description of it as a slur is is taken strictly from multiple sources, and is the first and most consistent use". While several sources describe it as "derogatory" and "pejorative", it is demonstrably not true to state that "slur" is the "first and most consistent use" in any/all sources. Most of the sources don't use this description at all.
• "[ethnic insult] isn’t an editorial. It is directly from the source". No it isn't. The term "ethnic insult" appears in NONE of the sources. None/anywhere. It is a term of your own invention.
• "A group of people being displaced out of their homeland and still existing isn’t appropriation". And we're back to this again. NONE of the sources refer to the term as relating to "people being displaced out of their homeland". Or the previous "refugee" or "genocide" claims that you made.
• "You’ve been edit warring this page for the last decade". Again, this is demonstrably untrue. And a form of personal attack. And, as with the edit summary of this revert in which you described my change as a "politically charged edit" just stands as evidence of your own disingenuous edit practices. Moving for PP. Again.

Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

- there are multiple sources all refering to it as a slur. In particular, it was used as a slur in the 1980s in uk, making that the first use. So yes, this is correct. Trying to remove the description that has consistently been supported by sources doesn’t make sense

- it is repeatedly refered to as a slur and insult that refers to a group of people regardless of their behaviour.

- are you seriously denying the entire history of British colonialsm and displacement out of Ireland? Again, the thing that had had multiple sources back it, which you arbitrarily deleted it? The reason for their being people of Irish ethnicity and claiming Irish cultural aspects in other countries is due to this. It needs to be mentioned

- it is demonstrably true. You have edits in this page going back years, often changing things within minutes. This includes you :

removing sources that describe it as a slur, then claiming ther is no source backing it

removing sources describing the mass displacement out of Ireland, then claiming there is no source for that (literally just denying well established history)

putting in takes that are directly contradictory to the sources and history or don’t make much sense

you are the one being disingenuous here. I came across a page of what I knew to be a slur for an ethnic group, and found a shockingly bizzare take that it described approbation, and which tried to make it seem like the people being called plastic paddy are the problem, not the ones using it. I checked the sources, and found almost none of them backed what was in the article, and often said the opposite. Perhaps the most egregious example was a source that said, roughly, “the term plastic paddy is an insult used by Irish nationals based on a dated and false stereotype of Irish diaspora” and claimed it said “plastic paddies are members of the Irish diaspora wi th dated and false sterotypes of Irish nationals.” Again, almost exact opposite.

and, once again, you’ve locked the pages so only your misinformation can be seen. Why is this to you? Why are you so insistent on removing sources or putting in takes that aren’t backed by them? Is it really jsut that this is your favourite slur for a group of people you dislike and you’re upset at the sources correctly saying you are using an offensive slur? 2605:8D80:5A0:5DAE:4005:D141:1B24:BB5B (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi. In short:

• "Trying to remove the description that has consistently been supported by sources doesn’t make sense". Another strawman argument that misrepresents my edits and the current status. The lead and the body both currently use the term "slur". As already noted, there is no intent (either based on your ridiculously pointed and inappropriate suggestion that it is "[my] favourite slur for a group of people [I] dislike" or otherwise) to remove the term entirely. Just to avoid repetition of text and sources in the lead. And undue weight.
• "You have edits in this page going back years". Yes. I do. But editing a page for years, and "warring" on a page for years are not the same thing at all. I have made hundreds of thousands of edits to thousands of articles/titles on the project over many years. The suggestion that my edits (exclusively?) here are counter to any policy or project norms is another clear misrepresentation.
• "seriously denying the entire history of British colonialsm and displacement out of Ireland". Again, this has nothing to do with the topic. Irish people migrated to Britain in the 1950s and the 1980s (for various reasons). And the term was coined/used in Britain at that time. Including (per the sources) by members of the Irish diaspora. Your continued attempt to connect a term, from the 1980s, to "British colonialism" (and "Irish Catholic refugees" or "violence toward refugees" or a "slur targeting refugees" or whatever you were attempting to add) is just silly in the context of a late 20th century term. And, unsurprisingly, completely unsupported by any references. (Which do not connect the term with any such thing).
• "once again, you’ve locked the pages so only your misinformation can be seen". Another misrepresentation. The page was locked, by a reviewing admin and in the context of applicable Wikipedia policies, because of ongoing WP:IPHOPPER and WP:IDHT behaviours. Not as a result of anything else. And the suggestion that there is any "misinformation" (of "mine" or anyone-elses) on the current revision is another laughably inaccurate misrepresentation of the status.

I'm done with this now. There is no point in talking to someone who isn't here to constructively/collaboratively improve the project. Bye bye. Guliolopez (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright let’s see your long list of issues:

-yes, if we agree in the body that a term is a slur, that should be in the summary. It’s strange to say otherwise. It’s even stranger when you try to force a definition of it as “cultural appropriation” in the first line when that ISNT backed by the info in the body. Why is that what you want people to see first? Why don’t you want them to see that it’s a slur, if we agree that it is?

-you literally have hundreds of edits and reversals in this page, typically within a day or even hour of another change, and all geared toward the same take that isn’t backed by info, disagrees with sources, and thst which discussion in the “talk” section moved away from.

- I don’t know why you’re still pretending that makes sense. The first use was for second generation Irish immigrants to uk. The reason the first generation left is vitally important. This is especially true in context- it was the same group targeting them which caused them to leave, and often for the same reasons, - ie families targeted in Ireland for holding onto Irish identity were then targeted when they did it elsewhere. In your own definition of it meaning they practiced aspects of Irish culture or “asserted an Irish identity”- the reason come specifically from them leaving Ireland (again, often because of things targeting that very identity). The role of these terms in forced assimilation can’t be ignored, and we need the background to fully understand it.

basically, what happened was a group of people were forced out of Ireland and passed on their identity and culture to their children, and were called slurs for doing so. Remove this, and it seems like people just randomly Picked it up one day, which would be inaccurate. It also plays directly into the sterotypes and false claims identified as tied to the term in multiple sources in this article.

if anything; I was going to add in an entire section called “background history” which would have outlined WHY there are people with Irish identity and cultural aspects outside Ireland. This would have been greater details in the British occupation, displacement, and attacks on cultural identity in the country, and how people left to preserve that identity and maintained generation to generation it elsewhere. This, again, is neccessary to understand how this term came up- you can’t understand a term describing second generation Irish immigrants calling themselves Irish or practicing culture without knowing why their parents left Ireland and passed that identity and culture into their children.

-if it wasn’t you who reported it, my mistake. Perhaps you can finally stop failing to get the point that the take you wanted up front- that it is mainly about condemning approbation- is false and doesn’t follow the cited sources. It would appear most of the discussions prior to you would have agreed with this take- I’m sure you can see that. 2605:8D80:5A0:5DAE:4005:D141:1B24:BB5B (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

What’s going on with this page?

I came across this page while working on my masters in history, and was very suprised by some of the descriptions, which seems to largely misrepresent both the term and the people it applied to. Going through, it seems a lot of the claims in the article either take direct statements out of context or aren’t supported at all by the sources. Notably, I found a claim that “plastic paddy” refered to a member of the diaspora with false and negative stereotypes of Irleand, the article sourced in fact claimed the term came with false and negative sterotypes of the diaspora, and it was the people in Ireland pushing these dated sterotypes. It is almost the opposite meaning. A later description of it as “fighting back against commercializations” was cited to a book which did not contain the phrase at all. This is one of multiple strange changes, seemingly made to present a positive and false understanding of what what is in effect a slur or insulting phrase for an ethnic group. In fact; it seems to do so by insisting the negative stereotypes around the slur are all accurate, and claim that it is the people being labelled who are offensive rather then vise versa, despite the sources used never supporting that. even when they are accurate, the sources and phrasing in the article seem to be cherry picked toward this presentation. There are also multiple claims in the “usage” section where the sources aren’t even on the same topic as the claim.

the overall impact is comparable to an article about an ethnic slur written entirely by the people who use the ethnic slur in an effort to justify it, while deliberately ignoring most sources

it would seem to me that an accurate article on it would look soemthing like this- -introduction, summarizing it as a insulting phrase and sometimes a slur for the diaspora, occasionally self claimed or a joke -“background”- a brief history of the displacement of people out of Ireland under British colonial rule intended to destroy Irish cultural and ethnic identity, as well as continued persecution and attempts to force cultural assimilation of the diaspora in other countries, and the defiance of this. This is what lead to the second and third generation maintaining Irish identity and being labelled by this term - most of the rest of it, corrected for accuracy

is there a way to ensure the accuracy of this page moving forward? ~2026-78641-4 (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The term is by its nature informal and vaguely-defined, and may be used by many different people with somewhat different meanings, different degrees of seriousness, and different levels of "slur", intentional or not. You seem to have a very distinct agenda (I'm guessing from what you say you are not actually Irish from Ireland) and to be trying to shoehorn the article to fit your preconceptions. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. What is "going on" with this page is that a number of anon editors (including yourself @~2026-78641-4, and at least one IP-hopping/socking/sanctions-evading contributor) seem unable to read or reflect the sources. And, rather, seem to have more interest in editing and editorialising (as you have in the article and above) based on original research about "the displacement of people out of Ireland under British colonial rule intended to destroy Irish cultural and ethnic identity". All in relation to a term that dates from the 1980s. Used, per the sources, predominantly by one group of Irish diaspora in London when referring to another/earlier group of Irish diaspora in London. And where no sources associate the term with "British colonial rule" or the "continued persecution and attempts to force cultural assimilation [on goodness knows whom]". Please provide sources for the changes you propose. Including the editorial note you mention above. Guliolopez (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m not the one unable to look at sources. You’ve been on this page for over a decade, constantly erasing people trying to make it more accurate. Right now, I’m trying to edit to be accurate , you are trying to edit to justify your use of a slur. No, the people you’re screaming “plastic paddy” at aren’t bad people, and they aren’t whatever stereotype you invented in your head to justify it. They are just part of an ethnic group that largely doesn’t live in their homeland due to colonization and have variations of the initial culture.

the history of this people IS absolutely required to understand this term. The colonization and displacement out of Ireland explains both a) why there are people in other countries who still refer to themselves as Irish or have elements of adapted Irish culture, ie the people being labeled and b) why there are people who dislike this and want to call them fake, ie the people who use this term. Not adding this would be like discussing the “n-word” without discussing the abuse of African Americans or the “r-word” for indegneous Americans and Canadians without discussing colonization there. The second one is particularly true since it’s often the same policies under the same colonial government, ie the British.

long story short, if you didn’t want people outside Ireland doing these things, you shouldn’t have forced them out, and yes that is required knowledge to understand this term. This is directly referenced in the sources that specifically mention famines and other abuses and specifically mention the term being used to shout down discussions of these event. You falsely claimed the sources didn’t say that when I put it in, it was within the first few paragraphs.

you again keep trying to use specifics examples as the whole. The source you used, which I’ve read and I beleive you haven’t, stated that the term was in “common use; INCLUDING by first generation upper middle class Irish immigrants trying to distance themselves from the established Irish communities.” Key word, “including”. Never says “only.” So, it was common in England, they adopted it. This is almost specifically for opposite reason you seem to think. The Irish in uk were extremly poor and abused, and looked down on as ethnically and culturally inferiors. These were the people who had been displaced btw, not centuries before but a single generation. The wealthier groups were less effective and joining in the abuse of the Irish in order to more closely align with the British, whoo also used such terms.

again, this is a term of abuse specifically for people whose families left Ireland and who tried to maintain Irish identity or culture elsewhere. The reasons they left then become essential to understanding it. The case of displacement in order to destroy identity in common one throughout the colonial period, and yes the “you don’t live in Ireland anymore you can’t follow any Irish culture identity” is absolutely part of that.

this entire argument seems to be multiple people trying to edit for accuracy and you being here for years to edit to justify your use of an ethnic slur. You aren’t refelecitng the sources, you are ignoring or at best cherry picking them. Notably, using a source that claims “plastic paddy” is an effective stereotype of Irish Americans to pretend it is “plastic paddy” Irish Americans with stereotypes of Ireland. ~2026-78641-4 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. A few points from me and them I'm done:

1. You are clearly the same editor (with the same chip on the same shoulder) as previously. Focusing your edits and comments (yet again) on "colonization", comparisons to the "n-word" and the term "ethnic slur". When none of the sources use these terms.
2. You have, yet again and without any basis, claimed that the subject topic (the term "Plastic Paddy") is a term that I personally use, support and advocate. When all I have done (here and on the thousands of other articles I have contributed to) is reflect what the sources support. I have never used the term in any context. Your claims otherwise are spurious in the extreme.
3. You have, yet again and just as before, added text that is not supported by any of the references (adding "upper middle-class Irish migrants" when the the word "upper" appear nowhere in the sources; Or "poorer established Irish communities", when the sources (Scully, Hickman and Campbell) make no mention of the relative affluence of either group.
4. You have added editorial where not supported by the sources (while hypocritically and oxymoronically decrying verbatim quotes from the sources as "editorial")
5. You clearly have zero interest in finding sources to support your changes. Or reflecting what the existing sources state or can support. And are, quite clearly now after years of this, basing your edits solely on your own opinions, perceptions and experience - rather than on sources.

Done. Done. And done. Trying to reason with you (based on sources and related policies) is a complete waste of time. Moving for PP. Again. Guliolopez (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I have no idea what you mean. I’m trying to edit for accuracy and notice huge portions of the text here do not reflect the sources, and I’ve also added in more for neccessary context

1. Whatever buddy. Multiple sources refer to this as a slur, and it is extremely obvious in multiple cases that is what it is. The connection of this term to colonization is also clear. It is a term for people whose families were pushed out of Irleand during British colonial rule, so knowing that families were pushed out if British colonial rule is neccessary to understand it. Further more, as per multiple sources including some I’ve added in, the fact they maintained Irish identity or culture is directly tied to this being the reason they left. Given that is what is being criticized with the term, knowing that is necessary to knowing how the practices being criticized came into place and why the term exists. You can’t say “this is a term for members of the diaspora who put an emphasis on Irish identity while living outside Ireland” (as you have) without explaining WHY they put an emphasis on Irish identity while living outside of Ireland

2. Who are you trying to fool here, yourself or me? The vast majority of your edits contradict the sources you put them under, and all stem from attempts to justify the use of this term. It’s very obvious.

3. The poverty of the Irish communities at the time is a weak known and throughly established fact and highly relevant to the discussion. Not even sure the issue here. You are complaining I used “upper middle” instead of “middle” while you write entire paragraphs with no connection to sources.

4. I have literally cut down things that are not supported by the sources.

5. Again, this is your projection. I have directly referenced sources. You have added in things not supported by them.

the thing you have issue with is that, yes, this is a slur, yes, it exists in the context of colonialism and migration from Ireland, yes, these are sterotypes that aren’t real, (as shown in the sources) no, it isn’t the people being labelled who are the problem, they are just people, no, the sources don’t back you trying to justify yourself using this term against people.

Very often the issue seems to boil down to you seeing a source that claims “a negative stereotype of people being labeled plastic paddy is x, but x isn’t always true,” and you sourcing it as “all plastic paddies do x.” Again, this what I’m trying to fix.

thank you, bye. You aren’t arguing with me you are arguing with the sources in the document. ~2026-78641-4 (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

This is all risible nonsense. But, for the laugh, I'm just going to pick up on one thing here. Just to see if you can back up any of your personal attacks and boomerang claims. You have just stated that I have contributed "entire paragraphs with no connection to sources". I would ask you to identify a SINGLE paragraph that I have added to the article (with a diff confirming that I wrote it) that doesn't reflect the source which follows it. I wait with bated breath... Guliolopez (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the phrase originated in the 1980s, some 60 years after Irish independence. You might as well argue that it was the catastrophic economic policies (or near total lack of them) of the decades after independence that produced large new waves of emigration, as is now generally accepted. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello

im not at all. I’ve noticed many of the sources have things shoehorned in for clear political agenda.

for example, under the “Ireland” section, they source an article that claims people in Irleand have dated stereotypes of Irish Americans as “overweight construction workers.” This is used to back a claim that Irish Americans have negative stereotypes of Ireland, exactly the opposite of the what the article claims.

not sure what the date of Irish independence has to do with it. The initial used of the term came for second generation Irish immigrants in uk, the most common cited is Irish Americans who trace their ancestry back the to famines or events since, as described in the sources. Referencing the same portion as above, the source is a discussion of the term being shouted at Irish Americans discussing the famine, but that was, quote, “our famine too.” (This was cut out with a false claim that the source didn’t mention the famine when it was in fact right at the beginning and a primary part of the articles point). So if you are to discuss a term that labels second generation Irish immigrants in uk in the 1980s or Americans that trace their descent to the famine, these things should be mentioned, especially when the term js specifically used during discussion of the famine. This is backed by the sources. In one part of our discussion the other commenter kept claiming a source “never mentioned the famine”- it was within the first few paragraphs of the article, mentioned repeatedly, and with the main thrust being people in Irleand using claims of “plastic paddyisn” to shout down discussion of the famine. This is exactly what I wrote, and the opposite of what the other commenter said

basically if the source says “this term is used to shout down Irish Americans discussing the famine” then we have to mention that and explain what the famine is.

and to the other commenter asking about entire paragraphs without backing by a source; you added an entire section under “Ireland” defining the phrase and sourced it to a book that doesn’t use the phrase or have sections relevant to the discussion. I took an online copy and even did a search function through it, nothing in the description even gets mentioned. The closest I could find was soemthing like “made a top hat out of plastic” followed closely by the term “paddywhackery,” but nothing in any of the pages nearby resembled what it was used to back up ~2026-78641-4 (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I also couldn't find the term "Plastic Paddy" on page 140 of Adair/Cronin. (I also see "paddywhackery" and "plastic bowler hats" mentioned on that page - but no mention of the term discussed in this article). This source/text, added in Aug 2010, is now removed. As failing verification. And replaced somewhat, as below, with text about how those targeting people with the term (and not solely the people targeted by the term) may be involved in stereotyping. Per the Murphy/IrishCentral (2017) source. Guliolopez (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. RE:

under the "Ireland" section, they source an [IrishCentral.com] article that claims people in Irleand have dated stereotypes of Irish Americans as "overweight construction workers." This is used to back a claim that Irish Americans have negative stereotypes of Ireland, exactly the opposite of the what the article claims.

What utter rubbish. More strawman nonsense that doesn't survive even a cursory check of edit/revision history. As, prior to your recent edits, the "Ireland" section:

• Did not mention Irish Americans anywhere. At all.
• Relied only on the quote from the IrishCentral.com source (where the writer states that "'Plastic Paddy' is a pejorative term for members of the Irish diaspora who appropriate Irish customs and identity").
• Relied only on this quote to support the text about the term's use to refer to "someone who misrepresents Irish culture". (Which is entirely reflective of the source.)
• Doesn't rely on the writers' stated belief that "Sometimes I believe they seem to think we are all a bunch of overweight construction workers" (an attributed opinion that isn't relied upon to support anything in that section or the article as a whole).

If this is in response to the request that you backup your claims that I (or anyone) has added "entire paragraphs with no connection to sources" then it fails verification against the sources, edit history, revision history and reality. Guliolopez (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

“ What utter rubbish. More strawman nonsense that doesn't survive even a cursory check of edit/revision history.”

The quote I used to say the term involved negative stereotypes of Irish Americans was exactly from the article titled “it’s time to stop calling people plastic paddy”, (or something similar.” ) you repeatedly used this source to claim it was “plastic paddies” who had a negative sterotypes of Ireland, which was not in the article at all. Not sure how this is a strawman. You said one thing, the article said another, I changed to match the article, period.

“ the Ireland section Did not mention Irish Americans anywhere. At all.“

I don’t even know why this is relevant. The section discusses how the term is used in Ireland, the very first article cited, and several others, refers to them using it against Irish Americans. My changes were to directly match the articles cited.

“Relied only on this quote to support the text about the term's use to refer to "someone who misrepresents Irish culture". (Which is entirely reflective of the source.)”

which source? The source I saw, titled soemthing like “it’s time to stop calling people plastic paddy”, mentions the term being a misrepresentation of Irish Americans. The claims that they are misrepresenting Ireland themselves is a stereotype that is directly disputed in the article. It says outright “they don’t mean born in Ireland.” Please read though the source, not just the first paragraph

“Doesn't rely on the writers' stated belief that "Sometimes I believe they seem to think we are all a bunch of overweight construction workers" (an attributed opinion that isn't relied upon to support anything in that section or the article as a whole).”

yes, that is what the source said, ad an example of a lager pattern. Claiming that this is just the authors opinion and shoehorning in something that contradicts it, when that is the author being cited, is the issue I’m trying to correct. If the source says “the people using this phrase have false and negative stereotypes of the people being targeted, here are some examples and why they are inaccurate,” the text should reflect that. It shouldn’t claim the reverse without any source backing it up

Here’s how it looked from the outside. Wikipedia article: “plastic paddyies in the Irish diaspora have dated and negative stereotypes of Ireland that aren’t true.”

Source cited: “the people in Irleand using the term “plastic paddy” have dated and negative stereotypes of the Irish diaspora that aren’t true.”

Multiply that several times throughout the article

This is the issue I’m trying to fix. ~2026-78641-4 (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. In all honesty, what you state above is not unreasonable. (It could be said that the article focuses more on how the term is applied to members of Irish diaspora, based on perceived outdated/inaccurate views of Ireland. While perhaps not also noting that those applying the term do so based on potentially outdated/inaccurate views of the Irish diaspora.) However, I don't see how any of the changes made recently:

• (a) actually addressed that point. And
• (b) were supported by the sources.

I'm happy to help apply changes that address any imbalance (or bias or worldview issues). But, ideally, we'd have actual sources to support them. And, perhaps, consensus on how to apply them. Thanks. (PS: It's unfortunate that the IrishCentral source is "unsigned". With no named author. As, if the author was named, we could at least include a note which reflects the author's perception of the "[inaccurate] overweight construction workers from Cleveland" stereotype....). Guliolopez (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

So apparently you’ve locked it with your edits presented as fact.

not really sure the point here. None of the edits I put in were wrong or senseless. You seem to have admitted in one case, the bizzare line attributed to a book that was on a completely separate topic.

a few more:

under “Ireland.”

” Within Ireland, "plastic Paddy" can be used to refer to someone, including members of the Irish diaspora, enacting ethnic stereotypes or what may be perceived as negative or outdated portrayals of Ireland or Irish culture.”

neither of the sources used here back this up. They don’t even mention it. The closest I could find in the sources used said the opposite, that the term was a stereotype from Ireland against the diaspora. Again, not some horrible change that needed to be locked away, just accuratly referencing the sources.

you got upset when I included mention of it being used to downplay or separate people from historic events like the famine, and claimed that was no where in the source. So, quoting the source: “most recently thre were howls of derision from Ireland when Irish Americans suggested that a situation comedy based on the famine was in poor taste. Claims of plastic paddyism ensued…. But it’s our famine too.” (From memory, might be a bit off)

so again, directly from the source, while the information there isn’t from any source at all, and is outright a fake claim. Furthermore, this use seems to be one of the most common and comes up regulairly in the sources. Arguably, this sort of denialism is the primary point of calling people simmilar terms in these circumstances. So, it is not only accurate and backed by the sources, but should be mentioned, arguably front and centre.

a good way to describe this, referencing the sources, would be “plastic paddy is often used within Ireland in conjunction of inaccurate dated stereotypes of the diaspora. In one example, it was used againsf Irish Americans referencing the famine as part of their history, despite it being “their famine too.” This is accurate, directly references the sources, and gives much needed context.

I understand this might be uncomfortable to some, but as it is a consistent used references in the sources, it should be mentioned.

as I said before; this is exactly what I meant when i said this page is filled with claims of “plastic paddies in the diaspora have dated sterotypes of Ireland” while the sources say “people in Ireland have dated sterotypes of the diaspora that they use to call people plastic paddies.” honestly feels like it was changed out of spite.

Next, I really don’t see the point in repeatedly deleting sources and information about the displacement of people out of Ireland, and why this is tied to them then maintaining aspects of identity and culture. This background is much needed context and is common in simmilar terms, effectively every similar term I can find has this. If the claim is, as the first line you insist on, that the term is “a member of the diaspora who puts great emphasis on irishness,” then the reason WHY there is a diaspora, and why people in that diaspora put “emphasis on irishness” needs to be mentioned. Again, I understand this makes people who use the term uncomfortable, but it needs to be mentioned to fully understand it. Arguably; the background history can also help explain why people now in Ireland dislike the diaspora maintiang their identity or culture and use this term.

Other changes are more minor. Again, the source used to claim that the term was initially used by Irish immigrants stated “including by Irish immigrants” as part of a larger section. It never said only. To me, this clearly means it was in common use otherwise. Next, for the first sentence, you wanted it to say “who places great emphasis on irishness.” However, even within the article we contradict this, with mentions of examples where it was used for people trying to adapt to British culture, and also where the claim they were “placing a great emphasis on Irishness” was actually a dated stereotype. Both these were backed by sources. So, it doesn’t make sense to claim that is the only use in the first sentence. You could say “for a member of the Irish diaspora, at times with accusations of placing to great an emphasis on irishness, though these are sometimes claimed to be stereotypes.” Otherwise, that as the first sentence leads off with the wrong impression.

And honestly, looking at the arguments some have used against me makes me question intent here. I’m pointing out claims in the article are directly contradicted by the sources, and the replies are “I bet you weren’t even born in Ireland.” Why the fuck does my nationality or birth place matter? I’m trying to refer to accurate history. Arguably, since this is a term against the diaspora used by people in Ireland, you could even argue it is the people in Ireland who should have that used against them, and people in areas the Irish settled should be the main voice here. Again, I think we should just look at facts and sources, but it was the other commenter who attacked my perceived nationality rather than fact. Also, the claim that the sources “never mentioned the famine” when that was the primairy example used was just odd. Please read the sources before arguing. I’m hoping there is at least some good faith here, and if there is, you will see why I mean.

So, you locked the page. As I said, not sure the necessity, all I did was reflect the sources used and remove things not backed by the sources. even you acknowlged I was correct on a change when you finally opened up the source and did a check though it, but whatever. If there is any good faith here I hope you’ll at least look at the sources and see what I’m talking about. ~2026-78641-4 (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. That's a very long note. But, in terms of:

• "you locked the page". No, I didn't. I don't have that role/permission/ability. The article's page protection level was temporarily increased. Because of edit warring and disruptive editing. As has happened multiple times before. In keeping with related project policy and procedure.
• "You seem to have admitted in one case, the bizzare line attributed to a book that was on a completely separate topic". Indeed. I did. Once I could see past all the disruption, warring and unsupported changes, I noted that the text added made by someone in 2010 did, indeed, fail verification against the source. You seem to be framing this correction as a "bad thing". I don't see it that way.
• "I really don’t see the point in repeatedly deleting sources and information about the displacement of people out of Ireland". I am highly confused by this. Given your apparent focus on what the sources can support (and whether or not they relate to the term "plastic Paddy"), the only such text/source that was recently removed was this addition. Which, per the tags I'd added prior to removal doesn't mention the term "plastic Paddy" anywhere. And, just as with the example above, therefore can't be used to support editorial on the use of the term. (Same goes for your addition about "local British" or relative affluence of Irish diaspora in the UK using the term. Neither of which is in the source. You can't have it both ways on sources.)
• "the claim that the sources “never mentioned the famine” when that was the primairy example used was just odd". While, yes, perhaps it wasn't entirely correct to suggest that the sources don't mention the famine at all (mea culpa), my point was that those sources (like the Irish Central piece) didn't/don't support the text you had placed it alongside. Like the suggestion that the term has been "used to [..] downplay or mock the impact events in Ireland, such as the famine, had on [the diaspora in the US]". Which the source doesn't state. Either expressly or (IMO) implicitly. And it (nor any other source) certainly doesn't support the association of the term with the text about "the famine or other colonial abuses" that you added. Where no source associates the term with "colonial abuses" or similar.
• "'I bet you weren’t even born in Ireland'". Can you provide a diff for this comment. I know it didn't come from me.

Slán. Guliolopez (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

On the last, he might be misquoting and weaponizing my comment here. Given the topic & the arguments here, it would seem relevant (btw, I'm not Irish from Ireland myself). Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The “you aren’t even from Ireland” comment is from jonbold. Again, it’s not relevant, you shouldn’t be bringing up nationality in a debate.

how did the sources about the famine not bring it up? The primairh examples in the source of how this term was used was to shout down Americans discussing the famine, and the intent of calling them a term that basically means “fake Irish” in that context is clear. The author even clarified, “it’s our famine too.” Either way, if that is the example use, it should be in the text. This is in the sources, (and I’ve personally seen it used this way, arguably as its most common use), but it isn’t mentioned anywhere here. It needs to be mentioned. Shouting a term that effectively means “fake Irish” for people discussing past events like the famine has a clear goal. This is especially true while using “paddy” which was an insult used during these periods.

foe the source you removed, I never said it did mention the term “plastic paddy,” nor did anything I used it for require that to be in it. Nothing I wrote with that as a source used it to define the term. I was using it as background for why people moved from Ireland to USA, and why it was improtant to them to maintain their identity and culture afterward. As this is exactly what the phrase often describes, as you yourself pointed out, that is necessary background. Saying “this phrase is used to insult Americans who maintain Irish identity” without giving an explanation why they do so doesn’t make sense and creates a false impression of both those people and the use of the term. This is inline with how simmialr insults against groups are discussed. The history prior to the term is always important, particularly if it involves the creation of the group (ie a diaspora that holds on to their identity) and periods of abuse against them which make them venerable to such terms. A insulting praise for an ethnic group like “plastic paddy” rarely exist in a vacuum, but in a context of wider discrimination, conflict or abuse, in this case colonial abuse and displacement. Even the arguments for it, effecting “they are weirdly holding onto Irish culture,” makes more sense when you understand the attempts to destroy Irish culture and identity (as described in thr “cultural genocide” page of Wikipedia if interested) and Irish American resistance against it.

I’ll admit I’m not clear on the rules for Wikipedia. I came in from studying for my masters, seeing this page referring to what is often effectively a slur in ways that seemed to be massively misrepresenting both it and the people it attacks, getting confused, then finding the sources often contradicted what was in the article and were actually in line with what I had also studied. Going back to my example, I found an article that said “a plastic paddy is someone in the diaspora who has bad sterotypes of Ireland” backed by sources that actually said “plastic paddy is a bad sterotype the people of Ireland have for the diaspora.” Given the context and it being at times a slur and otherwise an insult, this was both factually wrong and, for lack of a better term, gross. I assumed you, or the other commenter, then reported the page. I might have been wrong. I’d also point out some of the “warring” you’re referring to was in fact over the section where you’ve since realized I was right.

anyway, all I’m saying is go through the sources and I think you’ll find many of my changes that kept getting moved back were accurate and better represent this term.

thank you ~2026-78641-4 (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to add; you keep mentioning the source for the terms original use technically didn’t say the British used this term. What the source said is it was commonly used, INCLUDING by recent immigrants. My reading of this passage would say in no way was it exclusive to those people, but that is the emphasis in the Wikipedia article. This is what I was trying to correct. The use described as an attempt to distance themselves from the Irish communities while in Britain would also imply they were picking it up from them. ~2026-78641-4 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

weaponizing? You weaponized your assumptions about my nationality . Also, not really much of a misquote, roughly the same wording and exactly the same context and intents. The discussion should be built on facts and sources, and no, given the context, someone being from Ireland is especially not relevant. The term is an insult against the diaspora, not the Irish nationals. Saying “you’re not from Ireland” as a counter point makes even less sense because of it. You could almost argue being from Ireland is a point against someone and another country a point for, though again, that shouldn’t be the discussion ~2026-78641-4 (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. There's a lot to unpack there. Very little of which describes a specific or proposed change. In terms of:

• "cultural genocide", "colonial abuse and displacement", etc - As with your previous comments and edits (referring to "colonization", comparisons to the "n-word" and the term "ethnic slur"), you should note that these terms are identical to those used by a previous warring/disruptive contributor. And do not appear in any of the sources.
• "it’s our famine too". You've mentioned this quote now a few times. Other than via WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, what change do you actually propose - based on this quote? (FYI. While I can find some commentary and coverage of the pushback on the proposed sitcom/sketch, I can find no sources which use the term "plastic Paddy" or "plastic Paddyism" when describing that pushback/protest. So I'm not sure where the writer is getting it from.)
• "I think you’ll find many of my changes that kept getting moved back were accurate and better represent this term". I don't agree. Since your last edit, the only changes of yours that were materially "moved back" were the editorial in the lead ("though this not always the case"), the editorial in the UK section which, as has already been noted, is not supported by the source ("trying to distance themselves from the poorer established Irish communities"), and the stuff in the US section which, as has already been noted, relied on a webpage that makes NO MENTION of the topic/subject/term (about "the famine and colonial abuses in Ireland [..making it..] important for the migrants to pass on their identity and culture".) I don't agree that these are (on the whole) more "accurate" or "better".

Guliolopez (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

So again, it’s because this article has a ton of context missing in ways that drastically misrepresent the use of the term.

so-

first one: if you saw this before, it’s because it’s accurate. “Cultural genocide” is a phrase often used to describe what the Irish experienced under British rule, and a major component of why they left, and why you then see elements of Irish culture in other countries. Same with displacement. These aren’t terms I’m inventing, they are common descriptions. They are the reasons you see large numbers of Irish people outside of Irleand, and why they tried to maintain aspects of culture, and why other groups targeted them for it. Do you see the connection between, in the one hand, attacking people of a specific cultural background in their home country, and on the other, insulting them if they continue that culture elsewhere, in the context of attempting to destroy that cultural group? This was common in colonial powers. This is why when writing about a term like this one you don’t begin with the first use of the term, you have to begin earlier where the conditions under which it was used stemmed from. In this case, Irish people living outside of Irleand, at times, as you said, “putting a great emphasis on irishness” (ie maintaining identity and cultural tropes), came from cultural genocide and displacement out of Ireland. The criticism and targeting of them with phrases like this are more of the same- forced assimilation.

second- the author gave that as an example where the phrase was used. Notably, it was the only example in a source refenced in the document. Why shouldn’t that be mentioned? Meanwhile, the comment it is put in to support, that the term is against stereotyping of Ireland itself, isn’t backed either source, or frankly reality. We all should discuss the importance of what is being described . Aside from it just being in the source, it’s also a type of use of the term that isn’t written anywhere in the article. The phrase is explicitly being used there in relation to Irish americnas discussing their background stemming from the famine, and effectively getting called “fake.” This is an entirely other purpose behind the term that isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Wikipedia article despite being in the sources. This is what I mean when I say the Wikipedia page seems to be misrepresenting the term in a way that is meant to justify it or attack the people being targeted and leaving out some of the darker uses which don’t reflect well on the people using it. While I understand that pointing this out might make people uncomfortable, an article saying “this is an example where “plastic paddy” was used to shout down Irish Americans discussing the famine concerning a sitcom about it, but it is in fact their famine too” shouldn’t be used arbitrairly for a statement of “this term is used against dated stereotypes,” unless the insistence is that the famine is a dated steotype. (Which of course it’s not) notably, in this case, it is the Irish Americans who are factually correct, that is their family history as well, and the use of “plastic paddy” does seem to be implying otherwise.

a good way to include this would be something like “at times the term is used to cut down discussion from the diaspora of events in Ireland such as the famine, despite it being, quite, “their famine too.”

Meanwhile, if there are examples of the phrase being used to describe negative sterotypes of Ireland as described in the article, they need to be backed by sources. This should be done carefully with the understanding that, as we see in the other sources, it is possible that the claim the person being accused of “plastic paddyism” is in fact the one being stereotyped, or are in fact correct about the historic events being discussed, and the accusation of “plastic paddyism” isn’t the authors own bias.

as for what the writer is getting at, it is exactly that. The article was titled “it’s time to stop using “plastic paddy.” The example she gave of using it was Irish Americans talking about the famine as a rough part of their history and Irish nationals mocking it and shouting them down with “plastic paddy” used as an insult to imply they are fake. The author clarifies it is true. That’s about it.

for the third-

again, the lead presents the term as if it is only used for people who “place a great emphasis on irishness.” This is true in some cases, and some sources back that. It is also true that it is used in very different contexts, including, as backed by the article itself:

- Irish diaspora trying to NOT emphasize irishness and adapt to British cultuee

- in cases where they are behaving normally and are just being stereotyped

-in cases where they are accurately describing historical events in a way to imply the events are real or don’t apply to them

so, why only mention the one? We know this is the first thing people will see, it jsut be as general as possible. As I mentioned before this article often seems to be written in ways to deliberately give a positive view of the phrase. Claiming it is inherently tied to a specific behaviour when it is also used in others seems to be doing that. We should instead say, perhaps, “sometimes where the accused is putting a great emphasis on being Irish, though this is not always the case,” or “or are otherwise stereotyped as doing this”

for the uk section, the poverty of the Irish diaspora at the time mentioned in that article, and you can find other cases. The article emphasized “middle class” for the people using the term, when mentioning they were trying to distance themselves from communities already established as impoverished. This reads to me as deliberate, the wealth and power gap between people using these terms and the people targeted is always important. Effectivly, you get: British rule in Ireland created poverty, leading to exodus, the exiled people arriving in Britain and trying to maintain their identity while still being discriminated against and often extemly poor, “Celtic tiger” moment creates wealth in now independent Ireland, a much different group of well off Irish arrive, well off newly arrived Irish try to distance themselves from previously arrived impoverished Irish. This is why I say background context is important, it isn’t “person a calls person b a phrase,” its “historical, cultrual, financial and power differences result in phrases like this being used.”

on the same section, We can argue over whether their saying “the term was commonly used, including by newly arrived middle class immigrants from Ireland,” implies it was used by British as well, I don’t see “including” as meaning “exclusively,” and I think portraying it as being only theirs gives a differnt perspective then is given in the source. They used it to distance themselves from the Irish communities, meaning toward the main culture in the area, which would have been the British.

for the us section, I never claimed the source used “plastic paddy.” This is why I didn’t use it to back up an example of the phrase being used or to give a definition. The paragraph beneath claims “plastic paddy” is used for Irish Americans who engage in aspects of Irish culture or identity. You yourself kept putting in “who places a great emphasis on irishness” in the very first sentence of the article. So, it only makes sense then to give a background on a) why there are so many Irish descended people in USA and b) why they, as you said, “put a great emphasis on being Irish.” The article I used was about the importance of Irish identity in the diaspora in USA, and why thy maintain it. This background is necessary, otherwise it seems like people in USA just randomly decided to call themselves Irish one day, which is not the case as that article proves. Also, it gives examples of the criticism, steotypinf and discrimination they faced for it, of which this term can be seen as an extension. You will recall the article emphasizing how the term itself is a dated stereotype, which you thankfully included now on the “Ireland” section, so explaining where these stereotypes came from is importanf.

so, as to why I want to include the background history of them, it is normally done in these cases, it explains where the people labelled originated, it explains why they behave in the ways being steotyped, it explains the antagonism against them that lead to the stereotyping, it gives examples of this stereotyping along with its origin and impact on the people steotyped, it explains that the historical events they are accused of being “fake” for are actually real, it explains things that repeatedly come up in the sources used to back the article but aren’t mentioned in the article (ie yes the famines happend to the ancestors of the Irish Americans; no they aren’t “plastic” for saying so) , and it provides a counter point to a seeming narrative of “these people are randomly engaging in stereotypes of nationally Irish people” when in fact they are engaging in ethncially Irish American behaviours and are at times being falsely stetoyped themselves. So basically; it touches on all aspects in the article, even if it doesn’t mention the term itself, and is neccessary to fully understand its use. There is not a single way the term is used in this article that I can see which wouldn’t be better understood with that background.

this is what I mean when I say historic context is neccessary and should go back to before the first use of the term

also, frankly; it’s one sentence that is accurate, backed by sources, and relevant. What’s the issue? ~2026-78641-4 (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

10,000 bytes of a comment? 1700 words of editorial about an article of perhaps 950? Where none of those words include a source or a quote/ref to a source? And no specific/proposed changes? Maybe read the guidelines on being concise.

While no editor is obliged to engage with your essay, and you're almost certainly flogging the horse, I'm gonna pick out a few main points. And then am walking away:

1. "Cultural genocide". No sources associate the term discussed in this article (which, per the sources, was coined in the 1980s) with the concept of "cultural genocide".
2. "exiled people arriving in Britain and trying to maintain their identity while still being discriminated against and often extemly poor". Not in source.
3. "“Celtic tiger” moment creates wealth in now independent Ireland, a much different group of well off Irish arrive, well off newly arrived Irish try to distance themselves from previously arrived impoverished Irish. Ireland was independent in the 1950s - when the group (discussed in the sources and as the main target of the term) moved to Britain. There was no Celtic Tiger in the 1980s - when the group (discussed in the sources and as users of the term) moved to Britain. None of the sources refer to the Celtic Tiger. Likely because there was no major migration from Ireland to the UK in the late 1990s/early 2000s.
4. "for the us section, I never claimed the source used “plastic paddy.” [..] it’s one sentence that is accurate, backed by sources, and relevant. What’s the issue?. Because its editorial WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Where you're connecting topics/terms that the sources don't connect.

Long story short: You haven't proposed any changes. Or offered any sources to support those changes. If you want to write another essay, maybe publish it elsewhere. Maybe as part of your "Masters". Hopefully you bring sources to that. Good luck with it. Am done now. Guliolopez (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

1. Are you deliberately missing the point? The term is used against people following specific cultural norms outside Ireland. The reason those exist outside Ireland is relevant, and the attacks on them need that context.

2. Straight historic fact backed by multiple sources in the document. Are you saying you need a source for people leaving Ireland to mention it in a subject about it people who left Ireland?

3. Again, seems to be deliebretly missing the point.

4. Probably the worst case of deliebretly missing the point. The subject is “this is a term for people whose left Ireland and maintained Irish identity or cultural aspects.” The source says “this is why people who left Ireland maintains Irish identity or cultural aspects.” There shouldn’t be confusion here.

i proposed multiple changes which you deleted, then the article got locked. In writing this to defend those changes which should be included. Meanwhile , you’ve given no explanation for your constant reversions and deleting sources.

I wouldn’t be accusing people of beating a dead horse. From the looks of it; you’ve been on this page exit warring for over a decade, constantly forcing in the same politicized takes which directly contradict the sources, reverting changes which more accurately reflect them, and deleting sources that contradict you. It seems the page has been locked a few times, each time after you repeatedly changed things back to how you want it. Maybe give it a rest? Why is it so important to you to have so much context removed, and have things stated this way against the sources themselves, that you would dedicate years to this one page for it? ~2026-78641-4 (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

"Deleting sources that contradict you" / "you’ve given no explanation for your constant reversions and deleting sources". What obvious gaslighting! The only sources I removed were the two sources that don't mention the term "Plastic Paddy". Namely the:

• "Wearing of the Green" (Adair/Cronin) source - which didn't mention the term or support the text it was placed alongside - a change which I fully explained in edsum and talk. And,
• "insidehighered.com/opinion/columns" source - which didn't mention the term and therefore doesn't support the related OR/SYNTH/EDITORIAL association with the titular subject - a change I also fully explained in edsum and talk.

"Maybe give it a rest"?. Sure. Bye bye. Guliolopez (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Let’s take a specific example.

you said “ the claim that the sources “never mentioned the famine” when that was the primairy example used was just odd". While, yes, perhaps it wasn't entirely correct to suggest that the sources don't mention the famine at all (mea culpa)”

so you ackneolge that your repeated reverting of my promised change, which helped lead to this page being locked, was mislead. So why don’t we include that back in the article, and mention its use, as per the sources, to insult and shout people describing the famine as part of their heritage outside of Ireland? Seems both accurate and relevant, unsure why it shouldn’t be included ~2026-78641-4 (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Adding: the phrasing you reverted it back to, that the term describes people with dated stereotypes of Ireland, was no where in either source and appears to be innacurate, so should it not be removed ~2026-78641-4 (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)