Talk:Matthew McConaughey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.


Unfortunately, the person who insists that Matthew McConaughey is Irish and not "Scotch-Irish" doesn't understand the subject of Irish surnames, British settlement in Ireland (especially the "planting" of Ulster), and emigration patterns to the American South. The province of Ulster was heavily settled by Scottish and English settlers who displaced the native Irish. These settlers brought with them their surnames, one of which was McConaughey. The McConaugheys are originally found in Scotland and are a branch of the Robertsons, descending from "Fat Duncan" Robertson, who lived at the time of Robert the Bruce. McConaughey is derived from the Gaelic MacDhonnchaidh, meaning "son of Duncan". Some McConaugheys settled in Ulster and established the name there, and some of these McConaugheys later settled in America, as part of the influx of settlers known as the "Scotch-Irish". Scotch-Irish settlers differed from native Irish settlers in that the former were usually Protestant and often settled in rural (especially southern) locales, while the latter were mainly Roman Catholic and tended to settle in larger cities of the north (e.g. Boston & New York). Matthew McConaughey is from a southern, Protestant family. (Indeed, Catholics were very rare in the U.S. South until rather recently.) There is no indication that Matthew McConaughey or any immediate ancestors have been Roman Catholic, as one would expect in a purely Irish family. McConaughey's mother is a McCabe, also a name that originated in Scotland, but was taken to Ireland at a very early period and became more hibernicized than McConaughey. Sources: Edward MacLysaght's "The Surnames of Ireland", and George Black's "The Surnames of Scotland".

He's not Irish, or Scotch-Irish, he is AMERICAN. Was he born in Ireland? THEN HE IS NOT IRISH!! It is highly offensive, especially to the Irish, to state you are of a certain nationality when you, nor any family, were born in another country. An ancestor from 300 years ago does NOT count! Americans need to realise this and quit making such ludricous claims.Paul75 12:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The proper term is "Irish-American," and that only for those whose Irish-born ancestors are no more than three or four generations back. An exception would be someone who still notably identifies with the country of his ancestors even after more than four (or so) generations of American nationality. The children of Caroline Kennedy or Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. would probably not be considered Irish-American unless they expressed a felt identification with their Irish great-grandparents' culture. 66.108.4.183 20:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed. I changed it from "Scotch-Irish" to "Irish" because the source cited says Irish, not Scotch-Irish. I agree with the first poster that he almost certainly is of Scotch-Irish descent (i.e. his name, being Protestant, etc.) but we would need a source that says so specifically on Matthew McCounaghey, not on his surname. I also removed the Roman Catholic category, because he was raised a Protestant and as far as I know never converted to Catholicism, and the Irish-American category, because the source cited only says that he has some Irish ancestry, not that he is Irish-American (and as you've said above, it's not the exact same thing) Mad Jack 08:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
However, "Scotch-Irish" as a term has been around for many years in the United States and describes particular waves of ethnic migration, probably from the early 1800's on. The response above decrying the ethnocentrism of the term is in itself ethnocentric since apparently it would deny a term that has been in existence for over a century. I agree it is inaccurate as a modern term, however. Perhaps a "Scotch-Irish" article could be worked on from a historical perspective. 69.109.163.218 08:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, what I was saying was really that the source cited said that McConaughey has "Irish" ancestry without specifying "Scotch-Irish", so we can't put Scotch-Irish unless we have a source.... Mad Jack 09:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Understood. Half the time I'm talking I haven't bothered to read the text I'm pontificating on. I was about to say that classically the "Scotch-Irish' settled the Apalachians and similar places and were "hill" or "backwoods" types, were ethnically identifiable and separate for a while. They're probably a big part of the reason our fighting forces were so effective in so many wars. Don't know if they ever spoke Celtic over here in the US. Their legacy is still with us. [edit:] Of course, I'm speaking from a western US perspective where alot of people have come to from the South. A website claims the Scotch-Irish went to Pennsylvania in large numbers. Not unlike the spirit world, they're all around us. ;-)
Phthalobrew 09:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really understand proper protocol here, but I thought the people editing this page should know there seems to be some vandalism on the biography. According to the writing his mother was a nickel prostitute? And there's a section created (with no text though) entitled sexual preference. I don't know enough to fix it so I'm hoping someone else can go back and take out the rude parts. 71.221.205.151 09:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Additionally, Matthew McConaughey has abnormality short arms. Due to this props on movies sets have to be designed as to not highlight his deformity and he has been denied certain roles because of the money necessary to digitally correct his appearance on film. Also his aformentioned bongos had to be custom made for his stubby apendegages.[6]

SOME1 DELETED THE PAGE

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Matthew3355.jpg

Image:Matthew3355.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People magazine mention -- why so prominent?

I added a URL reference for the “Sexiest Man Alive” mention, and that brings up some questions.

I question the appropriateness of (a) including the mini-table mentioning People's Sexiest Man Alive and (b) listing the Preceded by and Succeded by columns.

First: It's very unlikely that somebody reading about Matthew McConaughey has any more interest in Jude Law or George Clooney compared to any two random well-known movie personalities. So the pointers to those two simply waste space and distract from the content of the Article.

Second: Why a separate mini-table at all? The Article has plenty of other interesting things mentioned only once in the text. Why should this particular item be included twice, first in the main text, and then again as a table?

Rahul (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)