Talk:Irish Americans

Self identification of Irish Americans

Surely to be an Irish American someone must self identify as one, not just have Irish ancestory. Most Americans do not consider themselves British-Americans or even English-Americans (since most from Britain were from England), and they would object to being labelled an as such simply because of their ancestory. We have the absurd situation on the Lists of Irish-Americans where Andy Rooney has been added because he acknowledge Irish ancestory in this statement:

"I'm proud of my Irish heritage, but I'm not Irish. I'm not even Irish-American. I am American, period."

I have altered this article to include the self-identification criterion. Logoistic 19:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If a black guy in New York states, "I'm Pakistani, I'm not African-American" - does that mena he is not "African-American"--Vintagekits 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you not read the other criterion: "acknowledges Irish ancestory". Andy Rooney says he's not Irish American, but an American. You can't force an identity on someone can you. I mean, you should know Vintage - is John Duddy not British? Logoistic 19:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I presume if he ever had a passport it probably was UK(British) as you would expect for most people born in Glasgow but maybe John Duddy thought he was Scottish?Wgh001 (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not simply say we should allow anyone who self-identifies to be included. What ethnic group articles do, is that they explain the importance of the ethnic group. Thus only visible and notable people relating to that group should be included. There could be a caveat to say if Rooney by self-acknowledging an Irish heritage is supporting a fact about his upbringing or the place he lived, for example, then it would be proper. davumaya 17:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because Andy Rooney says something does not make it a fact. An Irish-American is an American with Irish heritage. Andy Rooney does not have to identify as an Irish-American but he is an Irish-American none the less. Extermino 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

He also has English & Scottish heritage, does that make him an English-Irish-Scottish-American? There's a good chance that he has some generic connection with Africa, so is he an African-English-Irish-Scottish-American? Where do we stop? Maybe the first paragraph where we are told that this is a 'self-reported' group, and Mr Rooney has quite specifically stated he does not reported himself thus is a clue? Markb (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Presidents of Irish descent

I don't think that the section on "Presidents of Irish descent" is notable - the article is about Irish Americans, and being of Irish descent does not ncessarilly constitute that person as an Irish American. As Andy Rooney said: "I'm proud of my Irish heritage, but I'm not Irish. I'm not even Irish-American. I am American, period." I feel that the same mode of action should be taken as I have applied to the article: Lists of Irish-Americans, which is to include the criterion as self-identification with the category, rather than being placed by someone else (ironically enough, Andy Rooney was initially included in the list using that exact quote, which I later removed here. I realise that these Presidents might not be claiming to be Irish American, but that then begs the question of what it is doing in an article on the "Irish American"? Moreover, doesn't this then demonstrate it's lack of significance? I propose that their Irish descent should be proved to have been significant to the particular President, otherwise it's just not notable. I'm of Irish descent, but it's not significant to me! Logoistic 23:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As this is a proposal to change the article and has put forward arguments as to why this should be done, other editors who disagree with the proposal should engage in dialogue here. Failing to do so is a tacit acceptance of the proposed change. Tyrenius 23:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. If someone doesn't claim to be Irish-American, it isn't right for someone else to claim it on his behalf. IrishGuy ^talk 23:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

! Logoistic is correct. It is not Wiki's job to declare so-and-so is Irish; if that personage makes the point (as did Jackson, Kennedy and Reagan) then it's notable. Otherwise (like Bush) it's POV. Rjensen 00:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is of immense importance from the obvious position of being a point of social history. The section has stood long enough - attempts to remove it have been reverted by a good number of members, the section was welcome when it was added and was further added to by other editors since I posted it. Political success is the very core of the story of the Irish in America, and thus every strand of that progress is deeply pertinent to this article. To assert any other is patently ridiculous given that the progression of the Irish had at its foundation their progress through the offices of state. Read the commentary introducing the section and I am sure people will see that the section is notable AND useful. Furthermore, Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy all commented that their Irishness was the clear factor in their decision to be involved in matters of Irish politics - particularly so with Bill Clinton, who took his Irish ancestry very seriously and used it to create solid friendships with the key figures in Northern Irish politics. An article on Irish Americans which did not make reference to American Presidents of Irish descent would be ridiculously lacking; such a commentary is a vital part of that story and to mention Reagan, Kennedy, Clinton and Bush without also referring to McKinley, Jackson, Buchanan, Wilson and the others would be absurd. It is a simple list and should not be causing such heartache to such a tiny minority of NEW editors.Iamlondon 00:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't notable or of importance...it is. I am saying that if a President didn't declare himself Irish-American, it isn't our job to do it for him. IrishGuy ^talk 00:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I hear ya, and agree you have a valid point. Yet when biographers deal with, for example, the life of the Duke of Wellington they will recognise that Wellington is an Irishman regardless of his disdain for his own heritage and desire to not be connected with Ireland. I suppose ultimately the list would have to remain as it stands unless a person could categorically demonstrate that a president felt grave concern at being identified with the Irish...something which is profoundly unlikely. I feel strongly about the list not simply because I added it but because it is one of those classic commentaries on the Irish in America that one constantly sees referred to in any history of the Irish in America; the procession of names in the 20th century marks the turning tide of Irish success in the US - from ward bosses to senators and then to Presidents. To my knowledge at least Polk, Buchanan, Jackson, Wilson, McKinley, Davis, Kennedy, Clinton and Reagan were aware of, and proud of, their Irish heritage. I can only guess that the others would have felt the same...and yet it remains a standard list to be found in countless sources as being definitive. We'll never know for certain on the self-identification of many of them, yet I feel the list is of great importance for the point made in the intro sentences. Best, Iamlondon 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It took Reagan some time to find an Irish great grandfather (who were the other seven g'grandparents?). And to the best of my knowledge, Clinton can't prove any Irish heritage at all. Useful vote winner, though. Bill Tegner 19:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, Bill Clinton's mother's maiden name was Cassidy. But does that make him Irish? If you read Nigel Hamilton's book, "Bill Clinton", you'll see that he has "reasonable cause to believe he was a sixth generation southerner, able to trace his Cassady (sic) forebears back through Alabama to South Carolina in the early nineteenth century". Following this lineage, there are also grounds for believing that he is descended from one William Cassady who was born in Ireland circa 1700. His son Zachariah had emigrated from Ireland circa 1755, settling in South Carolina. On the strength of this, Bill Clinton claims to be "an Irishman", and was, I believe, once voted "Irish American of the Year". Millbanks 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In an article for the Directory of Irish Genealogy, Séan Murphy of Bray, Co Wicklow, is somewhat dismissive of Bill Clinton's claims that he has Irish blood, using the word "baseless". Yet Mr Clinton seems to have convinced himself, and millions of others (outside Ireland that is), that he is "an Irishman". Millbanks (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You say: I can only guess that the others would have felt the same... but what you guess isn't encyclopedic. And I don't mean that in a rude way. I, personally, don't understand why someone wouldn't be proud of his/her Irish heritage...but that doesn't change the fact that some aren't. Even (from what I have read) Oscar Wilde was Irish when it suited him...and British when that suited him. It isn't encyclopedic for us to decide for others that they should be proud of their heritage and therefore they must be labeled Irish-American. IrishGuy ^talk 02:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the onus is upon providing evidence that the Irish heritage is significant, rather than just assuming it by default. "Significance" is of course very subjective in this context - whilst some may think a mention of it to some political leaders makes it significant, others might think it was more of a political move rather than forming a greater part of their identity. But the way forward now is to reference for each individual president added, and for us to consider the question of significance as they arise. Logoistic 22:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the person's motivation is irrelevant. If someone claims Irish heritage for political means...that person still did claim Irish heritage and therefore it should be included. If the person doesn't claim it, even if we know that person is Irish-American, I don't think that person should be included. IrishGuy ^talk 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. We'd have to deal with the issue if and when it comes up. Hopefully they'll be relatively clear cut, but we can't leave things the way they are. This could be the start of properly weeding this article, as it's a bit of a jungle at the moment I think! Logoistic 22:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Beyond the encyclopedic need for having validly sourced evidence of someone claiming Irish heritage, I feel we also need it to prevent partisan edits like the times (I'm sure you know this has happened) when someone removed Bush simply because they don't like him. If it is sourced, there is no valid reason to remove someone from the list. IrishGuy ^talk 23:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments under the heading "Irish Presidents" about J Carter and W ClintonBill Tegner 09:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If all but one of the US Presidents of "Irish descent" was (is) Protestant, why is there a picture of a Roman Catholic cathedral next to the list? Bill Tegner 10:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt very much it has any significance...feel free to move it elsewhere if you like, but it'll prob only be put back.Iamlondon 05:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuing on the subject of religion, the majority of people on the island of Ireland are Roman Catholic, followed by Presbyterians and then Anglicans (Church of Ireland). There are a few Methodists, but very few Baptists, a mere 0.04% of people in the Republic. Yet as has been pointed out, only one US President has been RC, and of the long list of Irish American Presidents, most of the recent ones seem to be Baptists of some sort.Millbanks 08:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Will you stop? This isn't a discussion forum. Your "Odd, isn't it?" observation has nothing whatsoever to do with improving the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Stop adding your own personal POV to article talk pages. IrishGuy ^talk 17:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC

Will you stop? Get off my back. Millbanks 20:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the header at the top of the page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Irish American article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Altering your posts after they have been replied to doesn't change the fact that you continue to use Wikipedia as if it were a chatroom. Stop. If you have no intention of building the encyclopedia, then simply find somewhere else to play. IrishGuy ^talk 20:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that at least twelve Presidents have had some Irish ancestry, something about which we in Ireland can feel proud. Also George Washington and Jimmy Carter both had forbears from north east England. Eisenhower had German ancestry. But is it really the case that US Presidents have only been of Irish or British or German descent? No Jews, Poles or Italians for example? In Ireland we've had far fewer Presidents, but one had a Spanish father, one was English (and two were Protestant). Millbanks 10:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC). And by the way, we've had two female Presidents, including the present one. Says something for Ireland, doesn't it? Millbanks 09:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My wife's just pointed out to me that the Roosevelts were of (distant) Dutch origin. Millbanks 13:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it's possible that George W Bush has some Swedish ancestry. Millbanks 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I'm quite disapointed by this wikipedia article. It has been hijacked by persons who wish to promote sectarian differences versus exploring Irishness. Newsflash: Irish is an ethnicity, not a religion. Did you who claim to know so much about Irish identity know that Ben Briscoe, a Jewish man, was Lord Mayor of Dublin? Does his being Jewish somehow make him not Irish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.171.175 (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the Directory of Irish Genealogy (http://homepage.eircom.net/%257Eseanjmurphy/dir/pres.htm); there are 17 Presidents with definite Irish ancestry. The list of Irish America Presidents indicates that there are 28 Presidents with Irish ancestory. Conclusion - 11 of the listed Presidents do not have definite Irish ancestory and should be removed if no unbiased references can be found. The list of presidents with definitive Irish ancestory is;

1. Andrew Jackson, 7th President 1829-37
2. James Knox Polk, 11th President 1845-49
3. James Buchanan, 15th President 1857-61
4. Ulysses S Grant, 18th President 1869-77
5. Chester Alan Arthur, 21st President 1881-85
6. Grover Cleveland, 22nd and 24th President 1885-89, 1893-97
7. William McKinley, 25th President 1897-1901
8. Woodrow Wilson, 28th President 1913-21
9. John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 35th President 1961-63
10. Lyndon Baines Johnson, 36th President 1963-69
11. Richard Milhous Nixon, 37th President 1969-74
12. James Earl Carter, 39th President 1977-81
13. Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40th President 1981-89
14. George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st President 1989-93
15. William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President 1993-2001
16. George W Bush, 43rd President 2001-09
17. Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President 2009-

http://homepage.eircom.net/%257Eseanjmurphy/dir/pres.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.194.166 (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the edits made by someone from Vermont - there are sixteen verifiable presidents. I'm concerned that the existing list is just 'made up'. This is the list according to the american heritage site.

  1. Andrew Jackson, 7th President 1829-37 (County Antrim)- (Scotch-Irish) [31]
  2. James Knox Polk, 11th President 1845-49 (County Londonderry) - (Scotch-Irish) [32]
  3. James Buchanan, 15th President 1857-61 (County Tyrone)- (Scotch-Irish) [33]
  4. Andrew Johnson, 17th president 1865-69 (County Antrim) - (Scotch-Irish & English) [34]
  5. Chester A. Arthur, 21st President 1881-85 (County Antrim) - (Scotch-Irish & English)[35]
  6. Grover Cleveland, 22nd and 24th President 1885-89, 1893-97 (County Antrim)[citation needed]
  7. Benjamin Harrison, 23rd President 1889-93 (County Down)[citation needed][36]
  8. William McKinley, 25th President 1897-1901 (County Antrim)- (Scotch-Irish & English) [37]
  9. William Howard Taft, 27th President 1909-13 - (Scotch-Irish & English) [38][39]
 10. Woodrow Wilson, 28th President 1913-21 (County Tyrone) (Scotch-Irish)[40]
 11. Warren G. Harding, 29th President 1921-23 - (Scotch-Irish & English) [41]
 12. John F. Kennedy, 35th President 1961-63 (County Wexford)
 13. Richard Nixon, 37th President 1969-74 (County Antrim) & (County Kildare)[citation needed]
 14. Ronald Reagan, 40th President 1981-89 (County Tipperary) [42]
 15. George H. W. Bush, 41st President 1989-93 (Counties Down & Wexford)[citation needed] [43]
 16. Barack Obama, 44th President 2009- (County Offaly) [30][44]

64.129.84.194 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Get Rid of Regan

Please change the photo of Regan at the top. Whatever about his domestic policies, his foreign ones were imperialistic and no decent minded Irish person would be proud that he had his roots in Ireland. We might aswell throw a pic. of Phil Sheridan up for good measure then aswell Kerronoluain 09:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The picture of Reagan should be gotten rid of because Irish-American is the term used to refer to Irish Catholics. Reagan was not Catholic.

First, you spell Reagan wrongly (though correctly later). Also, please note, "as well" not "aswell". Second, you add two new dimensions. You imply that only people with certain political views can be "Irish". You also imply that that to be "Irish American" you have to be Roman Catholic. That means that there has only ever been one Irish American President. Finally, what an odd statement, "Irish-American is the term used to refer to Irish Catholics". There are nearly five million Roman Catholics living on the island of Ireland, nearly all of whom are Irish. They are Irish Catholics. So should they be referred to as Irish American?

Well, you've got your way. Reagan's been repaced with Richard J Daley. Whether you're happier with that, I don't know. Millbanks 18:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile someone has added that Reagan's father was "Irish Catholic". I thought his great grandfather was. I think I read somewhere that Reagan's mother had some Scots-Irish in her. Does that qualify her to be categorised as "Irish Protestant"? Perhaps those of us who live in Ireland express things differently. Millbanks 17:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That was two different people, Millbanks. Irish-American is the term which refers to Americans of Irish Catholic heritage, while Scotch-Irish is the term that refers to Americans of Scotch/Irish Protestant heritage. It is generally accepted that John F. Kennedy was the only Irish-American president. All others which are identified on this page were really Scotch-Irish. There is a very distinct difference between Irish-American and Scotch-Irish-American, but it is very blurry on this page. They are two different ethnic groups which is sometimes confused and one and has been confused as one on this page. 75.32.38.191 01:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's more complicated than that. By no means all Protestants in the island of Ireland are Scots Irish. Yes, the Presbyterians, who are almost entirely in the North, by and large are. But the majority of the 400,000 members of the Church of Ireland are not. Also, many Irish Americans are not Roman Catholic because of inter-marriage. I've pointed out that there have been far more Baptist Irish-American Presidents than Roman Catholic (and had my knuckles rapped for doing so). Yet very few Scots Irish, "Irish Irish" or Anglo-Irish are Baptist. Incidentally, neither in Britain nor Ireland are Scots referred to as Scotch. That's whisky. Millbanks 21:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the marriage issue, if an Irish Catholic converts to a different religion because of marriage, they are still of Irish Catholic heritage. Where are these Baptists Irish-Americans roots? Are they not from the Scotch-Irish settlers? Those who intermarried were most likely Scotch-Irish and not Irish Catholic. 75.32.38.191 00:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Are they not from Scotch-Irish roots?". I doubt it. I've never met a Scottish Baptist, nor a Scots-Irish Baptist, and Baptists here in Ireland are very rare indeed. Millbanks 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Church of Ireland (Anglican) writer, Patrick Semple, recalls in his autobiography that when he attended the University of Chicago Divinity School, he and his wife "were something of a cutiosity. In America Irish means Roman Catholic, and southern Irish certainly does". That might well be the perception, but the number of southern Irish Protestants is growing, and the great majority of them are Anglican. And Patrick Semple continues, "we in fact gravitated towards some Boston Irish American Roman Catholic priests and nuns...and they towards us". I doubt very much if he was asked if he was "Scotch Irish". (I've met him once or twice and I don't think he is). Millbanks 13:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Millbanks, I never made the calim of their being Baptists in Scotland. The Irish Baptists im America you speak of are of Scots-Irish heritage, who converted after coming to America.

Is Patrick Semple an American citizen? His statement supports my point "In America Irish means Roman Catholic". Irish-American refers to the Irish Catholic population. 75.32.38.191 14:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

1. How do you know they were of "Scots Irish heitage"? That's pure speculation. In some cases it could be that a RC Irish American marries a Baptist, and the children, or some of them are brought up Baptist. Things like that are rarely clear cut.

2. Patrick Semple is emphatically not an American citizen. He did spend a year at the Chicago Divinity School, but apart from that he has lived in Ireland all his life. He was born and bred in Wexford. He is a member of the (Irish) Labour Party, and describes himself as an Irish Protestant and a nationalist. Millbanks 07:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If they were a Roman Catholic that converted to Baptist, then they would have been of Irish Catholic heritage. The point is there aren't Baptists in Ireland, so any Irish Baptists has heritage which is not Baptist. 75.32.38.191 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Millbanks, you know you could respond to me here, you were told not to respond to me on your talkpage because it was personal conversation. This relates to wikipedia. 75.32.38.191 13:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you don't respond, I'll go ahead and point out the flaw in your logic.

Let's start with this assumption, there are very few Baptists in Scotland, Ireland, or Northern Ireland. Yet you claim there to be many Irish Baptists in America. I suggest that they were Scots-Irish who converted. You thought this impossible because there aren't many Baptists in Scotland (even though it's obvious when I said "converted" that they did so in America), you claimed it would be more likely that it was Irish Catholics that would convert (you admit they would have had to convert). Now this is really where you made no sense. Why would it be more likely for Irish Catholics to convert, but God, no, Scots-Irish wouldn't convert?

You don't understand where Baptists live in America. Baptists mostly live in the Southern states. Very very very few Irish Catholics immigrated to the south. The only part of the south that had significant Irish Catholics was New Orelans, which is also the only area of the south with a significant Catholic population. However, the majority of Scots-Irish settled all over the south. Therefore, my assesment that it was Scots-Irish who became the Baptists you spoke of was correct.

All these presidents you claim to be of Irish heritage are really of Scots-Irish heritage.

Do you get it now, millbanks? 75.32.38.191 13:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Regan's father a Catholic of patrilineal Irish decent? That would make Regan of Irish Catholic heritage and an Irish American. 69.29.130.39 (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We Irish (real Irish living in Ireland) consider Reagan was an Irish-American. If religion is your big thing in life, then you will want to know that his migrating ancestor was Catholic and they changed religion at some point, which is not yet a crime. Barack Obama has ancestors named Kearney (a Gaelic name) who were Protestant at some point.86.42.208.131 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"There is a very distinct difference between Irish-American and Scotch-Irish-American"

No there isn't.

The planters (who were also English and Welsh as well as Scottish) intermixed heavily with the Irish population in Ulster. The same as how Scandinavians in Dublin and Wexford intermixed with the local populace.

When the Church Of Ireland protestants initially went to America they identified themselves as Irish - not Scots Irish, Ulster Scots or anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.172.32 (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What seems to be lost among many of the contributors to this article is that religion does not determine ethnicity. Being Catholic isn't a prerequisite for being Irish. In face, wasn't one of the mayors of Dublin a Jewish woman? Irish is an ethnicity, not a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.171.175 (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama's Irish ancestry is miniscule and he didn't even know about it until the campaign last year. I think he should be replaced with a someone more well known as an Irish-American such as Regis Philbin, Conan O'Brien, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Father Duffy or William Donovan, father of the CIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surgemg (talk • contribs) 06:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Images

There needs to be more images of female Irish-Americans. Why not include Margaret Tobin Brown-aka Molly Brown of Titanic fame?--jeanne (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and more Protestants, too. There's only one image of a female and only one of a Protestant. 86.46.71.88 (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Evelyn Nesbit was of Irish Protestant ancestry, so were Lucille Ball and Ava Gardner. Shannon Doherty is of Irish Protestant ancestry as well. All beautiful women whose images would enhance the page.--jeanne (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Judy Garland - her Irish ancestry is well documented beyond that of the above mentioned actresses who never once idrntified themselves as Irish American, whereas Garland always did identify herself as Irish American (she was descended from the Fitzpatricks of Smithtown County Meath going back to teh 18 century and her Great Grandmother came from Dublin and she oftened mentioned her Irish Grandmother and Irish attributes) she was a Celt by nature and was (Scots and Irish) - Her fame due to the Wizard of Oz and her phenominal voice are reasons why she will remain famous as long as there is film and recordings media, her work and image will not be dated and unlike most her fame will last and grow, new generations will always come to know and appreciate her great talent- she was also Episcopal so not the typical Catholic Iirsh - she was dubbed America's Colleen when she was in Ireland and the Irish American standard song It's a Great Day for the Irish was written especially for her and was as big a hit for her (it was in constant circulation for 40 years without ever going out of print) as Somewhere Over the Rainbow was and that song was also recognised as the greatest song of the 20th Century - She is one of teh few American great singers to ever record and perform a traditional Irish song in the Irish language putting her own unique spin on it, she is a Legend among Hollywood elite all these reasons demonstrate her deserving to be included and her image as Dorothy should be inculded right next to that pf teh great beauty Maureen O'Hara as it is instantly recognisable. Vono (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Montage

I have asked 5 people did they know any of the list of names in the montage image. Most heard of JFK and E O'Neill, but not so much the other. Some are going right back with doubtful Irish links. I propose Clinton and Reagan to be included as they claim to be Irish-American, also should include Irish-Americans from popular entertainment and arts. Montage is well dated, and 'black and white', needs update. PurpleA (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Conan O'Brien should be included, many people see him as prototypical Irish American and he mentions it on his show often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surgemg (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Obama

The http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-irishmar17,0,2711478.story Chicago Tribune], the Los Angeles Times, CNN and other reliable sources today reported Obama's ancestor (on his mother's side) Fulmouth Kearney was from Moneygall, Ireland, and emigrated to America in 1850. Obama is his great-great-great grandson. See Google news search for irish+obama+kearney. If numerous reliable sources say Obama is Irish-American, it seems original research for a few Wikipedia editors to determine he is not. They should provide their own reliable sources saying he is not, or backing up their own rule of thumb for ">1/16" or whatever. Also significant is that Ireland and the Irish consider him a son of Ireland. Edison (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

But 1/32nd Anglo-Irish is not a significant contribution to his overall genetic make-up. I would say that for anyone less than 1/16th of any given ethnicity. Princess Diana has remote Armenian ancestry, should she therefore be considered a daughter of Armenia? I note that Obama also claims American Indian ancestry (Cherokee of course-what else?). It seems that those who claim remote Irish ancestry such as Obama, Clinton, etc. have the habit of saying they are part Native American as well. One's DNA cannot be acquired at the local Wal-Marts. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if he had an Irish Grandparent would that make him an Irish-American? If he does not self indentify as Irish American then he cannot be classed as such. Jack forbes (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That is your rule, but note the response from Ireland to his presidency. Edison (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just got enough time before I take my wikibreak to answer. I am a Scot with Irish Grandparents and as much as I am proud of my Irish family I don't consider myself anything but a Scot. Has anyone a right to tag me as an Irish-Scot, other than myself if I choose to do so? Obama has that same right. Unless he self identifies as Irish American then no one has the right place that tag on him. Jack forbes (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack is right; however an Irish grandfather would give Obama a significant amount of Irish ancestry, whereas an Irish great-great-great-grandfather is pushing it to the point of silliness, no offense intended Edison. Jack makes a good point in saying that Obama does not self-identify as Irish; rather he identfies as an African-American, which has caused some controversy seeing as he had a white mother (who was predominantly English, with traces of German, Scottish, and 1/16th Irish). The Irish claim is just a publicity ploy. Why didn't any journalist blow the trumpets at McCain's surname lauding the latter's Irish ancestry? Because McCain isn't "cool", Obama is. Irish is a "cool" ethnicity, as is Cherokee Indian, so let's tag Obama with these two. Obama's page on his family history has also begun to look ridiculous. Obama's cousins to the 4th degree are being listed! I'm wondering which journalist will be the first to trace his lineage back to Jesus Christ himself!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Irish claim is a publicity ploy". Presumably that goes for Bill Clinton too? And a "publicity ploy" on whose part? I gather that it was people in Co Offaly who discovered Obama's Irish roots, and publicised them - something the people in Co Fermanagh have never done for Clinton. Ausseagull (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's a publicity ploy. In Obama's case, I believe it was the people of Moneygall who discovered his Irish great-great-great--grandfather, and put themselves in the public eye by publcising the fact. In Clinton's case, the people of Fermanagh had nothing to do with it, as it was Clinton himself who said that his ancestors were from County Fermanagh; however I believe most of Clinton's ancestry is indeed English. His Irish ancestry is very remote, just like Elvis Presley's.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If Obama or Clinton were a tourist in Dublin touting their 1/64th Irish heritage how many locals would hail them as their brothers across the Atlantic? zero. Neither are part of the Irish American community and only mention it when it suits their political goals in campaigns. Nobody in the US considers them Irish Americans, and the two men themselves probably don't either.

Barack Obama is not an Irish American. He is, as the second sentence of his WP article reads, "the first African American to hold the office." Moreover, if one reads his WP article, you find his father mother was of predominantly English descent. The "English Americans" article doesn't list him as an English-American figure. I'm asking that a sane and confident WP editor remove Barack Obama from the list of Irish American figures. I consider this an egregious sore on the character of Wikipedia's authorship.--Deltateam2 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's ridiculous; firstly because he's only 1/64th Irish, and secondly, he identifies as an African-American. The amount of POV-pushing here at this article is way over the top.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your argument, Delta, as with the argument made elsewhere on this page, that he does not self-identify as Irish American, is wholly beside the point. He is Irish American, even if only 1/32nd or 1/64th. There are currently two different threads on this question on this talk page, with a variety of opinions. We need one, unified, thread in which people say yes or no, hopefully with brevity. I am fine with not including him, but we need consensus, not ceaseless edits and reverts. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

1/64th Irish does not make anyone an Irish-American anymore than 1/64th African ancestry makes anyone an African-American, or 1/64th Native American ancestry entitles a person to tribal membership. The point is that President Obama is mainly Kenyan Luo and English; the rest of his ancestry includes remote strains such as Irish, French, German, which many Americans have in their genetic make-up,; however, there isn't a manifesto made out of it--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

I think a distinction needs to be made between "of Irish descent" and "Irish-American". I am of Swedish descent, based on some great-great-great-great-grandfather or other, but I do not identify as a "Swedish-American". Most of my ancestry is English. Being of X descent is a fact of ancestry -- being an X-American is an aspect of identity. I do not think most people consider the President to be an "Irish-American". I think most Americans, and Mr. Obama himself, identify him as African-American. My vote would be to remove him from the list of "Irish-American" portraits, but leave him in the list of Presidents of "Irish descent". (And I'm not anti-Obama, by the way). Eastcote (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding a Flag

I'm not suggesting this be added to any templates, but hear this. I have two sources

• Smith, W. Flags through the Ages and across the World, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975.
• Znamierowski, A. The World Encyclopedia of Flags, Lorenz Books, 1999, 2007.

indicating this:
File:San patricios flag.jpg
as a (the?) flag of Irish-Americans. I believe I have heard it referred to as such in flag stores that sell it as well. Perhaps it should get a place in the article somewhere? A Werewolf (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. As far as where to put it, concerns have been expressed about the article organization. But within the current structure I'd say sense of heritage is the best place to put it. Recognizance (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm dubious of this. This appears to be the flag of the Irish Free State a version of a flag long used in Ireland, particularly in the 1798 Rebellion: [1] . Popularly displayed in American parades for generations now, no doubt, but I don't think that qualifies it as an "Irish-American Flag." Shoreranger (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

...er, isn't this the flag of the Batallón de San Patricio? - this was an Irish Catholic battalion raised to fight the US army in the Mexican war of 1848. I'd suggest that this may have a place in an article on Mexican Americans, it does not have a place in this article.216.107.194.166 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed--the flag does not belong here. Rjensen (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse cases

Has anyone ever written about why a disproportionate amount of clerical abusers were of Irish ethnicity or Irish ancestry ? It has already been said that many abusers were gay, but how about being gay and Irish at the same time ? Are Irish clerics more susceptible to deviant, pedophile sexual behaviour than clerics of other ethnicities ? Why have comparatiely few Italian-American, Hispanic-American, African-American, Asian-American (etc) clerics been caught engaging in illicit or illegal sexual behaviour ? The ethnic and cultural element in this is interesting because it tends to indicate that some cultures are more prone to being sexually deviant than others. ADM (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As an Irish-American I find this comment to be very offensive with its overt anti-Irish, anti-Catholic implications. I would be willing to bet that you would not dare accuse other ethnicities or religions of being prone to sexual deviation, but I suppose to you the Irish are seen as fair game.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually crunched the numbers and provided some kind of evidence to back up these claims or are you simply trolling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobashiloveme (talk • contribs) 02:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, regardless, what is the point of mentioning this? You ask "Has anyone ever written about why a disproportionate amount of clerical abusers were of Irish ethnicity or Irish ancestry ?" Who knows? I doubt you're going to find someone to help you search for such a thing here; you'll get reactions like the one above. A Werewolf (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's anti-catholic, he/she mentions Italians afterall. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

But I think it's understood that the comments are decidedly anti-Irish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources who discuss this topic, feel free to list them on the talk page for the sex abuse cases. But be aware of the guidelines on undue weight. I'm sceptical it would merit much more than a sentence or two, but again, sourced information is always welcome. Recognizance (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of asking for reliable sources, why don't people ask ADM to stop trolling and then refuse to give him the time of day. Jack forbes (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Jack forbes (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly a disproportionate amount appear to be Irish, but who can say how many other abusers were not caught? Best to leave it to the readers' judgements.Red Hurley (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack Forbes' suggestion is the best course of action to take.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

I notice that images of John F. Kennedy and John McEnroe are used twice on the page; why not replace them with others? And, shouldn't Andrew Jackson or Woodrow Wilson be used in lieu of Bill Clinton whose Irish origins are rather remote? I believe Clinton is mainly English.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

His mother was Cassidy, Irish name. I have heard him say that he is Irish-American. Tfz 13:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but how many generations back? The surname Cassidy only means that at least one of his mother's paternal ancestors was Irish; it doesn't indicate that the rest of his forebears were necessarily Irish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali

Added with a citation; he is visiting Ireland next month. One of his distant cousins has said: "..it is not something that makes me excited. I have always thought he was a bit too brash."Red Hurley (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not obama?

in the infobox, I think Obama is probably the most famous Irish-American right now. HE is pretty notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.66.76 (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty notable, but not Irish. "Obama" is certainly not one of those old country Irish names. Irish is not the first thing that leaps to mind when his ancestry is discussed. Wm.C (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

He's got some Irish. How much Irish defines someone as being "Irish-American"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be no doubt that he is Irish. People already on the list are clearly Irish, like John F. Kennedy. Wm.C (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So he has to have an Irish last name? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, look at the people already on the list. It looks like a Cork phonebook. Obama's surname doesn't mean anything Irish.Wm.C (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So someone with an Irish great-great-great-grandfather should be considered as Irish as John F. Kennedy?!! This is becoming sillier by the minute.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Supposing I were famous, it happens I'm half Irish, but on my mother's side. Would I qualify? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, if you were famous, you'd qualify as an Irish-American if your 10th great-grandfather had a preference for Irish whiskey. This reminds me of all the white people who claim to be Cherokee Indians just because one of their grandmothers had high cheekbones and straight, dark hair.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama's mother is Irish, so why isn't he considered an Irish American. is it because he is black?

Yertul (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama's mother was only 1/16th Irish, the rest is mainly English. Honestly, based on that slim connection, would you really consider Barack Obama to be an Irish-American? As I said before, the comments here are getting sillier by the minute, not to mention provocative.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt this would even be on the table except that some Irish guys did a song about Obama, kind of adopting him as one of their own. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for answering.

Yertul (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

He is one of twenty US Presidents who qualify for this actually. And this is from a UK publication (the country's "other paper of record) so how neutral is that? --candle•wicke 04:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wicks source is compelling. I support Obama's inclusion. In addition, a clearly notorious character or two would be a welcome addition, to balance things out. It soes seem more like people are going to great lengths to exclude, rather than the converse. Shoreranger (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama is 1/32 Irish (what is this a cake recipe?), this is surreal. How can he be Irish?? I know some people who can trance their direct paternal decent to the Normans of the Norman Invasion, dose that make them French-Americans!? Or going back further Norwegian-American!? (nor do they claim to be either one, unless joking) Now if Obama's grandparents in Kansas or Hawaii or Indonesia or wherever were Irish or Irish-American than this would be a different story, but they, along with his mom, were your typical WASPs. Everyone in America whose ancestors have lived here before 1880 has some "amount" of "Irish" in them, likewise I would bet my left leg majority of people in Great Britain has some sort of Irish ancestor, dose that make them Irish-Britons?? If people feel his maternal heritage should be included than go the the English-American article and put him there, I would have no problem Zantorzi (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, never mind all this blood-line stuff. There's No One as Irish as Barack O'Bama; surely you all know that? Sarah777 (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama? an Irish American? Aren't we stretching things a bit here, folks? GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be like labeling someone with 1/64th black ancestry an African American, or a person whose great-great-great-great-grandfather was Choctaw Indian to enlist as a tribal member. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, with the exception of Native Americans, under the 1/64th criteria pratically ever American would qualify as Irish American. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Including him really is over the top. Obama is half Kenyan, and roughly half English in ancestry. Those who cannot face that fact just need to get over it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama is probably a lot more Irish than most of the 'Irish Presidents' - or indeed most of the population of the US who claim to be Irish! - what's the issue? - that he can also be classed as African American & English American ... or maybe even French American?24.63.67.214 (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that he's more ethnically Irish than African-with a father from Kenya?! He had one great-great-great-great-grandfather born in Ireland. Now does that make him more Irish than Kennedy whose 8 great-grandparents were all Irish; or Andrew Jackson who was the son of immigrant Irish parents?!!!!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"I know Barack Obama. Barack Obama is a friend of mine. Mr. IP, he's no Irish-American". GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be too sure. We know he likes beer. That's a good start. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We need a criteria for inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? What percent of [name of ethnic group] is necessary in order to be called [name of ethnic group]-American? Clearly 50 percent is enough. But is 25 percent enough? If so, is 12 1/2 percent enough? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Consider Will Rogers, who is listed Cherokee-American, given as 9/32 Cherokee. That's just a little over 1/4. Rogers identified himself that way, though. I don't know that Obama considers himself to be "part Irish", but I don't know that he doesn't, either. What percent Irish is he, in fact? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We should have a 1/8 criteria. At least one of your great-grandparents has got to be Irish. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

How has this discussion gone on this long without someone stating this? If Obama has Irish ancestry and identifies himself as Irish-American, then he's Irish-American; if not, then not. This discussion of fractions and generations just misses the point: Americans by and large choose what if anything goes before their hyphens. -Rrius (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The list of Presidents is ridiculous

I'm pretty sure with the standards used for the list of "Irish"-American Presidents you can prove any single person on this planet to be any ethnicity/nationality you want. Lolcontradictions (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

With this paltry and ridiculous comment, you justify blanking an entire section? This is very close to vandalism. Please discuss, rationally and with facts, before removing information. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget where the One-drop rule was invented. It is an American practice to adopt or impose any origin or none, on the slimmest ancestry. It's good to have another Irish-American Pres listed who is not Roman Catholic.86.43.188.141 (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry

The name of County Londonderry has been changed a number of times, in fact, I just reverted yet another change. Per the compromise at IMOS, the city should be referred to as Derry and the county as Londonderry. Please stop changing it. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Scotch-Irish content

Recently there have been wholesale deletions by an anonymous IP of the section in this article on the Scotch-Irish. These deletions appear to be, for lack of a better term, "revenge" for someone's reversion of the IP editor's changes over in the "Scotch-Irish American" article. While I agree that lengthy discussion of the Scotch-Irish is not appropriate in the Irish-American article, a short paragraph does seem appropriate, with further link to the main Scotch-Irish article. After reviewing the two paragraphs that relate to the Scotch-Irish, it appears that the second para really isn't necessary, is unreferenced, and reads like personal opinion. I will delete this para accordingly. If there's any objection to my deleting that para, please go ahead and restore it. Eastcote (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with one paragraph about the Scotch-Irish. Scotch-Irish readily identify themselves as such in an effort to distinguish their ancestry. Since they have their own article, I don't see the need to duplicate their article here. A short paragraph with a link sounds like a good solution.Malke2010 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:173.76.208.66 continues to delete this content. I do not wish to engage in an edit war with this person. However, the edits are disruptive, and although he might think they are in good faith, the edits are verging on vandalism. This article is not about the Scotch-Irish. Having a short explanatory paragraph about this similar ethnic group seems in order, without meaning that it is taking over the whole article. The paragraph is a long-standing one, and should not be arbitrarily deleted without some sort of consensus here. Eastcote (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been conversing with Mr. Eastcote here [[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eastcote]]/Eastcote discussion page if link acts up-- regarding updates to the article and just noticed his notes here.... to which I thought I would share some thought--his tone with you here is different than what I've experienced thus far (accusations of revenge, discounting my status because I am anonymous etc. which make me quite uncomfortable)...There is nothing arbitrary about my updates. I would MUCH prefer to have just ONE article myself but since that clearly WON'T happen they should at least be consistent. Regardless, he suggest "leaving" a paragraph in the "Irish-American" article even though the FOURTH line of the article identifies the "Scots-Irish", defines them AND offers a link to the separate article? Such a prominent segregation, noted so early with a distince link should lead a reader and not confuse at all--I suggest that continuing to write about the group that is linked elsewhere IS actually confusing. Hence, my update. And not similarly, the "Scots-Irish" article now DOES offer a link but not a similar distinct paragraph about the "Irish-American" group to ENSURE no confusion there?.... Nor do I think it should. I am not comfortable at this point with Mr. Eastcote's input (based upon his questions of motive etc.) and I am willing to step out too--to be entirely fair...this as I suggested to him, should be worked through an independent third party. 173.76.208.66 (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your viewpoint entirely. A remedy might be to include a paragraph about the Irish on the Scotch-Irish page with a link to this page. And then to offer a short paragraph on the Scotch-Irish here with a link to their page. There is a distinction as any one who makes a cursory read of The Troubles and the history therein, will soon learn. Wars have been fought over this issue, a good way to avoid it here is with a compromise as I've suggested.Malke2010 20:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Malke--I appreciate your objectivity. I have some strong opinions about this whole issue (specifically, I think it is RIDICULOUS that there are 2 articles--but I recognize the tangles in that web and will continue to bite my tongue)--and I will definitely settle for independently derived consistency. Since the articles do refer/link to each other, having them remain relatively similar in format should facilitate that consistency. Myself? I would "prefer" no follow-up paragraph for EITHER--I think our readers are clever enough to figure out what the separate sentence and handy link are for?? But, who knows but I would be happy to follow your input even if it isn't to that end.173.76.208.66 (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems odd to have my motives questioned. No histrionic axe to grind here. I think the issue here is about the content of the Irish-American article. It is not about the content of the Scotch-Irish article. Discussion of content in that article should be addressed on that article's talk page. For what it's worth, I think a short paragraph about Irish-Americans on that page might be in order, but it should be discussed there, rather than taking the debate to this article. In fact, I think there is already a portion of the Scotch-Irish article that addresses distinctions between Scotch-Irish and Irish. I'll check. In the meantime, is it consensus to leave the short para about the Scotch-Irish in this article? Eastcote (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the section of the Scotch-Irish article that discusses the distinction between Scotch-Irish and Irish: "It was not until the mass 19th century immigration of Irish that peaked in the 1840s with the Great Irish Famine (most of whom were Catholic, indigenous, Irish) that the earlier Irish Americans began to call themselves Scotch-Irish to distinguish themselves from these new arrivals. This newer wave of Irish often worked as laborers (and to a lesser extent, tradesmen), typically settling at first in the coastal urban centers to facilitate work, though many would migrate to the interior to labor on large-scale 19th century infrastructure projects such as the canals and, later, railroads. Thus, large numbers of newly-arrived Catholic Irish of Boston, New York City, etc. did not often mingle in early years with the Scotch-Irish, who by contrast had in large numbers become well-established years earlier in the rural American interior as small-scale farmers, especially the hill country of the Appalachians and Ozarks." Is this sufficient? I think the wording is a bit clumsy, but it can be tweaked. Eastcote (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The location of this discussion is centered exactly where YOU placed it--The context of the discussion is BOTH articles as they are inextricably and physically linked to each other man! It was you who derived a correlation of hypothetical "revenge" from one article to the next but now state that we're only talking about "this" article??, who also clearly wants the paragraph in the Irish-American article kept--yet doesn't strike a similar note of passion/desire to unequivocally ensure (no not just "check" for references)to ENSURE that the other article offers the same back? and MOST importantly that BOTH are consistent for our readers? Baffling. I strongly suggest you sit tight, do nothing and allow Malke to INDEPENDENTLY consider a course of action--as I am doing173.76.208.66 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest something more concise. The idea here is to make it clear that there are two distinct entities. Getting into detail will probably later invite more editing and unwanted additions. May I suggest something along the lines of "For a discussion on the immigration of the Scotch Irish, see. . ." In this way, it is a simple fix that can also be applied to the Scotch Irish articleMalke2010 21:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Malke. I agree. Completely. And ideally they should be placed at the same level of physical significance within EACH article. Thank you.173.76.208.66 (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is inappropriate to discuss changes to another article on this page. Changes to another article should be discussed on that article's talk page. As for this page, I can work on reducing the size of the Scotch-Irish paragraph here. I agree it could be more concise. At a minimum, I would think it should have a short definition of who the Scotch-Irish are, with a link to the other page. Eastcote (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think keeping it concise is best. Anyone coming to the page looking for the Scotch Irish will see the link. And as far as discussing another page here, it's most likely that editors here also have the Scotch Irish page on their watch lists and vice versa. But I agree, the discussion should also be on that article's talk page.Malke2010 22:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Malke I'll repeat-since that seems to be necessary-that I agree with you, and I would strongly suggest that ONLY an independent party make ANY changes here on this subject (that would exclude you Mr. Eastcote--and myself). It's facscinating that it was "ok" to bring a discussion about alleged "revenge" in the SI article here to begin with, but now we "shouldn't" talk about "other" changes to that article here. I appreciate your input Malke. 173.76.208.66 (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Points taken, IP. Let's see what Eastcote has in mind. Consensus is a process. And, as I said, being concise is best. The less said, the less there is to disagree about.Malke2010 22:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Here's what I propose. Under the heading of "Immigration to America", have two subheadings, "Colonial settlement", and "Post-colonial immigration". Put this bit under "Colonial settlement", with appropriate references and internal links, and a link to the main Scotch-Irish page: "Irish settlers in America during the colonial period were primarily Presbyterian families from Ulster, who in America became known as the Scotch-Irish. These were descendents of Scottish and English tenant farmers who had been relocated to Ireland during the 17th century Plantation of Ulster. Approximately a quarter of a million Scotch-Irish arrived in America between 1720 and 1775, settling mainly in the colonial "back country" of the Appalachian Mountain region. The U.S. Census of 2000 reported 4.9 million self-identified Scotch-Irish." Then carry on with "Post-colonial immigration" with the article as-is. Eastcote (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. So we now have this suggestion for the 3 to 5 million "Scots-Irish" in the "Irish-American" article. Now, I wonder how then the 30 plus million "Irish-American" component should be best crafted for consistency sake in the "Scots-Irish" articles--and please please PLEASE no dithering about WHERE that discussion should be to simply avoid the discussion. We ARE after all talking about adding a "Scots-Irish" paragraph to an article that has been painstakingly scrubbed AND "edited" to differentiate "Scots-Irish" out of "Irish-Americans" , yet rather than dedicate efforts to improve/build/celebrate THAT article some want MORE "Scots-Irish" data here instead of less?? Kinda weird and hypocritical and I'll leave it at that. The bottome line? I agree Malke that the less said the better--such as links only on both as you suggested--but I mostly think that NEITHER Eastcote (NOR I) should be crafting or proposing ANY of the words, however few they may be. And then we won't have to read any more of THIS nonsense173.76.208.66 (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There's not much in my shortened version that wasn't already there. No one is "adding" a Scotch-Irish paragraph. The paragraph had been in the article a long time, until you deleted it. This shortens it. If it is felt that the census data should not be there (it was already in the article), that sentence can be taken out. However, shortening it any more would delete it entirely, and this distinct group does merit mention, if only to define how it differentiates from other Irish Americans. Also, please bear in mind Wikipedia's policy on civility. Eastcote (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh my. Um, Mr. Eastcote we know what YOU prefer, we see how YOU validate its existence, explain it, believe in it, want it etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. And I have responded--as tedious as its become--and said AGAIN that I strongly suggest you--AND I--remove ourselves from suggesting thematic elements. But you just won't do that. (?) And you are now quoting wikip'z civility rules to me?? I'm utterly baffled. Further, Malke's suggestion to allow links was quickly rebuffed with you STILL trying to add content that IS offered via the other article FROM THE LINK, in the fourth sentence--FOURTH SENTENCE of the article. How THAT profound structural acquiescence coupled with A LINK TO SCOTS-IRISH does no satiate your insistence that readers see more in THIS article about the "Scots-Irish" is beyond incredible. Please. The "civil" thing would be for you to stop trying to push YOUR agenda and let the independent individual do their thing. Immediately! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.208.66 (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe what Malke suggested was "a short paragraph on the Scotch-Irish here with a link to their page". I agree with that and that is what I have proposed. But I'm done. It ain't worth the headache. Eastcote (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not being around. I've been busy with family, so this is the first time I've had a chance to come back and look. Eastcote, I think that this is a good paragraph you've crafted. I do see your point in wanting to include the material. The point the IP seems to be making is that the Scotch-Irish arrival in America is separate from the Irish American experience here.

For the purposes of the encyclopedia, the primary concern is content and I think in this instance, since the Scotch-Irish also consider themselves separate, just as the Irish consider themselves to be separate, what might be the best solution all around is to simply have a disambiguation at the top of the article that says, see also Scotch-Irish in America, and vice versa on the Scotch Irish page.

The Scotch-Irish, also called Orangemen, made a point of keeping themselves separate and of course they were Protestant, usually they became Episcopalians or Presbyterians in America. The demographics, the economic level of success and the level of education were all vastly different from the Irish experience in America. If you see it from this historical perspective, I think you can understand the IP's viewpoint. I suspect the IP is upset by the inclusion of a group that not only rejected the Irish in their own homeland, but rejected them in America as well.Malke2010 11:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying there should be no mention, not even a three line definition, of the Scotch-Irish in this article? Ordinarily, where there is room for confusion, there is at least a short summation, then a link. The confusion does exist. For instance, the Scotch-Irish were NOT "also called Orangemen". The Orange Order with all its trappings was founded after the major Scotch-Irish migrations to America. That's part of Ireland's subsequent story. For the Scotch-Irish, which is an American group, talk of Orangemen is meaningless. The Ulster-Scots (who later founded the Orange Order) and the Scotch-Irish are related groups with the same ancestry, but they diverged 250 years ago, and their histories are different. And simply because one anonymous editor gets upset because of an article's content is no reason to delete the offending portion. Wikipedia exists to inform, and it's hard to do that if every offending morsel is expunged from articles. The Scotch-Irish came from Ireland, and there are many who would call them simply "Irish-American" (even though among their descendents there is no cultural memory of Ireland), so it seems no great stretch to have a short definition with a link to the other article. If all wording concerning the Scotch-Irish needs to come out, then all the references to "Irish-American Presidents" need to come out, excepting JFK. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I am pushing no "agenda". This whole discussion started because an anonymous IP editor, who seems by his edit history solely focused on this issue, deleted a small long-standing portion of this article. I did not put it there originally. I simply restored it to the status quo, and then even further reduced it. Eastcote (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The name Scotch-Irish (and Scots-Irish), is a 20th-century invention; the 18th-century immigrants from what is now Northern Ireland, would have been called Irish and that's it. Not all Irish Protestants are or were of Scottish ancestry; some were English, Huguenot and even Irish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The earliest use of the name was 1689, and it was in common use throughout the 1700s, usually as a pejorative term by English settlers in America. It was not till the mid-1800s that it became common for Scotch-Irish descendents to use it. It is not a 20th century invention. The name is shorthand, but the group contained Calvinist Dissenters of Scottish, English, Welsh, Irish, French, and Flemish ancestry. This is part of the misunderstanding about this group, and why there should probably be a short explanatory paragraph pointing to the main article. Eastcote (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I see Mr. Eastcote that you've removed your edit about "giving up" on this and are continuing on!!? That's troubling. In the interest of the articleS I was hoping that I wouldn't have to try this AGAIN. But so be it. What do you mean the "main article"? This article IS NOT ABOUT THE "SCOTS-IRISH." EXACTLY AS YOU WANT!!!! How can that not be blisteringly evident to you??? THE SCOTS-IRISH are not to be confused with those OTHER "Irish Americans"--Um, readers THEY HAVE THEIR OWN ARTICLE!! Or by SOME inclusion are you saying that INDEED these people ARE possibly somewhat the same??? It seems on and on and on that because you are not getting "exactly" what you want (more than a LOVELY link and SPECIFIC explanation that THE SCOTS-IRISH AIN'T the people in THIS article!!) You are trying to "validate" your position with random tidbits that "fit" your perspective. And your attempt to "clarify" ONLY demonstrates, that indeed this issues is NOT as linear and neat as one would hope --which is why as I've stated before that ultimately it is RIDICULOUS that there are 2 separate articles. And if you you conducted a THOROUGH INDEPENDENT review of this, you would see that for your EVERY suggestion you make about so and so NOT belonging here, it could be made vice versa. PLEASE! STOP! AND for probably the 3rd or 4th time PLEASE stop both negating my input because I'm "anonymous" and questioning my motives! If we MUST have SEPARATE articles they MUST be about the subject of which they are written. PERIOD!

Eastcote, I understand your point here. And IP, I am somewhat confused now about your position. My first impression was that you supported separate articles, but your above post seems otherwise.

In any event, I am thinking mainly of a prospective reader's questions when doing a search. The separate articles are probably confusing to readers and therefore having an explanation of the difference is needed. The question then becomes, 'What should be contained in such an explanation?' And of course, the answer is the basic differences. And the basic difference is heritage, which I think your paragraph does an excellent job of rendering. My suggestion that it might be better all around to just have a disambiguation link was in consideration of two things: 1) you seemed to have given up on it in the post you made right before mine, and 2) the separateness that both groups to this day maintain.

What needs to happen here is a consensus on the issue. Since you are willing to continue on, I am willing to help. And IP, you are correct that your input weighs the same as anyone with an established account. I don't think you need worry that the Scotch-Irish will dominate the article. In many ways, I agree that it seems silly that there are two separate articles. It seems like something is missing. Having a definition to clarify the subject for the reader will help fill in the blanks.

So long as both of you remain civil WP:CIVIL and with WP:NPOV, there's no reason why consensus can't be reached.Malke2010 20:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Malke for the reasoned response. My comment about being done means that I am not going to "engage" with IP. My interest is in providing sufficient information to clarify the distinction between two different waves of immigration from Ireland, and to have a link point to the main article about the Scotch-Irish. There are different histories involved, even within the confines of America. As you observed, the two groups are of separate heritage. They settled at different times in different parts of the country and had very little interaction, so to have one article represent both really wouldn't do justice to either. But the issue of separate articles aside, I think the definition I provided covers the necessary ground in pointing out the distinctions: (a) different ethnic origin, (b) different religion, (c) different chronology, and (d) different settlement pattern in America. It does it in three sentences (if you take out the redundant census info), and in no way tries to shanghai the article. Eastcote (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Eastcote, you seem to have an interest in this area and I suggest, since you have obvious writing skills, that you write an article titled, "Irish Immigration to America." A separate article would open a new window on the subject.

IP, your input is important and appreciated here. Please offer suggestions on the paragraph Eastcote has written, and/or write one of your own for consideration.Malke2010 21:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion Malke, I simply "accept" two separate articles, but as I've stated before would never believe there actually SHOULD be two articles... Mr. Eastcote talks about 2 distinct histories of immigration from IRELAND. THAT is ENTIRELY subjective and depends upon the "source" and of course!! their POV; but, suppose we do ACCEPT that there ARE two, then that only pushes the question AGAIN of why here? From an editorial stance--if this is indeed so, why would either be covered in an article that has its OWN distinct and, as Mr. Eastcote states, "different history."

If however, the article must have THIS section, then again from a purely editorial standpoint, the other article deserves the SAME TREATMENT. Since we are talking about giving prominent placement in an article that is supposed to discuss 35 to 40 million constituents to a "separately articled" 3 to 5 million person constituency, then let's be realistic about ensuring that BOTH, I repeat BOTH articles reflect the same level of um "deference" and "respect" to each other if THIS is going to be. So Malke, again, I see a strong case of POV with the other party; conversely I have to be reasonable and state that--MOST LIKELY--I represent a separate one, that's only a fair self-assesment... so I ask PLEASE that if ANY content is added that that it be solicited through a wider swath of parties then we here alone. And I'm sorry for how trying this has probably become for you.173.76.208.66 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries on this been trying. I think you'll be surprised to find that working in the process can actually get both of you what you want. I think the essence here is reader understanding of a complex subject. If you both keep the reader's ease of understanding the subject in mind, you will both share a common focus. And getting other editor's opinions is certainly a good idea.

For now, I think if you both come up with a paragraph that could be used for both articles, you can easily present it here on the talk page for other editors to comment on. And you're being honest about having a pov which is fine. Everybody has one. Working with the process helps adjust it for the reader.Malke2010 07:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I've given it some thought, and I'm not sure an identical paragraph in each article (if that's what you had in mind) would make sense, primarily because of the chronological differences in the two migrations, because of the confusion that the name "Scotch-Irish" causes, and because Irish Americans, being the larger and better known group, do not seem to need the same type of explanation. But here goes.

In the Irish-American article, this paragraph, with appropriate links: "Irish settlers in America during the colonial period were primarily Presbyterian families from Ulster, who in America became known as the Scotch-Irish. These were descendents of Scottish and English tenant farmers who had been relocated to Ireland during the 17th century Plantation of Ulster. Approximately a quarter of a million Scotch-Irish arrived in America between 1720 and 1775, settling mainly in the colonial "back country" of the Appalachian Mountain region."

In the Scotch-Irish American article, this paragraph, with appropriate links: "The Scotch-Irish at first usually referred to themselves simply as "Irish", without the qualifier "Scotch". It was not until a century later, following the surge in Irish immigration after the Great Irish Famine of the 1840s, that the earlier arrivals began to consistently call themselves Scotch-Irish to distinguish themselves from the newer, predominantly Catholic, immigrants. The two groups had little interaction in America, as the Scotch-Irish had become settled years earlier in upland regions of the American South, while the new wave of Irish Americans settled primarily in northern cities such as Boston, New York, or Chicago, though many migrated to the interior to work on large-scale 19th century infrastructure projects such as canals and railroads."

So, constructive ideas, please. Will these paragraphs fit the bill? I'm open to working on this, as long as comments relate to the wording or polishing of a reasonable compromise, and do not involve personal attacks and accusations. Eastcote (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I like these paragraphs - they seem similar to me of paragraphs that were already in each article. However, in the case of the Irish-American article, I am doubtful a single paragraph is sufficient to properly address the most populous Irish ethnicity in North American for almost 200 years (admittedly not the *only* Irish ethnicity - it is conceded that there were "Gaelic Irish" - for lack of a better term - predominantly Catholic, and Anglo-Irish who were also in America at the time, but because of smaller numbers did not have as great an impact). Shoreranger (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm inserting a comment here to answer Eastcote's post directly. One thing that's important to remember, Irish Catholics had been immigrating during the early years of America. I have ancestors who left Ireland and established themselves in the colonies, so it's important that the paragraph not suggest that the Irish Catholics didn't start arriving until the faminine struck. Sometimes, Irish Catholics came over as servants for English families, and sometimes they worked on ships, etc. One of the reasons the Irish Catholics choose the cities they did was because there were already Irish Catholic enclaves there. Overall, though, I think they are good paragraphs.Malke2010 06:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to keep it short to deflect any accusations of trying to take over the article. There was some immigration by other groups from Ireland during the colonial period, though the Scotch-Irish formed the bulk of the immigrants, and were the ones that caused the most trouble apparently. But there were some Catholics and Anglicans, too, and one of my Ancestors from this period was an Irish Baptist from Dublin. But I'm not an expert on overall Irish immigration. My interest is in the Scotch-Irish. Can someone help craft a couple of extra lines to discuss the other immigrants during the colonial period? Eastcote (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion. I think the two paragraphs you give above are good, contingent on finding appropriate references. It's not suprising this addition is creating controversy. I understand as early as 1897 the American Irish Historical Society devoted a considerable amount of time and effort to deflate the notion of "scotch-irish". As Eastcote notes, most colonial officals referred to the early immigrants as Irish, "Ulter Irish", "Northern Irish", or "Irish Presbyterians".--Work permit (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have references that I will insert. As you observe, the American Irish Historical Society was trying to stress a single Irish identity, as a response to the emergence of "Scotch-Irish" as an identifier in the last half of the 1800s. The term goes back 300 years, but has been in general use by the people themselves, as well as scholars, for only 150 or so (which is still a long time). Eastcote (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please also ensure that you ALSO include your suggestion HERE, if this is to be HERE, about the SIMILAR paragraph that will be placed in the Scots-Irish article. Malke--any suggestions for how this component can also be opened up to ALL parties to eliminate AGAIN, POV for BOTH additions if THEY are to be? This issue needs to be resolved. WorkPermit, your comments ALSO smack of POV. Asking for Eastcote to provide "source" information and THEN making that statement about the IHS certainly warrants the same of which YOU ask him--and to begin to get into any type of who said/did what to whom and who did it first--while I have STRONG OPINIONS about THAT reality (based on source!)--are ENTIRELY NOT APPROPRIATE HERE. Thank you. 173.76.208.66 (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, IP, we can open a page, a sandbox, where editors can go make changes. I am having someone with more tech skills than me do this for us.Malke2010 06:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Malke--btw, you've been informed (and I quote) "the paragraph is a long-standing one, and should not be arbitrarily deleted..." That's false. A cursory review of the history shows that while this article itself is about 4 or 5 years old, that "long-standing" paragraph was actually only about SIX WEEKS old (added Dec 2009). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.208.66 (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I went back and looked, and there's been a paragraph on the Scotch-Irish in the article at least since December 2006 (back as far as I went), over three years ago, which is long-standing. Sorry you got caught in the crossfire Work Permit. IP, please read my suggestions again and you will note that I already provided the paragraph proposed to go in the Scotch-Irish article. Eastcote (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

173.76.208.66, I find it strange that I should be accused of pushing a POV. I wandered on to this discussion page, did a cursory look through independent references, and reported what I found. I am here as a unbiased editor to help build consensus. Feel free to check my edit logs, my only contribution to this article has been to delete obvious vandalism and to make the infobox prettier. 173.76.208.66, wikipedia is about establishing consensus through citing reliable sources. Lets do that here. I assume your intentions are noble. Please assume the same for me.--Work permit (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Work permit, it seems the IP just wants to be included in the process. I think the IP is worried that earlier posts seem to be suggesting something has already been agreed upon. I don't think the IP is doubting your sincerity or efforts here. This will all work out. Malke2010 06:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If I could just chime in here a bit: It seems to me that, from a logic standpoint, the Scotch-Irish (Scots-Irish) are a sub-set of the totality of Irish-Americans, and would therefore need to be included in an article on Irish-Americans. I would further suggest that, from a certain standpoint, an *expansion* of the recent coverage the Scotch-Irish received in the Irish-American article could be justified because of a 100 to 150 year history in what is now the United States as the majority of Irish on the North American continent prior to any other Irish ethnicity, as I understand it. Conversely, there does not seem to be as compelling logic to include Irish who are not Ulster Scots/Scotch-Irish in the Scotch-Irish article, since that is equvalent to trying to include the whole into the sub-set, which cannot be done - only the sub-set can be placed into the whole. These may be poor comparisons, but as examples: Native Hawaiians are all Americans, but not all Americans are Native Hawaiians; Munsee are all Lenape, but not all Lenape are Munsee; Russian-Jews are all Russians, but not all Russians are Russian-Jews; Huguenots are all French, but not all French are Hugenots. I would also like to add that there does seem to be some good rationale for limiting the discussion on this Talk page to content in this article, and leave discussion on content in other articles for their Talk pages. Hope that helps. Shoreranger (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a political debate based on the politics of Ireland since 1920, when the 6 counties of the north remained with Britain. The Irish Free State/ Eire/ Irish Republic (based in Dublin) claimed that Northern Ireland (around Belfast) was really part of Ireland because the people there were really "Irish". The Protestants of Belfast rejected that argument and see themselves as quite separate. It spilled over into the U.S. The Catholic Irish, although fewer, are much better organized (think Catholic colleges, for example) and write a lot more history. They want the larger Protestant group to be counted as really Irish--thus adding large numbers, expecting that the Catholic Irish will dominate the writing of history. The Protestant Irish in U.S. did call themselves "Irish" until the Catholics arrived in large numbers in the 1840s. They then stopped calling themselves that, and began to prefer terms like "Scots Irish". Rjensen (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Shoreranger, I don't think the comparison holds for the Irish immigration. The other groups you speak of had entirely different circumstances than the Irish. The Irish were under siege by the British and the Scotch were forced during an earlier period, to emmigrate to Ireland. The Irish weren't in control of their own country as the Russian's were, or the French, etc.

And Rjensen, I agree with you that this is a political debate. But I think Eastcote just wants to clarify the differences by adding a paragraph and a link to the Scotch Irish article. Similarly, a link with a short paragraph in the Scotch-Irish article will also be an aid to readers. And the IP seems to want to make sure it isn't given WP:UNDUE. The two groups share a unique history and the readers could easily be confused if explanations of differences aren't clear. For this reason, a short paragraph with a link in both articles seems the best solution.

Because the history of the Scotch in Ireland began with forced emigration, it is understandable that this group would want to distinguish themselves from native residents. And the differences in the groups are there, there's no denying that. The readers' needs would be served by adding a paragraph that explains that briefly, with a link to the main article on the Scotch-Irish.

A good rule of thumb is to first think of the reader. As the articles stand right now, someone with very little knowledge of the background of Ireland from Cromwell to the present day could easily be confused by the separate articles.Malke2010 20:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't comparing the political situation or the immigrant experience of any of the other groups I mentioned to the Scotch-Irish and the Irish as a whole, only suggesting that the Scotch-Irish too are similarly sub-sets of a larger population of a given country - but are counted among that larger population nontheless. In effect supporting the assertion that Scotch-Irish are all Irish-Americans, but not all Irish-Americans are Scotch-Irish. Shoreranger (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It just occured to me that it might be worth mentioning that the list of US Presidents in this article would have to get trimmed quite a bit to remove all the Scotch-Irish presidents.Shoreranger (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Eastcote, I like your paragraphs very much. And IP, where are you?Malke2010 04:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not perfect. As you mentioned, they generalize the two different waves of immigration. There were non-Presbyterians who arrived in America during the 18th century, and there were non-Catholics who arrived in the 19th. But I didn't want them to end up too wordy or convoluted, which seems to happen when you try to cover every base in a small paragraph.

I also think it's important to address the "political" aspect some see in this issue, which causes so much consternation. Irish political developments, both past and present, are more significant to the "Irish-American" than they are to the "Scotch-Irish American". The history of Irish/British and Catholic/Protestant relations is part and parcel of the Irish-American "mythos" (take for example the continued popularity of Irish rebel songs). For the descendents of the Scotch-Irish, Ireland is not really a reference point at all. I'd venture to say most descendents of the Scotch-Irish are unaware of their Irish origins. The Scotch-Irish "mythos" involves such things as the American frontier, log cabins, and Davy Crockett. Events such as the 1920s Partition of Ireland have no meaning because they happened two centuries after the Scotch-Irish left Ireland, and events such as the Battle of the Boyne are meaningless because they are gone from the Scotch-Irish collective folk memory. Because of that separation in time, geography, and experience, the Scotch-Irish also have little in common with today's Ulster Scots, other than a shared ancestry nearly 300 years ago. I find it interesting that some Ulster Scots have adopted some of the Scotch-Irish "mythos" as their own. I've seen recent Derry wall art that depicts such American figures as Sam Houston and Andy Jackson, in addition to the established iconography of the Boyne and King Billy. But this would really puzzle my Appalachian grandfather, if he were alive. Eastcote (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Eastcote, you have an impressive knowledge base on this topic. I agree the political developments are also relevant. Can you compress all of that into a short second paragraph?Malke2010 19:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I meant that commentary more for those of us participating in this discussion, who might not know the angle from which each "side" views the issue. I hadn't thought of including it in the article. The second paragraph I proposed above sort of touches on it, discussing the different chronology and settlement pattern. If there is consensus I can write a few lines to address the differing perspectives. Eastcote (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can substantiate it with peer-reviewed citations, I'd include it. Otherwise, of course, it comes off as original research, or opinion. Shoreranger (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. I've never seen it written about. The differences scholars write about are the chronological, physical, and economic ones. Never seen anything written comparing the mythology, stereotypes, or worldview of the two. There are references that discuss these aspects of each group separately, but not comparatively. Eastcote (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we go back to a long-standing version as per Wikipedia:Stable versions now until this all gets sorted out a little more? Shoreranger (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Eastcote (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Random break

I was pointed to this discussion by a request for input on the WikiProject Ireland talk page. I'd like to try to summarise the discussion as I see it: one editor, 173.76.208.66, believes that because there is an article on a topic, it should not be given a paragraph or section in another article. Alternatively, he thinks that because there are two articles they should be constructed the same way, and that a paragraph in one article linking to the other should be exactly balanced by a more or less identical paragraph in the other. Another editor, Eastcote, believes that anything that has relevance to this article should be included in the body of the article - not merely in the lead or in a hatnote - and that the nature of the two articles dictates that any corresponding paragraph in the other article would be different in size and content. A third editor, Malke2010, believes that because there are political sensitivities involved, it would be prudent to avoid mention of the Scotch-Irish Americans except for (if I understand him) a hatnote.

My own view is that there should be mention of the Scotch-Irish Americans in the body of the article, because it is reasonable to assume that a reader will want to know what the relationship between the two is. What I would question, is whether it should be where it was, at the beginning of the Origins section. If Irish American means "Catholic "not-Ulster-planter" Irish, then I think it is confusing, if not actually misleading, to suggest that their origin is in the Scotch-Irish. It would be better, in my view, to have a short section at the end of the article (as it is at the end of the lead) beginning with something like "The term Irish American does not usually include Scotch-Irish Americans...", followed by a brief explanation of who the Scotch-Irish are, and why they're not included. Scolaire (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion. While I also support inclusion of the Scotch-Irish in the body of the article, I believe the assumption that "Irish American means Catholic Irish." Protestantism does not preclude one from being Irish, and Catholicism alone does not necessarily guarantee Irish-ness. It is my contention that the title "Irish American" starts with the earliest immigrants from Ireland to what is now the United States, and the majority of them for the first 150+ years or so happened to have been Protestant, and specifically Ulster Scots. Those immigrants referred to themselves, and were referred to by Americans, simply as "Irish" for the most part. The development of the term "Scotch-Irish", an Americanism, does not preclude the immediate Irish origin of those people. The fact that the majority of arrivals to the United States for the last 150 years or so were predominantly Catholic does not give the group monopoly over the term. There is an article for "Irish Catholic" already, there does not need to be an article giving the false impression that an "Irish American" must be a Catholic - it is simply not true. However, there is a strong need - in my opinion - to provide an article that accurately conveys the evolution of Irish Americans from predominantly Scotch-Irish to (for lack of a better term) predominantly Gaelic Irish over the course of 300 years. Shoreranger ([[User

talk:Shoreranger|talk]]) 19:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire: You do not understand entirely what has been happening. I do not think that because of "political sensitivities" that we should avoid mention. The two groups are intertwined forever whether they like it or not. What I was doing was mediating between the IP and Eastcote because there seemed to be an edit war developing. One solution, all around, is simply to have a disambiguation link at the top of the article as in, "See Also, Scotch-Irish." But Eastcote wanted to include a paragraph. He wrote it and presented it here. I thought it was a good paragraph. And in the interest of readers, it would be helpful to provide the paragraph or a similar one on the Scotch Irish page too.

Shoreranger: If anyone on the planet has the right to use the term Irish American, it's an Irishman from Ireland. The purpose of the two articles is to make the distinction that the Scotch Irish themselves created to distinguish themselves from the Irish, specifically the Irish Catholic. Plain and simple. The Scotch Irish qualified their Irish-ness by appending their origins from Scotland as Scotch Irish. And make no mistake, the Scotch Irish in America (most of whom have never even been to Ireland) have no problem letting an Irishman know that they are not the same.Malke2010 20:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you re-phrase all of that reply directed to me, Malke? I don't think I understood you clearly, or it does not make sense as written - one or the other. In part though - if I am guessing correctly - you don't seem to have a familiarity with the United Irishman, which might broaden your views in general. In addition, the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick - similar now found in many US cities - was founded by men of both Protestant and Catholic Irish origins, and the organizations remain non-sectarian today. They are more "the same" than different, in their own estimation. Shoreranger (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We're pretty much all over the map on this issue. The Scotch-Irish and the Irish are certainly more different than the same. Today, in Ireland, there might not be a lot of difference culturally between Ulster Protestants and Catholics. But the Scotch-Irish left nearly 300 years ago, at a time when they were very different, and that difference has been accentuated further by separate development in the United States. At the beginning of their migration around 1720, the Scotch-Irish were third, second, and even first generation settlers mostly from England and Scotland. They weren't there long enough to really become "true" Irish. They were "Irish" only in the same sense settlers in Virginia or New York of this period called themselves "Americans" -- they certainly were not saying they were historically, culturally or genetically the same as the native Iroquois or Cherokee they encountered here. I think the choice of the term "Scotch-Irish" is unfortunate, as it is not accurate and creates confusion. But then I didn't choose the name. There were lots of Scots, and perhaps nearly as many English, and a liberal sprinkling of Welsh, German, French, and Flemish, so the Scotch part of the name is not really accurate. Hacket Fisher calls them "Borderers" to indicate their primary ultimate origins on the Anglo-Scottish border. But even that isn't quite accurate, because the contemporary record indicates they settled first in Ireland, and came to America from there, not from the borders, dotting the country from Philadelphia to Knoxville with Irish placenames. Maybe author Patrick Griffin has the best name for them in his book title, The People with No Name.

However that may be, there is enough confusion about who they are that some mention of them does seem necessary in the article on Irish Americans. I don't think it needs to take up a lot of space, but I don't think it should be at the bottom of the article, either. I think it was placed where it originally was under origins because that is the chronologically sensible place for it.

Apart from the difficulty in defining "Scotch-Irish", it seems there is also difficulty defining "Irish American." That is a definition that needs to be sorted out first, and there are questions that need answers. If the Scotch-Irish do not have a place in the Irish American story, then should most of the stuff about Irish American presidents come out? If Irish American means only Irish Catholic American, and if Scotch-Irish means only those who came here between 1717 and 1775 and their descendents, then where do we include Irish Protestant immigrants of 1880, 1920 or 1990, whether they are Presbyterian, Methodist, or Anglican? They certainly have more claim to the name Irish than the Scotch-Irish do.

So, I propose that the initial step in this discussion is to define "Irish American", and carry on from there. Catholics only? Anglo-Irish? Anyone who immigrated to America from Ireland? Only those born in Ireland? Thoughts? Eastcote (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think "Anyone who immigrated to America from Ireland" defines "Irish American." If this is going to get as parsed and disected as I suspect it will be, I will further qualify "from Ireland" to mean someone who was a resident of Ireland before immigrating, so that when the US census came around it was sufficient enough for the the immigrant to have answered "Ireland" in the "National Origin" box. (Most of the immigration we are talking about here pre-dates Ellis Island, so the census thing was the best example I could think of...) Shoreranger (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that definition for inclusion in this article, with the qualification that Scotch-Irish, because it involves a historically distinct group which has its own article, would not have a dominant presence in the article, but would be included as a short paragraph with a link to the main S-I article. The original S-I certainly identified as Irish when they came here, even if their descendents today do not. Eastcote (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the desire to arbitraily limit the Scotch-Irish content in this article to a paragraph. Of about 300 years of immigration history from Ireland to what is now the United States, half of it was predominantly Scotch-Irish and half was predominantly "Gaelic" Irish. From that perspective, they would seem to deserve equal consideration. I suggest we allow the Scotch-Irish content to develop organically, and place no artificial contraints on the amount of content. The main thing we need to develop consensus on right now is agreement that the Scotch-Irish have a legitimate place in the article. The rest we can work out later. Shoreranger (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the groups are intertwined and will always be that way because of history. And I agree there should be some mention of them in this article.

But you can't say Irish American applies to Catholics only, as Ireland has always had Protestants living there. Of course, more came when Cromwell arrived to wipe out the Irish, but nonetheless, Protestants have always been in the South. Religion is not the dominating factor. That's the big factor in the North. And remember, at one time the British were Catholics. Those Irish of British descent who were living in Ireland at the time of Henry VIII's break with the Church, converted out of loyalty to the Crown, as did many of the Irish nobility.

In any event, you cannot define an Irishman by religion.Malke2010 02:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I deliberately put "Catholic" in quotes. My point was not that we should rigorously sort people by what church they go to, but that we have two kinds of immigrants here, who are effectively being treated as of different ethnicity. For convenience, I chose a label for one of those groups that would sometimes be given them, and used quotes to show it was just a label. I never expected the discussion to focus on that one word! But to return to my point: If this article is specifically not about the Ulster planter Irish of two hundred years ago, and if the people that it is about did not follow them, in the literal sense of travelling to America to join them, then the Origins section is the wrong place to put them, and the top of the article is the wrong place to put them. Like the rest of you, I think that Eastcote's paragraph is fine, but it's tailored for the Origins section, so it would need a slight re-write if it were to go elsewhere. Scolaire (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

But, who is to be considered Irish American? I think in the popular mind, "Irish American" generally equates to someone of native Irish Catholic origin, so native Irish Catholic descent would meet the definition, whether the original ancestor came to America in 1710 or 2010. I would think that descent from any recent Irish Protestant immigrant would also meet the definition. "Recent" being 20th century and later.

However, while the Scotch-Irish should be mentioned briefly in the article as coming from Ireland, I would argue that their descendants should NOT be included in the definition of Irish American. James Leyburn, probably the prime authority on the Scotch-Irish, writes that the Scotch-Irish as a group had ceased to exist by about 1820. In his view they had become the first purely American type, being the first group whose focus was westward toward the American interior, rather than eastward toward Europe, and their descendents identify as being simply American. US census ancestry maps indicate the areas where “American" is the most commonly claimed ancestry, are the very areas where the descendents of the Scotch-Irish are most numerous. Other authors point out that the Scotch-Irish legacy includes such identifiably "American" things as hillbillies, moonshine, NASCAR, and Country and Western music.

I think the grey area of who is or isn’t Irish American involves the Anglo-Irish and Protestant Irish of the 19th century. The Scotch-Irish migration from Ireland had ended by then, and later Ulster Scot immigrants to America would not be Scotch-Irish. But would they have considered themselves Irish Americans, and do their descendents consider themselves Irish Americans? Perhaps some Anglo-Irish would have identified as British or even English. Eastcote (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, there are probably still descendants of the original Scotch Irish living in Northern Ireland. I don't think they've been wiped out. And again, being from the Republic of Ireland, Protestants have always lived there. I believe Bono is either Protestant or one of his parents is. I would certainly call him Irish no matter his religion. And if he had children born in America, they would most definitely fit the bill to be called Irish Americans.Malke2010 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. There are no Scotch-Irish in Ireland. Never were. Confused? In Ireland there are Ulster Scots. Their cousins, the Scotch-Irish, separated from them when they left in the 1700s for America. Scotch-Irish is a term used to refer only to the American cousins, and they weren't called that till they were here in America. So when I speak of Scotch-Irish I'm not refering to anyone in Ireland. Today's American descendents of the Scotch-Irish have little in common with today's Ulster Scots, because of nearly 300 years of separation. That's why there are separate Wikipedia articles for Ulster Scots and Scotch-Irish. Sure they had a common starting point, but they are very different now. A parallel would be the Afrikaners, who are a very similar Calvinist people. The majority were Dutch settlers at the Cape of Good Hope. There were also Huguenots and Germans mixed with them, just as with the Ulster Scots. They are not the same people as the Dutch, though they are their cousins. In the intervening 3 centuries they have become African (just ask one of them). I agree that Bono's kids would, in America, be considered "Irish American". An immigrant Ulster Scot of today would be considered an Irish American. But (not as I reckon it, but per scholars) an Ulster Scot immigrating to America today would not be Scotch-Irish, because the Scotch-Irish morphed into Americans roughly 190 years ago. Eastcote (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Scolaire on this one. Of course there were cultural differences, but they both belong on the same page. Go back to 1500 and they were largely the same people ethnically, DNA-wise and culturally. Different by 1700 in some respects, but looking at America's population today they have much more in common than not.Red Hurley (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

So, should I go ahead and put the Scotch-Irish content back in the article? It sounds like that is where consensus has brought us to. Looking at it, both paragraphs I drafted would be appropriate in the Irish American article. Here's how the content would read: "Irish settlers in America during the colonial period were primarily Presbyterian families from Ulster, who in America became known as the Scotch-Irish. These were descendents of Scottish and English tenant farmers who had been relocated to Ireland during the 17th century Plantation of Ulster. Approximately a quarter of a million Scotch-Irish arrived in America between 1720 and 1775, settling mainly in the colonial "back country" of the Appalachian Mountain region. The Scotch-Irish at first usually referred to themselves simply as "Irish", without the qualifier "Scotch". It was not until a century later, following the surge in Irish immigration after the Great Irish Famine of the 1840s, that the earlier arrivals began to consistently call themselves Scotch-Irish to distinguish themselves from the newer, predominantly Catholic, immigrants. The two groups had little interaction in America, as the Scotch-Irish had become settled years earlier in upland regions of the American South, while the new wave of Irish Americans settled primarily in northern cities such as Boston, New York, or Chicago, though many migrated to the interior to work on large-scale 19th century infrastructure projects such as canals and railroads." This content will have references, and a link to the article Scotch-Irish American, where the subject is covered in more detail. Eastcote (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that. When you say: "The Scotch-Irish at first usually referred to themselves simply as "Irish", without the qualifier "Scotch"." ...that was because they were citizens of the Kingdom of Ireland from birth. I'm sorry to say that many of the rest of us didn't think they were Irish, but nowadays they are undeniably a big part of Irish history.Red Hurley (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Note that I am adding a similar paragraph to the Scotch-Irish American article. Eastcote (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Religion in lead

Why is this factoid in the lede para.?:

A majority of the Irish Americans are Protestant, with a large Catholic minority.

This has no context with the rest of the para., and I think should be moved. To the casual reader it is confusing. I think I know what the author was getting at, but there needs to be a lot of build-up to this fact for it to really mean anything useful to an unfamiliar reader, and the proper place to do that is not in the lede. Shoreranger (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

good point about the need for context, so I added context. Religion has been perhaps the simgle most important factor in shaping the Irish American identity--more than language, for example, or customs or famous leaders. Rjensen (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Much better, but I still contend the issue is too nuanced to be introduced there. If religion does, indeed, play such a huge role than it should receive much more attention in the body of the article itself - with additional sources. As it stands now the religion section is only about twice as long as what is in the lede, and mostly just reiterates it. Nevertheless, I just took the time to read that source, and found it facinating. Of particular interest was the following, particularly in light of other recent discussions here: "Nevertheless, without denying that educated Irish Catholics and/or the Scotch-Irish generally were distinctive in many ways, the evidence gathered by Eid, Doyle, Akenson, and others...lends support to what I take to be Michael O'Brien's underlying point: we cannot let the differences that did exist between different groups of Irish obscure the fact that, on a number of important dimensions, the Irish in America--of all backgrounds-were quite similar. This, I might add, is precisely the conclusion that now informs the work of scholars such as Kerby Miller." Shoreranger (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

good point and I will get to work expanding the religion section. There's lots of material on Catholics and much less on Presbysterians. Rjensen (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The source cited claims as much - and I have no reason to doubt it - but the reasons for such disparity should probably be noted in the expanded section. As well as discussion of other relevent religious groups, such as Anglicans/Episcopalians, Methodists, and Baptists. It's not either/or when it comes to Irish Americans, and other denominations are deserving of mention in the article, if we are going down this road. Shoreranger (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely need to include all Americans of Irish origin in the article, of whatever religion, but let's be fair to all and keep it neutral. And where there is a separate article for a group, as with the Scotch-Irish discussed above, let's not have that information take over this article as well. Most Americans define Irish-American as Catholic, and there is good reason for that belief, as most of those who actively identify as Irish-American are probably Catholic. Most of the "Irish" reported as Baptist or Methodist are in all likelihood Scotch-Irish from the southern states, and they probably "reckon" they're Irish when asked by a census taker, but don't really know for sure. Most of them certainly don't identify as Irish-American from what I glean from the general scholarship on the subject (and what I know of my own kin). If anything they identify with the Scots - note the popularity of the Grandfather Mountain Highland games, and the prominence Jim Webb gives to kilts, tartans and Braveheart in his somewhat unscholarly book on the Scotch-Irish. I think rather than being in the lead, religion should be addressed in the "religion" section, as I do not think it is the single most important factor in shaping the Irish-American identity. Factors of language, economics, and history played a huge role, with religion right alongside. But it is the Irish part of them that makes them Irish-American, not the Catholic or Protestant part. Eastcote (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the solution is to discuss people/groups when they did consider themselves Irish/Scotch-Irish. In response to Eastcote, I suggest religion is very important--much more so than language (which is English for 99%). "Economics" (that is jobs) are covered but the Irish are not especially distinct in that regard in the last 50 years. Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In Ireland, the majority are Catholic. So the question is, in America are there more Irish Protestants than Irish Catholics? And what set of statistics is being relied on to determine that? Are the stats from the U.S. Census being used or is it just a reckoning by some writer?Malke2010 23:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The data comes from Andrew Greeley's analysis of NORC public opinion polls, which are widely used in sociology without much controversy.</ref>

Responses people give to public opinion polls are probably not very accurate for people whose families have been in this country for 300 years or more. They just don't know where they came from, and they have to GUESS. I would trust ethnographers' analyses based on settlement patterns, folkways, etc., as a better source. Eastcote (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

poll responses tell us how people identify themselves today, which is what we're interested in. Historians of course also use historic settlement patterns-- by 1920, for example, historians and geographers had made elaborate maps of ethnic and religious groups by location, using censuses and local records.Rjensen (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Polls rely on responses to specific questions. The results can be misinterpreted. Asking "In what country did your ancestors originate?", will get you probably very different answers than asking "Do you identify as American, Irish-American, Polish-American, etc."? To the first one, my own people would answer, "Don't really know, Ireland or England maybe?" To the second they'd say "American", unhyphenated, as just a simple fact.

Using poll results that ask respondents, especially those whose families have been here 3 centuries, to provide a national origin, rather than an ethnic identity, will cant the interpretation away from those who actively identify as Irish-Americans, which the Scotch-Irish generally do not. That the descendents of the "Scotch-Irish" really were clueless about their origins was well-documented nearly a hundred years ago. John Campbell writes in his 1921 The Southern Highlander and his Homeland, "Inquiries...as to family history and racial stock rarely bring a more definite answer than that grandparents or great-grandparents came from North Carolina or Virginia, occasionally from Pennsylvania, and that they 'reckon' their folks were 'English', 'Scotch', or 'Irish', any of which designations may mean Scotch-Irish." And Casey and Lee lament in Making the Irish American, about the difficulty writers on Irish America have in reaching out to include the Scotch-Irish in a story of shared Irishness with their Irish Catholic former compatriots, especially when the Scotch-Irish generally aren't even aware of their Irish origins: "After all, it is hard to kiss and make up if the estranged partner has vanished, or even mutated -- and even harder if they had no recollection of ever having been a partner in the first place!"

Being a hyphenated American is a matter of self-identification. Being of a particular descent is an accident of birth. I think placing emphasis on the "Protestant majority" among "Irish Americans" does a disservice to the Scotch-Irish, who do not identify as Irish-Americans (and they are the principal ones we're talking about in that Protestant majority), as well as a disservice to Irish Catholic Americans, who most certainly do identify with the label Irish American, who are the group most other Americans would identify as Irish Americans, and who yet become relegated to minority status in their own grouping. Eastcote (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There really is a large literature on the subject by experts, which would repay some study. Start with the Greeley books. It's not our job to invent identities for people. NORC asked people and xxxx said both "Irish" and "Protestant" while xx said "Irish" "Catholic." Only people who said "I am Irish" are counted as Irish by NORC--what better measure of self identity can one want? Year after year NORC got the same 2-1 result. It's true that the Catholics get far more media attention--they live in New York and other big cities where the media are, not in rural Alabama. Their politicians--like the Kennedys--get lots of attention, and people ASSUME they're very numerous. It's also true that lots of people say "I'm just an American". They are not included in the NORC data as Irish. for a guide to the issue see Hout, & Goldstein, How 4.5 Million Irish Immigrants became 40 Million Irish Americans: Demographic And Subjective Aspects of the Ethnic Composition of White Americans Rjensen (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Eastcote on this. He's right about the Scotch-Irish and I don't think this article should label the Irish American Catholics in this way, either. The citations being used do not seem accurate to me. If you just run the numbers on Catholics and Protestants in America, the Catholics easily outnumber. And in all of Ireland, Catholics are the majority. So claiming that their immigration resulted in them being the minority Irish in America is questionable. I suggest this line be removed until this question can be thoroughly researched. Malke2010 20:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I just reworked the sentence. I think there should be mention of the Scotch-Irish there, but I would leave that to Eastcote to word since he would know exactly how to phrase it.Malke2010 20:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Irish are also members of the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches as well, since in Ireland the Episcopalians are represented by the Anglican Church of England. There's actually quite a few Episcopalians who identify as Irish so I think that demonination should be mentioned as well.Malke2010 20:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever about religions, you might like to reflect that without the 1500s colonisation of America there would have been no "Irish diaspora". Our population was about 500,000 and up in the late middle ages. Then the potato arrives around 1600 and the population hits 5m in 1800, and 8m by the 1840s famine. An American food had a lot to do with the Irish part of the American population; firstly causing an undue demand for farmland, with high rents, leading to political troubles, and then too many people who had to emigrate.Red Hurley (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

yes there are more Protestant Irish in the US --Hout explains this in detail. The Prots came earlier (pre 1800) and became farmers with very large families. The Catholics came later (after 1840) and had smaller families. The Irish comprised about 1/6 of the Catholics in the 1970s, and a smaller proportion today, and there are about 70 million Catholics in US today (that gives about 11 million or fewer irish Catholics out of 37 million in all, or about 1/3. The latest data from 1990s gives 36%. Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think including this religious information in the lede gives undo weight to this facet. It seems like the article is going out of its way to differentiate among the Irish in America rather than allow the non-religious Irish American experience to reveal itself. Many of the sources cited, in context, point to the commonalities among the different waves of Irish immigration. Put this stuff in the "Religion" section, and leave it at that. Having said that, keep in mind, if you accept that populations grow geometrically (man and wife have two children; those marry and have two children each; etc.), then having 150 year head-start is going to give those who trace their Irish ancestry to earlier immigrants greater numbers simply by virtue of the extra time. That helps explain the large numbers of non-Catholic Irish, plus intermarriage in a predominantly Protestant culture that would encourage conversions (among other factors). Nevertheless, I don't want to diverge too far from my main point: This information in the lede gives undo weight to this facet of the Irish experience in America, and can be covered properly in the main body of the article with the proper nuance and attention given to it. Shoreranger (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Shoreranger. But one thing to consider, the Protestants had better educations and in general this population had smaller families. That's just how it is in any group. Life is better with fewer children to feed and educate and the better educated tend to have smaller families as a result. Look at any newly arriving emigrate group and you'll see that as the second generation emerges, they have smaller families.

And as for Irish Catholics having smaller families? That's very hard to believe. Hout is just one author making this claim and I question the veracity of his statistics. It seems he's turned the thing on its head. But in any event, whether it will be found out that the Catholics are the larger majority, or the Protestants, it doesn't matter. I think the sentence I crafted is better all around for neutral POV and I'm going to restore it.

Red Hurley: good point about the potatoes. It's also a good reminder of the more accurate numbers in the population at the time of both emmigrations.Malke2010 22:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

City people had much smaller families than farm people, and many Irish never married (remember the nuns and priests and unmarried teachers?). Catholics had better education by about 1900 -- the rural South was notorious for lack of schools--compare Boston and Chicago etc where the Catholics lived. Hout and Greeley are leading sociologists who give their sources in refereed articles in leading journals and --and Greeley is one of the most uimportant authors on Irish Americans. Malke needs to identify the experts he is relying on: names and citations, please. Rjensen (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I did take my complaints to the talk page Rjensen you do not have a consensus for adding these questionable statistics and making these claims. I am reverting that edit and ask that you respect the process and do not edit war over this.Malke2010 22:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We had a very lengthy discussion (above) on whether to, and where to, put the Scotch-Irish in this article. The consensus was that the Scotch-Irish should have short mention on this page, but the main Scotch-Irish content should be in the Scotch-Irish article, due to differences in national origin, language, religion, history, settlement patterns, etc. Once that agreed upon change was made, suddenly a flurry of changes began that seems to have stood that consensus on its head. The recent changes imply that all "Irish" in America are the same, with the exception of religion, and that just isn't so. I would have to see the poll questions used, but as I've stated, I suspect the majority of the "Protestant Irish" are southern descendents of the Scotch-Irish who have been here so long they don't really know where they came from and are simply guessing they are Irish. Rjensen, do you have a link that will take me to the actual questions used in the poll? Or to the poll results? I looked around on the NORC website and couldn't find either. Note that Hout & Goldstein themselves question the reliability of self-reported ancestry on page 64 "...recent work raises serious questions about how deep the roots of nationality are... Most significantly, some people are not reliable in their reports of their own nativity." Although it is OR and POV and anecdotal, it is true nonetheless, when I say that the Scotch-Irish are my own people, and the majority of us, who haven't studied the subject, have no idea where we came from with any accuracy. We have English, Scottish, Irish and French surnames. We are all mixed in with other ethnic groups like the Germans and the Welsh. Most would be only guessing when asked to provide their national origin. As many are likely to say "Scottish" or "English" when asked for their origins. Eastcote (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of jokes to show my view of poll-based statistics: Did you hear about the statistician who drowned trying to wade a river with an average depth of four feet? Or how about the two priests who loved their cigarettes and wondered if prayer and smoking were compatible. They wrote to the Pope, and the first priest asked, "Is it OK to smoke while praying?" The Pope answered, "No, when praying you should devote all your attention to prayer." Then the second priest asked, "Is it OK to pray while smoking?" And the Pope answered, "Yes, prayer is appropriate at any time." So the reliability of the data depends on the context and upon the way the questions are asked. Eastcote (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well said, and don't forget the classic book "How to Lie with Statistics," by Darrell Huff.Malke2010 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Eastcote overstates the consensus, I think. The only consensus that I am aware of is that the Scotch-Irish are, indeed, Irish Americans, and it is therefore approporiate and necessary that group is included in this article. There has been no consensus I am aware of as to limiting the length of that content, or any consenus on anything related to the meanings of things like "national origin, language, religion, history, settlement patterns, etc." in this context. Keep in mind as well that there is not, as far as I am aware, a universally agreed-upon standard anywhere for who can claim to be "Scotch-Irish", and I am pretty certain it will not be settled here. For the US census the only standard is that the individual self-identify and, as I understand it, that is the primary standard for sociologists. Other fields may have different standards, but I am pretty sure they all incorporate that one. The The best we can likely do here is try to account for as many perspectives as practical. Shoreranger (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was that the S-I were sufficiently different that they have their own article, but because they came to America from Ulster, some mention was required in the Irish American article. It would link to the main S-I article, without having them become a dominant part of the Irish American article. I don't recall that there was consensus on them being Irish Americans. But that is my perspective and interpretation of the discussion, and I might be wrong on that. Frankly it would make more sense to categorize them under Scottish Americans, since that was where the majority originated. But...there hasn't been consensus on the S-I for 150 years, so I don't think we'll really reach it here. I think that is because there is very little understanding of who they were. If interested, the "classic" manual on the S-I is Leyburn's The Scotch-Irish: A Social History. Others are Griffin's The People with No Name, and Hackett Fischer's controversial Albion's Seed (controversial partly because he claims the majority didn't even come from Ireland at all, but came directly from the border country of England and Scotland). For comic relief you can read Webb's Born Fighting, with all its Braveheart imagery, if you are so inclined. Eastcote (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I just came across this: [2]. The source is several books (listed at the end of the article.) These look interesting. I'll check Google books for them. I'll look for other sources, as well.Malke2010 05:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The solution is to retitle the article "Irish Catholics in the United States." Note that the lede strongly emphasizes the 36 million numers--only a third of whom are Catholics. More to the point, no reliable source in recent decades limits the "Irish Americans" to the Catholics only. An article on "Irish Americans" according to Wikipedia rules must be based on reliable sources, not the personal opinions of a couple editors. Rjensen (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The editors here are questioning the source of the statistics you want to insert in the lead, and are also questioning the need for those figures in the lead.Malke2010 17:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have already cited Haut and Greeley who give exact percentages see Hout. Greeley said in several place: "However improbable, it is still the case that more Americans are Irish

Protestant than are Irish Catholic." A good recent source is Michael P. Carroll, "How The Irish Became Protestant in America," Religion and American Culture" 2006 16(1): 25-54. Donald Akenson, The Irish diaspora (1993) agrees. Add Timothy Meagher, The Columbia Guide to Irish American History (2005) p 4 who says the popular media assumes Irish=Catholic, but that Catholics today are outnumbered by Protestants. All experts in last 30 years say that. Wiki does not rely on the popular media but instead on reliable sources. Now let me challenge the critics to reveal their sources, please. Rjensen (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Irish Americans. It's not about Irish Catholics versus Irish Protestants. I don't understand why you seem so determined to make Irish Catholics appear to be a minority? Why single out Catholics? What's the percentage in that? Why would you want to continue a religious controversy that has killed more people in Ireland than any disease? Let's give it a rest. There is no need to delineate religion here. Focus more on the culture and much, much less on the religion. The article should focus on Irish Americans and their contributions to America, their achievements, etc. It is very much a WP:BLP in that regard and the rules that apply to BLP should be kept in mind here.Malke2010 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"focus on their culture" Malke says. Yes indeed, and there is not much doubt about the central elements of that culture = religion. As one leading historian said, "The Catholic religion has been a major component of the culture of the American Irish....Catholicism was important in defining the Irish community, keeping it cohesive, and making the Irish distinctive." William Shannon, The American Irish (1966) p xiv. Wiki is not allowed to deny what the experts emphasize. Rjensen (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear that there are supposedly more Irish protestants in the USA than Irish Catholics - especially as Catholics are known for producing large families. Is that stat for real? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

yes that's for real. The Catholics in the USA were city people and the Protestants were farmers; farmers have far more children. INSIDE a city like Boston, the married Irish had larger families than non-Catholics-- but many Irish never married (for example all the priests and sisters). Most of the scholars mention that is a very widely held fallacy that there are more Irish Catholics than Irish Protestants. The Catholics are in big cities and highly visible especially in politics, while the Irish Prots. are in the rural south with much less media attention. Rjensen (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: I don't think that statistic is authentic. I think it's WP:SYN by that author to make his point. It's lying with the statistics. I agree, Irish Catholic = Small family? Does not add up.Malke2010 20:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who to believe now. But supposing it's true, does this also mean that more protestants than catholics emigrated from Ireland to the USA? Or did so many of them become priests that the protestants caught up and passed them in the breeding department? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think commonsense would show that unless a few million Catholics decided to become priests and nuns, I don't see where that choice would have much effect. And what about the priest/nun shortage right now? From what I'm reading right now, this whole argument is nonsense. It makes it appear that Catholics didn't come over here until much later, but that's not true at all. The Irish Catholics established the state of Maryland, etc. An Irish Catholic is a signer to the Declaration of Independence. So, the emigration was always there, and then it hit big numbers with the famine in the potato fields, etc. Malke2010 20:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of POV-pushing going on with a particular religious bias. This has now begun to spill over into the Scotch-Irish article with much of the same info being added in, particularly relating to Catholic/Protestant conflict. I recommend, Rjensen, that you cease and desist until consensus is reached on the information you are trying to add. Eastcote (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

what happened is that lots of Protestant arrived about 1700-1770 and became farmers and had very large families that spread across the South. The Catholics arrived 100 years later and many were unmarried (those that did marry did have large families compared to other city people, but not so large compared to farm people.) White farm women in the South had about twice as many babies as white urban women in the North. Here some data (number of children age 0 to 4 per 1000 white women age 15-44) from 1910: Massachusetts --urban and lots of Irish--had 376 kids / 1000 women; Rhode Island had 390, Connect. had 405; meanwhile rural North Carolina (lots of Prot. Irish) had 716 kids/1000 white women, Georgia had 727, and Alabama had 749. [source: Okun, Trends in Birth Rates (1958) p 67 and 78] Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Eastcote. I recommend Rjensen that you step back and rethink this position. Also, please note, that Irish Catholics began arriving in America in the 1600's. There wasn't just one massive influx with the potato famine. And how do you know if the Irish Catholics were unmarried? Why would they put off marriage longer than anybody else? And when you cite figures from books, you must be extremely careful. The author is selling a book and point of view and naturally he's going to find data to support his thesis.Malke2010 21:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the Scotch-Irish article getting this spilled onto it. It was a nice article.Malke2010 21:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Malke I believe your assesment is SPOT ON. And what we have NOW is a hodge-podge of biased input skewed by a VERY few towards those biases--who have also gone whilly nilly across the entire article footprint "updating" other non SI data; For example, I see a SI "expert" has moved into NY Draft Riots and IA discrimination?????

If the MAJORITY of the 30 plus million Irish are NOT Catholic (and not SI right?), then who the he*(& are they folks? Not only stating that the SI were THE FIRST(and ONLY) "Irish" emigrants here and giving it LEAD in the article is historically and editorially subjective --and therefore absolute RUBBISH--which was my point to begin with--and luckily LUCKILY Malke has caught that. The article clarity should NOT come down to that type of catching however regardless of what each person thinks validates their position. User Scolaire had put a great recommendation in above but it was quickly rebuffed. I insisted on (but was not matched on) NOT including what could appear to be my bias in the further physical changing of the article and I've held to that to ideally avoid the now obvious devolution. Ultimately, I think that Malke is the MOST reasoned here and should be the ONLY person agreeing to what and WHO should be putting stuff in (if he/she allows that role)..... I am not AT ALL surprised to read that the SI article is NOW being SIMILARLY "edited"173.76.208.66 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, Welcome back IP. We wondered where you'd gone. I agree with you and Eastcote. There's a religion element being put forth here that's not healthy for the article.Malke2010 21:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the difference is that my edits all have citations to reliable sources. The critics seem to rely on emotion and memory of something they heard somewhere.Rjensen (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The citations are questionable. The thesis seems based on a flawed logic. But if you want citations, I am searching for U.S. census data as well as other state and local statistics that might be available online.Malke2010 21:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good one!

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." Mark Twain173.76.208.66 (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)