Open main menu

Contents

Irish in the Civil WarEdit

"During the American Civil War, Irish Americans volunteered in high numbers for the Union Army, and at least 38 Union regiments had the word "Irish" in their title. 144,221 Union soldiers were born in Ireland; additionally, perhaps an equal number were of Irish descent.[38]"

In fact this number is an estimate for the number of Irish-born who served in the Union army volunteer units and doesn't include all the Irish in regular army units, militia units, the marines, and navy. Moreover, the source is wrong. The estimate is from a US Sanitary commission report since the US army didn't record the place of birth for at least 40 percent of the soldiers, as acknowledged in the Sanitary Commission report. The number of Irish-born was probably more like 180,000 to 200,000 -- Irish-born were awarded 148 Medals of Honor for Civil War valor a statistic which is highly correlated with enlistments and combat deaths, 1523 Medals of Honor in all were awarded during the Civil War to the estimated 2,300,000 who served in the Union army, navy and marines.

Of course, a great many soldiers and sailors serving the Union army and navy were the children of Irish immigrants, including (but not limited to): General Phil Sheridan General Gordon Meade, commander of the Union army at Gettysburg General John Reynolds, Meade's second in command at Gettysburg William Tecumseh Sherman, foster child William Patrick Hogarty, Antietam Medal of Honor hero Edward Patrick Doherty, led the cavalry regiment that hunted down John Wilkes Booth Alfred Thayor Mahan, author of "Sea Power" and son of West Point leader Dennis Hart Mahan Michael Healy, hero of Michener's "Alaska" and one of the first of African-American descent to be commissioned an officer by Lincoln

Draft RiotsEdit

Of course, blame the immigrants when something goes wrong. Heaven forbid that we should blame New York's WASP and wannabe WASP commercial interests for stirring up the trouble or the Lincoln administration for pigheadedly holding an unpopular and flawed draft (many men were on the candidate lists two or three times, home work and wherever) when the NYC's militia was in Pennsylvania.

And why single out the Irish to blame for the New York City draft riots. The Irish immigrants weren't even close to a majority of the people living in NYC in 1863. The people who stirred up the trouble, except for August Belmont, a German immigrant, were all native born Americans like Samuel Morse, Manton Marble and Fernando Wood, whose parents were Welch and German.

Moreover, most of New York didn't riot, including the Irish. The only reason a relatively small number of rioters caused so much mayhem was because a few weeks before the NYC militia (20 regiments, count 'em 20 !!!!!!!!!) had been mobilized and sent to resist the Confederate invasion of Pennsylvania, which culminated in the battle at Gettysburg.

In fact, most of the riot dead were the "rioters" gunned down by panicked troops from the harbor forts, the police and militia. Many were woman and children. This is well-known, but little acknowledged. How we remember the draft riots today is a product of the historically WASP history department of the Ivy League and their lingering nativism - and I suspect this article is, too.

How would anyone know the rioters were Irish -- did someone check their passports?

IN FACT, according to the tables in Adrian Cook's "The Armies of the Streets", MOST OF THE 400 PEOPLE ARRESTED DURING THE RIOTS DON'T HAVE IRISH NAMES, which is a statistical predictor (though not perfect) of Irish origin.

George CarlinEdit

Carlin is a very highly reguarded comedian (comedy central placed him second only to Richard Pryor) and even has a bit about being fully Irish American. Anyone else think he sould be included in the pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.218.237 (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No Irish need ApplyEdit

This is Original primary source data, so I cannot add it to the article, but if you look at some of the earlest New York Times issues in an archive, more than half of the job postings say No Irish Need Apply, No Irish, etc... The section of the wikipedia article is just plain incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.70.19.10 (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

well under 1% of the jobs ads in NY Times said "No Irish" Rjensen (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The NY Times even acknowledge the existence of this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.32.143 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

New York RiotsEdit

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

-- Was Fernando Wood Irish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.32.143 (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Another point is the San Patricios Battalion[1] ... another incident involving Irish Americans undertaking activity that does not fit the 'standard'

Text under dispute:

During the American Civil War, Irish Americans volunteered in high numbers for the Union army, and at least thirty-eight Union regiments had the word "Irish" in their title. [citation needed] However, conscription was resisted by the Irish and others as an imposition on liberty.[citation needed] When the conscription law was passed in 1863, draft riots erupted in New York. The New York draft coincided with the efforts of Tammany Hall to enroll Irish immigrants as citizens so they could vote in local elections. Many such immigrants suddenly discovered they were now expected to fight for their new country. The Irish, employed primarily as laborers, were usually unable to afford the $300 as a "commutation fee" to procure exemption from service, while more established New Yorkers receiving better pay were able to hire substitutes and avoid the draft.[2] Many of the recent immigrants viewed freed slaves as competition for scarce jobs and as the reason why the civil war was being fought. African Americans who fell into the mob's hands were often beaten, tortured, and/or killed, including one man, William Jones, who was attacked by a crowd of 400 with clubs and paving stones, then hung from a tree and set alight.[3][4] The Colored Orphan Asylum on Fifth Avenue, which provided shelter for hundreds of children, was attacked by a mob, although the police were able to secure the orphanage for enough time to allow orphans to escape.[5] [6] 216.107.194.166 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://historystuff.info/san-patricios-batallonst-patricks-battalion/
  2. ^ William V. Shannon, The American Irish: a political and social portrait, Univ. of Massachusetts (1989), Pgs 57-59, and Adrian Cook, The Armies of the Streets: The New York City Draft Riots of 1863 (1982)
  3. ^ Leslie M, Harris, In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863, University Of Chicago Press; 1 edition (February 2, 2003)
  4. ^ http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/317749.html
  5. ^ Leslie M, Harris, In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863, University Of Chicago Press; 1 edition (February 2, 2003)
  6. ^ http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1863/august/riots-in-new-york.htm
Very little of what is stated in that paragraph has anything to do with the Irish. A great many people participated in the Draft Riot, not just the Irish, and the deaths of Black people during said riots cannot be blamed entirely on the Irish. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The attention of a number of this article's editors is currently on the religion-related issues, above, and this issue is another ember about to erupt another controversy. Nevertheless, this needs consensus before any major changes are made, as the text in question - or similar ideas - have been included in the article for some time, and are sourced, and therefore should not be removed without consensus - which may not happen for a while with most editors focused elsewhere. Shoreranger (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If in fact 'conscription was resisted' by the Irish why did so many volunteer to fight? Usually those who fight the draft also refuse to enlist. Nitpyck (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Many Irish were destitute coming off the immigrant "coffin ships" and desperate. Many joined just to eat. However, that is just the point - they *joined*, they were not compelled to go by a draft. Many who joined were single men with no familes. Many who were drafted were family men that did not want to leave their immigrant wives and children to the mercies of their new home. There is a big difference between deciding if the best thing for you and your family is an enlistment option and being forced to serve regardless. In addition, there was large resentment over the unimagined result of registering for American citizenship (encouraged in New York by the local political machine at Tammany Hall in order to build up a voting base) making them eligible for the draft, whereas non-citizens, and those who were ineligible for the draft by virtue of their race, were not compelled to fight. Shoreranger (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The Irish were very well-represented in both the Confederate and Union armies. Many of the high-ranking officers were also of Irish birth or parentage. Actually, it's an Irish tradition to fight in foreign armies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The main point to this discussion is that if we do include a historical event, we should ensure that a balanced view is presented. The original draft riot text implied that the riots occured as an expression of liberty by the new immigrants & did not mention the destructive forces unleashed. There is no doubt that many Irish men served bravely in the Union and Confederate armies.216.107.194.166 (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Most self-identified Irish Americans are protestant.Edit

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

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

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

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

Test every claminant Whoore in america with white skin for R1b1 traces, all highborns will have slight traces,, the rest will need to get back in the ring--MINTTEA1000 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Uncited ClaimsEdit

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

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

Joe BidenEdit

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

Joe Biden should be included.Malke2010 23:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Since when did surnames have anything to do with it? My surname's french, but if I go back four or five generations I don't find any french ancestry! Triangl (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As Irish As Coca ColaEdit

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

Number of pictures in infoboxEdit

 
A free image of Grace Kelly

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

Total nonsense. You're trying to pick a fight. Has it been a while since you were last blocked? DinDraithou (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we should have more pictures. It's a long article. It can handle it and Grace Kelly's picture must be there. She was a very famous Irish American.Malke2010 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you happen to recall this edit, Mr. "12 pictures is enough, in fact, it might be too many"? I don't understand why we should have to have a discussion every time we add or swap an image. I've added and swapped several infobox images in other articles and no editor has ever stubbornly reverted my edits saying that I need to "discuss such changes first". I think it's time for you to stop being dictator of the infobox images. There should definitely be more images. --John of Lancaster (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Why do we not have an infobox that goes all the way down the page? O Fenian (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Three more images will hardly make the infobox "go all the way down the page". It's a long article. There are way too few infobox images compared to other articles. Just look at the Italian American article. --John of Lancaster (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
There also needs to be more women; Grace Kelly could be added.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, definitely have Grace Kelly.Malke2010 19:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Grace Kelly should definitely be included. She's a very notable Irish American. F. Scott Fitzgerald should also be included. He's regarded as one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. --John of Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Definitely, F. Scott Fitzgerald. Any idea where we can get fair use/copyright free photos?Malke2010 20:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, but I think a new infobox image should be created. It should be an expansion of this one. That way, we'll have a single image in the infobox rather than one large one and six separate smaller ones. Here's my idea of what it should look like:
John F. Kennedy Mother Jones Geoge M. Cohan
James Braddock Michael J. McGivney James Michael Curley
Victor Herbert Eugene O'Neill Ed Sullivan
Grace Kelly F. Scott Fitzgerald Ronald Reagan
John Carroll Cyrus McCormick Maureen O'Hara
--John of Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Can we put Grace Kelly at the top? I'm sure Jack Kennedy won't mind being next to her.Malke2010 13:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. But can I be cheeky and suggest Billy the Kid instead of John Carroll? Someone notorious like him adds a bit of spice to the brew. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather ding Mother Jones. John Carroll made important, major educational contribs to America. His work is still affecting people's lives today. Also, I just checked and Billy the Kid doesn't seem to have a definite Irish background. It seems there's a question about it in his article, so I don't think he would be a good addition in the picture box.Malke2010 14:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see some more representation from earlier American history. There are signers of the Declaration and Constitution to choose from, Revolutionary War Irish-born Generals Wayne, Sullivan, Irving, Shee, Lewis, Butler, and Commodore John Barry. And, by the way, choosing from this group would make it easy to add some diversity to the current crop of images which - as far as I can tell - are all Catholic or owe their Irish ancestry to a Catholic, and this article is supposed to be bigger than that. And, as for notorious representation, how about Bugs Moran, Mickey Spillane (mobster), James J. Bulger, and more. Shoreranger (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Grace Kelly was half-German. Her maternal grandparents were immigrants from Germany. I have no problem with her being included in the Infobox, but she's not quite the great Irish beauty as she's being portrayed. Vdjj1960 (talk) 1:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Catholic EducationEdit

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

Ulster American Folk ParkEdit

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

Edit by Shoreranger on 7/9/10Edit

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

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

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

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

Dear Eastcote:

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

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

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

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

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

The section headings are "18th to Mid-19th Century" and "Mid-19th Century and Later". As such both Catholic and Protestant are represented in both sections. I agree that it was at one time intended that the first section deal with Scotch-Irish, and the second section deal with Catholic immigration. But subsequent edits have tended to blend the two groups, and with the current headings this is probably as it should be. Catholics should be included in the 18th century piece and Ulster Scots should be included in the 19th century piece, as settlement/immigration was not exclusively one or the other at any time period, even though one group or the other may have been the majority of the arrivals at different times in American history. Eastcote (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't have anything to add at the moment, except to note that Eastcote seems to have an excellent handle not only on the purpose and intent of my edits, but on the way the article is organically developing, as well. Shoreranger (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Eastcote and Shoreranger,

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

Recently reverted changes by 64.134.232.113Edit

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

  • "[The Scotch-Irish] were descendants of Irish people|Protestant, Scottish and English." There is general scholarly consensus that the Scotch-Irish were descended from Scottish and English settlers, with a scattering of Welsh, Huguenot, German, etc. The addition of native Irish needs a source.
  • "The early Ulster immigrants and their descendants at first usually referred to themselves simply as "Irish," without the qualifier "Scotch" or simply as 'Anglo-Saxon.'" The addition of "or simply as 'Anglo-Saxon'" needs a source. I don't think self-identification of even the English as "Anglo-Saxon" developed until the Victorian era.
  • "The interaction which did occurr happened in the early 19th century when the first large waves of Catholic Irish arrived in cities which still had large Scots-Irish populations suchs as Philidelphia, New York City, Boston, and Balitomore." Sources I have seen discuss conflict between recently arrived Protestants and Catholics, who brought 19th century rivalries with them from Ireland, and do not portray the conflict as between recent Catholic immigrants and established Scotch-Irish populations of 18th century origin.
  • "Unfortunately, [Irish Catholics] whose cultural values didn't stress literacy had a majority who were illiterate in any language. This high rate of illiteracy in Irish Catholics saw a change in Northern American cities going from almost 90% literacy rate in 1810 down to 50% literacy rates in 1860." This statement needs a source.
  • "...being a minority within the larger Irish immigrant mileu, [Protestant Irish] were heavily persecuted and discriminated against by the Irish Catholic community which clawed its way to power in American urban streets." This needs a source.
  • "...many Irish Protestants are also descended of Irish Catholics who arrived in the 18th century, but due to a negligible Catholic Church infrastructure and heavy proselytizing by Protestant missionaries converted to Protestantism." Needs a source.

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

That last paragraph is probably not going to have a source. The Catholic Church was present and offering a means of assistance to Catholics in the 18th century.Malke2010 23:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Jesuits were here in the 1600's. This cathedral is the oldest continuously operating Catholic Church: St. Louis Cathedral, New Orleans and was built in 1718. As regards the illiteracy, and discriminating against the Protestants, not to mention 'clawed its way to power,' seems to contradict itself. There were so many, yet the Church was lacking? They were all illiterate, yet they gained power?Malke2010 23:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
It's true that the Catholic Church had a strong presence in the territories colonized by France and Spain - what is now the southeastern & southwestern parts. However, these were not then parts of the USA until the Louisiana Purchase (1803) and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848). Ileanadu (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I would agree that Protestants were in the majority, but the Catholic Church had a presence, and an "infrastructure", early on. Maryland, for instance, was founded as "a haven for Catholics in the new world" in 1632. The Archdiocese of New York was created in 1789, certainly showing evidence of 18th century "infrastructure" in the 13 colonies. Eastcote (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The Catholic Church did have a presence and infrastructure from early on, but New York was not an archdiocese until 1850. Until then it was a suffragan diocese to the Archdiocese of Baltimore. "From 1808 until 1847, Baltimore was the only archdiocese in the United States and therefore the entire country was one ecclesiastical province." Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore#History. From 1784, Baltimore was an Apostolic Prefecture. "Because Maryland was one of the few regions of the colonial United States with a substantial Roman Catholic population, the apostolic prefecture was elevated to become the Diocese of Baltimore—the first diocese in the United States—on November 6, 1789."
"On April 8, 1808, Pope Pius VII erected the suffragan dioceses of Boston, New York, Philadelphia," and Bardstown, KY. Ileanadu (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The Province of Maryland was set up in 1632 by George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore, an Englishman who also had a seat in the Irish House of Lords, primarily as a refuge for Irish and British Catholics.Red Hurley (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion request of 7/26/10Edit

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

Presidents sectionEdit

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

I've been on a week's holiday, (honeymoon, as I do sort of have a personal life), so I'm only just seeing this, but here are a few points:
  • I think it is wrong to say the Scotch-Irish "should not be deliniated" from the Irish. There is a historical distinction that should be recognized. In the Irish American article Scotch-Irish presidents are being claimed as Irish, while at the same time over in the Scottish American article they are happily claiming them as Scots. Which is it? Are they Irish or Scottish, or perhaps something altogether different? The identity of these people has been debated for over a century, but that very debate points to a distinction between Scotch-Irish, Scots, and Irish. Even today the cousins of the Scotch-Irish still in Ireland make the distinction and refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots".
  • Irish historian Tim Pat Coogan, in Wherever Green Is Worn: The Story of the Irish Diaspora, concludes that the Scotch-Irish should "very doubtfully" be regarded as Irish.
  • If the article is confusing to the casual reader, it should be clarified with explanatory information. We shouldn't simply remove the confusing information, as that renders a disservice to the reader.
  • The analogy with Norman-Irish, Anglo-Irish, etc., is not necessarily appropriate. The Normans arrived in the middle ages and ultimately melted into the general population, just as they did in England and Scotland. So did the Vikings. So did the Anglo-Irish (which is an ambiguous term because it could mean either English settlers in Ireland, or Irish who take on English ways). The continued use of the term Ulster Scot to describe oneself points to not melting in even 400 years after settlement of Ulster began. This would have been even more pronounced when the Scotch-Irish were leaving for America 300 years ago. The Scotch-Irish weren't there long enough to really melt in. The movement of Scots (and others) to Ulster was roughly 1610 to 1710, and the movement to America was roughly 1710 to 1810. Some of those who went to America were second generation Ulstermen, and some had themselves come from Scotland.
  • Scotch-Irish is an unfortunate name. Many historians do not like it because it is confusing and not very accurate. There were Scots, English, Welsh, French, Germans, etc., who made up the Calvinist melting pot that became the Scotch-Irish. They weren't Irish and they weren't purely Scots. David Hacket Fisher, in Albion's Seed, calls them "Borderers" because the majority came from the Anglo-Scottish Border region. It is perhaps more accurate, but doesn't take into account the continental Europeans in the mix, and ignores their time in Ireland. Patrick Griffin goes the farthest in pointing out the difficulty in identifying them in his book The People with No Name.
  • Here's an interesting little clip from the Penn State University. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypk5mG5JDvk&feature=related
So, my two or three cents. The Scotch-Irish are historically distinct from the Irish, like it or not, and the distinction doesn't go away by saying "'Scotch-Irish' is still 'Irish'." Eastcote (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
They had different histories in America, and in Ireland itself, but in Ireland in recent years they are seen as a part of Irish history. On arrival in America before 1800 they would have been listed as citizens of the Kingdom of Ireland. Within Ireland itself, many had arrived in the early 1600s as part of the Plantation of Ulster and their descendants thought that there would be more opportunities in America than in Ireland; as was the case with the mainly Irish Catholic emigrants in the 1800s and 1900s. The Ulster American Folk Park, that was partly sponsored by the Mellon family, is not located in Scotland. Does it make sense for this page to be exclusive when the rest of us in Ireland are trying to be more inclusive?Red Hurley (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree it does not make sense for this page to be exclusive at all. The "Scotch-Irish" are distinct from "The Irish", and to artificially ignore that distinction and say everyone has just a single "Irish" identity excludes the very real identity of "Scotch-Irish". There are multiple stories from the island of Ireland, not just one. And the American story of the Scotch-Irish was different than the American story of the Irish. As for museums, there are multiple museums in Scotland that claim the Scotch-Irish as their own, the Tullie House Museum, the Border History Museum, the Museum of Border Arms and Armour. The Clan Armstrong Museum proudly displays Neil Armstrong's space suit. The story of the Scotch-Irish is not just an Irish story, and the identity is different than that of the true Irish. Saying that there is a distinction is not exclusive - it is inclusive of multiple stories. Eastcote (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, multiple stories, but both with an Irish aspect that has to be explained somehow to wikipedians in Kenya or Singapore. The Encyclopedia of the Irish in America (1999) lists the "Friendly Sons of St Patrick" as a Presbyterian (Scots-Irish) group that signed up George Washington in 1781, and in the 1840s raised money for famine relief in Ireland. I don't know if Washington considered them to be Irish or specifically Scots-Irish; probably as Americans with an Irish origin. There are numerous grey area examples like this.Red Hurley (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2010 (
Then I think we are in agreement. The distinction should be explained. We should not pretend there is no distinction. Eastcote (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Shoreranger is spot on. AND this has gotten COMPLETELY out of control at the hands of 1/2 people. And it has a deliberate and racist twang to it. An Example? Ok. The wiki Ulster-Scots article states "..although Irish traditional music is one of the most influential types of music known to the modern world, and can be heard in some of the Ulster Scots music and in Country and Appalachian musics." Yet the Irish-American article here NOW implies--from ONE random source--that once again it was the SCOTCH-IRISH who gave influence. "The descendants of Scotch-Irish settlers had a great influence on the later culture of the United States through such contributions as American folk music, Country and Western music....." I am SURE that 1/2 certain people will have a rich explanation.....but WHEN does this end?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.240.222 (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Even today the cousins of the Scotch-Irish still in Ireland make the distinction and refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots"." No, the majority call themselves Irish (as they did when they first arrived in the American colonies http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8567619.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobashiloveme (talkcontribs) 03:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


"Shoreranger is spot on. AND this has gotten COMPLETELY out of control at the hands of 1/2 people. And it has a deliberate and racist twang to it." I'll bet anything that bigoted, supremacist headcase Eastcote is behind it. He refuses to listen to anything that clashes with his "Ullsturr skaats" mythology. He stated a few months back that "Ulster Scots" didn't have enough time to be Irish (despite being there for generations and intermxing with the locals from day one) and then came up with the howler that they didn't regard themselves as Irish (despite them setting up the Friendly Sons Of St.Patrick and Hibernian socieites). He is a meddlesome, racist fruitcake and the sooner some mod stops him twisting Irish history to suit his onw warped beliefs the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobashiloveme (talkcontribs) 03:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


"The story of the Scotch-Irish is not just an Irish story, and the identity is different than that of the true Irish." What the f**k is "true Irish"? They intermixed with the locals in Ulster from the very first days of the plantation! This is exactly the type of racist garbage this nutcase has been polluting this site with for years now. The people in Waterford,Wexford and Dublin have Scandinavian ancestry because of the Viking settlements there. They apparently are not "true Irish" according this moron. Seriously, ban this racist clod and his pure blood eugenics crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobashiloveme (talkcontribs) 03:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael MullenEdit

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

I did some looking around, but there doesn't seem to be much info available on his father's side. His father was John Edward "Jack" Mullen (born in Chicago, 1918), a Hollywood press agent, and his mother was Mary Jane Glenn (born in Lost Nation, Iowa, 1919). They were married in Hollywood, CA, 1945. Her great grandfather, Nicholas Glenn, was born in Galway about 1825, and was living in Cascade, Iowa, in 1855, with wife Mary and a daughter named Joanna. This is from a genealogy website, and many such entries are often "guesswork", so I wouldn't take it as gospel. (The 1850 US census does record a Nicholas Glenn in Iowa, born in Ireland in 1795, with wife Mary and a daughter named "Jonna". They're not there in the 1860 census.) Her other ancestors were from Sligo, Cork and Tipperary, and all ended up in Iowa by the late 1800s. But again, I don;t think the documentation (or lack of) would meet Wikipedia standards. Family-gathered genealogies can be very inaccurate. Eastcote (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's interesting; Mullen is usually an Irish-origin family name.Red Hurley (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that his father's side originates in Ireland, but I can't find that in a source, other than the "Irish face" reference. It's good enough for me, though. Eastcote (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Waxhaws areaEdit

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

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

Maureen O'Hara & Pierce BrosnanEdit

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

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

Irish as a percentage of whitesEdit

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

I looked through the American Community Survey, and I see nothing discussing the ethnic make-up of the white population. Maybe I missed it. But what is the relevance? 12% of the American population claims Irish ancestry, whether black, white or brown. Is one more Irish-American if he's "white" with a great-grandfather from Ireland, or "black" with a father from Ireland? Eastcote (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW, this "statistic" was added as a "minor copy edit" three months ago, and hasn't been in the article for a long time. Slipped in without much scrutiny during a series of other "minor copy edits". And again, in the referenced Census Bureau American Community Survey, the "Asian", "American Indian" and "Hispanic" groupings are broken down by national origin, but not the "Black" or "White" groupings. At least from what I can see... Eastcote (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Not Ok, if for no other reason that the cited source does not support the statement. You cannot establish from the data that all or any of the the number of people claiming Irish heritage are white. Shoreranger

Irish American history -- railroad workersEdit

I would like to invite editors who have an interest, to take a look at the article gandy dancer. I have just added a bit about Irish labor, as well as the possible Gaelic source of the term "gandy". I think the article is getting better, but still needs improvement. thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Irish police in New YorkEdit

The claim that "By the turn of the 20th century, five out of six NYPD officers were Irish born or of Irish descent" seems reasonable, but needs a source. I checked the source cited in footnote 29 (Emmet) and it does not provide this information. User:WAlanDavis / (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to ban user-created montages from InfoboxesEdit

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Infobox_Images_for_Ethnic_Groups. Bulldog123 09:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So-called IrishnessEdit

I think there should be a paragraph devoted to the phenomenon of claiming irish ancestry when you actually have none. And I don't mean to offend anyone here, you're welcome to self identify however you wish, but it's very interesting that in Britain, people don't connect themselves with Ireland at all unless they have a grandparent who was born and bred there, at the very least. I for example have a Spanish grandmother and don't think of myself as Spanish at all, nor do I think of myself as French, even though my surname is French. But I was born in England, and both my parents were. So I'm British. Triangl (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a phenomenon that's solely related to Irish ancestry. What about the millions of white Americans who claim American Indian ancestry; specifically claiming to have had a "full-blood Cherokee grandmother"?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You are exactly right: my grandmother was Irish but that doesn't make me even remotely Irish. The truth is that there is no such thing as "Irish American" only Americans who might have Irish ancestry. It's time to retitle this article as "plastic paddy" because it's closer to the truth. Kentish 2034 17 March 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.62.161 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

In actual fact, under the laws of the Republic of Ireland, it makes you an Irish citizen. You may not care to claim such, but tens of thousands of others do and are legally recognized as Irish by the only institution with the authority to decide: the government of the Republic of Ireland.
The real issue here is that you are a bigot, plain and simple. You have appointed yourself the arbiter of Irish identity, and no matter the actual facts --- legal, cultural or other --- you pretend that as as a resident of England you have the least bit of say in the matter.


My dads family moved from ireland about 100 years ago or whenever the potato famine was. I still see myself as English but with 'Irish ancestry'. My family is catholic and still celebrates irish traditions. Surely that makes me Anglo-Irish. I do not claim to be from ireland or irish however i still acknowledge them as distinct part of my heritage seeing as 1/2 of my ancestors origianated from their. Surely that is what anglo/american irish is then, rather than somebody who genuinly is irish living in england or america. i have a friend who is born is london but has spanish parents and he speaks spanish as a first language. he would not call himself anglo-spanish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthxiv (talkcontribs) 21:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you should take a look at the Great Irish Famine article and the Anglo-Irish article, at a minimum. Certainly, Anglo-Irish has a different common definition than the one you appear to be using. Shoreranger (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess what I'm trying to say is yes when you have AN Irish great great great gp and you claim Irish ancestry thats 'cheating' (not sure what word). But when half your family is from a country, and when you live in an area heavily influenced by irish culture aswell, then that makes you as irish as an african american is african. It depends how you interpret the term, but to me it means american of distict irish background, as opposed to irish parents living in america which is dual citizenship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.233.13 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"That makes you are Irish as an African American is African" - not very at all, then! There's already a reference to the phenomenon of the "plastic Paddy", which seems to be far more prevalent in the USA than anywhere else. So many Americans who were born and bred in the USA (and whose parents and grandparents were also born and bred in the USA) insist on identifying themselves as Irish simply because a distant relative travelled over from Ireland possibly hundreds of years ago. Along with the "Cherokee grandmother" thing mentioned above, it has to be because they perceive it to make them seem more windswept and interesting - or simply just "cooler". If they ever actually travelled to Ireland, they'd discover how different a country and culture it actually is compared to the one they're familiar with. BTW, it looks like the plastic Paddy reference has been edited by someone who actually *is* a plastic Paddy, judging by the tone of the "undermine" comment. 91.73.102.106 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

More fodder for discussion: The constitution of the Irish Republic includes the following in Article 2 - "...the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage."

So, the government of Ireland is required to recognize "people of Irish ancestry living abroad", and does not place any limits on how distant that ancestry may be. Shoreranger (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Utter pigswill. The Government of Ireland is required to do no such thing. It's a generic statement of welcome to anyone who has Irish ancestry. It does not legitimise or accept the fraudulent label of "Irish American" 2037 Kentish 17 March 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.62.161 (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity is different than genetics, also is different between US and Britain
If Irish culture or identity (or both) has been passed down through the generations, that is far more meaningful than simply your DNA. This is especially so in the USA. DiamondLattice (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Rot. Irish heritage which has passed down the generations is meaningless because it is so remote to be not worth considering. There are no Irish people in America. Apart from tourists. 2039 Kentish 17 March 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.62.161 (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Utter bigotry. No better than some 'British Israelite' nutter telling actual Jews that they're phony Hebrews since it's been a while since they lived in the desert.

Not historically a good idea to admit you were Irish in the UK.
Who would have wanted to admit to Irish heritage in a country like the UK which starved, murdered and enslaved millions of Irish people for over 700 years? This was like admitting to being Jewish in Germany. It's a good bet that Irish immigrants into the UK tried to hide their heritage more and, even now are more willing to forget it sooner, in order to avoid the legendary anti-Irish racism in Britain. It may not be as bad today as it was 50 years ago, but there is still some of it there even today if you are honest. Depending on the region of Britain, of course, in places like Liverpool, where many are at least part-Irish, this would apply less so. DiamondLattice (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Who would have wanted to admit to Irish heritage in a country like the UK which starved, murdered and enslaved millions of Irish people for over 700 years? This was like admitting to being Jewish in Germany.
Diamond, there are a very significant number of problems with this point of view. Let's leave aside the (inflammatory and controversial claims) that a) millions of Irish people were actively starved, murdered and enslaved, and b) in a manner or to an extent somehow comparable to the holocaust, which I think many historians would want to argue or heavily qualify. And which is likely to offend Jewish, Irish and British users for varying reasons. And let's change the entity said to be committing this genocide from 'the UK' - which didn't come into existence until 1801, by which time I suspect you would want to say that much damage had already been done; and which, since at varying times that entity has included elements of home rule for parts of Ireland, would imply that some of the damage was inflicted on Irish people by Irish leaders, rather than by external, non-Irish actors. Perhaps 'Britain'? Anyway, even recast in less technically-flawed terms, and even approached in a way that hypothetically concedes a problematically-phrased interpretation of Irish history, I don't think this comparison to Germany can support the implication you seem to want: that the threat and danger of nationality-based discrimination led, and continues to lead, to a significant understatement or public disavowal of Irish identity - at least in public or in dealings with public record-keeping officials - amongst Irish immigrants in Britain; and to 'hiding' of heritage and customs; and incentivizing an increased rate of abandonment of heritage and past national identity in favor of a new host 'acceptable' identity. This question - stripped of its inflammatory and questionable political rhetoric - is an interesting one for empirical research. I'm not aware of any that's been done on whether such a situation developed. If there is such publication, I'd love a link to it. And such *empirical* work *is* required to discuss such things, because the problem with following your intuition about what would have 'made sense' to immigrants in Britain, and so what they *must* have done, rather than following cold, hard data, is that your biases and prejudices will lead you astray every time. That's what's happened with your analogy to Jewish identity in Germany. The (surprising, perhaps) truth hidden in the historical data is that when Jewish identity was increasingly becoming a serious and personally-dangerous issue in Germany - from the late 19th Century into the mid-20th, right into the early years of World War 2 - there was no simple mass-disavowal or straight-forward renunciation of Jewish identity in an attempt to 'duck' the growing discrimination, and the ability of census information to track identity does not seem to have been significantly compromised. [See Mendes-Flohr, P. (1999) German Jews: A Dual Identity; The Holocaust Encyclopedia on Prewar Jewish Identity http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007052 ; and 'Lost in Third Space? Narrating German-Jewish identity in Maxim Biller’s autobiography Der gebrauchte Jude' in Jewish Culture and History, Volume 14, Issue 2-3, 2013: Special Issue: Jewish Identities in Contemporary Europe on how this situation has re-emerged and evolved since the Second World War]. So the second, German situation *cannot* be taken as evidence for your reading of the first, Irish situation. On a more general note, it really pains me to see how strong and certain and extreme people are in their views about Ireland when they don't live there full time. It is such a difficult, complicated maelstrom of identity and principle and war, and terrible, terrible things done by people in the name of one belief or another. The conflicts and problems have a history almost a thousand years long now. If I could say just one thing to people who stumble across this page and see the strong, angry things people write with such a burning sense of right and wrong, it would be this: this is a topic that is very complicated and tangled, very painful and difficult, and if there were a 'simple' answer to the rights and wrongs of it, it would have been found and the arguments won and put to bed a long time ago. Unless you have lived there for the last couple of decades, or read hundreds and hundreds of thousands of words on Ireland's past and present from all points of view, you do not have a clear picture. The people who live there and deal with these issues every day, and navigate that undertow of identity and everyday reality - they have a chance of being right, of seeing the future and knowing what to do. The rest of us, I'd like to suggest, are just slightly-varying degrees of wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.61.209 (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Scotch-Irish presidentsEdit

Why are they being listed in the article titled Irish Americans when we have Scotch-Irish Americans? Bulldog123 19:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps your question is simply rhetorical, but there is argument as to whether the Scotch-Irish are really a separate group. Some espouse a single Irishness, others see distinction between the Irish and the Scotch-Irish. To further complicate it, Scots also claim the Scotch-Irish as their own. So for instance, you have the situation where Andrew Jackson is claimed by Irish, Scots, and Scotch-Irish. Eastcote (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
By the way, Bulldog, you put a disputed neutrality tag on this portion of the article. What exactly do you see as a lack of neutrality? You haven't provided any explanation. You seem to disagree with what is in the article, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a neutrality problem. Please explain. Eastcote (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Well it's a neutrality issue because it calls people of Scotch-Irish descent "Irish" when, as you yourself explained above, the Scots claim that "Scotch-Irish" people are in fact Scottish. To save from picking a side, shouldn't these people just be put in the Scotch-Irish article? Bulldog123 16:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The Ulster Scots, and - by extention - the Scotch Irish in America that decended from them, were and are an ethnic group in Ireland. That makes them Irish. Blacks Americans are still Americans. Russian Jews are still Russians. Coptic Egyptians are still Egyptians. The Ainu in Japan are still Japanese. Scotch Irish are still Irish. If they weren't, they'd just be called Scots. And, as the article explains in more than one place, those now referred to as Scotch Irish referred to themselves, and were referenced by others, as simply "Irish" in the United States for more than a century after their first arrival. They were also, as the article further notes, not all related to Scots but many decended from English, as well. Shoreranger (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
were and are an ethnic group in Ireland. That makes them Irish. No it doesn't. Are you saying Armenians born in Turkey are now of Turkish ethnicity? Bulldog123 23:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Turkish *nationality*, Turkish citizens, certainly. Shoreranger (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay but this article is about ethnically Irish people, right? This articled is included in Category:Ethnic groups of the United States. So... simply living in Ireland does not make someone Irish (by the ethnic definition). Bulldog123 00:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it? The article gives a definition in the first sentence. It then goes on to discuss how people self-identify. It does not include any tests of "ethnicity." And, you said "born" not simply having lived there for a while. Anyone born in Ireland is Irish. Anyone who was born in Ireland from a family that has lived in Ireland for three generations is Irish. Take a look at Jeanne's post: Anglo-Irish, Norman-Irish...I would add Norse-Irish/Hiberno Norse - they're all "Irish", my friend. Ireland is not the mono-culture you seem to believe it is. There is over a thousand years of history of differnt "ethnic" groups getting into the Irish mix. In the end, they are all "Irish", and when one of them leaves to come to America, that line of decendents is Irish American. If you want to self-identify as Scotch Irish American or Anglo Irish America you can - that's the beauty of it. But you're still self-identifying as Irish descent - see? Shoreranger (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
You have proof these presidents self-identified as Irish? Anyone born in Ireland is of Irish nationality, but definitely not of "Irish ethnicity." You want to tell that to the numerous proud Englishmen born in Ireland? It doesn't work that way. A lot of what you're saying is WP:OR. Bulldog123 14:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
A lot of what I'm "saying" is born out of pages of archived discussions on this article that you had no part of and have apparently not bothered to read. Shoreranger (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
When the bulk of the Irish-Americans' ancestors arrived in America, the Irish nation was part of the United Kingdom, so technically they were British yet identified as Irish and were (often disparagingly) referred to as Irish (Irish need not apply, etc). So what then was it that made them Irish? Obviously it was their ethnicity and the fact that thye came from IRELAND! This argument is going nowhere as far as I'm concerned. They were born in Ireland, identified as Irish, were considered Irish, hence Irish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not as neat as "they are Irish plain and simple". There is a distinction between Scotch-Irish and Irish, which is why we keep re-hashing the identity/definition question over and over. Eastcote (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
How ironic that many loyalists in Northern Ireland are recognising their Irishness, yet here on the Irish-Americans talk page we're fighting over who are the real Irish. The article needs to clarify who the Scots-Irish (BTW, Scotch is an alcoholic drink) were/are, recognise that they had a different culture and relgion, while still including them as Irish-American. The Scots immigrants were a separate group; in fact many settled in Canada.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
A distinction between the Scotch-Irish and the Irish American is that descendents of the Scotch-Irish look to American history for their identity, and not to Irish history. The descendents of the Scotch-Irish identify with Davey Crockett, the Wilderness Road, and Kings Mountain, and not with people or events in Ireland. Many Scotch-Irish descendents don't know where they originated. Read a book on the Scotch-Irish and the focus is on Appalachian settlement, the American Revolution, and Westward Movement. Origins in Scotland, England and Ireland are usually treated incidentally at the beginning of the book. James Leyburn's The Scotch-Irish (usually viewed as the most comprehensive study) covers as much or more about Scotland than Ireland, and then spends the bulk of the book on American settlement and cultural development. However, because the Scotch-Irish came here from Ireland, and because they called themselves Irish when they arrived, they are part of the story of "Irish Americans". Eastcote (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason Americans added 'Scotch' was mainly because of their religion was Presbyterian (at that time only Scottish people were Presbyterian). I don't think there is a clear way of distinguishing them though, as probably at different times non-Protestant Irish and non-Irish Scots got mixed in depending on local settlement/identity patterns. Best solution is to make Scotch-Irish a sub-cat of both Irish and Scottish and keep the controversy out of individual articles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay so doesn't it make sense that the presidents of Scotch-Irish descent be listed in Scotch-Irish American and not here or Scottish Americans? Bulldog123 23:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it does not. Shoreranger (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Care to elaborate? You want to have Scotch-Irish presidents listed on Irish Americans and Scottish Americans and Scotch-Irish American. Isn't it just overkill (and potentially inaccurate)? Bulldog123 11:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok - just in Irish Americans and Scotch-Irish then. Shoreranger (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Why in Irish Americans? What proof do you have that some of these people are not ethnically Scottish? Bulldog123 00:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, this is not an ethnicity test. Beyond that, the people you are refering to self-identified as "Irish" - they just qualified with "Scotch" to identify themselves as, basically, non-Catholic, not as affirmitively Scottish. Otherwise, they would just have called themselves simply "Scots"/"Scottish", but they didn't. And finally - "some of these people" does not justify lumping them *all* based on your own criteria, since they wouldn't satisfy your "ethnicity" test, which there is no justification and/or no consensus for in this article anyway. Shoreranger (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I think something that needs to be pointed out is that "Scotch-Irish" is an American concept, not an Irish one. Modern concepts of Irishness should not be applied to them, and those still living in Ireland who are distant cousins of the Scotch-Irish do not use the term to describe themselves. These modern-day cousins in Ireland would call themselves Ulster Scots, Ulstermen, or just plain Irish. The Scotch-Irish are separated from Ireland by nearly 300 years of history. Back in the 1700s, all settlers from Ireland seem to have held a common identity as "Irish", even if their religious identities were different. At times they might not have liked mixing together, but that was on religious grounds, and not for ethnic or national reasons. At some levels of society there was indeed mixing, and organizations such as the Friendly Sons of Saint Patrick were organized by all flavors of Irishmen to recognize their common national origin. The term "Scotch-Irish" was known in those days, but was often considered derogatory. Widespread use of the term began around the 1850s, and was used by Americans who had been settled in this country for many generations to distinguish themselves from the newly arriving Irish immigrants who were largely poor Catholics. In that sense it was used more as an American Nativist term, than as an Irish term. Eastcote (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Why not list them as a sub-category of Irish-Americans and leave it at that? At the time when the bulk of the Scots-Irish immigrated to the the US, Ireland was not divided and the place which is now known as Northern Ireland did not exist. The immigrants would have mainly come from the nine-county province of Ulster. Seeing as Ulster is in Ireland, albeit comprising Northern Ireland minus three counties, the descendants of those immigrants qualify as Irish-Americans.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I realize this is a good-faith suggestion aimed at comprimise, and I thank Jeanne for making it, but there has been plenty of archived discussions on this article about how it needed less division and more unity, and shared culture rather than differences were to be covered here, and any differences highlighted in an appropriate and seperate article (i.e. in the Scotch-Irish article). Sub-categorization, in my opinion, leads to a segregation of thought that belies the comonalities. Shoreranger (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Use of the hyphenated term Scotch-Irish shows affinity to BOTH Scottish and Irish, so I see no reason to draw a hard line between Irish and Scotch-Irish. The S-I are Irish if for no other reason than that they came from the land of Ireland. Eastcote (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Not all Scots-Irish are descended from Scottish people, although the vast majority have origins in the Lowlands of Scotland. There were many English and Huguenots who went to Ulster and many Irish intermarried into the Protestant community as is evidenced by Northern Ireland Protestants who today bear Irish surnames such as O'Neill and Catholics with planter names like Crawford and Morrison.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Shoreanger, I am firmly of the opinion that the so-called Scots-Irish people are as Irish as the Norman-Irish, Cambro-Irish, and Anglo-Irish. Keep them in the Irish-Americans article-without the subcategory. The term Scots-Irish is mainly a 20th-century term anyway.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Good - we seem to be approaching consensus here. Thanks. Shoreranger (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There were a lot of different national groups that made up the "Scotch-Irish". It's hard to draw a line that definitively identifies the Scotch-Irish because of this. My own folks settled in Ulster from Northumberland in England, but we have a name typically identified as Scotch-Irish. We shouldn't view national identities of three centuries ago through the lens of current national identities. The Scotch-Irish were "Irish" because they came from that land, and that's how they identified themselves, whether or not they were saying they were identical with the Irish already living there when they were planted in Ireland. (BTW, "Scotch-Irish" is not a 20th century term. It was used as early as the 1690s. It was not used as frequently as "Irish" in the 18th century, but it was a known term then. It became a common identifier in the 19th century.) Eastcote (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"I wouldn't bother trying to debate with Eastcote as he's been flooding wikipedia with his "aalllster skaaats" mythology for years now, completely impervious to any counter argument. You can furnish him with fact after fact and he'll shake it off and continue trolling. The Scots-Irish (which is redundant given that Scot means Irish) are an Irish subgroup like the Hiberno-Norse and Anglo-Irish.They freely identified themselves as Irish for well over a century in America.They are not a separate people. Keep reading that back to yourself as many times as you need until it sinks in." Poppycock!!! Kobashiloveme —Preceding undated comment added 07:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC). 3

after seeing your demeaning and costic reply people would rather not debate with you either. Those rather bias views you have and the blatant bigotry against a people who identify as an ethnic minority is absolute rubbish Kobashiloveme. They can identify with whatever they want bigots like yourself have no say in what they call themelves people with your mentality are not contributing to an encyclopaedia like wiki its best you leave take that tone elsewhere and go do something else with your life.Taurusik (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Additions to articleEdit

I am enrolled in a college course on Women's History in America and would like to add to the article aspects of the Irish female immigrant experience that are not currently mentioned. I would like to do the following:

Edit the "Mid-19th century and later" section:

Clarify that Irish males entered jobs in "canal building, lumbering, and civil construction"; Further explain the effects of the Great Irish Famine on the family structure; Rearrange some of the paragraphs to make the article flow more smoothly; Explain where Irish immigrants settled and why; Explain what jobs female immigrants assumed and why; Distinguish the Irish immigration from others because of the large number of female immigrants; Describe Irish women's lives in America (mostly concerning family and employment)

Edit the "Occupations" section:

Describe the conditions of immigrant women in the United States; Explain the types of work that single Irish women did and why (advantages and disadvantages of each); Emphasize the large number of Irish women involved in domestic work;

Suggest that "Police" and "Teachers" be subsections of "Occupations"

Supplement the "Teachers" section:

Note when the prevalence of Irish females in teaching increased and why; Give an example of this upward trend; Delete some current wording that is unclear

Add a section on "Nuns" under "Occupations":

Explain why sisterhoods were appealing to Irish immigrants; List where Irish-dominated sisterhoods were located; Mention how nuns helped fellow Irish women; Mention the role of nuns in schools

Supplement the "Stereotypes" section:

Explain the differences between stereotypes of Irish males and those of Irish females; Explain the stereotypes specific to Irish women

I have citations for all of my work. I hope to upload these changes later this week. Thank you. Gogirl14 (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to edit the article with pertinant material and appropriate citations. Bear in mind that your edits will be subject to the future edits of others. Eastcote (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Mid-19th century and laterEdit

I removed this, not because I think it's untrue (I do [and it's unsourced], but that's beside the point), but because it is confusingly written. It reads as if the migrant Catholic Irish were 35% to 45% of each decade's immigrants. It should be rewritten to exclude religion, Duh:

The migrant Irish, two-thirds of whom were Catholic[citation needed], comprised 35% -45% of each decade's immigrants in 1820–60, but only 12.5% of arrivals in the 1880s and just 3.9% in 1901–10.[citation needed] Few Irish came after 1930, despite having a generous quota under the National Origins Act.[citation needed] From 1820 to 1991, the US received 4,729,741 Irish, a number exceeded only by English, German, Italian, and Mexican immigration[citation needed].

Also removed inappropriate references to Canada. This is not an article about Irish emigration, and it's not an article about immigrants to North America. References to Canada are best put in the Irish Canadian article. --AntigrandiosËTalk 01:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Captain AmericaEdit

How did we all miss Captain America? Be the hokey, it's Red Skull—Ker-pow. I'm adding "Category:Fictional American people of Irish descent" to the cats; hundreds on that list.Red Hurley (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The picture of JFK in a motorcade is not in Dublin, but in CorkEdit

It on on Saint Patrick's Street, Cork, not in Dublin.

This is the main street in Cork. The main street in Dublin is O' Connell Street, and the 2nd main street is Grattan Street, the photo is from neither of these.

You can look at google maps if you want to, see the bend of the street behind the motorcade? I don't know how to edit the name... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcfb111 (talkcontribs) 14:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

How Irish do you have to be to be an Irish American?Edit

It is widely agreed that, to be an Irish American, you need not be FULLY Irish, only partly. Therefore you can be, for example, both English-American AND Irish-American, or Native American AND Irish American. In this sense, what is the cut-off point for being classed as an Irish American, or not? Why, for example, is Barack Obama not a notable Irish American? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it goes on what your primary ethnic origin is – clearly BO is of other ancestries before being Irish, whereas, say, Mickey Rourke is mostly Irish. JonC 22:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just wondering what the technicalities of it were. I couldn't help but look at the picture of notable Irish Americans and think that there should be some non-purely white people in there, e.g. mixed race people with lots of Irish in them. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't imagine many non-white people identifying as being Irish first and foremost, just as I'm not sure what non-whites could go in the English American page, for example. If you can find some, though, crack on. JonC 22:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
So are you now saying that it's what you identify as, and not what you actually are, that matters? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in the US, I think it's primarily what you personally identify with. I've known people who were primary Greek or Polish who identified as Irish Americans, even though their name might be Levchevsky. Eastcote (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
How can Mickey Rourke's primary ethnic origin be defined as "mostly Irish"? He was born in America to a mother of French descent and a father of Irish descent (I don't know if his parents were actually born in Ireland and France). His primary ethnic origin is white European, which potentially covers every country in Europe. It doesn't tie him to any European country in particular. If Rourke himself chooses to identify himself as Irish that's his prerogative, but it doesn't actually make him genuinely Irish - he was born and brought up in a very different culture to that of Ireland. I suspect that he chooses to identify himself as Irish for the same reason as so many other self-proclaimed "Irish Americans", i.e. in the USA, there's a strange sort of cachet attached to claiming Irishness, even if you've never set foot in the country and know little more of its history and culture than is provided by various Hollywood movies. 91.73.102.106 (talk)
If you google the subject, the predominent "definition", so to speak, is "any American with Irish ancestry." So Obama qualifies. That doesn't mean he chooses to make a big thing over it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If you need to ask, chances are probably pretty good that you're not a paddy. Erikeltic (Talk) 21:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess Paul Ryan qualifies.Red Hurley (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Other additionsEdit

Some others who definitely qualify - Rosemary Clooney, George Clooney, Mel Gibson, Rosie O'Donnell, Kurt Cobain, John McEnroe, Kathy Bates, Billy the Kid, Lara Flynn Boyle, Mariah Carey, Jeff Buckley, Harry Connick, Jr., Lindsay Lohan, Fergie (singer), Tim McGraw, Duff McKagan, Mandy Moore, Brittany Murphy, Willie Nelson, Ed O'Neill, Jimmy Fallon, Michael Collins (astronaut), John Cusack, Ann Cusack, Joan Cusack, Chris Cornell, Billy Corgan, Brian Dennehy, Patrick Dempsey, Dana Delany, Martin Sheen, Charlie Sheen, Patrick Duffy, Rose McGowan, Mark O'Meara, John Daly, Ryan O'Neal, Aidan Quinn, Mickey Spillane.

Any objections to me adding these in the appropriate sections? AnCionnach (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen? As in, Carlos Estevez? Jon C. 09:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I could have included Emilio too, but I think I subconsciously shied away from such a thoroughly non-Irish name. But Grandma Sheen was from Tipperary, and Martin regularly espouses his Irishness in the media over here. AnCionnach (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I think adding a couple of relevant EXAMPLES is appropriate, but the article does not need to contain an exhaustive list of every "Irish-American" celeb we can track down. Eastcote (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Reconsideration of the discrimination sectionEdit

Should we include something about the verity of some of the discrimination section? For example, here we read of the stereotypes of Irish alcoholism (totally true), historical political corruption (true), violent gang/mob activity (utterly true-- only outdone by Italians and blacks, though the Italians are at least sophisticated about it).

I don't go around nattering on about being an "Irish-American" but as a person of the same ancestral descent, and with a love of the traditions and heroes of the peoples of that great island, I find this self pity infantile and contrived. As if we're blacks having to call ourselves "African-Americans" to feel special about ourselves. It's crass garbage for shamrock tattoo-wearing twits who can't help to read history or learn their ancestral tongue without sucking down a glass of Guinness at a celebration for the British St. Patrick. Let us be done with this puerile leprechaun-colored excrement and point out the truth of slum-life in America by Irish immigrants who dealt with poverty in the same way most other ethnic groups do: violence, crime and the drink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlennBecksiPod (talkcontribs) 05:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:American sportspeople of Irish descentEdit

Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

RedirectEdit

Currently, If one types Irish-American (with hyphen!) into the wikipedia search box, it redirects to this article. That shouldn't happen as the spelling with hyphen denotes someone holding dual citizenship of both the Republic of Ireland and of the United States of America, in contrary to the spelling without a hyphen which is describes in this article and denotes an American citizen with Irish ancestry. When written in text both parts of Irish-American link to the pages of the respective countries involved. Tvx1 (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I think, for the moment, perhaps a partial solution would be to include a sentence or two describing this subtle difference in usage within the current article. We would need to find a reliable reference of course. At first glance, the various online dictionaries do not seem to be very helpful, as they muddy the distinction, unfortunately. I wonder if there's a legal definition to be found somewhere, perhaps in the CFR or US immigration policy documents?? jxm (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I doubt you will find a reliable source that makes this distinction. Using Tvx1's definitions, I am an Irish American, and my wife is an Irish-American. Hardly a difference recognizable by, or relevant to, most people. As far as I know, to the US Government, if you hold American citizenship, you are an American. There's no hyphenation involved. Hyphenations or non-hyphenations are matters of usage that are personal choice. Eastcote (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Since this is not a vocabulary issue, I doubt we will find our answer in a dictionary. Furthermore, dictionaries rarely contain the meanings of combinations of adjectives and nouns, let alone the meaning of hyphenated combinations of two nouns with separate meanings. What we are looking for is found in any grammar book from a primary schooler. Specifically in the parts dealing with the use and meaning of a hyphen and with the use of an adjective. Lastly this is not a situation exclusive to the combination of Irish and American, but to any combination of nationalities. Any form American with foreign ancestry is written in the same manner as Irish American. E.G. African American, British American, Chinese American, Dutch American, German American, Indian American, Italian American, Japanese American, Mexican American, Russian American, South African American, Ukrainian American, Vietnamese American and many, many more. In all of them the foreign ancestry is an adjective to American. By contrast, any description of a multiple citizenship is described by combining the different citizenships with a hyphen. E.G. Brazilian-American, French-German, German-Finnish or even Congolese-Burundese-Rwandese-Belgian and many, many, many more. The use of a hyphen is not, by any means a matter of personal choice. It's a matter of a basic grammar rule of the English language which is taught from primary school. Unfortunately, a lot of people ignore the rules all together. Tvx1 (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
....not to mention people who ignore the rules altogether! :-) jxm (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we can add some more general statement about the term Irish-American meaning that it pertains to both countries, as in Irish-American relations. The problem with being specific about actual citizenship is that doesn't necessarily describe the situation of people from Northern Ireland, who may qualify as both British and Irish, or for that matter dual citizenship holders prior to 1922. jxm (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's summarize the content here. Tvx1 has made the claim that Irish-American refers to 'someone holding dual citizenship of both the Republic of Ireland and of the United States of America' while Irish American refers to 'an American citizen with Irish ancestry.' Jxm seems to agree with this definition, while Eastcote stated that the difference is minimal. As far as I can see, MOS:HYPHEN does not cover this usage of hyphens, and I can find no reliable sources covering this difference. I'll put in a section at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I personally believe that the difference is negligible unless there are sources documenting the difference, or MOS differentiates it. KJ click here 23:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

MOS:HYPHEN isn't entirely silent on the subject. It states that "hyphens are never inserted into proper-name-based compounds". Irish American (i.e. Americans of Irish descent) is, I believe, a proper-name-based compound and therefore should never be hyphenated. When used to denote dual citizenship, I think the case is less clear. Grammar Book advises to "hyphenate between two or more adjectives when they come before a noun and act as a single idea", but I don't think Irish and American act as a single idea. The same sources advises one to "to use a comma, not a hyphen, between two adjectives when you could have used and between them", but "Bill is an Irish, American writer" feels very awkward. Pburka (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Fowler may also come to our rescue as a citation. In item 7 under Hyphens, it refers to "...the sense of to or and or with as in London-Birmingham motorway..." (FWIW, I find this to be all very fascinating, and I promise not to mention French-Canadian!! :-) jxm (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
That example would actually require an endash (London–Birmingham motorway), not a hyphen (London-Birmingham motorway) under Wikipedia's MOS. sroc 💬 00:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
MOS:ENDASH says:
In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between

Here the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements. The components may be nouns, adjectives, verbs, or any other independent part of speech. Often if the components are reversed there would be little change of meaning.

[...]

  • Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; "Franco" is a combining form, not independent; use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry
  • France–Britain rivalry;   French–British rivalry

[...]

  • an Italian–Swiss border crossing; but an Italian-Swiss newspaper for Italian-speaking Swiss
  • Japanese–American trade; but a family of Japanese-American traders (or a family of Japanese Americans)
  • the Uganda–Tanzania War;   the Roman–Syrian War;   the east–west runway;   the Lincoln–Douglas debates;   a carbon–carbon bond
It appears that the distinction is that a hyphen is used when used as an adjective (Japanese-American traders) but not as a noun (Japanese Americans). It does not appear to be a distinction between people with dual nationality and people from one nation who live in another. sroc 💬 23:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

──── Since this related to a style issue, I have mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Hyphens for dual nationality which may generate further discussion from others interested in the use of hyphens in this context. sroc 💬 01:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Population of Irish AmericansEdit

The source of the 2008 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau that provides the number of Irish Americans is no longer valid. One other thing, several other reliable sources confirm that the population of Irish Americans is really 34 million, not 36 (more recent sources, too). Sources are here (2014), here (2012) and here (2012). Would these count as reliable, and should the number be updated? Thanks.

McCann27 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I just updated to the 2013 American Community Survey data. Remember that the numbers are estimates (but the margin of error at the national level is only 127,000 out of 33 million). Also note that the numbers are self-reported: it's what the respondent claims to be. No DNA testing is required. --Ken Gallager (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Will FerrellEdit

He only has a small fraction of Irish ancestry, at best. See this. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The infobox images are getting ridiculousEdit

I don't think it's necessary to have 42 people pictured in the infobox and I really don't think that we should include people with only the smallest trace of Irish ancestry, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Barack Obama (who are clearly ethnically African American, not Irish American). If King and Obama are Irish American, then every single person in America whose ancestors have been here since the 19th century are Irish American. I'm not trying to create any difficult standards that someone has to meet in order to be considered Irish American, but it doesn't make any sense to include people who have far more non-Irish ancestry than Irish ancestry, do not consider themselves Irish American, and have no knowledge if Irish culture. --64.132.0.201 (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The Irish are basically black anyway. Joking aside, most Americans are mixed and the term "African American" encompasses all the descendants of slaves who are of various mixed groups. Why can't black people be Irish?96.241.72.141 (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If all you got out of what I said is that black people can't be Irish, then you obviously didn't read it thoroughly. I'm not against including black people in the infobox, I'm against including people who have hardly any Irish ancestry and do not consider themselves Irish American. I would be against including certain white people for the same reason. Maybe if King and Obama had an Irish parent or even grandparent and considered themselves Irish American, then it would be a different story. --64.132.0.200 (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Irish have a deep love for anyone with even the smallest fraction of irish blood. While Martin Luther King and Barack Obama May not have a whole ton of irish in them, it still makes me proud to say that the leader of the civil rights movement was an irish American like me. It even says that an irish American is ANY American that can trace some of their ancestry to Ireland, making Martin Luther King and Barack Obama Irish Americans. User: USA23 (talk)USA23USA23 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Your point being? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Regions with significant populationsEdit

The northeast isn't the only part of the US with a significant Irish population. The American South has a very large irish population. I've lived here in Georgia my whole life and I have visited many southern cities and see vibrant irish communities everywhere. The stats even say so. You can look up many southern cities on Citydata.com and other sites. You will find out that there is a very prevalent irish population in the south. In the article about the Southern United States, it says that there are 12,000,000 irish people in the south(more than 1/4 of the total Irish American population). User:USA23

Why is Rihanna Featured?Edit

I understand that she has partial Irish descent through her father, but she only has a small percentage of Irish heritage and she's not American (although she does reside in the US most of the year) either by birth or citizenship. Therefore, it seems like a poor choice to include her. Aoa8212 (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

She has irish on both sides, (her mothers is very distant) but her father is very irish. Hell, she's more irish than will ferrell lol and she resides in New York for the most part. Barbados and many carribean are quite literally a race of black irish people. Rihanna is a direct descendant of irish and African slaves. User: USA23 (talk)USA23USA23 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not denying that she has some Irish ancestry, but residing part time in the US (she still maintains residence part time in Barbados) without acquiring American citizenship does not make one American. If I moved to China, that wouldn't make me Chinese. If there were an Irish Barbadian category, she'd be a good fit for that, but not for Irish American. If she actually acquired American citizenship that would make a stronger case, although still not what you might call a textbook example. Aoa8212 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Who Keeps Deleting Half the Pictures?Edit

Who keeps deleting all the pictures? I fixed and added many of them, however. USER: USA23 (talk)USA23USA23 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

How Scotch-Irish identifyEdit

I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but I think that the recent contributions I have made here should stay, so I'm reverting them back. If anyone disagrees, then we can talk this out here and come to some sort of understanding. The books I've given on the Scots-Irish do state that most identify as Irish or American. Whether more identify as American than Irish is beside the point, because more identify as Irish rather than Scotch-Irish. Look at the demographics of Mississippi, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky---all areas with heavy Scots- Irish settlement, yet there are much more self-identified Irish in these areas than Scotch Irish. Kinfoll77 (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a better compromise on interpretation of the sources would be to make a distinction between how the descendants of the Scotch-Irish self-identify their "ethnicity", and what they claim as their "ancestry". It has been noted for a long time (see "The Southern Highlander and His Homeland" from the early 20th century) that many of the settlers in the southern uplands simply do not known where their ancestors came from 300 years ago. Many have surnames that could be English, Irish, Scottish, etc., and many of these people also have German or French Huguenot roots. Checking the "ancestry" block in the census or a survey is often just a guess. Ask any of them what they identify as (as opposed to what they claim their ancestry to be) and they will mainly say "American". As the Langan article says, “For Protestants, however, being Irish is a link back to ‘Scotch-Irish’ roots that go back to the 1700′s [sic]. It is an ethnicity associated with individualism, evangelicalism, and determination. 'Claiming an Irish identity today is a way for Protestant Americans to associate themselves with the values of the American Revolution, or, if you will, is a way of using ethnicity to be American,' Carroll concluded.” Eastcote (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Updating the numbersEdit

At this point (2014) it seems worthwhile to update the reported numbers of Irish Americans nationwide. The newest available figures from the Census are the American Community Survey numbers from 2013. These numbers have a margin of error of 127,000, meaning the drop of over 1 million from the 2010 census to 2013 is statistically valid. The methodology (self-reporting) is the same between 2010 and 2013, the only difference is the sample size. I can't think of a reason to preserve the 2010 figures in the infobox; can anyone enlighten me? --Ken Gallager (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

How on Earth has the Irish American population declined by 1,000,000 in 4 years? Just out of curiosity. Definately more than one in ten Americans is Irish, and almost all references say that the Irish American population is give or take within the 35,000,000-40,000,000 range. --Chicago1997 (talk)

Scotch-Irish, not Scots-Irish, but a slippery subject whatever you call it. As an Irish-American, whose father came here from Scotland, I can tell you I do not identify at all with these people, these "Scotch Irish." They don't belong to us. They are a people disowned by England (which was Elizabeth's point in chasing them off the island and tagging them with a new name - the Scotch-Irish - completing the separation from their homeland and the cultural/psychological work of disowning them). No longer English (or Irish, Pictish, Scottish, Cornish or Welsh), herded into Ulster to hold it for the Royals against the native Irish, despised on both islands, the Scotch-Irish are neither Irish nor Scottish, not by blood; they are a vat of all the unwanted grapes of Britain shipped to Ireland for a sordid purpose and thence to Appalachia, Missouri and Oklahoma. In America, they're embraced in the history books and the radio stations and whenever there's a war to fight. But drive through Oklahoma, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, anywhere the Scotch-Irish are, and tell me if you see signs of a love affair with these people. Well.... there's a sort of one, it turns out, and in a lot of places you can hear it more than see it. And like a lot of love affairs, or maybe like all of them, this one is really complicated. And interesting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.10.40 (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Irish Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

(Ten) Stages of Irish-American HistoryEdit

I came up with the 10 stages of what it meant to be Irish in America, from a despised underclass compared to Blacks, Jews and other racial, ethnic, religious or sectarian groups in American society, to one group who has blended in, succeeded, socially accepted and are respected, esp after the presidential election and assassination of John F Kennedy (his term 1961-63). In the 2010s/21st century/new millennia, Americans value diversity and tolerance of all people, but it wasn't always been this way.

  • 1765-90: The Irish became viewed as heroic for their patriotism, the Irish objected to being ruled by the King of England, and Anglo-Americans started to reject inherited anti-Irish sentiment, official freedom of religion granted to Catholics.
  • 1790-1815: Irish Protestants further integrated or assimilated into the Anglo-American majority, but Irish Catholics were a diaspora with a strong ethnic identity, which increased for the next century, even is strong all the way to the 1960s.
  • 1815-40: Irish Catholics began to adopt "Scotch-Irish", which meant they were Protestant or Scottish descent (they were Ulster Scots in the USA), but this is due to anti-Irish sentiment and anti-Catholicism in 19th century American life.
  • 1840-65: Generally hated, disliked and discriminated by the Anglo-American majority, in part due to high Irish immigration fleeing the Great Potato Famine in Ireland. "NINA" or "No Irish Need Apply" signs were common in employment practices.
  • 1865-90: The Irish minority after the "uniting" Civil war, known to participate as "Whites" in anti-Black racist violence, ironically, the Irish lived in close proximity to Blacks in early America, even the Anglos called them "Lighter Negroes".
  • 1890-1915: Irish-American participation in politics, as the most involved ethnic group minority, and not surprisingly, the majority were Democrat or progressive, when many Irish were lower-income, blue-collar and not widely integrated in society.
  • 1915-40: Anglo-American society divided on whether the Irish are loyal or not to the country (Irish opposition to the US alliance with the UK during WW1, when Ireland was in rebellion and in 1919, Ireland declared independence from Britain).
  • 1940-65: The Irish were widely accepted, esp. after the Great Depression (1930s) and World War II (1941-45), they became virtually "White" and that generation was much more Americanized, plus lower prejudice and less ethnic discrimination.
  • 1965-90: More interest and vocal opinions of being "ethnic", yet Anglo-Americans stereotyped working-class Irish as racists against African-Americans, when Blacks moved into formerly "ethnic" neighborhoods in Northern/East Coast major cities.
  • Current (1990-2015): Anglo-Americans view the Irish as ideal integrated Whites or assimilated Americans, more conservative Republican, an increase of Evangelical Protestants, and the tension over Northern Ireland subsided in the Irish community.
  • In 2016 going to 2017, the Irish are a commonality not a novelty among Americans, but looking back 250 years in the time line, the Irish struggled to become a more accepted and respected part of the country, esp. the Anglo-Protestant majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.89.214 (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Irish Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Irish Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitions of whiteness in the United StatesEdit

There is no currently no text on the subject of Irish-Americans in the article - though the Irish were widely classed as "not white" during the 19th Century - and subject-matter experts are needed. Coretheapple (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Irish Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Irish Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop the Sectarian Edits in the Religion SectionEdit

In the first sentence of the religion section, a sly attempt was made to switch the minority religious affiliation with the majority so that the article would promote the fake claim that Irish Americans are mostly Catholic. This claim was unsourced, it is untrue, and I would advise whoever did it not to do it again.

I switched it back so that it properly reads "Protestant majority with a Catholic minority." If called for I can cite this:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-obama-s-offaly-roots-help-shatter-irish-american-myths-1.913550

this:

https://religionnews.com/2014/03/17/irish-americans-religion-politics/

or this:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rac.2006.16.1.25?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Bill Clinton's irish heritageEdit

Bill Clintons irish heritage is verified: "President Clinton’s paternal grandmother was Lou Birchie Ayers (the daughter of Simpson Green “Dick” Ayers and Hattie Hayes). Lou was born in Mississippi. Simpson was the son of Asa Ayres, who was born in Ireland, and of Olivia/Olive Vessells. Hattie was possibly the daughter of William Andrew Hayes and Elizabeth Carolin." --Lord vom Ork (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Consensus ProposalEdit

At least one of Jajhill's edits needs to be reverted, but it occurred in a paragraph that's already been heavily edited, so I am coming here to look for consensus. I would also like to reach an agreement that the restored information be protected, short of a compelling reason to have it removed.

The opening paragraph in the body of this article used to read this way,

"Half of the Irish immigrants in the Colonial Era came from the Irish province of Ulster while the other half came from the other three provinces of Ireland (Leinster, Munster and Connacht).[11] There is no way to determine how many of these early settlers were of native Irish ancestry or descend from the Ulster plantation. Historiographer Michael J. O'Brien examined many of the muster rolls from the Revolutionary War and found mostly quintessential native Irish surnames and possible Anglicized Irish surnames, he estimated that some 38% of those in the revolutionary army were Irish.[12] Most descendants of the Protestant Irish today identify their ancestry as simply "American" or "Irish,"[13][14] they were descendants of native Irish, Scottish, and English."

The information written of above is factual, even in tone, and it was sourced. On Dec 10, Jajhill strolled up and took out practically the entire paragraph, replacing it with an awkward revision that reads more like commentary on Northern Irish sectarian tensions than the opener to an encyclopedia article on Irish Americans,

"Half of the Irish immigrants in the colonial era came from the Irish province of Ulster while the other half came from the other three provinces of Ireland (Leinster, Munster, and Connacht).[11] While scholarly estimates vary, the most common approximation is that 250,000 migrated to the United States between 1717 and 1775.[12] By 1790, approximately 400,000 people of Irish birth or ancestry lived in the United States,[11] and by 1800, they accounted for one-sixth of the population of the country.[13] These early immigrants were overwhelmingly members of the Protestant minority in Ireland who descended from Scottish and English colonists and colonial administrators who had settled the Plantations of Ireland, the largest of which was the Plantation of Ulster.[14] In Ireland, they are referred to as the Ulster Scots and the Anglo-Irish respectively (and as the Ulster Protestants collectively), but they almost never intermarried with the native Irish Catholic population,[15][16] who in turn almost never converted to Protestant churches during the Reformation.[17](For that matter, intermarriage between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland has remained rare into the 21st century and remains highly stigmatized due to the Troubles and the dissident Irish Republican campaign that has followed them.)[18][19]"

Jajhill can't remove sourced information with a simple note that says "historically inaccurate". The information wasn't historically imprecise, and more importantly, the editor of the original paragraph, unlike Jajhill, didn't make a positive claim about the 'real' ethnic origins of early American settlers from Ireland in such a way as to restrict their ancestries to one or two particular groups. It is extremely difficult for the genealogist or scholar to come by evidence to conclude on these matters; prior to 1820, ship captains weren't required by law to submit passenger lists to authorities, so researchers who are looking to develop ethnic histories of early settlers often have to rely on proxies -- such as court records of naturalization and militia muster rolls -- and then use the surnames they find as rough indicators for ancestral origins (which is also problematic). What is significant about A Hidden Phase of American History (the original source for the original paragraph) is that the researcher actually pursued hundreds of newspaper articles, court records, and Revolutionary War rolls, and found a preponderance of traditional Irish names therein. This differs dramatically from the usual scholarly treatment of this subject, which fundamentally relies on previous written accounts. There is no serious justification for removing this material.

A Hidden Phase of American History was accompanied by hundreds of other articles of the same focus, published in The Journal of the American Irish Historical Society. Recent scholarship by Michael P. Carroll referenced this research and expanded on it in Chapter One of American Catholics in the Protestant Imagination,

https://books.google.com/books?id=PQh3pTgmRJ8C&pg=PA1975&lpg=PA1975&dq=american+catholics+in+the+protestant+imagination+how+the+irish+became+protestant+in+america&source=bl&ots=raVoSJfY3S&sig=kySMlr3YLBSAjtLtepQuqNLlqVg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjBgfncz5vfAhVi9YMKHZPiD-0Q6AEwB3oECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=american%20catholics%20in%20the%20protestant%20imagination%20how%20the%20irish%20became%20protestant%20in%20america&f=false


The largest of the many problems in Jajhill's edit is that most of his sources rely on testimony regarding sectarian restrictions on intermarriage in Northern Ireland and the fact that the Reformation never commanded a notable influence on the indigenous Irish population... He also states that scholars generally agree with the position that most 18th Century Irish Catholics converted to Protestantism once in the colonies, and that they would've expressed no reservations in doing so; there was no deliberate effort to link Irish nationalism to Catholicism until the 19th Century, he argues, so that most 18th Century Irish Catholics adhered to a superficial faith tradition that they weren't terribly wedded to. In other words, the better part of the argument I am supporting is related to the process of assimilation in colonial America, not obstacles to cultural cohesion in Ireland itself, regardless of how prominent or not these barriers may have been during the 1700s.

There seems to be agreement here that 18th Century immigration from Ireland was split between migrants from Ulster and those from the Southern provinces. There are nine counties that make up Ulster, three of which are now in the ROI. These three counties -- Cavan, Monaghan, and Donegal -- were not significantly planted with Scottish and English settlers, and it is a reasonable likelihood that most migrants from these areas were natives. In other words, even among the Ulster half of the colonial migration waves, not all of them descended from Plantation Scots. We then have the other half that came out of Southern Ireland.

If you're experiencing doubts over the veracity of the claims made in A Hidden Phase of American History and How the Irish Became Protestant in America, you could always use your own eyes and see for yourself. Check the National Archives of Revolutionary War rolls,

https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=4282

Type in random Irish surnames and see what records are returned. I've been doing this a while and thus far can't find any Irish names that aren't represented in the rolls. Typing in traditional Irish names like Cullen, Murphy, and Kelly not only return a great many records, but many of these records list the colony of Virginia next to the name. This is significant because Virginia banned Catholics from military service, so these soldiers were undoubtedly Protestants.

There are only three explanations for all of these Irish names in the colonial record. The first is that they were 'really' English and Scots who changed their names. This is of course preposterous, as they would've had no incentive to Gaelicize their names, and besides this, the opposing argument insists on strict cultural divisions in Ireland. The second possibility is that there was far more intermarriage than is otherwise claimed, and the third is that these soldiers were simply descendants of the native Irish. In all probability, it was likely a little of the second scenario and a lot of the third.

Now, I do not know if National Archives are a reliable source for Wikipedia, and more importantly, I am not insisting on the inclusion of original research. My purpose for bringing this up is to demonstrate the reliability of the original reference that supported the pre-edited paragraph, and to assert that Jajhill had no business removing it.

I would advise we revert Jajhill's edit, polish up the original paragraph and support it further with more reliable sources. The net effect of Jajhill's revision was the erasure of an entire class of early Irish colonial settlers, and there is no justifiable reason for presenting the information in this manner.Jonathan f1 (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Support I support the Jonathan f1 proposal. Rjensen (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Most of the references cited were already included in the Irish Americans, Scotch-Irish Americans, Protestantism in Ireland, and History of the Catholic Church in the United States articles with direct quotations added. I cannot possibly see how or why anyone could possibly dispute General Social Survey data from the NORC at the University of Chicago in the Carroll quote, the data from the State Archives of North Carolina in the Blethen & Wood quote, much less the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups data. It may seem like a commentary on Northern Ireland, but the reality is that most of the Irish in that time period in the United States were not Catholic, as most people (English, Scots, Dutch, Germans, or African Americans) living in the Thirteen Colonies weren't. "The net effect of Jajhill's revision was the erasure of an entire class of early Irish colonial settlers, and there is no justifiable reason for presenting the information in this manner." This is an unfair accusation. The section of the article still retains an image of Charles Carroll and notes that he was Catholic. It also notes that there was a population of Catholics in Maryland and Pennsylvania and provides statistics to indicate where the historic migration patterns occurred. It does nothing to remove the history of early Irish Catholic colonial settlers, just providing nuance to indicate where and how prevalent Irish Catholic migration to the United States was in the colonial period.
"The largest of the many problems in Jajhill's edit is that most of his sources rely on testimony regarding sectarian restrictions on intermarriage in Northern Ireland and the fact that the Reformation never commanded a notable influence on the indigenous Irish population." This is despicably dishonest. The section quotes historian Sean Duffy in The Concise History of Ireland, "...the Irish saw the Protestant Reformation as just an instrument of military conquest and forced Anglicisation... [because of this] the numbers of Roman Catholics remained high [during Queen Elizabeth's reign] and they were zealously ministered to by a plentiful supply of Continentally-trained priests, among whom the Jesuits were predominant: the latter were so successful in performing their task that by the end of Elizabeth's reign they had won the hearts-and-minds battle among the populace, as regards the choice between Catholicism and Protestantism... [By] 1603... it was too late and the Protestant Reformation had failed in Ireland." Also, despite the article citing multiple sources written about the pre-20th century history of Ulster that do not contain statistics, no alternative sources have been provided indicating that the "testimony" was false or a mischaracterization of historic intermarriage patterns in Ireland. However, the source in the article that does cite Irish census statistics from 1911 indicate that the historic patterns of intermarriage between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland was in the early 20th century and the article section links to an article section about contemporary intermarriage in Northern Ireland indicating that intermarriage between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland has remained rare into 21st century.
Nowhere in that section of the article does it say anything remotely like "scholars generally agree with the position that most 18th Century Irish Catholics converted to Protestantism once in the colonies, and that they would've expressed no reservations in doing so; there was no deliberate effort to link Irish nationalism to Catholicism until the 19th Century, he argues, so that most 18th Century Irish Catholics adhered to a superficial faith tradition that they weren't terribly wedded to" because none of the quotations in the references indicate that and seems oddly reminiscent of the Irish slaves myth. (As noted in the Duffy quotation, Irish Catholics generally did not convert to Protestantism while in Ireland during the Reformation. It seems strange that in Ireland, where Irish Catholics resisted forced conversions for centuries that once they came to the United States, they didn't resist conversion.)
Reread Carroll's article/book chapter, as per the previous editor's comments, and here is what Carroll actually states about Michael O'Brien's A Hidden Phase of American History: "O'Brien... searched through a wide range of documents—newspaper accounts of passenger ships from Irish ports disembarking in America; muster rolls; early accounts of settlement in Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere; and so on—in an effort to show that Irish Catholics had been more numerous in the colonial period than previously acknowledged... O'Brien's... argument is now generally rejected, mainly because much of the evidence he presented in support of a large Irish Catholic presence in the colonial period rests upon dubious assumptions linking particular surnames to a Catholic background." (Carroll 2006 p. 28) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
"Does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic." The topic of this article are people who self-identify as Irish Americans. Most people who self-identify as Irish Americans also self-identify as Protestant. "The information wasn't historically imprecise, and more importantly, the editor of the original paragraph, unlike Jajhill, didn't make a positive claim about the 'real' ethnic origins of early American settlers from Ireland in such a way as to restrict their ancestries to one or two particular groups." This is what the article said at one point: "There is no way to determine how many of these early settlers were of native Irish ancestry or descend from the Ulster plantation"; and "Most descendants of the Protestant Irish today identify their ancestry as simply "American" or "Irish",[12][13] they were descendants of Native Irish, Scottish and English... However religious numbers should be noted in context that at this period of time the Roman Catholic religion was proscribed and discouraged and that many Protestants are descendants of Catholics by logical definition." The first quotation added no information to the article and had no citation to verify its claim, and the latter was trivially true, historically imprecise, and misleading. The article makes no claim about the "'real' ethnic origins" (whatever that means) of people who claim Irish ancestry in the United States and also self-identify as Protestants.
What it does do is trace out where Protestants and Catholics settled in the United States (the latter almost exclusively in Maryland and Pennsylvania because of religious toleration laws), as well as historic interfaith and interethnic marriage patterns in both Ireland and the United States, and until and unless someone can provide positive evidence (besides anecdotes) that a statistically significant subset of Irish Americans who self-identify as Protestants descend from forced Irish Catholic converts in the colonial period did not just migrate to Maryland and Pennsylvania as per the sources (which as noted above, historiographers have historically attempted to do and failed), and/or that Protestants and Catholics did intermarry in Ireland and United States at a far greater degree than depicted in the article section's academic citations, I do not believe that the population of Irish Americans who self-identify as Protestant should be characterized as being descended from the Irish Catholic population, because while there are anecdotal examples of conversions by Catholics in Ireland and the United States to Protestant churches and of intermarriage between Protestants and Catholics in the United States and Ireland, these were historically rare.
To be unambiguous, I am not saying that this never occurred, just that no positive evidence from a reliable source about how prevalent it was has been provided, and considering the research cited by various historians, it is only trivially true that some Irish Americans who self-identify as Protestants descended from Irish Catholics. And speaking as an American who descends from both Irish Catholics and Ulster Scots, I am sick of seeing the history of my ancestors being selectively used for propagandistic purposes on this website, which reverting the article back to before the Jajhill edits would effectively be doing as it would remove all of the historical nuance provided in the current revision. - CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
CommonKnowledgeCreator, I'm afraid your passion for this subject exceeds your understanding. I would ask that you defer to contemporary research into this topic, starting with the work of Kerby Miller, who is by all hands considered a leading expert on Irish immigration history.
The whole point of Carroll's chapter (which I read twice, by the way) was that Michael O's main thesis in A Hidden Phase is generally accepted by modern historians. And his main thesis was that, in the 18th Century, Irish ethnicity was influenced more by the Enlightenment values of equality and brotherhood than by ethnoreligious sectarianism. This is in serious conflict with the changes made by your editing buddy Jajhill.
"and seems oddly reminiscent of the Irish slaves myth"
Oh really? Well take it up with Carroll. In How the Irish Became Protestant in America, Michael P. Carroll wrote, "Indeed, over the past few decades several lines of research have converged to suggest, as O’Brien claimed, that prior to the Famine Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants were not nearly as different in terms of their cultural beliefs and behaviors as they would later become in the popular imagination." He goes on to say, "Although there was a time when scholars quite matter-of-factly took the tie between Catholicism and Irish nationalism to be centuries old (see, for example, Shannon 1960), it is now generally recognized that the tight link that now exists between Catholicism and Irish nationalism was forged in the early nineteenth century and grew stronger as that century progressed (Maume 1998)." And then, "Not only did outsiders blend all the Irish into a single category; so did the Irish themselves." And finally, "However, much evidence suggests that during this period [the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries], “Irish” ethnic identity was much more varied, flexible, and inclusive than it would later become, and the social and political issues that engaged the attention of Irish emigrants … often transcended the religious divisions that later became so prominent."
The line you quoted had nothing to do with anything in my post, and it seems obvious to me that you're either misinterpreting what Carroll wrote or you're guilty of your own charge and haven't read the whole chapter. The part of A Hidden Phase that's been rejected was Michael O's attempt to link particular surnames of Gaelic and Norman-Irish origin to the Catholic religion. But Carroll did not say that these conspicuously Irish names aren't ubiquitous in the colonial records, nor did he say or even insinuate that it wasn't common for the colonial Catholic Irish to convert to Protestantism in the New World. He in fact argues just that: "These early Irish Catholics abandoned their faith, in other words, because they were little attached to official Catholicism, because they did not have access to priests and the institutional structures that might have nurtured their faith, and because of others’ hostility toward Catholicism. Since O’Brien’s time, that story has been repeated, almost word for word, by many other commentators (see, for example, Akenson 1993, 244–246; Byron 1999, 51–52; Doyle 1981, 69–70; Greeley 1988; McCaffrey 1997, 64; McWhiney 1988, 6–7; Miller 1985, 147; K. Miller 2000, 140)."
What I wrote was a summing-up of information in your own reliable source, so I am failing to understand how this is 'reminiscent of the Irish slaves myth'.
Another thing that's been removed from this section is every mention of 17th Century Irish immigration. Five years ago there was a passage that read,
"According to the Dictionary of American History, approximately "50,000 to 100,000 Irishmen, over 75 percent of them Catholic, came to the United States in the 1600s"
And it's now vanished, and not for lack of sourcing. In Irish Immigrants in the Land of Canaan (Kerby Miller, Arnold Schrier, Bruce Boling, David Doyle), page 39 does indeed make mention of this,
"In the seventeenth century, southern Irish Catholics probably constituted a large majority of the relatively few emigrants from Ireland, perhaps 30,000 to 50,000 in all"
The range of 50-100k in the original passage is almost certainly too high, but there is no justification for the removal of all 17th Century immigration history from the colonial section.
"I am sick of seeing the history of my ancestors being selectively used for propagandistic purposes on this website,"
Look, it's obvious that there're a handful or two of 'Scots-Irish' enthusiasts who routinely manipulate these articles with selective sourcing for "propaganda" purposes. I couldn't care less if there were 10 Irish Catholics in colonial America and 200,000 Protestants or 200,000 Catholics and 10 Protestants; my aim is to clean up these American ethnicity pages which are currently pitiful excuses for encyclopedia entries. When you read an encyclopedia it's supposed to sound like it was written by the same person, even when it was a concerted effort of 20. But this page reads like an uncoordinated effort of 20-30 people, and this history section in particular is marred by conflicting information (ie the first line says that half of colonial emigrants came from Southern Ireland, and then your buddy Jajhill claims it was mostly Ulster migrants -- which is it?)
For more reading on the "Scotch-Irish myth", you can check out Miller's work here,


https://books.google.com/books?id=p07s4oueaPMC&pg=PA75&dq=Kerby+A.+Miller&as_brr=3&cd=7#v=onepage&q=Kerby%20A.%20Miller&f=false

Compare this passage to Jajhill's edit:
"Despite penal laws that mandated sharp legal distinctions, the actual ethnoreligious boundaries between Irish Protestants and Catholics, both in Ireland and the American colonies, were much more flexible and permeable than they later became, as evidenced, for example, by the presence and intermarriage with Ulster Protestant settlers of a significant minority of "native" or Irish Catholic immigrants in the Shenandoah Valley and elsewhere in 18th Century America."
And you can read about it here as well,

http://downloadbooks.live/pdf/20427084/books-s1s11956484s-1ss2s3efeed6es-2s

I'll leave it here and let other editors weigh in.Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jonathan f1: "The whole point of Carroll's chapter (which I read twice, by the way) was that Michael O's main thesis in A Hidden Phase is generally accepted by modern historians. And his main thesis was that, in the 18th Century, Irish ethnicity was influenced more by the Enlightenment values of equality and brotherhood than by ethnoreligious sectarianism." Your characterization of Carroll's chapter is misleading. Carroll's chapter is about why most Americans who self-identify as being of Irish ancestry also self-identify as Protestant (hence its title "How the Irish Became Protestant in America"), which is why the fact that O'Brien's first argument is rejected by most historians, about the size of the Irish Catholic migration to the United States in the colonial period, is the more important point from a demographic point of view about the population of Americans who self-identify as being of Irish ancestry than O’Brien’s second argument about cultural similarities between Irish Protestants and Catholics in the Thirteen Colonies. I never disputed what you or Carroll said about cultural similarities between Irish Catholics and Protestants, nor did I dispute that conversion to Protestant churches by some percentage of the minority of the Irish Catholic immigrants to the colonial United States is accepted by most historians.
What I disputed was the characterization of the American population that self-identifies as being of Irish ancestry and also as being Protestant as being either primarily or substantially descended from Irish Catholics based upon historical accounts and historical data available on rates of intermarriage by Irish Catholics with Ulster Protestants in both the United States and Ireland or conversion by Irish Catholics to Protestant churches in both the United States and Ireland because the text of the article at one point stated that "Most descendants of the Protestant Irish today identify their ancestry as simply 'American' or 'Irish',[12][13] they were descendants of Native Irish, Scottish and English... However religious numbers should be noted in context that at this period of time the Roman Catholic religion was proscribed and discouraged and that many Protestants are descendants of Catholics by logical definition." Such a characterization gives the reader the impression that the Protestants in Ireland and their descendants in the United States descended equally from Irish Catholics, Scots, and English, which by all of the historical accounts and data cited in the current article is false.
Additionally, both of the sources you have cited for 17th century Irish immigration to the Thirteen Colonies are in fact overestimates (which I presume is why the reference you say that was included in the article several years ago was removed). According to U.S. Census Bureau data, the population of the Thirteen Colonies by 1690 was approximately 210,000, with the racial composition approximately 193,000 White (92 percent) and approximately 17,000 Black (8 percent). (p. 1168) According to the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, 90 percent of the U.S. population in 1690 was English (approximately 189,000), leaving the remaining 2 percent (approximately 4,000) for all other European ancestries in the Thirteen Colonies (which would also include people of Dutch, French, German, and Scottish ancestry). (Erickson) By 1700, the population of the Thirteen Colonies increased to approximately 251,000, with the white population increasing to approximately 223,000 (89 percent) and the black population to 28,000 (11 percent). From 1690 to 1700, the percentage of the U.S. population of English ancestry declined to 80 percent (or approximately 201,000), while 4 percent of the population was Dutch (approximately 10,000) and 3 percent of the population was Scottish (approximately 7,000), once again leaving 2 percent (approximately 5,000) for all other European ancestries, (p. 99) which cannot be attributed entirely to Irish immigration from this period because the Thirteen Colonies were also experiencing immigration from England and Germany during the 17th century. (Conzen)
@Jonathan f1: Also, just checked Miller et. al in Irish Immigrants in the Land of Canaan (2003). You left an important detail out of your quotation: "In the seventeenth century, southern Irish Catholics probably constituted a large majority of the relatively few emigrants from Ireland, perhaps 30,000–50,000 in all, who crossed the Atlantic and settled primarily in the West Indies and Chesapeake." (p. 39) In other words, the 30,000-50,000 figure you cited is for emigrants from Ireland to the New World as a whole in the 17th century, not the Thirteen Colonies in particular. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
To reiterate, I am not disputing that there is a minority among the American population that self-identifies as being of Irish ancestry and also as being Protestant that descends from Irish Catholics, but it is not that substantial statistically and should be characterized as such. You have now provided me with the anecdotal information and references to do so which will further nuance the article. Thank you. However, I do not understand why you would not just make such edits yourself, which is why reverting the article to the version prior to the Jajhill edits is unnecessary and the justifications for doing so baseless. (As for my comments about the Irish slaves myth, I struck them through as an apology, which if you did not interpret them that way, is what I intended). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Erickson, Charlotte J. (1980). "English". In Thernstrom, Stephan (ed.). Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. Harvard University Press. p. 323. ISBN 978-0674375123.
  • Conzen, Kathleen Neils (1980). "Germans". In Thernstrom, Stephan (ed.). Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. Harvard University Press. p. 407. ISBN 978-0674375123.

Flawed conclusion?Edit

The following quote appears in the article, and I have made bold the conclusion.

"consistent majorities or pluralities of Americans who self-identify as being of Irish ancestry as also self-identifying as being Protestant, and thus are actually Scotch-Irish."

Personally, I feel this conclusion doesn't logically follow. A Scotch-Irish person isn't simply a protestant of Irish descent. While it's likely that a significant part of these protestant Irish-Americans actually are of Scotch-Irish descent. It is also quite possible that most of them are descended from peoples who converted after immigrating. Additionally, the two sources used to back up this claim aren't exactly strong. The first one simply lists a definition of what Scotch-Irish descent means. The latter seems to make the conclusion that all protestants of Irish descent must be Scotch-Irish, but without any basis. --2600:6C40:6B80:245:1C98:D7AA:32CF:63C (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It's almost impossible trying to talk sense with the "Scotch-Irish" fan club. They consistently cherry pick sources, manipulate content, and make baseless claims in articles. The whole purpose of that line you quoted was to boost (artificially) the number of Scotch-Irish Americans, which appears to be their sole objective in editing this page. The editors doing this need to be blocked from this article.
Anyway, there are a number of problems with this assumption. The first problem is that not all Irish Protestants are located in regions where the Scotch-Irish settled. It is true that the overwhelming majority of Irish Americans in the South are Protestant, but it is also true that Irish Catholics only have a slight lead over the Protestants in the non-South; in fact, they are almost evenly split in non-Southern regions. Here is the data from Michael P. Carroll's How the Irish Became Protestant in America, which is being used as a reliable source for this article, particularly on the subject of religion.
South: 73% Protestant, 19% Catholic
Non-South: 39% Protestant, 45% Catholic
A massive 73% of Irish Americans in the South claim a Protestant religious background. But here's the thing: that's a percentage of the number of people who claim Irish ancestry in the South, and Irish ancestry is not a major ethnicity down there, not to mention the South as a whole is sparsely populated compared to the Northeast. The vast majority of Irish Americans are concentrated in the Northeast, so out of the sample used in this survey, that 73% actually translates to 388 people while the 39% in non-Southern regions translates to 375 people. So we're talking about a measly 13 person difference here.
In addition, if these percentages actually hold, it is conceivable and probable that the number of Irish Protestants in the non-South, despite being less than non-South Catholics in percentage terms, is actually greater than that of Southern Irish Protestants. So if we're using regions to determine ancestry then it can't be true that 'all' Irish Protestants in America are 'Scotch-Irish' descendants -- this claim is positively false on this basis alone.
Just imagine a simple scenario where there are 300 Irish Americans in the country, and 200 of them are in the North and 100 in the South. The entire Northern population descends from Irish Catholics, but 90 of them converted to Protestantism. That makes the North 45% Protestant and 55% Catholic. In the South, there are 75 Protestants descended from Scotch-Irish and 25 Irish Catholics. The South is 75% Protestant and 25% Catholic. Now we have a similar situation as above:
North: 45% Protestant, 55% Catholic
South: 75% Protestant, 25% Catholic
Total: 55% Protestant, 45% Catholic
Now clearly Protestants are 45% in the North vs 75% in the South, but that 45% translates to 90 Irish American Protestants in the North vs. 75 in the South. And further, of the 300 Irish Americans in the example, 225 of them are descended from Irish Catholics and only 75 from Scotch-Irish (75% vs 25%)
What these Scotch-Irish editors try to do in a situation like this is, they'll take the 55% figure for the Protestants, claim all of these Protestants are Scotch-Irish descendants, and voila -- you have a Scotch-Irish majority.
But of course using regions to determine ancestry is another problem. You would have to imagine that, in the last 170 years or so, no Irish Catholics migrated to the South, intermarried with Protestants, or simply changed religions. If anyone has hard evidence that this is the case, by all means cite. But for now this strikes me as a fantasyland scenario.
I fully support removing this bit from the article.Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It does appear to be a pretty silly statement and the sources don't appear to explicitly support it. Beach drifter (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Why the presumption that Protestant practice today indicates Scotch Irish/Ulster origins 300 years ago?Edit

The lede includes

"In contrast to Ireland, surveys since the 1970s have shown consistent majorities or pluralities of Americans who self-identify as being of Irish ancestry as also self-identifying as being Protestant,[8][9] and are actually mostly Scotch-Irish,[10][11] the American descendants of the Ulster Protestants (mostly Ulster Scots) who emigrated from Ireland to the United States beginning in the 18th century.[12][13]"

Apologies if this was already covered in previous threads, and I tried wading through the cited material but it did not seem to support the conclusion. It seems more likely that in a nation that always was and remains today a society with an enormous Protestant majority, that over centuries families with Catholic origins would by necessity have to convert to Protestantism in order to marry or, even more likely, Catholics who intermarried with Protestants raised their children in the predominant faith in the society - Protestantism - which relegated their descendants to that faith to the current day. Of course there would be many exceptions, particularly in insular communities where Catholics were a majority or at least a large minority, but in the broader society it would be the minority faith that would likely conform, not the other way around. Therefore, there is no basis to assume modern Americans who identify as Irish origin being of the subset of Scotch Irish merely by their current religious practice.--Shoreranger (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shoreranger: The preceding two sections cover much of this. "It seems more likely that in a nation that always was and remains today a society with an enormous Protestant majority, that over centuries families with Catholic origins would by necessity have to convert to Protestantism in order to marry or, even more likely, Catholics who intermarried with Protestants raised their children in the predominant faith in the society - Protestantism - which relegated their descendants to that faith to the current day." Why does it seem likely at all that Irish Catholics would necessarily have had to convert to Protestant denominations in order to get married?
Seven of the Thirteen Colonies (Virginia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, South Carolina, Georgia) enacted laws prohibiting settlement by Catholics of any national background and only four had no laws excluding Catholics from the right to freedom of religion, and because of this, the Catholic population in the Thirteen Colonies almost exclusively settled in Maryland and Pennsylvania (two of the colonies that had enacted religious toleration laws). More importantly, the Catholic population of the Thirteen Colonies probably did not exceed 1 percent of the population by the time of the American Revolutionary War and the majority of the Catholic population in the Thirteen Colonies came from countries other than Ireland, so even though some percentage of the 20,000 pre-1800 Irish Catholic population converted to Protestant churches, it was minute as compared with the mass migration of 230,000 Protestants from Ireland from 1717 to 1775 and the 500,000 Protestants from Ireland from 1814 to 1845 (in addition to their descendants).
Also, why does it seem more likely that Catholics who intermarried with Protestants raised their children as Protestants? As per Book IV, Part I, Title VII, Chapter VI of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, interfaith marriages by Catholics to non-Catholic Christians are prohibited without express dispensation by a competent authority (e.g. a local ordinary) and cannot be granted unless "the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church." This is why the assumption that it is more likely that Catholics who intermarried with Protestants historically raised their children as Protestants is not well-founded; if anything, the opposite is more likely (i.e. that children from historical Catholic-Protestant intermarriages probably remained Catholic).
However, the larger issue is that Catholic-Protestant intermarriages were not particularly common in either the United States or Ireland until well into the 20th century (and it remains uncommon in the parts of Ireland where the Protestant population was historically and currently is concentrated i.e. Ulster). While in Ireland this can be attributed to the history of religious sectarianism and the explicit ban of Catholic-Protestant intermarriages by the Penal Laws, in the United States this is due more to the absence of residential proximity of Irish Catholics and Ulster Protestants to each other due to their historic migration patterns once in the United States. While the Ulster Protestants arrived in port cities such as Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, they largely moved to the frontier regions of the United States after arriving and while the United States expanded westward, while the Irish Catholics generally remained in the port cities and their surrounding metropolitan areas). Additionally, the large-scale migrations of Ulster Protestants and Irish Catholics to the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries did not occur simultaneously, and immigration from Ireland to the Thirteen Colonies was minimal until the 18th century. This all amounts to why it is in fact probable that most Americans who self-identify as being of Irish ancestry and who self-identify as Protestant are actually mostly Scotch-Irish. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I think there are facts being applied incorrectly here.
"Seven of the Thirteen Colonies (Virginia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, South Carolina, Georgia) enacted laws prohibiting settlement by Catholics of any national background and only four had no laws excluding Catholics from the right to freedom of religion, and because of this, the Catholic population in the Thirteen Colonies almost exclusively settled in Maryland and Pennsylvania (two of the colonies that had enacted religious toleration laws)." There are a few presumptions about presumptions here. For one thing, it presumes that immigrants who were baptized as Catholics wanted or expected to practice their religion in their new location, and there is no evidence for that. There were no parishes and no clergy in the colonies without religious tolerance laws, so whether baptized Catholics wanted to or not they couldn't practice their faith in any formal fashion, so of course all of the *practicing" Catholics are in the colonies with religious tolerance laws, there is no way to account for any other kind anywhere else.
"...so even though some percentage of the 20,000 pre-1800 Irish Catholic population converted to Protestant churches, it was minute as compared with the mass migration of 230,000 Protestants from Ireland from 1717 to 1775 and the 500,000 Protestants from Ireland from 1814 to 1845 (in addition to their descendants)." The use of the term "converted" may be problematic here, and I apologize if it was I who instigated the confusion when I dashed off my post. "Converted" implies some sort of formal denial of one faith in favor of accepting through some process another faith - this is not what I was suggesting. Rather, in the absence of opportunity to practice the Catholic faith, if they even wanted to, Catholics (or those who might be able to claim to be Catholics by birth but not practice) were not identifiable as such, and by virtue of being on the relative edge of civilization Protestant authorities, if they were even involved in the marriage process of any given union, didn't or couldn't verify the religious bona fides of a potential Catholic anyway. Couples just got married in most instances in most communities in the colonies. If there was no reason to suspect someone of "papism" then there was no reason to prohibit a marriage, and if there were no opportunities for public demonstrations of faith in most colonies - even if Catholics by birth wanted to - then there was no real reason to suspect Catholic heritage in most colonies. Even if Catholics by birth didn't "convert" to Protestantism they were still marrying into Protestant families who didn't know of didn't care about any Catholic heritage of the spouse, without any formal conversion process because they were presumed Protestant or no one cared.
"Also, why does it seem more likely that Catholics who intermarried with Protestants raised their children as Protestants?" Simply put, as per the preceding, we are talking about Catholics by birth who lived and worked in colonies where they had no opportunity to practice Catholicism, and they likely didn't care or didn't want to. They married Protestants and their children were not raised Catholic.
"As per Book IV, Part I, Title VII, Chapter VI of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, interfaith marriages by Catholics to non-Catholic Christians are prohibited without express dispensation by a competent authority (e.g. a local ordinary) and cannot be granted unless "the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church." This is why the assumption that it is more likely that Catholics who intermarried with Protestants historically raised their children as Protestants is not well-founded; if anything, the opposite is more likely (i.e. that children from historical Catholic-Protestant intermarriages probably remained Catholic)." That's all well and good, if we are talking about practicing Catholics, which we established was an effective impossibility in most colonies anyway. The "Catholic party" is not going to declare anything, because they likely don't want to be identified as a Catholic, if they ever did. In the colonies it would be hard to prove or disprove either way, and by the second generation of an immigrant family with no opportunity to practice their faith even if the parents wanted to, the children are Americans with no exposure to Catholic community and have assimilated into mainstream culture, likely including attending Protestant services and for all intents and purposes are Protestant despite the faith of their forbears.
"However, the larger issue is that Catholic-Protestant intermarriages were not particularly common in either the United States or Ireland until well into the 20th century (and it remains uncommon in the parts of Ireland where the Protestant population was historically and currently is concentrated i.e. Ulster). While in Ireland this can be attributed to the history of religious sectarianism and the explicit ban of Catholic-Protestant intermarriages by the Penal Laws, in the United States this is due more to the absence of residential proximity of Irish Catholics and Ulster Protestants to each other due to their historic migration patterns once in the United States." Let's accept all this as true, it still doesn't mean that Irish with Catholic heritage of some kind aren't marrying Protestants in large numbers, it only makes a case that they weren't marrying Irish Protestants, which is not really the point. The point is that the pool of potential marriage partners for Irish immigrants with Catholic heritage and their progeny was largely made up of Protestants, if there is no *requirement* that the Catholic heritage was professed or discoverable, and there is good reason to believe that - *especially* in order to marry - in many cases those who could be considered Catholic despite no ability to practice their faith in the colonies or even lack of any interest in maintaining their faith or Catholic identity simply just married Protestants.
In all, by virtue of geometrical growth, while the number of 18th Irish immigrants from the southern three provinces of Ireland may have been small compared to the numbers in the 19th century, just by virtue of the extra increase time they have reproduced to create a significant portion of those who can claim Irish heritage in the United States, as can all those who immigrated from Ulster in the 18th century. At any rate, current profession of Protestant faith in the US in no way precludes heritage from the southern three provinces of Ireland, based on anything I have seen here. Shoreranger (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Irish Americans" page.