Talk:Irish Americans/Archive 5

Recently reverted changes by 64.134.232.113

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

• "[The Scotch-Irish] were descendants of Irish people|Protestant, Scottish and English." There is general scholarly consensus that the Scotch-Irish were descended from Scottish and English settlers, with a scattering of Welsh, Huguenot, German, etc. The addition of native Irish needs a source.

• "The early Ulster immigrants and their descendants at first usually referred to themselves simply as "Irish," without the qualifier "Scotch" or simply as 'Anglo-Saxon.'" The addition of "or simply as 'Anglo-Saxon'" needs a source. I don't think self-identification of even the English as "Anglo-Saxon" developed until the Victorian era.

• "The interaction which did occurr happened in the early 19th century when the first large waves of Catholic Irish arrived in cities which still had large Scots-Irish populations suchs as Philidelphia, New York City, Boston, and Balitomore." Sources I have seen discuss conflict between recently arrived Protestants and Catholics, who brought 19th century rivalries with them from Ireland, and do not portray the conflict as between recent Catholic immigrants and established Scotch-Irish populations of 18th century origin.

• "Unfortunately, [Irish Catholics] whose cultural values didn't stress literacy had a majority who were illiterate in any language. This high rate of illiteracy in Irish Catholics saw a change in Northern American cities going from almost 90% literacy rate in 1810 down to 50% literacy rates in 1860." This statement needs a source.

• "...being a minority within the larger Irish immigrant mileu, [Protestant Irish] were heavily persecuted and discriminated against by the Irish Catholic community which clawed its way to power in American urban streets." This needs a source.

• "...many Irish Protestants are also descended of Irish Catholics who arrived in the 18th century, but due to a negligible Catholic Church infrastructure and heavy proselytizing by Protestant missionaries converted to Protestantism." Needs a source.

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

That last paragraph is probably not going to have a source. The Catholic Church was present and offering a means of assistance to Catholics in the 18th century.Malke2010 23:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesuits were here in the 1600's. This cathedral is the oldest continuously operating Catholic Church: St. Louis Cathedral, New Orleans and was built in 1718. As regards the illiteracy, and discriminating against the Protestants, not to mention 'clawed its way to power,' seems to contradict itself. There were so many, yet the Church was lacking? They were all illiterate, yet they gained power?Malke2010 23:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the Catholic Church had a strong presence in the territories colonized by France and Spain - what is now the southeastern & southwestern parts. However, these were not then parts of the USA until the Louisiana Purchase (1803) and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848). Ileanadu (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that Protestants were in the majority, but the Catholic Church had a presence, and an "infrastructure", early on. Maryland, for instance, was founded as "a haven for Catholics in the new world" in 1632. The Archdiocese of New York was created in 1789, certainly showing evidence of 18th century "infrastructure" in the 13 colonies. Eastcote (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic Church did have a presence and infrastructure from early on, but New York was not an archdiocese until 1850. Until then it was a suffragan diocese to the Archdiocese of Baltimore. "From 1808 until 1847, Baltimore was the only archdiocese in the United States and therefore the entire country was one ecclesiastical province." Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore#History. From 1784, Baltimore was an Apostolic Prefecture. "Because Maryland was one of the few regions of the colonial United States with a substantial Roman Catholic population, the apostolic prefecture was elevated to become the Diocese of Baltimore—the first diocese in the United States—on November 6, 1789."

"On April 8, 1808, Pope Pius VII erected the suffragan dioceses of Boston, New York, Philadelphia," and Bardstown, KY. Ileanadu (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The Province of Maryland was set up in 1632 by George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore, an Englishman who also had a seat in the Irish House of Lords, primarily as a refuge for Irish and British Catholics. Red Hurley (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion request of 7/26/10

Someone has requested a discussion concerning sourced statement that 75 percent of Irish immigrants to America in the 17th century were Catholic. This is a generally-accepted statistic. If you want to start a discussion about this, please go ahead. Please do not reinsert your comment into the body of the article, as it is disruptive. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.71.178 (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Presidents section

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

I've been on a week's holiday, (honeymoon, as I do sort of have a personal life), so I'm only just seeing this, but here are a few points:

• I think it is wrong to say the Scotch-Irish "should not be deliniated" from the Irish. There is a historical distinction that should be recognized. In the Irish American article Scotch-Irish presidents are being claimed as Irish, while at the same time over in the Scottish American article they are happily claiming them as Scots. Which is it? Are they Irish or Scottish, or perhaps something altogether different? The identity of these people has been debated for over a century, but that very debate points to a distinction between Scotch-Irish, Scots, and Irish. Even today the cousins of the Scotch-Irish still in Ireland make the distinction and refer to themselves as "Ulster Scots".
• Irish historian Tim Pat Coogan, in Wherever Green Is Worn: The Story of the Irish Diaspora, concludes that the Scotch-Irish should "very doubtfully" be regarded as Irish.
• If the article is confusing to the casual reader, it should be clarified with explanatory information. We shouldn't simply remove the confusing information, as that renders a disservice to the reader.
• The analogy with Norman-Irish, Anglo-Irish, etc., is not necessarily appropriate. The Normans arrived in the middle ages and ultimately melted into the general population, just as they did in England and Scotland. So did the Vikings. So did the Anglo-Irish (which is an ambiguous term because it could mean either English settlers in Ireland, or Irish who take on English ways). The continued use of the term Ulster Scot to describe oneself points to not melting in even 400 years after settlement of Ulster began. This would have been even more pronounced when the Scotch-Irish were leaving for America 300 years ago. The Scotch-Irish weren't there long enough to really melt in. The movement of Scots (and others) to Ulster was roughly 1610 to 1710, and the movement to America was roughly 1710 to 1810. Some of those who went to America were second generation Ulstermen, and some had themselves come from Scotland.
• Scotch-Irish is an unfortunate name. Many historians do not like it because it is confusing and not very accurate. There were Scots, English, Welsh, French, Germans, etc., who made up the Calvinist melting pot that became the Scotch-Irish. They weren't Irish and they weren't purely Scots. David Hacket Fisher, in Albion's Seed, calls them "Borderers" because the majority came from the Anglo-Scottish Border region. It is perhaps more accurate, but doesn't take into account the continental Europeans in the mix, and ignores their time in Ireland. Patrick Griffin goes the farthest in pointing out the difficulty in identifying them in his book The People with No Name.
• Here's an interesting little clip from the Penn State University. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypk5mG5JDvk&feature=related

So, my two or three cents. The Scotch-Irish are historically distinct from the Irish, like it or not, and the distinction doesn't go away by saying "'Scotch-Irish' is still 'Irish'." Eastcote (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

They had different histories in America, and in Ireland itself, but in Ireland in recent years they are seen as a part of Irish history. On arrival in America before 1800 they would have been listed as citizens of the Kingdom of Ireland. Within Ireland itself, many had arrived in the early 1600s as part of the Plantation of Ulster and their descendants thought that there would be more opportunities in America than in Ireland; as was the case with the mainly Irish Catholic emigrants in the 1800s and 1900s. The Ulster American Folk Park, that was partly sponsored by the Mellon family, is not located in Scotland. Does it make sense for this page to be exclusive when the rest of us in Ireland are trying to be more inclusive?Red Hurley (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree it does not make sense for this page to be exclusive at all. The "Scotch-Irish" are distinct from "The Irish", and to artificially ignore that distinction and say everyone has just a single "Irish" identity excludes the very real identity of "Scotch-Irish". There are multiple stories from the island of Ireland, not just one. And the American story of the Scotch-Irish was different than the American story of the Irish. As for museums, there are multiple museums in Scotland that claim the Scotch-Irish as their own, the Tullie House Museum, the Border History Museum, the Museum of Border Arms and Armour. The Clan Armstrong Museum proudly displays Neil Armstrong's space suit. The story of the Scotch-Irish is not just an Irish story, and the identity is different than that of the true Irish. Saying that there is a distinction is not exclusive - it is inclusive of multiple stories. Eastcote (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, multiple stories, but both with an Irish aspect that has to be explained somehow to wikipedians in Kenya or Singapore. The Encyclopedia of the Irish in America (1999) lists the "Friendly Sons of St Patrick" as a Presbyterian (Scots-Irish) group that signed up George Washington in 1781, and in the 1840s raised money for famine relief in Ireland. I don't know if Washington considered them to be Irish or specifically Scots-Irish; probably as Americans with an Irish origin. There are numerous grey area examples like this.Red Hurley (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I think we are in agreement. The distinction should be explained. We should not pretend there is no distinction. Eastcote (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: edit of 8/6. This edit is off-topic. This is a section about Presidents of Irish ncestry. It is not about the entire family history of all Presidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.71.178 (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Mullen

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

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

Thanks, that's interesting; Mullen is usually an Irish-origin family name.Red Hurley (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that his father's side originates in Ireland, but I can't find that in a source, other than the "Irish face" reference. It's good enough for me, though. Eastcote (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Waxhaws area

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

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

Maureen O'Hara & Pierce Brosnan

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

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

Irish as a percentage of whites

This reference to the Irish being 20% of American whites has been in the article for a long time; I think it was in the original version. It's interesting information for the reader; just as interesting as the fact that Irish Americans are 12% of the total population. So why remove it? I don't think the facts are in dispute; the statistic (20%) comes directly from the Census. It just seems to me that if an editor is going to remove information from a Wiki article, the burden is on the editor to explain and justify how the removal improves the quality of the article. I think the removal of the 20% figure diminishes the quality of the article, so my vote is let's keep it in. OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.71.178 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the American Community Survey, and I see nothing discussing the ethnic make-up of the white population. Maybe I missed it. But what is the relevance? 12% of the American population claims Irish ancestry, whether black, white or brown. Is one more Irish-American if he's "white" with a great-grandfather from Ireland, or "black" with a father from Ireland? Eastcote (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, this "statistic" was added as a "minor copy edit" three months ago, and hasn't been in the article for a long time. Slipped in without much scrutiny during a series of other "minor copy edits". And again, in the referenced Census Bureau American Community Survey, the "Asian", "American Indian" and "Hispanic" groupings are broken down by national origin, but not the "Black" or "White" groupings. At least from what I can see... Eastcote (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not Ok, if for no other reason that the cited source does not support the statement. You cannot establish from the data that all or any of the the number of people claiming Irish heritage are white. Shoreranger (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Irish American history -- railroad workers

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

No Irish need Apply

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

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

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

Irish police in New York

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

So-called Irishness

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

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

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

In actual fact, under the laws of the Republic of Ireland, it makes you an Irish citizen. You may not care to claim such, but tens of thousands of others do and are legally recognized as Irish by the only institution with the authority to decide: the government of the Republic of Ireland.

The real issue here is that you are a bigot, plain and simple. You have appointed yourself the arbiter of Irish identity, and no matter the actual facts --- legal, cultural or other --- you pretend that as as a resident of England you have the least bit of say in the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.89.207 (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

"That makes you are Irish as an African American is African" - not very at all, then!

There's already a reference to the phenomenon of the "plastic Paddy", which seems to be far more prevalent in the USA than anywhere else. So many Americans who were born and bred in the USA (and whose parents and grandparents were also born and bred in the USA) insist on identifying themselves as Irish simply because a distant relative travelled over from Ireland possibly hundreds of years ago. Along with the "Cherokee grandmother" thing mentioned above, it has to be because they perceive it to make them seem more windswept and interesting - or simply just "cooler". If they ever actually travelled to Ireland, they'd discover how different a country and culture it actually is compared to the one they're familiar with. BTW, it looks like the plastic Paddy reference has been edited by someone who actually *is* a plastic Paddy, judging by the tone of the "undermine" comment. 91.73.102.106 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

More fodder for discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

Utter bigotry. No better than some 'British Israelite' nutter telling actual Jews that they're phony Hebrews since it's been a while since they lived in the desert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.89.207 (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Not historically a good idea to admit you were Irish in the UK. Who would have wanted to admit to Irish heritage in a country like the UK which starved, murdered and enslaved millions of Irish people for over 700 years? This was like admitting to being Jewish in Germany. It's a good bet that Irish immigrants into the UK tried to hide their heritage more and, even now are more willing to forget it sooner, in order to avoid the legendary anti-Irish racism in Britain. It may not be as bad today as it was 50 years ago, but there is still some of it there even today if you are honest. Depending on the region of Britain, of course, in places like Liverpool, where many are at least part-Irish, this would apply less so. DiamondLattice (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Who would have wanted to admit to Irish heritage in a country like the UK which starved, murdered and enslaved millions of Irish people for over 700 years? This was like admitting to being Jewish in Germany."

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

Scotch-Irish presidents

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

Perhaps your question is simply rhetorical, but there is argument as to whether the Scotch-Irish are really a separate group. Some espouse a single Irishness, others see distinction between the Irish and the Scotch-Irish. To further complicate it, Scots also claim the Scotch-Irish as their own. So for instance, you have the situation where Andrew Jackson is claimed by Irish, Scots, and Scotch-Irish. Eastcote (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Bulldog, you put a disputed neutrality tag on this portion of the article. What exactly do you see as a lack of neutrality? You haven't provided any explanation. You seem to disagree with what is in the article, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a neutrality problem. Please explain. Eastcote (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well it's a neutrality issue because it calls people of Scotch-Irish descent "Irish" when, as you yourself explained above, the Scots claim that "Scotch-Irish" people are in fact Scottish. To save from picking a side, shouldn't these people just be put in the Scotch-Irish article? Bulldog123 16:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Ulster Scots, and - by extention - the Scotch Irish in America that decended from them, were and are an ethnic group in Ireland. That makes them Irish. Blacks Americans are still Americans. Russian Jews are still Russians. Coptic Egyptians are still Egyptians. The Ainu in Japan are still Japanese. Scotch Irish are still Irish. If they weren't, they'd just be called Scots. And, as the article explains in more than one place, those now referred to as Scotch Irish referred to themselves, and were referenced by others, as simply "Irish" in the United States for more than a century after their first arrival. They were also, as the article further notes, not all related to Scots but many decended from English, as well. Shoreranger (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

were and are an ethnic group in Ireland. That makes them Irish. No it doesn't. Are you saying Armenians born in Turkey are now of Turkish ethnicity? Bulldog123 23:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Turkish *nationality*, Turkish citizens, certainly. Shoreranger (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay but this article is about ethnically Irish people, right? This articled is included in Category:Ethnic groups of the United States. So... simply living in Ireland does not make someone Irish (by the ethnic definition). Bulldog123 00:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it? The article gives a definition in the first sentence. It then goes on to discuss how people self-identify. It does not include any tests of "ethnicity." And, you said "born" not simply having lived there for a while. Anyone born in Ireland is Irish. Anyone who was born in Ireland from a family that has lived in Ireland for three generations is Irish. Take a look at Jeanne's post: Anglo-Irish, Norman-Irish...I would add Norse-Irish/Hiberno Norse - they're all "Irish", my friend. Ireland is not the mono-culture you seem to believe it is. There is over a thousand years of history of differnt "ethnic" groups getting into the Irish mix. In the end, they are all "Irish", and when one of them leaves to come to America, that line of decendents is Irish American. If you want to self-identify as Scotch Irish American or Anglo Irish America you can - that's the beauty of it. But you're still self-identifying as Irish descent - see? Shoreranger (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You have proof these presidents self-identified as Irish? Anyone born in Ireland is of Irish nationality, but definitely not of "Irish ethnicity." You want to tell that to the numerous proud Englishmen born in Ireland? It doesn't work that way. A lot of what you're saying is WP:OR. Bulldog123 14:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of what I'm "saying" is born out of pages of archived discussions on this article that you had no part of and have apparently not bothered to read. Shoreranger (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

When the bulk of the Irish-Americans' ancestors arrived in America, the Irish nation was part of the United Kingdom, so technically they were British yet identified as Irish and were (often disparagingly) referred to as Irish (Irish need not apply, etc). So what then was it that made them Irish? Obviously it was their ethnicity and the fact that thye came from IRELAND! This argument is going nowhere as far as I'm concerned. They were born in Ireland, identified as Irish, were considered Irish, hence Irish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not as neat as "they are Irish plain and simple". There is a distinction between Scotch-Irish and Irish, which is why we keep re-hashing the identity/definition question over and over. Eastcote (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How ironic that many loyalists in Northern Ireland are recognising their Irishness, yet here on the Irish-Americans talk page we're fighting over who are the real Irish. The article needs to clarify who the Scots-Irish (BTW, Scotch is an alcoholic drink) were/are, recognise that they had a different culture and relgion, while still including them as Irish-American. The Scots immigrants were a separate group; in fact many settled in Canada.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A distinction between the Scotch-Irish and the Irish American is that descendents of the Scotch-Irish look to American history for their identity, and not to Irish history. The descendents of the Scotch-Irish identify with Davey Crockett, the Wilderness Road, and Kings Mountain, and not with people or events in Ireland. Many Scotch-Irish descendents don't know where they originated. Read a book on the Scotch-Irish and the focus is on Appalachian settlement, the American Revolution, and Westward Movement. Origins in Scotland, England and Ireland are usually treated incidentally at the beginning of the book. James Leyburn's The Scotch-Irish (usually viewed as the most comprehensive study) covers as much or more about Scotland than Ireland, and then spends the bulk of the book on American settlement and cultural development. However, because the Scotch-Irish came here from Ireland, and because they called themselves Irish when they arrived, they are part of the story of "Irish Americans". Eastcote (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason Americans added 'Scotch' was mainly because of their religion was Presbyterian (at that time only Scottish people were Presbyterian). I don't think there is a clear way of distinguishing them though, as probably at different times non-Protestant Irish and non-Irish Scots got mixed in depending on local settlement/identity patterns. Best solution is to make Scotch-Irish a sub-cat of both Irish and Scottish and keep the controversy out of individual articles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay so doesn't it make sense that the presidents of Scotch-Irish descent be listed in Scotch-Irish American and not here or Scottish Americans? Bulldog123 23:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not. Shoreranger (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? You want to have Scotch-Irish presidents listed on Irish Americans and Scottish Americans and Scotch-Irish American. Isn't it just overkill (and potentially inaccurate)? Bulldog123 11:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok - just in Irish Americans and Scotch-Irish then. Shoreranger (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Why in Irish Americans? What proof do you have that some of these people are not ethnically Scottish? Bulldog123 00:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is not an ethnicity test. Beyond that, the people you are refering to self-identified as "Irish" - they just qualified with "Scotch" to identify themselves as, basically, non-Catholic, not as affirmitively Scottish. Otherwise, they would just have called themselves simply "Scots"/"Scottish", but they didn't. And finally - "some of these people" does not justify lumping them *all* based on your own criteria, since they wouldn't satisfy your "ethnicity" test, which there is no justification and/or no consensus for in this article anyway. Shoreranger (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think something that needs to be pointed out is that "Scotch-Irish" is an American concept, not an Irish one. Modern concepts of Irishness should not be applied to them, and those still living in Ireland who are distant cousins of the Scotch-Irish do not use the term to describe themselves. These modern-day cousins in Ireland would call themselves Ulster Scots, Ulstermen, or just plain Irish. The Scotch-Irish are separated from Ireland by nearly 300 years of history. Back in the 1700s, all settlers from Ireland seem to have held a common identity as "Irish", even if their religious identities were different. At times they might not have liked mixing together, but that was on religious grounds, and not for ethnic or national reasons. At some levels of society there was indeed mixing, and organizations such as the Friendly Sons of Saint Patrick were organized by all flavors of Irishmen to recognize their common national origin. The term "Scotch-Irish" was known in those days, but was often considered derogatory. Widespread use of the term began around the 1850s, and was used by Americans who had been settled in this country for many generations to distinguish themselves from the newly arriving Irish immigrants who were largely poor Catholics. In that sense it was used more as an American Nativist term, than as an Irish term. Eastcote (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not list them as a sub-category of Irish-Americans and leave it at that? At the time when the bulk of the Scots-Irish immigrated to the the US, Ireland was not divided and the place which is now known as Northern Ireland did not exist. The immigrants would have mainly come from the nine-county province of Ulster. Seeing as Ulster is in Ireland, albeit comprising Northern Ireland minus three counties, the descendants of those immigrants qualify as Irish-Americans.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I realize this is a good-faith suggestion aimed at comprimise, and I thank Jeanne for making it, but there has been plenty of archived discussions on this article about how it needed less division and more unity, and shared culture rather than differences were to be covered here, and any differences highlighted in an appropriate and seperate article (i.e. in the Scotch-Irish article). Sub-categorization, in my opinion, leads to a segregation of thought that belies the comonalities. Shoreranger (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of the hyphenated term Scotch-Irish shows affinity to BOTH Scottish and Irish, so I see no reason to draw a hard line between Irish and Scotch-Irish. The S-I are Irish if for no other reason than that they came from the land of Ireland. Eastcote (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all Scots-Irish are descended from Scottish people, although the vast majority have origins in the Lowlands of Scotland. There were many English and Huguenots who went to Ulster and many Irish intermarried into the Protestant community as is evidenced by Northern Ireland Protestants who today bear Irish surnames such as O'Neill and Catholics with planter names like Crawford and Morrison.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Shoreanger, I am firmly of the opinion that the so-called Scots-Irish people are as Irish as the Norman-Irish, Cambro-Irish, and Anglo-Irish. Keep them in the Irish-Americans article-without the subcategory. The term Scots-Irish is mainly a 20th-century term anyway.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Good - we seem to be approaching consensus here. Thanks. Shoreranger (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There were a lot of different national groups that made up the "Scotch-Irish". It's hard to draw a line that definitively identifies the Scotch-Irish because of this. My own folks settled in Ulster from Northumberland in England, but we have a name typically identified as Scotch-Irish. We shouldn't view national identities of three centuries ago through the lens of current national identities. The Scotch-Irish were "Irish" because they came from that land, and that's how they identified themselves, whether or not they were saying they were identical with the Irish already living there when they were planted in Ireland. (BTW, "Scotch-Irish" is not a 20th century term. It was used as early as the 1690s. It was not used as frequently as "Irish" in the 18th century, but it was a known term then. It became a common identifier in the 19th century.) Eastcote (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother trying to debate with Eastcote as he's been flooding wikipedia with his "aalllster skaaats" mythology for years now, completely impervious to any counter argument. You can furnish him with fact after fact and he'll shake it off and continue trolling.

The Scots-Irish (which is redundant given that Scot means Irish) are an Irish subgroup like the Hiberno-Norse and Anglo-Irish.They freely identified themselves as Irish for well over a century in America.They are not a separate people. Keep reading that back to yourself as many times as you need until it sinks in. Kobashiloveme —Preceding undated comment added 07:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

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

Additions to article

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

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

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

Edit the "Occupations" section:

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

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

Supplement the "Teachers" section:

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

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

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

Supplement the "Stereotypes" section:

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

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

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

Mid-19th century and later

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

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

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

Captain America

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

No such thing as an "Irish American"

I think the article should mention the fact that many people in Ireland deny there is really such a thing as an "Irish American". Most people in the world would agree that unless you were born in Ireland then you're not really Irish at all. (92.7.25.162 (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

Good luck finding a valid source for that assertion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

George Carlin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it goes on what your primary ethnic origin is – clearly BO is of other ancestries before being Irish, whereas, say, Mickey Rourke is mostly Irish. — JonC^ॐ 22:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just wondering what the technicalities of it were. I couldn't help but look at the picture of notable Irish Americans and think that there should be some non-purely white people in there, e.g. mixed race people with lots of Irish in them. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine many non-white people identifying as being Irish first and foremost, just as I'm not sure what non-whites could go in the English American page, for example. If you can find some, though, crack on. — JonC^ॐ 22:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So are you now saying that it's what you identify as, and not what you actually are, that matters? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in the US, I think it's primarily what you personally identify with. I've known people who were primary Greek or Polish who identified as Irish Americans, even though their name might be Levchevsky. Eastcote (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

How can Mickey Rourke's primary ethnic origin be defined as "mostly Irish"? He was born in America to a mother of French descent and a father of Irish descent (I don't know if his parents were actually born in Ireland and France). His primary ethnic origin is white European, which potentially covers every country in Europe. It doesn't tie him to any European country in particular. If Rourke himself chooses to identify himself as Irish that's his prerogative, but it doesn't actually make him genuinely Irish - he was born and brought up in a very different culture to that of Ireland. I suspect that he chooses to identify himself as Irish for the same reason as so many other self-proclaimed "Irish Americans", i.e. in the USA, there's a strange sort of cachet attached to claiming Irishness, even if you've never set foot in the country and know little more of its history and culture than is provided by various Hollywood movies. 91.73.102.106 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If you google the subject, the predominent "definition", so to speak, is "any American with Irish ancestry." So Obama qualifies. That doesn't mean he chooses to make a big thing over it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Other additions

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

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

Charlie Sheen? As in, Carlos Estevez? — Jon C.^ॐ 09:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I could have included Emilio too, but I think I subconsciously shied away from such a thoroughly non-Irish name. But Grandma Sheen was from Tipperary, and Martin regularly espouses his Irishness in the media over here. AnCionnach (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think adding a couple of relevant EXAMPLES is appropriate, but the article does not need to contain an exhaustive list of every "Irish-American" celeb we can track down. Eastcote (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Reconsideration of the discrimination section

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

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

Category:American sportspeople of Irish descent

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

Redirect

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

I think, for the moment, perhaps a partial solution would be to include a sentence or two describing this subtle difference in usage within the current article. We would need to find a reliable reference of course. At first glance, the various online dictionaries do not seem to be very helpful, as they muddy the distinction, unfortunately. I wonder if there's a legal definition to be found somewhere, perhaps in the CFR or US immigration policy documents?? jxm (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I doubt you will find a reliable source that makes this distinction. Using Tvx1's definitions, I am an Irish American, and my wife is an Irish-American. Hardly a difference recognizable by, or relevant to, most people. As far as I know, to the US Government, if you hold American citizenship, you are an American. There's no hyphenation involved. Hyphenations or non-hyphenations are matters of usage that are personal choice. Eastcote (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Since this is not a vocabulary issue, I doubt we will find our answer in a dictionary. Furthermore, dictionaries rarely contain the meanings of combinations of adjectives and nouns, let alone the meaning of hyphenated combinations of two nouns with separate meanings. What we are looking for is found in any grammar book from a primary schooler. Specifically in the parts dealing with the use and meaning of a hyphen and with the use of an adjective. Lastly this is not a situation exclusive to the combination of Irish and American, but to any combination of nationalities. Any form American with foreign ancestry is written in the same manner as Irish American. E.G. African American, British American, Chinese American, Dutch American, German American, Indian American, Italian American, Japanese American, Mexican American, Russian American, South African American, Ukrainian American, Vietnamese American and many, many more. In all of them the foreign ancestry is an adjective to American. By contrast, any description of a multiple citizenship is described by combining the different citizenships with a hyphen. E.G. Brazilian-American, French-German, German-Finnish or even Congolese-Burundese-Rwandese-Belgian and many, many, many more. The use of a hyphen is not, by any means a matter of personal choice. It's a matter of a basic grammar rule of the English language which is taught from primary school. Unfortunately, a lot of people ignore the rules all together. Tvx1 (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

....not to mention people who ignore the rules altogether! :-) jxm (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we can add some more general statement about the term Irish-American meaning that it pertains to both countries, as in Irish-American relations. The problem with being specific about actual citizenship is that doesn't necessarily describe the situation of people from Northern Ireland, who may qualify as both British and Irish, or for that matter dual citizenship holders prior to 1922. jxm (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

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

MOS:HYPHEN isn't entirely silent on the subject. It states that "hyphens are never inserted into proper-name-based compounds". Irish American (i.e. Americans of Irish descent) is, I believe, a proper-name-based compound and therefore should never be hyphenated. When used to denote dual citizenship, I think the case is less clear. Grammar Book advises to "hyphenate between two or more adjectives when they come before a noun and act as a single idea", but I don't think Irish and American act as a single idea. The same sources advises one to "to use a comma, not a hyphen, between two adjectives when you could have used and between them", but "Bill is an Irish, American writer" feels very awkward. Pburka (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Fowler may also come to our rescue as a citation. In item 7 under Hyphens, it refers to "...the sense of to or and or with as in London-Birmingham motorway..." (FWIW, I find this to be all very fascinating, and I promise not to mention French-Canadian!! :-) jxm (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That example would actually require an endash (London–Birmingham motorway), not a hyphen (London-Birmingham motorway) under Wikipedia's MOS. —sroc 💬 00:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

MOS:ENDASH says:

In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between Here the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements. The components may be nouns, adjectives, verbs, or any other independent part of speech. Often if the components are reversed there would be little change of meaning. [...] Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; "Franco" is a combining form, not independent; use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry France–Britain rivalry;   French–British rivalry [...] an Italian–Swiss border crossing; but an Italian-Swiss newspaper for Italian-speaking Swiss Japanese–American trade; but a family of Japanese-American traders (or a family of Japanese Americans) the Uganda–Tanzania War;   the Roman–Syrian War;   the east–west runway;   the Lincoln–Douglas debates;   a carbon–carbon bond

It appears that the distinction is that a hyphen is used when used as an adjective (Japanese-American traders) but not as a noun (Japanese Americans). It does not appear to be a distinction between people with dual nationality and people from one nation who live in another. —sroc 💬 23:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Population of Irish Americans

The source of the 2008 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau that provides the number of Irish Americans is no longer valid. One other thing, several other reliable sources confirm that the population of Irish Americans is really 34 million, not 36 (more recent sources, too). Sources are here (2014), here (2012) and here (2012). Would these count as reliable, and should the number be updated? Thanks. McCann27 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Will Ferrell

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

The infobox images are getting ridiculous

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

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

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

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

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

Regions with significant populations

The northeast isn't the only part of the US with a significant Irish population. The American South has a very large irish population. I've lived here in Georgia my whole life and I have visited many southern cities and see vibrant irish communities everywhere. The stats even say so. You can look up many southern cities on Citydata.com and other sites. You will find out that there is a very prevalent irish population in the south. In the article about the Southern United States, it says that there are 12,000,000 irish people in the south(more than 1/4 of the total Irish American population). USA23 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:32, 20 July 2014

Why is Rihanna Featured?

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

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

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