Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-27/Irish American

=Request details=

Where is the dispute?
This section should explain where the problem is. Link to the articles where the dispute is taking place. Irish American and Talk:Irish American. Adding Scotch-Irish American and Talk:Scotch-Irish American

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:
 * User:rjensen
 * User:Eastcote
 * User:Malke 2010
 * User:173.76.208.66

What is the dispute?
The dispute involves the coverage of 19th century history in Irish American. rjensen keeps adding sections that get deleted by Eastcote and malke 2000. rjensen claims the new material is relevant and is based on reliable sources; Eastcote and malke 2000 say the new material cannot be added until there is a consensus of editors, which seems to mean Eastcote and malke 2000. Eastcote and rjensen have long been active contributors to Irish American. malke 2000 made his first edit one week ago--all his edits have been deletions of text added by rjensen. The deeper issue is the role of religion in the history of Irish Americans. rjensen argues that most reliable sources give great emphasis on Irish being Catholic or Protestant--and they examine the conflicts between Catholic Irish and Protestant Irish. Eastcote and malke 2000 say they are not convinced and the additions violate WP:UNDO. Jensen says that WP:UNDO stresses that the article must follow the reliable sources, and not the personal views of the editors.

this, would also help.

What would you like to change about this?
Eastcote and malke 2000 say they have the right to block new material until they are convinced. rjensen contends they do not provide reliable sources to support their position, and instead insist that consensus of editors is the main criteria. (I have been writing recently and anonymously within this framework and I too agree with Eastcote's and Malke's position here User 173.76.208.66)173.76.208.66 (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?
rjensen suggests the mediators explain what the WP:UNDO rules require and settle the question of whether a "consensus" of editors is needed before adding new, cited text =Mediator notes= Policy notes: Talk is turning into debate. Requesting all edits requests to the talk page. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 00:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE: "Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."
 * WP:VANDAL: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles."
 * WP:NPOV: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.""

=Administrative notes=
 * I am requesting that all parties not edit the page until we have a consensus. Please "~" below. If there are any edits, and you have not signed, I will take the article to WP:RPP. Thanks -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 21:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

For Irish American
 * User:Eastcote: Eastcote (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Malke 2010: Malke  2010  22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC) (Placed here by Mediator as it is in the discussion below. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124;  Notify Me &#92; 22:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC))
 * User:Rjensen: Rjensen (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User:173.76.208.66:
 * Shoreranger (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

✅ as case is closed. I encourge editors to not edit the article going against consensus. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 01:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

For Scotch-Irish American
 * User:Eastcote: Eastcote (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Malke 2010: Malke  2010  01:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Rjensen: Rjensen (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User:173.76.208.66:
 * Shoreranger (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

✅ As concensus has been obtained, I am lifting this lock. I encourge editors to not edit the article going against consensus. &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 21:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

All involved parties agree that Wikipedia policy ultimately determines how the article should be edited:


 * User:Eastcote: Eastcote (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Malke 2010: Malke  2010  01:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Rjensen: Rjensen (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User:173.76.208.66:
 * Shoreranger (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

=Discussion=

View by Malke 2010

 * Eastcote and I have not claimed any such right to block new material. We are objecting to the POV pushing and questioning if this is WP:FRINGE.  Also, it appears to be original research WP:SYN and violation of WP:NPOV.  There seems to be an agenda on Rjensen's part to claim that there is religious conflict between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants in America.  He is using sources out of context to make this claim.  Also, Rjensen seems in a rush to force these edits rather than giving editors time to examine the sources he is claiming as the basis for 'religious' conflict.  This editor has also added similar edits to other articles along these same lines.  These also appear to be out of context.  The process to achieve consensus is often a long one, and not enough time has been allowed for editors to examine sources and decide what weight would be given to any such finding of factual religious conflict.  Where there is a dispute as to accuracy, editors need time to work towards consensus.


 * In addition, Rjensen has conducted personal attacks against me on the Irish American talk page and on my talk page, even going so far as to revert me on my talk page..


 * These are the diffs of the edits we feel are WP:SYN using sources out of context.  Malke  2010  05:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

View by Eastcote
The statement of the conflict is a bit misleading. Some of the points of contention are subtle, so forgive me for going on at length. It is not as simple as whether or not references are reliable. These are the issues I have with Rjensen's edits, and I'll explain them each at length: Let me make it clear that Malke and Eastcote do not have some kind of joint national, religious or political POV we are pushing. When this is resolved we might end up on opposite sides of other debates. Our interest here is in seeing a balanced article, without having hidden agendas slither in. Eastcote (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing patterns
 * Undue weight
 * Lack of neutrality
 * Historical synthesis
 * Fringe agenda

1. Disruptive editing.
Around 17 February Rjensen began a flurry of edits throughout the page, making changes so fast and furious that article stability was being affected. Other editors objected (not just Eastcote and Malke 2010) and tried to restore some neutrailty, but Rjensen simply accused everyone of pushing POV and “blanking” his edits. Taken as a whole, Rjensen’s edits go out of their way to emphasize conflict between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants in America. Eastcote (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The political history of Ireland for the last 150+ years is in large part a history of conflict between the Catholics and the Protestants --is that news?--and it spilled over into the U.S. and Canada. Many other things happened as well, but those edits get challenged too, for example my section on novels and the Civil War South, based on two scolarly articles in refereed journals.Rjensen (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disruptive Editing (aka Conflict) is is not allowed on Wikipedia. It is the equivalent of vandalism. Also, personal attacks are not tolerated as I have noted in above statements. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 03:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rjensen's edit concerning novels and the Civil War South did not appear in the Irish American article. That was in the Scotch-Irish American article, and it's basically off-topic, but can we include that in this mediation as well?  Or perhaps we should stick to one article for now to keep it tidy.  Eastcote (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should indeed add Scotch-Irish American to this mediation. Rjensen has deleted other editor's Talk comments, and is pushing some of the same edits there that he was making in Irish American.  Eastcote (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, added it to this. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 23:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Undue weight.
Rjensen emphasizes conflict between American Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants by selective use of references which make it appear that isolated historical conflict is typical of overall inter-Irish American relations. For example, he uses the “Orange riots” in NYC in 1870/71, between the Irish Protestant Orange Order and Irish Catholic immigrants, to argue that there was widespread Irish Protestant v. Irish Catholic conflict. He provides citations for the riots. The riots are “true” and the citations are reliable sources which describe the riots. But the riots were local to New York City and did not characterize overall inter-Irish relations in America. Rjensen ignores citation of the same references he uses which say the Orange Order was not a major presence in the United States, and describes it as “feeble” and “weak”. There was indeed violent opposition to Irish Catholics, but this was primarily from Nativist organizations such as the “Know Nothing” Party, which opposed all Catholic immigrants, whether Irish, Italian or German. But Rjensen seems to want it to appear to be specifically Irish on Irish. Eastcote (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Orange Order issues were quote important I argue, and provide the cites. The critics want to suppress all mention. Two major scholarly books are examples; Kerby Miller "Emigrants and Exiles: Ireland and the Irish Exodus to America" (Oxford UP 1985) mentions the Orange issue at length (the index lists pages 69,7,88,111,118,184,185,189-91,230-34,245,248,258,266,323,353,377-80,422,443,445,450,453,494,550,552); Kevin Kenny The American Irish: A History (2000), another standard history by a leading expert. covers the Orange Order on pp 81-85,115,129-30,158-9,197,247-8. These leading scholarly sources see the Catholic Protestant conflict as pervasive in the 1840-1900 era, and certainly not limited to one episode in one city. Likewise Glazier, ed The Encyclopedia of the Irish in America (Notre Dame Press, 1999) gives full coverage, pp 748-50, 681-2, etc.] The critics do not have any books or articles they cites otherwise. They impose their own personal view that the Orange issue was unimportant. For that matter, they have repeatedly say they don't believe the numerous scholarly books and articles that report there are more Protestant Irish in the US than Catholic Irish. As Glazier points out, (p 238) there was a large Protestant immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. Indeed we know from Irish Canadian (Canada asks religion on their census but the US census never asks religion)--that more Protestant Irish than Catholic arrived in the 19th century. On the other side: not a single cite. Rjensen (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My question here is why are we even considering putting in something that we can not cite? (WP:V) Also, we have to make sure that we don't have any undue weight. See the quote above. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 02:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did provide a citation, and quote, which were ignored. Donald McRaild of Northumbria University minimizes the Orange Order's impact on the United States, and calls it "feeble" and "weak".  In The Orange Order, Militant Protestantism and anti-Catholicism, he cites several references and 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,...and M.A. Gordon, The Orange Riots: Irish political violence in New York City, 1870 and 1871..., 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,...explain the comparative weakness of the U.S. order."  Note that the only references he can come up with relate to these same localized New York riots of 1870-71.  Trying to imply mass inter-Irish American conflict based on these riots gives them undue weight.  Eastcote (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as you can provide citations, it doesn't push a point of view (ie the "feeble" & "weak"), each point is mentioned equally, and it is not in the lead (you can say something like "There was attacks against these people", of course worded differently); then it can be in the article. (+all other policies) Please state on the talkpage what you want in the article (or don't want), provide sources, and a brief description why. I will be making the edits as a Neutral Editor. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 23:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Orange order was indeed much stronger and more powerful in Canada. But it was a factor in the USA--we have a full length scholarly book on the Orange in New York City (by Gordon) topic and the standard histories discuss it at length. Kenny (2009) says violence "had a more enduring and negative impact on the Irish image in Ameria in this period, most notably in the cases of the Draft Riots of 1863, the orange and Gfreen riots of 1870 and 1871 and the Molly Maguire affair of the 1860s and 1870s." (American irish p 109). Glazier ed. The Encyclopeda of the Irish in America (1999)  devotes a full article (pp 748-50) to the riots plus additional mentions. All these RS consider it important--and not just the big riots, but the Orange created a national network. The arrival of the Orange Order in the US in 1867 says the Encyclopedia "intensified Scotch-Irish acitivity against the Irish Catholics. From its founding the Orange Order formed the backbone...of the numerous anti-popery organizations of the day throughout the U.S." [Glazier p 463]. This is very serious material and to say that it was worse in Canada so we should not mention it in the US is a very weak argument. Rjensen (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

3. Non-neutral language.
The language he uses implies conflict, even when making statements of fact, e.g., Irish Catholics “dominate” the Catholic Church and have a “disproportionate” and “dominating role” in law enforcement agencies, rather than a more neutral “are prominent in” these organizations. Or “Many served on both sides of the Civil War, but Catholics in the North resisted the draft…”, which is supported by reference to the 1863 NYC draft riots. The riots did occur, in that specific place and time, but the way it was written makes it seem as if Irish Catholics refused to serve at all, and ignores other facts, such as that nearly 40 Union regiments were specifically titled “Irish” regiments because of the many Irish Catholics who served in them. This also ignores that the South had problems with large-scale desertion, much of it from the mountain areas where Rjensen’s “Protestant Irish” lived. Many of Rjensen’s edits have been re-edited to be more neutral. Eastcote (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * These topics are not actually at issue here. "Neutral" means neutral between differing reliable sources. It does NOT mean neutral regarding the facts and myths.Rjensen (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, policy differs with you on this one. See above quote. I will continue commenting tomorrow. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 03:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This part has seemed to have calmed to a close, if you want a change on this subject, please state on the talkpage what you want in the article (or don't want), provide sources, and a brief description why. I will be making the edits as a Neutral Editor. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 00:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

4. Historical synthesis.
Rjensen uses multiple sources to argue that there was a monolithic Irish Protestant consciousness opposing minority Irish Catholics in America. He takes Fact A "Irish Protestants settled widely in the South", combines it with Fact B "There were riots in New York City in 1870", and stirs in Fact C "Most people in a poll today who claimed to be Irish also claimed to be Protestant". From this he reaches the conclusion that religious conflict is the central factor in inter-Irish American relations. Eastcote (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * false. I rely on what the reliable sources say--like Kerby Miller, Kenny and Glazsier among many others. Their sources = ??? never cited.Rjensen (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sources were given on the talk page. Malke 2010  03:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I challenge that. After I called for mediation they gave a string of names without titles (Eastcote) and titles without authors (Malke)--with no quotes or details to indicate what these sources said. Malke could identify only one book (Great Shame by Keneally)--but it indeed talks about the Orange-Green violence in several cities (pp 504, 539)-and covers the Fenians (Catholics who were anti-British) in great detail on 235 pages! Eastcote gave only one recognizable book (Leyburn)--a 1962 title that ends by 1800. Furthermore: If experts disagree then BOTH sides have to be represented. Their goal was to erase one side (and leave the topic blank) Rjensen (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you have that Fenians were exclusively "Catholic"? Irish, repbulican, nationalists I am aware of, but not exclusive Catholicism.  Interpretation, original research, and POV seems prevalent here.  Small unchallenged statements are made with such authority as to combine for the impression of fact. This is indicative of the approach that has caused editors to be concerned. Shoreranger (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no claim that the Fenians were exclusively Catholic. The Fenians attacked Britain (and tried a military invasion of Canada in 1860s) & aroused intense opposition among the Orange Protestants. Rjensen (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You take things out of context from these sources to support your claim and make it WP:SYN. There are no scholars who share your view that the  employment and housing discrimination against the Irish was largely a myth.  You claim these signs "No Irish Need Apply," did not exist when in fact they were commonplace, as authors such as Thomas Keneally recognize. Malke  2010  04:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not at issue in this mediation. What page of Keneally mentions the signs? Rjensen (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rjensen wants to take poll data from 1992, which shows a majority of people in the US who claim Irish ancestry also claim to be "Protestant", and project that data backward onto 19th century America. There's no poll data from 1870 to say that a majority of "Irish Americans" were Protestant.  There are plenty of accounts which say the majority of Irish immigrants during the 1850-1900 period were Catholic, but that is the opposite of what Rjensen wants to say, so he uses 1992 data to back up his claim for a century earlier.
 * That's a false charge. I said that all scholars agree with Greeley, Hout and NORC that today (1970 to 2010) the Protestants are a majority of Irish Americans. Rjensen (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rjensen then further puts forth the claim that all the missing Irish Protestants from the 19th century were the Scotch-Irish of the Southern Appalachians and points west. Problem with this is that those "Scotch-Irish" no longer had an ethnic identity as Irish.  They were the descendents of Irish Protestant immigrants in the colonial period a hundred years earlier, but had by 1870 become thoroughly intermarried with other Americans of English and German extraction, and were considered purely "American" - they were the "pioneers" of the American frontier, and they were the "hillbillies" of Appalachia and the Ozarks, a uniquely American type.  Scholarly consensus (Leyburn, The Scotch-Irish; Griffin, The People with No Name; Fischer, Albion's Seed, among others.) is basically that the Scotch-Irish had ceased to exist as a recognizable ethnic group by around 1800 (which is why Leyburn ends his story there), and they lived far from any centers of later Irish Catholic immigration.  They would not have been part of any inter-Irish religious conflict in 1870, simply because they were not Irish and were not near any Irish Catholics.  So mentioning them at all in this context as Rjensen does is to erroneously give weight to his theory of a monolithic Irish Protestant bloc in conflict with Irish Catholics.  Further, Rjensen can only support this great conflict by references to riots localized to New York City in 1870-71 between recent Irish immigrants, the majority of whom were Catholic, not Protestant.
 * False. I pointed out scholars agree that over 1.6 million immigrants came from Ulster 1780-1900--compared to about 250,000 in the 1717-1770 period. These new immigrants did not go to Appalachia (which was very poor and had few good jobs); they went to industrial centers--most famously Pittsburgh, where Catholic Irish were also arriving. Rjensen (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that we should work on the Talk page to craft a substitute paragraph that accurately portrays these riots. They were unique conflicts among immigrants in port cities vying for economic opportunity and political representation.  Rjensen rattles off "references" but he has not shown that these references support his notion of a majority Irish Protestant consciousness.  There was indeed opposition to Irish Catholics, but this came primarily from American Nativist organizations in the Northeast and Midwest, and had nothing to do with so-called "Irish Protestants" of the South.  Eastcote (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "a majority Irish Protestant consciousness" Eastcote made that up and does not cite any source. Rjensen (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Eastcote. If such a monolithic Irish Protestant bloc existed, where are the newspaper accounts of daily battles like in Northern Ireland in the not so distant past.  There's none. All the books say that the Irish came here to get away from The Troubles and their own troubles and to make a better life. Malke  2010  04:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "monolithic Irish Protestant" --Malke made that up and it's meaningless`. Rjensen (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I follow everything you guys are saying here, but again, this is not a debate area, we need to refine what is going into the article. please state on the talkpage what you want in the article (or don't want), provide sources, and a brief description why. I will be making the edits as a Neutral Editor. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 00:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

5. Fringe Agenda-pushing.
There is the possibility of a White supremacist/neo-Confederate “fringe” agenda which explains Rjensen’s emphasis on conflating different historic Irish Protestant waves of immigration, and his emphasis on conflict with Irish Catholics. Rjensen has authored an article denying discrimination against Irish Catholics published by the white supremacist American Renaissance magazine. [ http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/03/ano_irish_need.php ] He also uses references to “neo-Confederate” writers who are proponents of the “Celtic Thesis”, which asserts the novel historical interpretation that the American Civil War was fought between a “Celtic” South and an “Anglo-Saxon” North, and that the war grew out of this cultural divide rather than out of a disagreement over slavery. This “Celtic Thesis” is much contested by more mainstream historians as a "fantasy of hyperbole", “a historical confection”, and a “myth” whose proponents “resist logic and historical reasoning”. The primary proponent of this theory was Grady McWhiney, who was a founding member of the League of the South, whose objective is “a free and independent Southern republic”. Eastcote (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * the references is to an article I published in the leading scholarly journal in social history ("Journal of Social History") that has been used by scholars and teachers--and was reprinted without permission by a fringe web site. Eastcote thus concludes the ideas in it are fringe--but the ideas in it are not at issue in this mediation. One item I added was a summary of a scholarly article in a refereed journal on Southern literature that mentioned the Celtic Thesis in passing. (The objections to the Celtic Thesis are that it totally distorts the history of Scotland, but that is not involved here.) Rjensen (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I could not find any scholars who shared your views that discrimination against the Irish was a myth. Malke 2010  04:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * that is not my view at all. I believe that the Protestant Irish discriminated and were very hostile to the Catholic Irish (especially 1850-1890 era), and fought them politically (as in 1928 and 1960 elections, and the battles over the Blaine Amendment in 1870s and the Bennett Law in 1890s)--and sometimes fought in the streets when they were in the same city (as in New York City in 1870s). This is the conflict that keeps getting erased -- Eastcote argues (on the talk page and on on his home page) that this religious conflict is hardly worth mentioning. Rjensen (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not what you said here:[ http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/03/ano_irish_need.php ]. Malke 2010  04:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Who are the "Irish Protestants" who opposed Smith in 1928 and Kennedy in 1960? And, if American Renaissance Magazine published your article without your permission, why is it still on their website?  I would have raised Hell if it was my article some white supremacist group had stolen.  Eastcote (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Bible Belt had been Democrastic but turned Republican in 1928 and 1960. I don't own the copyright--the journal does. It charges $100 for reprint fees which reputable publishers always pay. Going to a lawyer to sue for $100 in federal court over a copyright violation is not a likely solution unless it's a Stephen King novel or "Avatar" that is being copied illegally. Suggesting i'm fringe/ white supremacist etc is not allowed by the rules here.Rjensen (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Bible Belt" does not equal "Irish Protestants". This seems to again be an argument on your part for the neo-Confederate "Celtic Thesis".  The people of the Bible Belt do indeed have some Scotch-Irish ancestry from the colonial period, mixed with mainly English and some German ancestry, but they are not "Irish Protestants".  They opposed Smith and Kennedy simply because they were Southern Bible Belt Protestants, not because they were "Irish" Protestants.  They were often opposed to Blacks and Jews as well, but that doesn't mean they were Irish Protestants, either.  Eastcote (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is not debate. Please state on the talkpage what you want in the article (or don't want), provide sources, and a brief description why. I will be making the edits as a Neutral Editor. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 00:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

For Scotch-Irish American
This might take some time. Rjensen has made so many changes, so quickly, over the past week or so, that both Scotch-Irish American and Irish American are shot through with things that need to be straightened out. So I guess we just have to take it from the top. My concerns for the Scotch-Irish American article are:


 * Historical synthesis
 * Undue weight
 * Off-topic edits
 * Agenda-pushing

There is not simply a single passage in the article that we disagree on. There are numerous, so on the mediation talk page I'll just go down the line. Eastcote (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree there are multiple issues. I think for MWOAP's sake, we should focus on one specific area at a time and work from there.  The two separate waves of immigration might be a good start. Malke  2010  00:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Eastcote's basic fallacy
All along Eastcote has assumed the fallacy that if a group mostly assimilates into the American culture, then it is no longer of much interest and should be dropped from Wikipedia. No SR says that--it's his private opinion. Was John Kennedy fully assimilated? Ted Kennedy? the younger Kennedys??--when do they become "American" and get dropped from the article on "Irish Americans"?. Note that millions of Americans call themselves Scotch Irish in 2008. The answer scholars use is that they are American all along, but they have enough distinct characteristics to be worth studying. For example, two scholars have demonstrated that the SI had distinctive voting patterns in the 1928 and 1960 elections--much to Eastcote's astonishment (he still owes me an apology and a shoeshine). Rjensen (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing that a prespoal is in progress (and could be a while) & editors know how to come to a concensus, I will leave these discussions  for talkpages. This case is now closed. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 01:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)