Talk:Irish Americans/Archive 4

Religion in lead
Why is this factoid in the lede para.?:

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

This has no context with the rest of the para., and I think should be moved. To the casual reader it is confusing. I think I know what the author was getting at, but there needs to be a lot of build-up to this fact for it to really mean anything useful to an unfamiliar reader, and the proper place to do that is not in the lede. Shoreranger (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * good point about the need for context, so I added context. Religion has been perhaps the simgle most important factor in shaping the Irish American identity--more than language, for example, or customs or famous leaders. Rjensen (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better, but I still contend the issue is too nuanced to be introduced there. If religion does, indeed, play such a huge role than it should receive much more attention in the body of the article itself - with additional sources.  As it stands now the religion section is only about twice as long as what is in the lede, and mostly just reiterates it.  Nevertheless, I just took the time to read that source, and found it facinating.  Of particular interest was the following, particularly in light of other recent discussions here: "Nevertheless, without denying that educated Irish Catholics and/or the Scotch-Irish generally were distinctive in many ways, the evidence gathered by Eid, Doyle, Akenson, and others...lends support to what I take to be Michael O'Brien's underlying point: we cannot let the differences that did exist between different groups of Irish obscure the fact that, on a number of important dimensions, the Irish in America--of all backgrounds-were quite similar. This, I might add, is precisely the conclusion that now informs the work of scholars such as Kerby Miller." Shoreranger (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * good point and I will get to work expanding the religion section. There's lots of material on Catholics and much less on Presbysterians. Rjensen (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The source cited claims as much - and I have no reason to doubt it - but the reasons for such disparity should probably be noted in the expanded section. As well as discussion of other relevent religious groups, such as Anglicans/Episcopalians, Methodists, and Baptists.  It's not either/or when it comes to Irish Americans, and other denominations are deserving of mention in the article, if we are going down this road. Shoreranger (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely need to include all Americans of Irish origin in the article, of whatever religion, but let's be fair to all and keep it neutral. And where there is a separate article for a group, as with the Scotch-Irish discussed above, let's not have that information take over this article as well. Most Americans define Irish-American as Catholic, and there is good reason for that belief, as most of those who actively identify as Irish-American are probably Catholic. Most of the "Irish" reported as Baptist or Methodist are in all likelihood Scotch-Irish from the southern states, and they probably "reckon" they're Irish when asked by a census taker, but don't really know for sure. Most of them certainly don't identify as Irish-American from what I glean from the general scholarship on the subject (and what I know of my own kin). If anything they identify with the Scots - note the popularity of the Grandfather Mountain Highland games, and the prominence Jim Webb gives to kilts, tartans and Braveheart in his somewhat unscholarly book on the Scotch-Irish. I think rather than being in the lead, religion should be addressed in the "religion" section, as I do not think it is the single most important factor in shaping the Irish-American identity. Factors of language, economics, and history played a huge role, with religion right alongside. But it is the Irish part of them that makes them Irish-American, not the Catholic or Protestant part. Eastcote (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest the solution is to discuss people/groups when they did consider themselves Irish/Scotch-Irish. In response to Eastcote, I suggest religion is very important--much more so than language (which is English for 99%). "Economics" (that is jobs) are covered but the Irish are not especially distinct in that regard in the last 50 years. Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In Ireland, the majority are Catholic. So the question is, in America are there more Irish Protestants than Irish Catholics?  And what set of statistics is being relied on to determine that?  Are the stats from the U.S. Census being used or is it just a reckoning by some writer? Malke 2010  23:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The data comes from Andrew Greeley's analysis of NORC public opinion polls, which are widely used in sociology without much controversy.


 * Responses people give to public opinion polls are probably not very accurate for people whose families have been in this country for 300 years or more. They just don't know where they came from, and they have to GUESS.  I would trust ethnographers' analyses based on settlement patterns, folkways, etc., as a better source.  Eastcote (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * poll responses tell us how people identify themselves today, which is what we're interested in. Historians of course also use historic settlement patterns-- by 1920, for example, historians and geographers had made elaborate maps of ethnic and religious groups by location, using censuses and local records.Rjensen (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Polls rely on responses to specific questions. The results can be misinterpreted.  Asking "In what country did your ancestors originate?", will get you probably very different answers than asking "Do you identify as American, Irish-American, Polish-American, etc."?  To the first one, my own people would answer, "Don't really know, Ireland or England maybe?"  To the second they'd say "American", unhyphenated, as just a simple fact.
 * Using poll results that ask respondents, especially those whose families have been here 3 centuries, to provide a national origin, rather than an ethnic identity, will cant the interpretation away from those who actively identify as Irish-Americans, which the Scotch-Irish generally do not. That the descendents of the "Scotch-Irish" really were clueless about their origins was well-documented nearly a hundred years ago.  John Campbell writes in his 1921 The Southern Highlander and his Homeland, "Inquiries...as to family history and racial stock rarely bring a more definite answer than that grandparents or great-grandparents came from North Carolina or Virginia, occasionally from Pennsylvania, and that they 'reckon' their folks were 'English', 'Scotch', or 'Irish', any of which designations may mean Scotch-Irish."  And Casey and Lee lament in Making the Irish American, about the difficulty writers on Irish America have in reaching out to include the Scotch-Irish in a story of shared Irishness with their Irish Catholic former compatriots, especially when the Scotch-Irish generally aren't even aware of their Irish origins:  "After all, it is hard to kiss and make up if the estranged partner has vanished, or even mutated -- and even harder if they had no recollection of ever having been a partner in the first place!"
 * Being a hyphenated American is a matter of self-identification. Being of a particular descent is an accident of birth.  I think placing emphasis on the "Protestant majority" among "Irish Americans" does a disservice to the Scotch-Irish, who do not identify as Irish-Americans (and they are the principal ones we're talking about in that Protestant majority), as well as a disservice to Irish Catholic Americans, who most certainly do identify with the label Irish American, who are the group most other Americans would identify as Irish Americans, and who yet become relegated to minority status in their own grouping.  Eastcote (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There really is a large literature on the subject by experts, which would repay some study. Start with the Greeley books. It's not our job to invent identities for people. NORC asked people and xxxx said both "Irish" and "Protestant" while xx said "Irish" "Catholic." Only people who said "I am Irish" are counted as Irish by NORC--what better measure of self identity can one want? Year after year NORC got the same 2-1 result. It's true that the Catholics get far more media attention--they live in New York and other big cities where the media are, not in rural Alabama. Their politicians--like the Kennedys--get lots of attention, and people ASSUME they're very numerous. It's also true that lots of people say "I'm just an American". They are not included in the NORC data as Irish. for a guide to the issue see Hout, & Goldstein, How 4.5 Million Irish Immigrants became 40 Million Irish Americans: Demographic And Subjective Aspects of the Ethnic Composition of White Americans Rjensen (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Whatever about religions, you might like to reflect that without the 1500s colonisation of America there would have been no "Irish diaspora". Our population was about 500,000 and up in the late middle ages. Then the potato arrives around 1600 and the population hits 5m in 1800, and 8m by the 1840s famine. An American food had a lot to do with the Irish part of the American population; firstly causing an undue demand for farmland, with high rents, leading to political troubles, and then too many people who had to emigrate.Red Hurley (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * yes there are more Protestant Irish in the US --Hout explains this in detail. The Prots came earlier (pre 1800) and became farmers with very large families. The Catholics came later (after 1840) and had smaller families. The Irish comprised about 1/6 of the Catholics in the 1970s, and a smaller proportion today, and there are about 70 million Catholics in US today (that gives about 11 million or fewer irish Catholics out of 37 million in all, or about 1/3. The latest data from 1990s gives 36%. Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


 * I just came across this: . The source is several books (listed at the end of the article.)  These look interesting.  I'll check Google books for them.  I'll look for other sources, as well. Malke 2010  05:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The solution is to retitle the article "Irish Catholics in the United States." Note that the lede strongly emphasizes the 36 million numers--only a third of whom are Catholics. More to the point, no reliable source in recent decades limits the "Irish Americans" to the Catholics only. An article on "Irish Americans" according to Wikipedia rules must be based on reliable sources, not the personal opinions of a couple editors. Rjensen (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The editors here are questioning the source of the statistics you want to insert in the lead, and are also questioning the need for those figures in the lead. Malke 2010 17:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already cited Haut and Greeley who give exact percentages see Hout. Greeley said in several place: "However improbable, it is still the case that more Americans are Irish

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


 * This article is about Irish Americans. It's not about Irish Catholics versus Irish Protestants.  I don't understand why you seem so determined to make Irish Catholics appear to be a minority?  Why single out Catholics?  What's the percentage in that?  Why would you want to continue a religious controversy that has killed more people in Ireland than any disease?  Let's give it a rest.  There is no need to delineate religion here.  Focus more on the culture and much, much less on the religion.  The article should focus on Irish Americans and their contributions to America, their achievements, etc.   It is very much a WP:BLP in that regard and the rules that apply to BLP should be kept in mind here. Malke 2010  20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "focus on their culture" Malke says. Yes indeed, and there is not much doubt about the central elements of that culture = religion. As one leading historian said, "The Catholic religion has been a major component of the culture of the American Irish....Catholicism was important in defining the Irish community, keeping it cohesive, and making the Irish distinctive." William Shannon, The American Irish (1966) p xiv. Wiki is not allowed to deny what the experts emphasize. Rjensen (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised to hear that there are supposedly more Irish protestants in the USA than Irish Catholics - especially as Catholics are known for producing large families. Is that stat for real? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * yes that's for real. The Catholics in the USA were city people and the Protestants were farmers; farmers have far more children. INSIDE a city like Boston, the married Irish had larger families than non-Catholics-- but many Irish never married (for example all the priests and sisters). Most of the scholars mention that is a very widely held fallacy that there are more Irish Catholics than Irish Protestants. The Catholics are in big cities and highly visible especially in politics, while the Irish Prots. are in the rural south with much less media attention. Rjensen (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * There seems to be a bit of POV-pushing going on with a particular religious bias. This has now begun to spill over into the Scotch-Irish article with much of the same info being added in, particularly relating to Catholic/Protestant conflict.  I recommend, Rjensen, that you cease and desist until consensus is reached on the information you are trying to add.  Eastcote (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * what happened is that lots of Protestant arrived about 1700-1770 and became farmers and had very large families that spread across the South. The Catholics arrived 100 years later and many were unmarried (those that did marry did have large families compared to other city people, but not so large compared to farm people.) White farm women in the South had about twice as many babies as white urban women in the North. Here some data (number of children age 0 to 4 per 1000 white women age 15-44) from 1910: Massachusetts --urban and lots of Irish--had 376 kids / 1000 women; Rhode Island had 390, Connect. had 405; meanwhile rural North Carolina (lots of Prot. Irish) had 716 kids/1000 white women, Georgia had 727, and Alabama had 749. [source: Okun, Trends in Birth Rates (1958) p 67 and 78] Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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

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

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


 * Welcome back IP, and oddly enough I find myself agreeing with you. I think. There's POV-pushing going on that is making the whole article hinge on religion. Eastcote (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Yes, Welcome back IP. We wondered where you'd gone.  I agree with you and Eastcote.  There's a religion element being put forth here that's not healthy for the article. Malke 2010  21:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the difference is that my edits all have citations to reliable sources. The critics seem to rely on emotion and memory of something they heard somewhere.Rjensen (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


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

Here's a good one!

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


 * Rjensen, I think much of the resistance you are getting is because you are running through this article (and now the Scotch-Irish article as well) like a bull in a china shop, making major changes to every part of the article, without consensus from other editors, who have voiced their objections. If you have new content, let's discuss it before any more changes.  You now have an audience.  Eastcote (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and not hearing what we're saying. We want the religious references to stop and the article to be more about Irish culture and the Irishmen themselves and what they brought here.  And that would apply to the Scotch Irish article, as well.  It had been reading so well.  And remember, it wasn't only religion and the remnants of The Troubles that the Irish brought with them.  Look at the hundreds of Irishmen who joined the New York Fire Department.  What do they call each other?  Brother.  Why is that?  Because loyalty is an Irish trait, it's a clan trait, both Protestant and Catholic clans.  Do you think a Protestant fireman failed to pull a Catholic out of the pile on 9/ll?  The point is that editors have to work together.  We have to find more things to agree about than to disagree about. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  00:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * the culture is largely reliigion--as Professor Shannon has said. If you don't like religion ok--that's ok, just skip over those parts. However note that most all the experts pay a great deal of attention to religion. Wikipedia is eclectic and there is something for everybody. Meanwhile the critics need to do some reading  because they have a view of Irish American history gthat does not appear to be based on reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you from Ireland by chance? Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010 01:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In Ireland, if you spend all your time worrying about who is Catholic and who is Protestant, you won't get any living done. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010 01:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * for the record, all my grandparents were immigrants from Italy and Denmark. But I did attend an Irish American college (Notre Dame). Rjensen (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, a very fine Catholic university. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010 23:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Malke--A very fine university, CATHOLIC, founded I believe by a FRENCH priest....with a FOOTBALL team (et al) known as the Fighting IRISH. 173.76.208.66 (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello IP, yes it was the Holy Cross Brothers from France. Don't know how they ended up calling themselves The Fighting Irish, but it's working for them. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  17:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Catholicism, indeed Christianity is not indigenous to Ireland. The Irish were originally Druids. Perhaps that should be in the lead. There is a tendency for many non-Irish to equal Irishness with Catholicism; if the two were inseparable then why are Catholics referred to as Roman Catholics and not Maynooth Catholics?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. And now that you mention it, I thought about the Druids earlier, maybe they should get pride of place. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  18:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. BTW, this section is too long; one needs a pair of wellingtons to wade through all this text here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, then, lets start another section. Got to keep the water out of the Wellies. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  18:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of sweeping generalizations such as a "tendency for many non-Irish to equal Irishness with Catholicism..." That may be one's individual experience, but it's just that--oh and btw, from my experiences with the ones I've read about, known and met not a particular bad one--but that again is just MY experience. So, mentioning Druids etc. While it may indeed be an important component to Ireland/Irish people, I myself just don't see the connection to it in the Irish AMERICAN thesis but will roll with it if it's important to others. 173.76.208.66 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * good point about the Druids and this being the Irish American page. Also from now on start putting your edits in the section below.  This section is too big to navigate.  Thanks. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  19:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, druids might not have existed outside of mythology, there isn't any strong evidence for them (if they did, as with everything else in Ireland and Britain, it was imported from the Continent too). Christianity was embraced by the natives without any real bloodshed in the Early Middle Ages. Wide use of the phrase "Roman" Catholic is intelligently understood, a throw back to the Protestant Revolt, where for political reasons, persons attempted to try and minimalise the universal nature of the One True Church, founded by Jesus Christ, headed by the apostolic successor of St Peter (to whom Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven). For instance the clever ploy of calling an extention of secular government, invented by the Tudors "the Church of Ireland" and if you didn't attend its services, you supported "foreign" "Romanism". - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Religion in lead and throughout article
Several editors feel religion should not have a heavy emphasis in the article. I tend to agree. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010 19:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Italian-Americans are overwhemingly Catholic and that's not emphasied in their article. As an Irish-American who was raised Protestant, I just don't care for the presumption in America, that if you're Irish "then you gotta be Catholic, or else you aren't really Irish".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know this will sound very politically correct, but I think we should recognise and celebrate the differences between groups so each group's unique experiences and achievements can be acknowledged and given due weight. What I see in this article is an eclipsing of Irish Catholic Americans into a minority role as "Irish Americans", when to the person on the street that's who an Irish American is.  I don't think we can ignore that popular conception of the group.  Seems to me, though, that other groups of people who do not actively identify as Irish Americans are being pushed to the front here simply because their ancestors passed through Ireland way back when.
 * Religion can't be ignored in the discussion, because religion was a factor in Irish history, and religion was a factor in discrimination in the United States. To give less-than-due emphasis to religion is as wrong as giving too much emphasis.  I think the difficulty with the content is not the emphasis level, but the adversarial tone of the content:  "there's more of us than you", "we had more influence than you", "you weren't really discriminated against even though you whine about it".  We need to work on bringing the article back to a more neutral point of view.  Eastcote (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok JB-I believe you. But truthfully, and not really necessarily within the scope of working to improve this article, I am not really sure why that association seems to be so troubling to you! My my. Regardless, I am sadly and quite RATHER certain that whatever difficulty you believe you experienced, has hmmmm, let's just say quite possibly been experienced conversely by individuals within the OTHER party--and historically I would say that THAT is a DISTINCT possibility :) I do wonder how that palpable disdain could influence your objectivity here though. But THAT is enough of THAT from myself.  Whomever wrote just before EastCote above   N A I L E D  IT.   The "we were here first--we did this first--we did that THEY didn't--ascribed simply to "article integrity" which btw just happens to fall CLEARLY towards THAT writer's LINEAGE OR POV!!!!?? is fundamentally nonsensical and a totally FLAWED approach.  Malke--I noticed that you provided a link to an article--WITH SOURCES-- that indicated similar/SAME arrival times  etc. etc. for BOTH contituencies but--that was just quickly editorially tossed aside, and the exisiting content stands with directed by the aformentioned theme.

Yet again--this also lends to me to pinpoint the need- and I'm certain that it is getting painful to hear it at this point-that we/those with "personal opinions" or "lineage" geared in one direction should step outside of actual content submission....and let Malke run the content show173.76.208.66 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh... that was me who "NAILED IT" IP. I just had it broken into two paragraphs. Eastcote (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that and went back in to attribute it to you but, I thought it CAN'T BE??? For EastCote that seems to fly completely AGAINST your long held wishes??? 173.76.208.66 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, IP, y'see I'm not really a bad guy. I'm for fairness all around.  Eastcote (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Eastcote is quite a good fellow. And IP, it would be helpful to us if you would establish an account.  Among other things, it will give you a talk page where we can leave comments, etc.  And of course, if you like, you should feel free to email us at any time.  You can go to our pages and on the left there is an email link. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  23:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What I am trying to say is that while Catholicism was indeed a dominating feature in the lives of most Irish people (as I should know, having had a Catholic father, who passed on his Irish DNA to me but not religion), it is not indigenous to Ireland. Christianity, while it has shaped and defined European civilisation for the past 2,000 years is not indigenous to Europe as it derived from the Middle East. Is a German-American considered more German if he or she is a Lutheran? Or a Romanian-American less Romanian if he or she is Catholic rather than Orthodox? In the American south, there are Baptists with pre-Norman Irish surnames, and there are Irish-Catholic priests from Boston who bear Anglo-Saxon surnames. The first Irish US president was not John F. Kennedy, it was Andrew Jackson, who as the son of Irish immigrants was far more familiar with the Irish culture and traditions than Kennedy, who was thoroughly Americanised after so many separating generations. There was a bloody conflict in Northern Ireland over religion and nationality for 30 years, please don't bring it here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. No need for The Troubles here. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  18:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Religion was certainly important in the history of the Irish, but we don't want the article to read as if antagonism between two different religious philosophies was and is part of the Irish American reason for being. I don't think Andy Jackson woke up every morning and said, "It's a great day to be an Irish Protestant!"  It is far more important that Jackson was an American frontiersman, and fostered a very populist version of political thought, than that he was Irish of any particular religion.  Emphasizing Orange-and-Green religious riots and anti-Orange-or-Green organizations gives undue weight to localized conflicts.  Antagonism strictly between Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics should not be implied as a major factor in American history.  Anti-Catholicism was part of the discrimination Irish Catholics had to face in the United States, because Anti-Catholicism was an American thing, not just an Irish thing.  It is part of the Irish Catholic experience in America and that story needs to be told.  Even today, there are anti-Catholic organizations, but I don't know of any anti-Protestant ones.  But it's not an Orange against Green thing.  A Southern Baptist who dislikes Catholics doesn't dislike them because he has Irish Protestant ancestors.  He dislikes them because he is a Southern Baptist, and his dislike applies equally to Italian and Polish Catholics.  We sure don't need to make it appear as if inter-Irish sectarian conflict was or is a major feature of the American scene.  Eastcote (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well said. I agree.  And it is about Irish Americans and their experience here.  I've been doing some research online trying to find books that would be useful in add interesting bits.  I've got a few titles already and a couple of them are actually at my local library, so that will be helpful. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  18:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Eastcote has announced his polkitical agenda, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a summary of expert opinion, not personal opinions. As Shannon and many others have explained, religion is central to the culture. Fact is the tensions in ireland itslef were reflected inside the USA -- in the 1860s, for example, Irish Catholics supported the Fenians who attempted a military attack on Canada. Orange Protestants sprang up and the Green and the Irish fought it out on the streets of New York City. Experts call that important and it's covered in the main books.  So Wikipedia has to cover it. Rjensen (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Irish support for the Fenians says nothing about inter-Irish American sectarian conflict. New York City was not a major settling ground for the Scotch-Irish, who left Ireland before there were Orange organizations.  The Scotch-Irish were too busy stealing the west from Indians to care about Irish Catholics in New York.  I'd have to research it, but the NYC riot was probably between recent Irish immigrants, bringing their home conflict with them.  And while the NYC riot occured, what was it's impact in the overall picture?  Can you provide any instances of specifically inter-Irish conflict in Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas or any of the other areas where the vast majority of the "Protestant Irish" (i.e. Scotch-Irish) were most heavily settled?  (Generic anti-Catholic conflict doesn't count).  Remember, most Scotch-Irish were so intermarried with other groups by this time that Ireland didn't matter anymore.    Eastcote (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic-Protestant cooperation (another needed break).
I apologize for the history lesson, but the shotgun use of isolated negative references, while they may be "true", do not characterize three centuries of Irish relations in America. This requires some research-based at-length refutation. I'll rearrange some of this and build it into the article to restore a little balance.


 * The first "Orange riot" on record was in 1824, in Abingdon, NY, resulting from a 12th July march. Several Orangemen were arrested and found guilty of inciting the riot.  According to the State prosecutor in the court record, "the Orange celebration was until then unknown in the country".  The immigrants involved were admonished: "In the United States the oppressed of all nations find an asylum, and all that is asked in return is that they become law-abiding citizens.  Orangemen, Ribbonmen, and United Irishmen are alike unknown.  They are all entitled to protection by the laws of the country."


 * The later Orange riots of 1870 and 1871 killed nearly 70 people. They were fought out between Irish Protestant and Catholic immigrants.  After this the activities of the Orange Order (never a big feature in America) were banned.  The Order dissolved, and most members ended up joining Masonic Orders. After 1871, there were no more riots between Irish Catholics and Protestants.

Using events from a specific place and time, to broad-brush all Irish relations in America is silly. Note that the battling rioters in New York were immigrants, and once the new immigrants settled in, the Orange and Green antagonism subsided among succeeding generations. The Orange Order, whose marches were the cause of the riots, stood out because they were "unknown", and after the 1870s became virtually non-existent. The riots are history, but not materially significant in the overall picture. Walk out your door (if you're in the USA) and ask the first person you meet if they know what the Orange Order is, and see what kind of look you get. Citing isolated examples of Protestant-Catholic conflict ignores other isolated examples of Protestant-Catholic cooperation, such as politician Mike Walsh, son of an Irish Protestant veteran of the 1798 Irish Rebellion, who was a champion of working-class Irish in New York City, both Catholic and Protestant. Or Irish nationalist John Mitchel, son of a Presbyterian preacher, who lived in the United States during the Civil War period publishing several newspapers which advocated for the rights of all Irish of whatever religion. Or the joint Catholic-Protestant formation of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick in Philadelphia in 1771. Eastcote (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Eastcote has announced his intentions of whitewashing history and suppressing information--all in violation of Wkipedia's NPOV policies. The complaint is not what he's adding to the article but his efforts to erase, suppress and hide the truth, which experts have written about at length. Maybe he should read the excellent Encyclopeia of the Irish in Amderica, where he will find very little support for his personal interpetation of history. Fact is that relations between Prots and Cath were not hostile before about 1840s, then turned very sharply hostile for the rest of the 19th century; many scholars say that's because of what was happening in Ieland itself at the time.  History happens--people change --and scholars wrote about it. So by all means add info on Mike Walsh, on John Mitchel and on that clus in 1771. Just stop erasing solid material that fits Wikipedia guidelines. Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What's a "clus"? ....Wikipedia has a guideline concerning undue weight, which says, "An article's coverage of individual events or opinions involving its subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the topic."  It is true that some mice are bald, but to cite that truth in disproportionate measure to another truth, that most mice have nice heads of hair, gives an untrue picture of mice.  And that is against Wikipedia NPOV guidelines.   Eastcote (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Rjensen: I don't think Eastcote is attempting to whitewash anything. What editors here are saying is that the article needs balance.  Certainly, there are books and articles that hold very different views on history, and opposing views can be included, but they can't dominate the article, and they need to stay on topic.  This is the Irish in America.  And as Eastcote points out, a lot of this has melted into history.  The Orange Order is a great example.  Yes, in fact they did dissolve and enter the Masonic Order.  Just go look into the archives of the Philadelphia Inquirer or the Philadelphia Bulletin and you'll the Orangemen parades and everyone of them were members of the Masons and the Eastern Star.  But back to the point, the material needs to be balanced.  And so much emphasis on religion is really becoming over the top.  Editors here are making it plain they don't want such an emphasis.


 * And remember, talk page comments are about the contents and not about the editors, so please no more comments like the whitewashing bit. It's not helpful and it doesn't do anything to get others to see your POV.  It's better to stay focused on building consensus. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  00:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whitewashing is when someone erases good material because of his personal views. Should we call that "vandalism"? I'm saying it violated NPOV rules. The article is about history, so stuff that melts into history is what we want. Eastcote has repeatedly stated that he has a personal agenda to minimize conflict between Protestants and Irish. That will get you a Nobel Peace prize in modern Ireland but it will not let our readers know what actually happened.  The editors here all have to abide the Wikipedia NPOV rules. When there is a controversy it has to be reported. Rjensen (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't recall saying I had any kind of personal agenda. I don't want to minimize the conflict; I want it to be proportionate to its true place in history.  And what did I erase this time?  I've erased a few things here and there in many articles.  We all have.  I've had lots of my own edits erased.  That's what happens in Wikipedia.  If I want to get content back into an article over other editors' objections, I have to work with others to get some kind of consensus for it.  That rule also applies to you.  Eastcote (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Eastcote's own home page here on Wikipdedia which makes his strong personal views very clear. Rjensen (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh. If you can read an agenda into that, then I reckon you have pretty good vision.  It's more of a non-agenda statement.  I don't really have a dog in any fight between Irish Catholic and Protestant, and my statement says that.  I just hate to see unbalanced characterizations.  But enough about me...   You really should try this consensus-building thing.  It's kinda fun.  Eastcote (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I'll go for consensus. Let's have for starters that religion has always been very important to the Irish Americans. Rjensen (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems like a loaded statement. It's freedom of religion that's important.  The Irish have never used Catholicism or Protestantism as a bat to beat people.  It's a false notion that some great Catholic-Protestant divide exists in America.  It never did.  And newly arriving Irish immigrants met with the same fate as the Italians, the Jews, and now the Mexicans and other Hispanic groups.  I don't see anybody out throwing rocks because the Mexicans are Catholics, by and large.


 * Lots of false notions get started all the time. It depends on the agenda to be served.  For example, remember that Hitler was very big on rewriting history in an effort to claim that his so-called Aryan race was descended from Nordic origins, as in the Norse mythology.  Right now there seems also to be a push to co-opt the Celtic mythology by the remnants of the Ku Klux Klan, I believe in America they are called white supremacists.  I've read recently where that is the new agenda for that group.  I believe the Oklahoma bomber had similar beliefs. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  03:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

erasing good history
Before Malke erases good history he must explain exactly what issues he now has with the specific information. We cannot edit by wholesale erasing so let's try specific points. If a statement is "unbalanced" OK, we can deal with that and balance it. Which specific statemebnts are "unbalanced"? So let's start:
 * The growing division between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants has often noted by Irish historians, says Gleeson (2006). (ref)David T. Gleeson, "'Scotch Irish' and 'Real Irish' in the Nineteenth-century American South," New Hibernia Review 10.2 (2006) 68-91 (/ref). Malke erased that -- I jus t read the article and it is a very close paraphrase of what Gleeson says about Irish Americans. What is the problem here?
 * Historian Donald Akenson in Small Differences (1988) argued that the cultural differences between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants were not especially deep, but that they were indeed "sharp." Akenson contends that around 1820, Catholics and Protestants began to drift apart intellectually inside Ireland. The Protestant minority in Ireland began to feel alienated by the overt and robust Catholicism of their majority neighbors, who in turn had been inspired by the Catholic politician, Daniel O'Connell. Akenson points out that by about 1850 --due largely to the Famine and its interpretation as an act of British genocide—to use the term "Irish" when describing someone in Ireland automatically meant "Catholic." (ref) Donald Akenson, Small Differences: Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, 1815–1922 (1988), pp. 128-49 (/ref) I think that is aa reasonable summary of a reliable source on Ireland. Malke erased it without comment.  Rjensen (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your edit is a complete rewrite of that section toward the slant we've been discussing on the talk page. Your edit is a significant one and turns the wheel a bit farther than the editors here have agreed. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  03:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Malke has been on Wikipediia for one week and has made no substantive edits on any article, so his stance of policing good standards doesn't carry much weight. Try again on sentence #1 what exactly is wrong? "The growing division between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants has often noted by Irish historians, says Gleeson (2006)." is it unbalanced? Rjensen (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles are meant to echo the sources, not span them with meaning. And it's important to remember to comment on the article and not on the editors. I've made plenty of substantive contributions to articles, and it wouldn't matter if I'd been off Wikipedia for a long spell, or if I were newly arrived.  An editor is an editor, and there is no special qualification for editing and commenting on the Irish American article.  No special hand shake, or religion, or clothing required, either.  So I'll thank ya to remove your offending post. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  03:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Malke is in error. I did not erngage in any original research at all: I reported what reliable sources said on the matter. I did not do a complete rewrite, I added new material that Malke for reasons he has not yet stated disagrees with. One key disagreement is opver this passage that Malke erased without comment:
 * Historian Donald Akenson in Small Differences (1988) argued that the cultural differences between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants were not especially deep, but that they were indeed "sharp." Akenson contends that around 1820, Catholics and Protestants began to drift apart intellectually inside Ireland. The Protestant minority in Ireland began to feel alienated by the overt and robust Catholicism of their majority neighbors, who in turn had been inspired by the Catholic politician, Daniel O'Connell. Akenson points out that by about 1850 --due largely to the Famine and its interpretation as an act of British genocide—to use the term "Irish" when describing someone in Ireland automatically meant "Catholic."(ref) Donald Akenson, Small Differences: Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, 1815–1922 (1988), pp. 128-49(/ref) This exclusionary definition carried over into the U.S., as the Catholics mobilized to help gain Irish independence through organizations like the Fenians (founded in New York in 1855), and Clan na Gael (founded in New York in 1867).(ref) Sean Crionin, "Fenians and Clan Na Gael," in Glazier, ed. Encyclopedia of Irish Americans 317-21(/ref) Akenson notes that the Catholics and Protestants devoted musch attention to discovering how they were different, thus making meaningful their own "sharp and treasured self definitions."(ref) Donald Akenson, Small Differences'' pp. 128-49(/ref)" (end excerpt) so what specifically is wrong with that paragraph? What is the original research?? As for comments on editors: it's not appropriate for newcomers in their first week here to tell us old hands what the rules are or should be WikipediaRjensen (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Still anticipating you striking through your comments. WP:CIVIL. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010 03:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hard to be polite in the face of blanking attacks, but I'll strike any comments that violate WP:CIVIL. Note that WP:CIVIL also prohibits erasing other people's work for no good reason, so I expect that Malke will agree to stop that behavior. Rjensen (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First, the discussion here is against an emphasis on Catholics verus Protestants as being WP:UNDUE. You then disrespect the editors here by making a wholesale edit that flies in the face of that opposition.


 * I reverted your edit for that reason. It is not an attack.  Again, comment on the edit not the editors.  And reverting that edit was for very good reason as I've stated.  There's no consensus for this.  It isn't agreed to that this POV will be taken. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  04:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Consensus of two editors" is not in the Wikipedia rulebook. I'm happy to discuss issues point by point: the only complaint is OR which is not true and no effort was made to substantiate it, Malke needs to explain his position on the specific paragraph or it will be impossible to reach consensus. Rjensen (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The only block to consensus is your disruptive editing here and on my talk page. Going on a screed against an editor here and on their talk page   is not the way to build consensus.  Nor is inappropriate commentary in edit summaries.  And adding large blocks of material that carries a POV that editors here oppose is not the way to do it either. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  05:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone here have any actual criticism of my summary of Akenson's argument? Rjensen (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

RJ--In the context of this article, and the editorial debate, I have OFTEN personally disagreed with Malke--(mostly on his/her agreement with other's content); HOWEVER, with that written, she/he has been the most REASONABLE in the debate and I have therefore found it, for myself, only reasonable to follow her/his guidance through this--EVEN WHEN I PERSONALLY DISAGREE. It's probably fair to say that other's find it so as well.... And it'd probably be most beneficial if you'd do same--reread what Malke wrote above, hold off from retortin'....there is not a consensus here YET so if yah got stuff to add try to realize that while indeed it may be valid input, so far your tactics, as unintended as they may be, are not helping173.76.208.66 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP:UNDO rule is Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. So it's a matter of depnding on reliable sources. Milke has never told us what any of his reliable sources are. Can he please do so now so as to reassure us he's being reasonable? Rjensen (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoa... stay gone overnight and find all kinds of mayhem the next day. Rjensen, you keep citing Wikipedia rules.  We are all editors here, and we can all edit as we see fit.  You don't like it when others try to revert your input, but there is no prohibition against good faith reversion on Wikipedia.  You call it blanking, which is a mischaracterization.  Blanking is wiping out a whole page or significant, major content.  Please try not to exagerate.  And please stop whinging about it; it's embarrassing.  There is a process called "Be Bold, Revert, Discuss".  That's what we are trying to do here.  Be patient while the rest of us try to review the references you cite.  You might have them handy, but the rest of us don't necessarily have them on our shelves.  What many of us are questioning is your insistance on writing in all this "true" content about inter-Irish conflict in America.  I've said before and I'll say it again.  It does not matter it it is true and supported by reliable sources:  truth can be used to tell a lie if it is used out of context and out of proportion to its overall significance.  That is called giving undue weight.  Multiple editors here disagree with you.  To push on ahead simply with what you want because you carry the torch of truth is in violation of multiple Wikipedia guidelines on consensus, cooperation, and NPOV.  I have tried to make some of your edits more neutral, because even some of the wording you use is loaded (which violates NPOV guidelines), such as using terms like "dominant" when a less loaded word like "prominent" will do, or saying "Catholics have a slim lead in the North".  Lead?  That implies a race, or contest to see who can be first, or on top, etc.  Usually when I see language used like that, a red flag goes up that someone is pushing their POV.  You do not have consensus for your continued emphasis on conflict.  Eastcote (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Agree, completely with Eastcote and IP. Also, who is Milke?  I don't see any threads with that editor's name. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  18:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, Malke has been on Wikipedia since July 2009 as I reckon it, not for one week. But that's an irrelevant personal attack on an editor.  I've been around for a couple of years now.  Is that long enough?  Eastcote (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit wars will simply lead to appeals to outside arbitration. Thde issue is what relaible sources say, and so far none of the critics have found a single reliable source to support their position. So ty ask for the 13th time: which reliable sourcde is Eastcote relying upon? We known that Malke has never cited any sourc es whatever, reliable or otherwise, Rjensen (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There were two significant waves of Irish immigration in American history: roughly 1720-1770, and roughly 1840-1900. One of the objections I have to your edits is that you are trying to conflate immigrants from these two different periods to give the impression of a monolithic Irish Protestant majority that is in violent conflict with Irish Catholics. To support this idea of mass conflict you cite what authors have written about riots in New York and Philadelphia in the 1870s, ignoring that these were specifically localized and that the major settlement of Irish Protestants was a century earlier and in a different part of the country. Your citations from Gleeson and Akenson do not mention America. They are talking about what was taking place in Ireland. But neither author supports your notion of a monolithic Irish Protestant bloc in America. David Gleeson, from what I can see, confines his work to the second period of Irish immigration. Akenson also offers evidence against this monolithic Irish Protestant consciousness. Your own citation indicates that this growing division (in Ireland, not in America) began about 1820. This is a good fifty years after the migration of the Scotch-Irish to America, after the founding of the United Irishmen and Orange Order, and after the Act of Union. The majority of scholars who write on the Scotch-Irish (Leyburn, Griffin, Fischer, Fisher, Kelly, Williams, Rouse, to name a few) follow the line that by 1800 or so the Scotch-Irish of the earlier immigration period had vanished as a recognizable ethnic group, had intermarried with English, Germans and others, and were now specifically American, pushing west across the Mississippi, and were nowhere near the centers of later Irish immigration. They just plain had other things on their minds besides Irish Catholic immigrants. Yes, your edits are "true" and backed by references, but you seem to be selecting your references with an overall bias in mind. You are "fact-bombing" this article, without taking the time to fit the facts into overall context. Fact-bombing is disruptive because it then leaves other editors to straighten out the mess. Yes, there were a few instances of localized conflict between Irish Protestant and Catholic immigrants in the 19th century, but you are pushing this as characteristic of inter-Irish American relations, and that is not NPOV. Eastcote (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources, that's the key here. For example, I wouldn't consider this a reliable source: [ http://www.amren.com /mtnews/archives/2005/03/ano_irish_need.php] Seems like WP:FRINGE to me.  There's no basis in truth for any of it.  And on a simple Google search, no other authors are found making or supporting this claim.  In fact, the opposite prevails.  No Irish Need Apply was most definitely encountered by the Irish.  The signs were everywhere.  The author of this article clearly tried to use the fact that the New York Times could only find two ads in it's help wanted section that said "No Irish Need Apply."  Well the reason for that could be simple:  The New York Times made a policy against this racism and refused any more ads with this language, and, shop owners, and households looking for help more often put up signs in their windows rather than spend the money to pay for an ad in the paper.  People still do that all the time.  Just look at the signs at Starbucks.  Why place ads when you don't need to?


 * You really have to examine a source, and where sources don't agree, that needs to be made clear in the article.


 * There are hundreds of reliable sources that accurately depict the Irish experience in America. Just to name a few, Thomas Keneally's, The Great Shame, and The Irish in America, The Irish Americans, The Faminine Ships, etc.  And of course, U.S. census bureau statistics are helpful. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  20:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Eastcote wants to limit Protestant Irish to the Scotch Irish and end the article’s Protestant coverage in 1800. In fact there was a large Protestant migration after 1800--so much so that in the 21st century  a majority of Americans who call themselves Irish are Protestant and only 36% are Catholic. Thus a million people emigrated from Ulster after 1856 (Miller p 571).  But this article is  about all Irish in America, a majority of them Protestant, They did not fade away in the 19th century they built Presbyterian denominations and colleges (like Princeton) and formed  Orange orders and groups like the APA that opposed the Irish Catholics. Reliable sources that support this position include Kenny, The American Irish (2000); Glazier, The Encyclopedia of the Irish in America (1999).; Meagher, The Columbia Guide to Irish American History (2005); Miller, Emigrants and Exiles: Ireland and the Irish Exodus to North America (1985); Blessing, The Irish in America: (1992); Ray, Highland Heritage: Scottish Americans in the American South (2001);  Webb, Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America. (2004); Gordon, The Orange Riots: Irish Political Violence in New York City, 1870 and 1871 (1993); and Thernstrom, Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups (1980).   Malke finally mentions his one source--Thomas Keneally, but Keneally does not argue against any of my positions and instead emphasizes the intense anti-Protestantism of the Fenians. And Eastcote please be a little more explicit about the sources--an author's last name with no title and no date is not enough for Wikipedia Rjensen (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say that Protestants disappeared after 1800. I said, based on what scholars say, that the Scotch-Irish disappeared as a recognizable ethnic group.  Certainly other Irish Protestants came into the country after the 1840s.  By citing all these "Irish Protestants" of the 21st century, you are trying to combine the Scotch-Irish with later Irish Protestant immigration.  Two distinct occurances in history.  Combining them gives you more weight to your argument, but it goes against the main thrust of what scholars say on it.  I grew up in Scotch-Irish central.  Where are the Orange Lodges in Boyds Creek, TN, in Ringgold, GA, in Spruce Pine, NC, or Section, AL?  For that matter, where is any Orange Lodge in the United States?  Seriously, I like to go visit rare curiosities now and then.  Eastcote (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources I've listed are four different books from four different reputable authors, none of whom agree with your edit. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010 20:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3 of the sources you listed don't have authors or dates. please supply. Rjensen (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Concerning the Orange Order in the United States: Donald McRaild, in The Orange Order, Militant Protestantism and anti-Catholicism, states "The Orange tradition of the United States was feeble next to the Canadian version.  The only works I know in this area are C.D. Gimpsey, Internal ethnic friction: Orange and Green in nineteenth-century New York, 1868-1872, in Immigrants and Minorities, 1, I (1982) and M.A. Gordon, The Orange Riots: Irish political violence in New York City, 1870 and 1871 (Ithaca and London, 1993), which examine the same city and events.  In addition, C.J. Houston and W.J. Smyth, Transferred loyalties: Orangeism in the United States and Ontario, in American Review of Canadian Studies, 14, 2 (1984) explain the comparative weakness of the U.S. order."  Note that all the works he cites relate to the localized conflict in New York City.  Eastcote (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources - continued from above
One really has to consider a source in context, and consider the source of that source. For instance, the article Malke links to above[ http://www.amren.com /mtnews/archives/2005/03/ano_irish_need.php], while it might have all sorts of references to back it up, is published by American Renaissance magazine, which is described as a racialist magazine, and bills itself as "America's premiere publication of racial-realist thought." It is published by the New Century Foundation, which has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League as promoting "genteel racism" and for employing dubious techniques to claim the superiority of whites and the need for racial purity. It's founder, Jared Taylor, is on the board of the Council of Conservative Citizens, which supports white nationalism and white separatism. Indeed, the ADF has labelled American Renaissance a "white supremacist journal". Now, I would think that anyone who knowingly used such a reference would be pushing an agenda, which at the very least would be considered "fringe". That's frowned on in Wikipedia, and is damned un-American besides. Many of our Irish American fathers and grandfathers fought a war to stamp out that sort of thing. But, you don't adhere to such theories, do you Mr. Rjensen? Eastcote (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC) I will be reading over this discussion and have something on the mediation page by tonight. -- / MWOAP &#124;  Notify Me \ 11:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Draft Riots
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.

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

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

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

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

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)

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


 * Joe Biden should be included. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010 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)

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

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

Text under dispute:

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Number of pictures in infobox
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? ---<font face="Georgia"> RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 03:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


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


 * I think we should have more pictures. It's a long article.  It can handle it and Grace Kelly's picture must be there.  She was a very famous Irish American. Malke  2010  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. Malke 2010  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? Malke  2010  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:
 * {| border="1"


 * 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)
 * Grace Kelly || F. Scott Fitzgerald || Ronald Reagan ||
 * John Carroll || Cyrus McCormick || Maureen O'Hara ||
 * }
 * --John of Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --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. Malke  2010  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. Malke  2010  14:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

Edit by Shoreranger on 7/9/10
Hi Mr. Shoreranger. I reverted your edit under the 19th century section, because you removed important and interesting information without adequate explanation, except to say that it was redundant. Specifically, the original version of this section states the reasons for Irish immigration to America before the American Revolution (coming as servants, penal deportations, etc.). I think this information should remain here. It is not redundant; it is not contained anywhere else in the article. Also, the reference to Irish Catholics immigrating to America in large numbers before the Revolution is consistent with statistics provided in the 18th - 19th centuries section of the article; statistics, I might add, from entirely credible and sholarly sources.

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

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


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

Dear Eastcote:

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Dear Eastcote and Shoreranger,

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

Proposal to ban user-created montages from Infoboxes
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups. Bull dog123 09:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)