Jump to content

Talk:Irish Americans/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

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)

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)
We're all god's children Jeanne! RashersTierney (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The reason Irish and Cherokee are "cool" ethnicities is because they're the ethnicities of Chuck Norris! John of Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2010 (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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'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).
You obviously haven't heard of the "one drop theory".Eregli bob (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2010 (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)
I agree with the above. Especially considering that there is no shortage of important Americans with a significant amount of Irish heritage. I vote that we remove "O'Bama" from the pictures, at least. 96.253.87.89 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2010 (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)
Despite the file name, apparently this is the flag of the Batallón de San Patricio. There are other similar versions of the green flag on Commons, however this is the file which matches my sources. I have two physical book publications calling it the Irish American flag. I'm not calling out Shoreranger but isn't having reliable sources stronger on Wikipedia than someone being "dubious" and not "think[ing] that it qualifies as an "Irish-American Flag"? The phrase "reliable source" is used twenty-three other times on this page, not counting this comment. Internet stores, though not "reliable sources", also identify it as "Irish American flag": [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] A Werewolf (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The discussion page is where concerns are aired, like doubts. One reason I was "dubious" was the lack of citation for this as an "Irish-American flag." If you have two WP:PR sources for this being an Irish-American flag then they should have been cited in the first place, and there would be little room for doubt then, wouldn't there? Shoreranger (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not know what you are talking about because the sources were cited. The image appeared like this, taken directly from the edit history:

[[File:San patricios flag.jpg|thumb|Irish-American Flag<small><ref>Smith, W. Flags through the Ages and across the World, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975.</ref><ref>Znamierowski, A. The World Encyclopedia of Flags, Lorenz Books, 1999, 2007.</ref></small>]] A Werewolf (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There is little doubt that this flag was an Irish flag flown in North American - However, it was a flag flown by a battalion of troops opposed to the US Saint Patrick's Battalion. Does this make it a valid Irish American flag?75.69.101.208 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2010 (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)
This does get a bit contenious - if your roots are proven to be 7/8 English and 1/8 Irish, but you choose to be identified as Irish-American - does this make you an Irish-American?... or does it make you both an English-American and an Irish-American? 194.78.35.195 (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2010 (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)

Many politicos identify with being Irish-American, not matter how remote the link, in order to appeal to the voting population. The whole idea of Irish-American is if you identify with the grouping... you may be 1/64 Irish, but you could still self identify with the community. If this self identification was not the criteria, many of those now claiming to be Irish-American wouldn't be actually be Irish-American...just 'American'194.78.35.195 (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! Obama's mother was 1/16 Irish! Let's put Obama's image in the article Irish American! Obama's mother also had English blood! Let's put Obama's image in the article English American, too! Obama's mother also had a tiny bit of Scottish, Welsh, French, Swiss, and German blood! Let's put Obama's image in the articles Scottish American, Welsh American, French American, Swiss American, and German American! Obama's mother had English blood and the English are descendants of the Anglo-Saxons! Let's put Obama's image in the article Anglo-Saxons! The English are also descendants of the Britons, Vikings, and Normans! Let's put Obama's image in those three articles! The Irish are descendants of the Nemedians, Fomorians, Fir Bolg, Tuatha Dé Danann, and Milesians, the Scottish are descendants of the Picts, Gaels, and Britons, the Welsh are descendants of the Ordovices, Demetae, Silures, and Deceangli, the French are descendants of the Gauls, Romans, and Franks, and the Germans are descendants of the Saxons, Frisians, Franks, Thuringii, Alamanni, and Bavarii! Let's put Obama's image in all of those articles! Let's put Obama's image in every single article about a group of people that could possibly be connected with him in some way! As long as you can trace the slimmest, most insignificant amount of his ancestry back to it, it's valid! John of Lancaster (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2010 (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)

Scotch is a drink, Scots is the word you are all looking for. Nothing drives me more crazy than people saying "Scotch-Irish". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.168.249 (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You're 200 years too late for that arguement, IP. It's been Scoth-Irish (and Scotch-Plains, and Scotch Tape) in the Americas for a long time. Scots are welcome to call themselves whatever they want, of course, but in this context its pretty well settled that the historic term , no matter how incompatible with Scottish preferences and sensibilities, is well established and not going anywhere. Its all context. Shoreranger (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Scotch-Irish should be retained in this article - if only to avoid a major rewrite of the article and the removal (including most presidents) of much of the achievements of Irish Americans. However - there remains the problem of duplication with the Scotch-Irish pages.216.107.194.166 (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If Eastcote paragraph remains in place I'd recommend replacing "back country' with "frontier". They mean essentially the same thing in this context and frontier is more meaningful in terms of where they initially settled. Nitpyck (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to Eastcote's revisionst garbage that "Scots Irish" weren't in Ireland long enough to consider themselves Irish - the planters had intermarried and intermixed with the Ulster natives since the early 1600's. They and their offspring in America, were Irish and regarded themselves as such (Proof is in the ammount of Irish fraternal societies they created like the Friendly Sons Od St. Patrick and Hibernian Socities).

Please stop trying to pass off lies as fact. Thank you User:Kobashiloveme

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irish_Americans/Archive_3&oldid=1136268966"