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

Use this for all your requests

=(Section Requested)=

Original:

New:

Why (keep it brief):

Sources:

Thanks. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 00:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

=Lead (Scotch-Irish American)=

Original: Scotch-Irish (the historically common term in North America) or Scots-Irish refers to inhabitants of the United States and, by some, of Canada who are of Ulster Scottish descent, immigrating from the province of Ulster in Ireland. The term may be qualified with American (or Canadian) as in "Scotch-Irish American" or "American of Scots-Irish ancestry".

In the United States in 2000, 3.8 million people claim "Scotch Irish" ancestry, while another 18 million say they are Protestant and Irish.

They are spread widely across the U.S., especially in the South, in Appalachia, and from Western Pennsylvania through Ohio. After 1945 many relocated to California and Florida.

New: Scotch-Irish (the historically common term in North America) or Scots-Irish refers to inhabitants of the United States and, by some, of Canada who are of Ulster Scottish descent. The term may be qualified with American (or Canadian) as in "Scotch-Irish American" or "American of Scots-Irish ancestry".

"Scotch-Irish" is an Americanism, almost unknown in Britain and Ireland, and refers to Protestant Irish immigrants from the Province of Ulster to North America primarily during the eighteenth century. An estimated 200,000 or more Ulster Scots migrated to America during the colonial era, out of a total colonial population of about 3 million. The majority of these immigrants were descended from Scottish and English families who had been transplanted to Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s. Today, people in the British Isles of a similar ethnicity or ancestry usually refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots", with the term "Scotch-Irish" seen as terminology only used in North America.

In the United States in 2000, 3.8 million people claimed "Scotch Irish" ancestry.

Why (keep it brief): (a) Delete 18 million who say Irish and Protestant simply because they do not say they are "Scotch-Irish". This is synth. Keep it to those who specifically say "Scotch-Irish" because that is what census data supports. Ancestry could as easily have been Anglo-Irish or Gaelic Irish. (b) Restore the passage discussing the name and the people's origins because naming convention and origin are major sources of confusion when discussing these people and should be up front. (c) Delete settlement patterns because that will be discussed later in article. (d) Delete reference to post-1945 because there were no Scotch-Irish anymore in 1945 and to mention it misleads readers. 20th century general American population movements are better addressed in articles that discuss such events as Appalachian out-migration, dust bowl, etc.

Sources: James Leyburn, Scotch-Irish: A Social History, for definition of Scotch-Irish and migration-era population figures. David Hackett Fischer, Albion's Seed, for info on origins. Census data for ancestry claims.

Eastcote (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jensen suggestion for leead
Jensen suggests: ''Scotch-Irish or Scots-Irish refers to inhabitants of the United States and of Ulster Scottish descent. In the United States in 2000, 3.8 million people claimed "Scotch Irish" ancestry. Their ancestors were the 1.8 million people from Ulster who immigrated to the United States between 1710 and 1900. They are distinct from Americans of Scottish descent. They are spread widely across the U.S., especially in the South, in Appalachia, and from Western Pennsylvania through Ohio. After 1945 many relocated to California and Florida.''

''"Scotch-Irish" is an Americanism, almost unknown in Britain and Ireland, and Most were descended from Scottish and English families who had been transplanted to Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s. Today, people in the British Isles of a similar ethnicity or ancestry usually refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots".''

RJ comments: Drop claims that the term refers only to colonial immigrants. Leyburn in 1962 wrote a book that ended in 1800 so he indeed ignored the arrivals after 1800. Most scholars in recent decades do NOT share that view. The 250,000 arrivals from Ulster in 1720-1770 era were far outnumbered by  1.6 million arrivals in 19th century, says Jones, in Harvard Guide to American Ethnic  Groups (1980) 895-908. Recent scholars of the Scotch Irish like Kerby Miller (1985), Kevin Kenny (2000), Glazier “Encyclopedia of Irish in America” (1999) and Meagher, Columbia Guide to Irish American History (2005) include the 19th century arrivals. Likewise recent biographers like Cannadine Mellon (2009) and Cooper Woodrow Wilson (2009) talk at length about the Scotch Irish who arrived after 1800, and stress that Scotch Irish Ulster heritage was very strong for the Mellons and Wilsons. Eastcote does not discuss these recent reliable sources. The spread to California after 1945 is stressed at length by Senator James Webb, Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America (2005) p 273-283. We can hardly claim 1) "there were no Scotch-Irish anymore in 1945" as Eastcote says and 2) that there were 3.8 million people in 2000 who checked of "Scotch Irish" when asked by the Census. Rjensen (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Eastcote response
Rjensen's premise is that the term "Scotch-Irish" refers to all immigrants to America of Ulster Protestant origin regardless of when they arrived; up to 1900 he says here. This is an unorthodox view. Why end at 1900? An Ulster immigrant of 2010 would not be considered "Scotch-Irish", by himself or anyone else, and was not considered so in 1900. No significant scholar who writes in depth about the Scotch-Irish migration holds this view. The "Scotch-Irish" migration was a phenomenon specifically of the colonial era, per scholars who specialize in that area: Fischer and Kelly, Bound Away, "period of 60 years (1715-75)"; Leyburn, The Scotch-Irish, "between 1717 and the Revolutionary War"; Williams, Appalachia, "between 1700 and 1775"; Rouse, The Great Wagon Road, "1718...through many decades of the eighteenth century"; Kennedy, The Scots-Irish in the Hills of Tennessee, "between 1717 and the American Revolutionary War"; Blethen and Wood, From Ulster to Carolina, "between 1717 and 1800"; Campbell, The Southern Highlander and His Homeland, "18th century"; Griffin, The People with No Name, "between 1718 and 1775". Scholars end at the Revolution mainly for two reasons: (1) immigration from Ulster slowed down with the Revolution and later immigrants settled in different parts of the country with different settlement patterns; (2) by 1800 the Scotch-Irish no longer identified as "Irish", but as Americans, the archetype of the pioneer headed west. "Ulster Scots" from northern Ireland who came into the US in the 19th century are certainly related to the Scotch-Irish, but not considered "the same" by scholars. These later immigrants are considered "Irish Protestants" or "Ulster Scots" and they settled in different areas of the country than did the Scotch-Irish. They formed no exclusive communities and quickly assimilated. All this is in Leyburn, who is the most often cited authority on the Scotch-Irish, regardless of when he wrote. He "wrote the book" as they say. Senator Webb is not a reliable source; he is a politician and novelist; he talks about his particular family's experience. People who claim Scotch-Irish ancestry today are so mixed with other ethnic groups that there is no one purely Scotch-Irish. (My surname is Scotch-Irish, but like all Appalachian mutts, there's lots of English and German mixed in). It is meaningless to speak of "Scotch-Irish communities" or "Scotch-Irish migrations" anymore. Many people of Scotch-Irish descent, thoroughly interbred with other groups, also went to Detroit, Cleveland and other places, but these migrations are more properly covered in other articles. The Appalachian out-migration of the 1940s and 50s, for instance, was not a "Scotch-Irish" migration. It was an Appalachian migration and would be better addressed in the article on Appalachia. I do not think modern events should be a prominent feature of the article, in the lead; it's the tail wagging the dog. What I would agree to is a "where are they now" or "legacy" section at the end of the article that talks about what happened to the descendents of the colonial era S-I as they became Americans and what their influence was on subsequent history. The history of Irish Protestant immigrants after 1800 should be in the Irish American article. Eastcote (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jensen's response to Eastcote

 * Eastcote says Rjensen's premise is that the term "Scotch-Irish" refers to all immigrants to America of Ulster Protestant origin regardless of when they arrived; up to 1900 he says here. correct . Then he adds, "This is an unorthodox view." False: it is the view taken by many modern reference books (’Harvard Encyclopedia,’ Glazier, Meagher, Kenny, Miller and the others I have mentioned). Eastcote’s view of the 19th century he admits is based on a couple pages in Leyburn's book that appeared before the modern social history revolution turned historians into studying demography, migration and population history. Leyburn did not actually study the 19th century. Eastcote talks about scholars but has not cited a single article in any scholarly journal that supports his position.

The Ulster immigrants came by the hundreds of thousands after 1780 (1.6 million 1783-1900) and they are explicitly called "Scotch Irish" by those historians I have cited (Jones, Miller, Harvard Guide, Glazier, Gordon, Kenny, Cooper, Blessing, Meaghan etc. ) Only one of the historians Eastcote mentions says that the 19c Ulster immigrants don't count as "real." He cites Leyburn's page or two over and over again and no one else.

On a side point: I'm glad Eastcote now has changed views and wants full coverage of all the Protestant Irish in the Irish American article--he deleted my attempts to put them in. (To clarify: there are many millions of Irish Protestants who are not "Scotch Irish" because they never came from Ulster).

The basic issue here is the 19th century. Cities like Pittsburgh were dominated by a Scotch Irish elite. Universities like Princeton (and many small colleges) indeed the Presbyterian Church were explicitly linked to the newly arrived Scotch Irish (the colonial SI mostly gave up Presbyteries, which is what people mean when they say it assimilated.

Historians always use "Scotch Irish" for people like Andrew Mellon and Woodrow Wilson whose ancestors came to America AFTER the colonial period.

So here’s a test: which historians count President Wilson as Scotch Irish and which ones don’t? Eastcote says no. I checked a dozen biographies and they all said yes, so it’s Eastcote who has the extreme view not shared by any scholar regarding one of the most famous of all the Scotch Irish. (I checked Arthur Link, Arthur Walworth, John Garraty, August Hecksher, John Cooper (2009), Maynard (2008), John Blum, James Startt  Josephus Daniels, Charles Seymour, W.A. White & Ray Baker and HCF Bell). Ford in his book on the Scotch Irish (1915) highlights Wilson; other scholars who say Wilson was Scotch Irish include Dublin-based Tim Pat Coogan, Wherever Green Is Worn: The Story of the Irish Diaspora? (2002) Page 260;  Wilson himself emphasized “my Scotch-Irish temper” and “my Scotch Irish blood”. That was early 20th century of course. Wilson’s grandfather was born in Ireland in 1787 and came to America in 1807 long after the colonial era. Wilson in fact gave a revealing speech on his Scotch Irish ancestry in 1896 that’s online Rjensen (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It needs to be pointed out that what Rjensen wants to add is a fundamental change in premise and definition for the Scotch-Irish article. This article has been in place for years with the definition of S-I as immigrants of the colonial migration period, and such a premise shift should not be made lightly.  The multiple works I've cited support the Scotch-Irish migration as a colonial phenomenon, and are either by scholars who work specifically in the Scotch-Irish field of study or in the history of American settlement.  I mention Leyburn most because he is the preeminent scholar in the field.  If you want further discussion by other scholars specifically addressing later Ulster immigration I will see what I can find.  Scotch-Irish scholars tend not to address it in depth for the same reason World War One scholars don’t address World War Two in depth...the two are related historically but not the same...sure there's overlap of issues and a transition period of the interwar years...but they are not the same.  Please be patient as I find these other references, because I can't devote 24-7 to Wikipedia.  I've an office to run and a 10 year old to raise - and the cub scout pinewood derby is tonight!  But it's important to me that history not be re-written by someone with an agenda and all day every day to push it.  Eastcote (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell: Eastcote insists that the 1+ million Scotch Irish who immigrated to the U.S. 1780-1900 are not “really” Scotch Irish and should not be included. His evidence is two sentences in Leyburn’s 1962 book.. page 317-18 (Leyburn cites no evidence and moves on).  Historians have always considered Woodrow Wilson to be Scotch Irish, as did Wilson himself, but he had no colonial ancestors and does not quality under Eastcote’s rule. Historians before Leyburn (like Ford, Hiner, Sims,  and the Scotch Irish Society of America) disagreed and covered the 19th century.  Historians after Leyburn disagreed and covered the 19th century. I consider Leyburn’s argument to be an outlier with little scholarly  support. Eastcote has not cited any other scholar who agrees with Leyburn's two sentences.

As for Eastcote's latest argument: no new material is welcome--that violates Wikipedia’s philosophy of always adding new information that is relevant, NPOV, and based on reliable sources. I worked on the article years before Eastcote and the bibliography, which supports my argument, has been in place for years. Rjensen (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rjensen is cherry-picking through his sources. He wants to use the “Woodrow Wilson” test.  Wilson’s grandparents arrived in the “transition” period between the colonial Scotch-Irish migration of 1717-1775, and the “post-famine era” migration of the 19th century.   Certainly some Scotch-Irish arrived before 1717 and some after 1775 - there was not an abrupt beginning and end – but immigration tapered off sharply after the Revolution, and stayed slow but steady till it rose again with the 1840s Irish famine period.  Wilson’s grandparents arrived in 1807 during the transition between these two periods of immigration, and Wilson chose to identify with the earlier period.  Rjensen uses only two references I’m able to find.  The other references he gave are just a list of names so I can’t check the source.
 * (1) He uses Ford’s 1915 The Scotch-Irish in America to support his point of view. Ford mentions Woodrow Wilson in passing, in a single sentence.  However, Ford’s book does not support Rjensen's view, because Ford's book is entirely from the orthodox view that the Scotch-Irish migration occurred in the colonial period, and he does not address post-Revolution immigration at all.
 * (2) Tim Pat Coogan is an Irish author who writes on the Catholic Irish, Irish Republicanism, and Ireland in general. He is not a specialist in the Scotch-Irish.  In Wherever Green Is Worn: The Story of the Irish Diaspora, which Rjensen cites to support his case, Coogin does not deal in depth (that I can find) with the Scotch-Irish.  He discusses them briefly in the chapter entitled “America” with the conclusion that they should “very doubtfully” even be regarded as Irish.  He speaks of the second (post-famine) period of immigration.  By the time of the Irish famine, “in each of the seven years after the Famine’s worst phase,…the combined total of Catholic emigration was equal to that of the total of the so-called Scotch Irish emigration before it.”  Coogan does not give dates for the Scotch-Irish migration period, but the implication is clear that it is a separate period of immigration “before” the post-famine period.  In discussing Woodrow Wilson, Coogan acknowledges Wilson’s Scotch-Irish ancestry, but asserts that Wilson and others of Scotch-Irish descent identified as “Americans” and not as hyphenated Irish-Americans or Scotch-Irish-Americans.
 * So Rjensen uses sources selectively to support his own theory that there was Scotch-Irish continuum from 1700 through the 19th century, right on down to the 20th century. This is refuted by his own sources.  Rjensen disparages James Leyborn as "an outlier with little scholarly support", but of the two sources Rjensen uses that I have immediately to hand, Coogan's Wherever Green is Worn, and the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, both cite Leyburn, and Harvard calls Leyburn's The Scotch-Irish "the most satisfactory general account, valuable for its careful background treatment."  Eastcote (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromise proposal for lead
Scotch-Irish (the historically common term in North America) or Scots-Irish refers to inhabitants of the United States and, by some, of Canada who are of Ulster Scottish descent. The term may be qualified with American (or Canadian) as in "Scotch-Irish American" or "American of Scots-Irish ancestry".

"Scotch-Irish" is an Americanism, almost unknown in Britain and Ireland, and refers to Protestant Irish immigrants from the Province of Ulster to North America primarily during the eighteenth century. An estimated 200,000 or more Ulster Scots migrated to America during the colonial era, out of a total colonial population of about 3 million. Some scholars also include Ulster Protestants who immigrated to America during the 19th century. The majority of these immigrants were descended from Scottish and English families who had been transplanted to Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s. In the United States in 2000, 3.8 million people claimed "Scotch Irish" ancestry. Today, people in the British Isles of a similar ethnicity or ancestry usually refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots", with the term "Scotch-Irish" seen as terminology only used in North America.

Sources: James Leyburn, Scotch-Irish: A Social History, for definition of Scotch-Irish and the traditionally accepted migration-era info. David Hackett Fischer, Albion's Seed, for info on origins. Census data for ancestry claims. Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups for 19th century claim (as this is the only source I've found, out of many I've read, that goes into this at all).

Eastcote (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry--Eastcote still insists on the peculiar argument that the 19th century immigrants were not real--even though they were the ancdestors of most of the Scotch Irish today. Only Leyburn says this out of all the historians we have discussed--no one else. therefore it has to be relegated as an offbeat minor point, best point in a footnote. Also, please drop Canada. The Canadian migration and history is separate and is not usually considered together with the U.S. Rjensen (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I provided nine citations that specified the colonial period as the period of Scotch-Irish migration, and that did not extend it into the 19th century: Fischer, Williams, Rouse, Kennedy, Blethen and Wood, Campbell, Griffin, Ford, and yes indeed, Leyburn.  If you include Coogan's rather nonspecific reference to the "Scotch Irish emigration before" the 19th century famine migration, then that makes an even ten.  Again, this is the orthodox view, and I'm sure I could find many more.  Harvard Encyclopedia does continue the Scotch-Irish migration into the famine era, so I'll give you that, but that seems to be the minority view.


 * As for Leyburn, who you would dismiss "as an offbeat minor point...in a footnote", I again quote Harvard, which calls his work "the most satisfactory general account, valuable for its careful background treatment," and North Carolina Historical Review: "Clearly written and well organized...Leyburn has provided the general reader with an extremely useful account," and Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography: "[Leyburn] has produced the best synthesis of what is known of the Scotch-Irish," and Journal of Presbyterian History: "Soundly conceived and written with insight and verve, the book dispels some common misconceptions of the Scotch-Irish."  Coogan cites Leyburn, Griffin cites Leyburn, Blethen and Wood cite Leyburn, Kennedy cites Leyburn, Rouse cites Leyburn, Webb cites Leyburn, Harvard cites Leyburn, every freakin' body cites Leyburn, except you.  Surreal, man.  Eastcote (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of people write about the colonial era --they do not say history ended there. ONLY Leyburn says the SI immigration after 1780 does not count--none of the other historians make any such claim. Leyburn is fine for colonial era--but he a mere 2 sentences on the issue under mediation, the 19th century --that's it--and no scholar agrees with those two sentences. So it's offbeat for our discussion here. Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that this holds a point that only some say it. In this case we can't call it non-reliable because some scholars are debating it. This should be removed from the lead (per WP:LEAD: "In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources.") or we could have it saying that it is debated in the lead. If it is removed from the lead, I would have no problem moving it from the lead to a subsection later on with rewording to say that there is some kind of debate. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 21:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Not a single RS says the 3+ million SI of today are all descended from the colonial 250,000. Not one. And every RS agrees that people like Woodrow Wilson are true SI, even though they had no colonial ancestors.Rjensen (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you proposing to remove from the lead? The majority of scholarship holds that the "Scotch-Irish" period of immigration was the 18th century.  A minority extends that migration period to include the famine-era migration (only one source I've seen, Harvard discussed above, covers it in an in-depth way).  Eastcote (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * MWOAP: I'm not as well versed in Scotch Irish.  It can be confusing, but the major books about the Scotch-Irish only talk about the 1700s.  This is the period of immigration as a 'group,' and no other.  It was only then in the 1700s.  The Protestant Scotch-Irish group was one of the four main groups of people to settle in the colonies.  In the 1800s, with the Great Famine in Ireland, historians focus all their attention on Irish Catholics.  It's important to understand there's two separate waves of immigration here.  And Scotch Irish is an American construct.  There's no such term in Ireland.  And there's no Scotch Irish voting block in America.  There's none clustered in a community.  If you want a cluster of Irishman, you'll find it in South Boston today.  And back in the day, you would have found an Irish Catholic voting block in South Boston in 1960, no doubt about that.  But you would not have found a Scotch Irish voting block anywhere in 1960.  And I saw mention from Rjensen that the Scotch Irish migrated to California after World War II.  There was no community of Scotch Irish outside the colonial period. Malke  2010  03:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To illustrate that the current scholarship places the Scotch-Irish migration in the eighteenth century, and does not include the nineteenth century "famine era" migration, here are quotes from the descriptions of the top ten hits in a search for "Scotch-Irish" on Amazon.com (minus one cookbook, one book specifically about Irish surnames, one book written in 1910, and Leyburn's book - which was the Number One hit).
 * Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, by James Webb: "...during the 18th century..."
 * Chasing The Frontier: Scots-Irish in Early America, by Larry J. Hoefling: "... an American immigrant group that existed for only a short period...  ...during the Revolutionary War era."
 * A Social History of the Scotch-Irish, by Carlton Jackson: "...from the early 1600s to the early 1800s."
 * The Scotch-Irish: From the North of Ireland to the Making of America, by Ron Chepesiuk: "...during the eighteenth century..."
 * Scotch-Irish Migration to South Carolina, 1772, by Jean Stephenson: "...the eve of the Revolutionary War."
 * From Ulster to Carolina: The Migration of the Scotch-Irish to Southwestern North Carolina, by H. Tyler Blethen and Curtis W. Wood Jr.: Does not specify time period in the Amazon description, but I own the book, and it is specifically about the 1700s.
 * Ulster and North America: Transatlantic Perspectives on the Scotch Irish, by H. Blethen, Curtis W. Wood Jr, T. G. Fraser:   "...colonial..."
 * Scots and Scotch-Irish: Frontier Life in North Carolina, Virginia, and Kentucky, by Larry J. Hoefling: "...before the Revolution..."
 * Hard Times in Ireland: The Scotch-Irish Come to America (1603-1775), by Jeremy Thornton: Not described by Amazon, but the title itself specifies the time period covered.
 * A People Set Apart: The Scotch-Irish in Eastern Ohio, by Lorle Porter: "...the late 1700s..."
 * All of the top ten focus on the eighteenth century. Only one extends the migration period into the "early 1800s".  None at all include the "famine era" migration period.  Eastcote (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, this clears it up a bit. So my question to Rjensen is do you have any sources? You are calling 10 sources not reliable, yet the odd that they are all wrong seems unlikely. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 11:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with those sources: they talk about the SI during the 18th century, which is not in dispute here. It is very common for colonial historians to talk about (for example) Quakers in the colonial era, without suggesting there are no Quakers today. None of the 10 items (except Leyburn) says the SI story ended in 1800. In fact Carlton Jackson's book cited by Eastcote explictly denies that the story ends in 1800: "in postrevolutionary times they expanded even further." (p ix). My edits on the 19th century are based on different reliable sources especially Harvard Encyclopedia ofo American Ethnic Groups (1980) 895-908; Kerby Miller (1985), Kevin Kenny (2000), Glazier Encyclopedia of Irish in America (1999) and Meagher, Columbia Guide to Irish American History (2005) which all continued the story to 1900. Eastcote has never commented on this large scholarly literature. Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen is selecting and interpreting his sources to support his point of view. This is longish, but it has to be to address Rjensen's selective use of references. To take Rjensen's points one-by-one: Two of Rjensen's sources (Miller and Kenny) support the colonial era as the period of Scotch-Irish migration. One of Rjensen's sources (Meagher) extends the Scotch-Irish migration period into the "early 1800s". Only one of them (Harvard) fully supports Rjensen's notion that there was a Scotch-Irish continuum from the 18th through the 20th centuries. Only one source fully supports Rjensen's view. I have agreed that based on the support for this view found in Harvard and the partial support by Meagher, there should be a line in the lead that says "Some scholars also include Ulster Protestants who immigrated to America during the 19th century." Eastcote (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) Rjensen states Leyburn is the only one who ends the story in 1800. Wrong.  Nine of the books in the top ten list above end the "Scotch-Irish migration" in about 1775.  Only one extends it past 1800.  Certainly the descendents of these colonial Scotch-Irish were still around after 1800, but they no longer thought of themselves as "Irish".  And certainly some new immigrants who could be considered as "Scotch-Irish" continued to arrive through the Napoleonic era, to c. 1815 or so.  However, you have to remember, as Malke stated, the very term "Scotch-Irish" is an American construct.  The term did not exist in Ireland.  In Ireland these people, the northern Irish Presbyterians, called themselves Ulster Scots or simply Ulstermen.  "Scotch-Irish", in the majority of books on the subject, refers to those Ulster Scots who arrived primarily during the colonial period.  The period between the "Scotch-Irish" migration, and the "famine" migration, was a transition period, a "gray zone", if you will.  Ulster Scots who arrived during the famine era and after were not considered Scotch-Irish.  The term itself was not even in use during this period.   The later immigrants were Ulster Scots, or Irish Protestants, as the case may be, but they were not "Scotch-Irish".  The term "Scotch-Irish" came into use in the later 1800s specifically to refer to the colonial-era immigrants, to differentiate them from the later immigrants.  Meagher, in the Columbia Guide to Irish American History, one of the sources Rjensen himself cites, states, "...nineteenth-century descendents of eighteenth-century immigrants from Ireland insisted on being called Scotch-Irish..."
 * (2) Rjensen states Carlton Jackson's book explicitly denies that the story ends in 1800. Jackson extends his book into the "early 1800s" and not into the famine-era migration period.  Many of those Jackson speaks of in the early 1800s were not new immigrants, but descendents of the original Scotch-Irish.  And as I said above, the early 1800s were a transition period between the two eras of immigration, a gray zone, and some Ulster Scot immigrants could be considered Scotch-Irish - if they followed the earlier settlement patterns and made their way to Scotch-Irish settlements.  However, other Ulster Scot immigrants of the gray zone did not follow the earlier pattern.  They moved to northern cities, which became the norm in the famine-era.  They were not Scotch-Irish because, among other reasons, they were not living in "Scotch-Irish" areas. They became "Irish Protestant" residents of New York or Philadelphia, and they are described that way in accounts of the time.
 * (3) Rjensen cites Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. As far as I can tell, this is the only source that explicitly supports Rjensen's point of view.  It has several sections dealing with immigration of people it calls "Scotch-Irish" right into the 20th century.  This is a minority definition of "Scotch-Irish" and this is the only source I've seen that treats the subject this way.
 * (4) Rjensen cites Kerby Miller. I assume Rjensen refers to Miller's Immigrants and Exiles, which addresses Irish immigration in general, and is not specifically about the Scotch-Irish.  But Miller does not even believe the term "Scotch-Irish" is legitimate.  He dismisses the whole notion of this group of people, calling it the "Scotch-Irish myth".  He lumps all eras of Ulster Scot immigration together as "northern Presbyterians".  Miller does, however, state that "the rapid commercialization of eighteenth century Ulster explains the outpouring of northern Presbyterians to colonial America."  This is the migration that other scholars call the "Scotch-Irish" migration, so Miller, too, supports S-I migration as a colonial event.
 * (5)  Rjensen cites Kevin Kenny.  In Ireland and the British Empire, Kenny touches only briefly on the Scotch-Irish, and he does so in a colonial context, e.g., "they populated the colonial frontier in large numbers."  When he reaches the early 1800s, Kenny shifts his focus to Irish Catholics.  In New Directions in Irish American History, Kenny again discusses the Scotch-Irish in a colonial context, and on page 15 states "Migrants from Ulster came to colonial America...[and] came to be called 'Scotch-Irish'..."  Kenny goes on to discuss descendents of the Scotch-Irish, such as 15 or so presidents, saying "Few if any of these Ulster-descended Protestant politicians regarded themselves as Irish in any meaningful way, and many ignored or suppressed their heritage altogether."  On page 16 he talks of two periods of immigration, one "Presbyterian" and one "Catholic", that were "separated by region, time, religion, and patterns of settlement..."
 * (6) Rjensen cites Glazier's Encyclopedia of Irish in America. I could not find this book, so I can't comment on it.
 * (7) Rjensen cites Meagher's Columbia Guide to Irish American History. Like other sources, Meagher's book supports the point that the Scotch-Irish migration was a colonial event.  He speaks of "...Irish migration to America in the colonial era, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries -- the so-called 'Scotch-Irish' migration...", and of "...Scotch-Irish or Irish Anglican immigrants who flooded North America in the colonial era."  Like Jackson, above, Meagher extends the Scotch-Irish migration period through the Napoleonic era and says "...from the end of the American Revolution until 1815...the migration was 'overwhelmingly Scotch-Irish'."  From that point on his focus shifts to Irish Catholics and the famine era migration.
 * Eastcote continues to misread the sources. For example, his book by Carleton Jackson spends an entire chapter on the 19th century. (Eastcote erased that when I entered it) For example both Meagher and Kerry have detailed coverage of the Orange and other Protestant movements. (Eastcote erased that when I tried to enter it--see Meagher pages 50-51. 91-92, 186, 199, 227-8, 295-7 and Kerry pp81-2, 115, 129-30, 158-9, 197, 247-8. Eastcote counts these as zero mention) Miller has hundreds of pages on the 19th century Protestant immigration, but Eastcote will not allow any mention of tahgt. Note this mediation began with the Irish American article. Eastcote wanted NO MENTION at all of the Protestant Irish in the 19th century. Then he wanted no mention in the Scotch Irish article either. There were 1.6 million of these Ulster immigrants 1780-1900 with millions of descendants and famous people (like presidents Jackson, Polk, Arthur, McKinley and Wilson) and others like the Mellons.  Eastcote furiously denies these people any place in Wikipedia. Try this question: Is Woodrow Wilson Scotch Irish? Are Jackson, Polk and McKinley Irish or not? No-no-no says Eastcote because they did not live in the colonial period!Rjensen (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rjensen again is attempting to characterize the Scotch Irish as a cohesive group of immigrants outside the 1700's and it's just not so. The only time the Scotch Irish interacted in this way was in the 1700 colonial settlement.  Rjensen is attempting to force all Irish Protestants into this Scotch Irish model and then claim that as a group they were dominant and that the Irish Catholics were a minority, a band of feckless down and outers who falsely claimed to have been discriminated against, etc.  That somehow these Irish Catholics are outliers, not true Irish, or descendants of some Celtic mythology from which these Scotch Irish arise.  And that there were constant civil wars between these two groups here in America.  That The Troubles continued on an American Front between the Protestants and the Catholics.  This is not true.  There was never any such conflict.  You can't find evidence of these American civil wars in newspaper accounts or even as the subject of scholarly books.  It is original research cobbled together by lifting quotes from various citations, that do not support these claims. Malke  2010  07:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Malke 2000 has no RS for his private misinterpetation. Kenny and Meagher and Harvard Encyclopedia provide dozens of pages of text that refute his assumptions. Rjensen (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Harvard Encyclopedia is the only source that comes close to supporting Rjensen's views and it's hardly comprehensive. And please remind Rjensen to remain civil. Malke  2010  08:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the Harvard Encyclopedia is the single most valuable source in American ethnic history and is standard in all academic libraries. Our job here is to get a good text. Should Protestants be included with Irish Americans is where we started. Does Malke believe there were ANY Protestant Irish worth mentiioning after 1800, yes or no? Rjensen (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Harvard Encyclopedia is not the most valuable source, it is simply a convenient one, and even the World Book Encyclopedia is standard in academic libraries so the presence of this tome in a college library is hardly validation of it's accuracy. You are claiming the colonial Scotch-Irish continue to exist today as a monolithic group with an anti-Catholic mindset and they do not.  Neither is there a monolithic Protestant Irish group in America battling the Irish Catholics.  And it's easy to confuse what someone might self-identify as Scotch Irish with the true migration of the 1700's.  No doubt the contributors to the Harvard tome didn't bother to distinguish the difference which would explain why it's the only volume that comes close to your argument. Malke  2010  11:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Harvard Encyclopedia and the Glazier Encyclopedia are the best comprehensive sources on the topic. Malke rejects them BECAUSE they support my argument (he has never looked at either one) and compares them to a kids encycflopedia because all have "encyclopedia" in their titles. I have tried to get the Protestant Irish into the Irish American article and Malke makes all sorts of false charges in trying to keep them out. He relies on false statements (--the newest: Jensen claims "the colonial Scotch-Irish continue to exist today as a monolithic group with an anti-Catholic mindset and they do not." absolutely false.)  Malke even rejects all the sociologisgts who report that Protestants are a majority of the Irish in USA. Are we going to move along here or not?  Rjensen (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rjensen is making another set of inaccurate statements. (1) He is mischaracterizing what myself and Malke (and others who didn't like his edits) were attempting to do in the Irish American article.  Niether one of us wants to keep Irish Protestants out of the Irish American article and he needs to stop saying that.  In fact, before Rjensen showed up on the scene and began carpet-bombing the article with changes, I tried to prevent Irish Protestants from being removed from the article.  (2) Rjensen confuses "19th century Irish Protestant immigration" with "Scotch-Irish immigration".  Yes, some of the writers discuss later immigration by Irish Protestants during the famine era and after, but these later immigrants were not considered part of the Scotch-Irish migration.  The only reference I've seen that explicitly claims they are is Harvard.  There had been changes during the transition between the Scotch-Irish migration period and the famine-era immigration period.  Those famine era Irish Protestants coming into America were considered "Irish Protestants", they settled in different areas than had the Scotch-Irish, they arrived in America after many political and social changes had occured in Ireland, and they should quite appropriately be included in the Irish American article.  But Rjensen is trying to confuse the two groups of Irish Protestant immigrants into a single bloc of Irish Protestants that just did not exist in Amkerica.   (3)  In spite of his denial above, Rjensen does try to make the case that the Scotch-Irish still exist today.  He talks about Scotch-Irish migrating to California and Florida after 1945.  He talks about their opposition to JFK in 1960.  Of course he thinks they are still around.  What history books is this guy reading?  How did the evening news miss the big Scotch-Irish exodus to Florida?  When did that happen?  Eastcote (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Census Bureau counted 302,000 Scotch Irish in Florida in 2004, and 478.000 in California. Also 410,000 in Texas; 254,000 in Pennsylvania; and 5.3 million SI nationwide. That's a lot of people to ignore. Webb gives ten pages to SI movement to California. Rjensen (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All this fussing aroundand around and going nowhere. Let's get to work. What content that I wrote does Eastcote now want to exclude from the Irish American article. Rjensen (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know we are still on the lead for Scotch-Irish American. This will be a long painful process, as there is much to change, in both articles.  I'd rather be doing other things.  So again, my proposal for the lead:


 * Scotch-Irish (the historically common term in North America) or Scots-Irish refers to inhabitants of the United States and, by some, of Canada who are of Ulster Scottish descent. The term may be qualified with American (or Canadian) as in "Scotch-Irish American" or "American of Scots-Irish ancestry".


 * "Scotch-Irish" is an Americanism, almost unknown in Britain and Ireland, and refers to Protestant Irish immigrants from the Province of Ulster to North America primarily during the eighteenth century. An estimated 200,000 or more Ulster Scots migrated to America during the colonial era, out of a total colonial population of about 3 million. Some scholars also include Ulster Protestants who immigrated to America during the 19th century.  The majority of these immigrants were descended from Scottish and English families who had been transplanted to Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s.


 * In the United States in 2000, 3.8 million people claimed "Scotch Irish" ancestry. Today, people in the British Isles of a similar ethnicity or ancestry usually refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots", with the term "Scotch-Irish" seen as terminology only used in North America.


 * Sources: James Leyburn, Scotch-Irish: A Social History, for definition of Scotch-Irish and the traditionally accepted migration-era info. David Hackett Fischer, Albion's Seed, for info on origins. Census data for ancestry claims. Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups for 19th century claim (as this is the only source I've found, out of many I've read, that goes into this at all).

Eastcote (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * RJ Suggestion: OK Try this: "Scotch-Irish" refers to Protestant Irish immigrants from the Province of Ulster to North America and their descendants. An estimated 250,000 migrated to America during the colonial era, along with 1.6 m,illion from 1783 to 1900. Most of these immigrants were descended from Scottish and English families who had been transplanted to Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s. In the United States in 2008, 3.5 million people claimed "Scotch Irish" ancestry, or 12 per 1000 people. The heaviest concentration was in the South at 16 per 1000 people, with the West at 10/1000, the Midwest at 9/1000 and the Northeast at 8/1000.

(As for 19c sources: Eastcote might read the book he cites above by Carleton Jackson, which devotes a whole chapter to the post-colonial era, as well as Ford's classic history.) Eastcote (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen's proposal still confuses later "Irish Protestant" immigration with "Scotch-Irish" immigration. Ford ends his 1915 book The Scotch-Irish in America with the close of the colonial period. His book does not support Rjensen's argument. All I have been able to find online of Carlton Jackson's book is the description from Amazon, which states Jackson takes the story into the "early 1800s". I have the book on order, and will review it when I can. However, the only source Rjensen has shown that explicitly supports his argument is the Harvard Encyclopedia, while there are multiple works that I have listed which end the Scotch-Irish migration period in or shortly following the 18th century. That is the majority of the scholoarship. With that in mind, I propose:

''"Scotch-Irish" refers to Protestant Irish immigrants from the Province of Ulster to North America and their descendants. An estimated 250,000 migrated to America during the colonial era. Some scholars also include Ulster Protestants who immigrated to America during the 19th century. Most of these immigrants were descended from Scottish and English families who had been transplanted to Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s. In the United States as of 2008, 3.5 million people claimed "Scotch Irish" ancestry. People in the British Isles of a similar ethnicity or ancestry usually refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots", with the term "Scotch-Irish" seen as terminology only used in North America.'' Eastcote (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK let's try this:
 * "Scotch-Irish" refers to Protestant Irish immigrants from the Province of Ulster (now Northern Ireland) to North America, and their descendants. An estimated 250,000 migrated to America during the colonial era. Some scholars also include the 1.6 million Ulster Protestants who immigrated to America between 1783 and 1900. Most of the Scotch Irish were descended from Scottish and English families who had been transplanted to Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s. In the United States as of 2008, 1.2% of the American populatrion (3.5 million people) claimed "Scotch Irish" ancestry; they compruise 1.6% of the population in the South, and about 1% in the rest of the U.S.  People in the British Isles of a similar ethnicity or ancestry usually refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots", with the term "Scotch-Irish" seen as terminology only used in the U.S. and Canada. Rjensen (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or this: "Scotch-Irish" refers to Protestant Irish immigrants from the Province of Ulster to North America, and their descendants.  An estimated 250,000 migrated to America during the colonial era.  Some scholars also include the 1.6 million Ulster Protestants who immigrated to America during the 19th century.  Most of the Scotch Irish were descended from Scottish and English families who had been transplanted to Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s.  In the United States as of 2008, 1.2% of the American population (3.5 million people) claimed "Scotch Irish" ancestry.   People in the British Isles of a similar ethnicity or ancestry usually refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots", with the term "Scotch-Irish" seen as terminology only used in North America. Eastcote (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. one small change in last line: "Scotch-Irish" refers to Protestant Irish immigrants from the Province of Ulster to North America, and their descendants. An estimated 250,000 migrated to America during the colonial era.  Some scholars also include the 1.6 million Ulster Protestants who immigrated to America during the 19th century.  Most of the Scotch Irish were descended from Scottish and English families who had been transplanted to Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s.  In the United States as of 2008, 1.2% of the American population (3.5 million people) claimed "Scotch Irish" ancestry.   People in the British Isles of a similar ancestry usually refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots", with the term "Scotch-Irish" used only in North America. Rjensen (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If other people agree here, then I will make the edit. I have to wait till we get the ok's though. Thank you so far guys for commenting this and getting it to this step. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 15:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you folks certainly have put a lot of work in since I last checked in. I don't want to bog down discussions or throw a monkey-wrench into what seems to be the brink of consensus, but would you consider removing the word "Protestant" from the first sentence?  I suggest this because I am unaware of a religious qualification for the ethnicity of "Scotch Irish" - or any other ethnicity, actually.  There were/are certainly Catholic Scots Irish, who were Catholic when they arrived in the US and some of their decendents remain so today.  It is erroneous to state that *all* Scots Irish were/are "Protestant."  Perhaps a qualifer like "most of whom" or "the majority of which" or similar would be appropriate if you insist on imposing religion in the very first sentence of the article but - again - there is no religious requirement to be Scotch Irish, and I believe it does a disservice to the article and the reader to state so in the first sentence. Shoreranger (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I hear what you're saying, and there were certainly Irish surnames among the Scotch-Irish (as opposed to the more usual English or Scottish surnames). Names Like Murphy and O'Brien.  But it was their Calvinist Protestantism that was the defining feature of the Scotch-Irish, moreso than their national origin, which could have been English, Scottish, Irish, French, Flemish, etc.   It sort of is a religious requirement.  Some might have been Catholic at some point and converted, but their strong religious identification was one of the things that distinguished them when they arrived in America.  I think "Presbyterian" might be more accurate than the generic "Protestant".  They were pretty opposed to the established Church. Eastcote (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The religion of these immigrants most emphatically needs to be considered. The following was written by one of their descendants about 100 years ago in her preface to a family history of certain of these immigrants, and is typical of what I've heard from others who claim Scots-Irish ancestry:


 * In the following pages I have sought to rescue from oblivion and hand down to posterity at least the names of our ancestors, who, not great in the ordinary sense, lived well in their day, and are worthy of this honor because of their religious zeal and the privations they suffered to maintain it. They were all Presbyterians of no uncertain type, and I am glad to say I have remained in their faith. I will preface my genealogy by a few remarks on the history of the times in which they lived, obtained principally from the early history of Pennsylvania, and Augusta County, Virginia.


 * At different periods subsequent to the Reformation many lowland Scotch people emigrated to the province of Ulster, in north Ireland. They prospered greatly, and maintained unimpaired the names, customs and religious faith of the country from which they came. They and their posterity regarded themselves -- and were regarded by the Irish of Celtic blood -- as such, in all essential particulars; but as in their own land they were persecuted, in addition to the religious restriction, Irish industry and commerce had been systematically repressed, when their hopes expired, men of spirit and energy refused to remain in the country, and for about fifty years great shiploads of families poured out of Belfast and Londonderry.


 * The people of Ulster had heard of Pennsylvania, and the religious liberty the people enjoyed and promised to all comers, and to that province they came in large numbers; but jealousies arose in the minds of the original settlers of Pennsylvania, and about 1740, restrictive measures were adopted by the proprietary government against the Scotch-Irish immigrants. Hence many of the race sought homes within the limits of Virginia, and drifted to the County of Augusta, which, at that time, embraced all the territory west of the Blue Ridge mountains, from the lakes on the north to the border of Tennessee on the south...

Undoubtedly there were exceptions, but it seems obvious that the vast majority of the Scots-Irish who immigrated to the colonies before the American Revolution were Presbyterians, and lowland Scots who had settled in Ulster some years before. -- DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't for a moment suggest that the religious aspect of the Scots Irish should not be "considered", but merely suggest that there is no religious pre-requisite for *being* Scotch Irish, which is the impression in the first sentence when religion is inserted. I am aware there are numerous works that examine the Scotch Irish through the lense of religion.  However, because those authors are focused on that element of the Scotch Irish it is often to the exclusion of most else, and certainly gives an impression that it defines the term but, in fact, it does not.


 * In addition, I would suggest that when the concept of religion is introduced somewhere in article the fact that Protestants, while legislatively the ruling class in Ireland for most of the major immigration periods of the Scotch Irish/Ulster Scots to the Thirteen Colonies/United States, were in fact a numeric minority in Ireland, and Presbyterians an even smaller minority *among* Protestants, though exisiting in large percentages regionally (east Ulster, for example). Shoreranger (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried pointing that at on the talk page a while back. The Protestant ruling class in Ireland was actually a minority of the population.  And their wealth allowed them easy access to emigration to America as whole families, whereas the Irish Catholics often had to send the head of the household, or the younger men, to America first, in order to establish a foothold for the family.  But later the families did come over.  An earlier argument by Rjensen was that the only Irish Catholic emigration was priests and single men and that they never married and had families, and that therefore the Irish Catholics are a minority in America.  It was this claim, among others, that got this thing started.  And certainly among the Scots Irish are many Catholics.  Remember, all of Ireland and most of the U.K. was Catholic before Henry VIII broke off from the Church, and then the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Church of Ireland, were formed. Malke  2010  16:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Malke is dead wrong saying "by Rjensen was that the only Irish Catholic emigration was priests and single men and that they never married and had families"--what nonsense. I said the Catholic Irish in US cities had fewer children than Protestant Irish in the rural South, and noted--as have many historians--that a lot of Catholics (including priests and nuns) never married or married late in life and had zero/few kids. Rjensen (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * However you want to parse it, it's original research, and has no basis in fact. You claim, "A lot of Catholics (including priests and nuns) never married or married late in life and had zero/few kids."  What specific RS makes such an unbelievable claim?  Are we to believe, according to you and your sources, that Irish Catholics, whose religious doctrines precluded use of birth control, all became members of the priesthood and religious communities, and that the majority of those who were not in the clergy, choose not to marry?  All these men and women remaining celibate?


 * Somehow only the Irish Catholics chose to defy human nature and biological needs to reproduce? Not to  mention, defying religious doctrine which advises marriage and children?  Yet, just a cursory look at the populations between Boston and Baltimore seems to suggest otherwise.  Archdiocese parochial school enrollment figures for these cities paints a far different picture.  Not even including, Chicago, St. Louis, and points West.  And speaking of the South, there are large Catholic populations there as well, but it's important to remember that arriving emigrants might wanted to have avoided the Ku Klux Klan whose initials stood for Koons, Kikes, and Katholics.  Giving comparative reproductive figures for urban Catholics versus rural Protestants in Klan territory without factoring in all variables seems hardly accurate. Malke  2010  19:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is all off the topic and garbled. Rjensen (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think once we nail down the lead for Scotch-Irish American, we should look at the population figures and claims being made by RJensen in the Irish American article. That is after all one of the things that prompted this mediation.  Malke's comments are certainly right on the mark.  Yes, the descendents of the Scotch-Irish were having big families up in the hills, but that seems to have been the norm everywhere with every population group in those days, including Irish Catholics.  I'd have to see, read, and ponder any source that claimed Irish Catholics were, as Malke says so eloquently, "defying human nature".  Eastcote (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there is a source out there that does not point out that the Scotch-Irish were Presbyterian. Presbyterianism was their identity. According to Patrick Griffin in The People with No Name, they "rejected any suggestion that they were 'mere' -- or Catholic -- Irish", and also wanted no part of the established Church of England/Ireland. They preferred to call themselves "northern dissenters". So I propose: ''"Scotch-Irish" refers to Irish Presbyterian immigrants from the Province of Ulster to North America, and their descendants. An estimated 250,000 migrated to America during the colonial era. Some scholars also include the 1.6 million Ulster Protestants who immigrated to America during the 19th century. Most of the Scotch Irish were descended from Scottish and English families who had been transplanted to Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s. In the United States as of 2008, 1.2% of the American population (3.5 million people) claimed "Scotch Irish" ancestry. People in the British Isles of a similar ancestry usually refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots", with the term "Scotch-Irish" used only in North America.'' Eastcote (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * the majority were indeed Presbyterians but Miller p 41 and D.N.Doyle (Ireland, Irishmen and Revolutionary America, 1760-1820 (1981) p. 51) points out there were many Anglicans too), so try: "Scotch-Irish" refers to Irish Presbyterian and Anglican immigrants from the Province of Ulster to North America, and their descendants."


 * I am suggesting that the only characteristic that defines all Scotch Irish are common origins from English and Scottish families settled in Ireland (mostly Ulster) by the English government beginning in the 17th century, who later immigrated to the Thirteen Colonies/United States. That's it.  That is the only universal defining characteristic for the Scotch Irish.  Religion, while influential, is not a defining factor. A Scotch Irish could be any religion at all (or none at all), at any point in history, and still be Scotch Irish. Shoreranger (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But in the early 1600's there was a religious revival led by the Presbyterian clergy who were exiled from Scotland because of their Presbyterian beliefs. And they held mass gatherings in open fields.  And then with the arrival of Monro's army, many more became Presbyterian.  A lot of this had to do with maintaining social order because part of the Presbyterian dogma was to swear allegiance to covenants.  And these covenants offered guidelines for behavior, and offered answers when needed, etc.  So there was this 'covenant theology' brought over from Scotland by the Presbyterian clergy.  These Ulster Scots seem to be the core of the group Eastcote is talking about, and from what I've been reading, very few among them would be anything but Presbyterian. Malke  2010  15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There were Anglican, Quaker, and Catholic immigrants from Ulster during the colonial period, without doubt, but I don't think they were considered Scotch-Irish. James Logan, for instance, was instrumental in attracting his "fellow countrymen", the Scotch-Irish, to Pennsylvania.  But Logan was a Quaker, and did not consider himself one of their number.  He was from Ulster, but he was not "one of those people".  He later regretted inviting them to settle in Pennsylvania, and lamented all the trouble they caused when compared to the more cooperative German settlers.  Eastcote (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Quakers certainly set themselves apart. But the question is whether all Scotch Irish in the US were always Presbyterians. That is a very stiff criterion: it is not in the RS, and it's OR to impose it. It suggests that non-Presbyterians who came to the US were not allowed to join the SI commnity, which is false. I agree with Shoreranger  Jackson (1993) p 31 notes that Huguenots joined the SI as did other dissenters (p 48) and once in America many became Methodists and Baptists (p. 96) Rjensen (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is all correct. Huguenots and Quakers even joined with the Scotch-Irish in Ireland before they came to America.  Their common Calvinist beliefs were more important to them than different ethnic origins.  And its true that they became Methodists and Baptists after settling in the back country.  However, the religious label put on them when they arrived was Presbyterian.  Huguenots and Palatines arriving in Ulster were in the minority, so would they have joined the local Presbyterian congregations, or would they have established separate churches themselves?  I've never seen any source that addresses that.  The sources only talk about establishment of Presbyterian churches by the Scotch-Irish when they arrived in America.  But for purposes of the lead, "Protestant" seems too broad.  How about "Irish Protestant Dissenters" or Irish Dissenting Protestants" or something like that?  Eastcote (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, I agree with "Presbyterians and Protestant Dissenters" Rjensen (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So, editors are asserting that Scotch Irish cannot be anything other than Protestant? Is that correct?  That is a universal trait among all Scotch Irish, at all times in history, in all places? It is a prerequisite, a defining feature, for which if it is not present, excludes one from inclusion in the group? Shoreranger (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think, yes, that Protestant Calvinism is a defining feature of the Scotch-Irish. Their religion was central to their identity (just as fundamentalist Protestantism is to many people throughout the American South today).  Certainly in the intervening two centuries since their arrival in America, some of their descendents could have become any religion.  I'm sure today you can find Catholics, Mormons, and even Jews of Scotch-Irish ancestry.  But those who "came over on the boat" were dissenting Protestants, primarily Presbyterians.  That's in all works on them, and that's how they were generally described by colonial officials.  In the late 1700s and early 1800s most became Baptists and Methodists, since preachers of those faiths were more readily available under frontier conditions.  Most of their descendents are probably still Baptists and Methodists.  Of course, during the colonial years Anglicans and Catholics came to America from Ireland, and its possible (anything is possible) that some settled in Scotch-Irish areas on the frontier.  But I don't think there were many (if any) Anglican or Catholic churches established on the colonial frontier, so they would probably have ended up worshipping with Presbyterians (or German Lutherans).  That's an interesting area I'll have to look into more (the existence of frontier Anglican and Catholic churches).   Eastcote (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this final state for lead?
''"Scotch-Irish" refers to Irish Presbyterian and Protestant dissenters from the Province of Ulster who immigrated to North America, and their descendants. An estimated 250,000 migrated to America during the colonial era. Some scholars also include the 1.6 million Ulster Protestants who immigrated to America during the 19th century. Most of the Scotch Irish were descended from Scottish and English families who had been transplanted to Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s. In the United States as of 2008, 1.2% of the American population (3.5 million people) claimed "Scotch Irish" ancestry. People in the British Isles of a similar ancestry usually refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots", with the term "Scotch-Irish" used only in North America.'' Eastcote (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. Malke 2010  20:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, looks good Rjensen (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I still don't agree, and will reiterate: Religion of any kind is not a prerequisite for being Scotch Irish, and should not be treated as such in the lede or anywhere else in the article. I have already written that the only characteristics that are common to all Scotch Irish are - family origins with English and Scottish who were relocated by the English government to Ireland beginning in the 17th century, who later immigrated to the United States.  No editor seems to have refuted this.  Since everyone appears to accept this, why continue to debate the religious language or include it at all, when it would be more accurate, clear, and easier for the reader to understand if we leave it out of the lede? (A side note: Presbyterians are among Dissenters, no?) Shoreranger (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is well-documented that what defined the Scotch-Irish more than ethnicity was their religion, so religion is a prerequisite. Griffin's The People with No Name is a good source, as is Akenson's God's Peoples: Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel, and Ulster.  To say only that they were descendents of English and Scots would be inaccurate:  an Anglican of English or Scottish descent would not have been part of the "club" so to speak.  One of the primary reasons they left Ireland was the system of laws that made them, along with Catholics, second-class citizens because of their religion (only Church of England marriages, for instance, were legal, and only CofE could hold government offices).  Throughout the scholarship on the Scotch-Irish, they are referred to as "Irish Presbyterians" or "dissenters", which are used as synonyms for Scotch-Irish.  Their religion was part and parcel of who they were.  There was a lot of persecution of Calvinists on the continent and many French, Flemish and German Calvinists also found their way to Ulster in the 17th and 18th centuries.  But while these other Calvinists were welcome to join the "northern dissenters" who were already a mixture of English and Scot, there were no Catholic or Anglican Scotch-Irish, by definition.  That is not to say there were no native Irish among them, but those would have been converts to a Calvinist faith.   Once they arrived in America they set up Presbyterian churches wherever they went, until they ultimately morphed into primarily Baptists and Methodists under the frontier conditions they met.  Eastcote (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Presbyterianism helped shape and define them and helped them achieve social cohesiveness. This is what made them a powerful sect, and they gained enough strength as a group that the government in Dublin became concerned about them. Malke  2010  00:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Revised proposal for Scotch-Irish American lead: ''"Scotch-Irish" refers to Irish Presbyterian and other Protestant dissenters from the Province of Ulster who immigrated to North America primarily during the colonial era, and their descendants. An estimated 250,000 migrated to America during the colonial era. Some scholars also include the 150,000 Ulster Protestants who immigrated to America during the early 19th century. Most of the Scotch Irish were descended from Scottish and English families who had been transplanted to Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s. In the United States as of 2008, 1.2% of the American population (3.5 million people) claimed "Scotch Irish" ancestry. People in the British Isles of a similar ancestry usually refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots", with the term "Scotch-Irish" used only in North America.''

The changes are based on the content of my shiney new copy of Carlton Jackson's A Social History of the Scotch-Irish. Jackson indicates that "the Scotch-Irish as a distinct group probably ended sometime between 1800 and 1850". By the time of the famine, "little distinction was made" between new Irish arrivals, whether Protestant or Catholic. "Thus, 'Scotch-Irish' and 'Irish' became as one in the general American mind." Only the Harvard Encyclopedia attempts to carry on a Scotch-Irish continuity right down to the 20th century. Harvard is an anomoly within the entire body of work on the Scotch-Irish, and should be treated as such. The number of 150,000 comes from Jackson, who states "Between the end of the Revolution and the beginning of the War of 1812, some 150,000 Ulstermen made their way to the United States. Eastcote (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we better wait until Eastcote gets ahold of Meagher, Kenny and the Harvard Encyclopedia, -- then he can read for himself the in-depth treatment that show scholars are studying SI behavior well into the 20th centurty--as in the 1928 and 1960 elections. Fact is there were about 1.6 million immigrants from Ulster (1780-1900) and they called themselves Scotch Irish and are treated by RS that way---as in Pittsburgh for example (no comment from Eastcote) and Woodrow Wilson (no comment from Eastcote). At least he has retreated from his argument that SI died out by 1790--he now says they died out by 1850. That of course leaves RS like Kevin Phillips and Menendez as ignored by Eastcote. Editing based on ignotrance is bad editing.  Rjensen (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I own Harvard, and I have read Kenny. Meagher I only get with a limited Google view. Phillips and Menendez I haven't seen, but I gave my take on that already (below). Wilson and Pittsburgh I have already discussed (above). I'm not going to go out and buy every reference you trot out. So again, specific to who is included as Scotch-Irish and specific to your own sources: There were three periods of Ulster Protestant immigration (these are my categories for illustrative purposes): Eastcote (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kevin Kenny. In Ireland and the British Empire, Kenny touches only briefly on the Scotch-Irish, and he does so in a colonial context, e.g., "they populated the colonial frontier in large numbers." When he reaches the early 1800s, Kenny shifts his focus to Irish Catholics. In New Directions in Irish American History, Kenny again discusses the Scotch-Irish in a colonial context, and on page 15 states "Migrants from Ulster came to colonial America...[and] came to be called 'Scotch-Irish'..."  Kenny goes on to discuss descendents of the Scotch-Irish, such as 15 or so presidents, saying "Few if any of these Ulster-descended Protestant politicians regarded themselves as Irish in any meaningful way, and many ignored or suppressed their heritage altogether."  On page 16 he talks of two periods of immigration, one "Presbyterian" and one "Catholic", that were "separated by region, time, religion, and patterns of settlement..."
 * Meagher's Columbia Guide to Irish American History. Like other sources, Meagher's book supports the point that the Scotch-Irish migration was a colonial event.  He speaks of "...Irish migration to America in the colonial era, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries -- the so-called 'Scotch-Irish' migration..."  Meagher extends the Scotch-Irish migration period through the Napoleonic era and says "...from the end of the American Revolution until 1815...the migration was 'overwhelmingly Scotch-Irish'."  From that point on his focus shifts to Irish Catholics and the famine era migration.  Meagher states "The Protestant Irish America of the eighteenth century was now long gone, ...most descendents of the Ulster Presbyterians of the eighteenth century and even many new Protestant Irish immigrants turned their backs on all associations with Ireland."
 * Only the Harvard Encyclopedia attempts to carry on a Scotch-Irish continuity right down to the 20th century. Harvard is an anomoly within the entire body of work on the Scotch-Irish, and should be treated as such. I have Harvard on my desk at work.  It's related to what I do for a living.  Harvard is a desk reference, and is not a substitute formore scholarly works.  As I recall, Harvard does not discuss Protestants at all in the article on "Irish Americans" and treats them all as Catholic.  This is inaccurate as we know.  To think the "Scotch-Irish" article is any more accurate is questionable.
 * 1) Colonial Period "Scotch-Irish" migration, roughly 1720 to 1780.  All scholars include immigrants of this period as "Scotch-Irish".  Overwhelmingly Presbyterian, majority of immigrants arrive through Philadelphia and Charleston, and make their way to the Appalachian region, settling in Virginia, Carolinas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and other areas of the upland South.  Characterized by farmers settling in wilderness areas in large family groups.  Immigration sharply declines with the American Revolution.
 * 2) Transition Period, roughly 1780 to 1840. Some scholars include some immigrants from this period as Scotch-Irish.   Immigration begins again after the Revolution.  Major changes take place in the world, in America, and in Ireland:  Age of Revolution sees the rise of the United Irishmen, Orange Order, and other groups in Ireland; agriculture begins to give way to industry and many new immigrants are specialized craftsmen instead of farmers.  There is a shift in immigration patterns.  Ulster Protestants continue to arrive in America, and some follow the settlement pattern of their earlier Scotch-Irish cousins, moving to the American frontier.  Others, however, begin to settle in northeastern urban areas, and have no connection with the descendents of the earlier Scotch-Irish.  Irish Catholic immigration begins to rise in this era.  The descendents of the colonial Scotch-Irish lose their Irish identity, and are firmly American.
 * 3) Famine-era Period, roughly 1840 to 1900.  Only one source (Harvard) includes immigrants from this period as Scotch-Irish.   Irish immigration is overwhelmingly Catholic during this period.  Ulster Protestants continue to arrive, but they are not considered Scotch-Irish.   They settle in the Northeast and Midwest, in areas far from the majority of American descendents of the colonial era Scotch-Irish.  Irish Protestants of this period quickly assimilate into general American culture.
 * well let's just take the last false statement: "Ulster Protestants continue to arrive, but they are not considered Scotch-Irish." False: they are considered genuine SI by Harvard Encyclopedia, by Ingham, Cannadine, Arthur Link, Arthur Walworth, John Garraty, August Hecksher, John Cooper (2009), Maynard (2008), John Blum, James Startt, Josephus Daniels, Charles Seymour, W.A. White,  Ray Baker, HCF Bell, as well as by Woodrow Wilson himself.  And also by Phillips and  Menendez and by Glazier, ed. '"Encyclopedia of the Irish in America  (esp 839-42) and Tim Pat Coogan (2002). Meagher (2005) says they "had a strong sense of identity" in the 1840s. Eastcote ignores all these scholars. Rjensen (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Every time I check out one of RJensen's sources for his assertions, I find that he has misrepresented it, with a single exception, the Harvard Encyclopedia, which is the only source that explicitly supports his view. Relative to his other sources that Irish Protestant immigrants of 1850-1900 were still being considered "Scotch-Irish": Eastcote (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maynard, Link, Walworth, Garraty, Hecksher, Cooper, Blum, Startt, Daniels, Seymour, White, Baker, Bell, Glazier:  What did they write and what exactly do they say to support your point that Irish Protestant immigrants of the 1850-1900 period were still being considered "Scotch-Irish"?  I haven't the time to run around and gather the works of everyone whose name you throw out.
 * Cannadine and Ingham: They write about the Mellon family of Pittsburgh.  The Mellons immigrated to America around 1815 or so, and are not part of the 1850-1900 immigrant group.
 * Phillips and Menendez I'll get to in good time, but I suspect they are talking about a supposed Scotch-Irish political legacy, which many political commentators have spoken of in recent years, rather than about actual communities of Scotch-Irish.
 * Coogan: Coogan I've already dealt with, so please stop saying I'm ignoring him, and stop citing him, because he doesn't support your point.   Coogan is an Irish author who writes on Irish Catholics, Irish Republicanism, and Ireland in general.  He is not a specialist in the Scotch-Irish.  In Wherever Green Is Worn: The Story of the Irish Diaspora, Coogin does not deal in depth with the Scotch-Irish.  He discusses them briefly in the chapter entitled “America” with the dismissive conclusion that they should “very doubtfully” even be regarded as Irish.  His book then focuses on the famine period.  Relative to the Famine-era immigration of Irish, he speaks of "the so-called Scotch Irish emigration before it.”  Coogan does not give dates for this "Scotch-Irish" migration period, but the implication is clear that he is talking about a separate period of immigration “before” the famine period.
 * Meagher: I've already dealt with him as well, so please stop saying I'm ignoring him, and stop citing him, because he doesn't support your point.   Meagher's book supports the point that the Scotch-Irish migration was mainly a colonial event.  He speaks of "...Irish migration to America in the colonial era, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries - the so-called 'Scotch-Irish' migration..."  Meagher extends the Scotch-Irish migration period through the Napoleonic era and says "...from the end of the American Revolution until 1815...the migration was overwhelmingly Scotch-Irish."  From that point on his focus shifts to Irish Catholics and the famine era migration.  Meagher states "The Protestant Irish America of the eighteenth century was now long gone, ...most descendents of the Ulster Presbyterians of the eighteenth century and even many new Protestant Irish immigrants turned their backs on all associations with Ireland."
 * Ok, I can't go out and prove what these sources say, but let's keep the discussion on modification the text. And find stuff that you can agree on. And then we can slowly work towards a solution for the rest of it. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 19:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not as simple as differences over the wording of a single paragraph. RJensen made a multitude of changes that effected the meaning and tone of the article.  There are fundamental differences in definition of the topic and interpretation of history.  But, once again, here is my proposal for the lead in the Scotch-Irish American article:  "Scotch-Irish" refers to Irish Presbyterian and other Protestant dissenters from the Province of Ulster who immigrated to North America primarily during the colonial era, and their descendants.  An estimated 250,000 migrated to America during the colonial era.  Some scholars also include the 150,000 Ulster Protestants who immigrated to America during the early 19th century.  Most of the Scotch Irish were descended from Scottish and English families who had been transplanted to Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s.  In the United States as of 2008, 1.2% of the American population (3.5 million people) claimed "Scotch Irish" ancestry.   People in the British Isles of a similar ancestry usually refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots", with the term "Scotch-Irish" used only in North America.  Eastcote (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

="Conflict" in Irish American article=

Original: ''The religious distinction became important in the 1840s, when for the first time large numbers of Irish Catholics appeared in America. The Protestants redefined themselves as "Scotch Irish", to stress their historic origins in Protestant Scotland, and distanced themselves from newcomers.[26] Protestant Irish became active in explicitly anti-Catholic organizations such as the Orange Institution and the American Protective Association. Indeed tensions between the Catholic and Protestant Irish in America escalated into violence, typified by the Philadelphia riots of 1844[27], and the Orange Riots in New York City in 1871 and 1872[28]. In the southern strongholds of the Protestant Irish, hostility to Catholic presidential candidates Al Smith in 1928 and John F. Kennedy in 1960 became central to those elections, as Democrats deserted their traditional party to vote Republican. Irish Catholics meanwhile gave overwhelming support to Smith and Kennedy.''

New: I have no suggestion for a substitute. The whole tub of bath water needs to be thrown out, baby and all. There are factoids in this paragraph, but they are strung together in such a way that the whole paragraph is misleading, and in some places totally false. It implies there was almost inter-Irish civil war going on.

Why (keep it brief):
 * RJensen says here that "the Protestants redefined themselves as 'Scotch Irish'". This is a factoid, but misleading.  Some descendents of the colonial Presbyterian Irish settlers certainly began designating themselves "Scotch-Irish" in the 1880s or 90s, but this was not evidence of inter-Irish "conflict".  Most "Scotch-Irish" lived nowhere near the centers of new Irish Catholic immigration.  And, ridiculously, RJensen would have us believe these Scotch-Irish were somehow still "Irish" and the old conflicts from Ireland were motivating their lives.  There was no recognizable Scotch-Irish ethnic group anymore.  They were Americans.  They'd been here over a hundred years and were so intermarried with English, German, Welsh, and other groups that Ireland was a non-issue.  They were too busy raising corn and kids.


 * When RJensen says "Protestant Irish became active in explicitly anti-Catholic organizations such as the Orange Institution and the American Protective Association", he implies that this was THE thing to do if you were Protestant and Irish. And taken together with the previous sentence it implies that the group called "Scotch-Irish" were flocking to the Orange Order, etc.  This is horse hockey.  The Scotch-Irish had nothing to do with the Orange Order.  It was organized by new Irish Protestant immigrants, the activities of the Orange Order in the USA were negligible, and the Orange riots of 1871-72 were localized to New York City.  The American Protective Association (the Know-Nothings) were active in the Midwest and Northeast, not near any areas settled heavily by the Scotch-Irish.  The American Protective Association was not a "Protestant Irish" organization, it was a "nativist" organization.  It was certainly anti-Catholic, and anti-immigrant, but they were equal opportunity Catholic-bashers, disliking any Catholic, whether Irish, German or Italian.


 * Then we come to the big jaw-dropping leap to the Smith and Kennedy campaigns. Where in the world did RJensen get this craziness from?  RJensen talks about the "southern strongholds of the Protestant Irish".  Just where might these strongholds be?  Where are the battlements, and who are all these Irish running around the South?  If RJensen can show me, in writing, any credible source that says hostility of Irish Protestants in the Southern USA was "central" to the 1960 Presidential election, I'll volunteer to shine his shoes and clean his bathroom for a year.

Sources: Let RJensen present his sources. Not just names of authors, but the actual quotes that support his over-the-top assertions. Eastcote (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "craziness" --Eastcote's bluster needs some citations.

Eastcote demands my RS. OK start with from Harvard Encyclopedia pp 906-7: the influx of Catholic Irish in 1840s rekindled "the old Scotch Irish fear of Catholic domination". The SI "gave enthusiastic support to the various anti-Catholic societies that sprang up in the 1840s and 1850s" "They joined the Am. Protective Association in large numbers." SI "involvement in organized anti-Catholicism reached a peak in the generation after the Civil War." "The Orange Order was closely linked with, and may even have inspired, many of the late 19th century societies that sought to alert Americans to the dangers of 'popery.'" (all quotess from Harvard) On the Orange order see also Meagher (2005) Columbia Guide to Irish American History pages 50-51. 91-92, 186, 199, 227-8, 295-7 and Kerry The American Irish (2000) pp 81-2, 115, 129-30, 158-9, 197, 247-8. On SI identity in 19th century, try Meagher: The SI "had a strong sense of identity and a proud heritage, which they believed was threatened by the numerous Irish Catholics arriving in America after the Great Famine of the 1840s.[Meagher p 303]  OK There are my citations. Eastcote now has to reveal the RS he depends upon. Rjensen (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reference by reference:
 * Here we go with that Harvard Encyclopedia again. That is the only source that comes close to confusing the Scotch-Irish with later Irish Protestant immigrants.  Where did the Scotch-Irish live by 1871?  By 1871, just who were the Scotch-Irish anyway?  The writer of that Harvard article is the only one who broad-brushes this way, out of dozens of other sources.   Harvard stands out as an anomoly in the whole corpus of Scotch-Irish scholarship.  Both Leyburn and Jackson, his heir-apparent as the preeminent Scotch-Irish scholar, state the Scotch-Irish had ceased to exist by the early 1800s.
 * Meagher.... I have to Google-book Meagher, and get only a partial view, but what I get does not support your assertions of mass inter-Irish American conflict.  Page 50 talks about the open cooperation of Protestant and Catholic Irish in America in the early 1800s, but you mention nothing of that, and Meagher then says this cooperation was marred by localized violence in New York City between immigrants.  Page 51 speaks of events in Ireland, not in the United States.  Page 52, which you do not refer to, discusses the "Second Great Awakening" which was an America-wide phenomenon, not specific to Irish Protestants, indicating that much of the resistance to Catholic immigrants was not a case of Irish Protestants against Irish Catholics.  Where Meagher does mention Irish Protestant and Irish Catholic American division, he specifies this was "in the northern United States".  (You may recall that the bulk of the "Scotch-Irish" settled in the southern United States, so you can't conflate them with these later Irish Protestant immigrants; and besides, the S-I had ceased being Irish years before.  Since you are fond of pointing to Jackson's recent work in the S-I, Jackson states "the Scotch-Irish as a distinct group probably ended sometime between 1800 and 1850").  On pages 91-92 which you cite, Meagher mentions the Orange Riots of 1870-71, but these were again localized conflicts in New York City between new immigrants, and did not involve the Scotch-Irish at all.  Meagher states "The Protestant Irish America of the eighteenth century was now long gone, ...most descendents of the Ulster Presbyterians of the eighteenth century and even many new Protestant Irish immigrants turned their backs on all associations with Ireland,....a smaller number...disdainful of the new Catholic Irish, insisted on a Scotch-Irish identity."   Meagher points out on these pages that "Irish America" was now "Catholic Irish America", and most of the opposition was not from Irish Protestants but from American Nativist organizations, the most important of which was the Know-Nothings.    I have no idea what the book says on pages 186, 199, 227-8, 295-7, & 303 because of my limited Google view, but knowing how you use sources, it could say almost anything.
 * As for Kerry's The American Irish, I am unable to get a Google view. I suspect that your loose interpretation of Meagher's book has been repeated with Kerry's.  What exactly does Kerry say?  Quotes please.
 * You did not provide any sources for your wild assertion that Irish Protestant American opposition was "central" to the campaigns of Smith and Kennedy. I'm still waiting.  Eastcote (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all you need to get the Harvard Encyclopedia it's a standard reference work and an editor's ignorance of it is no excuse for blanking information based on it. As for the "wild assertion" --OK I will claim a free shoeshine and an apology:

Kevin Phillips says (p 139-40) the "religious landslide" of 1928 produced the lowest Democratic vote ever in the "Scotch Irish citadels" (he has a map page 125). on p 134 Phillips reports that in 1960 Kennedy fell below Stevenson's low 1956 totals in Scotch-Irish areas. [Kevin Phillips, Emerging Republican Majority (1969)] Menendez looks at "strong Scotch Irish" counties and says their dominance in the Ozarks "is the reason Al Smith and John Kennedy ran so poorly in the Ozarks in 1928 and 1960." Likewise he points to the SI in Appalachia (p 63-4). For 1960 he says (p 118): "Ethnic factors were influential in anti-Kennedy voting. Kennedy ran almost 6 points weaker than Stevenson in the 35 most heavily Scotch Irish counties in eleven Southern and Border states." [Albert Menendez, Evangelicals at the Ballot Box'' (1996) p.60-64, 118] Rjensen (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have the Harvard Encyclopedia. The article in there is an anomoly. An anomoly should not dictate major content in a Wikipedia article.
 * As for the free shoeshine, read Jackson: The Scotch-Irish Society was founded in 1889 precisely because the Scotch-Irish were gone as a distinct people, and there was a need to preserve the history of the group. Jackson says that by 1949, it was lamented that the Scotch-Irish had "vanished from the scene of American life..." and (somehwat inaccurately) "They have left no trace of their existence..." Jackson goes on: "There are no distinct communities of Scotch-Irish today." There are certainly Scotch-Irish descendents (like myself), but there are no Scotch-Irish, and no Scotch-Irish voting blocks. (What you are doing is akin to saying Wisconsin German descendents actually are Germans, when they are nothing of the kind. They might hold Oktoberfests now and then, but they speak and work and think and vote as Americans, not as Germans). Did the attitudes and beliefs of the Scotch-Irish have an influence on the attitudes and beliefs of their American descendents? Certainly. It would be more appropriate to discuss that influence (including such things as the growth of the Bible Belt, and current political attitudes) in the Scotch-Irish American article, rather than to cite it in the Irish American article as evidence of some synthesized continuing sectarian conflict between Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics. This has no place in the Irish American article. As for Phillips, I'd have to read him myself to see what he says. Many authors speak of the cultural and political legacy of the Scotch-Irish without claiming the people themselves are still somehow "Irish Protestants" after 250 years. I've learned not to trust your interpretation of a source, based on your readings of such folks as Jackson, Meagher, Miller and others. Eastcote (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, again, I can't go out and prove what these sources say, but let's keep the discussion on modification the text. And find stuff that you can agree on. And then we can slowly work towards a solution for the rest of it. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 19:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not as simple as differences over the wording of a single paragraph. RJensen made a multitude of changes that effected the meaning and tone of the article.  There are fundamental differences in definition of the topic and interpretation of history.  But, I will work on an alternative paragraph for the "Conflict" section of the Irish American article, which will include a renaming of the section to something like "Opposition to Catholic Immigration".  Eastcote (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sloppy misquotes
As for misquotes, Eastcote misquotes his new copy of Jackson. Jackson says: "The immigration of the Irish in general caused the older groups of SI to be merged in the minds of most Americans. In this sense it may be said that the SI as a distinct group probably ended sometime between 1800 and 1850." Eastcote quotes only the final part of the last sentence, deliberately removing the qualifier. That is the American public no longer saw the SI as a separate group. But the SI saw themselves as distinct, as do scholars today. (read Woodrow Wilson address in 1896, online here Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rjensen, I would prefer that you not delete my comments from this discussion, as you did here . This is not the first time you've deleted other editors comments. Eastcote (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * RJensen has himself misquoted the passage in Jackson. What it says is "[After 1849] the immigration of the Irish in general caused the older groups of Scotch-Irish to be merged as "Irish" in the minds of most Americans.  In this sense it may be said that the Scotch-Irish as a distinct group probably ended sometime between 1800 and 1850."   This has to be taken together with Jackson's other comments that "From 1812 to 1850...'Scotch-Irish' and 'Irish' became as one in the general American mind," and "It was during the first fifty years of the nineteenth century that the Scotch-Irish became generally assimilated into the mainstream of American life", and "there are no distinct communities of Scotch-Irish today."  Taken as a whole this indicates that, as general immigration from Ireland increased in the 1800s, both Catholic and Protestant, there was no distinction drawn between the two.  The descendents of the "old" colonial era Scotch-Irish had ceased to be a distinct group and had assimilated, and the "new" Irish Protestant immigrants were lumped together as "Irish" along with their Catholic fellow countrymen.  And as Leyburn, Campbell and others have noted, the descendents of the "old" Scotch-Irish were now "Virginians", "Tennesseans" or "Carolinians" and generally didn't even know the national origin of their ancestors.  Eastcote (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

RJensen's Deletion of Other Editor's comments
I request that the mediator step in and admonish RJensen's behavior in deleting other editor's comments. He has now done this twice, here, and here. Eastcote (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for accidental deletions. They were not intentional. Eastcote can apologize for his demeaning language when discussing serious issues. Rjensen (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, I must of missed it on my watchlist. I have just placed a final warning on Rjensen's talkpage. This is not the first time I have seen this. There is a changes button at the bottom (or at least preview button) that allows you to see what you have changed before you have submitted it. Also, if this is an accident, you could immediately revert part of your edit back to the original text and note the technical error in the summary. This is the final warning for all on blanking edits. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 19:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

moving forward
I would like to propose we begin a final move toward consensus so that this can be closed and we can all move forward with building the encyclopedia. Malke 2010  17:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the last proposal by Eastcote for the lead for Scotch Irish Article (Remember we haven't even gotten to the Irish American article which is the reason we're all here in the first place.)

''"Scotch-Irish" refers to Irish Presbyterian and other Protestant dissenters from the Province of Ulster who immigrated to North America primarily during the colonial era, and their descendants. An estimated 250,000 migrated to America during the colonial era. Some scholars also include the 150,000 Ulster Protestants who immigrated to America during the early 19th century. Most of the Scotch Irish were descended from Scottish and English families who had been transplanted to Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s. In the United States as of 2008, 1.2% of the American population (3.5 million people) claimed "Scotch Irish" ancestry. People in the British Isles of a similar ancestry usually refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots", with the term "Scotch-Irish" used only in North America.''

Please add your name to either the Support or Do Not Support section. Please, no lengthy comments. Just Yey or Nay, thanks. Malke 2010  18:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for heading this up Malke2010. I will send notifications to talkpages if we don't get a response before Thursday night. (And A reminder, as the mediator, I can not vote in this change) -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 20:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If you Support this edit sign in here:
 * Support and embed a hidden note in the edit that states this is by consensus w/mediator. Malke 2010  18:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support! DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Eastcote (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If you Do Not Support this edit sign in here:
 * Do Not Support Shoreranger (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Glad you came to consensus guys, and this is nice work, but I still contend that the only universal definition of Scots Irish is Plantation folk who later emmigrated to British North America. Since my vote won't prevent anything, I just wanted to record my concern.  Congrats!

✅ Shoreranger, if you provide some reliable source on changing this, then I could see you maybe getting a change. User:Rjensen has had enough time to vote on this one. Can I get a final preposal for the Scotish-Irish American? &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 21:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I will not edit the basic agreed-upon Scotch-Irish lead, but I will add sources to support it, if that sort of edit of it is permissible. There are other proposals coming for the Irish American article.  As I mentioned before, there are multiple changes that need to be made, and not just a single one.  The same was true of the Scotch-Irish American article, but let's see if we can get on there with more amicable editing now that the edit restriction is lifted.  Eastcote (talk) 19:58, 18 April 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)