Talk:Irish Americans

New York Riots

Is it the intention of this Wikipedia article to only portray the positive aspects of Irish Americans? A good case in point is the inclusion or not of the New York Riots of 1863 - This turned into a brutal race riot & was not the greatest day for Irishmen.

Another point is the San Patricios Battalion ... another incident involving Irish Americans undertaking activity that does not fit the 'standard'

Text under dispute:

During the American Civil War, Irish Americans volunteered in high numbers for the Union army, and at least thirty-eight Union regiments had the word "Irish" in their title. However, conscription was resisted by the Irish and others as an imposition on liberty. When the conscription law was passed in 1863, draft riots erupted in New York. The New York draft coincided with the efforts of Tammany Hall to enroll Irish immigrants as citizens so they could vote in local elections. Many such immigrants suddenly discovered they were now expected to fight for their new country. The Irish, employed primarily as laborers, were usually unable to afford the $300 as a "commutation fee" to procure exemption from service, while more established New Yorkers receiving better pay were able to hire substitutes and avoid the draft. Many of the recent immigrants viewed freed slaves as competition for scarce jobs and as the reason why the civil war was being fought. African Americans who fell into the mob's hands were often beaten, tortured, and/or killed, including one man, William Jones, who was attacked by a crowd of 400 with clubs and paving stones, then hung from a tree and set alight. The Colored Orphan Asylum on Fifth Avenue, which provided shelter for hundreds of children, was attacked by a mob, although the police were able to secure the orphanage for enough time to allow orphans to escape. 216.107.194.166 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Very little of what is stated in that paragraph has anything to do with the Irish. A great many people participated in the Draft Riot, not just the Irish, and the deaths of Black people during said riots cannot be blamed entirely on the Irish. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The attention of a number of this article's editors is currently on the religion-related issues, above, and this issue is another ember about to erupt another controversy. Nevertheless, this needs consensus before any major changes are made, as the text in question - or similar ideas - have been included in the article for some time, and are sourced, and therefore should not be removed without consensus - which may not happen for a while with most editors focused elsewhere. Shoreranger (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If in fact 'conscription was resisted' by the Irish why did so many volunteer to fight? Usually those who fight the draft also refuse to enlist. Nitpyck (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Many Irish were destitute coming off the immigrant "coffin ships" and desperate. Many joined just to eat. However, that is just the point - they *joined*, they were not compelled to go by a draft. Many who joined were single men with no familes. Many who were drafted were family men that did not want to leave their immigrant wives and children to the mercies of their new home. There is a big difference between deciding if the best thing for you and your family is an enlistment option and being forced to serve regardless. In addition, there was large resentment over the unimagined result of registering for American citizenship (encouraged in New York by the local political machine at Tammany Hall in order to build up a voting base) making them eligible for the draft, whereas non-citizens, and those who were ineligible for the draft by virtue of their race, were not compelled to fight. Shoreranger (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Irish were very well-represented in both the Confederate and Union armies. Many of the high-ranking officers were also of Irish birth or parentage. Actually, it's an Irish tradition to fight in foreign armies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The main point to this discussion is that if we do include a historical event, we should ensure that a balanced view is presented. The original draft riot text implied that the riots occured as an expression of liberty by the new immigrants & did not mention the destructive forces unleashed. There is no doubt that many Irish men served bravely in the Union and Confederate armies.216.107.194.166 (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is not the place for such detailed discussion of the Draft Riot, unless it can be proved that Irish-Americans were the main participants or instigators. Including it, especially in such detail, and with such clear implication that this is proof of Irish-American racism, gives undue weight to one event in an article which covers a wide variety of topics. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assumption that only "unless it can be proved that Irish-Americans were the main participants or instigators" should the draft riots be included in this article. What if they weren't the "main participaants" (and I am not saying they weren't, but just for the sake of this discussion let's say they weren't) but they were a 'significant contributor'? Whould that be worthy of inclusion? Nevertheless, I believe there is enough scholarly evidence to indicate that the Irish were "the main participants" - if not on the rioter's side, then on the police and troops that put down the riot. If proper balance is achieved and all sides of the story are addressed, then there will be no "undue weight" on this one, very important and nationally significant event in the article. History can be a dirty, sticky, mess sometimes but you can't ignore the bad for the good. Shoreranger (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Most self-identified Irish Americans are protestant.

In the lede -An estimated total of 36,278,332 Americans — over 11.9% of total population—reported some Irish ancestry in the 2008 American Community Survey.[3] The only self-reported ancestral group larger than Irish Americans are German Americans.[3] In addition another 3.5 million Americans identify more specifically with Scots-Irish ancestry. In Scotch-Irish American Article- In the United States in 2000, 3.8 million people claim "Scotch Irish" ancestry, while another 18 million say they are Protestant and Irish So in round numbers 40 million Irish 22 million are Protestant and 18 million are Catholic. So most self-reporting Irish ancestry are not Irish Catholics. From the talk pages it appears this article is mostly about the Irish-American-Catholic group so the population breakdowns should be mentioned. Nitpyck (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is also a known fact and should be further mentioned, that Irish Catholic immigration has been a larger than Irish Protestant immigration to the USA. You can looks at census records to see that. Also, it is also a known fact that a large number of American's who claim Irish descent but are Protestant, also descend from an Irish Catholic forebear. Many down the years have moved away from the Catholic Church and joined other Christian sects through intermarriage. The fact of the matter is that there will never been a true indication at this stage of the number of American's who descend from a truly Irish Catholic or Protestant background. The census is about perception and self identity and we must only go on the census figures who those who select Irish or Scotch Irish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.114.127 (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that a large majority of Irish Catholics who came to America in the 18th Century were men. When they picked wives in colonial America, the wives were usually Protestant women of other origins. The children were raised as Protestants, their mother's faith. Also, in many colonies, there were no Catholic churches, so many Irish Catholics attended services at Protestant churches. Eventually, they assimilated into Protestant culture and became Protestants. According to the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, there were 400,000 persons of Irish birth or descent in 1790 out of a white population of 3.1 million; half of these were from Ulster and half were from the other parts of Ireland. The notion that most of the Irish in Colonial America were from Ulster is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

this article is about all irish americans, not just catholic or protestant, so this conversation is totally irrelevant.Archiviveer (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Uncited Claims

Shoreranger removed my comment regarding the Irish clergy abuse scandal. My comment linked directly into the article describing the Archdiocese of Dublin's admission of wrongdoing. What further "citation" is required than to have the admission of the perpetrator? While some Irish Catholics may find it uncomfortable to have their "religious" practices under justifiable and long-delayed public scrutiny, attempting to suppress comment about them, and objecting to the drawing of obvious inferences, is merely POV on their part. John Paul Parks (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Irish Americans. If you have a peer-reviewed source that directly connects the Irish clergy scandal in Ireland to Irish Americans in the United States, specifically, then please provide it. Otherwise, the information is off-topic as well as uncited. Shoreranger (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Joe Biden

Shouldn't JB be on the page, given a mother surnamed Finnegan? Or are Veeps no longer notable?Red Hurley (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Joe Biden should be included.Malke2010 23:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As Irish As Coca Cola

As an Irish citizen I find the inclusion of some "Irish Americans" on the list as complete nonsense. It would appear that if you ever drank a pint of Guinness or wore a green shirt your an Irish American. Unless someone publicly declared themselves to be of Irish heritage and can in fact prove it then they should be removed from the list. We should not retrospectively attribute Irishness to someone who while alive never alluded to it themselves. There are alot of things about Ireland that cause no pride even amongst the Irish. (Shankhill river (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC))

Number of pictures in infobox

A free image of Grace Kelly

Earlier today, DinDraithou added three more pictures to the infobox. I reverted saying no discussion had taken place or explanation been offered for the change. Later in the day, DinDraithou reverted, saying "I hardly need your permission." Now, as far as that goes, he or she does not need my permission. However, I see no need for more pictures, and I do believe there should be a discussion about such changes. I think that 12 pictures is enough, in fact, it might be too many. But, 16 is overkill. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Total nonsense. You're trying to pick a fight. Has it been a while since you were last blocked? DinDraithou (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should have more pictures. It's a long article. It can handle it and Grace Kelly's picture must be there. She was a very famous Irish American.Malke2010 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you happen to recall this edit, Mr. "12 pictures is enough, in fact, it might be too many"? I don't understand why we should have to have a discussion every time we add or swap an image. I've added and swapped several infobox images in other articles and no editor has ever stubbornly reverted my edits saying that I need to "discuss such changes first". I think it's time for you to stop being dictator of the infobox images. There should definitely be more images. --John of Lancaster (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do we not have an infobox that goes all the way down the page? O Fenian (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Three more images will hardly make the infobox "go all the way down the page". It's a long article. There are way too few infobox images compared to other articles. Just look at the Italian American article. --John of Lancaster (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There also needs to be more women; Grace Kelly could be added.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely have Grace Kelly.Malke2010 19:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Grace Kelly should definitely be included. She's a very notable Irish American. F. Scott Fitzgerald should also be included. He's regarded as one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. --John of Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely, F. Scott Fitzgerald. Any idea where we can get fair use/copyright free photos?Malke2010 20:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but I think a new infobox image should be created. It should be an expansion of this one. That way, we'll have a single image in the infobox rather than one large one and six separate smaller ones. Here's my idea of what it should look like:

John F. Kennedy	Mother Jones	Geoge M. Cohan
James Braddock	Michael J. McGivney	James Michael Curley
Victor Herbert	Eugene O'Neill	Ed Sullivan
Grace Kelly	F. Scott Fitzgerald	Ronald Reagan
John Carroll	Cyrus McCormick	Maureen O'Hara

--John of Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we put Grace Kelly at the top? I'm sure Jack Kennedy won't mind being next to her.Malke2010 13:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But can I be cheeky and suggest Billy the Kid instead of John Carroll? Someone notorious like him adds a bit of spice to the brew. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather ding Mother Jones. John Carroll made important, major educational contribs to America. His work is still affecting people's lives today. Also, I just checked and Billy the Kid doesn't seem to have a definite Irish background. It seems there's a question about it in his article, so I don't think he would be a good addition in the picture box.Malke2010 14:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some more representation from earlier American history. There are signers of the Declaration and Constitution to choose from, Revolutionary War Irish-born Generals Wayne, Sullivan, Irving, Shee, Lewis, Butler, and Commodore John Barry. And, by the way, choosing from this group would make it easy to add some diversity to the current crop of images which - as far as I can tell - are all Catholic or owe their Irish ancestry to a Catholic, and this article is supposed to be bigger than that. And, as for notorious representation, how about Bugs Moran, Mickey Spillane (mobster), James J. Bulger, and more. Shoreranger (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Grace Kelly was half-German. Her maternal grandparents were immigrants from Germany. I have no problem with her being included in the Infobox, but she's not quite the great Irish beauty as she's being portrayed. Vdjj1960 (talk) 1:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Education

The entries regarding Catholic education, especially the comments about Boston College are false. It was founded by the Jesuits who have always been known for their scholarship, and not just church doctrine. They are the order that believes in education to better serve people everywhere. And the scholarship at BC was always high. Harvard University didn't admit Catholics at that time which is one reason why the Catholic schools were founded. Boston College is among what John F. Kennedy called, "Jesuit Ivy." I'll change it, especially since the claims aren't cited.Malke2010 23:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ulster American Folk Park

Someone should choose the best place to add a link to the Ulster Folk Park in County Tyrone, which follows the emigrant experience by Irish Americans of all religions. If Ulster people can agree (yes, only recently!) that both strands are a big part of the American formative story, then this article should reflect that.86.46.232.138 (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit by Shoreranger on 7/9/10

Hi Mr. Shoreranger. I reverted your edit under the 19th century section, because you removed important and interesting information without adequate explanation, except to say that it was redundant. Specifically, the original version of this section states the reasons for Irish immigration to America before the American Revolution (coming as servants, penal deportations, etc.). I think this information should remain here. It is not redundant; it is not contained anywhere else in the article. Also, the reference to Irish Catholics immigrating to America in large numbers before the Revolution is consistent with statistics provided in the 18th - 19th centuries section of the article; statistics, I might add, from entirely credible and sholarly sources.

I've seen your edits before in Wikipedia articles, and, for the most part, I find them to be responsible and productive. I'm sure you have a lot of fun editing Wiki articles; more power to you. But, in my opinion, when a Wiki article has existed for a long period of time, its original content should not be edited without a very compelling reason, especially if the edit just simply removes information that is important to understanding the article's subject matter.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think that before you refer to this type of edit as "seems like vandalism", you should assume good faith on the part of the editor, especially one with as longstanding and stable a presence as Shoreranger. The edit was explained in the edit summary and does not qualify as vandalism. Disagreeing with the edit is a different matter, and should be brought up on this talk page, as you have done. As for the edit itself, I would think the info on occupations and how they arrived in the first paragraph of the 19th century section wouldn't hurt to remain, if properly referenced. Mention of the Catholic religion in the first para could probably come out, as the occupations and indenture were common to immigrants of all religions. The ratio of Catholic to Protestant is mentioned in para two of the 19th century section. Eastcote (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Eastcote:

Thank you for submitting your comments. I will be interested to see Shoreanger's thoughts on this. Hopefully, he/she will respond in the near future.

I don't fully understand some of your comments. For example, you say that in the 19th century section, you might be in favor of leaving occupations and how they arrrived in the article if properly referenced. It is referenced. At the end of the sentence you are referring to, there appears reference no. 11. Of course, I wasn't able to double-check this reference to see if it looks valid, because it's not presented as on online link.

Also, you say that we might take out the reference to Roman Catholic Irish in this section because the occupation of indenture was so common among many different groups at that time. I don't understand your reasoning. This part of the article is specifically about Catholic Irish occupations in America, and how they were an emigration cause for Catholic Irish people, not about the occupations of everyone in America at that time.

You also say that another reason for removing "Catholic" at the top of the section is because the ratio of Catholics and Protestants is given elsewhere in the section. True, there is a reference to the fact that between 1820 and 1866, two-thirds of Irish immigrants were Catholic. But, again, at the top of the section, the section is specifically about Catholic Irish. In my opinion, removing the Catholic reference at the beginning of the section would make the section confusing to most readers and detract from its clarity.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The section headings are "18th to Mid-19th Century" and "Mid-19th Century and Later". As such both Catholic and Protestant are represented in both sections. I agree that it was at one time intended that the first section deal with Scotch-Irish, and the second section deal with Catholic immigration. But subsequent edits have tended to blend the two groups, and with the current headings this is probably as it should be. Catholics should be included in the 18th century piece and Ulster Scots should be included in the 19th century piece, as settlement/immigration was not exclusively one or the other at any time period, even though one group or the other may have been the majority of the arrivals at different times in American history. Eastcote (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add at the moment, except to note that Eastcote seems to have an excellent handle not only on the purpose and intent of my edits, but on the way the article is organically developing, as well. Shoreranger (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Eastcote and Shoreranger,

I read Eastcote's most recent comments above, and I understand and agree with them. So, for now, let's let Shoreranger's recent edits stand, that is until the next roving Wikipedia editor comes along to make new changes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Recently reverted changes by 64.134.232.113

There were major changes made by 64.134.232.113 that require references to stand. Just a few of the changes that need citations are:

• "[The Scotch-Irish] were descendants of Irish people|Protestant, Scottish and English." There is general scholarly consensus that the Scotch-Irish were descended from Scottish and English settlers, with a scattering of Welsh, Huguenot, German, etc. The addition of native Irish needs a source.

• "The early Ulster immigrants and their descendants at first usually referred to themselves simply as "Irish," without the qualifier "Scotch" or simply as 'Anglo-Saxon.'" The addition of "or simply as 'Anglo-Saxon'" needs a source. I don't think self-identification of even the English as "Anglo-Saxon" developed until the Victorian era.

• "The interaction which did occurr happened in the early 19th century when the first large waves of Catholic Irish arrived in cities which still had large Scots-Irish populations suchs as Philidelphia, New York City, Boston, and Balitomore." Sources I have seen discuss conflict between recently arrived Protestants and Catholics, who brought 19th century rivalries with them from Ireland, and do not portray the conflict as between recent Catholic immigrants and established Scotch-Irish populations of 18th century origin.

• "Unfortunately, [Irish Catholics] whose cultural values didn't stress literacy had a majority who were illiterate in any language. This high rate of illiteracy in Irish Catholics saw a change in Northern American cities going from almost 90% literacy rate in 1810 down to 50% literacy rates in 1860." This statement needs a source.

• "...being a minority within the larger Irish immigrant mileu, [Protestant Irish] were heavily persecuted and discriminated against by the Irish Catholic community which clawed its way to power in American urban streets." This needs a source.

• "...many Irish Protestants are also descended of Irish Catholics who arrived in the 18th century, but due to a negligible Catholic Church infrastructure and heavy proselytizing by Protestant missionaries converted to Protestantism." Needs a source.

There are many more changes that were made, but I'm not going to list the longish ones. Eastcote (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That last paragraph is probably not going to have a source. The Catholic Church was present and offering a means of assistance to Catholics in the 18th century.Malke2010 23:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesuits were here in the 1600's. This cathedral is the oldest continuously operating Catholic Church: St. Louis Cathedral, New Orleans and was built in 1718. As regards the illiteracy, and discriminating against the Protestants, not to mention 'clawed its way to power,' seems to contradict itself. There were so many, yet the Church was lacking? They were all illiterate, yet they gained power?Malke2010 23:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that Protestants were in the majority, but the Catholic Church had a presence, and an "infrastructure", early on. Maryland, for instance, was founded as "a haven for Catholics in the new world" in 1632. The Archdiocese of New York was created in 1789, certainly showing evidence of 18th century "infrastructure" in the 13 colonies. Eastcote (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Province of Maryland was set up in 1632 by George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore, an Englishman who also had a seat in the Irish House of Lords, primarily as a refuge for Irish and British Catholics.Red Hurley (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion request of 7/26/10

Someone has requested a discussion concerning sourced statement that 75 percent of Irish immigrants to America in the 17th century were Catholic. This is a generally-accepted statistic. If you want to start a discussion about this, please go ahead. Please do not reinsert your comment into the body of the article, as it is disruptive. Thank you.

Presidents section

"Scotch-Irish" is still "Irish." The parsing into seperate categories here is not productive and, in fact, confusing to the casual reader. "Norman-Irish" and "Anglo-Irish" and "Norse-Irish" are not deliniated in this article, nor should they be, and Scotch-Irish to this degree should not be either. Shoreranger (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been on a week's holiday, (honeymoon, as I do sort of have a personal life), so I'm only just seeing this, but here are a few points:

• I think it is wrong to say the Scotch-Irish "should not be deliniated" from the Irish. There is a historical distinction that should be recognized. In the Irish American article Scotch-Irish presidents are being claimed as Irish, while at the same time over in the Scottish American article they are happily claiming them as Scots. Which is it? Are they Irish or Scottish, or perhaps something altogether different? The identity of these people has been debated for over a century, but that very debate points to a distinction between Scotch-Irish, Scots, and Irish. Even today the cousins of the Scotch-Irish still in Ireland make the distinction and refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots".
• Irish historian Tim Pat Coogan, in Wherever Green Is Worn: The Story of the Irish Diaspora, concludes that the Scotch-Irish should "very doubtfully" be regarded as Irish.
• If the article is confusing to the casual reader, it should be clarified with explanatory information. We shouldn't simply remove the confusing information, as that renders a disservice to the reader.
• The analogy with Norman-Irish, Anglo-Irish, etc., is not necessarily appropriate. The Normans arrived in the middle ages and ultimately melted into the general population, just as they did in England and Scotland. So did the Vikings. So did the Anglo-Irish (which is an ambiguous term because it could mean either English settlers in Ireland, or Irish who take on English ways). The continued use of the term Ulster Scot to describe oneself points to not melting in even 400 years after settlement of Ulster began. This would have been even more pronounced when the Scotch-Irish were leaving for America 300 years ago. The Scotch-Irish weren't there long enough to really melt in. The movement of Scots (and others) to Ulster was roughly 1610 to 1710, and the movement to America was roughly 1710 to 1810. Some of those who went to America were second generation Ulstermen, and some had themselves come from Scotland.
• Scotch-Irish is an unfortunate name. Many historians do not like it because it is confusing and not very accurate. There were Scots, English, Welsh, French, Germans, etc., who made up the Calvinist melting pot that became the Scotch-Irish. They weren't Irish and they weren't purely Scots. David Hacket Fisher, in Albion's Seed, calls them "Borderers" because the majority came from the Anglo-Scottish Border region. It is perhaps more accurate, but doesn't take into account the continental Europeans in the mix, and ignores their time in Ireland. Patrick Griffin goes the farthest in pointing out the difficulty in identifying them in his book The People with No Name.
• Here's an interesting little clip from the Penn State University. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypk5mG5JDvk&feature=related

So, my two or three cents. The Scotch-Irish are historically distinct from the Irish, like it or not, and the distinction doesn't go away by saying "'Scotch-Irish' is still 'Irish'." Eastcote (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

They had different histories in America, and in Ireland itself, but in Ireland in recent years they are seen as a part of Irish history. On arrival in America before 1800 they would have been listed as citizens of the Kingdom of Ireland. Within Ireland itself, many had arrived in the early 1600s as part of the Plantation of Ulster and their descendants thought that there would be more opportunities in America than in Ireland; as was the case with the mainly Irish Catholic emigrants in the 1800s and 1900s. The Ulster American Folk Park, that was partly sponsored by the Mellon family, is not located in Scotland. Does it make sense for this page to be exclusive when the rest of us in Ireland are trying to be more inclusive?Red Hurley (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree it does not make sense for this page to be exclusive at all. The "Scotch-Irish" are distinct from "The Irish", and to artificially ignore that distinction and say everyone has just a single "Irish" identity excludes the very real identity of "Scotch-Irish". There are multiple stories from the island of Ireland, not just one. And the American story of the Scotch-Irish was different than the American story of the Irish. As for museums, there are multiple museums in Scotland that claim the Scotch-Irish as their own, the Tullie House Museum, the Border History Museum, the Museum of Border Arms and Armour. The Clan Armstrong Museum proudly displays Neil Armstrong's space suit. The story of the Scotch-Irish is not just an Irish story, and the identity is different than that of the true Irish. Saying that there is a distinction is not exclusive - it is inclusive of multiple stories. Eastcote (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, multiple stories, but both with an Irish aspect that has to be explained somehow to wikipedians in Kenya or Singapore. The Encyclopedia of the Irish in America (1999) lists the "Friendly Sons of St Patrick" as a Presbyterian (Scots-Irish) group that signed up George Washington in 1781, and in the 1840s raised money for famine relief in Ireland. I don't know if Washington considered them to be Irish or specifically Scots-Irish; probably as Americans with an Irish origin. There are numerous grey area examples like this.Red Hurley (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2010 (

Then I think we are in agreement. The distinction should be explained. We should not pretend there is no distinction. Eastcote (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: edit of 8/6. This edit is off-topic. This is a section about Presidents of Irish ncestry. It is not about the entire family history of all Presidents.

Regarding the endless back-and-forth addition and deletion in the "Presidents" section, I don't think a "laundry list" of ethnicities is necessary. The article already explains their specific flavor of Irish in the body of the paragraph that follows their names, and that should be sufficient. A listing after their names is not needed, and adds to article clutter. I propose deleting the laundry lists, and changing the section title to something like "American Presidents with Origins in Ireland". Eastcote (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Shoreranger is spot on. AND this has gotten COMPLETELY out of control at the hands of 1/2 people. And it has a deliberate and racist twang to it. An Example? Ok. The wiki Ulster-Scots article states "..although Irish traditional music is one of the most influential types of music known to the modern world, and can be heard in some of the Ulster Scots music and in Country and Appalachian musics." Yet the Irish-American article here NOW implies--from ONE random source--that once again it was the SCOTCH-IRISH who gave influence. "The descendants of Scotch-Irish settlers had a great influence on the later culture of the United States through such contributions as American folk music, Country and Western music....." I am SURE that 1/2 certain people will have a rich explanation.....but WHEN does this end?.

Michael Mullen

Can anyone tell us the ancestry of Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Apparently his father had an "Irish face" and was buried at Holy Cross Cemetery, Culver City. And it will make a nice change from those presidents....Red Hurley (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I did some looking around, but there doesn't seem to be much info available on his father's side. His father was John Edward "Jack" Mullen (born in Chicago, 1918), a Hollywood press agent, and his mother was Mary Jane Glenn (born in Lost Nation, Iowa, 1919). They were married in Hollywood, CA, 1945. Her great grandfather, Nicholas Glenn, was born in Galway about 1825, and was living in Cascade, Iowa, in 1855, with wife Mary and a daughter named Joanna. This is from a genealogy website, and many such entries are often "guesswork", so I wouldn't take it as gospel. (The 1850 US census does record a Nicholas Glenn in Iowa, born in Ireland in 1795, with wife Mary and a daughter named "Jonna". They're not there in the 1860 census.) Her other ancestors were from Sligo, Cork and Tipperary, and all ended up in Iowa by the late 1800s. But again, I don;t think the documentation (or lack of) would meet Wikipedia standards. Family-gathered genealogies can be very inaccurate. Eastcote (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting; Mullen is usually an Irish-origin family name.Red Hurley (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that his father's side originates in Ireland, but I can't find that in a source, other than the "Irish face" reference. It's good enough for me, though. Eastcote (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Waxhaws area

The Jackson section said that he was born in the "predominantly Ulster-Scots" Waxhaus section of South Carolina. Although there were Scotch-Irish settlers in this area, it was settled largely by German, English, and French, so it was not "predominantly" Ulster-Scots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.71.178 (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I added references that the Waxhaws was a predominantly Scotch-Irish settlement. Eastcote (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Maureen O'Hara & Pierce Brosnan

I am removing references to these individuals as Irish American simply because they are not Irish American. I believe it is misleading to call them such as they were not born in America of Irish descent, they were actually born and raised in Ireland making them both simply Irish. Heggyhomolit (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• As with all other xxx-Americans, included are persons born in another country, who moved to the US and became an American citizen Hmains (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Irish as a percentage of whites

This reference to the Irish being 20% of American whites has been in the article for a long time; I think it was in the original version. It's interesting information for the reader; just as interesting as the fact that Irish Americans are 12% of the total population. So why remove it? I don't think the facts are in dispute; the statistic (20%) comes directly from the Census. It just seems to me that if an editor is going to remove information from a Wiki article, the burden is on the editor to explain and justify how the removal improves the quality of the article. I think the removal of the 20% figure diminishes the quality of the article, so my vote is let's keep it in. OK?

I looked through the American Community Survey, and I see nothing discussing the ethnic make-up of the white population. Maybe I missed it. But what is the relevance? 12% of the American population claims Irish ancestry, whether black, white or brown. Is one more Irish-American if he's "white" with a great-grandfather from Ireland, or "black" with a father from Ireland? Eastcote (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, this "statistic" was added as a "minor copy edit" three months ago, and hasn't been in the article for a long time. Slipped in without much scrutiny during a series of other "minor copy edits". And again, in the referenced Census Bureau American Community Survey, the "Asian", "American Indian" and "Hispanic" groupings are broken down by national origin, but not the "Black" or "White" groupings. At least from what I can see... Eastcote (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)